WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays

[Brittain33]

if Republicans had supported slavery and segregation (which they didn't, but Democrats like to pretend they did), and you knew it, would you want to support the Republican Party, no matter how long ago it was?

What is the salience of this argument? I acknowledge the ugly history of the Democratic party during and after the Civil War and in Wilson's era, and it has nothing to do with the reasons I vote for them now.

[Brittain33]

Well the republicans dont support foodstamps or welfare of illegal immigrants (at least romney didn't) so obviously the minorities werent going to vote for him

Whose sock are you?

[Brittain33]

That Williamson editorial was thoroughly debunked after he published it.
If you're genuinely interested, google for critiques.

[Brittain33]

That Williamson editorial was thoroughly debunked after he published it.
If you're genuinely interested, google for critiques.

How? 

This was an effective rebuttal.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/05/conservative-fantasy-history-of-civil-rights.html

[Brittain33]

The other one was by a liberal professor who ascribes to the liberal revisionist history on the Southern strategy, but still acknowledges the latest academic research that shows that the Southern shift to Republicans was not race-based.

1. If it's the latest academic research, why is the link to an article from 8 years ago?

2. I googled the guy and one of the top links is a column asking "Why are liberals so condescending?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
It sounds like he has a niche as a self-proclaimed liberal who's brave enough to tell the truth, more in sorrow than in anger, about the failings of his compatriots. Like Lincoln Chafee as a spokesman for Republicans, or Andrew Sullivan as the moral compass of the Republican party.

See! Here is that liberal, posting in the same journal that hosted Williamson's article, National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217498/fairly-hated/gerard-alexander

Read the critiques.

[Brittain33]

The other one was by a liberal professor who ascribes to the liberal revisionist history on the Southern strategy, but still acknowledges the latest academic research that shows that the Southern shift to Republicans was not race-based.

1. If it's the latest academic research, why is the link to an article from 8 years ago?

2. I googled the guy and one of the top links is a column asking "Why are liberals so condescending?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
It sounds like he has a niche as a self-proclaimed liberal who's brave enough to tell the truth, more in sorrow than in anger, about the failings of his compatriots. Like Lincoln Chafee as a spokesman for Republicans, or Andrew Sullivan as the moral compass of the Republican party.

See! Here is that liberal, posting in the same journal that hosted Williamson's article, National Review:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/217498/fairly-hated/gerard-alexander

Read the critiques.

Are those just random people shooting off critiques?

Why not judge by the argument rather than an arbitrary assessment of who you think they are?

[Brittain33]

Don't credentials matter too?

Credentials do matter, but if we're going that route, both of your people have credentials issues. The best we can say is that they are opinion columnists or advocates in good standing in the right-wing media. (Although Gerard is pretty obscure.) I don't know what your standards for credentials are.

[Brittain33]

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

2, the KKK.

That's not hard at all. The Republican Party in the 1920s was associated with the KKK in many states, particularly Indiana, where it dominated the party for a few years in the legislature and even elected the governor. The KKK was anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, anti-Black, and for Prohibition, and in some parts of the country, it expressed itself via the Republican party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Republican_Party

Of course the Democratic Party in the South was no better and the legal climate for minorities worse. The southern Democratic party had a very uneasy alliance with the northern Dems, with whom it disagreed on Prohibition and other issues. The Republican Party was a non-entity in the deep South and marginal elsewhere in the region, so everyone who had power and could vote was a Democrat by default.  

[Brittain33]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So your thesis is that the Republican party of today is the same party as the party in the 1920s, but the Democrat party is not?

I was responding to the post below by providing evidence of #2.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

I don't see anything in my post about this meaning the party of today is the same one that was joined at the hip with the KKK. For what it's worth, I don't think the Republican party of today is the Republican party of the 1920s, seeing as how everyone involved in that party is dead and the issues at play have moved on. Dunno, that just seems obvious to me.

[Brittain33]

Oldies, what were the policies of the Southern Strategy that were meant to appeal to the racially progressive South? Was it opposition to busing? Relenting on implementing Brown v. board of Education?