Surfing the Internet and came across more brain-dead claptrap, the kind of nonsense that historical revisionists tout. Decided it was time to have a little fun.
Southern Strategy Not Working
The Republican Party’s infamous “Southern Strategy” is dying out, and that’s a good thing.
Especially if you're a brain-dead liberal Democrat like Brian Gilmore, who probably has never held a private sector job in his entire life.
The re-election of Barack Obama as president with a multiracial coalition from all sections of the country is evidence that the appeal to race is finally becoming a losing hand.
Shouldn't the FIRST election of Barack Obama proven that? And by the way dingle dorph, how many Southern states did Obama carry this time around?
Richard Nixon was the first to implement the Southern Strategy.
Actually, the Southern Strategy goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson, who was a Democrat albeit one who would be a Republican nowadays. But this doesn't fit his propaganda. Realizing most of his readers are dumber than he is, Gilmore simply throws out this kind of nonsense. And let me tell you something - he doesn't even get the Southern Strategy right.
The idea was to get whites to vote Republican by appealing to their racial impulses.
And make no mistake, this was a fantastic idea in 1968. After all, the Voting Rights Act had just been passed and you could carry the state simply by saying the N word all over TV. What's that you say? Nixon never did that? Fortunately, the Republican Party had a rabble rousing racist named George Wallace. What's that you say? Wallace was, in fact, a Democrat?
Lyndon Johnson had predicted that the traditionally Democratic South would go Republican after he signed the Voting Rights Act, and that’s what happened
Lyndon Johnson also said he wasn't going to send American boys to fight Asian wars. And does Gilmore want to take a look at actual EVIDENCE? Quick, what states come to mind FIRST when you want to talk about blacks, whites, and racism? QUICKLY!!! That's right - Alabama and Mississippi. So taking a look at the actual vote totals:
MISSISSIPPI
George Wallace 63.4%
Hubert Humphrey 23%
Richard Nixon 13.5%
ALABAMA
George Wallace 65.8%
Hubert Humphrey 18.7%
Richard Nixon 13.99%
Hmmm. So by appealing to racist impulses, Richard Nixon.......finished in THIRD in the most racist states in the South and lost 6 out of every 7 votes in both states. He also finished third in Louisiana and lost both Georgia and Arkansas to Wallace. Obviously the Nixon racist strategy was an incredible success: he went 0 for 5 in the (presumed) most racist states in America. This no doubt would be a winning strategy for anybody!!!
George Wallace, the arch-segregationist from Alabama, was key to the strategy’s birth.
So two racists competing for racist votes (and thus necessarily splitting them) is a guarantee for success? I hope this clown isn't a political strategist.
Wallace, who ran for president in 1968 on a third-party ticket, gathered 13 percent of the vote.
Nationally he did, but you can't make that comparison. It's apples and oranges. If you're going to allege something specific to the SOUTH, you can only count SOUTHERN votes. And about half of Wallace's 9 million votes were from the South.
But Nixon was still able to win half the Southern states, while Wallace won the other half (except Texas).
Nothing like something that proves the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you allege to demonstrate you don't know what you're talking about. Why did Nixon win half of the Southern states? It was NOT because of racism; it was because of something called the Vietnam War. The South provided a high proportion of soldiers to that war, and they wanted it won or done rather than the sitting on the ball strategy of LBJ.
In 1972, Nixon won the entire South.
In 1972, Nixon won the entire nation except for Massachusetts. Don't try to con me, bozo.
Over the years, the Southern Strategy evolved.
Who won the 1976 election, Brian? Oh yeah, that doesn't fit the narrative, so you edit that part out. It was Jimmy Carter, folks. Incidentally, Carter won EVERY Southern state except Virginia. He deliberately pursued a Southern strategy, but I don't see anybody talking about that.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan announced that he was running for president in Philadelphia, Miss., the same city where three civil rights workers had been murdered in 1964 during Freedom Summer.
You're an idiot, Brian. If you're going to simply parrot talking points then at least get them right. Reagan was already the Republican nominee when he went to Philadelphia, Mississippi on August 4, 1980. He "announced that he was running for President" on November 13, 1979.
Reagan spoke about states’ rights in his speech. The racial message was obvious.
It sure was. Look at what he said that - for some reason - never gets mentioned when "states rights" are invoked by liberals like Gilmore:
I believe that there are programs like that, programs like education and others,
that should be turned back to the states and the local communities with the tax
sources to fund them, and let the people [applause drowns out end of
statement].
I believe in state's rights; I believe in people doing as
much as they can for themselves at the community level and at the private level.
And I believe that we've distorted the balance of our government today by giving
powers that were never intended in the constitution to that federal
establishment. And if I do get the job I'm looking for, I'm going to devote
myself to trying to reorder those priorities and to restore to the states and
local communities those functions which properly belong there
Now please tell me - what is so wrong with the basic philosophy here? Even if you don't agree with it, why don't any of the pundits who use the shorthand ever get it right? I realize thinking is hard - that's why so people bother to do it. But all Reagan is saying is he's going to turn things like education back to the states. This is NOT a hard concept to understand.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush surged ahead of Michael Dukakis by using the notorious Willie Horton ad.
Actually, this is more unadulterated nonsense. First of all, Bush NEVER ran a Willie Horton ad. I repeat - Bush NEVER ran a Willie Horton ad. Secondly, Dukakis DID run an ad about Angel Medrano, a Hispanic killer of Patsy Pedrin. So doesn't this mean Dukakis hates Hispanics? Thirdly, Gilmore has his chronology wrong, not that he cares. Bush took over Dukakis after the Convention but before the Labor Day commercial blitz began. And finally, does Gilmore know that Dukakis himself was in Philadelphia, MS on August 4, 1988, and didn't even bother to mention to the nearly all-white crowd about the infamous murders there?
The campaign spot played to white fears by using the release of a black man on parole from prison.
Once again, Bush never ran any such commercial. The commercial Gilmore has been programmed to talk about is one that was actually run by an Independent group headed by Floyd Brown. So good did Bush and Brown get along that in 1991, Bush sued Brown after the latter ran a commercial attacking the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary Committee that were going to sit in judgment of Clarence Thomas. And what was Dukakis appealing to? White hatred of Hispanics?
Now notice the time jump. No mention of the commercial where James Byrd's surviving daughter's voice shows up in an NAACP commercial depicting Byrd being tied to the back of a truck and dragged down the road. Why no mention? Oh that's right, because that was a Democratic commercial. And why doesn't Gilmore bother to mention that the Willie Horton escapade was discovered when Democratic Senator Al Gore mentioned the incident during a debate in the 1988 New York primary? Oh that's right - only Republicans are racist despite the evidence. Got it.
In April 2010, then-Republican Party chairman, Michael Steele, an African-American, acknowledged that the party had pursued the Southern Strategy for 40 years.
Michael Steele, who had nothing to do with any of it and was not on the inside apologized for something he knew nothing about. Just like the current President does.
In this latest presidential election, the strategy was present again.
It sure was. It's why Herman Cain was called the N word by Republicans and sent packing. What's that? Oh, you mean he won the Florida straw poll of mostly white voters? Or perhaps he's referring to Harry Reid's comments about how Obama doesn't talk like a real black man?
During the GOP primaries, candidate Newt Gingrich rarely passed up an opportunity to refer to Obama as the “food stamp” president.
So pointing out the FACT that 44.7 million Americans are on food stamps is now racist? But blaming Bush for it, of course, is ok.
Mitt Romney even managed to sneak in two references to food stamps during one of the presidential debates — actually, the one on foreign policy.
A President's record is fair game, Brian. Not that you would know anything about that.
In August at a campaign rally, Romney joked to an audience there that “no one ever asked me for my birth certificate.”
So what? Were jokes about Sarah Palin - who never said anything about seeing Alaska from her house - sexist?
That was a crass reference to the unfounded controversy surrounding Obama’s birthplace.
Yes, and so what? You think jokes are not permitted?
John Sununu, an adviser to the Romney campaign, commented that Obama needed to “learn how to be an American.”
Given how many lies and fabrications you've told here, Brian, please give me a link to this one. I'd like to know the context.
In the end, the country rejected these low appeals,
In the end, the good-looking guy won just like happens in high school. Point?
just as the vast majority of Americans are rejecting the new secessionists who have surfaced after the election.
The vast majority of Americans once favored the Iraq War, too, Brian. Citing popularity is the dumbest argument a moron can make.
These are tremendously positive signs for the United States.
Positive signs? We feel good about ourselves!!!
Negative signs? We're in debt out the wazoo, the current President is on a power trip, and his Cabinet doesn't even want to stay on the job despite there being no jobs out there.
Now, almost 150 years since the end of the Civil War, we are at last putting the stain of race behind us.
A lot of us did earlier, Brian. But then again a lot of us lived life and saw things and didn't regurgitate every wrong point we were told in a political science class on a liberal university campus, either.
