Ann Coulter's twisted racial politics

[SaltyBoatr]

Her distortions in her recent editorial are breathtaking. Neglecting to mention the racist Dixiecrats realignment of Dems to GOP.

http://townhall.com/columnists/annco...uns/page/full/

[wardd]

Her distortions in her recent editorial are breathtaking. Neglecting to mention the racist Dixiecrats realignment of Dems to GOP.

http://townhall.com/columnists/annco...uns/page/full/

some facts are a bit inconvenient

[David W Pratt]

I think her main contention, that many restrictive gun laws were enacted to keep Blacks disarmed, is mostly true.

[wardd]

and if they were to start arming restrictive laws would come back

[Bob Adams]

Some gun laws as well as many drug laws have thier origins in racism. As to Coulter, she's a female Limbaugh, nobody with half a brain cell gives her any credance.

[wardd]

Some gun laws as well as many drug laws have thier origins in racism. As to Coulter, she's a female Limbaugh, nobody with half a brain cell gives her any credance.

there must be a lot of republicans with half a brain cell

[wardd]

I dare say more blacks have guns than whites at this point. Maybe the libtards are getting nervous they won't be able to keep them bought any longer?

i bet more whites have arsenals

[Concordia 33]

Her distortions in her recent editorial are breathtaking. Neglecting to mention the racist Dixiecrats realignment of Dems to GOP.

http://townhall.com/columnists/annco...uns/page/full/

The one thing she is right about is that the Democratic Party's legacy is one of racism, support for the continuation of slavery and obstruction to both Civil Rights acts.

[Curtism]

I dare say more blacks have guns than whites at this point.

I'd say that since roughly 15% to 20% of the population (if we're talking about the US) is made up of blacks, what you're saying here is weapons grade bolognium.

[SaltyBoatr]

The one thing she is right about is that the Democratic Party's legacy is one of racism, support for the continuation of slavery and obstruction to both Civil Rights acts.

True. Until 1948. Since 1948, false.

She neglects to mention that the segregationists flipped sides to the GOP starting with Strom Thurman's Dixicrat breakaway in 1948 and ending circa 1968 with Nixon's "Southern Strategy".

The insidious thing Coulter does is to obscure that chapter in the history of US politics.

[Concordia 33]

True. Until 1948. Since 1948, false.

No, actually the civil rights act of 1964 nearly did not pass because the GOP could not get enough support from the democrats

Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October, 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.^[6] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and avid segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely.

In late November 1963 the assassination of John F. Kennedy changed the political situation. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in legislative politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill. In his first address to Congress on November 27, 1963, Johnson told the legislators, "No memorial oration or eulogy could more eloquently honor President Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long."^[7]



The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.^[9] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring aboutsocial equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."^[10]
The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."^[11]
After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Everett Dirksen (R-IL), Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), and Mike Mansfield (D-MT) introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.^[12]
On the morning of June 10, 1The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.^[9] Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring aboutsocial equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."^[10]
The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason. This is the worst civil-rights package ever presented to the Congress and is reminiscent of the Reconstruction proposals and actions of the radical Republican Congress."<sup>[11]

On June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 71–29, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.[14]</sup>

And the Civil Rights act of 1957 also

The goal of the 1957 Civil Rights Act was to ensure that all Americans could exercise their right to vote. By 1957, only about 20% of African Americans were registered to vote. Despite comprising the majority population in numerous counties and Congressional districts in the South, discriminatory voter registration rules and laws had effectively disfranchised most blacks in those states since the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries. Civil rights organizations had collected evidence of discriminatory practices, such as administration of literacy and comprehension tests, poll taxes and other means. While the states had the right to establish rules for voter registration and elections, the federal government found an oversight role in ensuring that citizens could exercise the constitutional right to vote for federal officers, such as the president, vice-president, and Congress.
The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.

[SaltyBoatr]

No, actually the civil rights act of 1964 nearly did not pass because the GOP could not get enough support from the democrats

Yes, southern democrats, who now belong to the GOP.

[Concordia 33]

Yes, southern democrats, who now belong to the GOP.

That is a strange response. So in 50 years, if Obamacare is still around and is successful, can we credit the future Senators from the seats held by today's supporters even if they are mostly Republican held seats? Or will Obamacare always be seen as an initiative of the Democratic Party?

The actions of the representatives from the Democratic Party were most influential in stripping any real meat from the Civil Rights acts of 1957 and nearly blocked the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Were it not for the GOP support, these bills had no shot. This is the Democratic Party's legacy regardless of what state they belong. You try to distance yourself from the Southern Democrats, but clearly the Democratic Party of 1964 did not - did the strip them of their party affiliation for their racist views?

[wardd]

Possibly true, but how many can they shoot at once.

tell that to them

[Tom Montgomery]

Ann Coulter would have you believe that the Democratic and Republican parties of the 19th century are the same as they are today.

Complete and utter nonsense, of course. But Coulter knows her audience and they eat up this sort of rant.

[Concordia 33]

Ann Coulter would have you believe that the Democratic and Republican parties of the 19th century are the same as they are today.

Complete and utter nonsense, of course. But Coulter knows her audience and they eat up this sort of rant.

These aren't even the Democratic and Republican Parties of 1975!. I don't recognize either. I used to be a Democrat - I never abandoned my values, they just kept moving to the left until the Democratic Party left me. I still tend to vote more for the Democrat, but when I do I feel like I have to hold my nose when I pull the lever in the voting booth.

[Tom Montgomery]

I used to be a Republican. I voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. I never abandoned my values, they just kept moving to the right until the Republican Party left me.

I no longer vote for Republicans. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

[SaltyBoatr]

That is a strange response.

Plain fact: Prior to Nixon's Southern Strategy, the Democratic Party had a strong southern segregationist wing. Now, no longer.

Those racist people flipped over to the GOP around 1968 with Nixon, and these segregationists generally associate with the GOP now. The latest version of that is seen in many ways, especially with the GOP policies around Hispanic immigrants. And also seen in the racial components of GOP anti affirmative action policies. Even in their opposition to aid programs for the (generally minority) poor.

[ljb5]

That is a strange response. So in 50 years, if Obamacare is still around and is successful, can we credit the future Senators from the seats held by today's supporters even if they are mostly Republican held seats? Or will Obamacare always be seen as an initiative of the Democratic Party?

Apparently your reading comprehension is as poor as your history.

He didn't say that the seats are now held by the GOP... he said the Dixiecrats switched parties.

See, for example, Strom Thurmond who was a segregationist Democrat up until 1964... at which point he became a Republican.

Also, Jesse Helms who was a racist Democrat... then switched parties to become a racist Republican.

Al Gore Sr., a Democrat, famously voted against the Civil Rights act. Later, he apologized for that decision... and the voters of Tennessee voted him out for a Republican (Bill Brock) who was opposed to Civil Rights and attacked Gore for being for it.

[Tom Montgomery]

Historical fact is so inconvenient.

[wardd]

I used to be a Republican. I voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. I never abandoned my values, they just kept moving to the right until the Republican Party left me.

I no longer vote for Republicans. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

come on, you can't get fooled again

[Osborne Russell]

I used to be a Democrat - I never abandoned my values, they just kept moving to the left until the Democratic Party left me.

When did that happen?

[bobbys]

Libs love to pick out certain times in the republican party until they can use them for their own purposes..

[Tom Montgomery]

Libs love to pick out certain times in the republican party until they can use them for their own purposes..

Isn't that EXACTLY what Ann Coulter did?

[Horace]

Apparently your reading comprehension is as poor as your history.

He didn't say that the seats are now held by the GOP... he said the Dixiecrats switched parties.

See, for example, Strom Thurmond who was a segregationist Democrat up until 1964... at which point he became a Republican.

Also, Jesse Helms who was a racist Democrat... then switched parties to become a racist Republican.

Al Gore Sr., a Democrat, famously voted against the Civil Rights act. Later, he apologized for that decision... and the voters of Tennessee voted him out for a Republican (Bill Brock) who was opposed to Civil Rights and attacked Gore for being for it.

Your capsulized "history" is so distorted as to be almost unrecognizable. Thurmond supported Goldwater; Helms was a Democrat in local elections only, during a time and place that no Republican could be elected at the local level; Gore survived several elections before losing to Brock. For your own benefit, and for anyone wishing to read it for themselves, links to the Wikipedia article for each of the gentlemen above is added to lbj5's post.

Historical fact is so inconvenient.

I'm surprised that a self-proclaimed historian such as yourself would play along with such a misrepresentation as lj's.

[PeterSibley]

I dare say more blacks have guns than whites at this point. Maybe the libtards are getting nervous they won't be able to keep them bought any longer?

Weren't you professing some desire improve your politeness rating ?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

I dare say more blacks have guns than whites at this point. Maybe the libtards are getting nervous they won't be able to keep them bought any longer?

You dare wrong. Black people make up only about 12%-14% of the US population and a lot of them are women and little children. It's a demographic impossibility.
Are you channeling Tylerdurden?

[ljb5]

Thurmond supported Goldwater; Helms was a Democrat in local elections only, during a time and place that no Republican could be elected at the local level; .

Far from being a "correction" to my post, you've pretty much just proved my point.

When people like Coulter and Concordia talk about the racism of Southern Democrats, they're really talking about guys like Thurmond and Helms (and tens of thousands of their supports)... Democrats (of a sort), but much more like Republicans in many ways. Indeed, (as you pointed out)... already with one foot in the Republican camp. After 15 years or so, both feet in the Republican camp.

So on the issue of racist Democrats: Did they exist? Yes. Where are they now: Republicans.

After voting against the Civil Rights act in '64, Al Gore Sr. narrowly won against Kuykendall. After voting for the voting rights act of '65, he was defeated at the next election.

(Please remember that Senators serve six year terms, so there was only the one intervening election, not "several" as you claimed.)

[David G]

If she would cooperate... Coulter would make a team of Clinical Psychology students a fine thesis topic.

[stevebaby]

She's got a very big Adam's Apple. Is she a man?

[purri]

that's a GOP fantasy?

[fishrswim]

The only thing I find amazing about AC is that anyone listens to her, or believes anything she says. She's very smart about saying outrageous things that the Repubs like and make the Dems go absolutely B..ts..t crazy, and so, she's constantly in the news and all the richer for it. I don't for a minute think she believes what she says, but it's her act, and she's good at it.

[Horace]

Far from being a "correction" to my post, you've pretty much just proved my point.

When people like Coulter and Concordia talk about the racism of Southern Democrats, they're really talking about guys like Thurmond and Helms (and tens of thousands of their supports)... Democrats (of a sort), but much more like Republicans in many ways. Indeed, (as you pointed out)... already with one foot in the Republican camp. After 15 years or so, both feet in the Republican camp.

So on the issue of racist Democrats: Did they exist? Yes. Where are they now: Republicans.

Not a bad post--correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Unfortunately, your words don't reflect a whole lot of reality. The South voted Democrat for generations in reaction to the Republican Reconstruction, until its populace and politicians could no longer support the perceived agenda of the liberal wing of the northern Democrats, typified by Johnson, the Kennedy brothers, et al., the Great Society, and the counterculture, to list a few. To try to label all of the forces that worked to facilitate the Southern Strategy as “racism” misses the mark in a huge way. And of course, your remarks equating "racist Southern Democrats" to Republicans are a carefully worded, calculated calumny.

After voting against the Civil Rights act in '64, Al Gore Sr. narrowly won against Kuykendall. After voting for the voting rights act of '65, he was defeated at the next election.

(Please remember that Senators serve six year terms, so there was only the one intervening election, not "several" as you claimed.)

You are the sly little nit-pickin' devil, aren't you? Let me toss a few nits back at you. Your quote was

Al Gore Sr., a Democrat, famously voted against the Civil Rights act. Later, he apologized for that decision... and the voters of Tennessee voted him out for a Republican (Bill Brock) who was opposed to Civil Rights and attacked Gore for being for it.

--the implication being that he was voted out because he wasn't sufficiently racist for the voters. Now you're trying to recast it in terms of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, for what, a cheap shot? After the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Gore won both the Democratic primary and then the general election of '64 (against Kuykendall, the Republican, by a margin of 53-47%, hardly “narrow”), won the Democrat primary in '70 against a conservative challenger, and then lost the general election to Brock—three elections, not one, according to your reference points, and 5 years after supporting the Voting Rights Act. It was his being too consistently liberal in a generally conservative state, not voter racism, that defeated Gore, Sr.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

While it may be true that more Blacks and Mexicans have "guns", per se, they tend to be small-calibre pistols with the serial numbers scratched off. Whites have the big stuff, any calibre, any rate of fire, along with trunks full of ammo. And when they really want to look "bad a-s", they unbutton their shirt so their eagle tattoo shows, and put on one of these hats like Gunny wears.

[Chris Coose]

But Coulter knows her audience and they eat up this sort of rant.

They'd bathe in her ****.

[John Smith]

I dare say more blacks have guns than whites at this point. Maybe the libtards are getting nervous they won't be able to keep them bought any longer?

Can you support that with any actual facts? All the people I know with gun collections of any kind are white. Given that blacks are still a minority the per capita gun ownership of them would have to be extremely high to support your premise.

Let me give you a personal experience with racism. When I went out to my car to go to work at 2 AM, I found a guy in the process of stealing my car. When I spoke, he just ran down the street. I called the cops. They would not believe it was a white man stealing my car. It had to be a black guy. Well, he was white.

[John Smith]

i bet more whites have arsenals

All those militia folks preparing for whatever it is they are preparing for seem to be white.

[John Smith]

I don't know about the rest of the folks here, but my calendar says it's 2012. These are the times we live in.

I find the picking and choosing of historic politics interesting, but puzzling. Every day I hear someone say Bush is no longer president, so none of this is his fault. How can these people be at all concerned with what happened before Bush?

Today's Republicans wouldn't vote for Reagan if he were running. They invoke his name in support of positions he didn't support. I should believe any of these people as to what happened before Reagan?

I also question the relevance of who supported something or other decades ago. We are where we are, and we should be more concerned, IMO, with where we are going than where we have been. What kind of ancestors we will make is more important than what kind on ancestors we have.

[ljb5]

And of course, your remarks equating "racist Southern Democrats" to Republicans are a carefully worded, calculated calumny.

You're the one who pointed out that Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms had one foot in the Republican camp as early as 1948... and both feet firmly planted there by the mid 1960s.

They were Southern Democrats. They were racists... and they became Republicans.

Please note: I'm not implying this nor "equating" them to Republicans. I'm merely pointing out the inarguable fact that they changed parties to become Republicans.

Your avoidance of the issue of race does a huge disservice to American history. Racism was a huge issue in the South. It was a huge issue for Thurmond and for Helms. (And not because they were against racism, mind you). Race was a huge factor in the movement of the South towards the Republicans. Nixon knew this. Atwater knew this. Both used it to great advantage. (And neither was shy about admitting it.) You can't avoid it by attributing this to "the counter culture."

You simply cannot discuss Thurmond's switch without discussing race as one of the main factors. And you sure as heck can't pretend it didn't happen!

(Also, I'm still right about Gore. Maybe you should go re-read what I wrote.)

[Osborne Russell]

The South voted Democrat for generations in reaction to the Republican Reconstruction, until its populace and politicians could no longer support the perceived agenda of the liberal wing of the northern Democrats, typified by Johnson, the Kennedy brothers, et al., the Great Society, and the counterculture, to list a few. To try to label all of the forces that worked to facilitate the Southern Strategy as “racism” misses the mark in a huge way.

No, it's exactly that simple. The only kind of big government that all of these forces oppose is that which is proposed by the perceived party of racial minorities.

[Norman Bernstein]

The one thing she is right about is that the Democratic Party's legacy is one of racism.....

If this is true, then you could also say that the Founding Fathers, and the original Constitution, have a legacy of racism.... discrimination against women.... support for child labor.... and a whole bunch of evils that today we consider to be well in the past.

Today's Democratic Party bears no relationship to the party you're referring to... and you know that. The same is true of the Republican Party; the party of Lincoln would hardly recognize what the Republican party as turned into, these days.

[Dan McCosh]

She's right about the Klan and its support of gun control. She aligns herself with Huey Newton and the Black Panthers, supporting free ownership of firearms. It was Ronald Reagan, however, who started the modern gun control movement, not the Democrats. Also, the modern white militant groups are aligned with Black militants in their support of relaxed gun control laws. The Klan has reversed itself on the issue. The Democratic party's shift on racial politics was pretty clear when George Wallace abdicated and ran for president, laying the groundwork for the modern Republican party, which quickly moved in to build a new base that now includes alienated blue-collar workers and biker gangs. The Wallace era was when the Democrats lost the South, and much of the North as well.

[SaltyBoatr]

It was Ronald Reagan, however, who started the modern gun control movement, not the Democrats.

Why do you say this?

The modern history of gun control basically has been minor when measured in effect. The 1934 Firearms Control Act, FDR, in the aftermath of some high profile gangster massacres. The 1968 Gun Control Act was the most significant law, belonging to Lyndon Johnson, in aftermath of a few high profile assassinations. The GCA was effectively gutted away in 1986 with the introduction of paperless sales, and the prohibition of keeping gun ownership registration records. The Brady Bill in 1993 was Bill Clinton era, though it was in the aftermath of the Reagan assignation attempt. The "Assault Weapon" ban the next year has expired and is no longer law.

If you want to 'broad brush' the "gun control movement" being fair you can say it has been ineffective to the point of being non-existent.

The real story in our lifetimes has been the growth of a so-called "gun rights" movement that when given a "walks like a duck" test is most fairly called a "gun lobby movement" benefiting the gun manufactures the most.

[Dan McCosh]

Why do you say this?

The modern history of gun control basically has been minor when measured in effect. The 1934 Firearms Control Act, FDR, in the aftermath of some high profile gangster massacres. The 1968 Gun Control Act was the most significant law, belonging to Lyndon Johnson, in aftermath of a few high profile assassinations. The GCA was effectively gutted away in 1986 with the introduction of paperless sales, and the prohibition of keeping gun ownership registration records. The Brady Bill in 1993 was Bill Clinton era, though it was in the aftermath of the Reagan assignation attempt. The "Assault Weapon" ban the next year has expired and is no longer law.

If you want to 'broad brush' the "gun control movement" being fair you can say it has been ineffective to the point of being non-existent.

The real story in our lifetimes has been the growth of a so-called "gun rights" movement that when given a "walks like a duck" test is most fairly called a "gun lobby movement" benefiting the gun manufactures the most.

I was referring to Reagan's support of gun control while he was governor of California--he joined with the NRA and others to promote anti-gun legislation in response to the Black Panthers and others promoting the free ownership of guns. Johnson signed the national legislation, which was broadly supported in the wake of urban riots. Implicit in advocates support of gun "rights" is who gets to have the guns.

[Osborne Russell]

Comical right wing double-think: the racists left the Democratic Party for the Republican Party, which means:

1. The Democratic Party is the racists' party, and

2. The Democratic Party moved to the left.

Demonstrating once again that the Republican Party has devolved from being a party of principle, to being a party of ideology, to being a party of a certain cognitive style.

[SaltyBoatr]

Perhaps on paper, but I'm not convinced that the Klan has any real influence on modern policy.

Not the Klan per se. Most avoid the KKK name due to the stigma. Still there is a clear real influence by the "gun rights" movement towards the "insurrection theory" of gun politics, and the main insurrectionists at their core are sympathetic what has been termed the "modern militia movement", which has a couple "wings" with perhaps the largest having roots in Christian Patriot Movement, which does trace back to White supremacy. So, a lot of the party "gun rights" advocacy work has an implicit support for this history.

[pefjr]

I know no 'segregationists' that the lefties love to blame on the 'other' party. I do notice LJ and other culprits purposely omitting George Wallace, and Lester 'ax handle' Maddox, and what's that other one, those lefties never mention that they kept in the Senate all those years, saying he was rehabilitated,...oh Byrd.... wasn't it. Plenty more if you want to dig. It's a new world boys, those people don't exist anymore, their descendants do though. What's the average lifespan for these old Repub that you boys now say are converted Dimos? I might be one. Actually, I switch back and forth so much, I might be guilty twice.

[pefjr]

I love Ann. BTW boys, Ann Is a Political Humorist, probably one of the top Satirical Political Humorist in the world. She is so good, her targets don't recognize her talents, but she is laughing all the way to several bank accounts at their expense. Like most of this 2 page thread, most folks take Ann serious. Laugh boys, learn how to laugh!!! Oh, It is even funnier that the lefties try to ad hom Ann with the Adam apple comments and skinny comments. Shows how pitiful you boys stand up to her skills.

[Keith Wilson]

I dare say more blacks have guns than whites at this point.

I'd say that since roughly 15% to 20% of the population (if we're talking about the US) is made up of blacks, what you're saying here is weapons grade bolognium.

12.6% at the last census. Bolognium indeed. I see that Tanstaf has abandoned his short-lived venture into civility and is talking about "libtards" again.

[wardd]

does my 3 shot bolt action 20 ga shotgun for which i can't get shells count?

oh and the bb gun too