Monday, May 24, 2010

How Whiteliberaldemocrats voted on the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Here are the figures showing the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it doesn't look good for the party of the Whiteliberals:





















HOUSE:For:Against:
Democrats:
15391
Republicans:
13635

Percentage of Democrats favoring the Civil Rights Bill: 63%
Percentage of Republicans favoring Civil Rights Bill: 80%

Tsk, tsk. Now let's look at the Senate. Maybe it was better there:



















HOUSE:For:Against:
Democrats:
4621
Republicans:
276

Percentage of Democrats favoring the Civil Rights Bill: 69%
Percentage of Republicans favoring Civil Rights Bill: 82%

In other words, 37 percent of the House members in the Whiteliberal Party that is now piling on Rand Paul voted against the very measure that Paul himself says he would have voted for if he had been there. And 39 percent of the Senate members of the Whiteliberal Party--the Party of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Robert C. Byrd--voted against it. That's over a third of its members in both cases, whereas 20 percent or less of the party that nominated Rand Paul voted against it.

Oh, the shame of it all. Such a record of racism and hate.

Just thought I'd point it out.

12 comments:

Josh Rosenau said...

You do know that in 1964, there were functionally four parties, right? There were 1) liberal Democrats, who were more liberal than the 2) liberal Republicans who were more liberal than 3) conservative Republicans, some of whom were more liberal than 4) Dixiecrats. The passage of the Civil Rights Act caused a realignment.

Guess which of those four "parties" switched coalitions ?

Yep, the racists left the Democratic party, and the Republican party has never done anything that might offend those racists for the last 45 years.

If the current discourse was about whether there were racist Democrats in 1964, your post would be germane. But the current conversation is about whether Rand Paul is a racist or whether he's only such a shill for the racist sector of the Republican base that he feels the need to defend other people's ability to enforce racist policies which he himself finds abhorent.

What relevance has the politics of 1964 got to that debate?

KyCobb said...

Wow Martin, what a fatuous point. Rand Paul supported the racist position LAST WEEK, before he flip-flopped to save his campaign. And you want to talk about how Southern Democrats who mostly became Republicans voted 46 years ago? Thats some pretty furious hand-waving to try to change the subject, which is that LAST WEEK, Rand Paul believed that African-Americans don't have the right to play on a level economic playing field with Whites.

Lee said...

> Yep, the racists left the Democratic party...

You have documentation for that? Or are you just speculating?

They kept Robert Byrd, after all. He's the only senator who was actually in the KKK.

Anonymous said...

With all due respect, why boast about the higher percentages of Republicans voting for the civil rights act of 1964 when your guy would not have? When you Cinderella candidate showed up on TV, the clock struck 12 and his beautiful dress turned into the dirty and ripped rags that all could see. Martin - you're smarter than this. . . MJ

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
With all due respect, why boast about the higher percentages of Republicans voting for the civil rights act of 1964 when your guy would not have? When you Cinderella candidate showed up on TV, the clock struck 12 and his beautiful dress turned into the dirty and ripped rags that all could see. Martin - you're smarter than this. . . MJ

Actually the dress was a Confederate battle flag made out of duct tape. Martin may be smarter, but he isn't showing it. I bet his "logic" books are a hoot.

Martin Cothran said...

MJ,

Could you tell me Rand Paul's stated position on whether he would have voted on the Civil Rights Act?

Susan Perkins Weston said...

Over Christmas in 1980, my Alabama-born, Georgia-raised daddy asked if I'd voted in November.

Yes, indeed. I had an absentee ballot from Macon County, Georgia, I told him, and I'd voted the straight Democratic ticket.

My white liberal daddy hit the roof, because that meant I'd voted for a Talmadge. A Democrat of a kind, but not a kind he could stand his oldest child supporting, even for a minute, even in a year when control of the Senate was clearly at stake.

Martin, the existence of Talmadge-style race-baiting Democrats in the past isn't news to anyone who's lived the history.

Martin Cothran said...

Anonymous,

Interesting theory: Rand Paul is a closet confederate. Well he does seem to have a higher view of state's rights than the Whiteliberals, but the Southerners were agrarians. Maybe you could explain how libertarianism and agrarianism match up.

Martin Cothran said...

Susan,

So can I take it that your comment then is a thank you for pointing this out to people who might not know?

Martin Cothran said...

KyCobb,

You are still clinging to this silly and unpersuasive distinction between opposition to anti-discrimination laws and opposition to speech restrictions.

Yes, the Democrats Act of Shame was 46 years ago, but TODAY--not LAST WEEK--they are championing a view of the First Amendment that, according to your reasoning, is inherently racist: the opposition to speech restrictions that would allow racist speech.

Where is the outcry!

Susan Perkins Weston said...

Martin,

I'll answer the question you asked M.J.

Dr. Paul's stated position is that, had be been in Congress when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being debated he:

a) would have tried to amend it to remove the provisions governing public accommodations owned as private property.

b) would have voted for the bill as written if the amendments were rejected.

He was, of course, quicker to share part a) of that answer than part b).

KyCobb said...

Martin,

In order to be logically consistent, would you repeal 1st Amendment free speech guarantees, or legalize racial discrimination by businesses?