Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Enjoy

Epic. You're my hero. For today.

Oh... that's just awesome!

 reds8n wrote:


http://www.dccc.org/content/sorry

....

Seriously, RAR.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Let's talk about some douchebag on yahoo instead.

I like this idea. Lets go back to talking about silly Yahoo! News guy and his unfunny jokes. Better yet, can anyone think of any other incidents where a reporter said something when they thought they were off the air? I'm sure its happened before this.

I recall Bush calling a news reporter a "Major League donkey-cave" during one of his campaigns into a hot mike.

One I will always remember...the "left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing" bit

Except most reporters are MLDCs

He was probably 100% correct.

Yeah, it kind of comes with the territory. They have to be that to get the reacitons they want for the ratings they need.

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, it kind of comes with the territory. They have to be that to get the reacitons they want for the ratings they need.

Norah Odonnell or whatever her name is that CBS has concerning the RNC in the morning with Charlie Rose exemplifies everything I hate in a journalist. The faces she makes while guests or other CBS journalists are talking make me want to kick her chair over, which is what I'd do if I was Charlie Rose.

Ouze wrote: I'd like to point out that if this was the DNC instead of the RNC, and he said that about Obama, and got fired, Fox News would immediately offer him a job while derping loudly about his "first amendment rights".

This.

Let's turn the prism abit.

What should the Republican Strategy be to battle the stereotype that they are anti-black?

I don't know if that's possible at this point. They aren't going to abandon the people who make racist comments, who make racist arguments, who attack Obama because of race, etc. So any attempt to claim otherwise will be a very tough sell.

Just like it's been a tough sell for the Democrats to say they aren't anti gun rights-- even though they've basically entirely abandoned pushing for gun control.

 Easy E wrote:
Let's turn the prism abit.

What should the Republican Strategy be to battle the stereotype that they are anti-black?

Civil War (without us you would be 3/5 a person)
1964 Civil Rights Act (without us segregation would still exist)
Last administration: Two Secretary of States, 4.5% unemployment, voucher programs, No Child Left behind, Fixing the Donut Hole in Medicare

1964 Civil Rights Act (without us segregation would still exist)

That was passed by a Democratic Congress under a Democratic president (and is why most Black today vote democrat).

You may be thinking of the 1860 CRA which was mostly just a token "here you go" kind of thing, but even that was proposed by a Democratic congressman (same one who submitted the 1964 act).

 LordofHats wrote:

1964 Civil Rights Act (without us segregation would still exist)

That was passed by a Democratic Congress under a Democratic president (and is why most Black today vote democrat).

You may be thinking of the 1860 CRA which was mostly just a token "here you go" kind of thing, but even that was proposed by a Democratic congressman (same one who submitted the 1964 act).

more Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act then Democrats.

Yeah but the image is what effected everything, not what actually happened. Since when do voters actually pay attention to how the delegate votes

Of course, once blacks started voting Democrat all the racists had to switch sides.

 LordofHats wrote:
Yeah but the image is what effected everything, not what actually happened. Since when do voters actually pay attention to how the delegate votes

Of course, once blacks started voting Democrat all the racists had to switch sides.

I guess Robert Byrd didn't get the memo...

 LordofHats wrote:

1964 Civil Rights Act (without us segregation would still exist)

That was passed by a Democratic Congress under a Democratic president (and is why most Black today vote democrat).

You may be thinking of the 1860 CRA which was mostly just a token "here you go" kind of thing, but even that was proposed by a Democratic congressman (same one who submitted the 1964 act).

Written by a Republican president and filibustered by the man (men if you count JFK) who signed it and championed it. The Democrats were no friends to the civil rights movement until long after the 1964CRA. It's cool though you can believe what you'd like.

 Easy E wrote:
Let's turn the prism abit.

What should the Republican Strategy be to battle the stereotype that they are anti-black?

They're not just viewed as anti-black, but anti-minority. And one thing I know alot of folks feel they do is attempt to make it harder for the poor and minorities to vote. If they stopped doing stuff like that and generally seemed to support civil rights more I think that'd be a first step.

You people need to stop taking things so literally

Take a look at how the south voted pre-1964:



Post:



Yeah. The core of the south actually tried running their own guy! And North and South Carolina switched sides (though that's probably due to the high percentage of blacks in both states). The loss of American racists as voters was huge blow to the Democratic party for three election cycles after 1964. But the racists kind of died out a bit and it all worked out in the end

Oh and of course, 1964:



Hot damn LBJ, you know how to win dem der votes. Except those red ones down there.

The flop in voting practices in US presidential elections especially can be directly linked to the switch of voting demographics as a result of CRA of 1964. Sure not everyone switch but that's not the point.

Written by a Republican president and filibustered by the man (men if you count JFK) who signed it and championed it. The Democrats were no friends to the civil rights movement until long after the 1964CRA. It's cool though you can believe what you'd like.

I honestly don't think either side was all that friendly to the CRM. There existed a sizable group in both parties who managed to push the bill to passage. We can play voting games if you want but Congress was democratic in 1964, so naturally the Dems get all the credit (thought probably more to LBJ signing the bill) and the fact that racist demographics switched to voting for the Republican over the following decade doesn't help the image.

the CRA wasn't particularly partisan: it had bipartisan support in the North, and bipartison opposition in the South.

It also was supported by liberals in both parties (yes, there were liberal republicans at the time).

The two parties weren't as monolithic in ideology at the time. Dems were more populist and working class, while the GOP favored fiscal conservatism. Prior to the great re-alignment in the 60's, the stereotype of a republican was a New England businessman, while the stereotypical Dem was a southern populist.

The civil rights movement changed things. Not just for race, but also women's rights, environmentalism, etc. Social liberals grew up, and since most were also into civil rights, few succeeded in the south. Nixon adopted the "southern strategy" to pull traditionally rock solid dem states, and within 10 years things flip flopped.

By 1980, the last great element of the modern GOP, evangelical voters, came over to Reagan and stayed. It's easy to forget that as recently as 1976 we elected a southern evangelical populist that was a democrat!

Judging by the more liberal members of this board a southern evangelical populist has no place in the Democratic party and would be jeered and derided for his faith.

Inversely a pro choice, pro personal rights advocate would have difficulty in the Republican Party. Makes Frazzled sad.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Let's turn the prism abit.

What should the Republican Strategy be to battle the stereotype that they are anti-black?

Civil War (without us you would be 3/5 a person)
1964 Civil Rights Act (without us segregation would still exist)
Last administration: Two Secretary of States, 4.5% unemployment, voucher programs, No Child Left behind, Fixing the Donut Hole in Medicare

The first two are entirely non-relevant as the Republican/Democratic parties of this century are entirely different entities.

For the last one, I really need some more context.

Why
They had two African American Secretaries of State.
Unemployement for everyone including African Americans was substantially lower.
Efforts to standardize and finally hold school systems accountable were implemented. Test voucher programs were started in multiple regions by local Republican governments.
The donut hole, impacting a whole slew of seniors - including African American seniors - was fixed.

 Frazzled wrote:
Unemployement for everyone including African Americans was substantially lower.

Yeah, Bush kinda fethed that up with deregulation that caused a recession almost on the same level as the Great Depression.

 Frazzled wrote:
Efforts to standardize and finally hold school systems accountable were implemented.

(and failed)

 Frazzled wrote:
Test voucher programs were started in multiple regions by local Republican governments.

Which are highly controversial even within the Republican party.

The Republican Party's stuff opposing racism was from awhile ago is the problem. The Republican Party trying to argue that it's still the progressive, tolerant party is like Arnold trying to argue that he's still in shape. FUNFACT: Romney has 0% of the black vote.

 Frazzled wrote:
more Republicans voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act then Democrats.

So at this point you've basically just decided to make up your own facts?

The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Of course, once blacks started voting Democrat all the racists had to switch sides.

Well, sort of. The Republicans noted that in the wake of the Civil Rights Act many Southern Democrats would not be voting for that party, and felt they could gain a lot by appealling to them. So they developed the race baiting strategy of the Southern Strategy. Something that is still in play today, though in a very minor form and appears to have little impact (Newt ran on it pretty strong and he lost bad).

Meanwhile you get Fraz standing about looking dumbfounded, trying to figure out why the black people decided to hate his party for no reason.