Comments on: On Civil Rights, Virginia Foxx Revises History to Make Republicans Look Good

By: Brian Marsh

Brian Marsh — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:06:05 +0000

As usual, you libs are short on the facts and great at revisionist history. It was a Republican minority under Kennedy's administration that first introduced several bills to protect the constitutional rights of blacks, including a comprehensive new civil rights bill. In February 1963, to head off a return by most blacks to the party of Lincoln, Kennedy abruptly decided to submit to Congress a new civil rights bill. Democrat racist geared up over the next few months to filibuster the bill, and then Kennedy was assassinated. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced the Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson (a southerner) warned Democrats in Congress that this time it was all or nothing. To ensure support from Republicans, he had to promise them that he would not accept any weakening of the bill and also that he would publicly credit our Party for its role in securing congressional approval. The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 124, a vote in which 80% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats voted “yes”. The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting “no”. Source: http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/mz_0808.shtml

By: DLS

DLS — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:46:04 +0000

Jefferson wouldn't recognize, and probably wouldn't accept what has transpired, especially since the 1930s.

He probably would feel vindicated about the worst with cities and related politics (as exhibited on this thread, incidentally), and might actually apologize to Hamilton (though not for post-1930 Washington).

By: ProfElwood

ProfElwood — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:17:44 +0000

I think Jefferson envisioned a revolution long before we got to this point.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:59:18 +0000

Of course you just proved my point. And btw, I think Jefferson envisioned a more inclusive America than today's GOP does. . . even if he was a slave owner. Not so simple eh?

By: Leonidas

Leonidas — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 22:29:13 +0000

Democrats call themselves the party of Jefferson, this isn't much different.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:34:07 +0000

Steve is right. The persistence of reality won't be enough to stem either revisionist apologism or deflective tit for tat nonsense. Not in this era of elastic standards… and worse.

By: SteveK

SteveK — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:20:10 +0000

Well said Michael. Your argument broke down and backed up with what really happened… All I can add it, you'd better get ready to duck or at least be prepared for a three or four part lecture on what a childish lefty you are. [sigh]