blackjack21 wrote:I know, but it's funny.
Since you used it as a way to construct an argument, I suspect you didn't know as it invalidates your thesis.
Don't you find it odd that he put a former Klan member, Hugo Black, on the Supreme Court? Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion in Korematsu v. United States, which upheld the Japanese internment. Woodrow Wilson played a big role in the resurrection of the Klan. FDR's support of Al Smith was to get the Catholic vote behind him. He needed Tammany Hall to become governor of New York.
Do I find it odd that the Democrats are racist and that while the Dixiecrats were a power they were even more racist?
No. Do you?
They were never kicked out. Bill Clinton signed Act 116 of the Regular Session in 1987, which stipulate that the star above Arkansas represented the Confederate States of America. In 1992, he picked Al Gore, the son of an ardent segregationist, to be his running mate. Clinton got his start with William Fulbright, an ardent segregationist. Bill Clinton got his traction in 1992 with his "Sista Soulja" moment, telling off a black rap artist.
I was specific about the institutional racists being kicked out and that the party was trying to perfect that, in no way did I ever say that it had been accomplished or that it could be accomplished for a bourgouis party.
Total crap. Only one of the senate segregationists joined the Republicans--Strom Thurmond. Everyone else stayed with the Democrats.
Again, you're pretending that I made some kind of grand defense of the Democratic Party having been cleansed by a blinding light on its was to Damascus. History is more complicated than this. It took many generations to work the Klan out so the GOP could take them up.
Nixon's '68 election couldn't rely on the South, because of the Dixiecrats.
See above, and see the citations. Just because it didn't work yet didn't mean that it wasn't the strategy.
Nixon's election was followed by Democrat Jimmy Carter, who won the South--and couldn't have won the White House without it.
Again, this does nothing to address any of the arguments. Also, I doubt that anybody would argue Carter had a firm stance in any way--let alone part of the Klan.
Reagan also didn't need the South, as he was as nearly as popular as Nixon.
1984 was even better.
Bush was popular enough to not need much of the South in 1988 either. However, Reagan's amnesty for illegal aliens through California to the Democrats since. It was a disastrous choice.
Yet again, this does not address the Republican's declared strategy to dog whistle racism. Nor does it refute anything I stated.
Clinton split the South to win. Seems a bit far-fetched.
Yes. And in no way does this refute anything I've written.
Nixon, Reagan and Bush appealed to evangelical Christians. That's how Trump won in the South too.
So did every Democrat in every election lost. Hell, Carter was the posterboy for Southern evangelical Christianity. As you yourself mentioned, Clinton and Gore were Southern Protestants as well.
Cynical is buying the black vote with the Great Society and effectively destroying black family structure and culture. In the 1960s, blacks were coming up in the world. Their culture was achieving mass adoption--jazz, blues, rock and roll, soul, etc.--and by the 1990s, that culture was effectively dead, replaced by rap and hip hop. Families went from 75% two parent families to over 70% single parent families. Cynical is Clinton signing NAFTA, GATT, and Most Favored Nation status for China and then pushing a crime bill to incarcerate "super predators" as Hillary Clinton put it.
The difference is that I have citations about the Republican strategy, you have cherry picked information to fight a straw man.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!