(wdcpix.com)
They're saying that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a swipe at Republicans Monday morning, comparing them to those who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for filibustering health reform legislation.
When asked about Republican objections to healthcare reform, he compared Republicans who oppose healthcare reform to lawmakers who opposed the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, and those who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.
On the Senate floor, Reid said, "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right... When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'!"
On the Senate floor, Reid said, "Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right... When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'!"
Reid's remarks:
Republican reaction might best be summed up by a colleague of mine, who wrote snarkishly:
Do they teach U-S History in Nevada, senator? Did you know that slavery was ended by a Republican president? Did you know that Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act of 1957 were all passed with much more Republican support than Democratic support?
And did you know that Barry Bonds is just like Babe Ruth because they both hit a lot of home runs? Balderdash. My colleague is wrong.
Comparing today's Republicans with Abraham Lincoln is an insult to Mr. Lincoln, especially considering some of the lawmakers running around calling themselves Republicans today. They're a disgrace to their party's ideals.
It's very deceptive to say the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 had "much more Republican support than Democratic support." In the House of Representatives, the final vote for passage of the Civil Rights act of 1964 was 290 to 130. Of the "yea" votes, 152 were Democrats and 138 were Republicans.
In the Senate, 46 of the 67 Democrats supported the bill; on the Republican side, 27 of 33 Republican Senators supported the bill.
Democrats had historically large majorities in Congress, as you can tell: In the House, 259 members to 176 Republicans. In the Senate, 67 to 33.
If you use strictly total numbers, more Democrats supported the measure than did Republicans. If you use percentage as a measurement, a greater percentage of Republicans voted for the bill than did Democrats:
--In the House, 80 percent of Republicans and 61 percent of Democrats supported the measure.
--In the Senate, 82 percent of Republicans and 69 percent of Democrats supported the bill.
You can see what Benjamin Disraeli meant by his famous definition of statistics, which clearly was played out on talk radio, talk TV and the blogosphere. Liberal bloggers have hammered one particular House member, Virginia Foxx of North Carolina for saying that, "The GOP has been the leader in starting good environmental in this country, just as we were the people who passed the civil rights bill in the 60s without very much help from our colleagues across the aisle. They love to engage in revisionist history."
Clearly the woman is mistaken. It makes you wonder just how many members of Congress have a firm grasp of American history and good old-fashioned government civics. It's appalling to think they might be as ignorant of the process as reflected in Ms Foxx's comments. (Incidentally, Congressman Dennis Cardoza, who followed in response to Congresswoman Foxx, mentioned Jesse Helms, but I suspect he may have meant Strom Thurmond).
You ought to be able to deduce from the voting breakdowns above that any bickering about who did what is just plain stupid, but we have a lot of stupid people out there --they're not really stupid; they're just so ideologically hellbent that it makes them stupid. It's in the electorate and it's in the Congress, which makes sense since it's the electorate that sends people to Congress and so truly, we have representative government.
Did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada go a tad too far? Republican in the Senate reacted:
John Thune called the remarks "inflammatory and irresponsible."
Tom Coburn said he was "personally offended."
Kay Bailey Hutchison said there's "no place for language like that."
Orrin Hatch said the remarks were "extremely offensive."
RNC Committee chairman Michael Steele said the comments were "absurd and offensive" and demanded an apology.
Who writes these scripts? Did they all get the same memo?
John McCain
Not once did Reid say Republicans opposed civil rights legislation. What Reid did was compare today's opponents to health care reform to yesterday's opponents of civil rights progress (as well as women's suffrage, incidentally). How that got twisted into saying Republicans opposed civil rights legislation is a perfect example of the ludicrous nature of our political discourse. Republicans, in this case, are using Reid's remarks to create yet another political distraction to rant and rave while demonizing supporters of health care reform. It's what they've done consistently througout this health care debate.
The fact is this: The opposition to civil rights was not political, it was geographic. Republicans who supported civil rights came from northern states. They represented the moderates in the Midwest and West, and the party's liberal wing in the Northeast. Opponents came almost exclusively from the eleven southern states that made up the Confederacy in the American Civil War. If you want to compare numbers either by percentages or total votes, do it geographically, not politically or ideologically:
House vote:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure, largely on states' rights grounds)
It's worth noting that the primary opposition was from five states in the Deep South: Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, the only states outside of Arizona that Barry Goldwater carried in the 1964 presidential election. Many of those legislators were Dixiecrat Democrats who later became Republicans. Some, like Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, had already switched parties in 1960. He conducted the longest filibuster ever by a U-S Senator (24 hours, 18 minutes) in opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1957 --as a Dixiecrat Democrat, who shortly thereafter became a Republican. That, in a microcosm, was the shift that was about to occur in American politics.
Civil rights legislation was as much about political sea change as a sociological one. Democrats, largely due to the efforts of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, quickly adopted civil rights as a plank and after 1964, became the party of the nation's minorities, the poor, etc, etc. Republicans increasingly became a party for what Richard Nixon called "the silent majority" --which turned out largely to be white America. It sounds ugly to say that but demographically, that's how the numbers have shaken out ever since as this political shift began, creating a gap between the two parties which would continue to widen for the next 35 years.
There has always been opposition to change and the opposition has always been from conservatives. Sometimes those conservatives have been Democrats and sometimes they've been Republicans. At the end of the day, they're cut from the same cloth: They oppose change. Right now, it's the Republicans' turn to wear feet of clay. In 20-30 years, maybe it'll be the Democrats' turn. But if today's Republicans spent half the time making as much noise about their ideas as they did about whining, complaining and politicizing, we might discover that they actually have something to offer (and they do, incidentally), but they're more interested in seeing the Democrats lose instead of helping the country win. Any politician who does that --left or right-- oughtta be thrown out on a rail.
Comments
I love to see people actually stand up and point out how little the Republican party of today has to do with it's past. Every Republican president prior to Reagan would've been kicked out of the party today by "conservatives" for being RINOs.
I'm not too sure Reagan would've passed their measuring stick either, actually. He had silly ideas like immigrants helping our country, or trying terrorists in a court of law.
Funny how it was Democrats who fought the Voting Rights Act of 1958 and who instituted Jim Crow Laws in the south.
But since when does reality matter to the twisted freak Democrats?
Agree. It's sad really how disillussioned american politics has become. I liken it to an old marrried couple who just argue for the sake of arguing. Neither truly believes in what they're defending, but as long as it's NOT what the other believes then, well, they can get behind it. Present day republicans, please, with the tea parties and the constent complaining about verbiage, it's ridiculous. In attempts to deface the other party they come across like a bunch of crybabies.
What about an article on Robert Creamer Brucie? Beck slammed that ex-felon pretty hard, any thoughts Brucie?
I agree with your statement that the Republican Party is more interested in seeing the Democrats lose, but I would say its the same for the Democratic Party in respect to the Republican Party. They are both so caught up in their own rhetoric and ideology, that neither party is helping the country to win. The members of Congress are more interested in reelection and personal accomplishment than in representing the American people.
Reid gives new meaning to the phrase, "desperate times call for desperate measures." (In his case desperate accusations.)
RE ELECT NO INCUMBENTS IN 2010 AND 2012! NONE!
Greg says: "I agree with your statement that the Republican Party is more interested in seeing the Democrats lose, but I would say its the same for the Democratic Party in respect to the Republican Party."
ABSOLUTELY. Even in days when politicians disagreed but could still get a beer after work, there were strategists plotting the calculus for that next election. When Democrats become a minority again we'll see how they behave. Someone has to take a stand against childish behavior. Frankly, that should be the voters but they don't seem too willing, either. Look at the comment at 8:48am. His post clearly demonstrates he doesn't understand the article; it happens when you stop being a participant in the process and start being a fan of your side. It's like an obnoxious sports fan won't admit his team is lousy. When will we have enough fans for civility?
At the end of the day, WE are the government. Only WE can change it. Politicians won't get that message unless we give it to them.
Tina says: Reid gives new meaning to the phrase, "desperate times call for desperate measures." (In his case desperate accusations.)
How is his statement inaccurate or desperate? Did you even read the article? If he believes health care reform is a seismic shift in domestic policy (and it is) what is the difference between opponents of that reform and opponents of any other reform that redefined the country? Where did he say "Republicans opposed civil rights?" Can you show me?
um,Hey Brucie says: "What about an article on Robert Creamer Brucie? Beck slammed that ex-felon pretty hard, any thoughts Brucie?"
When you comment using your real name instead of hiding behind anonymous screen names while acting like a 5-year-old, I'll answer your question.
Jack says: "...I'm not too sure Reagan would've passed their measuring stick either, actually. He had silly ideas like immigrants helping our country, or trying terrorists in a court of law."
He also pulled out of Beirut in 1983 when he decided we were throwing good money after bad. It's a lesson that may be lost on the current administration with regard to Afghanistan (which I think is throwing good money after bad... but maybe I'm wrong. I'd rather be wrong than have to find out the hard way that I was right.)
"Historians also faulted Mr. Reid's curious reference to the Senate civil rights debates of the 1960s. After all, it was Southern Democrats who mounted an 83-day filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. The final vote to cut off debate saw 29 Senators in opposition, 80% of them Democrats. Among those voting to block the civil rights bill was West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who personally filibustered the bill for 14 hours. The next year he also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Mr. Byrd still sits in the Senate, and indeed preceded Mr. Reid as his party's majority leader until he stepped down from that role in 1989."
A lieberal mind is such a terrible thing!
Greg -- As you can see from the post at 2:11pm, the same sort of bellicose ignorance continues to manifest itself. He clearly doesn't understand what the article said, or he's so busy being a puppet for his "team" that he's not interested. He's a "homer" of the worst kind, and they exist on both sides of the aisle. Until people like that are expunged from the debate, we'll continue to have politicians using spin to try a manipulate the small-minded. The poster at 2:11pm and 8:48am is proof that their methods work.
One only resorts to name calling when they have lost the argument.
Barry Soetoro says: "One only resorts to name calling when they have lost the argument."
Other comments by this poster:
12/08/2009
2:11pm-A lieberal mind is such a terrible thing
8:49am-Gays give gays a bad stereotype
8:48am-the twisted freak Democrats
12/07/2009
7:26pm-time for Stinky Harry to hang it up
That's not even 24 hours, not counting other possible screen names he may have used (which can be checked)
I love how democrats try to spin their shameful, inconvenient history, fillabuster of civil rights by saying the opponents were not really democrats, but were republicans in democrat cloths. Pish posh....if that is the case how do you explain Robert Byrd? He was a number one opponent of civil rights & is still a leading democrat. He changed his stripes when it looked polically expedient for him to do so. The fact is democrat programs like Welfare do more to enslave people than anything republicans ever did or do. The black family has fallen to pieces under the "caring" democrat programs of the inner cities. I don't love everything the republican party does, there is no doubt, but the likes of Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, Boxer, Byrd, Murtha ("our troops are murderers like POL POT"), and Obama are arrogant, marxist, who care NOTHING of the common man or small business man and only care about thier own political power. You know it & I know it & the country is waking up.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!