Burnt Orange Report

Re: "I suppose it is a good thing that the vast majority of conservatives have moved past explicit opposition to basic civil rights for racial minorities, but one realizes that the lineage of their rhetoric and ideology can be traced straight back to those who tried to defeat the Act."

I don't know what is more striking. The fact that you only "suppose that it is a good thing" or the way the whole sentence is structured to imply that conservatives have gotten away from something necessary to define them as conservatives. I ask you, how can we, as conservatives, have possibly moved "past explicit opposition to basic civil rights for racial minorities" and still call ourselves any kind of conservative?

Oh, I get it. Now we are all just implicitly racist.

Let's be fair. Al Gore, Sr. voted against the act as did William Fulbright. Famous conservative and recent victim of Alzheimer's and Michael Moore sensibilites Charlton Heston marched at Selma.

The "lineage" is a lot more complicated than your post even considers allowing:

"According to Congressional Quarterly, in the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while only 69% of Democrats did. All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. In the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act versus 61% of Democrats. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it."

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed not in spite of the Republican party but because of the Republican party. There has been shifting back and forth among parties to be sure, but in the past 40 years the parties have not simply re-aligned based on their views on this issue.

Plus, why don't you just go ahead and call Bush a racist? The whole post is itching to do just that regardless of the fact that his cabinet is more diverse than was the previous administration's.

He has the first Black SecState and the first Black (and woman) NSC Director and the best he can get is:

"...while I do not think that Bush is an explicit racist ..."

and

"Bush doesn't appear to be a racist, but...."

and

"He certainly isn't a segregationist but..."

That is one itchy trigger finger, pardner.

Man, I just noticed the scare quotes on "Honors" in the post's title.

This really did stick in your craw, didn't it.

This is really going to hurt:

Abraham Lincoln (R-Illinois)

going with your quote,

"According to Congressional Quarterly, in the Senate, 82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act, while only 69% of Democrats did. All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. In the House, 80% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act versus 61% of Democrats. Ninety-two of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it."

The reason why the Democratic Precentage was less is due to the 1960s Conservative Southern Democrats bloc. What happen to those most Conservative Southern Democrats like Strom Thurmond? Which party dominates in the South now (hopefuly only 6 more years in Texas)? See any connections?

Walsingham and Mike both make good points. Yes, the Civil rights Act was passed with Republican support over the opposition of many Democrats, but comparing the Republican and Democratic parties of 2004 to 1964 is a little like apples to oranges. Forty years ago, the Democratic party in the South was contolled by VERY conservative Democrats who would not be identified as Republican because of that party's association with Lincoln in the War Between the States. The Republicans were primarily conservative on economic issues, and did not use social conservatism as a platform. Today, in many, but not all cases, these polemics are reversed.

Furthermore, this was a time when you had a large number of liberal Republicans. As much as you'd like to think, "Republican" doesn't always mean "conservative" and "Democrat" doesn't always mean "liberal." I doubt that Dick Russell would take to kindly to being called a liberal. The fact of the matter is that if you look at the conservatives in congress at the time- Southern Democrats and Western Republicans usually- they almost all voted agains the act. If you look at liberals in both parties they usually voted for it.

A point to make: Neither Strom Thurmund nor George Wallace were racists.

They were politicians who had decided the way to win was to ensure that no would ever out-N***er them.

That's why their transformations later in life were unremarkable. They simply measured the political winds.

Bush is a racist in the manner of Thurmund and Wallace, he is an opportunist who panders to racists.

Lets see 68 Democratic senators, 295 Democratic house members, a supermajority in 1965. The peak of the Democratic party. Most of the Governorships, most of the state legislatures, oh those were the days. Since the passage of the Voters Right Act of 1965, your numbers have been steadily declining with a little bump for Watergate. Lets see 74 Republicans in 1974 spread all over Texas, 2002, 1966 Republicans in Texas including all statewide offices. Looks like when people are given a choice, they choose Republicans.

Who was Martin L King protesting against in the south? Not Republican leadership. Who stopped segregation of schools? Eisenhower. Who stopped dual school districts in the south? Nixon. Who signed affirmative action? Nixon. Who granted Amnesty to many undocumented aliens? Reagan. The two Acts that LB Johnson signed into law would not have been passed without Republican support. Lets see who put limits on welfare? Clinton. Again against Democratic leadership in Congress.

You guys need a lot of work to be a national party again.

I am so glad to see Peter using small caps now.

"This is really going to hurt:
Abraham Lincoln (R-Illinois)"

Don't hurt at all.

Funny how the GOP only discovers Abe Lincoln when they need cover for thirty-odd years of quiet side deals and go-slow implementation on civil rights legislation.

The last time I heard a Republican invoke Lincoln was when trent Lott pulled his hood out of storage (which is the last time I saw Armstrong Williams on Fox).

If you give Lincoln to the R's as contemporary coverage, you have to give Andrew Jackson to the D's.

To poster #7, please take a good look at the Republican party and it's power structure in 2004, and compare that to the party platform and activists of Republicans in, say, 1964. Republicans of that era were much more unabashedly conservative on business issues, not social ones. Truth is, the Republican party leadership got hijacked by the social conservatives sometime around 1990, and forced the "Rockefeller Republicans" to the sidelines.