June 14, 2004

Hyperbole, fiction and the Left
Posted by McQ

What is it about the left that they have to resort to such absurd hyperbole not to mention outright fiction in order to generate any interest in themselves?

You probably saw this story a few days back ... its taken me a while to get to it but it deserves a closer look:

In remarks to hundreds of cheering liberal activists Wednesday, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond singled out Republicans as enemies of black Americans and compared conservatives to the terrorist Taliban who once ruled Afghanistan.

"Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side," Bond told a cheering audience. "They've written a new constitution for Iraq and ignore the Constitution here at home. They draw their most rabid supporters from the Taliban wing of American politics. Now they want to write bigotry back into the Constitution."

Sigh. No reference to anything. No point other than hateful rhetoric. And yet, I'd make a bet that if Mr. Bond and the NAACP were so characterized there'd be no living with his outrage and whining.

Bond's remarks came at an opening of the liberal Take Back America conference, a three-day event that has drawn more than 2,000 liberals from across the country to the nation's capital. Bond spoke moments after MoveOn.org founders Joan Blades and Wes Boyd received a rousing ovation from the partisan crowd.

Well that explains some of it ... its a MoveOn.org event. Hyperbole as in "Bush equals Hitler" is its bread and butter.

"Damn the facts. Damn civil discourse. Full speed ahead!"

Bond called the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965 two of America's greatest achievement. He then went on to attack Republicans.

"The passage of these two laws in 1964 and 1965 marked the beginning of the dependence of the Republican Party on the politics of racial division to win elections and gain power," Bond said. "By playing the race card in election after election, they've appealed to that dark underside of American culture, to that minority of Americans who reject democracy and equality. They preach racial neutrality and they practice racial division."

But then I finally got my laugh. Right here is where Mr. Julian Bond did the foreskin foxtrot. And he was wearing golf spikes when he did it. The old, metal kind.

Why? Well, you see the Civil Rights act of 1964 didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of passing ... among the Democrats. It took REPUBLICANs to pass it.

The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 (p. 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the Act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C. Bryd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr.

In fact, southern Democrats conducted a 74 day filibuster of the act. And that included Bill Clinton's mentor as well ... Sen. Fullbright of Arkansas.

However on the Republican side, 82% voted for its passage in the Senate. Without the Republican votes in the Senate, the Democrats couldn't muster a majority even though they were the majority party.

And in the House?

In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.

Again, the party in control of the house, the Democrat Party, couldn't even muster a majority of its own congressmen to pass the bill. Only 152 of 248 Democrats voted for the bill's passage, 59 short of a majority. But 138 of the Republicans, or 80% of their members voted for its passage.

So Republicans were the main reason for the bills passage ... not Democrats.

And the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

Same story:

The Senate vote for the Voting Rights Act was 77 to 19, with Democrats voting 47 to 17 in favor and Republicans 30 to 2 in favor. Among those voting against the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were 17 southern Democrats, including President Bill Clinton's political mentor, J. William Fulbright of Arkansas.

In fact, if Mr. Bond were the civil right's leader he'd like us to believe he is, he'd know the following about a 1960 civil rights act put before the Congress by the Eisenhower administration. Yes, that's right, a Republican administration.

The result?

On February 15, 1960, the civil rights bill came up for debate on the Senate floor as an amendment to a minor bill concerning the leasing of a surplus U.S. Army building to a school district in Missouri. The southern Democrats in the Senate immediately began a filibuster, primarily against the prospect that Part III would be adopted and would give the U.S. attorney general the power to intervene directly in racial relations in the South.

Late in February, in an effort to break the filibuster, the Senate went into round-the-clock sessions. The 18 filibustering southerners, divided into 6 teams of 3 senators each, had no trouble keeping one 3 person team on the Senate floor while the other 5 teams rested. Those opposing the filibuster, however, had to keep 51 senators (a quorum) at the Capitol ready to meet a quorum call at any time. The result of round-the-clock sessions was to exhaust the pro-civil rights senators, not the southerners.

The failure of round-the-clock sessions to break the filibuster of the 1960 civil rights bill was a lesson to civil rights supporters that dominated their thinking during the early 1960s. The southerners could not be exhausted by 24-hour-a-day sessions, but the pro-civil rights senators could be. It meant that there was only one way to end a filibuster - get 2/3 of the Senate to vote cloture. Thus, when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were undergoing southern filibusters in the Senate, round-the-clock sessions were not attempted to break the filibuster. In both cases civil rights supporters, from the very beginning, saw a successful cloture vote as the only way to end the filibuster and get meaningful civil rights legislation passed in the Senate.

Yet this goof, Julian Bond, conveniently forgets all these facts to engage in reckless hyperbole... to play to the crowd. A crowd of 1,000 liberal "fellow travelers".

I hope he feels good about it.

Because there was a price involved.

The price?

His credibility.

Hope your cheap political fiction was worth the price, Julian.

TrackBack

Comments

Wasn't Julian Bond in some sort of legal trouble in ATL? The name is familiar to me...

Posted by: LauraN at June 14, 2004 03:58 PM

Not that I know of, Laura. I believe he was involved in the H.Rap Brown trial as a character witness, but nothing "legal" other than that that I know of at the moment.

Posted by: McQ at June 14, 2004 04:05 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?