Bush vs Obama: Who's Worse?

[Tiberius]

 

 

 

I used to think that it was better messaging by the GOP. But when considering what LBJ was able to do when dealing with Civil Rights against an unwilling GOP and in the midst of Vietnam ... I can't give Obama that easy pass.

emotion of

I'm throwing a flag here for bad history. The GOP was not the problem with Civil Rights it was the Southern Conservative Democrats--this was before the racists fled to the GOP. And LBJ was a southern white himself and had the emotion of the Kennedy assignation to push this through. Remember, Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights agenda but couldn't get it through Congress, same with Great Society legislation. The Kennedy assassination changed the political dynamic for a brief period. And Vietnam was not as big an issue yet before all that domestic legislation was passed. In August of 1965 the 1960's sung like a gate--riots broke out in Watts and Johnson began his build up of troops in Vietnam. That changed everything and Johnson who you credit had to drop out of the 1968 presidential race because he was so unpopular.

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm throwing a flag here for bad history. The GOP was not the problem with Civil Rights it was the Southern Conservative Democrats--this was before the racists fled to the GOP. And LBJ was a southern white himself and had the emotion of the Kennedy assignation to push this through. Remember, Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights agenda but couldn't get it through Congress, same with Great Society legislation. The Kennedy assassination changed the political dynamic for a brief period. And Vietnam was not as big an issue yet before all that domestic legislation was passed. In August of 1965 the 1960's sung like a gate--riots broke out in Watts and Johnson began his build up of troops in Vietnam. That changed everything and Johnson who you credit had to drop out of the 1968 presidential race because he was so unpopular.

 

Kennedy never would have pushed Civil Rights without LBJ's presence. There are pages of documentation showing how Kennedy was the last one to be dragged into the Civil Right's movement -- and he went kicking and screaming. LBJ had his faults, but the man believed in the movement far more than his predecessor.

[Tiberius]

 

 

Kennedy never would have pushed Civil Rights without LBJ's presence. There are pages of documentation showing how Kennedy was the last one to be dragged into the Civil Right's movement -- and he went kicking and screaming. LBJ had his faults, but the man believed in the movement far more than his predecessor.

He may not have seen it as his main goal, but he did give a national television address to the nation on the issue--that was the night they murdered Medgar Evers as he was driving home to watch it on tv. The tv address was to Give a push to the measures in Congress he was trying to get passed. But you are right, LBJ had grown up poor in Texas and he had a major belief in the issue whereas Kennedy just thought racism was irrational and never experience poverty at all.

[3rdnlng]

I'm throwing a flag here for bad history. The GOP was not the problem with Civil Rights it was the Southern Conservative Democrats--this was before the racists fled to the GOP. And LBJ was a southern white himself and had the emotion of the Kennedy assignation to push this through. Remember, Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights agenda but couldn't get it through Congress, same with Great Society legislation. The Kennedy assassination changed the political dynamic for a brief period. And Vietnam was not as big an issue yet before all that domestic legislation was passed. In August of 1965 the 1960's sung like a gate--riots broke out in Watts and Johnson began his build up of troops in Vietnam. That changed everything and Johnson who you credit had to drop out of the 1968 presidential race because he was so unpopular.

 

Which one? It is my understanding that he had quite a few.

[PlayoffsPlease]

Why isn't EJ Manuel a choice in the poll? It is usually his fault.

[Chef Jim]

Why isn't EJ Manuel a choice in the poll? It is usually his fault.

 

No the person whose fault it usually is was named in the poll.

[Juror#8]

I'm throwing a flag here for bad history. The GOP was not the problem with Civil Rights it was the Southern Conservative Democrats--this was before the racists fled to the GOP. And LBJ was a southern white himself and had the emotion of the Kennedy assignation to push this through. Remember, Kennedy proposed the Civil Rights agenda but couldn't get it through Congress, same with Great Society legislation. The Kennedy assassination changed the political dynamic for a brief period. And Vietnam was not as big an issue yet before all that domestic legislation was passed. In August of 1965 the 1960's sung like a gate--riots broke out in Watts and Johnson began his build up of troops in Vietnam. That changed everything and Johnson who you credit had to drop out of the 1968 presidential race because he was so unpopular.

 

I'm not intimately familiar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but I do know enough to know that LBJ was working behind the scenes to assuage the GOP's concern about the impact that the proposed legislation would have on private business. From the start, private patronage mandates were a deal breaker for republicans.

 

The problem with the southern democrats (many of whom are now aligned with the current GOP), was never going to be bridged or assuaged. Johnson conceded that vote. That problem wasn't an ideological or political issue as much as it was a cultural and regional one. Because to the best of my recollection, the southern republicans weren't voting for the legislation either.

 

My point was that Johnson was able to wrangle a reluctant GOP to support the bill. Obama hasn't been able to wrangle a obstinate GOP to do anything. There has been little to no communication. He has allowed them to message with impunity and there has been non-existent effort on either side towards any conciliation.

[Tiberius]

I'm not intimately familiar with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but I do know enough to know that LBJ was working behind the scenes to assuage the GOP's concern about the impact that the proposed legislation would have on private business. From the start, private patronage mandates were a deal breaker for republicans.

The problem with the southern democrats (many of whom are now aligned with the current GOP), was never going to be bridged or assuaged. Johnson conceded that vote. That problem wasn't an ideological or political issue as much as it was a cultural and regional one. Because to the best of my recollection,neat to over come filibusters an the southern republicans weren't voting for the legislation either. My point was that Johnson was able to wrangle a reluctant GOP to support the bill. Obama hasn't been able to wrangle a obstinate GOP to do anything. There has been little to no communication. He has allowed them to message with impunity and there has been non-existent effort on either side towards any conciliation.

And all I'm saying is that Kennedy couldn't get it done either. His assassination gave Johnson the political capital to move on those issues. Obama is facing a very different GOP than the GOP in the 1960's. But you are correct that Johnson had more leverage with those Republicans

[Security]

Whatever, GOP has and always has been the driving force behind equality, and it has to do with ecomics. Democrats like to say all our racists joined your racists. This is absolute hogwash.

[/dev/null]

And all I'm saying is that Kennedy couldn't get it done either. His assassination gave Johnson the political capital to move on those issues. Obama is facing a very different GOP than the GOP in the 1960's. But you are correct that Johnson had more leverage with those Republicans

LJB also had a lot more willingness to work with the GOP than Obama. Prior to the Election night 2010, the Obama Administration didn't even know the phone number of the House Minority Leader/future speaker

[DC Tom]

And all I'm saying is that Kennedy couldn't get it done either. His assassination gave Johnson the political capital to move on those issues. Obama is facing a very different GOP than the GOP in the 1960's. But you are correct that Johnson had more leverage with those Republicans

 

So you're saying the solution to our current problems is for someone to kill Obama?

[keepthefaith]

Meanwhile, Obama is surging ahead in this poll.

[3rdnlng]

So you're saying the solution to our current problems is for someone to kill Obama?

 

Leave the kid alone, he needs a good laugh is all.

Edited August 26, 2014 by 3rdnlng

[Chef Jim]

So you're saying the solution to our current problems is for someone to kill Obama?

 

That's what i got fom his gibberish.

[DC Tom]

LJB also had a lot more willingness to work with the GOP than Obama. Prior to the Election night 2010, the Obama Administration didn't even know the phone number of the House Minority Leader/future speaker

 

Prior to 2010, he didn't need to. He could just turn around and see him in the back seat...

 

 

Yeah, gatorman...it's all the GOP's fault.

[B-Man]

The Myth of GOP Racism How the South shed prejudice and Democrats.....

 

The unsinkable Representative Charles B. Rangel appeared on C-SPAN over the weekend. Why unsinkable? Well, in 2010 the House of Representatives censured the New York Democrat by a vote of 333 to 79 (when the body was still majority-Democratic) for violating 11 ethics rules and “bringing discredit to the House.” The New York Times called it a “staggering fall” for the senior Democrat. But fall/shmall, he’s since been reelected and will retire at his leisure.

 

While chatting with Brian Lamb, Rangel dropped a few falsehoods as casually as cigar ash. This isn’t to pick on Rangel; he’s just illustrative. His assertion — that the Republican and Democratic parties “changed sides” in the 1960s on civil rights, with white racists leaving the Democratic party to join the Republicans — has become conventional wisdom. It’s utterly false and should be rebutted at every opportunity.

 

It’s true that a Democratic president, Lyndon Johnson, shepherded the 1964 Civil Rights Act to passage. But who voted for it? Eighty percent of Republicans in the House voted aye, as against 61 percent of Democrats. In the Senate, 82 percent of Republicans favored the law, but only 69 percent of Democrats. Among the Democrats voting nay were Albert Gore Sr., Robert Byrd, and J. William Fulbright.

 

{snip}

 

Okay, but didn’t all the old segregationist senators leave the Democratic party and become Republicans after 1964? No, just one did: StromThurmond. The rest remained in the Democratic party — including former Klansman Robert Byrd, who became president pro tempore of the Senate.

 

Former racists of both parties renounced their old views (as Kevin D. Williamson points out, Lyndon Johnson himself voted against anti-lynching laws and poll-tax repeals), and neither party has a perfect record on racial matters by any stretch. But it is a libel to suggest that the Republican party, the anti-slavery party, the party of Lincoln, and the party that traditionally supported civil rights, anti-lynching laws, and integration, became the racist party after 1964.

 

The “solid south” Democratic voting pattern began to break down not in the 1960s in response to civil rights but in the 1950s in response to economic development and the Cold War. (Black voters in the north, who had been reliable Republicans, began to abandon the GOP in response to the New Deal, encouraged by activists like Robert Vann to “turn Lincoln’s picture to the wall. That debt has been paid in full.”) In the 1940s, the GOP garnered only about 25 percent of southern votes. The big break came with Eisenhower’s victories. Significant percentages of white southerners voted for Ike even though the Democratic party remained firmly segregationist and even though Eisenhower backed two civil-rights bills and enforced the Brown decision by federalizing the National Guard. They also began to send GOP representatives to the House.

 

These Republican gains came not from the most rural and “deep south” regions, but rather from the newer cities and suburbs. If the new southern Republican voters were white racists, one would have expected Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia to be the first to turn. Instead, as Gerard Alexander notes in “The Myth of the Racist Republicans,” the turn toward the GOP began in Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. Eisenhower did best in the peripheral states. Alexander concludes: “The GOP’s southern electorate was not rural, nativist, less educated, afraid of change, or concentrated in the . . . Deep South. It was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, young, non-native southern, and concentrated in the growth points that were the least ‘Southern’ parts of the south.”

 

Rangel is peddling a libel and Republicans should say so, loudly and often.

 

 

 

.

[PromoTheRobot]

The fact that this question is even asked is a joke. One president had 9-11 happen on his watch and responded with a wild goose chase war that cost thousands of US lives, wasted countless billions, and directly contributed to the current unravelling of the Middle East. The other president played golf.

[B-Man]

The fact that this question is even asked is a joke. One president had 9-11 happen on his watch and responded with a wild goose chase war that cost thousands of US lives, wasted countless billions, and directly contributed to the current unravelling of the Middle East.

 

The other president played golf.

 

 

..............and another entry in the simpleton race emerges.

 

 

I think that you might have glossed over a few problems in the past six years Promo

 

that type of reply is pretty well laughed at here.

 

 

 

.

[FireChan]

The fact that this question is even asked is a joke. One president had 9-11 happen on his watch and responded with a wild goose chase war that cost thousands of US lives, wasted countless billions, and directly contributed to the current unravelling of the Middle East. The other president played golf.

 

Don't forget, Katrina happened on his watch too.

 

Shouldn't we really blame the fans of Bush though? You don't think their 8 years of negativity got to him?

[DC Tom]

The fact that this question is even asked is a joke. One president had 9-11 happen on his watch and responded with a wild goose chase war that cost thousands of US lives, wasted countless billions, and directly contributed to the current unravelling of the Middle East. The other president played golf.

 

Yes, reduce the one to the single extremely bad policy decision and ignore the rest of the administration. And ignore the multitude of extremely bad policy decisions of the other.

 

And the current "unraveling" of the Middle East has more to do with the bogus "Arab Spring" and feckless, inchoherent, pollyanna response to it than it does the previous administration's interventionist policies. Quite the opposite: an interventionist policy would likely have maintained the status quo in the Middle East.

 

You really don't have enough credibility to take this poll, obviously.