« Here's the Letter | Main | Space Junk »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This is the most risible sentence I've seen this month:

"The Republican Party has always been in the forefront of integration."

Now, I might actually agree with this statement if it were, "once was in the forefront..." but "has always" includes the recent past, and that the modern GOP has recently been a champion of equality is patently nonsense, and has been nonsense since the late 1960s (the civil rights movement, and the slaying of ERA soon thereafter).

The ahistoricity of you assertion is just ballsy enough to actually be believed by some of your readers - you know what Goebbels said about big lies... Admittedly, there has been a dwindling cadre of lonely voices in your party who have continued to support racial and sexual equality, but in your party these stalwart few are now known as RINOs or Libertarians and are hounded out of your party regularly, and are certainly not given positions of influence from which to enact such policies. It hardly seems fair to use these beleaguered few to claim your party is the party of tolerance and equality.

I gotta give you props, however, this is a fine job of attacking from your greatest weakness; you should be proud of your polemical skills.

Michal (you must be a leftist with that spelling, lol). Let me help you learn how to make an argument. If you want to accuse one side of something you need to give examples that prove your point. You completely failed, which leaves us with your powerfully-worded attack against Republicans with no red meat - isn't that what Goebbels considered the best kind of propaganda?

But here is your big problem – you would then actually have to defend your charges and debate the matter. Clearly that was not on your agenda.

Now I know you will defend yourself (and probably accompany that with screaming bloody murder) with your inclusion of "the civil rights movement, and the slaying of ERA soon thereafter)" but just saying something doesn't make it so. Ending segregation was not a Democrat fait accompli. Need I remind you that segregation was a Democrat solution to the Republican postbellum solution of racial integration?

Regarding the ERA, I am not prescient but I do look forward to your argument that American men today enjoy a legal superior status over women.

Slade Mead was a lying scumbag who got his butt kicked and deservedly so. Even better, after the GOP kicked his butt out of the State Senate, he tried to go home to the Democrats and then lost a primary for School Superintendent. Nice. Really nice.


Here is what Michal thinks is a good blog story.




More Republican senators voted for the 1964 Civil Rights bill than did Democrats. Barry Goldwater, to his shame, did not. He later called it a terrible mistake.

By contrast, the Deep South during the Jim Crow era was alomost exclusively governed at virtually all levels local to national by Democrats.

Here are just a few of the democrats who stood in the way (literally, in some cases)of integration.

Gov. Orval Faubus (D-Ark)
Gov. Herman Talmadge (D-Ga.)
Gov. Lester Maddox (D-Ga.)
Gov. George Wallace (D-Ala.) - To his credit, he renounced his stance in later years.

Bull Connor, the police chief of Birmingham, Alabama, was a member of the KKK and a Democrat.

And let's not forget the dean of the US Senate, Robert Byrd, a former KKK member who, within the past few years used the "N" word in public. No matter the context it was in, had a GOPer done it, he or she would have been shamed out of the senate.

There are many other examples. In fact, it's hard to find a Republican governor or senator in the Deep South from the years 1880 to 1980 or so.

The Republican party was founded as the party of abolition. The Democrat record on this is poor, at best. Greg's statement is accurate, not risible, and you did not attempt to back it up with one fact other than the defeat of the ERA, which came at the hands of many state legislatures.


You like to remind us that an article should have one topic. I just read and re-read this blog about three times and I am still trying to figure out what is the REAL topic of this bog. The following options are suggested:

1. Democrats continue to support 'segretationist old boy politics' by meeting in a 'men's only' area of the Phoenix Country Club.

2. Republicans are more integrationist than Democrats because they don't meet in such a place.

3. Slade Mead is a politician who supports 'segregation and dirty tricks' (so it's really a piece on Slade Mead under the guise of a discussion about a gender-specific meeting place).

Just wondering...

(Greg Here) Ron: Did I say that articles should have one topic? I often use one topic as a vehicle to transition to the "real" topic. If I do it well, there will be an epiphany at the end when the entire piece comes together. Kind of like watching James Joyce on Letterman.

Great reference to my favorite book. Did you consider using the title of the third book as a tie-in to Slade?

To put the great Lyndon Baines Johnson's name in the same sentence as "segregation" is perhaps the most vile, repugnant, and outright nasty comment I've ever read from a heretofore very reasonable conservative blogger.

Perhaps if and when you take ConLaw II, then you can see just what Lyndon Baines Johnson has done for the United States of America. Forget the unhealthy obsession of what you guys on the right deem as the Great Society social program "spending." No one alive today is fit to carry Lyndon Baines Johnson's jockstrap when it comes to full-equality for all. Take election law and learn about the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and all the "white primary cases" going on epidemically at the time. In fact, google "white primary cases."

Greg, thank you for the explanation - and the 'secret' of reading your blogs. I don't understand the James Joyce on Letterman illusion as I don't watch Letterman - but I do get the part of the 'epiphany'.


OK, so let me get this straight....

1) Liberal Richard Ruelas writes a column about a private club that has gender segregation in its dining rooms along with open dining that is being sued by a member(s).

2) He quotes Slade Mead and wrongly identifies him (but the article might have exceeded the word limit to do so properly) as a former Democratic Senator and mentions the Nucleus Club, a pro-liberal organization.

3) Another blog site uses it as a rock to throw at Jerry Colangelo for his membership while he protests the employer sanctions bill, citing a hypocrisy of sorts using MacGruder’s call of racism as guilt by association.

4) Now Greg is receiving shots for his comparison of Lyndon Johnson.

Ruelas must be getting a good chuckle out of this one. Oh well, he needs something to keep him occupied since he will never be on Sunday Square Off again....or have a byline in this town with a photo attached.

Nixon's Southern Strategy was all about picking up disaffected southern whites who had been turned off by the national Democratic party's shift to the left on cultural issues. Among those issues was race. White Southern Democrats of the 50s and early 60s became white Southern Republicans of the 70s, 80s and 90s. The Republican Party "has always be the party of integration" may be technically accurate in the sense that southern Democrat Senators were the ones philibustering the Civil Rights Act, but misses the point of where the Republican Party has gotten its electoral strength in the south from 1980 onward. (What's more: Lyndon Johnson, no Republican he - although, less of a big spender and adventurer abroad than our current compassionate conservative president, was the one who drove through civil rights legislation over southern objections in his own party.)

It was not by happenstance that Strom Thurmond defected to the Republicans or that Reagan made his first major campaign address in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi in which he used the phrase "states rights" which everyone there understood to be code words for racial segregation.

Now, before you say, but states rights is the American federal system: yes, yes. I'm as big a states rightser as the next guy. But we all can be honest about politics as practiced (and still practiced) in the south.

The issue that produced the Religious Right was not abortion, but rather the belief that religious schools should be allowed to remain racially segregated. As noted above, Nixon's Southern Strategy was to use race as a wedge issue to pry bigoted Dixiecrats away from the Democratic party.

"The Republican Party has always been in the forefront of integration."

You really ought to consider standup, Greg! That's hilarious!

I don't think it's fair to attack Slade Mead for the acts of a country club that he has no control over. As a matter of correction as well, Slade Mead was a relatively apolitical registered independent before running for the senate as a Republican and he ran on a pro-education platform. Also, to make the jump that meeting at the country club automatically means an endorsement of the "segregation", as you call it, that goes on there is ridiculous. The nucleus club does not meet in the Men's Grill, and the venue is rather large. The immediate past chair was a female as well, so to even infer that they are sexist is both intellectually dishonest and wrong.

I don't care about Slade Mead or the tempest in a $40K teapot that is the Phoenix Country Club, but I think that Greg is in error when he implies that LBJ was a segregationist.

Well before he pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through Congress as President, LBJ worked hard as VP to further civil rights while running Kennedy's Committee on EEO, doing more than even Kennedy expected (or wanted him to do). Even as a Senator, he was one of only three Democrats who did not sign the so-called "Southern Manifesto" that condemned Brown v. Board of Education.

You can call Lyndon Baines Johnson a lot of things, but segregationist is NOT one of them.

I didn't know Richard Ruelas still had a job writing in this town. Fascinating...

The comments to this entry are closed.