GOP The Party Of Racism & Bigotry, Henceforth To Be Referred To As Trumpism

I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose - you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down ~ Bill Bennett (dob 7/31/1943) former Reagan education secretary. 9/28/2016 comment by Bennett from his nationally syndicated radio program, Morning in America.

It is time to dump Reaganomics and bring back the Great Society, but the rise of Donald Trump may present a problem in that regard. Trump has given voice to the racists on the Right (the silent bigot minority) and they won't go away if/when Trump loses. Although, that IS the direction it has been nudging toward for a long time. But now, under Trump, the racists are reinvigorated. They're LOVING Trump and his embrace of their hardcore bigotry.

The following is an excerpt from the 8/17/2016 airing of the Thom Hartmann Radio Program (edited for brevity and clarity by me). Thom, reacting to an African American caller saying "this party has been at the root of all the ills of our country" (and blaming Reaganomics), shares his thoughts on LBJ's Great Society and the enormous economic damage Reaganomics has done.

Thom: I'm absolutely agreeing with you. You pointed out the damage that Reaganomics did to communities of color in this country. We were just a generation into the Great Society. It was just starting to strengthen the Black middle class. And it was also strengthening the White middle class, and it was dealing with poverty in White communities. I would say that White working class communities have been devastated by Reaganomics as well.

This piece Justin Gest wrote for Politico called "Why Trumpism will outlast Trump" [shows why this is the case]. Gest says "I solicited white Americans' support for Donald Trump, but also for a hypothetical third party dedicated to stopping mass immigration, providing American jobs to American workers, preserving America's Christian heritage, and stopping the threat of Islam — essentially the platform of the UK's right-wing British National Party, adapted to the United States".

65% of White Americans said they agreed with it. Now, I think that probably the biggest thing they're agreeing with is providing American jobs to American workers. But the reality is that there is a large base of pissed off White people too. And they've seen their jobs devastated by Reaganomics, too. Donald Trump is pumping that With rage and he's directing a lot of that White/Right rage toward communities of color.

It's a variation of, back in the 40s, 50s and 60s when politicians like George Wallace and Pat Buchanan were saying those Black workers (back when the unions were segregated) are going to take your jobs. This is an old playbook. We've seen this before. Detroit used to be the richest city in American... [but it was destroyed by Reaganomics].

Caller: The car manufacturing jobs moved to the Southern states that have right to work laws. Their [Trump voters] anger is so misdirected and they're so easily manipulated by rich white people [the oligarchs]. (Note: comment paraphrased).

[End 8/17/2016 Thom Hartmann Program Excerpt]

This is scary stuff. As the article notes, Trump supporters are "more likely to be males under 40, of lower socioeconomic status, without a university education and ideologically conservative - in other words, the Republican Party's longtime base. ...this is not a phenomenon likely to pass quickly".

"Trumpism is Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George bush Republicanism" Thom Hartmann said after returning from the break. Pointing out the fact that, since Nixon's Southern Strategy, the GOP has been the home of the nation's racists.

Republican strategist Lee Atwater started the meme that cutting taxes and the social safety net would hurt the ni**ers and racist Whites should vote Republican for that reason. Prior to LBJ's signing of the 1957 Civil Rights Act, it was the Dems who were the party of the racists (SWTD #228). But that changed with Richard Nixon. He saw that the White racist votes were up for grabs, and he decided that racists should vote Republican (and that is how he'd win). The GOP has been a home to the racists ever since.

Many of the "Reagan Democrats" switched over to the GOP because, as Atwater (who advised RWR & GHWB) said (in 1981) "You start out in 1954 by saying, ni**er, ni**er, ni**er. By 1968 you can't say ni**er - that hurts you. Backfires. So [now] you're talking about cutting taxes... totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites".

"Boy, do we have an opportunity. We can get all these White Southerners who are hysterical about race to vote for insane economic policies that are going to destroy their own lives and make us [the ruling elites & the oligarchs] richer. Simply by talking to them in code. And we've got a new code, which is that government is bad because it helps Black people", Hartmann said later in program. Black people, Hispanic people, Muslim people and Gay people too. Democrats support these minorities and Republicans demonize them.

"The GOP has happily replaced the Democratic Party as a safe haven for bigotry" Bob Herbert (an African American journalist) wrote in a 10/6/2005 NYT article (the same article I pulled the Bennett and Attwater quotes from). Black people KNOW this, and this is why they vote Democrat in overwhelming majorities (94% of the black vote went to Johnson the year he signed the 1957 Civil Rights Act. In the Obama Vs Romney contest BHO garnered 95% of the Black vote).

Former RNC chair Michael Steel claimed that "the idea of the Southern Strategy is over. I announced that when I was chairman. We're not doing that anymore" (SWTD #274). But he didn't last long in that position. Largely because he spoke against the idea that the GOP would abandon the racists and go for a larger percentage of the Black and Latino vote, IMO (that, and because he's Black).

The GOP, despite the autopsy report that said they'd start losing presidential elections going forward if they didn't convince minority voters to vote Republican, have gone farther Right instead.

"Bill Bennett's twisted fantasies are a malignant outgrowth of our polarized past. Our job is to keep them from spreading into the future" Herbert wrote in 2005. But the malignancy is spreading into the future. Racism and bigotry has a new name; they can now be referred to using the term "Trumpism". Due to the attention paid to the White Nationalists and "Alt Right" by the GOP under Donald Trump. Proof racists and bigots should now be called "Trumpists" is his selection of Breitbart bigot Steve Bannon.

Alt Right Rejoices at Donald Trump's Steve Bannon Hire (Daily Beast article by Betsy Woodruff and Gideon Resnick, excerpt) Donald Trump's campaign is under new management - and his white nationalist fanboys love it. The campaign's new chief executive, Stephen Bannon, joins from Breitbart News - where he helped mainstream the ideas of white nationalists and resuscitate the reputations of anti-immigrant fear-mongers.

BTW, rememeber when Trump tweeted that pic of Hillary with a Star of David next to it? The one that was captioned "most corrupt candidate ever". Well, if Trump isn't an anti-semite, then why is he "turning his campaign over to someone who's best known for running a so-called news site that peddles divisive, at times racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic conspiracy theories" (this is a quote from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook excerpted from the Daily Beast).

Time for people to open their minds and see the GOP of today for what it is, not what they want it to be [1]. If you're a Conservative voter who is "holding your nose" and voting for Trump, KNOW who you're voting for! Initially I thought that Trump was only USING the racists (a Southern Strategy on steroids being what he thought could be his path to the White House. Or at least the GOP nomination). Now, given his past history, I'm thinking that Trump is totally a racist.

That history being the Trump apartment renters being screened by race ("one rental agent said Trump's father had told him not to rent to blacks"). A young DJT, who was president of the Trump business at the time, decided to go to court to fight the discrimination charges (Is Donald Trump Racist? Here's What the Record Shows).

Then there's Trump's reaction to the Central Park jogger attack, which was to pay for $85k for newspaper ads calling for the death penalty for the so-called Central Park Five. Five young African American males who were convicted of the "assault, rape, and sodomy of Trisha Meili, a female jogger, in NYC's Central Park, on 4/19/1989" (a crime it was later determined had been committed by another individual, and for which the 5 young men had been railroaded into confessing to by the cops).

But the Bannon hiring has changed my mind on this. Trump is now, and has always been a racist. Unless one was a sociopath, how could a person live with himself, doing what he's doing? I'm talking about pandering to the Alt Right to win the presidency (if it is enough to win, and I pray to God it isn't). Not that I don't think Trump isn't a sociopath. He may be. That's in addition to being a total narcissist, a misogynist, a bigot and a racist.

"I was from an area that was all Democrat. And, frankly, over the years, I have — and especially as I have gotten more and more involved — I have evolved" Trump said on the 8/23/2015 airing of Face The Nation. PolitiFact notes that "Trump has changed his party affiliation 5 times since registering as a Republican in Manhattan in 1987".

I not sure what he means by "evolved", but I do think this conspiracy theory that says the Democrat Trump was talked into running as a Republican by Bill Clinton so his wife could win... it's bullshit. Trump ran as a Republican because his racism is a PERFECT fit for the Republican party, NOT the Democratic party. Trump is a racist. His supporters are racists. Those who vote for him in November are racists or naive duped enablers of racism and bigotry. And remember that we're not talking about your average racists or bigots, but the absolute scum of the earth, the Alt Right/White Nationalists.

Something to keep in mind when you go to the ballot box in November. IF you vote for Trumpism, the fallout will BE ON YOU! You can't say later you weren't warned. I'm not talking about being warned by me (as nobody, or VERY few people will read this), but by Trump's actions. He's a racist and he's making it very clear that he's a racist. His decision to cozy up to the Breitbart bigots being proof positive of this.

Footnote
[1] My modification of a comment from Sid Andrews, left in response to my 1/22/2014 commentary Highly Dubious LBJ Quote & What It Says About Those Who Eagerly Believe It (commentary that, according to Blogger stats, is my #1 most popular post). BTW, LJB was a racist and he did use the N-word. But he, I would argue, was a product of his times and place of birth. Not that this excuses his racism. But he did sign the legislation because he knew it was the right thing to do. And despite knowing that signing the 1957 CRA would cost the Democratic Party the South "for a generation".

Video: Footage from a Donald Trump rally in Phoenix AZ 6/18/2016 featuring Trump supporter Zachary Fisher who screamed "...build that fucking wall. For me! Trump! I love Trump!". "Fisher also has the number 43 tattooed beneath his left armpit. According to the Anti-Defamation League, the number is used by members of the racist skinhead group Supreme White Alliance". (1:41).

SWTD #347

Ronald Kessler Tells Newsmax Hillary Clinton Indictment Likely B4 General Election

A virulent strain of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which scientists and Republicans thought had been wiped out at the end of the last century, is now afflicting millions of conservative Americans. Some Republicans so detest Hillary Clinton they are badly underestimating how likely she is, at this point in the campaign, to be America's 45th president ~ Mark Halperin, from a 10/26/2015 Bloomberg Politics article.

According to Wikipedia "Kessler's writings have been criticized in publications such as the Washington Post and The Week for overt partisanship and a lack of journalistic rigor". This HRC "indictment likely" BS falls into that category, IMO. And, YES, I absolutely think the suggestion that HRC will be indicted is total bullshit. It will NOT happen (I predict).

As for Kessler's partisanship, I can think of one other example. (The 73yo) Kessler is the one who reported that when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he said the reason was to get "niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years" (SWTD #228).

Although what he actually said (according to his press secretary, Bill Moyers) was "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come". I think that worry (which has been proven correct) is proof that LBJ's motivations were NOT to trick Black people into voting Democratic (as Republicans contend) but because it was "to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country [and] to close the springs of racial poison". These were LBJ's words in an address to the nation upon his signing of the legislation (which was broadcast live on 7/2/1964).

Given the fact that Rightwingers love this "quote", as it "proves" that the racist LBJ's motivations were to trick African Americans into voting Democratic, HELL YES, I've got to wonder if Kessler "reported" this for partisan reasons.

And I've wondering if Mr. Kessler reported that Hillary is "likely" to be indicted (over her emails) for partisan reasons. Especially considering which candidate he praised in his remarks (as reported by NewsMax).

Veteran journalist Ronald Kessler tells Newsmax TV that Hillary Clinton will likely be indicted before the general election for using a private email server to conduct classified government business as secretary of state — but will likely be pardoned by President Barack Obama. "Definitely before November. Possibly in a month or two", Kessler said Friday [4/15/2016] on "The Steve Malzberg Show". "By definition, putting classified information on an unsecured server is gross negligence. You saw President Obama trying to make excuses for her. I think he's leading up to giving a pardon to Hillary, but there's no question. She will be indicted. ... Jim Comey, the FBI director, is a man of great integrity. I think [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch is as well ... not political in the way Eric Holder was. No question she will be indicted". Kessler - a former Washington Post reporter... said that even if Clinton is pardoned, the damage will have been done. "Either way, she's going to be besmirched and it's possible that [Vice President Joe] Biden might step in," he told Malzberg. Kessler also praised Donald Trump as a candidate who would be very different operating in the White House than how he appears on the campaign trail. "People don't understand about Donald that there are two Donald Trumps. One is the guy you see on TV who makes these provocative comments to get attention", Kessler said. (NewsMax 4/15/2016).

Kessler is a former reporter for WP, but (what the article above failed to disclose) is that "from 2006 to 2012, Kessler was chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax". This would be the "conservative website and magazine" that "has continued to stoke birther fantasies" and supports Donald Trump for president.

With stories such as "Pat Buchanan to GOP: Support Trump Now or Lose to Hillary" I don't know how anyone couldn't conclude that they are far, FAR Right. Up there with World Net Daily.

Steve Malzberg, btw, is a wingnut who said "the president [Barack Obama] can be perceived and has been perceived by many as being an Islamist sympathizer by his actions [and that] most of his Middle East policies favor the Muslim Brotherhood" (Newsmax's Steve Malzberg Uses CNN Appearance To Legitimize Questioning Obama's Faith, Citizenship, 9/20/2015).

So, regarding Kessler... "birds of a feather flock together" could apply here, I think (Rightwing nutjobs associate with others of the same ilk). Certainly this HRC indictment being "likely/definitely" is nutty. Which I say because it isn't f*cking going to happen.

Past cases suggest Hillary won't be indicted (article excerpt) A Politico review of dozens of recent federal investigations for mishandling of classified records suggests that it's highly unlikely — but not impossible. The examination, which included cases spanning the past two decades, found some with parallels to Clinton's use of a private server for her emails, but — in nearly all instances that were prosecuted — aggravating circumstances that don't appear to be present in Clinton's case. The relatively few cases that drew prosecution almost always involved a deliberate intent to violate classification rules as well as some add-on element: An FBI agent who took home highly sensitive agency records while having an affair with a Chinese agent; a Boeing engineer who brought home 2000 classified documents and whose travel to Israel raised suspicions; a National Security Agency official who removed boxes of classified documents and also lied on a job application form. A former senior FBI official told Politico that when it comes to mishandling of classified information the Justice Department has traditionally turned down prosecution of all but the most clear-cut cases. (4/11/2016 article by Josh Gerstein).

"There's no question" HRC will be indicted sez Kessler, but that definitive an assertion is total bullplop. "Highly unlikely" (as the Politico article says) is more like it. Oh, and that Kessler suggests Biden might be the Democratic nominee and praises Trump (dismissing Trump's racism as "provocative comments") is proof enough for me that he's a total wingnut. As opposed to a "veteran journalist".

Which explains why he lied about LBJ (although that is a qualified "lie"; see SWTD #273). Also, why he's lying about Hillary being indicted.

Although, if HRC were indicted, that would throw the nomination (and presidency) to Bernie Sanders. Given the fact that Biden is definitely NOT going to "step in" (to suggest he might is pure idiocy) and neither Trump nor Cruz have much of a chance against either Hillary or Bernie. So, given this, I (as a Sanders supporter) might be able to get behind this HRC indictment notion? Nah. Why even consider that, when the chances are next to nil? Not when it's more fun to make fun of those who suffer from insane delusions regarding the Clintons (SWTD #313).

Mark Halperin (the game changer who called president Obama a dick), BTW, is absolutely correct about how virulent this strain of Clinton derangement syndrome is. Ronald Kessler being but one among the millions of those who are afflicted. Although, Halperin is dead wrong about CDS having been "wiped out at the end of the last century". The last century ended on 12/31/2000 and Hillary Clinton ran her first presidential campaign in 2008 against Obama, then served as Obama's Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 (and during ALL of this time CDS was alive and well).

SWTD #333

On LBJ "Quote" Via NewsMax's Ronald Kessler Concerning Tricking Black Folks Into Voting Democratic PLUS A Libertarian Blogger's Factually Inaccurate Commentary Re Thom Hartmann Kessler "Suggestion"

Johnson was a man of his time, and bore those flaws as surely as he sought to lead the country past them ~ Quote from a 4/11/2014 article "Lyndon Johnson was a civil rights hero. But also a racist" by Adam Serwer. Via MSNBC.

One of the primary things the 36th President of the United States (1963–1969), Lyndon Baines Johnson, is known for is signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. As Johnson feared, signing this legislation meant the Southern vote was lost to the Democratic Party for a generation or more. Because LBJ signed these bills is why the South is solidly Republican today. Republicans - as well as Conservatives - HATE the fact that LBJ signing this legislation resulted in a flip from Republicans being the party that "freed the slaves" and the Democrats being the racists to the Republicans representing the racists and African Americans overwhelmingly voting Democratic.

Quotes At Odds

This anger regarding Democrats and the African American vote explains why Conservatives, when the topic comes up, often/usually proffer a specific LBJ "quote" that has him saying he signed Civil Rights legislation in order to trick Black folks into voting for Democrats.

Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years". (Source).

The source of this supposed quote journalist/author Ronald Kessler (who currently writes for the Rightwing site, NewsMax), via his book Inside the White House.

When I blogged about this on 1/22/2014 (SWTD #228) I referred to the quote as "highly dubious". This was my conclusion based (in part) on LBJ's White House Press Secretary Bill Moyers reflections on LBJ's thoughts following his signing of the legislation.

Bill Moyers: When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come", he said. (as quoted on page 167 of the 2004 book, Moyers on America).

I said "highly dubious" because these two secondhand quotes obviously don't square with one another. If Civil Rights only amounted to "a little something" but was "not enough to make a difference" then why would LBJ (according to Moyers) worry about delivering the South to the Republicans? And if it was "not enough to make a difference", then what of the claim that LBJ signed the legislation "because he thought it was politically expedient"? [1].

Are we to believe that LBJ signed the legislation because it would cause (or trick) African Americans into voting Democratic (and therefore signing the legislation was "politically expedient") but that he would also worry about "deliver[ing] the South to the Republican party for a long time to come"?

Either LBJ cravenly signed the legislation because he believed it would be advantageous for him to do so (because Blacks would be tricked into "voting Democratic for the next two hundred years") or he signed it for the right reasons KNOWING doing so would "[deliver] the South to the Republican party for a long time to come". Believing both quotes (the one provided by Kessler and the other via Moyers) accurately represent LBJ's reasoning and worries is illogical.

Was It Kessler or Moyers Who Lied?

So LBJ used the N-word a lot and was obviously fairly racist. He was also "a man of his time, and bore those flaws as surely as he sought to lead the country past them"... The point is he championed the bill and he signed it - angering the racist Southern Democrats and losing the Southern vote for the Democrats. So much for "political expediency".

This is why I don't believe the quote from Ronald Kessler's book. Although I do not believe this necessarily means Ronald Kessler lied. Despite working for the far-Right NewsMax and authoring a book titled In The President's Secret Service. A book that some describe as "the juiciest gossip he could get... mixed... with a rambling list of [Secret Service Agent] complaints".

I think he might have lied given that resume. More likely? The quote might be genuine, but the sentiment was not. As the following rated "best" comment from Reddit's "Ask Historians", which "aims to provide serious, academic-level answers to questions about history", explains.

...the quote is attributed to LBJ in Ronald Kessler's book, and was supposedly said to two southern governors. But in the absence of a reliable objective record of that quotation, among the best sources to answer your question are the presidential recordings made during the Johnson administration, which I've listened to at length during my undergrad studies. Several hundred conversations were recorded dealing with issues of racial politics and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, a quote like [the one from Kessler's book] is not found in any of these recordings... But they do provide excellent insight into how LBJ talked about these issues in private. For example, it is simply undisputed that LBJ did use the prevailing southern racial slurs of the time... That being said, for a rural-born white Texan in the late 1960s, the collected recordings show that LBJ had some astonishingly progressive views on race in America, but his nomenclature leaves something to be desired. It is also worth noting that LBJ knew his audience, and would speak differently to a Georgia state legislator than, say, a Connecticut governor. It's very difficult to tell when LBJ is putting on an act for audience or when he's speaking with his "true" voice. Additionally, I tend to detect a bit of self-aware irony in some of LBJ's discussion of these issues. I think that's key to understanding how LBJ could say the most radically progressive statements while simultaneously using a racial slur. ...it seems unlikely that we will ever know if those exact words were uttered... [but] ...It's the kind of thing LBJ might say to a Dixiecrat to convince them not to oppose the CRA. Thus, if anyone got "tricked" over the CRA, it wasn't black America - it was Southern conservative democrats. In other words... while the quote might be genuine, the sentiment was not. ...I am convinced that LBJ is putting on an act to these two southern governors to quiet their rancor over his pursuit of the CRA... that this single quote, robbed of its context, would be used by some to imply that LBJ was a heartless racist manipulator [is a] notion that I think the historical record soundly disproves. (Excerpt from Reddit by x--BANKS--x).

Sure, this reply might be easy to dismiss as "opinion", but I think the argument is solid and I agree with it. Solid because, as the Reddit author points out, the sentiment contained in the quote (from Kessler's book) is inconsistent with past comments... those that were recorded for posterity. LBJ championed and signed the CRA to "to eliminate the last vestiges of injustice in our beloved country [and] to close the springs of racial poison"... as he stated when he spoke to the American people in a televised address after signing the legislation.

Re Libertarian Blogger Who Claims Thom Hartmann Says Kessler Fabricated LBJ Quote

This is the claim made by Libertarian blogger Willis Hart (AKA Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart or WTNPH) in a commentary on his blog Contra O'Reilly...

Willis Hart: On Partisan Stooge, Thom Hartmann, Suggesting that a 2-Time Winner of the Peabody Award and an Individual Who Has Consistently Criticized Presidents From Both Parties Would Risk His Entire Career and Reputation to Create Out of Whole Cloth a Quote Simply to Tarnish a Fellow (Lyndon Baines Johnson) Who Everybody Already Knew was a Racist... Exceedingly bizarre and yet par for the course. (10/22/2014 AT 4:05pm).

What is TRULY "exceedingly bizarre" is Willis attributing (and slamming) Lefty radio talker Thom Hartmann for something he absolutely NEVER said. I assume that Willis took a look at my previous post on this subject (SWTD #228), misread what I wrote, and then decided (based on his misreading of my commentary) to label Thom Hartmann, a man who has demonstrated an extremely high level of integrity, shamelessly as a "partisan stooge" (SWTD #66).

Only because Willis THINKS Hartmann said Kessler lied in defending a president Willis hates. For "subsidizing poverty"... which is what Willis idiotically argues the Great society did (SWTD #218).

I did do a Google search to see if I could find such a statement by Mr. Hartmann... but, nothing. So I presume Willis glanced at my prior commentary and misread A CALLER mentioning the quote came from Kessler's book as Thom Hartmann saying Kessler lied. I did link to it in a comment on the rAtional nAtion blog, and Willis saw my comment and posted a reply.

But Willis is wrong, as this summary of the exchange from the 10/23/2013 airing of the Thom Hartmann Program proves (as quoted in SWTD #228).

Caller: [the quote] has never been corroborated by anyone else. [Kessler] is the only person who ever alleged that LBJ said that... that I can find. Thom Hartmann: [it] doesn't make any sense that LBJ would say such a thing... it's not how he spoke; it's not how he thought; and it certainly wasn't his motivation. ... Thanks for sharing that with us.

Perhaps the argument could be made that THE CALLER implied Kessler lied - although all he actually said was that he could not find the quote verified by anyone else. And Thom Hartmann only said "Thanks for sharing that with us". But in the mind of Willis Hart that's the same as Thom Hartmann out and out accusing Kessler of fabricating a quote? Bizarre indeed.

More Questionable "Facts" from The Libertarian Blogger

Concerning the Hartster's reply to my comment about the LBJ quote from Kessler's book, Willis submitted the following diatribe...

Willis Hart: BS (the same guy who accused Nixon and Reagan of treason on far more flimsy grounds). LBJ said this on Air Force One to not one but two governors and Kessler has it on tape... And take a listen to this from your racist hero who consistently opposed civil rights legislation (including the 1957 Civil Rights Act initially) and who only did a 180 when he decided to run for President [Link to YouTube Video]. My God, even MSNBC has conceded that Johnson was a racist [Link (10/22/2014 AT 02:23:00 AM EDT & 10/22/2014 AT 02:37:00 AM EDT).

Who are these two governors and where is the tape? I presume the governors are not named (conveniently), because I found the quote easily, but NOTHING in regards to who these governors might be. Likely Dixicrats LBJ was attempting to bamboozle into supporting (or at least not opposing) him when it came to the CRA.

And I've never see anything concerning a audiotape, which I find odd. If it existed WHY would there be so much discussion regarding whether the quote is genuine or not? If there were a tape we would KNOW it was genuine. Instead Willis links to a YouTube video I've heard before (a commenter who responded to my last LBJ commentary posted a link to it).

As for the "My God, even MSNBC has conceded that Johnson was a racist" (Willis' link is to the article I quote at the top of my commentary)... Willis misreads what I wrote AGAIN! I said the quote was fake and that "LBJ never said he was going to trick N-words into voting Democratic". I did not say LBJ was not racist. But Willis calls BS on that "assertion" anyway. My God.

I will, however, walk back my referring to the quote as "fake"... a smidge. It might be fake or it might have been an example of code-switching (speaking to racists using racist language), but it absolutely did not represent how he viewed the "Ni**er bill" (the CRA).

In conservative quarters, Johnson's racism – and the racist show he would put on for Southern segregationists – is presented as proof of the Democratic conspiracy to somehow trap black voters with, to use Mitt Romney's terminology, "gifts" handed out through the social safety net. But if government assistance were all it took to earn the permanent loyalty of generations of voters then old white people on Medicare would be staunch Democrats. So at best, that assessment is short sighted and at worst, it subscribes to the idea that blacks are predisposed to government dependency. (excerpt from MSNBC article quoted at the top of this commentary).

That African Americans are predisposed to government dependency is obviously a racist argument. Is Willis making this argument? I asked but he did not answer. But Conservatives think all (or most) poor people are lazy and want "unearned gifts" so they can continue in their slothful ways. So, it isn't necessarily racist, but it is still pretty damn insulting if you ask me - to suggest Black people have been tricked into voting Democratic. And the blogger Willis Hart definitely suggests this (i.e. his "subsiding poverty" BS).

The Party of the Real Racists (Currently)

In any case, it's obvious Conservatives and Libertarian continue to attack LBJ for signing the CRA because they KNOW African Americans vote Democratic because the Democratic Party is on their side. In this regard they are SMARTER than many poor and middle class Whites who vote against their own best interest (by voting Republican).

But the TRUTH is these Conservative arguments which attempt to strip LBJ of this accomplishment are all bullpucky. He didn't sign it for "political expediency" or to "trick" Black folks into voting Democratic, as LBJ's signing of the legislation HURT the Democratic Party by delivering delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.

But Republicans continue to argue that it's Democratic politicians who are the "real racists". The Kessler LBJ "quote" their "proof" that Blacks are being tricked into voting Democrat by giving them "a little something" (voting rights and welfare "gifts") in order to "quiet them down"... and get them dependent on the Democratic Party. But this is a racist argument, as I already pointed out.

And it is the GOP that embraced the racists after the Democrats abandoned them. Initially with Nixon's Southern Strategy - done for political expediency, unlike LBJ. And continuing to this day with their state-based disenfranchisement strategies (SWTD #171 and SWTD #172). Made possible with an assist from the Conservative SCOTUS judges.

So, LBJ a racist? Sure, but he also ended the racism of the Democratic Party, for which he absolutely deserves credit. And not for reasons of "political expediency"... that was Richard Nixon who decided the way for the Republicans to win was to embrace the racists. And the GOP is still embracing them. Proof is their going whole hog with the disenfranchisement route while lying that they're acting to prevent "rampant voter fraud" (which is a myth).

In short, that is what matters. The GOP could join with the Democrats and reject racism. But they would suffer as the Democrats suffered after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Democrats did it - bit the bullet and did the right thing - but the Republicans aren't willing to. In fact, they've done the exact wrong thing. And every indication is that they intend on continuing to do the wrong thing for as long as they possibly can.

For example, NJ governor Chris Christie recently urged voters to elected Republican governors so the GOP will be in charge of the "voting mechanism" in 2016. Obviously Mr. Christie sees his path to the White House as one that will require the GOP maximizing their cheating.

Political Expediency Then A Change of Course

As for LBJ's previous opposition to Civil Rights legislation - this is true. From 1937 when LBJ was first elected to the US House of Representatives until early 1957, Johnson consistently voted against any such legislation. But later in 1957 he reversed course.

President Barack Obama: On one level, it's not surprising that anyone elected in Johnson's era from a former member-state of the Confederate States of America resisted civil-rights proposals into and past the 1950s. But given Johnson's later roles spearheading civil-rights measures into law including acts approved in 1957, 1960 and 1964, we wondered whether Johnson's change of course was so long in coming. (an excerpt from Obama's address during the Civil Rights Summit at the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library on April 10, 2014).

Obama also noted the following concerning Johnson's early career in politics...

Barack Obama: ...he was ambitious, very ambitious, a young man in a hurry to plot his own escape from poverty and to chart his own political career. And in the Jim Crow South, that meant not challenging convention.

So maybe it was "politically expedient" to not challenge convention because he would have had no career in politics otherwise... but eventually he did the right thing. Even though it proved NOT to be politically expedient for the Democratic Party. But, even *if* you believe Johnson's flip was for expediency, consider this... which is better - doing the right thing for political expediency as Johnson did (if you believe that was his reasoning), or doing the wrong thing for political expediency as Nixon did with the Southern Strategy? [2].

My conclusion is that I'm sticking with calling the quote fake with the caveat that, if he did say it, it is an example of code-switching, in that he was telling these "two governors" what they wanted to hear. Because it's total BS that LBJ would speak of "tricking" Blacks in voting Democratic and then worry about what he did benefiting the Republicans. It's completely illogical. This said, however, while acknowledging that LBJ was pretty racist. But also a Civil Rights hero.

Video Description: President Lyndon Johnson using the "N" word. This video, which WTNPH links to in his comment above, is audio of LBJ on the phone in the White House - and NOT the "has it on tape" audio Kessler *might* have recorded on Air Force One (0:44).

Footnotes
[1] "LBJ... only promoted and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act because he thought it was politically expedient. He disagreed violently and kept it a secret"... according to "The Relentless Conservative". Quote from a 8/24/2011 Huffington Post article, "The Democratic Party's Two-Facedness of Race Relations".
[2] Nixon quote re the Southern Strategy... "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats".

SWTD #273, wDel #71. See also SWTD #228

Apology Owed By Spinning Liar Re LBJ/Tonkin Vs GWb/WMD

Fifty years on we know the trigger for war with Vietnam was a fiction. Will it be another 50 before we know the truth about Iraq? ~ DD Guttenplan, writing for The Guardian in a 8/2/2014 piece titled "When Presidents Lie To Make A War".

Many "love letters" from a blogger named Willis Hart concerning yours truly on his idiotic Libertarian blog as of late. And by "love letters" I mean lies targeted at someone this blogger dislikes intensely.

But the disliking is mutual. Specifically due to the lies this dude spins, such as the following...

Willis Hart: wd is one of those people who claims to be against war, war crimes, and empire but who constantly spins for then when its his fellow's doing (the asshole even spun for LBJ and Vietnam which was quite possibly the most moronic war of them all). (7/30/2014 AT 9:40pm).

I never said a damn thing in support of the Vietnam war, you liar. And, yes, it was one of the most moronic wars of them all. Until preznit bush came along, that is. As for my "spinning" about LBJ, all I said was that "whether or not LBJ lied is, in my opinion, a tad more nebulous that the question of whether or not George W. bush lied in order to pressure Congress into allowing him to invade Iraq".

Initially I do not believe LBJ lied about what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin, although I do believe he latched onto the initial reports of what happened and used that to justify the actions he (and Robert McNamara) wanted to take. And, then when he found out the initial reports were inaccurate? Then he did keep that info under wraps. So, yes, he did lie. Later.

That would be a little different than what bush did, which was to lie right away, even though he knew the truth from the get go concerning WMD that Iraq did not have. And THAT was the point I was trying to make to the Hartster. That the lies of bush were worse for this reason. That is even *if* Iraq having WMD was a good justification for invasion (which they did not, but assuming they did). I say no.

But Willis rewrites the discussion that took place on his as me "spinning" for LBJ and him holding firm to his principals (the a-hole says he's "intellectually honest" while I'm the MOST "intellectually dishonest" person he's ever encountered).

Willis Hart: And, yes, just like a lot of the conservatives did with Bush and Iraq. (7/30/2014 AT 9:41pm).

What is ironic about this comment is that Willis is one of those conservatives. In regards to the lying about WMD, Willis spun and Willis spun HARD.

Willis Hart: I recognize now that Sadam pretty much had to go. I just wish that President Bush hadn't de-Baathified the country and disbanded the military in that those 2 things really strengthened the Iranian bastards. (6/28/2013 AT 8:39pm).

Notice that he basically agrees that Iraq needed to be invaded and Saddam removed, but only starts disagreeing when it comes to the "de-baathification" and disbanding the military (things that happened AFTER we invaded). Previously he said he was against the war, but would absolutely not call bush a war criminal and insisted (wrongly) that bush never lied.

Willis Hart: you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero. (7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm).

But there MOST CERTAINLY IS a paper trail. And the George W bush most certainly lied.

First, the lie...

In remarks preceding the invasion by one day (6/21/2003), the former president said, "our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people". (Wikipedia page: Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, footnote #93).

And now the proof/paper trail that proves bush was lying...

The invasion of Iraq was ordered by ex-preznit bush on 3/20/2003 AFTER the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked". Mr. ElBaradei's team conducted 247 inspections at 147 sites and found "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites". The IAEA report went on to say that "Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990... no longer had a centrifuge program, [and that] Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997". (Excerpt from a 5/23/2013 SWTD post titled "Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-President bush's WMD Lies").

The IAEA told bush via written report (PAPER TRAIL) that there was no WMD. Yet Willis defended the ex-preznit on this matter. While sticking his fingers in his ears and humming (figuratively) so he was didn't have to hear about any proof of bush lying. At one point he even said he was convinced that "Saddam had to go". Spinning? In my opinion... absolutely.

But now (apparently) the hypocrite has changed his mind? The following excerpt from a Willis post seems to suggest he has. In this instance he blogs about the Zimmermann Telegram.

Willis Hart: ...the fact that the American people bought this shit (a la the Maine, a la the Gulf of Tonkin, a la WMD, etc.)... (7/26/2014 AT 4:00pm).

Here Willis argues that the Zimmermann Telegram (a 1917 diplomatic proposal from Germany for Mexico to join the Central Powers, in the event of the United States entering World War I on the side of the Entente Powers) was used by president Woodrow Wilson as a rationale for US involvement in WWI. Willis says this is a lie comparable to The Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin and... wait for it... the LIE by bush concerning WMD that Iraq did not have!

Although, I should note that Willis does not call the idea that Mexico might go to war with us a "lie", he calls the telegram a "rationale". Indeed, the telegram was published and the public was angered, but Wilson did not suggest Mexico was going to attack us. The fact is that (in 1917) "as a direct consequence of the Zimmermann telegram" we recognized the government of Venustiano Carranza (who came to power via a 1914 revolution) "in order to ensure Mexican Neutrality in WWI".

Is publishing a telegram and then using public outrage to get us involved in WWI a "lie"? Surely not a deception on the same level as the other (actual) lies Willis mentions. Although I don't know if the situation with the Maine qualifies either. Seems to me to be another case where confusion about what happened was used by some to get the American public to accept war.

Of the bunch I would say that bush's declaration that we were invading to "disarm" Saddam is the CLEAREST cut example of a president outright and bold-faced lying. And with the commentary I quote above, Willis is (ostensibly) acknowledging the fact that bush did lie. If so, then I say Willis owes me an apology. Or at least an acknowledgment that he's retracting his previous statements like the one I quoted above regarding there being "no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public".

As well as other statements that are now at odds with his (apparent) new stance regarding bush lying about WMD. Statements like the following from 5/6/2012...

Willis Hart: And I don't even really dislike the guy [George W. bush]. I just wish that he had listened more to Powell and less to fellows like Wolfowitz and Perle. And in terms of his motivation, I don't know, I'm not a mind-reader like wd. In Thomas Ricks's book, "Fiasco" (which wasn't exactly a flattering read for Mr. Bush), he states that the regime change advocates were actually LOSING the debate early on and that it wasn't until 9/11 that guys like Perle and Wolfowitz finally started getting some traction. If you were to force me to give an opinion on this, I would say that the decision to invade Iraq was probably more a function of group-think (I believe that this was Scott McClellan's assessment in his book, too) than it was the result of some sinister, diabolical cabal. I'm sure, though, that wd would disagree. (Link).

As well as this one from 8/1/2012...

Willis Hart: There was at least SOME ambiguity regarding WMD. (Link).

If Willis is retracting these earlier statements - then I think he needs to own up and show some intellectual honesty. Admit he was wrong instead of trying to paper over his past incorrectness by falsely painting himself as "consistent", which is something he PRIDES himself on... his SUPPOSED "consistency". I mean, back when I was making my case that bush lied (on Willis' blog - before he banned me) Willis responded by saying it was "almost as if he's got some sort of sick pathology about Bush".

I had a "sick pathology" in regards to the ex-preznit because I - well before Willis did - acknowledged the truth about bush's lying about WMD to scare the public into accepting an unnecessary war? F*ck you Willis. And f*ck you again for continuing to lie about my positions on these matters. I do not CLAIM to be "against war, war crimes, and empire" but "constantly spin" when "my fellow" is the guilty one. I'm against these things, PERIOD. No matter what party the president belongs to.

LBJ lied and kept us in, and escalated Vietnam, costing many American lives in a pointless war. bush lied about WMD and many innocent Iraqis were killed, many American soldiers were killed and maimed, and trillions of dollars were wasted (much of which went into the pockets of bush cronies. A fact I have YET to see Willis acknowledge!).

So, while it is good that Willis is now acknowledging the fact that bush lied about WMD - that he presents himself as "consistent" on this matter is utter BULLSHIT. And that he lies about my positions (to distract his readers from his inconsistencies on this topic?) is deplorable. And, so long as this lying about yours truly is celebrated on the blog of the lying Willis, I will NOT cease irritating him (downgraded from harassing him, I guess). So long as I notice Willis lying about me - and encouraging others to lie - the irritating will continue.

As for how long we might have to wait before it is know that bush lied us into Iraq? We knew the minute the falsehood about why he was invading Iraq escaped his lips. Although, for some of us, the getting to the point where the truth could be accepted took a little longer. And, it is, of course, not AT ALL widely accepted that bush intentionally deceived.

50 years before the truth concerning bush's WMD untruths are established fact? Perhaps. I suppose we have to wait for him to die first. Accepting uncomfortable truths seems to be easier if the truth to be accepted concerns someone who is no longer with us.

Video1: A clip from the documentary The Fog of War by Errol Morris. In this YouTube video Robert McNamara says "It was just confusion. And events afterward showed that our judgement that we had been attacked that day was wrong. It didn't happen". (3:33).

Video2: Official trailer from Errol Morris film The Unknown Known, a documentary focusing on Iraq war liar Donald Rumsfeld... bush's McNamara? (2:56).

See Also: Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-Preznit bush's WMD Lies (SWTD #154) 6/23/2013.

SWTD #267, wDel #70.

Highly Dubious LBJ Quote & What It Says About Those Who Eagerly Believe It

When he signed the act he was euphoric, but late that very night I found him in a melancholy mood as he lay in bed reading the bulldog edition of the Washington Post with headlines celebrating the day. I asked him what was troubling him. "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come", he said ~ Bill Moyers, on page 167 of his 2004 book, Moyers on America. Bill D. Moyers (dob 6/5/1934) is an American journalist and liberal public commentator who served as White House Press Secretary in the Lyndon Baines Johnson administration from 1965 to 1967.

Conservatives hate that African Americans vote Democratic in overwhelming majorities. Obviously, in their minds, the reason for this must be that they were (and are still being) tricked and/or are lazy. Offer Black people goodies and get them hooked on those goodies. Then they'll have to keep voting Democratic... that or get jobs, work hard and provide for themselves. But, if you're thinking that sounds racist (that an entire group of people could be manipulated in this manner), well, the Cons and Libertarians are quite eager to point out that the reverse is actually true... it is actually the Democrats who are racist!

In fact, the very president who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was himself "a bigot and a racist of high order" according to Libertarian blogger Willis Hart who repeats a supposed quote from LBJ in a post on his blog...

Willis Hart: Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963... "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference... I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years". (12/31/2013 at 8:42pm).

Whether or not the quote is authentic is questionable, but I'll get to that later. First an excerpt from a political talk radio program in which the host, Thom Hartmann, discusses racism with Jennifer Burke of the "Tea Party News Network". Jennifer Burke, herself an African American, subscribes to the "tricked" theory to explain why a majority of African Americans vote Democratic, as well as the claim that it is actually the Democrats who are racist.

Excerpt from the discussion between Thom and Jennifer on the 10/23/2013 airing of Thom's program as follows (Thom does his set up and then introduces Jennifer 2:20 into the first hour & I pick up the conversation at the 5:17 mark)...

Jennifer Burke: It amazes me that the Left tries to take their racist history... the KKK was formed by the Democrats... Thom Hartmann: Oh, the Democrats were definitely the party of racism in the early 20th century, absolutely. And they changed in the 1960s, and, as I'm sure you know, in the 1970s Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy was to reach out to Southern racists. That's why, when Ronald Reagan was nominated to be president, the first speech that he gave as a presidential candidate; his first official speech was in Philadelphia MI where those three Civil Rights workers were murdered. And he gave a speech about State's Rights, wink, wink. JB: So, State's Rights now equals racism, so Ronald Reagan was a racist? TH: It certainly did in 1980. In 1980 there still was an ongoing effort to roll back the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. Yes. JB: You mean the Civil Rights Act that the Democrats tried to stop from happening? TH: No, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that the Democrats passed overwhelmingly, Lyndon Johnson signed; and that's how the Democrats lost the South. He told Bill Moyers at the time he signed it that the Democratic Party would lose the South for a generation. Turns out it's been two generations. [Thom next points out that, although the Democrats used to pander to the racists, now it is the Republicans who do, and that a large number of racists have gravitated to the Tea party. Thom then asks Jennifer Burke what she thinks the Tea Party should do about it]. JB: I have no idea what you're talking about. ... I've been a member of the Tea Party since it's inception, and I've not seen that. Now, what I have seen is a history in the Democrat Party of having a control factor under the guise of compassion for Black people. It was Lyndon Johnson that said, and it holds true to this day, and these are his words, during his Great Society push... "I'll have those niggers voting Democrat for the next few hundred years". And, that is the stronghold that they have had; that guise of compassion; let us take care of you... TH: I have no knowledge of Lyndon Johnson ever saying that. JB: Anybody that tries to get them [the Democrats] to see beyond skin color and to see beyond a certain circumstance; that government does not have to be the answer. And, if you ask me, Democrats constantly pushing big government as the answer to everybody's problems ... "generational welfare" is racist... TH: Well, it's not always productive, I'll grant you that. Lyndon Johnson did cut poverty in half in the United States, both in the poor Black and the poor White communities, and set the stage for an emerging Black middle class in the 70s, 80s and 90s. JB: And how are Blacks faring under Obama now? Black employment is... [Thom agrees with Jennifer Burke's statement about Black unemployment, but he correctly blames Reaganomics. Then, as the music indicating that the segment is nearly over has started to play, Thom says goodbye to Jennifer, plugs her writings on Teaparty.net, and thanks her for being on the program... but she has already hung up. The segment ends at 9 minutes & 45 seconds into hour 1 of the program].

That Jennifer Burke is African American does not make the suggestion that Black people vote Democratic because they've been tricked by racist White Democratic politicians not itself racist. Escaping poverty can be extremely difficult, and although welfare can sometimes be "problematic" as Thom points out, the solution isn't to get rid of it. That suggestion, that welfare actually "subsidizes" poverty is self-serving nonsense (this is an actual argument that Mr. LB has made previously).

And that Democrats do not have genuine compassion (and belief that we are our brother's keeper), but that it is only a "guise" maintained for political benefit - is also self-serving claptrap. That government has a RESPONSIBILITY to all the people (including the poor ones) is one Democrats take seriously. "Buying votes" is how Conservatives and Libertarians characterize it because they see their responsibility as being only to the class that funds their campaigns; the wealthy.

The poor, in the minds of the "fiscally Conservative" deserve no representation because they cannot afford it. What we need to do is help the rich and the poor should be satisfied with what is "trickled down" onto them.

Also, as pointed out by a caller to Thom's show later in the hour, the LBJ quote is suspect; the source being an author and journalist who currently writes for NewsMax, of all places! (a Conservative propaganda machine that has a history of lying about Democratic Presidents).

What follows is from hour 1 of the same Thom Hartmann broadcast quoted above, this time beginning at the 37:14 mark...

Caller: ...the woman who gave a quote from LBJ; saying that the Democratic Party was going to have, quote, the "niggers voting Democratic for the next 100 years...". ... That quote can be found all over the internet on Rightwing blogs, and it can be traced back to one book by a very Rightwing author, Ronald Kessler, and it's in a book called Inside the White House. And [the quote] has never been corroborated by anyone else. He is the only person who ever alleged that LBJ said that, that I can find. TH: To say that trying to eliminate poverty in the United States, when the vast majority of people in poverty in the United States were [and are] White, was going to, somehow win the Democratic Party the Black vote for 200 years; that doesn't make any sense that LBJ would say such a thing... it's not how he spoke; it's not how he thought; and it certainly wasn't his motivation. But it has clearly brainwashed some young Conservatives. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Those brainwashed include some older Libertarians as well (as illustrated by the excerpt from the Hartster's blog above, as well as this comment from the blog of Ayn Rand devotee rAtional nAtion). And Wikipedia notes that Mr. Kessler is also the author of a 2004 book titled "A Matter of Character" which is "an admiring look at George W. Bush's presidency". That is reason enough to strongly suspect that the LBJ quote is not accurate.

While I can not say for sure if Mr. Kessler is the only source for this quote, LBJ's prior actions while in the Senate very much contradict the idea that LBJ was a racist who signed Civil Rights legislation because it would help Democrats trick African Americans into voting Democratic. The following book quote via an article on the Media Matters website...

LBJ biographer Robert A. Caro: In the Summer of 1957... Lyndon Johnson, in an abrupt and total reversal of his twenty-year record on civil rights, would push a civil rights bill, primarily a voting rights bill, through the Senate [even though it had] no realistic chance of passage [LBJ,] in one of the most notable legislative feats in American history, would cajole and plead and threaten and lie, would use all of his power and all his guile, all the awe in which his colleagues held him, and all the fear, to ram the bill through the Senate. It was, thanks to him, a bill that the House could also pass, and that the President could sign - the first civil rights legislation to be added to the statute books of the United States since 1870. The Civil Rights Act of 1957 made only a meager advance toward social justice, and it is all but forgotten today, partly because it was dwarfed by the advances made under President Lyndon Johnson's Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1965. But it paved the way - its passage was necessary - for all that was to come. As its Leader, he made the Senate not only work, but work toward a noble end. (Excerpt from Caro's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Master of the Senate).

So, given the quote at the top of my post by Bill Moyers and LBJ's past history of championing Civil Rights legislation, do I think the quote is authentic? No, I do not. LBJ's signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 COST the Democrats, politically. They didn't benefit from it. Yes, the signing of the legislation by Johnson does have a lot to do with why African Americans vote Democratic, but the Republicans have won a few elections since 1964 without the Black vote. Fact is, Nixon's Southern Strategy gave the Republicans a virtual lock on the South (by appealing to White racists).

I find it quite unbelievable that the LBJ who rightly and correctly worried that his actions had "just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come" would also gloat (racial epithet, or no) about how his actions had ensured that African Americans would be tricked into voting Democratic for a long time to come. For this reason my verdict is that the quote is false. And my other verdict is that people who very willingly believe that African Americans are gullible in this manner might be a wee bit racist.

Update 8/9/2015: Bob Mack likes this commentary and has placed it on his Facebook page.

swtd-228. wDel-48.

Libertarian BS About The Great Society Subsidizing Poverty

from 1963 when Lyndon Johnson took office until 1970 as the impact of his Great Society programs were felt, the portion of Americans living below the poverty line dropped from 22.2 percent to 12.6 percent, the most dramatic decline over such a brief period in this century ~ Joseph A. Califano Jr. (dob 5/15/1931) Special Assistant to President Lyndon B. Johnson (7/26/1965 to 1/20/1969).

If there is one thing that Libertarians absolutely can not stand it is the idea that government can be a force to affect positive economic or societal change. Fact is, Libertarians strongly believe that government can't do anything right. One of their favorite pastimes is running down government and heaping praise on the so-called "free market". It's the answer to all our problems, doncha know?

If they aren't demonizing government, an institution that represents The People and works on their behalf (in so far as they haven't been bribed by the wealthy elites), then Libertarians are demonizing poor people; and the demonization of both is exemplified in this recent post by a Libertarian blog I check in from time to time.

Libertarian blogger: The poverty rate was coming down precipitously in this country and for the most part people weren't having children out of wedlock, and then came the Great Society. Thank you so much, the political class. ...this is one hell of a strong correlation and you know, YOU KNOW, that if the trend-lines had been plotted out in the opposite direction the left would have been singing and dancing that it was some sort of proof-positive that the Great Society was effective. And the fact that it makes such total fucking sense. Of course when you subsidize something you're going to get more of it. Hello! (11/12/2013 AT 7:43pm).

The poverty rate was coming down because our economy was growing due to industrialization and continuing innovation, for which, yes, we can thank the so-called "free market". But the reason EVERYONE benefited is because of the existence of unions; organizations that allowed workers to bargain for their share of the wealth. According to Mr. Libertarian Blogger (Mr. LB) Democrats can't blame Reagan, but it was Reagan who kicked off his presidency by declaring a war on working people, as Liberal Talker Thom Hartmann points out in his 2006 book Screwed: The Undeclared War Against the Middle Class...

Thom Hartmann: We can easily trace decline [of unionization] to Reagan's first public declaration of war on the middle class when he went after the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO) in 1981. He broke the back of the air-traffic controllers' union and began the practice of using the Department of Labor - traditionally the ally of workers - against organized labor and working people. (Excerpt from Thom's book reprinted by Alternet, 9/5/2006).

If you look at the graph Mr. LB includes with his post to "prove" that LBJ's war on poverty actually subsidized poverty and therefore increased it, you will get the impression that the Great Society didn't have much of an impact, but that is because the graph covers such a large period of time (1940-2010) and all the programs that comprised the Great Society were not actually fully in effect for very long, as noted by Wikipedia...

Wikipedia/The Great Society/The War On Poverty: The War on Poverty [began with] the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which created the OEO to oversee a variety of community-based antipoverty programs. ... The OEO was dismantled by the Nixon and Ford administrations, largely by transferring poverty programs to other government departments. Funding for many of these programs were further cut in President Ronald Reagan's first budget in 1981.

Mr. Libertarian Blogger is criticizing a program that began in 1964 and for which the dismantling commenced only 5 years later (under Nixon who assumed office in 1969)? And, then there is the fact that Johnson got us involved in the Vietnam war the previous year (1963) and "Anti-war Democrats complained that spending on the Vietnam War choked off the Great Society". So, the programs were under-funded due to money spend on the Vietnam conflict, which brings us to what the actual criticism should be... a criticism the Lefty publication The Nation notes was levied by Martin Luther King...

Mark Engler, writing for The Nation: King criticized Johnson's War on Poverty for being too piecemeal. While housing programs, job training and family counseling were not themselves unsound, he wrote that "all have a fatal disadvantage. The programs have never proceeded on a coordinated basis... At no time has a total, coordinated and fully adequate program been conceived". (Dr. Martin Luther King's Economics: Through Jobs, Freedom 1/15/2010).

The obvious conclusion is that the Great Society didn't do enough and it didn't do it long enough. Mr. LB did not present "one hell of a strong correlation" that the Great Society caused poverty to increase, as the short while that it was in place it did have an effect (as Joseph A. Califano Jr. points out in the quote at the top of my post).

As for the graph and conclusion drawn from it by Mr. LB that out-of-wedlock births have increased (again) due to the Great Society... this is a simple-minded conclusion (the kind of conclusions Conservatives and Libertarians excel at). The Brookings Institute analyzed the data, and their conclusion was that out-of-wedlock births in the United States increased due to "technology shock".

The researchers lay out their hypothesis as follows...

Brookings: In the late 1960s and very early 1970s (well before Roe v. Wade in January 1973) many major states, including NY and CA, liberalized their abortion laws. At about the same time it became easier for unmarried people to obtain contraceptives. ... We have found that this rather sudden increase in the availability of both abortion and contraception [caused] reproductive technology shock... In our view, it was the technology shock itself that, by eroding the age-old custom of shotgun marriage, paradoxically raised out-of-wedlock birth rates instead of lowering them. (An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States by George A. Akerlof and Janet L. Yellen of Brookings, 8/1996).

Why? Brookings concludes that...

Brookings: Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. (same credit as previous quote).

Thus out of wedlock births increased. Granted, this explanation is a little more complicated and nuanced than the one put forward by Libertarians and Conservatives who think like Mr. LB. It makes sense to me, in any case. More so than the notion that poor people prefer to live in poverty, so long as they're getting welfare from the government... and a poor woman will have kids out of wedlock on purpose just to get more bennies. Regarding that argument Brookings said...

Brookings: One argument that appeals to conservatives is that of Charles Murray, who attributes the increase to overly generous federal welfare benefits. But... welfare benefits could not have played a major role in the rise of out-of-wedlock births because benefits rose sharply in the 1960s and then fell in the 1970s and 1980s, when out-of-wedlock births rose most. (same credit as previous Brookings excerpt).

However, as I pointed out earlier, demonizing the poor is something Libertarians and Conservatives excel at. If you say the government can't help the poor (and in fact it makes poverty worse) then no money need be spent on these types of programs. There is therefore no need to tax the wealthy to help the less fortunate (as it only harms them). And, let us not forget that it's their own fault for being lazy and preferring to lie back in the social safety net hammock instead of working hard to get ahead.

But most people do not prefer to only get by. Most people do work hard but simply can't get ahead... as the plutocrats are taking more and more, which is easier for them to do since Reagan and his war on unions. It certainly is no coincidence that Libertarians and Conservatives also hate unions, as unions allow workers to bargain for higher wages. Also, it is no coincidence that Libertarians and Conservatives love free trade, as that also drives down wages for working folks. Hello!

SWTD #218, wDel #41.

Intellectual Honesty Concerning ex-Preznit bush's WMD Lies

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it ~ George Santayana (12/16/1863 to 9/26/1952) philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist. A lifelong Spanish citizen, Santayana was raised and educated in the United States, wrote in English and identified himself as an American. The quote presented here is from Santayana's The Life of Reason Vol. I, Reason in Common Sense.

Today, many (if not most) American citizens agree that our war with Vietnam was a mistake and we never should have gotten involved in a conflict that lead to the deaths of 58,220 American soldiers. I bring up Vietnam because some say a lie by Democratic President Lyndon Johnson lead to our involvement that escalated to full blown combat.

Professor of History at the University of Kentucky George C. Herring argues that Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and the Pentagon "did not knowingly lie about the alleged attacks, but they were obviously in a mood to retaliate and they seem to have selected from the evidence available to them those parts that confirmed what they wanted to believe".

So, although exactly what happened in the Gulf of Tonkin was later called into serious question, LBJ used the incidents to pressure Congress into passing the Southeast Asia Resolution on 8/7/1964 (which eventually lead to all out war).

Whether or not LBJ lied is, in my opinion, a tad more nebulous that the question of whether or not George W. bush lied in order to pressure Congress into allowing him to invade Iraq. Although blogger Willis Hart of the blog Contra O'Reilly strongly disagrees. In fact, according to him it is "quite chilling" that I would suggest such a thing. In a 6/3/2012 post Mr. Hart alludes to a bunch of other lies that LBJ may have told (I'm not well read when it comes to the Vietnam war, nor did I live through it), and (of course) he incorrectly assumes that I defend LBJ in regards to all of these probable lies. I was, however only referring to the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

The reason for Hart's posting was (in part) to gauge my "intellectual honesty" when it comes to declaring a president a "war criminal". I say George W. bush is a war criminal due (in part) to his lies about Iraq having WMD. I say ex-preznit bush knew Iraq possessed no WMD, as the inspectors on the ground at the time told him so. The Hartster disagrees.

Willis Hart: you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero. (7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm).

Unfortunately Willis is wrong. The invasion of Iraq was ordered by ex-preznit bush on 3/20/2003 AFTER the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed ElBaradei, told the Security Council (on 3/7/2003) via written report that the "UN inspections in Iraq worked". Mr. ElBaradei's team conducted 247 inspections at 147 sites and found "no evidence of resumed nuclear activities... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any related sites". The IAEA report went on to say that "Iraq had not imported uranium since 1990... no longer had a centrifuge program, [and that] Iraq's nuclear capabilities had been effectively dismantled by 1997".

The IAEA answers to both the Security Council and the UN General Assembly. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security (Source: Wikipedia). A report by the IAEA submitted to the UNSC most certainly qualifies as the "paper trail" that Mr. Hart is sure does not exist.

Two days after ordering the invasion, in a radio address on 3/22/2013, the former preznit said, "our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people".

Given the fact that the weapons inspectors submitted a report 14 days earlier to the UN that said they hadn't found any WMD, is it a reasonable assumption that bush lied? I mentioned the IAEA Report in a comment on Mr. Hart's blog on 5/5/2012. On 7/10/2012 he made the claim that there is no paper trail or evidence and until then we can't talk (i.e. he can't be convinced bush lied). In response I said, "I already gave [you the evidence]. We can't talk because you ignored it and are pretending it doesn't exist".

I think it is VERY clear that Mr. bush lied. The only other excuse would be that he did not believe the inspectors, and that simply does not fly with me AT ALL. A commenter on the Hart blog known as dmarks (or "Dennis Marks" as he is otherwise known) argues that Saddam had been given many chances and had drawn out the process (of complying with the UN resolutions that said he must dispose of his WMD), and that he had fired on UN planes in violation of the cease-fire that ended the first Gulf War. While that is all true, it completely ignores the fact that Saddam was a crazy dictator and such things are to be expected from crazy dictators!

When Saddam violated the various UN resolutions it was entirely up to the UN to determine how those transgressions were to be dealt with. Enforcement of UN resolutions concerning Iraq was NOT the prerogative of the United States or ex-president bush. The fact is that bush made his case for war with Iraq to the UN and the UN rejected it.

When bush ordered the invasion of Iraq he violated Articles 33 and 39 of the UN Charter, which is why Kofi Annan (UN Secretary-general from 1/1/1997 to 12/31/2006) said the war "was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter". This statement by Anon was made during a 9/16/2004 BBC interview while he was still the UN leader (not after his term expired).

But Dennis dismissed Mr. Annon's assessment of the legality of the war. Mr. Marks says Annon's comment provided SOME support for the argument of illegality, but not much... because the Secretary-General's comments were "off the cuff" and a "personal opinion". No Dennis, Mr. Annan's assessment was based on what the UN charter says (the 2 previously mentioned articles). That isn't an opinion, but rather a fact-based conclusion. As for Dennis' contention that the remarks were "off the cuff"; that is complete nonsense, as well as a serious charge of incompetence and/or irresponsibility.

The agenda here is clear, I believe... although they may be excusing and dismissing bush's crimes for slightly different reasons, the fact remains that Hart and Marks are acting as apologists for a president who lied and knew at the time he was lying. Lyndon Johnson prematurely went with some intel that later turned out to be wrong and used it as an excuse to ease us into a war step by step. And he kept it quiet when he found out later the intel was inaccurate.

Also, as alleged by Mr. Hart, he "lied" about the war's progress by misrepresenting it as "going swimmingly well when it wasn't"... as if the bush administration didn't do the exact same thing (by touting the success of the surge that actually wasn't a success).

But neither GWb nor LBJ are war criminals according to Mr. Hart. And that's why he says "at least I'm consistent". Personally I think that's a bunch of bullpoop. I'm consistent, in that I think both wars were very bad ideas, although Vietnam came about due to the irrational Communist paranoia of the time (along with some distorting and dishonesty from our leaders), while Iraq can be attributed to outright blatant lies from despicable and reprehensible individuals in the bush administration who wanted war for political advantage; i.e. bush's desire to be a "war president".

Dennis says, "I'm pretty sure his meltdown over the LBJ issue got him booted out of Will's blog". Mr. Marks is wrong. The Hartster didn't ban me over my LBJ comments (the banning came later, and what was at issue was an entirely different topic).

Also, there was no "meltdown", I only said I wasn't convinced that LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin (initially). Certainly not in the same manner bush lied about WMD. LBJ found out LATER the Gulf of Tonkin info he got was inaccurate, while bush found out BEFORE he invaded that Iraq didn't have WMD.

Both liars, I suppose, but in my mind bush's lie was more egregious. That may be due to me being an adult of voting age during the Iraq war, while LBJ left office before I was born (and the war wrapped up while I was an infant). Also, I'm a Democrat and there is some partisan bias in play here... I'll admit that.

What do you think me-buck? Are the lies that got us into Vietnam comparable to the lies that got us into Iraq? I say they are, but only marginally. But the real issue here (the point of this post, that is) is that both Mr. Marks and Mr. Hart are completely wrong when it comes to the issue of bush lying. The evidence plainly shows that bush told a big fat lie, and in regards to that fact I am the one who is being honest, while the Hart fellow is being dishonest.

So what's up with these irrationals on the ironically titled rAtional nAtion uSA blog who'd rather we all move on because bush isn't president anymore? Do they want us to forget the past and thus be condemned to repeat it?

Further Reading
[1] Study Shows Bush & Co. Lied, 1/23/2008 (PE post by Shaw Kenawe that points to an article from the website The Center for Public Integrity).
[2] Fact Check: No WMDs in Iraq, 2/19/2008 (Regarding people who say buried barrels of degraded chemical or biological weapons qualify, Fact Check says, "we suggest ridicule").
[3] Republicans Still Denying Bush Lied About Iraq by Jonathan Chait. Daily Intelligencer, 2/9/2015 (That "the bush Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent" was the conclusion of Phase two of the Senate Report on Prewar Intelligence on Iraq).
[4] SWTD #312: Iraq War Based On gwb Lie Of "Disarming" Saddam When IAEA Officials Who Were There, On The Ground, Said Iraq Had No WMD, 9/4/2015.

SWTD #154, wDel #26.