<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I&#8217;m Confused</title>
	<atom:link href="http://slanttruth.com/2008/10/17/im-confused/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://slanttruth.com/2008/10/17/im-confused/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:35:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: sHaE-sHaE</title>
		<link>http://slanttruth.com/2008/10/17/im-confused/comment-page-1/#comment-2834</link>
		<dc:creator>sHaE-sHaE</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:07:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slanttruth.com/?p=700#comment-2834</guid>
		<description>Seems to me that every day that passes with Obama in the lead, more outrageous tactics and &quot;finding&quot; show up.

PS- Please stop by, I have something for you. :-)

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;sHaE-sHaE &#180;s last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/heyshae/~3/426030110/&quot;&gt;I’ve Been Awarded: By Sojourner&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems to me that every day that passes with Obama in the lead, more outrageous tactics and &#8220;finding&#8221; show up.</p>
<p>PS- Please stop by, I have something for you. <img src='http://slanttruth.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p><abbr><em><abbr><em>sHaE-sHaE &#180;s last blog post..<a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/heyshae/~3/426030110/">I’ve Been Awarded: By Sojourner</a></em></abbr></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Changeseeker</title>
		<link>http://slanttruth.com/2008/10/17/im-confused/comment-page-1/#comment-2822</link>
		<dc:creator>Changeseeker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:49:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slanttruth.com/?p=700#comment-2822</guid>
		<description>I recently asked the students in my Racial and Ethnic Relations course to bring in little known facts on MLK, Jr., and this stuff about his &quot;being&quot; a Republican showed up.  I had to work hard not to laugh out loud.  Some people are SO ignorant...er...ill-informed, I mean.

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;Changeseeker &#180;s last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://whyaminotsurprised.blogspot.com/2008/10/denial-is-not-river-in-egypt.html&quot;&gt;Denial is NOT a River in Egypt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recently asked the students in my Racial and Ethnic Relations course to bring in little known facts on MLK, Jr., and this stuff about his &#8220;being&#8221; a Republican showed up.  I had to work hard not to laugh out loud.  Some people are SO ignorant&#8230;er&#8230;ill-informed, I mean.</p>
<p><abbr><em><abbr><em>Changeseeker &#180;s last blog post..<a href="http://whyaminotsurprised.blogspot.com/2008/10/denial-is-not-river-in-egypt.html">Denial is NOT a River in Egypt</a></em></abbr></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anon</title>
		<link>http://slanttruth.com/2008/10/17/im-confused/comment-page-1/#comment-2813</link>
		<dc:creator>Anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Oct 2008 23:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slanttruth.com/?p=700#comment-2813</guid>
		<description>The &quot;communist&quot; website is run by a hate group... so it&#039;s irrelevant.  But if anything, the communist label probably comes from folks confusing communism and socialism... and/or from associating King&#039;s &quot;poverty&quot; stance with socialism.  Conspiracy theorists really need to start getting their facts together.  

MLK was a Republican... um yowzers.  So MLK, Sr. was a Republican and endorsed Nixon in 1968 (although not in 1972).  If MLK Jr. was a Republican (and I can&#039;t confidently say that because I don&#039;t know his voting record off-hand), it would have been in the years prior to 1964.  

MLK, Jr. publicly supported Nixon before 1960...but during the early sixties, when he got tossed in jail, Nixon&#039;s handlers wouldn&#039;t let Nixon call him or his family (or negotiate with the state governor to get him out of jail)... said it was too risky, they didn&#039;t want to lose the budding southern (segregationist) coalition.  While Nixon waited, Kennedy swooped in, called King, and worked with his brother (Bobby) to get King out of jail... makes all kind of media headlines and quotes King as saying he supported JFK.  

The article is dishonest because it implies (although it doesn&#039;t explicitly state) that King voted for Goldwater.  That just didn&#039;t happen.  King repudiated Goldwater whenever he could during the 1964 campaign and primary season.  Said his policies (states rights/anti-civil rights act of 1964) were &quot;opening the door&quot; for rabid southern Democrat segregationists (like Strom Thurmand who ran on the 1948 Dixiecrat/States Rights platform as a third party candidate).  The &#039;64 election was a huge shift... all the deep south states went Republican and between 1963-1976 most southern Democrats jumped ship to the Republican Party - the party &quot;needed&quot; them because they lost their other coalitions (blacks, Catholics, Jewish, etc.) so they turned a blind eye to all kinds of crazy politicians.  

And yes, it&#039;s true that Dirksen had a huge role in the 64 act and the party as a whole supported &#039;57, &#039;64, and the voting rights act of 1965... but civil rights leaders were all types of mad that moderate Republicans refused to address the former southern Democrats... Dirksen also voted for Goldwater, initially opposed the Fair Housing Act (he switched and then helped get it passed) and was all over the map when it came to equal rights.  

Yes, Johnson was a closet racist... and so was Nixon... hell, Kennedy probably was too... goodness, the (white) majorities of both parties were closet racists... but it doesn&#039;t change the fact that Johnson forcefully pushed through civil rights legislation and was a Democratic President.  The Republicans dropped the ball but gained the South.  

Oh and A. Philip Randolph was a self-proclaimed socialist... check &quot;the messenger&quot;... he did collaborate with a lot of Republicans though.

The really sad part of all of this is that the NBRA could have made a better claim had they done their homework and looked into black folks who did support the GOP post 1964... or folks within the party who actually championed civil rights post 1964... like John Lindsay (Mayor of NY), Nelson Rockefeller (Governor of NY, VP post Watergate),Thurston Morton (Kentucky), Gerald Ford (President), George Romney (Gov. of Michigan), Bill Brock (chair of the RNC 1978-1981)... and yes, even George H.W. Bush (the senior).  Ditto on the black folks - George Schuyler (ehhhh), Jackie Robinson, Ed Brooke, Bill Coleman, James Farmer (CORE), James Meridith (Mississippi integration), and Ralph Abernathy (SCLC, poor people&#039;s march).

But I guess none of that is as catchy as writing a crap piece full of errors that just make the NBRA look like a hot mess.  

As an aside, Strom Thurmond gave up on his segregationist philosophy in the 1970s, publicly apologized and became the first southern senator to integrate his staff.  Go figure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The &#8220;communist&#8221; website is run by a hate group&#8230; so it&#8217;s irrelevant.  But if anything, the communist label probably comes from folks confusing communism and socialism&#8230; and/or from associating King&#8217;s &#8220;poverty&#8221; stance with socialism.  Conspiracy theorists really need to start getting their facts together.  </p>
<p>MLK was a Republican&#8230; um yowzers.  So MLK, Sr. was a Republican and endorsed Nixon in 1968 (although not in 1972).  If MLK Jr. was a Republican (and I can&#8217;t confidently say that because I don&#8217;t know his voting record off-hand), it would have been in the years prior to 1964.  </p>
<p>MLK, Jr. publicly supported Nixon before 1960&#8230;but during the early sixties, when he got tossed in jail, Nixon&#8217;s handlers wouldn&#8217;t let Nixon call him or his family (or negotiate with the state governor to get him out of jail)&#8230; said it was too risky, they didn&#8217;t want to lose the budding southern (segregationist) coalition.  While Nixon waited, Kennedy swooped in, called King, and worked with his brother (Bobby) to get King out of jail&#8230; makes all kind of media headlines and quotes King as saying he supported JFK.  </p>
<p>The article is dishonest because it implies (although it doesn&#8217;t explicitly state) that King voted for Goldwater.  That just didn&#8217;t happen.  King repudiated Goldwater whenever he could during the 1964 campaign and primary season.  Said his policies (states rights/anti-civil rights act of 1964) were &#8220;opening the door&#8221; for rabid southern Democrat segregationists (like Strom Thurmand who ran on the 1948 Dixiecrat/States Rights platform as a third party candidate).  The &#8216;64 election was a huge shift&#8230; all the deep south states went Republican and between 1963-1976 most southern Democrats jumped ship to the Republican Party &#8211; the party &#8220;needed&#8221; them because they lost their other coalitions (blacks, Catholics, Jewish, etc.) so they turned a blind eye to all kinds of crazy politicians.  </p>
<p>And yes, it&#8217;s true that Dirksen had a huge role in the 64 act and the party as a whole supported &#8216;57, &#8216;64, and the voting rights act of 1965&#8230; but civil rights leaders were all types of mad that moderate Republicans refused to address the former southern Democrats&#8230; Dirksen also voted for Goldwater, initially opposed the Fair Housing Act (he switched and then helped get it passed) and was all over the map when it came to equal rights.  </p>
<p>Yes, Johnson was a closet racist&#8230; and so was Nixon&#8230; hell, Kennedy probably was too&#8230; goodness, the (white) majorities of both parties were closet racists&#8230; but it doesn&#8217;t change the fact that Johnson forcefully pushed through civil rights legislation and was a Democratic President.  The Republicans dropped the ball but gained the South.  </p>
<p>Oh and A. Philip Randolph was a self-proclaimed socialist&#8230; check &#8220;the messenger&#8221;&#8230; he did collaborate with a lot of Republicans though.</p>
<p>The really sad part of all of this is that the NBRA could have made a better claim had they done their homework and looked into black folks who did support the GOP post 1964&#8230; or folks within the party who actually championed civil rights post 1964&#8230; like John Lindsay (Mayor of NY), Nelson Rockefeller (Governor of NY, VP post Watergate),Thurston Morton (Kentucky), Gerald Ford (President), George Romney (Gov. of Michigan), Bill Brock (chair of the RNC 1978-1981)&#8230; and yes, even George H.W. Bush (the senior).  Ditto on the black folks &#8211; George Schuyler (ehhhh), Jackie Robinson, Ed Brooke, Bill Coleman, James Farmer (CORE), James Meridith (Mississippi integration), and Ralph Abernathy (SCLC, poor people&#8217;s march).</p>
<p>But I guess none of that is as catchy as writing a crap piece full of errors that just make the NBRA look like a hot mess.  </p>
<p>As an aside, Strom Thurmond gave up on his segregationist philosophy in the 1970s, publicly apologized and became the first southern senator to integrate his staff.  Go figure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: elle</title>
		<link>http://slanttruth.com/2008/10/17/im-confused/comment-page-1/#comment-2795</link>
		<dc:creator>elle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:20:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slanttruth.com/?p=700#comment-2795</guid>
		<description>And oh my dear God, that explanation of what the Southern strategy is?

&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;abbr&gt;&lt;em&gt;elle &#180;s last blog post..&lt;a href=&quot;http://elleabd.blogspot.com/2008/10/question.html&quot;&gt;Question...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;&lt;/abbr&gt;&lt;/em&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And oh my dear God, that explanation of what the Southern strategy is?</p>
<p><abbr><em><abbr><em>elle &#180;s last blog post..<a href="http://elleabd.blogspot.com/2008/10/question.html">Question&#8230;</a></em></abbr></em></abbr></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: elle</title>
		<link>http://slanttruth.com/2008/10/17/im-confused/comment-page-1/#comment-2794</link>
		<dc:creator>elle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:17:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://slanttruth.com/?p=700#comment-2794</guid>
		<description>The first link is kind of sad--how much of history they glossed over or omitted to avoid admitting what their party has become in the last 50 years or so.  The stuff they laud Eisenhower for, for example--the CRA of 1957 was virtually toothless and the Commission on Civil Rights it created was so hesitant and moved so slowly to deal with flagrant disfranchisement that another act followed in 1960. And wouldn&#039;t they, as small government Republicans be opposed to Eisenhower sending in federal troops (that he didn&#039;t want to send in)? And my God, to have to defend Strom Thurmond? 

I see why you&#039;re confused, Kev.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The first link is kind of sad&#8211;how much of history they glossed over or omitted to avoid admitting what their party has become in the last 50 years or so.  The stuff they laud Eisenhower for, for example&#8211;the CRA of 1957 was virtually toothless and the Commission on Civil Rights it created was so hesitant and moved so slowly to deal with flagrant disfranchisement that another act followed in 1960. And wouldn&#8217;t they, as small government Republicans be opposed to Eisenhower sending in federal troops (that he didn&#8217;t want to send in)? And my God, to have to defend Strom Thurmond? </p>
<p>I see why you&#8217;re confused, Kev.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
