The fact that the anti-lynching laws were on the books IS the problem. Those lawmakers turned a blind eye to the sickening vigilante jusitce.

I suppose it makes Republicans feel better about their own pandering to racial divisions in this country to point out the sad history of the Dixiecrats. Obviously, you ignore the fact that, for the cause of civil rights, the Democrats completely surrendered its political position in the south.

Take a look at the electoral map of the presidential election of 1964 and notice which states Barry Goldwater won. The segregationist and agrarian south was part of the New Deal coalition that opposed Republican big money in the aftermath of the Great Depression. It was always a fragile alliance. Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond (later a Republican) broke from the party in 1948 to protest the party's initial embracing of civil rights. By the 70's, the Republicans' southern strategy was in full force and now the south is solidly Republican -- because the Democrats supported a principal despite the loss of political influence that it has caused.

Now conservatives want it both ways, they want to exploit the lingering racial bigotry in the south for electoral gain and say that the southern Democrats were really responsible for it all along. How you can live with yourselves is beyond me.

Let us also be reminded that Harry Truman, a Democrat from Missouri (not exactly a northeast liberal bastion), was the 1st American president to attend an NAACP convention and introduced the term "civil rights" into political discourse. Truman also asked for an anti-lynching law in a message to Congress, a request that didn't even gain the support of obviously more enlightened Republicans.

There is enough blame to go around for lynching. Why do you insist on painting only one side of the political picture?

S-townMike: What Mark Rose's blog pointed out (and I linked to) was that it is the media today that is presenting a one-sided view, by leaving out the fact that it was DEMOCRATS who blocked the anti-lynching law back in the 1960s via the filibuster. Rose is right - if it had been REPUBLICANS who filibustered the anti-lynching laws back then, the media would include the fact in its coverage today.

The media gives Democrats a pass on their racial bigotry.

TomJ: You make a rather broad assertion when you say Republicans "exploit the lingering racial bigotry in the south for electoral gain."

Tell me, how and when, exactly, did former U.S. Rep. J.C. Watts "exploit the lingering racial bigotry in the south for electoral gain" ?

Please.

Also, please read everything I've written on my blog for the past 3-plus years. I guarantee you that you will not find one place where I have "exploited the lingering racial bigotry in the south" for partisan gain.

Also, please read everything I've written on my blog for the past 3-plus years

Time to stock up on coffee. (Not that you are boring, Bill, just prolific.)

"By the 70's, the Republicans' southern strategy was in full force and now the south is solidly Republican"

So the Dems southern strategy was in full force from 1932 until the 1970's. Sounds like they still have a lot for which to apologize.

I read Rose's diatribe. He, like many Republicans nowadays, confuses "conservative" with "Republican," which would lead to the misunderstanding that the LATimes was suggesting that it was Republicans rather than Democrats who threatened filibusters. While it is true that now Republicans try to claim the conservative mantle, historically it has not always been the case. Hence, the term, "yellow-dog Democrat" and hence, liberal Republicans like Rockefeller.

As for Rose's point about the Post leaving the adjective "Democrat" out of their discription: his view suggests some kind of conspiracy among journalists to slander with forethought all Republicans. That kind of paranoid assumption may play well among the X-Files generation, but I don't buy it. In order to accept what you blog here, I would have to accept Rose's far-fetched premise. He is imaginative. I'll give him that. But I believe I'll not wager my farm on speculation.

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me anymore that conservatives will concoct whatever rationalization they can dream up to defend their sad means for acquiring political power. If you carefully read my previous post, you would have noticed that I wasn't attacking any individual Republican or conservative, simply pointing out an obvious trend of the last few decades. What is shocking is that non-bigoted conservatives close their eyes to their own party's pandering to racists and, in fact, tacitly support it by advancing the kinds of arguments that you put forward yourself.

I suppose conservatives may honestly believe that the it was Republicans who spearheaded the civil rights movement. Yes, wasn't it Republicans who argued against the doctrine of states'rights in support of federal protection of blacks? Yes, you're right it was the Republicans. And of course there is no longer any racism today in the deep south. In fact, by saying so, I am attacking the honor of every southerner (who, to a person, certainly would never think less of a black person) and they should be shocked and offended that I would suggest such a thing. Of course we live in a land of perfect racial harmony and there is no vote that is affected at all by consideration of race. Sorry for suggesting that.

And of course your example of JC Watts proves that Republicans are extremely popular among blacks. The fact that exit polls showed that 88% of blacks voted for Kerry is a simply a result of the liberal media bias. I'm sure they flipped the number and that 88% of blacks actually voted for Bush. Once again, sorry.

I guess my mind has been hopelessly clouded by the left wing media. Thanks for setting me straight Bill.

>>"Yes, wasn't it Republicans who argued against the doctrine of states'rights in support of federal protection of blacks?"

Actually you might want to consult the record of who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats supported the legislation. Everett Dirksen, R-IL, as minority leader, pushed that bill through over the objection (not to mention--filibuster) of nearly every Southern Democrat. Without Republican support, LBJ would never have had the one piece of legislation in his entire mediocre presidency for which he can be justifiably proud. (Sadly, I have to note that Dirksen's seat is now held by Senator Durbin.)

But so what? This was 40 years ago. Dirksen, LBJ, Thurmond, and the rest (well, except for Sheets) are all dead. Republicans, Democrats, conservatives and liberals, the definitions have morphed so many times that both parties are worthy of both thanks and blame. And that's the point. The whole feel good Senate resolution was meaningless drivel that took the Congress away from doing real work oriented on the future and not the past.

Isn't it the left that likes to say that it's time to "Move On"? Well, let's do so.

TomJ, I gotta give you credit, your ability to skew historical facts to make a political point works mighty well, unless you run into someone who also knows a little history. To claim Democrats voluntarily surrendered the South based upon the principle of civil rights sounds very high-minded and laudable. Unfortunately, it simply ain't true. The Democrats grip on the "Solid South" began cracking based upon military and national security/defense issues, not racism and civil rights. Look at the Electoral College map beginning in 1952- Eisenhower was no race-baiter, but won a handful of Southern states because of his military reputation. Even in the Southern states he did not win, he still had a much stronger showing than any Republican before him. Goldwater built upon his successes again primarily because of national defense and Cold War related issues. Remember, he was so hawkish on defense the LBJ campaign easily painted him as someone itching to start World War 3 simply so we could beat the Soviets to the punch. Yes, his belief in states' rights would have been more accommodating to the segregationists, but to chalk his position up to racism and political opportunism rather than a deeply held ideological position is very unfair. Remember, this is the same "Father of Modern Conservatism" who very publicly came out in support of Bill Clinton's gays in the military plan even before "don't ask, don't tell" based solely upon the same libertarian values that shaped his view on state sovereignty. In 1966 our state of Tennessee, an upper South state which acts as a bellwether for the rest of the region, was the first former Confederate state to elect a GOP Senator since Reconstruction- only two years after a larger percentage of GOP Senators voted for the Civil Rights Act than did Senate Democrats. This man was Howard Baker, like Eisenhower not exactly a race-baiter or arch-conservative, who beat John Jay Hooker because of the staunchly liberal Democrat's opposition to the Vietnam War. It was also Vietnam, and Vietnam alone, which allowed Bill Brock to take down Al Gore, Sr. in 1970. Remember, Gore was a flaming dove (sounds kinda oxymoronic, doesn't it?) regarding Vietnam by this time, but he voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act in 1964 because he thought it would cost him support with the folks in Carthage. So much for principle, eh? Dismissing the history class a little early, I will grant you the Richard Nixon campaign did invent and alone employ the so-called "Southern Strategy" with its wink & nudge, subtle racism. However, to call Nixon a racist isn't fair as he pretty much hated all of humanity equally. More seriously, had he not talked the tough on Communism line the pro-military South always supported his "Southern Strategy" would have failed miserably.