It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hollings Admits Racial Conspiracy by Democrats

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
In a refreshingly candid interview on CBS news 60 minutes retiring democratic Senator Fritz Hollings admitted to a "deal" with national democrats to leave southern segregation in place.



"We had a sweetheart deal with the National Democratic Party. 'Well go along with all your programs, if youll go along with our segregation.' But once that Civil Rights Bill passed in 1964, then Lyndon friend became Lyndon the enemy," says Hollings.


This is the most direct statement of a plan by democrats to conspire to keep racist policies in place prior to the civil rights legislation of 1964 which passed with republican help.

Fritz continued a tradition of hypocracy among democrats with this classic double speak,



"And now, the Republican party is white, and the Democratic party is the majority black, I would say [in South Carolina]. And in Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia. You can just go right across the spectrum."

"What are you saying? That all of these folks that keep voting Republican are racist," asks Wallace.

"Not quite. They are conservative. They honestly don't believe in government, like we do in the Democratic Party," says Hollings, laughing.


Yeah right all old democratic segregationist's are reformed and get a pass while republicans are inferred to be racist.

Be nice if Fritz would say just who the "deal" was made with so a more true picture of the "party of the people" would be historically apparent.


CBS News




posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   


"We believe in feeding the hungry, and housing the homeless, and educating the uninformed and everything else like that. They believe in private education, a privatized Social Security, privatized energy policy -- privatize, privatize. They dont believe in 'We the people' in order to form a more perfect union.


So what's the big deal? That democrats had to wheel and deal with racists in the south in order to feed feed the hungry, house the homeless, educate the uninformed and everything else like that? Politics deal with 'give and take'. If only politicians still compromised for the good of the American people. Now it's either 'us or them'. Black or white.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
That democrats had to wheel and deal with racists in the south in order to feed feed the hungry, house the homeless, educate the uninformed and everything else like that?

What country are you talking about here

Seems to me that the southern states, esp. pre-1964 were DIRT poor. Folks came north to get jobs to make money to send back home. In the south, people farmed rented land just to make the poorest of livings. I don't see that the democrats took care of them. NOr do I see that many of these people would have accepted charity; these were proud people.

It's debatable whether the democratic social programs after 1964 REALLY helped the poor of this nation.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme
So what's the big deal? That democrats had to wheel and deal with racists in the south in order to feed feed the hungry, house the homeless, educate the uninformed and everything else like that? Politics deal with 'give and take'. If only politicians still compromised for the good of the American people. Now it's either 'us or them'. Black or white.


The big "deal" is that democrats dealt with democrats that were racist to perpetuate a segregationist and racist society in the south setting back civil rights who knows how many years.

THATS THE BIG DEAL

Curme if Hollings was a republican and had said what he said on 60 minutes the story would have been page 1 news and a cachophony of complaints would be heard on all television channels and senators would be calling for investigatory hearings on the hill while protestors mobbed Washington.

WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD ?


Actually a companion post is warranted in the "media" forum because of the readily apparent bias in the lack of coverage this outrageous comment by Hollings has received.

Can you imagine if someone such as Trent Lott had said this as a comparison of media treatment ?

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Phoenix]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I've got news for you......pre 1964 both sides were pretty much pro segregation. When the democrats (Kennedy, Johnson, etc) came out in favor of intergration and civil rights....they alienated many of their own party and the republicans 'gained' some of these who were less happy with the direction of the democratic party....( I believe some made a detour via the 'dixie-crats' before completely going over to the 'other' side)

I recall reading that Goldwater was a bit 'uncomfortable' with some of his supporters, realizing that they considered him the 'whiter' candidate, so to speak....but he took them none the less. ( sorry I haven't a link for that, though there may be one that contains that bit of trivia....perhaps some of the political history guys can find one.....I am quoting from memory here)



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Now that he's retiring he has found honesty

Would have been a commendable trait if done sooner rather than more or less lying for decades.

From the CBS Story,


But in the Senate, the one vote he cast that he knew was wrong, and that he's always felt guilty about, was voting against putting Thurgood Marshall on the U.S. Supreme Court. Why did he do that?

"I couldn't get re-elected. Thats the honest answer," says Hollings. "And if I had voted for him, I might as well withdraw from the race. It, I mean, it was political."


So like any good politician he did what was good for his re-election rather than what was good over-all.

Only in this case there was in his own words a plan to keep segregation in place and he voted against what is considered one of the best supreme court justice's to serve solely on a racial basis - again in his own admission.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by frayed1
I've got news for you......pre 1964 both sides were pretty much pro segregation. When the democrats (Kennedy, Johnson, etc) came out in favor of intergration and civil rights....they alienated many of their own party and the republicans 'gained' some of these who were less happy with the direction of the democratic party....( I believe some made a detour via the 'dixie-crats' before completely going over to the 'other' side)


Thats fine and dandy but where is the link of a republican conspiracy to extend segregation? as Hollings has admitted the democrats had agreed to.

Further how many republicans have been castigated on percieved allegations of racism while neanderthals of the democratic party got a pass for decades on end ?



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:03 AM
link   

This is the most direct statement of a plan by democrats to conspire to keep racist policies in place prior to the civil rights legislation of 1964 which passed with republican help.

Fritz continued a tradition of hypocracy among democrats with this classic double speak, ......


All of the morally corrupt DixieCrats immediately became Republicans, so what exactly is your point? The only "double speak" is coming from the poster in the attempt to say the Civil Rights Bill, born of Democrat mind & passed overwhelmingly with Dem, underwhelmingly with Repub, was somehow championed by Republicans.
I guess the high number of Black Republican Senators today vetts that out, no?



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   
I guess you missed or intentionally overlooked what you had within your own quotes then, BT?


Fritz continued a tradition of hypocracy among democrats...


That still continues today. You can twist it anyway you want, it doesn't change anything. Democrat 'status quo' continues...



seekerof

[edit on 16-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 16 2004 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time

All of the morally corrupt DixieCrats immediately became Republicans, so what exactly is your point? The only "double speak" is coming from the poster in the attempt to say the Civil Rights Bill, born of Democrat mind & passed overwhelmingly with Dem, underwhelmingly with Repub, was somehow championed by Republicans.
I guess the high number of Black Republican Senators today vetts that out, no?


The best of the best Stayed with the party though

Such as Senator (D) Robert Byrd and of course Senator (D) Fritz Hollings




The ex-Klansman later filibustered the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act -- supported by a majority of those "mean-spirited" Republicans -- for more than 14 hours. He also opposed the nominations of the Supreme Court's two black justices, liberal Thurgood Marshall and conservative Clarence Thomas. In fact, the ex-Klansman had the gall to accuse Justice Thomas of "injecting racism" into the Senate hearings. Meanwhile, author Graham Smith recently discovered another letter Sen. Byrd wrote after he quit the KKK, this time attacking desegregation of the armed forces.


JWR


I fail to see where the actions of these two for example help to carry your point in fact their actions fly in the face of your statement.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I think it was 95% Democrat supported on the Civil Rights Bill.

We have those two Old Southern racists vs. the institutional non-inclusion in the GOP? I'll take those numbers in a side by side any day!
But to be fair.......I think any Southern White Male in his sixties or older is going to have a diffrent perspective than what we champion as optimal race relations today.

We have a baseline litmus test for this non-issue thread:

Which party has taken diversity at the ballot box seriously, as seen with the seats in Congress? You can't have them there if you don't nominate them, no?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join