Is Imbecile Just a Euphemism for Olbermann?

Via Hotair.

How long are left wing crazies like Olbermann going to be allowed to continue to rehash the canard that the civil rights legislation of the LBJ years prompted a "white supremacist flight" to the welcoming arms of the southern (ie, racist) GOP?

In 1964, the Civil Rights Act passed by a significant majority in both chambers of Congress. To hear Olby tell the tale, this must have been due to the valiant, tireless efforts of those stalwart defenders of liberty, namely, the Democrats to defeat those vicious, craven, racist Republicans--who, don't you know, actually wore their white sheets to Capital Hill in those days.

Sounds reasonable enough. I mean, something made all those Dixie hicks switch parties.

But the trouble for Olbermann's premise is that someone forgot to burn the vote tallies after the law was enacted. From Wikipedia:

Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%-29%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

By party
The original House version:

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:

Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version:

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure

Now, these numbers don't show that all Republicans supported the bill, nor that all Democrats opposed it. In fact, what they show is that northerners tended to support it, and southerners opposed it. Much of that southern opposition, across party lines, was owing to racism (in the case of Bobby Byrd this was undoubtedly the case; however, there were a few oddballs like Goldwater--generally a civil rights champion, and who later regretted casting "nay"--who opposed it on ideological reasons other than racism).

But what is undeniable is that this bill was supported by the vast majority of Republicans. In any vote taken in either chamber, GOP support was never lower than 80% of the total party vote. In fact, if the Republicans were the racist caricatures that Olbermann portrays, they could have killed the bill in the House from the outset. Now, Southern Republicans to a man voted nay. But might the fact that the GOP was a virtual non-entity in the south at that point somewhat elucidate which party in total more embodied the views and interests of the South in 1964? And since the vast majority of Republicans supported this legislation, might that not tell us something about how popular or "mainstream" southern racist Republicans were within their own party?

It just doesn't follow that hordes of southern voters, furious over the outcome of these proceedings, would eschew the party that in large measure voted exactly the way that the voters wanted them to; nor does it make sense that the disenchanted would then hie their little hate-filled fannies into the party that, a) supported the bill by a greater internal percentage than the Democrats, and b) would likely continue to support, at least at the national level, candidates who would embrace the equal rights platform. Maybe I'm completely wrong, and a total of eight Southern Democrats (in both chambers combined) voting in favor of the bill was enough to drive southern voters temporarily insane.

Or maybe, just some of them, just a handful, switched because they were disgusted with the hatred and meanness of Southern Democrats like Bull Connor, Bobby Byrd, and yes, Strom Thurmond, and had had enough.

Who knows. All I can say for certain is that Olbermann's premise makes utterly no sense. Man, who knew THAT could happen?

UPDATE:

I suppose it would have been asking too much to expect Stewart to avoid at least one shameless dig at a conservative (namely the Maha-Rushie), but it's worth it to watch Stewart utterly destroy Olby:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
target='_blank' style='color:#333; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-21-2010/special-comment---keith-olbermann-s-name-calling'>Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling
target='_blank' style='color:#96deff; text-decoration:none; font-weight:bold;' href='http://www.thedailyshow.com/'>www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Woot.

A number of Democrats already abandoning ship on Barrycare.

Most notably, Jim Webb and... Bahwney?

The Lesson Learned Here...

Is never trust a liberal again. [Content warning on the right sidebar] Of course the western world has had plenty of previous opportunities to learn this lesson, but has instead chosen on countless occasions to repeat history.

How long do you suppose it will take before the self same lib environmentalists behind AGW attempt to take the helm of the Good Ship Global Cooling? I give it less than six months. When the press is referring to those in the global cooling camp as "some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists," the jig is pretty much up.

To say nothing of these little bits of trivia, which are apparently no longer on the media's "suppress list":

winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these [Multi-Decadal Oscillations in weather patterns] move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles

--Gee, might that explain why libs were flipping out about global cooling a few decades back?

‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories [said Professor Tsongis]. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.

'These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’

Uh oh. The Daily Mail is treating one of these kooky deniers as a legitimate scientist and allowing him to challenge the conventional wisdom. Better knock that off or the boys at the CRU may cancel their subscriptions.

And the doozy, not because it's anything new but because it's actually in print:

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

This article is a prime example of the way that AGW is going to die the death of a thousand cuts. No one is going to run a story attacking the CRU or Darwin scientists outright; rather the press is just going to stop ignoring the climatologists and other scientists who haven't drunk the kool-aid. Global Warming will take its rightful place on the shelf along with previous muchadoaboutnothings like Y2K and the Bird Flu pandemic, and will be quickly forgotten.

Then, in 20 years or so, when nobody remembers any of this crap and the next MDO prompts a warming trend, we'll get to experience the fun and games all over again. Be prepared to talk your kids and grandkids down off the ledge.

Stuff you can't make up.

Oh, you know I didn't mean it, you clean, articulate guy, you.

L-M-Patootie-O


Wasn't this this the guy who was just accusing Republicans of being akin to slavery apologists and segregationists for opposing Obamacare?

Oh, how sweet it is.

Of course, the democrats can't allow this to derail any aspect of their agenda, be it Obamacare, cap'n tax or anything else. Which is why the hypocrisy of the Congressional Black Caucus will be on full display through their "odd" silence on this one.

ROFL

H/T Hotair

... You know, one of the reasons (I'm sure the main reason, folks) that Obama decided not to visit me in the hospital is that he thought he would heal me, and he didn't want that to happen. That has to be the reason."

Full article.

Christianity Explained, by Ann Coulter

You tell 'em, Annie.

Coulter alone is thus far the only one who hasn't missed the key point of the whole Britt Hume "controversy." Hume's words--both about Christianity and about Buddhism--were, as Ann puts it, "100 percent factually correct." As I watched the clip of the "incident" on Youtube, I found myself wondering what specifically was so shocking about what Hume said.

And what he said was:

The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.

Ask any Buddhist if they are assured of being forgiven, if they know themselves to be redeemed, or if they have total confidence that something better awaits them in the hereafter. Depending on what kind of Buddhist you're talking to, they might not even believe in forgiveness for negative karma. And they certainly can't say for certain whether they've stored up enough good karma for an upgrade on their next "rebirth" as they struggle toward an enlightened state (Nirvana) or ultimate rebirth in the Buddhist concept of a higher, heaven-like existence. The Buddhist simply does not have assurance of forgiveness. The Christian does.

Furthermore, a Buddhist's struggle for self-improvement is simply his lone burden to bear against the world and his own fallen nature. It's him (his own merit and striving) against everything, including himself. Christians by contrast know that they're not good enough to "make a total recovery," as Hume puts it, or indeed to do anything good at all. The Christian knows that he is by nature corrupt, lousy, sinful, prone to depravity, and that, given the chance to improve himself by his own effort, he will screw it up 100% of the time.

But the good news for the Christian is that he doesn't have to be good enough. Christ did the paying of the penalty of the sin by dying on the cross, thereby stamping those who trust in him with an indelible "not guilty"; not only this, but by rising from the grave in a glorified state, Christ demonstrates to believers that not only do we not have to fear death, but we have also been transformed into new beings who are actually capable of doing right. ("Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!" 2 Corinthians 5:17) Like the Apostle Paul, I can declare that if I have been "crucified with Christ," then I (old, pre-Christian me) "no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me." (Galatians 2:20) As I mentioned before, the Buddhist has no such similar assurance but must simply strive as best he can in an enterprise which the Christian recognizes is doomed to failure.

Truthfully, the only thing in any way shocking about Hume's remarks is that anyone would find them to be such. Of course, in order to find myself shocked by the "shock" of the "shocked," I would have to be as disingenuous, hysterical and sophomoric as they.

Oh YEAH.

How much you wanna bet...

That it turns out this was done by a democrat? After those racist Republicans get the blame, of course.

Um, about that CO2...

Remember that vile toxin, Carbon Dioxide? The new pollution? The deadly gas that is collecting in our atmosphere in ever increasing quantities and which must be curbed NOW NOW NOW while there is still time, through whatever onerous regulations and draconian tax schemes our brilliant elected officials deem necessary?

Turns out there's been no increase in atmospheric C02 levels in the past 160 years.

In the words of Emily Litella... Oh let's just let her do the honors.