It's a sad fact, but it probably happens everyday across our "fine" country. [Last week], in our city, a white man who fired a weapon at a bicyclist's head (hitting his helmet) was sentenced to four months in jail, and a black man who stole from someone without firing a weapon was sentenced to [nearly four] years in prison. Attempted murder vs. robbery … justice? To be frank — I am disturbed.
I spent the evening considering how twisted this reality is. We back folks into a corner, via racism — the primary contributor to extreme poverty and its perpetuation — then punish those who come out fighting. Unacceptable. In the world I imagine, this is utterly unacceptable. At the very least, our justice system should be fair!
Ani Difranco says it well in her song "Subdivision": "I'm wondering what it will take for my city to rise? First we admit our mistakes, then we open our eyes …"
We can do better than this, people. We can be just.
— Safi Mahaba
Asheville
Editor's note: Charles Diez, the man who fired at the cyclist pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill; Stuart Peterson, the man who stole, pled guilty to armed-robbery charges.
It’s justice alright- “Just Us” as far as the legal system goes.
Justice would have had the shooter sentenced heavier rather than give a lighter sentence to the armed robber. The sentence to the armed robber was just. The former was not.
We back folks into a corner, via racism — the primary contributor to extreme poverty and its perpetuation — then punish those who come out fighting.
Are you in any way trying to justify armed robbery as a means of fighting one’s way out of poverty or racial discrimination??
You know, the constant whine of racism has just lost it’s value since once again it is clearly being overused. First, just cause the “shooter” received a sentence less than what many (including myself) believe is too mild, does not mean that his sentence should be a baseline for others. But more importantly, an angry, certainly inappropriate spur of the moment reaction that indicates more low mental stability than criminal intent, is hard for me to equate with someone who purposefully arms himself and makes a plan and goes out to intentionally commit armed robbery.
Anyhow, if there is an issue to discuss here, it is that the “shooter” may well have deserved greater punishment, not that the poor black criminal armed robber was given a longer sentence because of his race.
artart-You aren’t possible white, are you? You don’t think there is a possibility that our justice system is racist? I think you probably don’t really know what the word means.
[b]Are you in any way trying to justify armed robbery as a means of fighting one’s way out of poverty or racial discrimination??[/b]
While i can’t speak for the letter-writer, i would submit that taking matters into one’s own hands in that way is one of the most American things one could do. God Bless America, land of the gun.
Silly man. This is not a treatise on the justice system, this was just a brief discussion of 2 people that did things that landed them in the court system. Why is it that when people cannot make a solid argument talking about specifics, they jump to generalities and then sort of try to attack the messenger instead of addressing the message. It is clear that blacks are overrepresented in jails, but why? Is it possible that it is not racism but that blacks, on a percentage basis, just simply commit more crimes? This is just a question. I wonder why those who are so quick to blame racism for any disparity that is not to their advantage, have never addressed any statistical data that just might show more crimes (or the same amount or less to prove their emotional but factually and statistically unsupported arguments), per capita are committed by blacks. Perahps if there was some solid data in that regard, then a point can be made that the justice systems is racist. And of course it is racist in some respects. Look at OJ Simpson being found innocent. That was racism, only in a sense different than you mean.
While i can’t speak for the letter-writer, i would submit that taking matters into one’s own hands in that way is one of the most American things one could do. God Bless America, land of the gun.
We can only hope the shopkeeper is a good solid American and can ‘glock’ the SOB “good American” trying to rob him at gun point. God bless America, the land of equal opportunity.
You don’t think there is a possibility that our justice system is racist? I think you probably don’t really know what the word means.
Are you tying to say the black armed robber received the typical sentence for armed robbery because he was black? Perhaps you meant to say he should be allowed to run around Asheville robbing white folk at will … maybe get an Asheville Pass of some sort.
[i]You don’t think there is a possibility that our justice system is racist? I think you probably don’t really know what the word means.[/i]
[b]Are you tying to say the black armed robber received the typical sentence for armed robbery because he was black? Perhaps you meant to say he should be allowed to run around Asheville robbing white folk at will … maybe get an Asheville Pass of some sort. [/b]
Again, it would appear you don’t really get what the letter-writer is referring to with the term “racism”. It’s okay, i am not surprised at all.
[i]While i can’t speak for the letter-writer, i would submit that taking matters into one’s own hands in that way is one of the most American things one could do. God Bless America, land of the gun.[/i]
[b]We can only hope the shopkeeper is a good solid American and can ‘glock’ the SOB “good American” trying to rob him at gun point. God bless America, the land of equal opportunity. [/b]
Well, first of all, I have no idea what sort of robbery occurred, or whether it was a ‘shopkeeper’ or not.
Second, i have in no way condoned said robbery, or any kind of theft. i merely submitted that said robbery was not completely outside the tradition of taking what you want that is very much a part of American culture, from the Iraq war to manifest destiny and Jessi James. Your example of the armed shopkeeper would be yet another example of the same kind of American initiative. So we’re in agreement. How nice.
[b]Perhaps you meant to say he should be allowed to run around Asheville robbing white folk at will … maybe get an Asheville Pass of some sort.[/b]
No, i have said absolutely nothing of the sort, but it seems clear to me that this is an obvious, underlying fear of yours.
Since you wrote the following, perhaps you just don’t pay attention to what you toss out in the text …
While i can’t speak for the letter-writer, i would submit that taking matters into one’s own hands in that way is one of the most American things one could do. God Bless America, land of the gun
Just how did committing armed robbery fit into your idea of taking matters into one’s own hands? Is somebody logging onto your account and pretending to be the man with no name?
Well, first of all, I have no idea what sort of robbery occurred, or whether it was a ‘shopkeeper’ or not.
You don’t? If that is the case, why are you running around race baiting. The forum getting boring? …. what kind of robbery? er …. “armed” and they didn’t rob an empty warehouse.
I was curious why no one, including the Mountain Xpress, Asheville Citizen-Times, or any other local media source that has been printed articles about this alleged “injustice”, has reported on the fact that Stuart Peterson pled guilty to not one, not two, but three robberies that day in court. Peterson entered guilty pleas for the F&J Food Store robbery, as well as two additional robbery charges at the Wachovia ATM in South Asheville last fall.
I agree that Diez’s sentence was light, but the blame there lies with the Grand Jury OF HIS PEERS failing to indict on a any charge higher than assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill.
Soem of the posts here, and in the “Justice Undone” piece are correct; structured sentencing guidelines prevent Diez from receiving anything more.
What I cannot fathom, however, is how a supposedly “honest” news outlet such as MX has failed to investigate Peterson’s case any further, or, worse, is ignoring the fact that he pled guilty to THREE robberies.
What I cannot fathom, however, is how a supposedly “honest” news outlet such as MX has failed to investigate Peterson’s case any further, or, worse, is ignoring the fact that he pled guilty to THREE robberies.
Well, duh. If they acknowledged the facts, it wouldn’t fit the narrative.
[i]What I cannot fathom, however, is how a supposedly “honest” news outlet such as MX has failed to investigate Peterson’s case any further, or, worse, is ignoring the fact that he pled guilty to THREE robberies. [/i]
Did the Xpress print an article about this? This is just a letter to the editor.
[i]structured sentencing guidelines prevent Diez from receiving anything more. [/i]
Not True. As has been stated repeatedly in the thread you mention, he Judge could have sentenced him to far more than four months, within sentencing guidelines.
But I suspect the Judge realized that sending a middle-aged white guy with no (?) priors to a Real Prison for an extended period of time would destroy the man, since our prisons are nothing more than training ground for more criminal behavior. Obviously, poor black folks are seldom granted the same leniency.
“We back folks into a corner, via racism — the primary contributor to extreme poverty and its perpetuation — then punish those who come out fighting.”
Are you serious? You’re insinuating that armed robbery is an acceptable tactic for rising above what being a minority has done to them?
So 2 robberies at gunpoint is 12x worse than shooting someone in the head?
That would still leave one robbery at 6x worse than shooting someone IN THE HEAD.
Even considering the prior, there is a huge logical disparity here, which Safi was right to write about. Yes, there are circumstances, but it’s still an interesting perspective…
A black man robber is at least a 6x heinous crime than a white man shooter, according to recent NC law decisions. Then again, was it the same judge?
Just too funny. traveliar said:
You don’t? If that is the case, why are you running around race baiting.
Said by the man using a picture of Barry Goldwater, the most outspoken voice against basic civil rights for black people in America, as his personal icon. The funniest thing is that there is no doubt that the outlandish irony of that is completely lost on him.
The very same traveliar that obsesses about “black thugs” and “ragheads.” The same traveliar that just said:
Perhaps you meant to say he should be allowed to run around Asheville robbing white folk at will …
Goodness golly, not the white people! Anything but the white people! Next thing you know, they’ll want the womenfolk…. Btw, whoever said that Peterson robbed a white person?
entopticon, you cannot seem to make up your mind whether Goldwater was a pro abortion, anti right winger liberal statist fundie like yourself or an extreme right wingtip guy like you try to paint me as. I think it’s just an issue of the degree of your disturbance but then, I’m not very knowledgeable in matters of psychiatry.
Have a nice goober day, lil’ goober feller.
Pssst… Pffft…. here’s the article from 12/02/09:
http://www.mountainx.com/news/2009/120209justice_undone
Said by the man using a picture of Barry Goldwater, the most outspoken voice against basic civil rights for black people in America, as his personal icon.
What a mind-numbingly absurd comment.
two weeks ago, brebro? That’s a lifetime in travelah years.
Actually traveliar, it is you that is the mixed up one…. as usual. Here’s a dose of reality…
Barry Goldwater was indeed vehemently pro abortion rights, and that’s a fact.
He was neither a statist, or a fundie. Why a fundie like you keeps using the term “fundie” even after I clearly explained the etymology to you, remains a mystery.
It’s also a fact that Goldwater loathed the religious right.
It’s also a fact that Goldwater was the most visible voice opposing the civil rights movement. Someone using a picture of the leading voice of opposition against civil rights for black people as his icon really shouldn’t be pretending to have a clue about racial issues, let alone someone who uses the bigoted language that you do. And that is what is so funny about you attempting to lecture people on racial sensitivity, as if you weren’t astonishingly ignorant on the subject.
Frankly, I don’t need to paint an anti-gay, xenophobic fundamentalist that thinks the President is colluding with the Democratic Party for a Marxist takeover of the United States as “an extreme right wingtip.” You do a stellar job of that all on your own.
I’m not very knowledgeable in matters of psychiatry.
Now that’s the understatement of the year, but maybe one day you will find the help that you need.
Oh, and being called a “goober” by a fundamentalist dimwit who thinks that dinosaurs are a liberal conspiracy and Episcopalians are going to hell because they allow lesbian priests, is a piece of truly hilarious irony.
I am not certain where you getting the idea that I consider dinos to be a liberal conspiracy.
let alone someone who uses the bigoted language that you do
What bigoted language?
Well there traveliar, if you are now onboard with evolution and the fact that the bible is off on the age of the Earth by billions of years, I am liking this new reinvented version of you more and more.
What bigoted language?
“Ragheads” and “black thugs” comes to mind, as does talk of homosexuality being depraved.
Micro-evolution is a sustainable fact. The theory (or religion in some circles) of common descent is not. I am not a new age creationist. I have been an old earth creationist for at least the past three decades. However that is a topic for another board.
Raghead referred to that collective leftist-liberal freak mentality and had nothing to do with race. Black thugs are like white thugs … each is a thug. When speaking of the New Black Panther Party, we are speaking of black thugs. When addressing the idiocy of neo-fascist skinheads, we are generally talking about white thugs. Perhaps you need to get your thugology correct. We can cover your harmless thuggery another day.
Actually traveliar, the fact of common descent is about as scientifically controversial as the fact that the Earth isn’t flat. Crazy is crazy, and you have it by the truckload. Your old Earth creationism is no more sane or grounded in science than Sarah Palin’s new Earth creationism.
“Raghead” is an extremely offensive, racist slur. Apparently you have been hanging out with your bigoted right wing extremist buddies for too long. Your comments about “black thugs” were equally offensive, you are just too ignorant to know it. And you called me the goober. Perhaps you need to get your gooberology correct. We can talk about your gooberishness any day.
Spanky, Goldwater was a complex character, and I certainly don’t think he was all bad. Most people aren’t. That said, at the national level, his “You can’t legislate morality” argument was the most widespread meme against the civil rights act, and of course, his vote against it speaks for itself. Pick up a history book sometime.
Spanky,
Mr Goldwater’s opposition to the 1964 civil rights bill was based on his opposition to the Federal government’s expansion into commerce regulation against individuals as a result of that bill. He was not at all opposed to the objectives of the civil rights movement having voted for legislation in 1957 and 1960. He had an instrumental role in desegregating the Arizona National Guard, was a strong supporter of the NAACP.
Golderwater’s perspective might best be expressed in the following comment from his Conscience of a Conservative
I believe that the problem of race relations, like all social and cultural problems, is best handled by the people directly concerned. Social and cultural change, however desirable, should not be effected by the engines of national power… Any other course enthrones tyrants and dooms freedom.
Now traveliar is trying to rationalize Goldwater’s shameful opposition to the civil rights movement. I’m sure traveliar would love to live in a country where the states got to decide whether or not black people had basic civil rights, as Goldwater advocated at that time, but no matter how you slice it, it is unconscionable.
I particularly like the fact that Goldwater’s wife, Peggy, was one of the founders and an ongoing supporter and board member of Planned Parenthood in Arizona.
“A lot of so-called conservatives today don’t know what the word means. They think I’ve turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That’s a decision that’s up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the religious right. It’s not a conservative issue at all.”
~Barry Goldwater
Of course, as much as traveliar loves to go on about spanking, I’m sure he just loves that moniker.
I’m sure traveliar would love to live in a country where the states got to decide whether or not black people had basic civil rights, as Goldwater advocated at that time, but no matter how you slice it, it is unconscionable
Goldwater’s objections were not centered on the notion of denying rights to minorities. His objection was on the extension of the Federal government’s application of commerce restrictions to individuals i.e private citizens. His support of the NAACP and his votes in favor of both the 1957 and 1960 acts demonstrate that any attempt to portray him as a racist is nothing but empty rabble.
While I do not agree with his position on abortion, I do agree with him in that the issue is not one of Federal jusridiction and is a matter best left to the states if at all. Abortion, while an abhorent killing in my view, is a divisive issue that the Federal government should never have entered into.
However, this thread has had enough of entopticon’s constant vilification. This thread is about a local justice matter.
Unfortunately for traveliar, he is stuck in an anachronistic time warp trapping him in the racist ignorance of the pre civil rights deep South. History has clearly shown Goldwater’s argument that essential civil liberties for black people should be left to the individual states to be absolutely wrong and morally reprehensible.
Goldwater lost his 1964 bid for President by a landslide because of his unconscionably ignorant position on the issue. People at the time condemned Goldwater’s shameful stance, carrying signs that read, “Bigot Water.”
The fact that in this day and age, traveliar is still arguing Goldwater’s contention that individual states should be left to decide whether or not black people can sit in the front of the bus, use public water fountains, eat at the same establishments, go to college, or even marry someone from another ethnic background, is flat-out despicable.
There is NO rational, moral argument for making the civil rights of black people a state issue. If traveliar had his way and it was left up to the states, black people in most of the South would likely still have an unconscionable lack of essential civil liberties.
And that brings us to why there is little justice for people of color here in Western NC…. There are still too many people such as traveliar and Judge Downs, who are stuck in the depraved and ignorant mindset of the pre civil rights era. You may be a grandpa traveliar, but that doesn’t mean that you have to live in the past.
Apparently you can’t grasp what you read or can and are content to obfuscate. Goldwater’s objection was not based on States rights but on the notion that the Federal government was over reaching into individual rights. Goldwater was a principled conservative and not racist in any sense of the word. Your constant beating the race baiting drum is just plain indicative of your moral character or lack thereof.
Enough of your race baiting leftist intolerance.
Goldwater lost his 1964 bid for President by a landslide because of his unconscionably ignorant position on the issue. People at the time condemned Goldwater’s shameful stance, carrying signs that read, “Bigot Water.”
This is just plain stupid.
Spanky, Goldwater was a complex character, and I certainly don’t think he was all bad. Most people aren’t. That said, at the national level, his “You can’t legislate morality” argument was the most widespread meme against the civil rights act, and of course, his vote against it speaks for itself. Pick up a history book sometime.
Adding to your absurdity through further revisionism does nothing to negate it.
Goldwater wasn’t remotely one “the most outspoken voice against basic civil rights for black people in America”, in fact he was a outspoken proponent of civil rights.
If you got your nonsense out of a book of any kind, I would be astonished.
traveliar, it is truly astonishing that you are actually just that clueless. Sometimes it seems like an act. It is hard to believe that there really are people as outlandishly ignorant as you. Goldwater did indeed want to leave it up to the individual states. That is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of absolutely irrefutable historical record. Goldwater thought it should be left up to the states, and he felt that it infringed on the rights of business owners as well. I don’t doubt that you would love a return to that.
From the wiki (and virtually any legitimate history book on the subject):
“Goldwater argued that it was a matter for the individual states rather than federal legislation.”
This is just plain stupid.
Actually traveliar, it’s the incontrovertible truth, but we all know that the truth is something that you are constantly at odds with.
In reality, it is absolutely indisputable. Goldwater lost every single state (including NC:) except for 5 states in the deep South and his home state of Arizona!!!!!!! The primary reason that Goldwater lost in a landslide everywhere except the deep South and AZ was because of his opposition the the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which Johnson signed into law. Goldwater won over the right-wing extremist Dixiecrats of the old South who wanted to keep the Jim Crow laws, but he scared off the moderates in the process. Civil rights leaders across the board, including MLK, roundly condemned his opposition to the Civil Rights act, and rightly so.
You have no argument whatsoever. The fact that in the 21st century, you are seriously trying to rationalize Barry Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which is something that even his own family recognizes as a huge stain on his legacy, is truly astonishing.
As I said, it is those such as you and Downs, who continue to be trapped in the ignorant bigotry of the past, that are directly responsible for the sorts of shameful disparities of justice mentioned in the above article. It is sad that there really are people such as you that are so astonishingly ignorant that they don’t even know that they are being bigots when they refer to people as “ragheads” and “black thugs.” And it is even more frightening to see someone actually rationalizing opposition to the Civil Rights Act, which was absolutely essential to basic civil rights for black people, in this day and age.
If you got your nonsense out of a book of any kind, I would be astonished.
He pulled it out of his ass as he does with everything else he argues for or against.
Goldwater wasn’t remotely one “the most outspoken voice against basic civil rights for black people in America”, in fact he was a outspoken proponent of civil rights.
Careful traveliar, Spanker is hot on your tail. He is definitely in the running for posting the most ridiculously divorced from reality comment of the day. I’m beginning to suspect that Spanker is actually Thunderpig’s sock puppet .
So Spanker, I guess you got it all figured out…. Goldwater’s vote AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually all part of a giant, elaborate ruse based on reverse psychology. How deviously clever! The fact that it was by far the biggest issue in the Presidential race that he ran in was apparently all part of the ruse too. No doubt, the civil rights leaders such as MLK that condemned his position were all in on the joke. And the fact that his opposition to the Civil Rights Act resulted in a landslide loss with him only winning five states in the deep South and his home state out of all the states in the nation, now that was a brilliant touch in his elaborate ruse indeed. He fooled everybody, but he couldn’t fool you, because you are way too smart to be fooled by insignificant inconveniences like the incontrovertible facts of the matter.
Seriously, do you have to wear your ignorance as a badge? It’s beyond pathetic. As the facts show, your asinine argument has no basis in reality.
He pulled it out of his ass as he does with everything else he argues for or against.
Hmmm…. now I pulled the irrefutable facts that Barry Goldwater voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and ended up losing every state in the Union except his home state and 5 states in the deep South because of it out of my ass! Very interesting. Of course, traveliar’s completely fallacious claim that Goldwater didn’t assert that civil rights issues should be left up to the states was undoubtedly pulled of his ass.
You pull lies out of your ass traveliar. Must be all that cheap barbeque.
Yes, you invented your analysis. The Johnson win in 1964 centered on three primary phenomena. One, Johnson was running at a time when the economy was relatively good following the assassination of Kennedy when sentimental feelings were strongly favorable. Second, Johnson was an absolute master at manipulating the media either through story placement or outright intimidation. Third, Goldwater ran as the titular head of a divided party with his conservative base at strong odds with the moderate Rockefeller camp. The 1964 Republican convention was divided with Rockefeller publicly chastising Goldwater for what he deemed extremism.
The civil rights issues were not significant with regard to Goldwater’s loss in the election. Johnson ran as a candidate of peace building not on Kennedy’s doctrines but of Eisenhower’s instead. He ran a campaign tagging Goldwater as a militant extremist and it was quite effective. The most famous nearly non-existent commercial of all time, Johnson’s daisy girl spot, was grabbed by a Johnson friendly media and the campaign remained focused on Goldwater painted as a warmonger.
For anybody to suggest that civil rights was even remotely close to being a deciding factor in the Presidential race of 1964 or even 68 and 72 for that matter is just a matter of political ineptitude. 1964 hinged on the shallow presentation of contrasting a “peace” candidate with an “extremist war” candidate, the peace candidate winning and embroiling the country in a true quagmire.
traveliar, you have outdone yourself. To suggest that the Vivil Rights Act was not a central issue in the Goldwater-Johnson race is ignorant to the point of absolute insanity. Yes, the daisy girl spot was one of the most effective political ads in history, and yes Johnson effectively painted Goldwater as a warmongering extremist, and yes, the civil rights issue was a central factor. Your claim to the contrary has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Here is a taste of reality that completely negates your silly nonsense; try not to choke on it:
“Goldwater ran a conservative campaign, part of which emphasized “states’ rights.” Goldwater’s 1964 campaign was a magnet for conservatives. Goldwater broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.
“All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina) since Reconstruction. However, Goldwater’s vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign everywhere outside the South (besides Dixie, Goldwater won only in Arizona, his home state), contributing to his landslide defeat in 1964. A Lyndon B. Johnson ad called “Confessions of a Republican,” which ran in the North, associated Goldwater with the Ku Klux Klan. At the same time, Johnson’s campaign in the Deep South publicized Goldwater’s full history on civil rights. In the end, Johnson swept the election.”
I think the proper word for that is “revisionist”
traveliar, you have outdone yourself. To suggest that the Vivil Rights Act was not a central issue in the Goldwater-Johnson race is ignorant to the point of absolute insanity. Yes, the daisy girl spot was one of the most effective political ads in history, and yes Johnson effectively painted Goldwater as a warmongering extremist, and yes, the civil rights issue was a central factor. Your claim to the contrary has no basis in reality whatsoever.
Here is a taste of reality that completely negates your silly nonsense; try not to choke on it:
“Goldwater ran a conservative campaign, part of which emphasized “states’ rights.” Goldwater’s 1964 campaign was a magnet for conservatives. Goldwater broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.
“All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina) since Reconstruction. However, Goldwater’s vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign everywhere outside the South (besides Dixie, Goldwater won only in Arizona, his home state), contributing to his landslide defeat in 1964. A Lyndon B. Johnson ad called “Confessions of a Republican,” which ran in the North, associated Goldwater with the Ku Klux Klan. At the same time, Johnson’s campaign in the Deep South publicized Goldwater’s full history on civil rights. In the end, Johnson swept the election.”
So Spanker, I guess you got it all figured out…. Goldwater’s vote AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was actually all part of a giant, elaborate ruse based on reverse psychology. How deviously clever! The fact that it was by far the biggest issue in the Presidential race that he ran in was apparently all part of the ruse too
Virtually all noted historians and those of us who were involved in the process at the time would find your analysis adolescent, at best.
The primary determinant in the 1964 race was the perception that Goldwater was a loose cannon that could escalate significant tensions into nuclear war with the Soviets. If you weren’t there at the time, you have no concept of the national mood following the Cuban Missile Crisis.
It is no mere coincidence that the most iconic and powerful political ad of all times spoke directly to this point despite only running once as an ad. A little girl picking off flower petals while the background was a count down to a nuclear explosion. Then Johnson’s voice intoned “These are the stakes—to make a world in which all of God’s children can live, or to go into the dark….” “ It is as gripping today as when I first saw it in 1964.
Time magazine quipped: “What would a Goldwater Presidency be like? Brief.” “Goldwater’s first major address as President: “Ten … nine … eight … seven…”
Anyone with an inkling of knowledge about the election knows that Johnson did not focus during the campaign on the Civil Rights Act because it was deemed a liability, not a advantage by the marketeers. At the time marches and riots were dividing even the proponents, while the FBI with Bobby Kennedy’s overt agreement was doing it’s best to take MLK down. The Democrats were strongly divided on the subject.
As several historians have noted, Goldwater’s vote on the Civil Rights act didn’t cost him electoral votes, he prevailed in the South because the Democrats in the South favored that opposition, despite not sharing Goldwater’s rational.
Virtually all noted historians and those of us who were involved in the process at the time would find your analysis adolescent, at best.
Well gramps, virtually anyone with any regard for reality would find your ridiculous analysis delusional at best. The notion that Goldwater’s stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn’t a major issue in the Presidential race is naive to the point of complete absurdity. The idiotic notion that it had little to do with the fact that he lost the entire country except a few states in the deep South is beyond laughable.
Of course the Democrats were divided on the subject. The Dixiecrats were every bit as bad as today’s GOP, and then some. You might be able to find some white supremacist wack job like Lew Rockwell or David Duke to support your ridiculous contention, but the ludicrous notion that a legitimate historian would contend that Goldwater’s stance on civil rights didn’t cost him votes is absolute poppycock.
I certainly do believe that Goldwater’s stance on civil rights was not a con at the time for right-wing extremists like you, but your ridiculous contention that that was the case for the rest of the country is nothing more than a case of projection, with no basis in reality whatsoever. Apparently you never left the pre civil rights deep South.
Virtually all noted historians and those of us who were involved in the process at the time would find your analysis adolescent, at best
It is not only adolescent but it is completely fabricated. The 1964 Presidential campaign has been studied at great length especially by conservatives who recognize the groundwork laid by Goldwater in preparing the Republican party for a conservative rebirth culminating in Reagan’s election. It also has to be noted that in 1964, the American public was not at all united on racial policy and it did not turn it’s sentiments around overnight and hinge the Presidency on Congressional votes on race matters. Johnson had to strong arm the 1964 Civil Rights Act past a majority of Senators both North and South. In fact voting for the 1964 Act was a significant handicap in many Congressional districts and Senate races.
Take heart … a complete blowhard response is forthcoming.
It’s cute when traveleh forgets to log out of his “Spankey” account in mid-conversation.
traveliar, you just get more and more ridiculous with every post. To argue that the Civil Rights act of 1964 was a nonissue in the Johnson vs Goldwater race is absurd to the point of dementia.
No one said the American public was united. That’s what made it an extremely major issue at the time. That’s also one of the main reasons why Goldwater won the deep South, and lost everything else except his home state. For God’s sake, we are talking about the muther-flipping Civil Rights Act!!!!!! One of the most important and contentious acts in American history! In an election year!!!! Your attempts to paint it as a nonissue at the time are absolutely ludicrous and astonishingly naive. The degree to which you are removed from reality is outlandish.
You have NO argument.
Creating the Spanky sock-puppet account was a nice touch traveliar. Nice to see your spanking obsession has made its way to the alternative identity that you had to create to try to support your ridiculously naive and completely asinine argument.
I do not use sockpuppet accounts in any circumstance. The race baiting intolerant liberal bigots can surmise otherwise but I am fairly sure that almost all of my posts on MX have originated from two machines. If either of you two bigots wish to fantasize that I would ever need more than just myself and my one account on MX to mince your absurdities, well, by all means be entertained.
entopticon, as for not havng an argument, keep in mind that most people do not need an argument when discusing anything with you. They just need to let your angry, irrational rhetoric speak for itself.
As is almost always the case, googler, this is another topic you know nothing about.
Actually traveliar, if you say Spanky isn’t your sock-puppet, then so be it. Considering your thing about spanking, it made sense. It just seems like an astonishing coincidence that there are actually two people in this county are both so hilariously ignorant that they don’t know that the Civil Rights Act was one of the most important acts in American history, hugely controversial at the time, and a major factor in the Presidential election at the time, contributing to Goldwater’s landslide defeat everywhere except for a few states in the deep South. Those are irrefutable facts. It is kind of funny yet disturbing how you just make crap up as you go along, even in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Unlike me, you will never be able to actually back up your argument, because it i is a complete fabrication with no basis in reality.
They just need to let your angry, irrational rhetoric speak for itself.
As is almost always the case, googler, this is another topic you know nothing about.
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
That is one of the most hilarious cases of projecting that I have ever seen here. You are a right wing extremist fundamentalist windbag that obsessively trolls around the liberal weekly’s website all day long ranting about “leftist liberals” and Marxist conspiracies, and you think I am the one with anger issues?! Do you really think I spend all my time trolling around right wing sites? You think if I spent all of my time trolling on a right wing site, ranting about right wingers, the reception would be warm and fuzzy?!? Your cartoonish hypocrisy and lack of introspection is truly unparalleled.
Planned Parenthood grants the Barry Goldwater Award every year to conservatives leading the cause for pro-choice. It’s nice to see Mr Mallett doing his small part by using Barry Goldwater as his personal icon here.
The comparison in the Cit-Times Column comparing the same bicycle shooting case to a high sentance for an LSD dealer, who was unarmed, was even more stark and a better comparison.
Hooray for the Planned Parenthood Barry Goldwater award because abortion does save boatloads of taxes.
However, African Ameicans could control at least 7 states if they were willing to relocate into majorities the way Rosa Parks moved to Detroit. And being a majority isn’t segregationist as states can have large white minorities. Every new story of legal abuse makes me wonder why they don’t? African americans control a number of cities and a few counties, it’s high time they controlled a state. And these are state courts.
The notion that Goldwater’s stance on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn’t a major issue in the Presidential race is naive to the point of complete absurdity.
The fact remains it wasn’t the defining issue by any mainstream analysis. Not by historians or documented by period campaign literature or reporting.
What did the New York Times report on the day after the election?
Most Democratic strategists believe, however, that the most telling argument on their side was the widespread belief that Mr. Goldwater would be careless in the use of nuclear weapons, belligerent in his foreign policy and thus would endanger the peace.
If you look at the television advertising from the campaign (and it’s all readily accessible), only one of more than a dozen national Johnson ads even touched on race. More than a few stoked fears of nuclear war.
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that Johnson’s overt racism was well known and Goldwater’s overall voting and speaking record on civil rights was far better than Johnson’s.
Congressman Johnson bragged that he had voted against Truman’s “so-called poll tax repeal bill” and Truman’s “so-called anti-lynching bill.”
Just three years before his VP run, Senator LBJ was on record with: “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.” He argued that they needed to address the issue without “doing enough to make a difference”.
In 1964, I lived in suburban Long Island, although not yet of voting age. My girlfriend’s sister (and the true (if unrealistic))object of my affection was a Columbia student and active CORE volunteer. We vehemently believed neither party shared our commitment to civil rights, but agreed that the prospect of Goldwater lighting off a nuke was too frightening to contemplate.
I campaigned for McCarthy in ’68, and campaigned for McGovern in ’72. Don’t even pretend to know my political beliefs based on a refutation of your juvenile revisionism.
Spanky, you live in a fantasy world. The notion that the Civil Rights Act was not a major issue in the Johnson v Goldwater campaign is completely delusional. The notion that it wasn’t a major factor behind why Goldwater lost everywhere except the deep South is outright laughable. I am not about to defend LBJ’s morality, but your attempt at red herrings certainly is amusing. He got the Civil Rights Act passed, and that is what is important. You can keep on trying to reinvent history all you want, but it is still naive to the point of laughable absurdity.
I couldn’t care less about your childhood in suburban Long Island or your McGovernick youth before you saw the light of right wing extremism. You and traveliar can have fun trying to pronounce the letter r without success while you scheme about Marxist takeovers till you turn blue in the face for all I care…. You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
The notion that it wasn’t a major factor behind why Goldwater lost everywhere except the deep South is outright laughable.
That’s nice. Now explain how The New York Times got it so wrong or why the campaign ads overwhelmingly demonstrate that the primary issue was anything but what you claim?
Explain to us why Doyle Dane Bernbach, the ad agency that developed the media campaign for Johnson scrapped plans for ads focused on Johnson and the CRA. That they did so is simply fact.
Explain why virtually every mainstream book on the issue supports my position and not yours.
The reason why Johnson lost the South is well documented. Historian Robert Dallek noted that Johnson knew he would not carry the South even before he knew who he would be running against. On the day of the CRA’s passage, LBJ told his aide Bill Moyers that the party had “just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.”
You have provided not the slightest evidence in support of your historical inventions and offered no refutation of mine, beyond name calling rhetorical hissy fits.
If you were capable of supporting your view or refuting mine with something resembling fact, you would have.
Spanky, apparently you are getting a bit senile in your old age.
Explain why virtually every mainstream book on the issue supports my position and not yours.
Because that is a ridiculous fabrication with no basis in reality. I never said that the Civil Rights Act was the ONLY factor, but to say that it wasn’t a major factor is absolute poppycock.
And then the senility really kicked in when hilariously, you actually started making my argument for me:
The reason why Johnson lost the South is well documented. Historian Robert Dallek noted that Johnson knew he would not carry the South even before he knew who he would be running against. On the day of the CRA’s passage, LBJ told his aide Bill Moyers that the party had “just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.”
Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha! That is just too funny. You don’t even understand what you just posted. Out of one side of your mouth you are making the absolutely ridiculous argument that the Civil Rights act was not a significant factor in the Johnson v Goldwater race, and out of the other side you are saying that it was such an overwhelmingly major factor that a Democratic candidate lost the overwhelmingly Democratic South to a Republican, and won the rest of the country…. because of the Civil Rights Act!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The fact that you fail to see that you just completely impugned your own argument is absolutely hilarious. You are like a cartoon character. I’m beginning to suspect that your monitor icon really is an accurate snapshot. Too funny.
You have no argument. Your contention that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not a major issue in the Presidential race that year is utterly ridiculous, absolute hogwash, and would get you laughed out of any serious discussion of the subject.
Oh and as for evidence for my claim, since apparently you missed it the first time around, the wiki’s explanation is as good of a source as any, since my argument is common knowledge, and yours is complete nonsense:
““Goldwater ran a conservative campaign, part of which emphasized “states’ rights.” Goldwater’s 1964 campaign was a magnet for conservatives. Goldwater broadly opposed strong action by the federal government. Although he had supported all previous federal civil rights legislation, Goldwater made the decision to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His stance was based on his view that the act was an intrusion of the federal government into the affairs of states and, second, that the Act interfered with the rights of private persons to do business, or not, with whomever they chose.
“All this appealed to white Southern Democrats, and Goldwater was the first Republican to win the electoral votes of the Deep South states (Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina) since Reconstruction. However, Goldwater’s vote on the Civil Rights Act proved devastating to his campaign everywhere outside the South (besides Dixie, Goldwater won only in Arizona, his home state), contributing to his landslide defeat in 1964. A Lyndon B. Johnson ad called “Confessions of a Republican,” which ran in the North, associated Goldwater with the Ku Klux Klan. At the same time, Johnson’s campaign in the Deep South publicized Goldwater’s full history on civil rights. In the end, Johnson swept the election.”
Completely supports my argument, and completely negates yours. Thanks for playing; better luck next time.
Oh and as for evidence for my claim, since apparently you missed it the first time around, the wiki’s explanation is as good of a source as any, since my argument is common knowledge, and yours is complete nonsense
“Wha?!? %$#$@#@! you right wing fruitcake ‘tard teacher!! everybody knows 2+2 = 5!!! you %^&$%$#@ moron” – entopicon in 5th grade arithmatic class
Oh oh …. he might go into a lunatic orbit over my using an “a” rather than an “e” … humm , maybe he will get it or maybe he won’t ….
entopicon in 5th grade arithmatic class
No traveliar, I won’t go into “a lunatic orbit” over the fact that you tried to rag on me for not understanding 5th grade arithmetic, even though you don’t even know how to spell arithmetic. I will just enjoy the irony over a good laugh at your expense.
maybe he will get it or maybe he won’t ….
…. nope, looks like he won’t.
I never said that the Civil Rights Act was the ONLY factor, but to say that it wasn’t a major factor is absolute poppycock.
You would appear more rational if you kept up with your BS a bit better. You said:
Ent: “Goldwater lost his 1964 bid for President by a landslide because of his unconscionably ignorant position on the issue.”
Remember that? You said very specifically that it was the defining issue, the very basis for the landslide. Don’t redefine you point and pretend otherwise.
Not one statement I made said race was a non-issue, simply not one that determined the outcome to any material extent and other issues were far more relevent.
Ent: …but the ludicrous notion that a legitimate historian would contend that Goldwater’s stance on civil rights didn’t cost him votes is absolute poppycock.
That would have been far more profound if I had EVER posited the notion in the first place. But I didn’t. Not once. It is solely your invention. Outside of the South it undoubtedly cost some votes. I could easily accept your silly WIKI contention that it “contributed” to the landslide. Every Johnson vote, for any motivation, contributed to the landslide. So what? In no way does contributed equate to your contention that there was a landslide because of it.
Throughout this exchange I have had just two primary points. You haven’t begun to contest either.
1. Barry Goldwater wasn’t remotely “the most outspoken voice against basic civil rights for black people in America…” as you claimed.
There were far more outspoken voices, including LBJ’s and I can document scads of them.
2. The primary reason that Goldwater lost at all centered on the belief that he was a loose cannon and threatened a dangerous shift in the cold war.
Name calling, silly ideological rhetoric and facetious arguments simply undermine everything you say. They are hallmarks of the incompetent and dishonest.
Nice try traveliar. Unfortunately for you, humor and reason are two areas that you have no facility for, but if I ever need an Arminian apologist to explain that cult’s bizarre views about salvation, or a whipping boy for overzealous Calvinists, I’ll be sure to look you up.
You are incorrigible Spanky. YOU YOURSELF accidentally posted a direct quote that said:
“Historian Robert Dallek noted that Johnson knew he would not carry the South even before he knew who he would be running against. On the day of the CRA’s passage, LBJ told his aide Bill Moyers that the party had “just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come.””
That completely negates your asinine argument, and it is hilarious that you still have trouble grasping that fact. No matter how you slice it, it makes it a major issue, and in fact was responsible for Goldwater winning the only states that he won other than his home state!
“Remember that? You said very specifically that it was the defining issue, the very basis for the landslide. Don’t redefine you point and pretend otherwise.”
Yes it was a defining issue. I certainly never said that it was the only issue; your attempts at red herrings are a joke. It wasn’t the only issue, but it was certainly a huge factor.
The very notion that the Civil Rights Act was not a defining factor in the outcome of the Johnson v Goldwater Presidential race that year, is absurd to the point of absolute lunacy. You claimed that it didn’t even cost Goldwater a single electoral vote!!!
You certainly haven’t been consistent, that’s for sure. First you claimed that you were literally involved in the process, then later you stated that you weren’t even old enough to vote.
That would have been far more profound if I had EVER posited the notion in the first place. But I didn’t. Not once. It is solely your invention.
Waaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! You should really read your own posts a little more carefully before impugning yourself. You are a riot. You are so busted…
“As several historians have noted, Goldwater’s vote on the Civil Rights act didn’t cost him electoral votes….”
Back here on the planet Earth, that argument is beyond ridiculous.
1. Barry Goldwater wasn’t remotely “the most outspoken voice against basic civil rights for black people in America…” as you claimed.
By any rational measure, the Presidential candidate opposing the Civil Rights Act in an election year was indeed the most outspoken voice. Like it or not, the Presidential candidate at the time becomes the most outspoken proponent of any major issue at that time, and the Civil Rights Act was an absolutely huge issue. That’s why to this day, his “you can’t legislate morality” argument was never forgotten, and lives on in infamy in American history.
2. The primary reason that Goldwater lost at all centered on the belief that he was a loose cannon and threatened a dangerous shift in the cold war.
That certainly was a reason, but it certainly was not the only reason. In fact, Goldwater’s stance on the Civil Rights act was an essential and inseparable component of the portrait that the Johnson campaign painted of Goldwater as an unhinged right wing extremist lunatic. Again, to claim that Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wasn’t a major reason for why Goldwater lost everywhere except the deep South, even Republican states, is naive to the point of laughability.
You can keep trying to reinvent history all you want, but it won’t make your ridiculous claims any truer.