Senator J. Strom Thurmond fights nomination of Abe Fortas 1968

[larrywheels]

all this slick political rhetoric was just a cover for his klan buddies back home to hang on to their "southern heritage" for as long as they could. conserve the status quo -the way of life in the south. if you don't think these people give it up check out the freedom riders when they rode the greyhound bus for civil rights. old strom supporters showed up with iron bars and the cops supported them.

[FRSDailyTimes]

Strom Thurmond was never a true democrat and perhaps never a real republican either. He was too far to the right for the Democratic Party. And farther to the right of the Republican Party on Civil Rights in the 1960s.

[6ft7inHIBread]

@FRSDailyTimes Do you think based on his choice of words he might have been a precursor to the tea party?

[FRSDailyTimes]

@6ft7inHIBread

Strom Thurmond was more interested in Social Issues then the Tea Party by in large. At least the Tea Party Members that haven't gotten in bed with the Religious Right. Barry Goldwater would be a better link to the Tea Party, now thats a real Classical Conservative.

[loyaldude10]

@FRSDailyTimes ---too bad Barry or some more like him are not around today. They would kick some of these right wing religious radicals in the ass

[FRSDailyTimes]

@loyaldude10

Exactly!

[toddsmitts]

@loyaldude10 True, at least to some extent. In fact when DADT was first being debated in the early 90's, Goldwater famously said it doesn't matter if a soldier IS straight, only that he can SHOOT straight. Compare this with the positions of most of the GOP candidates running today.

[nedster7]

@toddsmitts Who cares who wants to join the military. I wouldn't want to join if it was filled with female models. But kidding aside, fornication is the enemy of discipline, and an army has to has some level of discipline. I think an individual should be free to leave the army when he/she wants. But if you have a breakdown via contant orgies between any of the sexes, you not going to have an effective army. I think this is part of the reason only men have served through history.

[toddsmitts]

@nedster7 Who's saying soldiers aren't disciplined? How does your mind immediately go to orgies and sh!t like that?

[nedster7]

@toddsmitts What I gave is an extreme example, sure. but take a look at ancient pagan history and the breakdown of society. Yes, discipline rests upon self-restraint and cohesiveness within an army. I am only saying that for soldiers to perform their duties effectively, they must refrain from intimate relations with other soldiers, of any sex. That is all. It is the same concept as refraining from finding partners at any job. To engage with intimate relationships can hurt work. That's all.

[nedster7]

@nedster7 Just one more simple, old statement to illustrate my point, respectfully. That old line about not "pooping where you eat." Bad for morale (so important for all of us, in any industry), and bad for "business." All the best!

[toddsmitts]

@nedster7 Again, you're assuming gay soldiers are automatically going to have relations with one another, that they're promiscuous, and undisciplined. Sexual orientation and promiscuity are completely unrelated. Now is there a chance two gay soldiers somewhere may eventually hook up? Yes, just as there's a chance male and female personnel may. But most people are more discreet. Nearly every western democracy allows gays to serve openly and we've seen no signs of a "breakdown", as you say.

[nedster7]

@toddsmitts Only making the assumption that people should remain professional at work. Promiscuity aside, relationships that develop can bring all kinds of emotional baggage that detract from what a firm, army or any organization has been designed to accomplish. Do relationships happen anyway, sometimes successfully (with no work complications)? Of course. P.S. I don't agree with homosexuality, but I'm a live and let live kind of person. Doesn't matter to me. (Take care).

[toddsmitts]

@FRSDailyTimes Not exactly.While the Democratic party was home to progressives like Hubert Humphrey, conservative, segregationist southerners in both federal and state gov't (Russell, Bilbo, Eastland, Wallace, Barnett) were also Democrats to a man. (Hence the term "The Solid South"). By the 60's, that hold was breaking. When he signed the '64 Act, LBJ predicted they would lose the south for a generation. Indeed the Deep South supported Goldwater, who had voted against the act, then Nixon in '68

[FRSDailyTimes]

@toddsmitts

Too conservative for the Democratic Leadership which is my point

[toddsmitts]

@FRSDailyTimes He was probably comparable in terms of conservatism to Dick Russell or James Eastland, neither of whom crossed party lines.  More likely, he simply recognized sooner than most that his kind of social conservatism and opposition to civil rights would gradually be tolerated more and more in the Republican party. (Conversely, progressive pro-civil rights Republicans like Jacob Javits would soon find themselves pushed out)