All modern Republicans claim they would have supported the 1960s Civil Rights Acts

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

But we know they have always throughout their *actual* careers opposed anything remotely equivalent. The claim they would have supported those bills because it is, today, unthinkable to say otherwise.

The idea that George Allen, for instance, would have supported Civil Rights legislation were he a congressman in the context of 1964, is comical.

A few years from now a lot of people are going to be claiming the were ever so supportive of gay rights back in the 2000s. And a lot of them will be lying.

Will they tell their grand-kids how they used to hang out on a site called DU ("what's the internet, grandma... you mean the webazoid?") and made a career of mocking and abusing gay people as disingenuous whiners who couldn't possibly be serious about their silly fucking rights?

I'm guessing not.

[Deja Q]

1. George Allen - the bloke who supports offshoring yet calls Indians "macacas"?

:shrug:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Who had a Confederate flag on his car while growing up in CALIFORNIA!

Doesn't seem like he was just going along with the crowd like a kid growing up in Alabama could plausibly claim...

[Hansel]

3. Oh BS. That would have been their definition of "special rights."

Edit to say: Not BS to you. BS to their BS. I lived in the segregated south (Mississippi) in 1972. And I'm pretty sure every politician down there was a Republican or Blue Dog Dem. There is no frickin way. Clowns.

[mondo joe]

4. There are DUers who will revise their own history and claim they always supported marriage rights.

They just won't remember how soft their support was.

[Fire Walk With Me]

5. ...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/11/mccains-other-controversi_n_96193.html

And didn't pappy Bush vote against civil rights back in the 60s?

[Synicus Maximus]

6. From Wikipedia Civil Rights Act of 1964

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

* The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
* 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:<9>

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

The Senate version:<9>

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

The Senate version, voted on by the House:<9>

* 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 Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

7. Many of those Democrats became Republicans

Of course the starkest resistance came from Democrats because almost all southerners were Democrats.

People like Trent Lott started out as Democrats. John Connelly was a Democrat. (Which is why he was in JFK's car to be shot in '63) Phil Gramm was a Democrat. etc.. All the folks like George Wallace were Democrats.

Most segregationist-leaning Republicans of today would have been Democrats in 1964.

The OP isn't about the Republican Party historically, but rather the cluster of issues that are currently represented by the modern Republican Party.