Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

If LBJ could get the civil rights act through a Congress, Obama should be able to get HCR done

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 09:51 AM
Original message
If LBJ could get the civil rights act through a Congress, Obama should be able to get HCR done
Edited on Sun Nov-22-09 09:53 AM by still_one
The civil rights act was even worse. You had Democrats in Southern states who didn't want it, were concerned about re-election, and some who were plain racist, and yet it made it

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
1. LBJ got it via inadvertent backlash, not through skill or negotiation
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Women.27s_Rights

Women's Rights
Howard W. Smith, the powerful Virginian who chaired the House Rules Committee, opposed civil rights laws for blacks, but he supported them for women. Smith had long been close to Alice Paul, one of the leaders of the Suffrage Movement since 1917. At her urging, Smith jokingly and insincerely included gender as a protected category. His purpose was to make the bill unacceptable, and this attempt to openly ridicule the legislation infused the debate with howls of laughter. Smith's strategy, however, backfired, and was ultimately used against him by Representative Martha Griffiths, a liberal feminist from Michigan, whose support of Smith's amendment resulted in the inclusion of gender as a protected category in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This development defeated the liberals of the AFL-CIO who had long opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, as well as the black leaders who wanted the bill to focus solely on race.

William Rehnquist, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, articulated in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson: “The prohibition against discrimination based on sex was added to Title VII at the last minute on the floor of the House of Representatives…the bill quickly passed as amended, and we are left with little legislative history to guide us in interpreting the Act’s prohibition against discrimination based on ‘sex.’”

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BzaDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
2. Johnson got 73 votes in the Senate by compromising, including the votes of many Republicans.
Should we compromise to get 73 votes? I doubt you would want that. This is a dumb analogy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. It depends what the compromise is. Those affected by the civil rights act appreciated the
compromise,

The view that it is a dumb analogy is your view

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
4. I think you had republicans voting for it - how many do you think we can get for health care/
Gerrymandering wasn't as prevelent in congressional districts and their was less right or even left wing extremism compared to those who really were interested in governing instead of hearing themselves speak on cable networks. A few thing have changed over the years and it is not as simplistic as you want to think
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I believe it will get done before the end of the year, this is all drama, and face saving for those
just like the house was

and I also believe it will have at least the foundation of a public option, most likely with an opt out clause for individual states



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 10:03 AM
Response to Original message
5. People should be able to get good jobs w/o an education because they could in the 60s
Its the workers fault because in the past they could get good jobs :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 10:08 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. That was before it was decided to off-shore our future overseas. We don't make
a lot of things anymore

I find it amazing that a lot of our agriculture, energy, food, and medicines, are now made overseas. Through our wonderful trade agreements we have made ourselves dependent on someone else





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 10:06 AM
Response to Original message
7. Different times and totally different political dynamics.
More Republicans in the House voted for the bill than Democrats. Only 6 Republican Senators voted against the final bill. Democrat Hubert Humphrey and Republican Everett Dirksen of Illinois lead the charge for final passage. Once Dirksen was on board it was a done deal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. True, and there is no way we will get republicans on HCR, but we should be able to get Democrats /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coyote_Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-22-09 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
10. Anything that can be labelled healthcare reform
is politically expedient for Obama. But it would appear that he lacks a principled commitment to actually achieving reform that would give millions of uninsured/underinsured meaningful affordable access to healthcare. Obama's personal changing position tells the tale. He was for single payer before he decided it couldn't be implemented. What a fucking uninformed cop out. He was for a strong public option. He was for a weak public option. He was for healthcare co-ops. Seems he's both supported and opposed mandates at different times. The current POS clusterfuck of a proposal is nothing but fucking ***INSURANCE*** reform. But Obama has already accomplished his political goal because he can pretend he tried to reform healthcare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC