Latino Victory Fund ad attacks Republican Party pandering to neo-Confederates

The Latino Victory Fund has an ad against Ed Gillespie, Republican candidate for Virginia governor.

Ed Gillespie has made campaigning for Confederate monuments a major theme in his current campaign for Virginia governor and his prior campaign for the U.S. Senate.

These are links to the add on different platforms.

This is the Facebook page ad. This will work well to share on Facebook.

https://www.facebook.com/latinovictory/videos/1473881229333516/

This is a Twitter link

https://twitter.com/latinovictoryus/status/924972736996364289

This is the You Tube link.

https://youtu.be/bYb2ZiQzL4M

CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO SEE THE ENTIRE VIDEO




Of course the conservative movement is screaming about this video.

However, going way back into the 1980s Republican Party members have been pandering to the neo-Confederate movement.  U.S. Senators Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Thad Cochrane, Jesse Helms interviewed in the Southern Partisan.

Trent Lott stated in the Southern Partisan that the Republican Party was the party of Jefferson Davis's descendants.

Then Texas U.S. House Representative Phil Gramm interviewed in the Southern Partisan and also explained that the Republican Party  is the party for those who used to vote Democrat before the Civil Rights Era. Texas U.S House Representative Dick Army also interviewed in the Southern Partisan.

Trent Lott and many many Republicans were involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Now Donald Trump and his administration is opposed to removing Confederate statues.

However, the facts here don't seem to be an obstacle for the conservative movement to squeal like stuck pigs over the revelation, somewhat allegorically, what the reality is.

Breitbart, which has pandered to white resentment and pro-Confederates hypocritically runs the headline, "Shameless: Latino Victory Fund Ad Features Ed Gillespie Supporters Chasing Minority Children."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/30/shameless-latino-victory-fund-ad-features-ed-gillespie-supporters-chasing-minority-children/

Fox News has reported it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/30/democratic-campaign-ad-implies-ed-gillespie-supporters-are-confederates-who-attack-minority-kids.html


Daily Caller is not happy either.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/30/latino-victory-ad-ties-gillespie-to-neo-nazis/

This is somewhat hypocritical also. J. Arthur Bloom Opinion Editor of the Daily Caller"

I blogged on him since he went on a tear about my campaign against churches hosting neo-Confederate events.  These are two blogs on it.

This was his comment on his website.

Church-bullying piece of shit Ed Sebesta is naturally thrilled with the campaign. (He tattletaled to the Episcopal Church’s presiding bishop recently about southern parishes allowing the Sons of Confederate Veterans to use church space, and considering the apostate bishop Jefferts-Schori’s heavyhanded and litigious tendencies, it wouldn’t be beneath her to intervene.)


http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/06/daily-caller-jordan-bloom-opinion.html#.WfhyLWhSyiN

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2014/08/daily-caller-opinion-editor-j-arthur.html#.WfhyP2hSyiM

The National Review isn't happy either.

The National Review might re-read its own magazine from the 1950s and 1960s and some of the really ghastly stuff they wrote. I will have to count up some day how many editors of the National Review ended up writing for the Southern Partisan.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453236/latino-group-ad-gillespie-supporters-want-run-down-little-children

Infowars has cover it. George Soros is supposedly involved.

https://www.infowars.com/shock-video-trump-supporter-mows-down-dreamers-in-soros-funded-ad/

Rush Limbaugh calls the ad disgusting.

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/10/30/disgusting-ad-run-against-ed-gillespie-in-virginia/

Washington Times runs this article.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/31/ed-gillespie-slams-latino-victory-ad-as-a-new-low/

They use to run a column by Samuel Francis. Their former editor interviewed in the Southern Partisan. They are fairly consistent supporter of the Confederacy.

Newsmax also.

https://www.newsmax.com/Politics/campaign-election-ad-latino-victory-fund/2017/10/30/id/823019/

This brings up an interesting question. It seems that the radical right wants their supporters to be aware of this ad.  They are giving it a lot more publicity than it might otherwise get. I suppose that it could be said that they are reporting the news and I think that is true also.

Gillespie is running ads trying to associate his opponent with Latino gangs.

The mainstream media is also reporting this ad, excepting the New York Times which is to be expected. Probably the New York Times is talking to "Mudcat" Sanders.

The Washington Post ran an article on it with the video advertisement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/virginia-ad-features-minority-kids-chased-by-truck-with-gillespie-sticker-confederate-flag/2017/10/30/7311fdda-bd6f-11e7-97d9-bdab5a0ab381_story.html?utm_term=.78533f3b90e8

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported on the ad.

http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/government-politics/latino-group-s-ad-depicts-confederate-flag-waving-gillespie-supporter/article_20404443-a2c0-51e7-b2a7-6a603e00e940.html

I wonder if Richmond mayor Levar Stoney is regretting his choice to shill for Confederate monuments earlier in the year.

The discussion post-New Orleans, post-Charlottesville, and now with Ed Gillespie running for Virginia Governor it is becoming really clear who Levar Stoney is.

Politico mentions the ad in an article but doesn't have a link to it. The primary topic is U.S. Senator Rubio from Florida campaigning for Gillespie.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/30/rubio-gillespie-northam-virginia-244350

CNN mentions the ad and has a link to the Washington Post article with the ad.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/31/politics/virginia-governor-trump-ed-gillespie-ralph-northam/index.html

ABC news has it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/va-attack-ad-shows-minority-children-chased-truck/story?id=50821176

However, I am not finding it at other news sites.

The Virginia Flaggers are reporting it.

https://www.facebook.com/378823865585630/videos/1138975612903781/

Various Sons of Confederate groups shared it.

https://www.facebook.com/SCVOKDIV/posts/1504599709593213


https://www.facebook.com/groups/90539604190/permalink/10155357220489191/


Clearly the Republican Party is continuing to become more and more the party of the Confederacy as former Republican Mississippi U.S. Senator Trent Lott said it was.

Corey Stewart loses by a small margin in Virginia

Corey Stewart lost the Virginia Republican Republican primary by a very small margin. But he lost.

One of his issues he campaigned on was the retention of Confederate monuments which he loudly supported. He also strongly identified with Donald Trump in his campaign.

Here are some articles.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/confederate-statue-supporter-nearly-upsets-in-virginia-governor-race


https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/a-trump-loving-confederate-sympathizer-nearly-pulled-off-a-huge-upset-in-virginia/

This is a mixed outcome in some ways. The fact that Stewart was defeated is good since he was a supporter of honoring the Confederacy and keeping Confederate monuments. Had he been successful in the primary we could expect other Republicans in Virginia and elsewhere to be stronger supporters of honoring the Confederacy.

It is bad since Stewart didn't have the Republican establishment support, not as much money as the establishment candidate, and by emphasizing the Confederacy nearly won the primary. By being a loud supporter of the Confederacy Stewart got national attention and was able to counter the resources and support of the establishment Republican candidate.

Republicans in Virginia and elsewhere will note this. They may not want to go on record as being big supporters of the Confederacy, but they won't want to be known as opponents either.

Had Stewart been defeated by a large margin, the prospects of the Confederacy in the South would have been greatly diminished.

So Corey's defeat is a defeat for the supporters of the Confederacy, but it isn't much of a victory of the Confederacy either. It is a step down the road which may prove to be a long road.

Republican Party in Louisiana chooses to be a party of the Confederacy UPDATE

http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_c8bd15fe-39ac-11e7-9d86-673df313101c.html

In the above article discusses the vote by the Louisiana House to block removal of New Orleans monuments. As the article says, it is by "largely a party line vote."

The Democrats who voted for this bill need to be voted out of office.

Ed Rogers in the Washington Post may be asking his fellow Republicans to make a clean break with the Confederacy, but it is obvious that the Republican Party is embracing the Confederacy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/05/15/republicans-need-a-clean-break-with-the-confederacy/?utm_term=.bdf757b5b7a0

One of my upcoming projects is to document Republican Party embrace of the Confederacy.

UPDATE:

An editorial castigating the Republican Party for supporting the Confederate monuments.

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/05/monuments_louisiana_house.html

Perhaps the "Washington Post" needs a clean break with the Confederacy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2017/05/15/republicans-need-a-clean-break-with-the-confederacy/?utm_term=.7d30a0b266ad

The above is a link to an article titled, "Republicans need a clean break with the Confederacy," by Ed Rogers, who we are told is a "veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush White Houses."

Well I think it would be good if all political parties make a clean break with the Confederacy. Given that former Mississippi U.S. Senator Trent Lott has in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans and in Southern Partisan magazine has also explained that the Republican Party is the party of Jefferson Davis Roger's hopes of a clean break by the Republican Party with the Confederacy is not likely to happen.

However, before the Washington Post lectures others perhaps they can start advocating that the Democratic Party make a clean break with the Confederacy. For example they can decided that future Democratic presidents, unlike Obama, not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument, and apologize for being advocates that Obama should send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument.

They might also ask Bill Clinton to retract his three letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. I wrote Bill Clinton in 2015 and asked him to retract them and did not get a reply.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2008/03/bill-clinton-betrays-carol-moseley.html#.WRpexmgrKiM


http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2015/06/black-commentator-reruns-article-on.html#.WRpfRmgrKiM


I don't think this will happen though. The Washington Post is looking for a way to twist the Republicans and I don't think they are really that serious about Republicans or Democrats or themselves giving up the Confederacy.

On the other hand the Washington Post is the press agency of the centrist Democrats so they are setting the new policy for the Democratic Party that they are not the party of the Confederacy, in as much as it is useful.

I don't think they will ask Donald Trump to not send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument which I think will show how serious the Washington Post is on this.

Certainly the Washington Post won't advocate the Arlington Confederate monument to be removed.

Effort to remove Confederate monument in Shreveport, Louisiana. It is starting.

It has already begun. I thought the process whereby other cities would take down Confederate monument would really start moving along after the 4th monument in New Orleans went down, but it is happening already.

I discussed how a movement against Confederate monuments everywhere would start with the success of monument removal in New Orleans, but I thought it wouldn't really take off until the 4th monument was removed. This is my blog posting stating this.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-revolution-against-confederate.html#.WRcScWgrKiM

The following is about the debate to remove a Confederate monument in Shreveport.

http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/05/shreveport_monument_debate.html

Not only is the process underway, but the columnist writing this essay is showing how all the excuses and rationalizations for the Confederate monuments are rubbish and that the Confederate monuments are about white supremacy.

This is a column in the major daily newspaper for New Orleans. Not a paper with a limited readership. Members of the establishment will take note.

Other cities are also thinking about removing monuments.

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/news/should-west-palm-beach-take-down-its-confederate-statue-too/EYbiHyF6na5uSxPdRgWdsI/

However, there is one road block that is coming up. State lawmakers are trying to remove control of Confederate monuments form the cities and other municipalities.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/us/confederate-monument-state-bills/

The success of this effort I think is largely due to the fact that the Democratic Party isn't speaking up. Trent Lott explained in a Southern Partisan interview that the Republican Party was for those who have the values of Jefferson Davis. The discussion was about him expressing the same idea in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans.

The problem is that the Democratic Party has been the party of James Buchanan in resisting the Republican Party's support of the Confederacy.

However, I plan to compile a table of every vote for Confederate monuments by state legislators.

Also, I don't think the Republican Party is going to want to be identified with the Confederacy in the future. I think that some of these bills were passed with the understanding that Confederate monument removal would not go so far. The issue wouldn't be pressed so strongly. The bills were passed in the situation as it was, which was very different from how it will be. I think Republicans are going to reconsider this legislation.

There can be marches to state capitols demanding bills be repealed. Local legislators can submit bills asking for their monument to be exempted. Cities can send petitions to state legislatures year after year asking for the bill to be repealed or the monument to be exempted.

Year after year the Republicans can be hammered as being the party of the Confederacy. I think with the defeat of Sheri Few and she only getting 5% of the vote in the Republican primary the GOP in many states will see large liabilities and little advantage, few benefits in the defense of the Confederacy. It could be a long struggle which would not just embarrass the Republican Party nationally, but destroy their credibility.

One big obstacle are residual yellow dog Democrats and a white members of the liberal/left in the former Confederate states which like to think they are all this and that but in reality are banal white nationalists.

http://www.templeofdemocracy.com/breaking-the-white-nation.html

One thing about the removal of the Confederate monuments it is revealing who is who in New Orleans.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2017/05/confederate_monuments_bizarre.html

In the above link the article reports that the Mayor of New Orleans specifically criticized Frank Stewart, a local rich guy who supported the monuments.

I said that fighting neo-Confederacy would surface who was really who in a society. Frank Stewart's reputation has been taken down along with the two monuments that have been taken down.

The Confederate flag is down the tubes in South Carolina, elsewhere Confederate flags are going to be increasingly rejected

This article is titled, "SC GOP scuttles Confederate flag proposal before convention."

http://www.thestate.com/news/politics-government/article150186207.html

With Sheri Few's campaign for congress based on defending the Confederate flag went down to defeat and she only got 5% of the vote in the Republican primary, I think the South Carolina Republicans realized that there is really no substantial or even minor or slightly significant support for the Confederate flag in South Carolina and the Spartanburg County GOP resolution was dumped in the garbage.

The South Carolina Republican Party has dropped the Confederate flag and it is probably really clear to any politician with any ambition that supporting the Confederate flag will make you unwelcome in the Republican Party and additionally get you identified with Sheri Few http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2017/05/sheri-few-they-dont-love-you-gets-less.html#.WRZl-tIrKrw and Chris Corley http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2016/12/south-carolina-rep-chris-corley.html#.WRZl09IrKrw

Republicans in other states will see a developing trend and the Confederate flag isn't going to be welcome in a lot of places.

Mississippi Republicans will likely be informed that they are embarrassing the Republican Party nationally and that they should change their flag.

I think the battle over Confederate flags is going to be over Mississippi and a few rural towns. Now it is going to be over Confederate monuments

Numerous links to our research at CNN article

I am going to just put up the link, to the article, but if you go to the links embedded in this article you will see some of my old web pages, and links to my video channel at YouTube and other material supplied by Euan Hague and I or just by myself.

Even the TPM Cafe material originally comes from me.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/17/politics/kfile-corey-stewart-richard-hines/

I will provide more information tonight. The nation seems to be realizing what is happening.

The claim of the following T-shirt which was sold by Southern Partisan seems to have become real.

If you want to prevent "Lincoln's worst nightmare" sign this petition.

https://www.change.org/p/edward-h-sebesta-ask-president-trump-not-to-send-a-wreath-to-the-arlington-confederate-monument

CLICK ON IMAGES TO SEE WHOLE THING

Proposal to change North Carolina constitution to allow secession

This is what happens when you have Confederate monuments and places named after Confederate leaders.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article134037589.html

http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/n-c-ban-on-secession-could-be-dropped-under-bill/article_e7d42c53-19de-5cf8-8ca7-6bd2e145a9e1.html

North Carolina Republican House Representatives Michael Speciale, George Cleveland, and Larry Pittman want to amend the North Carolina constitution to remove the NC constitution's prohibition against secession.

This article as a little information about their reasons behind the proposal.

http://www.wbtv.com/story/34559979/house-bill-seeks-to-repeal-ban-on-secession-in-nc-constitution

We can expect more of this craziness when the conservative movement publishes people like Brion McClanahan. https://townhall.com/columnists/brionmcclanahan/2017/02/16/let-the-bear-flag-go-n2286464

And:

http://www.breitbart.com/author/brion-mcclanahan/

I think we can just ignore the claim by some conservative groups that they want to make America great again or claim to be patriotic when they publish persons that are sympathetic or pro-secessionist or are neo-Confederates.

This is a link to McClanahan's articles at the Abbeville Institute

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org/blog/author/brionmclanahan/

Video of how the Republican Party went from LIncoln to Trump

Trent Lott one time told the national convention of the Sons of Confederate Veterans that the Republican Party was the party of the admirers of Jefferson Davis.

"Vox" has an interesting video of how the Republican Party going from Lincoln to Trump.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12148750/republican-party-trump-lincoln

One thing people should think about is what is the geography of their politics.

Presidential Elections and secession

Currently it looks like apparent Republican Party presidential nominee Donald Trump is going to lose the election. He may not even get the nomination. The Republican Party is realizing that besides losing the Presidential election Trump might bring down the Republican party and they could lose both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate and lose several governorships.

The effort to just deny Trump the nomination is in progress.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-delegate-revolt-224634

I am sure at this point all the Trump delegates are aware of these efforts and will attend the Republican National Convention in a state of anxiety that this might happen. It could be really tense. I would not be surprised if there is a riot of delegates when the attempt to deny Trump the nomination occurs.

There are two scenarios here.

1. Trump does get the nomination and he loses in the general election and takes down a lot of Republicans with him at the local, state, and federal levels. The Democratic Party is in charge at the federal level and at many more local and state places.

The Trump supporters and the cranky faction of the conservative movement realize that within the American democratic system they have no future and that the political landscape is going to evolve to be more adverse towards their goals.

2. Trump is just denied the nomination and the Republican party crashes in the general election and Trump supporters are totally alienated from the political system.

In general some will look at Trump's ouster and the Democrats superdelegate system and lose faith in the political system. Again the cranky segment of the conservative movement will realize that they have no future in the political system.

In either scenario the cranky conservative faction will be looking for success in what avenues they can find. Secession, creaking a local polity where you are in the majority will be immediately obvious though also seen as facing some challenges. However, when the crankies don't have any options in the system, they will be forced to pursue what options are available.

Texas secession movement will take off. There will be other secession movements.

The polling for secession was fairly substantial among Republicans after the 2012 elections and at that time Republicans controlled the House and Senate and had hopes. After 2016 they won't have hopes.

Secession will become more a real thing in American politics.

Also, I really think that people need to stop quoting Supreme Court decisions against secession as if they mattered. These legal rulings and laws really don't count much in the matter of secession. National identity is a matter of the heart, or as Lincoln referred to the "mystic chords of memory." In modern cultural geography we state that "nations are imagined."

Once a group of people decided to leave by a good margin at some point they have a good chance of leaving. Unless it is a really small place. In the South we have populations that would be inherently against secession so secession once it is realized to be a serious threat will receive a serious opposition from substantial portions of the public and will not be able to go anywhere. There is the prospect of conflict though.

This is the anti-Secession Facebook page for Texas.

https://www.facebook.com/TexansTruetotheUnion/

Possibility of a question about secession on the Texas Republican primary ballot, could be very interesting.

It turns out that the Texas Nationalist Movement has started a petition drive to the question of whether Texas should secede on the Texas Republican primary ballot. They only need 66,894 signatures and will target 75,000 to cover the inevitable discovery that some signatures are invalid.

Texas is a big state with a big population and with a higher than national average rate of right wing crackpots. So there are easily enough people willing to sign their petition.

This article explains what is happening.

https://www.texastribune.org/2015/09/15/texas-nationalist-movement-wants-texas-secede/

The Republican party leadership is entirely against this. From the article:

But that hasn't stopped the Republican Party of Texas from rolling its eyes at the secessionists. Texas GOP communications director Aaron Whitehead said the Republican party certainly doesn't welcome outside groups trying to doctor the party ballot.

“Historically the executive committee of the Republican Party has chosen what goes on this,” Whitehead said, “and it’s party preference that it stays that way.”

You would think the Republicans would be more emphatic and specific in criticizing a movement that is against the UNITED States of America.

The problem probably is that they don't want to give the secessionists free publicity, and also this is something the Republican Party base might be sympathetic to.

What must worry the Texas Republican leadership is that the percentage of Republicans who might be willing to vote yes on this could be embarrassingly high. Individuals might vote for it as joke, or an expression of opposition against Obama, or just to irritate the Republican leadership all thinking that their little protest vote won't matter that much.

Then when the results are tabulated the percentage that voted yes might be very high.

Also, the Democrats may well decide to encourage the yes vote to embarrass the Republicans. A leading Democratic figure might condemn the Texas Nationalist Movement which would encourage members of the Republican party base to vote for the Texas Nationalist Movement in a reflexive response.

Other tactics might be to have some group condemn Texas secession in a way that would drive people to vote for secession. For example, point out that LGBT rights wouldn't be safe in an independent Texas.

This can be a dangerous game to play. If the Texas Nationalist Movement gets a significant percentage it could very well give the secessionists credibility and get more people involved and then another ballot with an even higher percentage vote for secession.

Chances are now that they will get a percentage yes on the Republican primary to embarrass the Republicans, but the movement won't be able to achieve their goals and as Texas demographically changes it will be much less interested in secession.

However, the future is opaque to us. Sometimes the unexpected happens and in some crisis the Texas Nationalist Movement might be in a position where they have a good prospect of achieving their goals.

I think though that this will be all great laughs and the Republican Party will learn the lesson that being the party of crazy can have negative consequences.

Republicans, Democrats, and the Confederacy. Republicans have a problem and the Democrats know it.

The Republicans have a problem regarding the Confederacy and the Democrats know it and are demonstrating that they are quite willing to exploit the situation.

The Republicans don't want to be associated with the Confederacy, but they don't want to be seen as anti-Confederate either.

When Obama is picketed by Confederate flag waving protesters, Oklahoma Republican congressional representatives masw sure that the public knew that they didn't approve of this.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/16/protesters-wave-confederate-flags-during-obama-visit/

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/248256-oklahoma-republicans-confederate-flags-at-obama-visit-disrespectful

Earlier there were Confederate protesters when Obama visited Tennessee.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2015/07/01/confederate-flag-supporters-protest-obama-visit/29565393/

Republican Gov. Nikki Haley and Republican state legislators took down the Confederate flag from the capitol grounds in South Carolina hoping to put the issue behind them.

Opinion polls show that Democrats see the Confederate flag as racist, but Republicans don't.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/184040/democrats-views-confederate-flag-increasingly-negative.aspx

In fact the supporters of the Confederate flags are largely Republicans and certainly are likely to vote in primaries.  The Republicans though have considerations besides winning primaries. They need to consider winning general elections, they need younger voters, and they can't risk being identified with the Confederacy. They have to consider their brand going into the future.

So the Republicans might agree to the flag coming down on the South Carolina capitol grounds, but they otherwise don't want to be either anti-Confederate or pro-Confederate. The whole issue could cause serious damage to their electoral prospects now and in the future.

The Democrats obviously sense this. President Barack Obama praises the Confederate flag coming down in South Carolina knowing full well that many Republicans are reflexively against what he is for.  Obama speaks against the Confederate flag during a speech in Kenya.

Obama previously hasn't had a lot to say about the Confederate flag when running for the presidency in 2008 and 2012, but know it remains to be seen how often he will bring it up. I think it will be very likely that Obama will find one way or another to bring up the Confederacy.

When Obama is traveling in the United States again, we can almost certainly expect that there will be anti-Obama protesters flying Confederate flags.

Obama's speaking against the Confederate flag and protesters with Confederate flags will likely make the Confederacy and flying Confederate flags at anti-Obama protests irresistible to many elements of the Republican Party base who will have no care at all about embarrassing the Republican Party.

The Democrats in congress recently have suddenly discovered the Confederacy as an issue and amended legislation to forbid Confederate flags from the U.S. government cemeteries.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/gop-house-confederate-flag-cemeteries-119892.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/house-gop-takes-step-back-on-confederate-flags-119889.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/confederate-flags-cemeteries-house-spending-bills-119958.html

However, some Republicans complained and the Republican House leadership pulled the bill. They aren't re-introducing it since they don't want to have to deal with the issue. They can't agree to the anti-Confederate measures, but they can't reject them either.

The U.S. House sessions were quite raucous. Shouting and booing.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-confederate-flag-brings-down-a-bill-in-congress/398123/


http://www.rollcall.com/news/republicans_to_vote_on_allowing_display_of_confederate_flag-242722-1.html?pos=hftxt

The bills are still not back on the House floor. I suspect the Democrats will be right on the issue if the Republicans try to get some legislation passed.

Now the Republican plan to put the Confederate flag behind them is coming undone even further. Bobby Jindal has decided to become the defender of the Confederacy. He is against the city of New Orleans getting rid of their Confederate monuments.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/08/bobby_jindal_confederate_statu.html

If Jindal can gain just a few percentage points he will be in the top ten tier of the Republican presidential candidates and will be allowed in the main debates.

This will put a lot of pressure on other Republican Presidential candidates to defend the Confederacy. Maybe those not in the top ten can get into the top ten. Maybe those who are barely in the top ten will want to secure their position.

As Obama condemns the Confederate flag, as anti-Obama protesters fly the Confederate flag and as the Democrats seek to inject the issue into politics the issue of the Confederate flag might very well get interjected into the American presidential elections. It seems it is starting with Bobby Jindal who has little to lose in the polls.

Matt Vespa at "Hot Air." Scott Whitlock at "Newsbusters," Trent Lott explained in the "Southern Partisan" years ago that the Republican Party was the party of Jefferson Davis

Harold Meyerson had an editorial April 8, 2015 that the Republican Party was the party of Jefferson Davis. It is online here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-longer-the-party-of-lincoln/2015/04/08/bcc46068-de19-11e4-be40-566e2653afe5_story.html

So some conservative commentators have taken offense at it. Scott Whitlock at Newsbusters:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/04/11/sneering-wash-post-gop-now-party-jefferson-davis

Matt Vespa at a conservative website Hot Air.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/10/wapo-writer-todays-gop-is-the-party-of-jefferson-davis/

Former Republican U.S. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi in 1984 explained how the Republican party was the part of Jefferson Davis.

Harold Meyerson with the Washington Post is just catching up on this.  Phil Gramm, former Republican Senator of Texas had an interview in Southern Partisan which largely said the same thing, but more obliquely.

This is what former U.S. Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi explained in a Southern Partisan interview (Fall 1984, Vol. 4 No. 4):

Page 44

Partisan: At the convention of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Mississippi you made the statement that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican Platform." What did you mean by that?

Lott: I think that a lot of the fundamental principals that Jefferson Davis believed in are very important today to people all across the country, and they apply to the Republican Party. .... After the War between the States, a lot of Southerners identified with the Democrat Party because of the radical Republicans we had at the time, particularly in the Senate. The South was wedded to that party for years and years and years. But we have seen the Republican Party become more conservative and more oriented toward traditional family values, the religious values that we hold dear in the South. And the Democratic party has been going in the other direction. As a result of that, more and more of The South's sons, Jefferson Davis' descendants, direct or indirect, are becoming involved in the Republican Party. The platform we had in Dallas, the 1984 Republican platform, all the ideas we supported there --- from tax policy, to foriegn policy: from individual rights, to neighborhood security --- are things that Jefferson Davis believed in.

Later in the interview complaining about the Voting Rights Act:

Page 46
Partisan: Well, you were very successful early in the administration, with the economic program, but so often when it comes to an issue of great importance to the South --- one that comes to mind is the renewal of the punitive Voting Rights Legislation -- even some of our Southern Republicans seemed to have backbones of jelly. You are one of the few who took a stand against that legislation which, with the "effects test," is far worse than the original version of the legislation.

Lott: We tried to improve on it; we tried to hold off some of those changes that make it even more punitive, and the "effects test" is one example. But I have always maintained that if the same laws were applicable to say, Queens, New York that are applicable to other Southern states, Queens wouldn't be in compliance. ... There is no escape hatch for us. They are still trying to exact Reconstruction legislation that is just not fair. [Followed by a lengthy complaint that if you vote against civil rights legislation people say you are against civil rights.]

Later in the interview complaining about voting or a Martin Luther King holiday:

Page 47

Partisan: We have another example which seems to defy political reality. The Republican party gets very little of the black vote. Yet when you come with a controversial issue like the King holiday, which more or less made Martin Luther King a symbol equivalent to George Washington, you find a vast majority of Republicans --- even Southern Republicans -- going along. Where is the gain for the Republican Party? The one instance where it has been disproven as a political advantage, Jesse Helms was 200 points down in North Carolina before he made this a more issue with his opponent. Then Helms pulled up to a neck-and-neck position in the poll. 

Lott: Well, I think it is a mistake to vote for something like that. It is either needed or not, it is either right or wrong. And I would not vote for another national holiday for anybody, including Thomas Jefferson. I would vote for eliminating some of the ones we already have, as a matter of fact. Look at the cost involved in the Martin Luther King holiday and the fact that we have not done it for a lot of other people that were more deserving. I just think it was basically wrong. ...

Charles Pierce of "Esquire" magazine blogs that the Republican Party is subversive of the Union.

Charles Pierce of "Esquire" magazine blogs that the Republican Party is subversive of the Union.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a33605/how-the-gop-subverts-the-republic/

In the Fall 1984 Southern Partisan magazine (Vol. 4 No. 4) by Republican Mississippi U.S. Senator Trent Lott explains how the "spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican Platform."

Page 44

Partisan: At the convention of the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Mississippi you made the statement that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican Platform." What did you mean by that?

Lott: I think that a lot of the fundamental principals that Jefferson Davis believed in are very important today to people all across the country, and they apply to the Republican Party. .... After the War between the States, a lot of Southerners identified with the Democrat Party because of the radical Republicans we had at the time, particularly in the Senate. The South was wedded to that party for years and years and years. But we have seen the Republican Party become more conservative and more oriented toward traditional family values, the religious values that we hold dear in the South. And the Democratic party has been going in the other direction. As a result of that, more and more of The South's sons, Jefferson Davis' descendants, direct or indirect, are becoming involved in the Republican Party. The platform we had in Dallas, the 1984 Republican platform, all the ideas we supported there --- from tax policy, to foriegn policy: from individual rights, to neighborhood security --- are things that Jefferson Davis believed in. 

Page 46

Partisan: Well, you were very successful early in the administration, with the economic program, but so often when it comes to an issue of great importance to the South --- one that comes to mind is the renewal of the punitive Voting Rights Legislation -- even some of our Southern Republicans seemed to have backbones of jelly. You are one of the few who took a stand against that legislation which, with the "effects test," is far worse than the original version of the legislation.

Lott: We tried to improve on it; we tried to hold off some of those changes that make it even more punitive, and the "effects test" is one example. But I have always maintained that if the same laws were applicable to say, Queens, New York that are applicable to other Southern states, Queens wouldn't be in compliance. ... There is no escape hatch for us. They are still trying to exact Reconstruction legislation that is just not fair. [In the interview this was followed by a lengthy complaint that if you vote against civil rights legislation people say you are against civil rights.] 

Page 47 

Partisan: We have another example which seems to defy political reality. The Republican party gets very little of the black vote. Yet when you come with a controversial issue like the King holiday, which more or less made Martin Luther King a symbol equivalent to George Washington, you find a vast majority of Republicans --- even Southern Republicans -- going along. Where is the gain for the Republican Party? The one instance where it has been disproven as a political advantage, Jesse Helms was 200 points down in North Carolina before he made this a more issue with his opponent. Then Helms pulled up to a neck-and-neck position in the poll. 

Lott: Well, I think it is a mistake to vote for something like that. It is either needed or not, it is either right or wrong. And I would not vote for another national holiday for anybody, including Thomas Jefferson. I would vote for eliminating some of the ones we already have, as a matter of fact. Look at the cost involved in the Martin Luther King holiday and the fact that we have not done it for a lot of other people that were more deserving. I just think it was basically wrong. ... 

Poll: 29 percent of Mississippians would back a new Confederacy. Regarding the poll results and Jury duty.

The Sun Herald had an article about a recent poll taken of attitudes towards secession.

http://www.sunherald.com/2014/07/17/5701899/poll-29-percent-of-mississippians.html

The question pollsters question was:

"If there were another Civil War today, would you side with the Confederate States of America or the United States of America?"

It was run by Public Policy Polling (PPP). It was asked of 691 Mississippians.

Of all Mississippians polled, 29% would back the Confederate States of America (CSA).

The article states that only 2% of African Americans would support the CSA. One can only imagine how the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) would be interested in locating these African Americans to parade them around with a Confederate flag.

The article doesn't tell the statistics regarding white people in the U.S.A.

The article does break it down by party affiliation though.

Democrats: 82% for the USA and 9% for the CSA.
Republicans: 41% for the USA and 37% for the CSA.

What is astounding is that less than half the Republicans in Mississippi would support the USA.

Perhaps the whole point of this poll was to show that Republicans aren't that patriotic. As I have stated in earlier blog postings one of the Republicans regular political activities was to assert that the Democrats were somehow unpatriotic and the Republicans were more patriotic. When you have less than half of your supporters choose the USA your assertion of being more patriotic becomes absurd.

The results were further broken down by who people supported in the Republican primary.

For Thad Cochran supporters 61% chose the USA which I think is very low, but not surprising for a candidate that interviewed in Southern Partisan, 22% chose the CSA.

For Tea Party challenger McDaniels, 38% chose the USA and 37% chose the CSA. What is rather amazing is that 62% would choose the CSA or aren't sure that they would chose the USA.

I was not able to find a link to the poll results at the PPP website.

I think that in Mississippi screening out pro-CSA supporters from jury pools is a very reasonable activity. People who would choose the CSA should not be be jurors.

The poll adds additional justification to my article on jury duty published in the Black Commentator. The following is the free guest link.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/507/507_confederacy_jury_selection_sebesta_hague_guests_share.html

Wisconsin GOP set to vote on secession resolution, Wisconsin Republicans embarrassed. Update:

At the Daily Beast there is the following article about the upcoming Wisconsin GOP statewide convention in which they are going to vote on a resolution which says that a state has a right to secede.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/02/wisconsin-s-gop-secession-panic.html

Since the Sixth Congressional Republican Party voted on a resolution saying a state has a right to secede it is coming up for a state wide vote much to the embarrassment of the Wisconsin party and the national republican party. The Republican Party embarrassment is what the article is about.

In earlier blogs I have stated that this secession nonsense would be an embarrassment for the Republican Party. It is going to be difficult for the Republican Party to manage since the Republican Party activists seem to be in a competition with each other to adopt a more ultra position on being hostile to modernity and government.

When a political party passes a resolution like this they can't then go and say they are the patriotic party. If you are patriotic to a nation you don't discuss destroying it.

The patriotism of those who advance these secession resolutions can be questioned as well as media outlets which enable secession activity.

Update:

Further evidence of the embarrassment of Wisconsin Republican elected officials that have to run for re-election and don't want to be the candidates of the crazy party.

http://wuwm.com/post/50-assembly-republicans-call-wi-gop-reject-secession-resolution

Wonders never cease, "Washington Post" Op-Ed argues that Democrats in the South should take a public stand against the Confederate flag

I was just astounded that the Washington Post ran this Op-Ed by Drew Westen at Emory University in Georgia arguing that the Democrats should take a public stand against the Confederate flag. Mudcat Sanders must be having a fit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-georgia-democrats-should-confront-a-confederate-flag-license-plate/2014/03/21/7b8da8ac-add7-11e3-a49e-76adc9210f19_story.html

Writing about the Republican campaign strategy in the Georgia gubernatorial race:

This year, the strategy has taken the form of a debate about custom license plates — in particular, a Georgia license plate sporting a broad, bold display of the Confederate battle flag. Democrats have traditionally struggled to counter such race-baiting. And Republicans are wasting no time in running Southern pride and prejudice up the flagpole against the two most promising Democrats to run for statewide office in Georgia in a decade: Jason Carter, grandson of President Jimmy Carter and a candidate for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination; and Michelle Nunn, daughter of the popular Democratic senator Sam Nunn and a candidate for the U.S. Senate.

Westen argues to oppose this strategy the Democrats should:

Too often, Democrats have dealt with racial issues by avoiding them. Research shows that’s the wrong strategy, particularly in the South. Speaking directly about race allows our conscious values — which tend to be intolerant of racial intolerance, even in the heart of Dixie — to override our unconscious prejudices, which control our behavior when we’re not looking, or when other people aren’t, as in the voting booth. The best way to handle this kind of dog-whistle politics is to expose it for what it is.

Westen is right, the strategy of the Democrats had been to avoid the Confederate flag issue as much as possible in the hope of shaking loose a few extra white votes. Mudcat Sanders was a political consultant who argued for this position. In one article I read that his bed had a Confederate battle flag bed spread which is a sort of obvious and idiotic way of making a statement. (If some political operatives use dog whistles then Sanders was using a fog horn.) The Washington Post as a consequence of this policy and as a consequence of being the house publication of the Democratic party has avoided really critically examining the Lost Cause or arguing against the Lost Cause. I suppose also the Graham family that had owned the paper didn't want relatives or people at the club or acquaintances with Confederate ancestors and Lost Cause attitudes complaining either.

So I am so amazed to see this article. On the other hand I think that this change in attitude is confined to the Confederate battle flag and isn't intended to challenge the Lost Cause generally, but still it is a major shift for the Democrats in the South. Also, once you decide the Confederate flag isn't really desirable you are forced to engage the Lost Cause. The Democrats will be slow learners but I think they will learn.

For the Washington Post it certainly is a surprise. This is the third major article in the Post indicating a shift regarding the Lost Cause.

Not too long ago there was this Washington Post blog asking why Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are in the Washington National Cathedral. This was known by a lot of people previously, but it wasn't commented on.I refer to the Post blog in this posting.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2013/12/washington-post-columnist-john-kelly.html#.Uy21TfldWSo

Then there is this Washington Post column by Colbert King likening the Republicans to the Confederacy.I refer to it at this posting.

http://newtknight.blogspot.com/2013/10/washington-post-columnist-colbert-king.html#.Uy21jfldWSo

I think some Democrats have figured out that there really isn't a reason to vote for them unless they represent a choice for the voters.

Former president Jimmy Carter is somewhat fond of the Confederacy and so it would be interesting to what extent Jason Carter will give up the Lost Cause or how he will frame the argument against the Confederate battle flag.

With friends like this you don't need enemies. Ron Paul speaks at rally for Ken Cuccinelli about nullification. UPDATE:

With friends like this you don't need enemies.

In Virginia one reason Republican candidate for governor Ken Cuccinelli is so far behind the democratic candidate is that a 3rd party Libertarian candiate is pulling a fair percentage of the vote, something like 7 or 9 percent. Not real big, but large relative to the lead of the democratic candidate over Cuccinelli. It is assumed that these voters would vote for Cuccinelli.

So Cuccinelli had Libertarian Ron Paul come to one of his rallies to support him. The article is online here:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/ken-cuccinelli-ron-paul-urges-nullification-virginia-governor-2013-election-99358.html?hp=r1

Ron Paul talked about nullification and spoke against the 17th amendment to the Constitution. The 17th amendment has the U.S. Senators directly elected.

One of the big problems in the polls is that Cuccinelli is seen as being too extreme. So Cuccinelli might pick up some Libertarian votes but he might further lose people who seem him as being too extreme.

If Cuccinelli wins this election nullification and other elements of neo-Confederate ideology will take a large step in being mainstreamed. However it is not seen as likely that Cuccinelli will be elected. I suppose I should update this posting tonight.

UPDATE: Cuccinelli lost by a very small margin, about 1% or a little less.

But even if Cuccinelli loses, nullification and elements of neo-Confederate ideology still will be mainstreamed to some extent into conservative circles.

The "Southern Partisan" Confederate Republican Party T-shirt

This was sold some time ago by the Southern Partisan magazine. I purchased one.  Before this t-shirt had been made the leaders of the Republican Party had already given interviews to the Southern Partisan: Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, Dick Armey and a lot of other Republicans. So making up this T-shirt wasn't so unreasonable. Many leading Republicans had also had also had dealings with the Council of Conservative Citizens. www.cofcc.org. I must have taken two dozen photos of this t-shirt.

Political reporting is full of reference to Republicans being secessionists or Confederates

I am somewhat overwhelmed by the reporting over the government shutdown and partisan politics referring to secessionists, neo-Confederates and the Confederacy.

Here is the latest article at www.Salon.com online.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/right_wing_coup_deluded_secessionists_have_already_won/

The title is, "Right-wing coup: The deluded secessionists have already won," by

Thanks to a confluence of three events, the S-word — secession — is once again in the air. In Washington, new questions are emerging about whether the United States can function as a unified nation after a partial government shutdown was engineered by a largely regional party — one whose home territory looks eerily similar to the Confederacy. Adding to the questions about the viability of the post-Civil War union is the fact that the shutdown has been orchestrated by aTexas legislator whose state party stalwarts — including its governor — seem to support secession, to the point of taking concrete legislative steps to prepare for independence. On top of all that, in states across the country, incipient secession movements have sprung up only a few months after secession petitions flooded the White House website.

Then there is this article, "Tea Party's Shutdown Lunacy: Avenging the Surrender of the South." Doug Henwood is interviewed. Link below.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/tea_partys_shutdown_lunacy_avenging_the_surrender_of_the_south/

Then there is this Michael Lind article, "Tea Party radicalism is misunderstood: Meet the Newest Right."

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/06/tea_party_radicalism_is_misunderstood_meet_the_newest_right/

I think Lind makes a very good point by saying that people misunderstand the Tea Party by trying to portray them as backwards. In my research on the neo-Confederates though I think they are very reactionary and need to be stopped, I was never stupid enough to think that they are stupid. If I thought they were stupid I wouldn't have bothered to research them. Lind writes:

The third misconception is that the Newest Right is irrational. The American center-left, whose white social base is among highly-educated, credentialed individuals like professors and professionals, repeatedly has committed political suicide by assuming that anyone who disagrees with its views is an ignorant “Neanderthal.” Progressive snobs to the contrary, the leaders of the Newest Right, including Harvard-educated Ted Cruz, like the leaders of any successful political movement, tend to be highly educated and well-off. The self-described members of the Tea Party tend to be more affluent and educated than the general public.

This is a Gawker story about a Republican House Representative who in his historical analogy made the Republicans the Confederates.

http://gawker.com/gop-rep-compares-shutdown-to-gettysburg-republicans-to-1442038231

Then there is this article where a former Republican operative calls Tea Party Republicans "neo-Confederates." Raw-Story also reported on this.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/08/ex_gop_insider_unloads_blame_neo_confederate_insurrectionists_for_shutdown/singleton/

At Bloomberg a columnist says that comparing the Tea Party is wrong, they are more like Calhoun's nullification supporters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-08/tea-party-tactics-lead-straight-back-to-secession.html

This is the Washington Post article, "The Rise of the New Confederacy," which  I blogged on a little while back.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-10-04/opinions/42713963_1_federal-government-south-carolina-union

This article refers to the South, the Confederacy and the Affordable Health Care Act in the Daily Beast.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/03/how-the-south-blocked-health-care-for-those-who-need-it-most.html

A lot of these articles are at Salon but they all aren't.