Green Room

Sen. Tim Scott: I wasn’t invited to speak at the March on Washington commemoration

posted at 11:07 am on August 29, 2013 by

Is anyone surprised?  Some black people are just less equal than others when there’s a political agenda to advance, especially within the irresistible context of ‘honoring’ one of history’s giants and reflecting on a seminal moment in US history:

Mr. Scott was not invited to speak, but a spokesman said, “The senator believes today is a day to remember the extraordinary accomplishments and sacrifices of Dr. King, Congressman John Lewis and an entire generation of black leaders.”

Scott is the only black member of the United States Senate, a fact so unhelpful to the liberal-left agenda that some of its media cheerleaders  simply “forget” about his very existence.  Indeed, exactly zero elected Republicans addressed yesterday’s rally, despite the party’s history of freeing the slaves, passing landmark civil rights legislation and championing school choice.  Parts of the ceremony devolved into cheap recitations of standard DNC demagoguery — a decidedly shabby way to commemorate the sacrifice of true titans who blazed a lasting trail toward equality and justice.   They just can’t help themselves.   I’ll leave you with the tweet of the week:

UPDATE – Via the comments, it appears several GOP Congressional leaders were invited to participate, but declined.  (Scott was not among them). Unless I’m missing something, that’s a really questionable move.  Show up.  Even if you get booed, show up and make a statement — if only as a symbolic challenge to Democrats’ fantasy that they ‘own’ civil rights.  Also, President George W. Bush was also invited to speak, but is still recovering from heart surgery and couldn’t make the trip.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

The shabby and shameful display put on by the Democrats is a testament that blacks do have their proper civil rights and all the Democrats have left is petty race baiting, fear mongering and political posturing.

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Yes, only ONE Republican in the photo… pity…

The Democrats, also known as The Plantation Party… that’s how they like it…

Khun Joe on August 29, 2013 at 11:14 AM

I’m amazed this story is appearing on Hot Air.

John the Libertarian on August 29, 2013 at 11:32 AM

— Cuffé (@CuffyMeh) August 28, 2013

Schweet! Tim at least you can know it has 0 to do with your complexion. ; )

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 11:41 AM

That photo is priceless. These hardcore racist Dems probably didn’t see the irony.

neyney on August 29, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Indeed, exactly zero elected Republicans addressed yesterday’s rally,

Gotta say, Guy isn’t much of a reporter or else he would know that Boehner and Cantor were asked to speak but declined.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/319239-boehner-cantor-declined-invitation-to-speak-at-march-on-washington-anniversary

red_herring on August 29, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I don’t think it is out of line to ask then, what was yesterday about. Civil Rights for blacks or the Democrat party agenda?

It really irks me that they didn’t let the Senator speak. I feel like the liberal media is doing all they can to make this man invisible. When does he get elected to this position? I am hoping after he gets formally elected we can hear more from him and the line about him just being appointed can go away.

earlgrey133 on August 29, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Indeed, exactly zero elected Republicans addressed yesterday’s rally, despite the party’s history of opposition to the civil rights movement, appeals to white resentment and antagonism toward minorities

it’s a mystery.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Indeed, exactly zero elected Republicans addressed yesterday’s rally, despite the party’s history of opposition to the civil rights movement, appeals to white resentment and antagonism toward minorities

it’s a mystery.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Your revisionism is cheap, ineffective and sad. Which is to say it’s typical. I pity you. :\

StompUDead on August 29, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Communist King remembered by new communists

Mormontheman on August 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM

Awesome tweet

Heh

cmsinaz on August 29, 2013 at 12:48 PM

The Hill piece refers to Julian Bond as a “renowned civil rights leader.” Bond claims, but the article doesn’t make any attempt to confirm or disconfirm, that a “long list of Republicans” was asked to speak, and they all declined.

Quite obviously, Tim Scott was not among those asked to speak. One wonders whether other “Republicans” were asked to speak — Rice, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Thomas Sowell.

And the point intimated by Benson is legitimate — why would the organizers (I have yet to hear who they were) not invite black conservatives? Especially the only sitting black senator?

As for Boehner and Cantor declining…I’m not sure it has anything to do with worries about primaries…I think it has more to do with their view of the efficacy of such attendance and the general tone of the other speakers….I’m not sure whether there is anything wrong with declining an invitation to speak at an “anniversary” that would have the likes of the likely anti-Semitic Carter or someone like Sharpton…where Trayvon Martin is described as a martyr…why bother?

You (Boehner and Cantor) could do more good elsewhere like explaining what their strategy is for stopping Robertobamacare or how unfair it is for this new delay that will apparently benefit union members…

EastofEden on August 29, 2013 at 12:50 PM

it’s a mystery.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Which president desegregated 75% of southern schools? (hint: last name starts with an ‘N’)

Which party had the highest proportion of votes in support of the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act? (hint: party name starts with an ‘R’)

Which party was the official party of Jim Crow? (hint it starts with a ‘D’)

This is pathetic even by your standards.

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM

The left learned long ago they can not win an honest debate so they have excluded opposing views as much as possible and those that slip through the censorship they mock or ignore.

Grunt on August 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM

You certainly can’t have a Republican up there saying something that makes sense, you’ll have that base questioning things and that’s not good for votes.

bflat879 on August 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Sorry, I gotta disagree with Guy.
It’s a no-win if a conservative shows up at leftists trying to hijack MLK’s dream.

22044 on August 29, 2013 at 1:11 PM

The left learned long ago they can not win an honest debate so they have excluded opposing views as much as possible and those that slip through the censorship they mock or ignore.

Grunt on August 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM

According to Roll Call and the Washington Post, all members of Congress were invited to attend.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/boehner-cantor-turned-down-chance-to-speak-at-march-anniversary/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/08/29/gop-leader-chose-oil-industry-over-mlk-marchers/

cam2 on August 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM

weak attempt.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:24 PM

According to Roll Call and the Washington Post, all members of Congress were invited to attend.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/boehner-cantor-turned-down-chance-to-speak-at-march-anniversary/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/08/29/gop-leader-chose-oil-industry-over-mlk-marchers/

cam2 on August 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM

The WP article you link admits that the GOP leadership invited had scheduling conflicts that existed when they were asked to attend several weeks ago (e.g., they were asked to late) and that Democrat Congressional leadership also declined to show up.

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM

The WP article you link admits that the GOP leadership invited had scheduling conflicts that existed when they were asked to attend

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM

heh. so tim scott is a bald-faced liar, you say? interesting.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Unless I’m missing something, that’s a really questionable move. Show up. Even if you get booed, show up and make a statement — even if it’s just a symbolic challenge to Democrats’ fantasy that they ‘own’ civil rights.

I don’t really see a reason for GOP leaders to show up to a DNC political rally – oops, I mean an “MLK celebration” and get booed and shouted off the stage. All it will lead to is the media gleefully writing stories about how blacks hate the Republicans.

Doomberg on August 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM

weak attempt.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Weak? Your understanding of history is pathetic.

The good ‘ol Southern Strategy canard which has been turned into a false narrative by the left. Southern Democrats have won more national elections than Republicans since the supposed advent of the Southern Strategy. The one Republican who did employ the Southern Strategy – Richard Nixon – desegregated 75% of southern schools.

You also ignore LBJ’s cynical comments about winning the black vote for generations. Nearly all of the southern white racist Democrats never left the Democrat party.

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:32 PM

The WP article you link admits that the GOP leadership invited had scheduling conflicts that existed when they were asked to attend

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM

heh. so tim scott is a bald-faced liar, you say? interesting.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Uh, Tim Scott is not in Congressional leadership.

He’s in the Senate, whose leader Harry Reid (D) also didn’t attend.
You know the senator who’s opined about Obama’s negro dialect and how light skinned and clean and articulate Obama is – things that if uttered by an (R) would cause you to cry racism.

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:36 PM

The WP article you link admits that the GOP leadership invited had scheduling conflicts that existed when they were asked to attend

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM

heh. so tim scott is a bald-faced liar, you say? interesting.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:29 PM

Uh, Tim Scott is not in Congressional leadership.

He’s in the Senate. Whose leader – Harry Reid (D) – has said things about Obama’s ‘dialect’ and how clean and articulate he is – things that if uttered by an (R) would cause you to cry racism. [I had to retype and commit this comment because quoting Harry Reid is racist enough to kick off the language filter]

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Weak? Your understanding of history is pathetic.

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:32 PM

your understanding of history, to the extent that you have one, comes from radio jockeys. fail.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:42 PM

your understanding of history, to the extent that you have one, comes from radio jockeys. fail.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:42 PM

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2012/07/11/the-southern-strategy-myth-and-the-lost-majority/

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/the-southern-strategy-debunked-again.php

And this one will make your head explode:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:48 PM

And this one will make your head explode:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/300432/party-civil-rights-kevin-d-williamson

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:48 PM

i remember williamson’s article, it was a knee-slapper when it came out.

alas.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:52 PM

also, too, “scheduling conflicts.”

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:59 PM

i remember williamson’s article, it was a knee-slapper when it came out.

alas.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:52 PM

I didn’t say the right was monolithic on this issue at the time. It was also controversial on the left as well. The 20th century history of Progressives is rife with racists.

It is true that the Republican party (distinct from conservatives) was a bigger supporter for civil rights than the Democrat party.

It is lie that the racist Democrats were mostly conservative.

And there’s also the issue of what exactly is meant by “conservative” and “liberal”. The modern day meaning of these terms doesn’t map directly to the same terms as they applied in the 1960′s.

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 2:02 PM

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Sequesteredbrain isn’t actually refuting anything. Telling us he laughs at history doesn’t tell us anything at all. Let him be the obnoxious twit he is. Besides, he admitted a long time ago that he thinks dishonesty is the highest form of patriotism.

NotCoach on August 29, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Sequesteredbrain isn’t actually refuting anything. Telling us he laughs at history doesn’t tell us anything at all. Let him be the obnoxious twit he is. Besides, he admitted a long time ago that he thinks dishonesty is the highest form of patriotism.

NotCoach on August 29, 2013 at 2:10 PM

And the Jonathan Chait rebuttal to Kevin Williamson is also pretty weak: it amounts to cherry picking historical events and applying a large dose of liberal “interpretation” of the facts he concedes Williams got right.

gwelf on August 29, 2013 at 2:15 PM

it’s a mystery.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Really?

Bmore on August 29, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Ironic how a group of non-inclusive, wealthy, pompous, elitist troglodytes can tell us what was in the heart of Martin Luther King, Jr., a common man whose uncommon bravery and integrity lifted this nation up.

NOMOBO on August 29, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Which party was it that had a Klansman openly serve in congress? *cough* Robert Byrd *cough* for the revisionist dimturds amongst you. I believe that would be the same party that started the Klan.

You can take the dimoturd out of the Klan but you just can’t take the Klan out of the dimoturd.

bbinfl on August 29, 2013 at 3:47 PM

it’s a mystery.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM

The Thirteenth Amendment:

There were 9 Democrats in the Senate. 4 Senate Democrats voted AGAINST ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (50% – 1NV).

There were 30 Republicans in the Senate. All 30 Senate Republicans voted FOR ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (100%).

There were 4 Unionists in the Senate. Three Senate Unionists voted FOR ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (75% – 1NV)

There was 1 Unconditional Unionist in the Senate. He voted FOR ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (100%).

There were 65 Democrats in the House. 50 House Democrats voted AGAINST ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (76.9%).

There were 86 Republicans in the House. 86 House Republicans voted FOR ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (100%).

There were 14 Unconditional Unionists in the House. 14 House Unconditional Unionists voted FOR ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (100%).

There were 10 Unionists in the House. 6 House Unionists voted AGAINST ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment (60%).
.
.
The Fourteenth Amendment:

There were 6 Democrats in the Senate. 6 Senate Democrats voted AGAINST ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (100%).

There were 30 Republicans in the Senate. All 30 Senate Republicans voted FOR ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (100%).

There were 6 Unionists in the Senate. Three Senate Unionists voted FOR ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (50%)

There were 36 Democrats in the House. 36 House Democrats voted AGAINST ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (100%).

There were 134 Republicans in the House. 128 House Republicans voted FOR ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (96%).

There were 11 Unionists in the House. 10 House Unionists voted AGAINST ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment (91%).
.
.
The Fifteenth Amendment:

There were 13 Democrats in the Senate. 13 Senate Democrats voted AGAINST ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment (100%).

There were 55 Republicans in the Senate. 39 Senate Republicans voted FOR ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment (100% – 16-NP or NV).

There were 67 Democrats in the House. 67 House Democrats voted AGAINST ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment (100%).

There were 171 Republicans in the House. 168 House Republicans voted FOR ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment (98.2%).
.
.
Civil Rights Act of 1866:

There were 9 Democrats in the Senate. 9 Senate Democrats voted AGAINST ratification of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (100%).

There were 41 Republicans in the Senate. 41 Senate Republicans voted FOR ratification of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (100%).

There were 47 Democrats in the House. 47 House Democrats voted AGAINST ratification of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (100%).

There were 173 Republicans in the House. 173 House Republicans voted FOR ratification of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (100%).
.
.
Civil Rights Act of 1870:

The Civil Rights Act of 1870 (The Enforcement Act), 16 Stat. 140 (1870) a/k/a the First Ku Klux Klan Act prohibited discrimination in voter registration on the basis of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude. It established penalties for interfering with a person’s right to vote. Gave federal courts the power to enforce the act and to employ the use of federal marshals and the army to uphold it. It was passed by the 41st Congress (1869–1871) as H.R. 1293.

There were 11 Democrats in the Senate. All 10 of the Senate Democrats voting voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1870 (100%).

There were 46 Republicans in the Senate. 45 of the 46 Senate Republicans voting voted FOR (97.8%) and 1 Senate Republican voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1870 (2.2%).

There were 59 Democrats in the House. All 41 of the House Democrats voting voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1870 (100%).

There were 160 Republicans in the House. 128 of the 129 House Republicans voting voted FOR it (99.2%) and 1 House Republican voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1870 (0.8%).
.
.
Civil Rights Act of 1871:

The Civil Rights Act of 1871 (The Enforcement Act of 1871), 16 Stat. 433–440 a/k/a the Second Ku Klux Klan Act placed all elections in both the North and South under Federal control. Allowed for the appointment of election supervisors by Federal circuit judges. Further, it authorised US Marshals to employ deputies to maintain order at polling places. Passed by the 41st Congress as H.R. 2634.

There were 9 Democrats in the Senate. All 7 of the Senate Democrats voting voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (100%).

There were 54 Republicans and 5 Liberal Republicans in the Senate. 39 Senate Republicans voted FOR (97.4%) and 1 voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (0.6%). None of the Liberal Republicans voted.

There were 64 Democrats in the House. All 58 of the House Democrats voting voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (100%).

There were 168 Republicans in the House. 143 of the 146 House Republicans voting voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (97.9%).

Although mostly overturned in a later Supreme Court decision (United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 1 S. Ct. 601, 27 L. Ed. 290 (1883) struck down the criminal provisions of the Act’s second section on the ground that protecting individuals from private conspiracies was a state and not federal function), the Act succeeded in its main mission: Destroying the Ku Klux Klan…or, at least, destroying it until its resurrection during the administration of Progressive President Woodrow Wilson.
.
.
Second Civil Rights Act of 1871:

There were 13 Democrats in the Senate. All 13 of the Senate Democrats voted AGAINST the Second Civil Rights Act of 1871 (100%).

There were 36 Republicans. All 36 Senate Republicans voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (100%).

There were 86 Democrats in the House. All 74 of the House Democrats voting voted AGAINST the Second Civil Rights Act of 1871 (100%).

There were 141 Republicans in the House. 118 of the 118 House Republicans voting voted FOR the Second Civil Rights Act of 1871 (100%).

There were 5 members associated with third parties. All voted AGAINST the Second Civil Rights Act of 1871 (100%).
.
.
The Civil Rights Act of 1875:

There were 18 Democrats in the Senate. All 18 of the Senate Democrats voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (100%).
There were 48 Republicans and 4 Liberal Republicans in the Senate. 38 Senate Republicans voted FOR (90.5%) and 4 voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (9.5%).

There were 4 Liberal Republicans in the Senate. 1 Liberal Republican voted FOR (25%) and 3 voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (75%).

There were 90 Democrats in the House. All 82 of the House Democrats voting voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (100%).

There were 193 Republicans in the House. 150 of the 158 House Republicans voting voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (94.9%).

Though struck down by the Supreme Court eight years later, the Civil Rights Act of 1875 would be reborn as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — 89 years later.

Resist We Much on August 29, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Nineteenth Amendment:

In 1896, Republican Sen. A. A. Sargent of California introduced a proposal in the Senate to give women the right to vote. The proposal was defeated four times in the Democratic-controlled Senate. When the Republican Party regained control of Congress, the Equal Suffrage Amendment finally passed (304-88). Only 16 Republicans opposed the amendment. On 4 June 1919, the amendment, having already been passed by the House, passed the Senate by a vote of 56 to 25 and was sent to the states for ratification.

There were 56 Democrats in the Senate. 20 Senate Democrats vote FOR (35.7%) and 17 Senate Democrats voted AGAINST ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment (30.4%).

There were 39 Republicans in the Senate. 36 Senate Republicans voted FOR (92.3%) and 3 Senate Republicans voted AGAINST ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment (7.7%).

There were 213 Democrats in the House. 104 House Democrats voted FOR (48.8%) and 109 House Democrats voted AGAINST ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment (51.2%).

There were 216 Republicans in the House. 200 House Republicans voted FOR ratification of the Fifteenth Amendment (98.2%).

When the 19th Amendment finally was added to the Constitution, 26 of 36 state legislatures that had voted to ratify it were under Republican control. The first woman elected to Congress was a Republican, Jeanette Rankin from Montana in 1917.
.
.
Civil Rights Act of 1957:

The goal of the 1957 Civil Rights Act was to ensure that all Americans could exercise their right to vote. By 1957, only about 20% of African Americans were registered to vote. The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, was a pro-segregation Senator from South Carolina. He vehemently opposed passage of the Act with the longest (although ultimately unsuccessful) filibuster ever conducted by a single Senator, speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes. Along with Strom Thurmond, Al Gore, Sr., Richard Russell, James Eastland, Robert C Byrd, etc., Senator John F Kennedy voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

This bill was passed in the House of Representatives on 27 August 1957, by a margin of 279 to 97. On August 29 the Senate passed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 by a margin of 60 to 15. President Eisenhower signed P.L. 85–315 on 9 September 1957, and the Civil Rights Act became law.

There were 49 Democrats in the Senate. 21 Senate Democrats voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1957 (42.9%) .

There were 43 Republicans in the Senate. All Senate Republicans voting voted FOR it (100%).

There were 229 Democrats in the House. 107 House Democrats voted AGAINST it (46.7%).

There were 191 Republicans in the House. 167 House Republicans voted FOR it (87.4%).
.
.
Civil Rights Act of 1960:

After amendments in the Senate, H.R. 8601 was approved by the Senate on 8 April 1960 by a vote of 71-18. The House of Representatives approved the Senate amendments on 21 April 1960 by a vote of 295-288 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960 was signed into law by President Dwight D Eisenhower on 6 May 1960.

There were 65 Democrats in the Senate. 18 of the Senate Democrats voting voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1960 (30% – 5NV) .

There were 35 Republicans in the Senate. All 29 Senate Republicans voting voted FOR it (100% – 6NV).
.
.
Civil Rights Act of 1964:

When Senator Robert C Byrd’s marathon, 14 hour and 13 minute filibuster was over, the Congressional Quarterly of 26 June 1964 (p 1323) recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act. Among Republicans, 80% (138 for, 34 against) voted for it. President Johnson signed the new Civil Rights Act into law on 2 July 1964.

There were 65 Democrats in the Senate. 21 Senate Democrats voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (31%).

There were 33 Republicans in the Senate. 21 Senate Republicans voted FOR it (82%).

There were 258 Democrats in the House. 96 House Democrats voted AGAINST it (39%).

There were 172 Republicans in the House. 138 House Republicans voted FOR it (80%).
.
.
Voting Rights Act of 1965:

When the Voting Rights Act hit the floor in 1965, the vote results mirrored those of the Civil Rights Act. In the House, the measure passed by a 333-85 margin, with 78% of Democrats backing it (221 yeas and 61 nays) and 82% of Republicans backing it (112 yeas to 24 nays). In the Senate, the measure passed by a 77-19 vote, with 73% of Democrats and 94% of Republicans supporting the bill.

There were 65 Democrats in the Senate. 47 Senate Democrats voted FOR (72.3%) and 17 Senate Democrats voted AGAINST the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (26.2%).

There were 35 Republicans in the Senate. 30 Senate Republicans voted FOR (93.8%) and 2 Senate Republicans voted AGAINST the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (5.7%).

There were 255 Democrats in the House. 221 Democrats voted FOR (78%) and 61 House Democrats voted AGAINST it (22%).

There were 140 Republicans in the House. 112 House Republicans voted FOR it (82%) and 24 House Republicans voted AGAINST the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (18%).

Resist We Much on August 29, 2013 at 4:49 PM

It was their loss, Senator Scott.

txmomof6 on August 29, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Resist We Much on August 29, 2013 at 4:49 PM

tl; dr

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM

tl; dr

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM


Progressivism, Propaganda & Pretending

And, Sesqui, just you wait until you get a load of on what I am at present working. lol

Resist We Much on August 29, 2013 at 7:56 PM

You didn’t read it because it destroyed your ridiculous claims.

LMFAO@U!

Resist We Much on August 29, 2013 at 7:57 PM

Most of the those invitations to Republicans were late minute. They were unvitations, if you will.

WannabeAnglican on August 29, 2013 at 10:14 PM

You didn’t read it because it destroyed your ridiculous claims.

LMFAO@U!

Resist We Much on August 29, 2013 at 7:57 PM

sesq has no time to actually learn anything about the topics he already knows everything about.

gwelf on August 30, 2013 at 1:00 AM

I got pwned again! Waah!

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM

FIFY.

22044 on August 30, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Resist We Much on August 29, 2013 at 7:56 PM

Is tl; Dr …

Too long; didn’t read?

smoothsailing on August 30, 2013 at 7:41 AM

tl; dr

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 7:53 PM

We now have it on the record — a willful commitment to ignorance.

Mr. D on August 30, 2013 at 10:29 AM

it’s a mystery.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 12:24 PM

What is NO mystery at all is your incredible stupidity.

The only black sen., of the 100, from a state where it was bad, bad, and you say this. YOU must be more stupid than we assumed, or play stupid on purpose. Either way is more sad than bad.

Schadenfreude on August 30, 2013 at 11:35 AM

heh. so tim scott is a bald-faced liar, you say? interesting.

sesquipedalian on August 29, 2013 at 1:29 PM

NO, he is bald and you’re a liar.

Schadenfreude on August 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM