In a piece on whether Obama will be Al Smith, or JFK (ummmmm…neither), John Judis (who should know better) writes:

Blacks began entering the Democratic party during the New Deal, but even as late as 1960, Richard Nixon won a third of the black vote. After Democratic support for and Republican opposition to the civil rights acts of the 1960s, the overwhelming majority of African Americans became Democrats.

Emphasis mine. I’ve discussed this before.

The ugly fact, of which ABC is either unaware, or worse, deliberately misleading their readers about, is that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed without Republican support, due to the continued opposition by southern Democrats. Contra ABC’s implication, it was not the minority Republicans who filibustered it, but the majority Democrats, and the cloture vote to end debate was achieved only with the votes of many Republicans. Former Klansman Robert “Sheets” Byrd (shamefully still representing the state of West Virginia, even in his dotage and senility) was the last debater on the floor before that cloture vote (it then required 67 votes, rather than the current 60) was passed. Other stars of the filibuster were Richard Russell (D-GA), Albert Gore, Sr. (the last Vice President’s father) (D-TN), and William Fullbright (D-AR) (Bill Clinton’s mentor).

But I guess when you’re a modern liberal Democrat reporter, all that can just go down the memory hole, as long as it’s in service to a greater cause–to preserving the myth of Republican racism and opposition to civil rights, and demonstrating the continuing horror of George Bush’s and the Republican’s “theocracy.”

This is simply false history, but it’s become a matter of faith to Democrats. The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, but they couldn’t muster the votes to pass the bill on their own. Everyone who filibustered the Civil Rights Act was a Democrat. In order to get cloture, and passage, they had to get significant Republican support. The notion that it was Republicans who were opposed to true civil rights (as opposed to the modern reverse discrimination) remains pernicious. But the story has to be told that way, otherwise the narrative of Republicans as “racists” falls apart.

[Update a few minutes later]

Historical inaccuracies aside, what is particularly annoying about Judis’ thesis is that it takes as a given that if Obama loses, it will be because of his race, and have nothing to do with his extreme lack of experience, and the fact that he’ll be the most left-wing candidate nominated since George McGovern.

Andrew Coyne continues to liveblog the witch hunt in Vancouver. I loved this bit:

We’re going through an interview Awan gave on Mike Duffy Live. He tells Duffy that this isn’t a case of free speech versus minority rights. Rather, he says, Maclean’s can go on publishing what it likes, Steyn can write whatever he likes, just so long as “the Muslim community” gets a right of reply. (I’m paraphrasing. The video of the interview is here.) So really, what they’re proposing (he explains in the interview) is an extension of free speech.

I think I see his point. Every time Maclean’s wants to publish an article some group doesn’t like, they just have to give them an equal amount of space in the magazine. Double the space, at twice the cost to Maclean’s – but zero cost to the complainants. That is “free” speech.

That is also the “Fairness Doctrine” in a nutshell. It’s why, if we have a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress, one of the first things they will attempt to do will be to resurrect that atrocity against free speech, in the hopes that it will shut down “right wing” radio.

Of course (and fortunately), the Fairness Doctrine only applies to over-the-air broadcast of television and radio (with the excuse that the spectrum is limited, and therefore ultimately owned by the public). What would probably happen if it were back in force is that Limbaugh and others would just get chased off the air waves to satellite (as has happened with over-air- television politics shows, to satellite and cable), and a lot more people would buy XM so they could continue to get a vigorous discussion of politics.

What is being proposed in Canada is to not just institute a fairness doctrine, but to extend it to print. Which, as Coyne points out, is utterly inimical to free speech, and would shut down any publication whatsoever that was “controversial.” Which means any publication that goes against the politically correct consensus of the day.

Andrew Coyne continues to liveblog the witch hunt in Vancouver. I loved this bit:

We’re going through an interview Awan gave on Mike Duffy Live. He tells Duffy that this isn’t a case of free speech versus minority rights. Rather, he says, Maclean’s can go on publishing what it likes, Steyn can write whatever he likes, just so long as “the Muslim community” gets a right of reply. (I’m paraphrasing. The video of the interview is here.) So really, what they’re proposing (he explains in the interview) is an extension of free speech.

I think I see his point. Every time Maclean’s wants to publish an article some group doesn’t like, they just have to give them an equal amount of space in the magazine. Double the space, at twice the cost to Maclean’s – but zero cost to the complainants. That is “free” speech.

That is also the “Fairness Doctrine” in a nutshell. It’s why, if we have a Democrat president with a Democrat Congress, one of the first things they will attempt to do will be to resurrect that atrocity against free speech, in the hopes that it will shut down “right wing” radio.

Of course (and fortunately), the Fairness Doctrine only applies to over-the-air broadcast of television and radio (with the excuse that the spectrum is limited, and therefore ultimately owned by the public). What would probably happen if it were back in force is that Limbaugh and others would just get chased off the air waves to satellite (as has happened with over-air- television politics shows, to satellite and cable), and a lot more people would buy XM so they could continue to get a vigorous discussion of politics.

What is being proposed in Canada is to not just institute a fairness doctrine, but to extend it to print. Which, as Coyne points out, is utterly inimical to free speech, and would shut down any publication whatsoever that was “controversial.” Which means any publication that goes against the politically correct consensus of the day.

This is appalling, but predictable:

I was astonished by their absolute lack of any background on the story they were sent to cover.

More astonished that a journalist would not know who Mark Steyn was, or that, depending on its outcome, the case they were covering could have very real ramifications on their ability to practice their trade in the future, and impact the right to free speech for all Canadians.

They knew nothing about the AHRC case against Ezra.

They did know about the Western Standard but were unaware that it was no longer being published.

They knew nothing about the Richard Warman Vs Levant, Shaidle, McMillan, Kay and Free Dominion. In fact, they had never heard of Mr. Sec. 13 Richard Warman.

They were aware that a similar charge agianst Steyn had been thrown out by the OHRC, but nothing beyond that.

I tried to provide some background on each of these cases but could see that there was not a lot of interest.

I wonder what kind of reports will be filed by each of these journalists for CBC radio? I also wonder how many other journalists sent to cover this remarkably important case, are so poorly informed.

No wonder the government and the “Human Rights” Commissions get away with so much there.