Arthur Bremer, the man who on May 15, 1972, attempted to assassinate then-Gov. George Wallace (D-Ala.), is scheduled to be released from a Maryland correctional facility later this fall, the Associated Press reports.
In 1963, during his first term as Alabama's chief executive, the Democratic governor famously declared: "I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."
While Wallace recanted his segregationist views years later, in May of 1972 he still espoused racist rhetoric during his run for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Even so, AP staff writer Ben Nuckols did not mention Wallace's party affiliation even once in his 512-word article.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Like Bremer said "They
August 23, 2007 - 15:43 ET by Dan The Man 2Like Bremer said "They never heard of the public figure in my case, and they couldn't care less" and that sums it up for the new generation who prefers Paris Hilton stories and knows Bush is the great Satan in the world.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Hmm...it also appears AP
August 23, 2007 - 16:24 ET by JerHmm...it also appears AP failed to mention Wallace was a proud 'conservative', so I guess things sort of evened out.
Jer
He was no conservative
August 23, 2007 - 16:42 ET by RoverWallace was no conservative. Like a lot of southern democrats, he tended right internationally and left domestically. People calling him a conservative are buying into the Left's 50-year-and-counting big-lie campaign to try to link conservatism with racism. It's not true, and never has been.
Rover
Race-Baiter
August 23, 2007 - 17:20 ET by stratmanWallace was NOT a Dixiecrat. Ever!
Stop whitewashing the South's history, Jer.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Stratman, will you please
August 23, 2007 - 18:00 ET by JerStratman, will you please elaborate on the race-baiting charge? I really don't know what you're talking about.
Thanks,
Jer
Historical Fact --> George
August 23, 2007 - 18:23 ET by stratmanHistorical Fact --> George Wallace 1972 = white racist
Jer 2007--> George Wallace was a "conservative"
Left Wing Propaganda --> Conservatives 2007 = white racist (as per numerous bloggers, politicians, MSM writers, Hollywood and music performer types, etc.)
A Southern Democrat in 1972 was a different political animal than it is today. The regional and population subsets that differentiated what a "Democrat" represented in each of those divisions back then has been blurred by a mobile workforce, education and advances in communications in recent years.
As far as I know, Wallace was not a Dixiecrat, which would qualify him as a Conservative (of sorts).
If I misunderstood your intent or context then I stand corrected.
Could you please explain in what context you meant Wallace was a "conservative"?
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Stratman, Wallace had
August 23, 2007 - 18:56 ET by JerStratman,
Wallace had definite populist impulses, but my recollection is that the central tenets of his political philosophy consisted of a firm belief in states rights as a buffer against an intrusive and burgeoning federal government, low taxation, a strong national defense, a return to a morality-based society instead of a spiritually deficient "permissive" culture--in other words, a firm adherence to what are generally characterized as conservative values.
I'll have to check out the archives of my father's newspaper. He was certainly no racist, but he supported Wallace and wrote editorials on his behalf forty years ago.
Jer
Oh, and the appointment of strict-constructionist justices to the Supreme Court
This is meaningless
August 23, 2007 - 19:04 ET by sarcasmo"Conservative" Richard Nixon instituted wage & price controls, created the EPA, started "affirmative action," began ties with communist China, and closed the gold window. Meanings of some words, obviously, change.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Agreed, sarcasmo...plenty
August 23, 2007 - 19:30 ET by JerAgreed, sarcasmo...plenty of mischief associated with superficial, indiscriminate labeling.
But Nixon was never firmly ensconched in the conservative wing of the GOP, other than by reputation as the relentless pursuer of communists and fellow travelers, Hiss in particular.
Jer
Jer
August 24, 2007 - 00:40 ET by well99I dont need to check a newspaper.Wallace was a rascist.He was against segregation.States rights my butt.He was about keeping Americans from haveing equal rights.You can put all the spin you want on it.That is your right.Bottom line the Dems play the race issue all the time.If you against illegal immigration your a rascist.Katrina effort was about rascism.Never mind about the Mayor or the Governor?It was all about Bush.All in my book were found at fault.It wasnt about race but Dems sure play it that way.
Just a note:Are liberals against a strong defence?
Relax well99....I'm not
August 24, 2007 - 02:17 ET by JerRelax well99....
I'm not spinning anything. Wallace, like a majority of southerners (and many northerners, too) of that era were segregationists. I can't look into the man's heart and label him a racist, but he clearly believed in the separation of the races. I personally despised him (at least his views on race) during those years, although my opinion of him softened as indeed his views moderated with the passage of time.
I believe my summarization of his positions on taxes, states rights, the federal government, etc. to be reasonably accurate, but if I am mistaken on any of those points, I assure you it is not the result of any effort on my part to "spin" the facts.
Are liberals in favor of a strong defense? Well, if they share my view they are. My boyhood dream was to be either the Secretary of Defense or the General Manager of the St. Louis Cardinals. Alas, I underachieved.
Jer
Let me briefly address another issue you raised. I do agree with you about the tendency of many Democrats/liberals to all too casually deal out the 'race card'. But there is a similar tendency on the part of many Republicans/conservatives to play the 'patriot card'. Take a look at just about any thread on this site and you'll see what I mean. I guess Blonde will accuse me of being the 'liberal scold' again, but, still, I wish both sides would stop it.
Jer
August 24, 2007 - 02:33 ET by well99I will call him a racist.That is my view.You have stated yours.I can respect that.I may not agree but oh well.
"Let me briefly address another issue you raised. I do agree with you about the tendency of many Democrats/liberals to all too casually deal out the 'race card'. But there is a similar tendency on the part of many Republicans/conservatives to play the 'patriot card'. Take a look at just about any thread on this site and you'll see what I mean. I guess Blonde will accuse me of being the 'liberal scold' again, but, still, I wish both sides would stop it."
I will agree with you on that.Too many dont distinguish between Liberal and Left wing and Conservative and Right wing .There is a difference.I am guilty of it sometimes too but I know I cant walk on water.Anyhow if you were going to pick a team to be manager of it should of been the Red Sox.
well99.... Even though
August 24, 2007 - 02:55 ET by Jerwell99....
Even though the world championship was won at the expense [and, well, total humiliation] of my beloved Cardinals, I have to say that the post season run by the Red Sox in 2004 was one of the most incredible, outstanding [insert your favorite superlative] events in sports history.
There was a wonderful documentary on HBO a year or so ago that chronicled that magical season for the Sox and what it meant to the "long-suffering" Sox fans. Did you see it?
Jer
Jer
August 24, 2007 - 07:42 ET by well99I dont get HBO.I think that might make up for 67 WS when Bob Gibson owed them...lol One heck of a pitcher.
A few wiki exceprts on
August 23, 2007 - 17:20 ET by Del DolemonteA few wiki exceprts on Wallace:
"His platform also contained a few progressive planks, such as generous increases for beneficiaries of Social Security and Medicare."
"In the late 1970s Wallace became a born-again Christian, and in the same era apologized to black civil rights leaders for his earlier segregationist views, calling these views wrong."
"A black lawyer recalls, "Judge George Wallace was the most liberal judge that I had ever practiced law in front of. He was the first judge in Alabama to call me 'Mister' in a courtroom."
Updated?
August 23, 2007 - 17:27 ET by stratmanIt appears that the article has been updated. It now says:
Maybe Ken Shepherd's post was noticed by AP.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
The report didn't discuss Wallace in any negative way
August 23, 2007 - 16:36 ET by RoverKen,
I don't see the issue here. The report (at least as discussed at the link you inserted) didn't go into Wallace's segregationist history, aside from the rantings of his would-be assassin (for whoever might take that seriously), and generally didn't portray Wallace in a negative light. In fact, to me, it reads at least slightly positive on Wallace. It didn't go into the history of either segregation or the civil rights movement. This was an article about the release of someone who shot a Governor, not about that Governor and HIS political history before the shooting. I don't think they needed to say what party that Governor belonged to, or discuss his segregationist history in an article about his shooting, any more than they'd be justified in dredging up Watergate if discussing Nixon's 1960 Presidential bid.
Anyway, this doesn't look like an example of bias to me.
Rover
Either leave it all out or put it all in.
August 23, 2007 - 16:49 ET by Spike72AFAHad the article completely ignored Wallace's segregationist positions both before and after his time as Governor, then I would agree that the party affiliation would be moot. I don't believe it is important to this story at all. But, I would bet dollars to donuts that if Wallace had been a Republican, the writer would have connected the dots between racism and party.
Yes, MAYBE the author would have done just that...
August 23, 2007 - 17:03 ET by RoverYes, maybe the author would have tried to connect the dots like that.
Nevertheless, this is close to how I would have written the article. I'm not about to criticize this article/author because of what I suspect it/he MIGHT have said if Wallace had been a republican.
Rover
Appreciate History Or Repeat It... Badly
August 23, 2007 - 17:44 ET by stratmanThe reason for the shooter's choice of stalking and attempting to kill Wallace was for "notoriety". The would-be assassin had stalked Nixon but changed his mind (?) and zeroed in on Wallace.
If I recall correctly, Wallace was not the only Democrat running for the Office of the President. Why then select Wallace over all the other candidates:
Could it be that the most bang for the buck, notoriety-wise, was to kill the candidate with the most polarizing, venom spewing, racist based platform?
Now do you get the point that Wallace's history matters in the context of the article?
The AP article was a sanitation job, a whitewashing as it used to be called, to minimize any negative PR about Democrats in the run up to the mother of all elections in 2008 (in their minds).
BTW, Wallace ran as an Independent because his own (former) party knew his ideology would prevent him from winning the election. It was one thing for Democrats to privately agree with Wallace's racial views, but it was another to promote him as the leader of the band and be elected president in 1972.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Rover...per your three
August 23, 2007 - 17:42 ET by JerRover...per your three posts: Disagree; Agree; Agree in part and disagree in part.
Sean Hannity has devoted way too much time and effort regarding his breathtaking disclosure that most of the southern segregationists were--hold onto your hats--Democrats! Of course he fails to mention the other half of the story, viz. most of these same segregationists were also conservatives.
This is Politics 101 and to suggest otherwise denies reality. But these are historical artifacts, just as is the fact that Robert Byrd, a Democrat, once belonged to the Klan.
We have enough problems here and now to be engaging in punctilious political and ideological distinctions from a half century past.
Jer
Wallace was seeking the Democratic nomination
August 23, 2007 - 17:42 ET by PamThe version I opened up mentions it...
My Mother and I were their
August 23, 2007 - 18:11 ET by general companyoutside a shopping center in Laurel
This should say, While outside at Laurel Shopping Center. I was 9yrs old buying cheese with my Mother upstairs in what then was the new addition. We did not know about it till we got home though.
-
August 23, 2007 - 21:44 ET by dahliatraversGeorge Wallace was a Democrat??
Wallace
August 23, 2007 - 22:34 ET by ConservativeRexNot only was Wallace a Dem, so was Lester Maddox , Bull Conner etc.
The Democrats want their past to disappear, but there are too many of us who remember exactly who and what they still are, I am proudly from the South, for many, many generations. It's not about region however. These rats want to paint all conservatives as bad. I would think, that according to how they think ,Hitler would be THEIR hero. They hate Israel, they hate religion, by their very actions they hate minorities (although they for the most part have been brainwashed) , thank the public schools for that.