What would be the consequences for race of a Mitt Romney victory?Colbert neglects to mention a very relevant fact; Andrew Johnson was a Democrat. So how did a Democrat take Lincoln's seat after the latter's assassination? It can be chalked up as the quintessential example of why Republicans should avoid "reaching across the aisle". Here is an excerpt from Unsung Davids about why Lincoln selected Johnson as his running mate:
A Romney takeover of the White House might well rival Andrew Johnson’s ascendancy to the presidency after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in 1865.
Abraham Lincoln selected a Democrat as his vice presidential running mate for his second term. Hannibal Hamlin, a radical Republican who vehemently opposed slavery, was the Vice President during Lincoln's first term. In a political move, Lincoln and his Party thought it best to appeal to a broader contingency of voters by putting Andrew Johnson on the ticket (p. 160).Of course, Special Field Order #15 - which mandated that all black families were to be given 40 acres and a mule - was issued by Lincoln's General William Sherman. It was Andrew Johnson who rescinded this order after becoming president. Nonetheless, Colbert compares Romney to Johnson the Democrat without identifying Johnson's party affiliation and champions Obama as a modern day Lincoln without pointing out that Lincoln was a Republican
Then, a little later in the column...
A Romney win would be worrisome, however, because of his strong embrace of states rights and his deep mistrust of the federal government — sentiments Andrew Johnson shared.That is an insane argument. Colbert begins with a premise that says states rights is a racist principle and that a distrust of federal government is a bad thing. Hey Colbert, have you looked around lately? The federal government is infested with corruption. It's an apples and oranges argument to say that states rights = racism but here is where Colbert really goes off the deep end, comparing voter ID with Jim Crow laws:
And we know what that Johnson did once in office.
His sympathy for Confederacy holdouts, and his distaste for Washington, led him to retreat from Reconstruction and avert his gaze as Southern states enacted Jim Crow laws, many of which lasted until the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
There is nothing in Romney’s record to suggest that he would be any stronger than Andrew Johnson in resisting the blandishments of his most extreme supporters, especially regarding federal enforcement.
Johnson stood by as Southern states enacted “black codes,” which restricted rights of freed blacks and prevented blacks from voting.
Romney stood by last year as Republican-controlled state legislatures passed voter-identification laws, making it harder for people of color, senior citizens and people with disabilities to exercise their fundamental right to vote.Apparently, voter fraud is the lesser of two evils because it is a natural consequence of people not being required to prove they are who they say they are. Then again, perhaps King has another agenda in mind. Does he know that voter fraud benefits the Democrats (ACORN ring a bell, Colbert?).
Now, as for Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Righst Act. He had a problem with both Title II and Title VII, not based on race but based on the notion that morality can't be legislated and granting too much power to the federal government (gee, that's not a problem today, is it?). Conspicuously absent from Colbert's piece is the identification of Al Gore, Sr., KKK Grand Klegal Robert Byrd, and Clinton mentor William Fulbright as Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Colbert compares Romney to Andrew Johnson without identifying Johnson's party; he compares Obama to Abraham Lincoln without identifying Lincoln's party; he points to Barry Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act without identifying its opposition by Gore, Byrd, and Fulbright; Then he compares attempts to suppress voter fraud with racism.