Ralph Yarborough voted against confirmation, and lost because of it.

[jobycom]

In 1970, Ralph Yarborough, the populist liberal Democratic senator from Texas, was expected to easily win his third term in the Senate. Yarborough was a prominent national figure, close friends with the Kennedy brothers, Al Gore, Sr, HH Humphrey, and the rest. He held the chairmanship of the powerful Labor and Public Welfare Committee. He was a strong Civil Rights supporter and an opponent of the Viet Nam war and of Richard Nixon, and was well loved and trusted in Texas. Yarborough's liberal social policies were offset by his conservative personal life. He was a devout Baptist, a family man, a hunter, a former military officer during WW II, and never drank alcohol.

He was challenged in the Democratic primary by Lloyd Bentsen, and unkown conservative Democrat from south Texas whose father owned a series of banks. No one took Bentsen seriously. He was far behind in the polls, and everyone expected Yarborough's real challenge to be a young former congressman from Houston, George HW Bush. Yarborough had already beaten Bush once.

Yarborough had been a liberal champion in the Senate. He voted for every Civil Rights Bill, spearheaded the bilingual education move, fought LBJ to create a national park on Padre Island in Texas (and also helped create national parks in the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Thicket), and was a constant opponent of the Viet Nam War, while doing everything he could to support the troops back home, including leading a Veterans benefit bill.

In 1970 Nixon nominated consecutively two conservative southern judges to the Supreme Court. Both were segregationists, and were part of the Republican "Southern Strategy" to win the south by being racist. Yarborough voted against both of them, and both were defeated. After the second defeat, Nixon bitterly proclaimed that he would not nominate another Southern judge because "Northern liberals" would defeat any southerner he appointed.

Benstsen jumped on this vote, which was one month before the primaries in Texas. Bentsen was trailing badly. He had been rebuffed by even conservative Dems like Connally, and LBJ had refused to support him, and it seemed hopeless. One month before the election he accused Yarborough of being anti-southern. "Yarborough should vote for Texas at least once in a while," Bentsen proclaimed, and accused Yarborough of siding with "anti-southern" and "ultra-liberal" northerners who viewed the Supreme Court as a "place to write laws rather than interpret them."

This vote was the turning point in the primary. Several conservative businessmen and politicos who had backed Yarborough until then changed their allegiance to the "pro-Texas" Bentsen. There was a rumor that LBJ had privately begun to back Bentsen against his close friend Yarborough. Bentsen received more funding to run a series of late ads attacking Yarborough.

The commercials were vicious, slanderous, and outrageous. They showed clips of rioting in the streets, and balmed Yarborough. They showed anti-war protests and implied (falsely) that Yarborough had taken part in anti-war rallies where flags were burned. One commercial showed a split screen, with Ho Chin Min on one side and Yarborough on the other, facing each other while chatting and smiling. The commercial proclaimed that Yarborough was the best friend Ho Chi Min had in Washington. Some Texans took this literally, believing the two men actually knew each other, and the commercial did nothing to dispell that misconception.

Rumors said that Bush, the Republican nominee, was helping the Bentsen campaign with funding and ideas. (as far as I know, the rumors haven't been proven). Indeed, Bentsen's campaign should not have been able to afford the million dollar advertising blitz, but Yarborough's vote against Nixon's nominee had struck a nerve, and money flowed into Bentsen's camp from all over, no doubt from Republican, probably even Nixonian, sources. In addition, the Republicans began a campaign of their own, to convince their voters to vote in the Democratic primary for Bentsen, and this campaign seems to have worked.

Yarborough went from a solid lead to defeat in one month, because his liberal record was portrayed as a "northern, anti-southern" record. texas had long been a populist state, and that populism split between liberal and conservative libertarian sorts. After 1970, the conservatives in Texas began to gain ground in both parties, and the Democrats were increasingly portrayed as non-southern, non-Texan. "Liberal" began to mean non-Texan. We've never recovered from that.

Obviously, it wasn't Yarborough's one vote which swayed the entire future of Texas politics, but his one vote did open the financial door for Lloyd Bentsen to defeat him. Texas had never been a strong segregationist state, like other southern states. Two of Texas's strongest figures, LBJ and Ralph Yarborough, were strong supporters of the Civil Rights movement from the 50s. But eventually the constant alliance with northern forces over southern politicians turned the tide.

When Yarborough left the Senate, Eagleburger spoke at a rally for him. "Ralph Yarborough would rather be right than be Senator," he said, to much applause. It was meant as a compliment, and it was. Yarborough refused to compromise for political reasons. His integrity, and that of many like him, changed America, ending (mostly) segregation and winning Civil Rights. Yarborough frequently said that the Civil Rights battle had lost the south for the Democrats, but he also believed, as I'm sure all of us do, that it was worth it, that it was the right thing to do.

But the fact still remains that we are still slipping down a steep conservative slope because of it.

I have no ultimate proof in this story. The current battle over Alito and whether Dems should support or oppose the nominee has some resonances. Both sides of the argument can find proof that they are right in Yarborough's history (a similar history could be told for Al Gore, Sr, btw). One major difference between the vote against Judge Harrold Carswell in 1970, and the current battle with Alito is that Yarborough knew his side would win the battle. It was political suicide for a noble victory. If our current Dems mount a battle against Alito, it probably won't win (Reid will know the results before the vote starts, so he will adjust his strategy accordingly).

But I thought it was an interesting story, anyway. It's a microcosm of how we got where we are today, if nothing else.

For the record, I cribbed a lot of my story from Patrick Cox's biography of Yarborough, "Ralph W. Yarborough: The People's Senator," although many of the interpretations, and any mistakes, are mine.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jobycom]

5. First, read the damn article before you embarrass yourself

Second, you can't call DUers assholes or Freepers even if we are--read the rules, too.

Third, a filibuster won't stop Alito's nomination--that's just fantasy, so your premise is just flawed.

[still_one]

7. I agree with your first two points you are right on, BUT

what a filibuster will do IS STOP alito's nomination unless they invoke the nuke option

It is my view that if that senerio happens, and the nuke option passes, if we win back congress in 2006, it will be looked back on as the downfall of the repukes

[jobycom]

12. Look, here's how it's going to happen

Reid will meet on Wednesday, after Gore's speech. If he has the votes to maintain a filibuster and prevent the nuke option, he will do it. If he doesn't, he won't fall on the sword for a losing battle.

If we win, we look good. If Reid chooses to filibuster and we lose, Bush looks good and the entire Republican Party gains momentum just in time for the 2006 elections. That's the last thing we need. You never help your enemy.

Now, look forward to 2006. Let's say we fight a symbolic battle for our egos, and we lose the filibuster. You know Bush will require the Senate to go nuke over Alito--he has to, he's lost too many battles recently. Then in 2006 we close the gap in the senate, pick up enough seats to make it close. Then, we have the numbers to make the filibuster a realistic threat, but we no longer have the filibuster to use.

Reid isn't fighting this battle to boost people's egos, he's fighting it to win for the Democrats. He's proven his moxy, he's proven his party allegiance. We need to trust him on this. He knows what he's doing better than all those screaming that Democrats should filibuster or get out of the party. Yeah, that's a good strategy--let's lose more Democrats. That will weaken Bush so much...

Anyway, I've never said Reid shouldn't filibuster. I've said that Reid should only filibuster if we can win, because a big loss for us is a win for Bush, and that's what we don't need. No Dem wants Alito. The question is only whether a filibuster will do more harm than good.

[still_one]

14. I disagree, in fact we can use it against them in 2006

They will NEVER allow us to filbuster. We must stand up, but I agree we won't. The threat of the nuclear option has immobilized us. Those senators who compromised that deal sold OUT

Eventually when enough people are killed in iraq, and enough people have lost their jobs, and enough people can't get medical insurance, a change of power will occur, and when it occurs, I want people leading me who stand up to tyranny, not cower before it

[jobycom]

22. How can we use our defeat against them?

You think the mainstream will care about the nuances? They haven't yet. The media will portray it as a great temper tantrum and defeat for the Dems, and that's all most people will hear.

As I said, if Reid can find a way to win, he will. I want him to. I want Alito defeated more than most. But we have to think long term, too. What happens if we lose more seats in 2006? What happens if Stephens or Ginsberg die, to be blount? If we pick up more seats in 2006, so that they can't realistically nuke the filibuster, or better, if we win, we can do something. If we lose, we'll be in worse shape. Much worse shape.

There's too much at stake for damaging symbolic gestures. Maybe we'll get lucky. Maybe Gore's speech will light a fire, and we'll get just enough support to stop the nuke option. In that case, Reid will filibuster, and we'll win. Maybe the scandals the Repubs are facing will scare a couple of them into agreeing not to go nuke. If so, Reid will know that going it. He's playing hardball, he has been since he got elected. Maybe we can win.

But if we can't, Reid will know that, too. All I'm saying is that if Reid doesn't filibuster, it's because he knows it will hurt more than help. He's doing what he can. I'm tired of watching Democrats defeating themselves. We saw in 94, we saw it in 2000... it gets old. We wouldn't be in this shape if we'd stuck to the party back then. We defeat ourselves more often than the Republicans beat us.

[still_one]

25. if they use the nuke option to override the filibuster

and alito is in, let him rule on a few decisions before 2006. I suspect those decisions will either favor corporations over individuals or erode fundamental rights.

I have a problem with those who voted for the IWR, and then later come out and said they were misled. Total B.S. They gave unprecidented rights to the executive branch, SOMETHING THAT NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE, and the Senators that do NOT support a filibuster on alito, will they say they were misled also?

There is very little difference in my view between allowing a person whose positions are very clear. He also lied on his application saying he belonged to CAP when he didn't, and ruling on the Vanguard case when he promised to recuse himself

[FreedomAngel82]

16. What I got from the article

is the guy who lost still stud up for what he knew was right. He would rather be right than have his power as a senator. Just like when Johnson signed the voting rights act. He knew what it would cost politically but he still did it and it was worth it. The democrats might not win the Alito fight but at least they'd be standing up for us and what's right.

[jobycom]

23. You got half of it right

LBJ, Yarborough, and many other Dems stood up for what was right, cast winning votes, and made the world a better place. We don't have the option of casting a winning vote. Our option is how badly we are going to lose.

Now, back up a decade. LBJ supported segregation early on, so that he could stay in power long enough to be in position to help when the tide turned. So did JFK--who would be hated by DUers now as a DLC sellout. JFK opposed the Civil Rights bills in the 50s, he opposed the freedom rides in the early sixties, he gave Hoover permission to wiretap MLK and he advised MLK to fire some of his advisors because they were too radical (MLK refused). JFK refused to vote against or speak out against McCarthy and his red scare, and even faked an illness so he could be in the hospital to avoid voting for censure of McCarthy. JFK escalated the Viet Nam conflict to appease the military, and created a false "missile gap" so he could start an arms race agains the Soviets and look tougher on communism than Nixon.

Was all that wrong? If he hadn't done a lot of that, he wouldn't have won. So we'd have had Nixon as president during the Civil Rights of the 60s, and LBJ wouldn't be a senator because he would have lost Texas. Then what?

It's a noble thing to sacrifice your power to win the right victory, but we are not in a position to win, and we do not have power. Is it noble to hurt our chances of taking power over a symbolic gesture? LBJ didn't think so. JFK didn't think so. I wonder how the world would look now if they had.

[still_one]

28. yes it is wrong,

that is what the democrats have been doing for the last 6 years, and look where it got us

if that is the direction of the party, they can forget about me being part of it

and this is coming from a lifelong democrat who is tired of their compromises

DLC can go to hell what they did to the party I once was part of. They are just a bunch of corporate whores

[jobycom]

38. You'd lose every Civil Rights gain, then.

That's how they were won. By staying in power long enough to do some good. Otherwise every liberal would have been voted out, and the south would still be segregated.

But that's your priority. It just isn't mine.

[still_one]

40. first of the historically the democrats were the party of segregation

and racism. It was Lincoln, a republican who took the bold move and changed that. After the civil war the democratic party did everything to subvert equality among the races, it wasn't until the 20th century, primarily FDR that started the change in the democratic party, though the southern democrats at that time were still racist. Slowly they bengin to change, but it was Johnson who actually was the person responsible for that change, and that fact turned the south against the democrats, hence the repukes filled the gap

Sorry, but both parties have their share of racism, and it was NOT because of their respective parties that it changed, but individuals within those parties that had the courage to DEMAND THAT CHANGE, at great personal cost

[still_one]

26. There was a republican from the northwest who stood against

the viet nam war, lost his re-election, but in my view was a hero because he stood for what was right. Over 60000 American lives were wasted because of those lies

[niyad]

2. thank you for reminding us of a very salient factor in texas politics and

our history. I had forgotten most of the story, and it is one that should not be forgotten.

[Catch22Dem]

3. I had no idea of Bentsen's history

Seems later in life he turned out to be a decent person, but I must proclaim my ignorance on the matter.

[jobycom]

8. He was always a conservative Dem, but the country moved so far right

that he began to look like a moderate. There is a deep division still in the Texas Democratic Party between the populists and the conservative Dems. We bury the division during the general election, but it's pretty bitter during the primaries. Bentsen was always on the conservative side of that line.

[Vincardog]

4. Any Democrat who does not filibuster should sign up as a Republican

WE must call and write our Congress Critters NOW and Demand they stop ALITO. No Imperial pResidency. No more FASCIST policies.

[still_one]

10. I agree with your sentiments, but the way to do it

is vote them out, and bring new democrats into the party that won't be compromised

This will NOT happen unfortunately until the pain inflicted on our country affects more people

[AX10]

6. Lloyd Bentsen is in the same mold as the Bush family.

He was, is, and will always be a right wing opportunistic scumbag.

[yknot]

9. Whatever, it's time to act on principle whatever the cost.

They're not elected to keep their jobs, they're elected to serve their constituents interests. Alito is a disaster; if they lay down on this, they can stay down.

[still_one]

11. absolutely, look what six years of compromise has done to us

[jobycom]

13. Whatever the costs?

So if you know that by staging a filibuster you will lose the filibuster, fail to block Alito anyway, give Bush a big victory and boost in the polls that will give his whole party momentum going into the 2006 election, and allow the Repubs to pick up more seats in the House and Senate in 2006, you'd still say filibuster?

I wish the Republicans had a few strategists like you.

[yknot]

15. I just posted this message in GD but I'll repeat it here

If Alito confirmed, their jobs won't matter anyway. Congress, already practically worthless, will be rendered obsolete by kingly executive power. Winning congress in 06 won't matter.

[jobycom]

17. You don't get it

Alito is in. It's done. The filibuster won't stop him, it will only invoke the nuke option. It's over, it's done. Unless Reid can work a miracle (and he'll know that before going in), it's done. Why's that hard to understand? We lost this battle in 2000 when people voted for Nader. We lost this battle in 02, when the Repubs took the Senate. It's over.

Now, how do we receive the least damage? That's the only question.

Reid will know before the vote whether he's got the votes. If he doesn't, and it's unlikely he will, he'd be a fool to hand Bush a victory. If he has the votes, be sure he'll filibuster. But be prepared, because he's not likely to have them.

If we filibuster for nothing, if we allow Bush and the Repubs to look strong by punking us, if we lose all this momentum we have fought for against DeLay and Cunningham and FEMA and all the rest, just to boost a few poor little egos... then the Republicans will send us a check and a thank you card, and may name the amendment banning abortion after us.

[yknot]

19. Ugh...

Sure Nader was a factor, but how we really lost 2000 was by letting the RW machine, helped in no small part by an activist SUPREME COURT, kick our calculating dem asses. We were thinking about political expedience when we decided not to fight then as well.

[stepnw1f]

21. bingo!!!!! (nt)

[jobycom]

24. Bullshit

First, Nader's voters gave New Hampshire to Bush. That state would have won it for Gore without Florida.

Second, absolute bullshit on any claim that political expedience cost us the win in 2000. That is complete nonsense. When SCOTUS decided for Bush, it was over. There was no expedient gesture involved.

[yknot]

29. OOOOK...

1. Subsequent counting has shown we won regardless of votes lost to Nader.

2. Thanks for making my point; the same radical court that overstepped it's authority and installed a president, will be an unstoppable political tool with Alito.

3. chill.

[jobycom]

35. Sigh...

As I said; Gore would have won NEW HAMPSHIRE without Nader interfering. If he had won New Hampshire's 3 electoral votes, he wouldn't have needed Florida. There was no recount of New Hampshire, so you must be refering to Florida. You do know the difference?

two: If a filibuster would stop Alito, you would have a point and we would agree. Since a filibuster WON'T stop Alito, you have no point.

three: back at ya.

[yknot]

39. Hm...Maybe you think the dems should go a step further and vote to confirm

I understand your issue; there's no point in committing political suicide over something you can't win, but I'm not convinced it is political suicide. How long have we heard "the democrats don't stand for anything"? A great number of Americans believe it. The repukes get to tout their convictions, right or wrong, as proof they have vision and resolve, and great number of Americans buy it. Maybe, it's time to challenge the conventional wisdom, stand up and take our chances. Anyway, are you absolutely convinced that the democrats won't get a boost from this futile act of defiance?

[stepnw1f]

20. No... You Don't Get It

If there isn't a filibuster, and this asshole gets confirmed, starts taking away woman's right, we will be equally to blame. You want to be known as the party that gave away more than 50% of the population's rights to chose, or better yet the party that set a new precedent in chipping away your own privacy rights?

Get it?

[jobycom]

27. How in the goddamned hell do you think we are going to stop it?

Have you been paying ANY attention AT ALL to the last few years. A filibuster won't stop Alito. It won't. Quit fantasizing that it will. We lost. Alito is in. We can filibuster or not, and it will not matter one little bit to whether Alito is nominated. Wake the goddamn hell up.

All a filibuster will do is lose us the ability to filibuster. Oh, big deal, you say, we aren't using it now. What about after the 2006 election? What if we pick up a few seats? What if we have enough votes to prevent the nuclear options then, and enough votes to maintain a filibuster then? Then Stevens retires. Bush appoints the next Alito. WE CAN'T STOP HIM BECAUSE WE GAVE UP THE FILIBUSTER OVER NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look past your own damned ego.

And as I've said, if Reid has the votes for a filibuster, that's a different story, but he'll know that going in to the vote. He'll do what he can to stop Alito. But I hope to hell he's smarter than people around here who want him to filibuster no matter the cost. If not, he's no better for us than Frist.

[Vincardog]

30. I really Hope you are full of $hit.IF not NOW WHEN?

It is not just about Abortion. What about the Unitary pResisency? We must stop the spread of this cancer on our government.

[durablend]

31. People like him are living in their own little dream world

They think if we sit on our asses and do nothing, we win by default while the country burns under Republican rule.

Of course, in the "real world" what will happen is the progressives will vote Green (or stay home) while everybody else comes to the polls with clothespins on their noses and still vote Republican.

[jobycom]

33. Are you for real?

You act like a filibuster will stop Alito. Why do you think that? It won't. If it would, they would do it.

If we could stop the spread of this cancer with a filibuster, do you honestly believe the Democrats wouldn't do it? That's just silly. If they filibuster, it will be because Reid knows he has the votes. If they don't, it's because they can't overcome the nuclear option. What part of that do you not get? You seem to think it's a question of whether the Dems want to stop Alito or not. That's not the issue, it's never been the issue. You do understand that, right?

BTW, what happens if we do defeat Alito? Will Bush's next nominee be someone you like?

[durablend]

34. Here we go again...

"Gotta keep that powder dry for the next nominee who'll be 20x worse!"

Yep, surely that attitude will guarantee us a win come November--nooooooooooooooo doubt about it

(in case you missed it):

:sarcasm:

[jobycom]

36. You still have not once answered my first question

You do know that Alito will be confirmed even if we try to filibuster, right?

No sarcasm. Just an ugly fact that you can't grasp, and won't answer.

[More Than A Feeling]

37. They nuke the filibuster, we shut down the senate

I'd like to offer a couple of movie quotes that I think illustrate what the core points are in this situation...

"They send our guy to the hospital, we send theirs to the morgue!"- Sean Connery, "The Untouchables"

"This about drawing a line in the sand, dude! Across this line you shall not...also, dude, 'chinaman' is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-american, please." -John Goodman, "The Big Lebowski"

[Zen Democrat]

18. There's a huge error in this ... Yarbrough and LBJ despised each other.

Had for years and it continued. In the 11/22/63 Dallas motorcade, there was a brouhaha because LBJ wanted John Connally in his car, with Yarbrough to ride in the presidential car with Kennedy. JFK stopped it by saying that protocol dictated that the state governor would ride with him. Both Johnson and Yarbrough were furious at having to ride in the same car.

And, this is hogwash about Yarbrough losing his seat due to votes on Supreme Court judges. Yarbrough was challeged by Lloyd Bentsen over Yarbrough's stand against the Vietnam War. Yarbrough had supported Bobby Kennedy for president in 1968, and then Eugene McCarthy after RFK's assassination. In 1970, with Richard Nixon in power - and Texas voted for Nixon - Bentsen ran a campaign charging that Yarbrough was an unreconstructed "liberal" (ohmygosh) and that he opposed the war, and wan't tough enough on "law and order" issues, like, um, supporting the rights of protesters and dissenters. Bentsen won the primary and beat George H.W. Bush (remember him?) in the November general election.

This put Bush out to pasture. So he had to be resurrected by the party so he could remain a "player", inasmuch as he was already a CIA operative and inside money man.

As far as the two Supreme Court nominees, Haynesworth and Carswell (to replace Fortas), they were a couple of old segregationists, as well as having questionable business associations. They were bad appointments, primarily part of Nixon's cementing the South for Republicans. Few remember that when Harlan and Black retired, Nixon first nominated Hershel Friday and Mildred Lillie to the court, but the ABA reported them not qualified. Powell and Rehnquist eventually got these seats.

[jobycom]

32. It's more complicated than that.

I knew Yarborough. He and LBJ were political rivals, especially in 1963. After that, they reconciled personally, though they were still political rivals. I heard Yarborough say it point blank, to my face, that he and LBJ were friends, that they respected each other, and he said, point blank, that they loved each other. He claimed the media hype was just hype. After JFK was shot, both men blamed their feud to some degree, and both men felt a commaraderie (and with Connally, though not as much--Connally was a real ass).

Another reason LBJ didn't back Bentsen was because he didn't think Bentsen could win. LBJ didn't like Nixon or the Republicans because they opposed his civil rights issues, and didn't want Bentsen to weaken Yarborough against Bush.

As for why Yarborough lost... He had a double digit lead in the polls one month before the primaries, despite his support of the Kennedies and all the rest. Bentsen was barely a factor. After Yarborough's vote against Carswell, several Democrats switched allegiances, and this brought Bentsen more ground support in several districts, as well as the support of the clubs and local party structure in some of these districts. Before the Carswell vote, these same Democrats had refused to back Bentsen, but after it, because of it, they did. It also brought Bentsen more donors, and more financial support, and that allowed Bentsen to run the blitz he ran.

Yarborough knew his opposition to Carswell would be unpopular, and resisted making any statements against him, so he knew the issue could play big in Texas (imagine what the Repubs would do to a fellow Repub who voted against Alito). This isn't my speculation, it's also the opinion of Yarborough's biographer, Patrick Cox, as well as other Texas historians, and it was the belief of Yarborough, as well.

[Zen Democrat]

41. Have you listened to LBJ's White House recordings?

Without a doubt, it was necessary for LBJ and Yarbrough to paper over their differences in the interest of party unity. But personally, I guarantee you they were not friends. My parents knew Yarbrough. Not only was he considerably more liberal than LBJ, but he also did not buy the Warren Report and thought it a whitewash of the Kennedy Assassination -- and Ralph was in Lyndon's car in Dallas.

Why, in God's name, would any Democratic backlash attach to a vote against such an egregiously unqualified Republican jurist, and avowed racist, as G. Harrold Carswell? If there's a political price to be paid for upholding the Constitution, so be it. But, I was here at the time and I can absolutely guarantee you that notwithstanding what a biographer wrote, Ralph Yarbrough's defeat was based not on Carswell, but on a general conservative trend in the Texas Democratic Party that painted Ralph Yarbrough as an "ultra-liberal". This is the same group that now constitutes most of the Texas Republican Party. It was an ouster planned and executed under the aegis of then-Democrat John Connolly. Also, Yarbrough did not believe the vote counting was honest. He loudly proclaimed in 1972 when he lost a primary election to Barefoot Sanders (an LBJ crony) in a come-back attempt to unseat John Tower, that voter fraud was rampant in the election.

But back to 1970, ask yourself, why was a sitting United States Democratic Senator challenged in the primary by another Democrat? The answer, because the challengers weren't really Democrats. They were the Democrats in name-only, the Allan Shivers Democrats (Democrats for Nixon, et al) and the John Connally Democrats.

Regarding G. Harrold Carswell, the NPR website reports:

In 1970 Nixon nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell, a Southern conservative with "strict-constructionist" leanings, to fill the Fortas vacancy. Carswell had recently been appointed to the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which served the Deep South. His nomination was a surprise to many: Carswell had been a judge for just a short time and was seen as lacking distinction. Prominent legal scholars publicly criticized the nomination.

Some senators tried to sell Carswell's rather unremarkable career as an asset. In a famous speech in Carswell's defense, Republican Sen. Roman Hruska of Nebraska argued: "Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers, and they are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that."

Civil rights leaders joined the opposition to Carswell's nomination, after reporters discovered statements he had made as a young candidate for the Georgia legislature in 1948: "I yield to no man as a fellow candidate or as a fellow citizen in the firm, vigorous belief in the principles of White Supremacy, and I shall always be so governed." Carswell had also helped convert a public golf course in Florida into a private club to keep it segregated. The Senate rejected him 51-45.

*****

You state: "Yarborough knew his opposition to Carswell would be unpopular, and resisted making any statements against him, so he knew the issue could play big in Texas (imagine what the Repubs would do to a fellow Repub who voted against Alito)."

But, there's no analogy here. Yarbrough was a Democrat and Carswell was a Republican nominated by a Republican president (Nixon), following the failed nomination of another unqualified nominee, Clement Haynesworth.

Carswell was defeated by Senate floor vote on April 8, 1970. The Texas Democratic Primary was held on May 2, 1970. I can't believe that a sitting Democratic senator voting against an unqualified Republican nominee could lose his own party's nomination 25 days hence on the basis of voting with a majority of Democrats to defeat a miserable nominee. This is convoluted reasoning. You are making an assumption that Democrats in Texas supported G. Harrold Carswell.

If this discussion was surrounding the general election it could be a basis for argument. But the Democratic primary? No way.

[H2O Man]

42. It is worth looking

at why JFK went to Dallas in 11-63; while Yarborough was a good senator, he had a lot of problems in his home state that pre-dated the issue you make note of, and which played a far more significant role in his being "upset." Attributing it to the conformation issue seems inaccurate, in my opinion.