Biden is getting heat for invoking Jefferson Davis's name in his speech. given he voted to reinstate his US citizenship. But that was an irrelevant symbolic gesture. Far more egregious, and borderline disgusting, was invoking George Wallace's name to make his point. For the last eighteen years of his life, Wallace completely renounced his previous segregationist views and in fact won almost all the black vote in his last run for governor. There is little doubt that on the day they died, George Wallace had a higher opinion of, and cared more about, black people than Abraham Lincoln did.

Biden unjustly used his name only because it he was the most well known segregationist. But it wasn't right. I don't know if this has been pointed out by others. But in any case, I think Biden would actually do himself some good if he issued an apology or at least a clarification.

Gosh, segregationists and Confederates just can’t catch a break in America anymore.

Fixed that part for ya !!

While I am resolutely of the opinion that humans can evolve and that in the end only God can judge us in any absolute way, I still wouldn't let a convicted child molester baby sit my grandchildren. It costs nothing to make the + ev choice and keep Wallace accountable publicly.

Racism is a pretty bad blight on our democracy after all.

In addition to renouncing his segregationists views later in life, he was best man at Jerry Seinfeld’s wedding.

Did Wallace like teenagers or something? Weird thread.

Here is the quote:
He is pretty clear he is talking about a particular moment in history and the need to make choices, as opposed to an indictment against Wallace for all times.

Most people, not knowing of the conversion, will not take it that way. There were other names he could have chosen. Robert Byrd is in the same category and he certainly would have not used his name.

To be fair - nothing gets the 60 and under population to blow their wig like a Robert Byrd or George Wallace topic as they make tracks to consume a slugburger and wash it down with some giggle juice.

All the best.

Who cares though? The quote is appropriate, as stated. If someone wants a full history lesson about shifting personal views over time, then sure it’s worth a footnote in a textbook somewhere that he changed his views over time. Wallace was one of the big and better known pro segregationists of that era and fine to contrast with King. There is zero reason Biden needs to use his third of a sentence in Wallace to provide that clarification.

Relax.

It is technically accurate as stated. Not appropriate. Few people will pay attention to the initial part of Biden's sentence and will only remember the anti analogies that besmirched Wallace beyond what he deserved. If Wallace's conversion was more wildly known he would never have used his name, especially since there were alternatives.

Meanwhile any further discussion isn't worth my time. If you want to continue to argue I'll hand it over to Cuepee.

Dave, ever wonder why you're so popular round here?

Just lol at starting a thread, actually getting on topic responses, and then condescendingly telling your interlocutors on the 10th post that the discussion isn't worth your time. It's like you yearn to be disliked or something.

It is a pleasure to watch David’s brilliant mind fail to articulate argument after argument after argument.

The story of George Wallace's face turn is more complicated that David's post suggests. Wallace was always politically opportunistic.

By time he was making his final run for governor, the fire-and-brimstone segregationist version of George Wallace was no longer politically viable. But selling a redemption story, especially to black voters, was a potentially viable strategy.

Was the redemption story authentic? Wallace was in poor health by this time because of his gunshot wound. I'm sure he spent more time in the late 1970s and early 1980s thinking about the afterlife and his legacy than he did in the 1960s. But it's always hard to evaluate people in situations where the right thing to do and the politically expedient thing to do have converged. For that matter, it's hard to evaluate your own motivations when the right thing to do and the expedient thing to do converge.

Would Wallace have renounced his segregationist views if doing so would have doomed his political career? Based on his long history of political opportunism, I'm skeptical. But there is no way to know for sure.

Will close thread now since OP doesn't want to continue.

Wind is blowing to hell for that guy imo.