WaPo's Glenn Kessler: After defending Ryan's dishonest speech, takes issue with DNC speakers.

[ProSense]

This was Kessler's commentary on Ryan's speech, taking to task his critics.

The truth? C’mon, this is a political convention
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-truth-cmon-this-is-a-political-convention/2012/08/31/88550120-f3c0-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_blog.html

Now that the Democratic Convention is underway, Kessler thinks facts without explaining the nuances is "silly."

<...>

A number of readers asked about this brief (20 paragraphs or so) history of the Democratic party, especially the first sentence. It certainly appears to ignore the party’s long and troubled history with race, literally leaping from the “200 years” phrase to 1920, when the women’s suffrage amendment was enacted.

The Web history mentions the leadership of President Woodrow Wilson in helping pass the 19th amendment, without noting that he was a racist or that he repressed civil liberties — even to the point of jailing one of his rivals for the presidency in 1914 (socialist Eugene Debs).

The history also highlights the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Certainly President Lyndon Johnson, a Texas Democrat, played an essential role, but it is worth remembering that 80 percent of the “no” votes in the Senate came from Democrats, including the late Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) and Albert Gore (D-Tenn.), father of the future vice president. Republican votes, in fact, were essential in winning final passage of the bill.

Of course, a quick little Web history does not give much space for such details. A more unvarnished perspective was presented in the 1992 book, “Of The People,” which Democrats distributed at the convention that nominated Bill Clinton. That book, written by real historians, obviously has a slant, but it found the space to mention such historical blemishes. For instance, it acknowledged that before the Civil War the party “played both sides of the slavery issue” and after the Civil War, the party “reached out a welcoming hand to returning Confederates, not to blacks.”

The highly sanitized Web version looks silly by failing to mention such unpleasant facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-opening-night-of-the-democratic-convention/2012/09/05/ec50ad84-f73d-11e1-8b93-c4f4ab1c8d13_blog.html

It almost sounds like he's giving Republicans credit for the Civil Rights Act.

Kessler: Democrats being proud of their record on civil rights is "silly." Ryan delivering a completely dishonest speech, "It's a political convention, for Pete's sake!"

The dynamics of the day matter. It was strong support from a Democratic President, backed by Democrats and Republicans in northern states, that led to the passage of the bill.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

By party

The original House version:[16]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[16]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

[edit] By party and region

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Passage_in_the_Senate