I don't know who said it, but taken in and of itself without any further context, I don't see how that is at all racist, racial, or even objectionable. Do you?
You have really gone off the deep end in this thread, stockingfull. You act as if there was some kind of immediate political seismic shift in the South. Fact is it took a number of years for the transition from majority Democrat to majority republican (at least at a national politics level) in the South. Arguably it just solidified in the last 10 years or so. Just as it took a number of years for the Northeast to shift from being a Republican bastion (or at least a competitive political environment) to a solid Democrat enclave. This relatively slow process of geographic political affinity shift is probably best associated not with the Republican party somehow becoming more accepting of racists or a segregationist agenda (What evidence of this do you provide? What policy proposals or actions bear this out?), but rather it is the result of the South progressively shedding its racist sentiments coupled with the Democrat party moving inexorably away from the core policy issues that they continued to believe in.
Think of it for a moment, the racist sentiments of the South were strongly associated with the North/South divide and the Civil War. The Republican party was the party of the North in that political calculus. Even after racism has met fringe belief status in the South, being a Democrat is still a culturally significant tenet and often is a strong family tradition, despite the party abandoning their non-racial policy interests long ago. Cultural and political animosity for Republicanism made calling ones self Republican an emotionally and culturally very difficult thing to do. The transition took a good deal of time and as such it is much more reasonable to look for other reasons why this political shift has occurred.
What other reasons? I'd say primarily they migrated toward the party that was for limited, constitutionally bound national government, low federal taxes, a strong military for national defense, and was until fairly recently much more isolationist than it is today. Also, as the Democrat party started to focus increasingly on urban politics and policy, implement a renewed progressivist and socialistic agenda, allied itself increasingly with unions and anti-business interests, and became more and more antagonistic toward religiously minded voters and even contemptuous of their cultural/social issues priorities, the largely rural and suburban south and midwest increasingly found a home in the Republican party. None of this is or was rooted in racism, racial politics, or some imagined shift of the party of Lincoln to being that of Bull Connor.
The shift was had to do with business friendly, tax payer friendly economic policy, the largely outdated and increasingly detrimental role of unions in modern society, the demographic shift throughout the nation from a predominantly rural population into highly concentrated urbanized populations centers, and the cultural/economic shift to people getting higher levels of education. This last one is particularly important as there has been a parallel shift during the same time period in which the political orientation of university faculties moved from center-right to the leftist dominated faculty situation seen today. This shift has also lead to a significant shift in curricula, particularly in the liberal arts departments/colleges of these universities, and has all but taken over the Residence Life and Student Government operations of most universities today. All of this having a substantial effect on media and the broader culture, particularly in urban and suburban locales.
Now you can go on claiming that "it is fact" that Republicans are the party of racism, or that all racists are all Republican (which I have to agree, was about the stupidest thing I've seen you post on this forum, ever), but it simply is not the case now and I argue it never was the case. There are and have been racists in the Republican party, no doubt. Just as there are and have been racists in the Democrat party. The parties are really big. Membership is through self-identification and not controlled in any way. The Democrat party still gets a lot of play in local and state politics in the South. Are you going to bet that there aren't *any* racists calling themselves Democrats down there? And what about the Northeast? While it isn't the standard, "I hate them n***ers," brand of racism that people usually image and which might still live in the hearts of some few people, the Northeast has always had its own brand of racist beliefs and prejudices. Some are born of the lilly-white demographics and the latent fear and dislike of the unfamiliar, others are more insidious, such as the progressivist eugenic beliefs present in the founding of Planned Parenthood and which can arguably still be found at play within it, though usually much more subtly (undercover recordings of some people at these operations over the past couple years have exposed some shockingly unsubtle racism in their mission).
That all said, I do seriously doubt that there are any nationally elected racist Republicans today. Similarly, I doubt there are any racists holding elected national office for the Democrats either. And I do not believe it would be fair to call either party (as a whole) accepting of or courting the racist vote. Sometimes racially tinged messages and adverts get used in political races from, but this activity happens on both sides. A Republican candidate might use subtle visual and auditory cues to evoke a racially based fear response in a predominantly white region/district. On the other hand a Democrat candidate might use cues to do the same thing but playing off racial fears of black or other minority voters. Both parties have been known in recent elections to play against racial/racist fears within white and black communities against hispanic opponents. These tactics are almost always restricted to state and local races, though. Sometimes they pop up in a campaign for a Senate or House seat, but more often than not they are produced by non-affiliated groups and are very quickly and forcefully disavowed. And in gaining national media attention (thank you Internet!) such despicable ads and tactics usually end up generating interest and financial support for the target of such ads, rather than help the intended candidate.
In short, you are totally off the mark. Try again.