Cynical Nation

Newell, it took you long enough to figure out the old Byrd.
His misdeeds (for po' old wva) are the stuff of legend.
BTW, ga problem resolved, progress ensues.

I don't defend Robert Byrd's past, nor do I think that he should be third in line to be President, but it is you who is playing the race card here. Just as I defended my voting for Guilliani the second time as a decision that was not based on race but on my assessment of the Dinkins administration's first term, I can sure as hell defend my criticism of Dr. Rice against charges of racism now.

Your implication is that Robert Byrd MUST vote for Dr. Rice because she is black and therefore he MUST forget every one of his criticisms of how the Bush administration handled the war seems to be solely based on the fact that Dr. Rice is black.

In this, you are asking Robert Byrd to go against his CONSISTENT statements and beliefs regarding how this administration handled the war solely because of the race of Dr.Rice.

So while Robert Byrd may have been racist in the past, Robert Byrd here is clearly following his beliefs here. It is you who are insisting that he go against those beliefs for reasons of race and for that is you who should be ashamed.

Tirin, that's great news, and this is fun, writing here where nobody knows what the hell we're talking about. Today marks the end of my solitary confinement (hooray!) and homer is alive and well. You'll have to bring me up to speed soon, 'cuz I'm back in.

PE, Senator Byrd may very well have voted his conscience in opposing Rice, and I'm not saying that his vote was motivated by racism. I'm only saying the spectacle of his opposing the advancement of the most powerful African-American woman in history (for whatever reason) was enough to make me realize I know longer care to pussyfoot around the guy's past. I don't think that's "playing the race card."

I don't care about bringing up his past. Byrd was in the Klan, voted against the civil rights act. He has a legacy that should not be forgotten.

Still the fact of the matter is that Rice has a track record and she is responsible for that track record. To alleviate her of that responsibility because of her race and to pressure Senators based on race is offering her protection because of her race, protection she does not need.

Also, wasn't Strom Thurmond for many years the third in line for the Presidency as well?

From Krauthammer:

Secretaries of state are generally approved unanimously. This is the first nomination in a quarter-century to have earned even a single dissenting vote, and the largest number of "no" votes since 1825.

Think about that. The most since Henry "Handsome Harry" Clay.

BTW, those votes were also by Democrats.

In truth, it is sadder when several of them chose to impugn her honesty as Boxer and Dayton most pointedly did.

Yes, Mal, and it was the Breckinridge Democrats who led the secession from the Union in 1861. The Democrats fought reconstruction and many of them opposed the civil rights act. It's all in the history books.

As far as it being "sad", I don't see anything sad about Senators voting against a confirmation. The Senate made it clear to Washington right from the start of our republic that they would not be a rubber stamp. Although it wasn't until Andrew Jackson that a cabinet appointee was voted down, the right to do so always existed and continues to exist.

The Iraq War, in my view, has been a mess. The reasons for the necessity to go in have proven not to be true. Dr. Rice was a key member of the team that sold that war and I see no reason why she shouldn't be questioned sharply as a result.

As it turned out, she was confirmed by a wide margin, even among Democrats. Count me personally in with Senators like Biden who have sharp questions/reservations but still believe that she's competent and would've voted to confirm. Still, I see nothing "sad" about those who did vote in opposition or even those who were impertinent in their questioning.

Unless I missed something, dissent is still allowed in this country. It would be "sad" if that ceased to be the case.

PE, the point Krauthammer (and I) were trying to make is that the SOS cabinet position confirmation should be based solely on whether the person is qualified to hold the position.

Dr. Rice certainly is.

Historically, partisans from the losing side have recognized that - until now.

What we witnessed during the past two weeks was the Democrats either trying to energize their base, as witnessed by the Shumer fund-raising letter while the confirmation was still ongoing; an attempt to beat up on Bush for the war through a convenient surrogate, or both.

In both cases, my old party was wrong.

There comes a time when pols have to stop trying to curry favor with base supporters and actually perform as statesmen.

Dayton, Boxer, and Kennedy failed on this. As did the irrepressible Shumer with the ill-timed fund-raising letter.

I agree with you, as you may or may not recall, about this war with Iraq. Always have and have made no bones about it.

But unless these three had proof that Rice somehow was the source of the misinformation about WMD, then they had no reason to vote against her confirmation.

It was grandstanding for the 'Democratic wing' of your party, IMO, and it probably hurt them more than they can know as it made them look petty and mean-spirited.

Don't believe me?

Ask Andrew Young and Donna Brazile to name just two of a number of high-ranking blacks who were dismayed at her reception in that august chamber.

Krauthammer's standard is a standard that is often used, but it is not a constitutional requirement. "Advise and consent" is just that to me. As far as I am concerned, it is up to the individual Senator to define his or her standards for his or her consent.

Funny, on another comments section on this site, Z thought how the Republicans acted was "sad."

I personally think it is Democracy and I'm damn proud to be thought of as "wrong" by the likes of Mr. Krauthammer. For heaven's sake, when has a Democrat ever been "right" in Mr. Krauthammer's eyes?

Many "traditions" have been broken and will continue to be broken. The bottom line is that, until you move to California, Barbara Boxer doesn't have to answer to you.

I still say, however, that the difference between how Bush 43 pushed for the Iraq War vote was entirely different from that of his father who allowed the Senate to vote up and down on the eve of conflict when it was certain that conflict was to occur. Bush 43, on the other hand, hyped up the threat while pushing for war right before the congressional elections. Given that this came a year after 9/11, it amounted to extreme pressure that was hard to defy in a fog of fear. Now, people like Barry like to point out that the resolution included a bit about Saddam's abuse, but that's B.S. to me because the focus of all the talk then from the administration, including the interviews that Rice gave, was about the WMDs and specifically the threat to the U.S. a year after 9/11.

So fine, Barry and yourself can feel superior regarding how good your side is and how bad we are. I personally would rather that the Dems would have some fight and stand up for what they believe, rather than give in to pressure from the White House on the vague hope that their manners might be appreciated by those in power.

For all his faults, I believe that Robert Byrd's vote was on principle and I'm glad he was not hectored into voting otherwise out of fear that people would drag out his past.

And for all those who believe that liberals like myself have "sold their souls" in defense of Robert Byrd.. well I have not had any visits from a man with horns on his head and would not sell my soul to him if he did. I answer to my own beliefs, my own morals, and my own belief in a higher being.

If I were to buckle under to your pressure, then I would have sold my soul and would deserve permanent relocation to the hot place. But I have not and will not.

Robert Byrd is a repulsive human being. I would be ashamed were he a member of my political party.

Senator Byrd is the duly elected Senator from the state of West Virginia. He is the most senior Senator in the party, just as Strom Thurmond was in the Republican Party. He is a legacy of segregation just like Thurmond was. However, there are many politicians such as Lott, Zell Miller, and even Jimmy Carter whose politics was tainted in the early party of their career.

I didn't vote for him, but damn if I am going to be ashamed of him. He is honored and forgiven just like Thurmond was forgiven. What Lott did wrong was seem to praise his 1948 stands, but ,if any Democrat praised Byrd's KKK work, he'd be in trouble too.

However, I don't see a repulisve human being and frankly this "If he was a member of my Party" is just posing bullshit.

I am not ashamed, CRB. I have worked in Harlem and the South Bronx and damn if I am going to have someone lecture me because I am not going to get worked up over Byrd's KKK past when I did not do the same for Thurmond.

> I have worked in Harlem and the South Bronx and damn if I am going to have someone lecture me because I am not going to get worked up over Byrd's KKK past when I did not do the same for Thurmond.

PE, Strom Thurmond didn't *have* a "KKK past." Sorry, but being a former segregationist is not quite the same thing. My criticisms of Thurmond's past are a matter of record, and searchable here on CN, but please do not equate his past with that of the gentleman from West Virginia.

And there were Democrats who, for years, would get worked up over various Southern Republican politicians who would meet with segregationist groups, or honor past segregationists, but the problem with this is that both the Democrats and the Republicans did this. Bill Clinton did it at times. The fact is that segregation ended within our lifetime and its legacy is still diminishing.

I don't, however, think we overcome that legacy by treating Dr. Rice, or any minority who has earned high power, with kid gloves.

Did you read Thurmond's acceptance speech in 1948? Part of his speech dealt with stopping negroes from sharing swimming pools with whites.

PE, as a former South Carolinian, I am intimately familiar with Mr. Thurmond's career. He was an embarrassment to our state.

Nevertheless, there is a vast difference between a former segregationist and a former Klansman. Practically every single Southerner alive during the 40's and 50's was a segregationist, including my own grandparents, until they learned better. That's not a proud heritage, granted, but it's a damn sight different from membership in a lawless vigilante group that routinely lynched blacks for the crime of being black. If you truly can't see the difference there, then I'm afraid I will have to kick your ass. ;-)

The other thing is that Byrd has apologized.

"The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. "

Did Thurmond ever apologize for his segregationist ways? In July 1998 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of his presidential bid on the segregationist Dixiecrat ticket, he was asked if he wanted to apologize, Thurmond said, "I don't have anything to apologize for," and "I don't have any regrets." Asked if he thought the Dixiecrats were right, Thurmond said, "Yes, I do."

Yes, the KKK was a terrorist group, but Ty Cobb was a member and no one is kicking him out of the Hall of Fame. The KKK was widespread. They held parades that marched down the main streets of America. We're talking about a time when black people could not play baseball. Joe Louis would never had gotten a shot at the title if he wasn't needed to defeat the German Schmelling.

I know about lynchings. They were disgusting, but don't tell me that segregationism had nothing to do with them -- because the "crimes" were often familiarity with white women, crimes of segregation.

So, no, I don't think that Thurmond is any better than Byrd and I don't see the distinction that allows us to forgive Thurmond, but not Byrd.

PE, I will *strongly* suggest that you stop putting words in my mouth that I never said. For one thing, I never suggested Condi Rice be treated with kid gloves, and I *never* said that I had "forgiven" Strom Thurmond, but not Byrd, or that segregation had "nothing to do with" lynchings.

Segregationism was a disgusting legacy, but it does *not* rise to the level of holding a leadership position in the Ku Klux Fucking Klan, no matter *how* much you've apologized for it in years since. It's not the same thing, and I'll ask you nicely, one last time, to stop equating the two.

No, Barry. I do not see a distinction that allows me to forgive active segregationist leaders but not members of the Klan, especially those that have renounced their former allegiance.

For heaven's sake, I know black people that have forgiven members of the current Klan the moment that forgiveness is asked.

There is a difference between segregationists and those that belonged to the KKK, but forgiveness is forgiveness.

> No, Barry. I do not see a distinction that allows me to forgive active segregationist leaders but not members of the Klan, especially those that have renounced their former allegiance.

BUT NO ONE IS FUCKING DOING THAT!!!!! Not on this board, anyway. I am not "FORGIVING" Strom Thurmond here. Why is that so hard to get through your pate?!?

And here's something else you need to hammer through there! Strom Thurmond is fucking DEAD!!! He does not have a leadership role in our government, he is not an "active segregationist," and he is not currently trying to obstruct the advancement of African-Americans in Bush's cabinet!!!

I am warning you, you are *this* close (holding fingers not very far apart) to really pissing me off...

UPDATE: All right, I've calmed down. Scratch the warning. ;-)

Well, I am forgiving both Byrd and Thurmond.

I do equate Byrd's participation in the Klan with Thurmond's acceptance of the Dixiecrat nomination in 1948 because I do feel that the 1948 speech contained hate toward blacks.

I understand that there is a difference between your average perosn who was a segregationist and a member of the Klan, but if I am going to forgive one I am going to forgive both, especially someone who has renounced his past.

So I apologize for one thing that perhaps I have implied an acceptance of Thurmond but not of Byrd.

I personally choose to forgive both Byrd and Thurmond, because, short of their being involved in a murder themselves, I am willing to forgive them for their past beliefs. Because the more I know about society back then, the more I understand how widespread racism in ths country was. So I am not going to be making distinctions between levels of hatred. If I am going to forgive one, I am going to forgive all.

Also, as a sidebar, I don't view this as a north-south issue. I just watched "Unforgiveable Blackness" about Jack Johnson, the first black heavyweight champion.

Following his winning the championship, there were riots where whites were killing blacks not just in the south, but all over the north as well. Indeed, there was incredible racism directed against Johnson coming from the editorial pages of the "New York Times" and the "Los Angeles Times". The Klu Klux Klan marched freely north and south in the first half of this century. Many people joined it, not just in the south but all over this country.

PE, I got pretty frosted for a bit there, but I did not interpret any of the thread as a north-south thing. You're correct in that racism exists everywhere (it was an eye-opener to me when I first came to New York in the late 80's. Until that time I had bought into the conventional wisdom that it only existed down South, where I was from.)

Still and all, the seat of the segregationist movement and the opposition to the Civil Rights Act was in the South, and as much as I'd like to, I can't pretend otherwise. :-(

Personally, I think the biggest similarity between both Byrd and Thurmond is that the voters in each state essentially gave each a lifetime term. (Yes, Thurmond did retire, but he was nearing 100.)

So what you have in both cases are men whose lives do stretch back to times of overt racism. You also have/had two very old men who probably should be sitting on the porch rather than be giving speeches in the Senate.

Were having been a member of the KKK a career-ender, we never would have had a great supreme court justice in Hugo Black.

I have no love lost for Byrd, not because of his KKK credentials (for which, as PE pointed out) he has apologized, but for his pork projects which have earned him the appropriate nickname "The Prince of Pork".

More US funds have gone to WV per capita than any other state (poss. exception: Alaska and Ted Stevens)during Byrd's tenure.

Ever see the list of Robert Byrd this and Robert Byrd that in WV? It is monumental.

Wish to hell NYS had someone who would do that!

OK. I forgive both PE and Barry ;-))
Please, the two of you are bright, knowledgable and articulate.
Let's agree to just disagree and move on to some of the real issues at hand.
I know a bunch that deserve our attention a lot more than lame old (or young) politicians.
CO2 levels at 379ppm an rising 2-3ppm per year. Yes, when you get to 400+, none of this political crap will mean much of anything.

Newell, if you have time, give me call (or I will call) later today. Say 4pm.