Double Standard?

[Guest MikeSC]

Quote from Sen. Chris Dodd from the Senate floor:

 

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I add my voice as well to my seatmate, if I may. I sit in this chair by choice. Senator Byrd sits in his chair by choice as well, but he makes the choice before I do. I wanted to find out where he was going to sit so I could sit next to him. I did that because I wanted to sit next to the best, to learn everything I possibly could about the ability of this institution to provide the kind of leadership I think the country expects of us.

 

Several thoughts come to mind. This is a day of obvious significance in the number of votes that have been cast, 17,000, but it is far more important to talk about quality than quantity. Quantity is not an insignificant achievement, but the quality of my colleague and friend's service is what I think about when the name ROBERT C. BYRD comes to my mind.

 

I carry with me every single day, 7 days a week, a rather threadbare copy of the United States Constitution given to me many years ago--I can't even read it well now; it is so worn out--I may need a new copy--given to me by my seatmate, ROBERT C. BYRD. I revere it. I tell people why I carry it because it reminds me of the incredible gift given to me by the people of Connecticut to serve in this Chamber, to remind me of the importance of an oath we all made, and that is to do everything we can to preserve, protect, and defend the principles upon which this Nation was founded. ROBERT C. BYRD, in my mind, is the embodiment of that goal.

 

It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. ROBERT C. BYRD, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true.

 

I join my colleagues in thanking the Senator from West Virginia for the privilege of serving with him. He has now had to endure two members of my family as colleagues. Senator Byrd was elected to the Senate in 1958 along with my father. He served with my father in the House. I have now had the privilege of serving with Senator Byrd for 24 years, twice the length of service of my father. That is an awful lot of time to put up with members of the Dodd family. We thank Senator Byrd for his endurance through all of that time.

 

There is no one I admire more, there is no one to whom I listen more closely and carefully when he speaks on any subject matter. I echo the comments of my colleague from Massachusetts. If I had to pick out any particular point of service for which I admire the Senator most, it is his unyielding defense of the Constitution. All matters come and go. We cast votes on such a variety of issues, but Senator Byrd's determination to defend and protect this document which serves as our rudder as we sail through the most difficult of waters is something that I admire beyond all else.

 

I join in this moment in saying: Thank you for your service, thank you for your friendship, and I look forward to many more years of sitting next to you on the floor of the Senate.

 

I yield the floor.

 

Sen. Byrd, as everybody knows, was a Klansmen (wasn't he once a Grand master for W. Virginia?) for a nice chunk of his life.

 

Sen. Lott was drummed out of his position and forced to apologize (REPEATEDLY) for his comments at Sen. Thurmond's 100th Birthday Party.

 

Somehow, THIS comment hasn't received quite the same mainstream attention.

 

Just thought it was interesting.

-=Mike

[Vern Gagne 0]

Byrd also filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Amendment.

 

Today Rush was reading quotes from Dodd saying if any Democratic Senator made comments like Lott, they would be forced to step down immediatley.

[Guest MD2020]

I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country.

 

 

So, the guy's writing his speech and he gets to this line. Why didn't some part of his mind say "Hmmm...maybe when Byrd was in the KKK he might not have been such a great asset?"

 

People are stupid.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Okay... and he's NOT recieving harsh criticism over this?

 

I hardly believe that Fox & Co. haven't picked this up and started bitching about it. It'll start spreading to the legitimate news sources soon, and thus, he'll resign next week.

 

Politics as usual.

[Guest MikeSC]

Okay... and he's NOT recieving harsh criticism over this?

 

I hardly believe that Fox & Co. haven't picked this up and started bitching about it. It'll start spreading to the legitimate news sources soon, and thus, he'll resign next week.

 

Politics as usual.

Didn't take this long for Lott's story to explode.

 

I haven't noticed it on many news sites.

 

Edit: It should ALSO be noted that one of the loudest voices calling for Lott's ouster was --- Sen. Dodd (as well as Sen. Kerry)

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

It's politics, what do you expect?

 

Believe me, if the Republicans start making a stink about it, he'll resign from any positions of power he might have.

[Guest Cerebus]

I met Dodd briefly last month and work with his staff now and again. He seems like a decent fellow but I despise his record (way too liberal). Anyway, don't forget that Byrd became the darling of the Left with his biting criticism of the Iraq war. The fact that a lot of these anti-war far left groups were tripping over themselves to fellatio him for speaking their minds on the Senate floor while ignoring the fact he was an ex-KKK member outdoes any solidarity speech that Dodd could make.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Believe me, if the Republicans start making a stink about it, he'll resign from any positions of power he might have.

April Fool's Day is over, Tyler.

 

I heard about this a few days ago and a bit surprised it took this long to bring this topic to the TSM floor.

 

I still have no words for "He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation." I mean, you can't make this stuff up.

 

And for those out there who wonder why some think there's a liberal media bias out there -- a lot of the time it's not for what Big Media says; it's for what they don't say...

[Guest thebigjig]

I definitely agree that its an unfair double standard... his comments were ridiculous and stupid, and it kind of angers me that this isnt a top news story in the same light as Lott's

[Vyce 0]

Oh, but it's just "politics as usual", bigjig!

 

You know what's really sad? When Byrd finally kicks the bucket, I highly doubt he'll get the sort of negative attention the press gave Thurmond when he died, though Byrd clearly deserves every bit of it.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

If Republicans make a big deal out of it, it'll be news.

 

They're not.

 

Thus, it isn't.

[Guest thebigjig]

I dont know alot about Byrd... infact, I know that he was a member of the KKK and thats it, but just curious... please answer non partisanly, is there any evidence that he "saw the light" so to speak? That he has admitted he was wrong when he was younger, and that now he sees things differently? I am a firm believer that you are allowed to make very very bad mistakes and not be judged by them later in your life

 

From what I hear about Strom Thurmond, he did not change in views

 

Of course, that still isnt an excuse for the double stardard, I'm just curious

[Guest MikeSC]

If Republicans make a big deal out of it, it'll be news.

 

They're not.

 

Thus, it isn't.

So, the only reason a story is important is if a party BITCHES about something?

 

The GOP shouldn't HAVE to gripe about this (mainly because, unlike the Democrats, we can recognize when a person is doing an idiotic BUTT-kissing public display). It SHOULD be news no matter what the GOP says.

 

But it isn't.

 

Just as most of us figured it wouldn't be.

 

Heck, Democrats CAN'T be racists!

I dont know alot about Byrd... infact, I know that he was a member of the KKK and thats it, but just curious... please answer non partisanly, is there any evidence that he "saw the light" so to speak? That he has admitted he was wrong when he was younger, and that now he sees things differently? I am a firm believer that you are allowed to make very very bad mistakes and not be judged by them later in your life

Nobody ever asks him. He NEVER gets asked the questions. Heck, who besides the GOP even MENTIONS that he was EVERa Klansman? Thurmond has ALWAYS been known as the guy who filibustered civil rights bills (yet, Clinton's idol Fulbright never gets mentioned in that catalog).

From what I hear about Strom Thurmond, he did not change in views

You've heard completely wrong, then. Plenty of black staffers. Provided the same service to blacks that he provided to whites. The man completely changed. He just didn't make a huge public display about it.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

The only thing changed on Strom since 1974 was his diapers.

 

Sorry -- I couldn't resist...

[Styles 0]

Come on, everyone knows that Republicans HATE minorities while Democrats are the party of HELPING minorities, so it's only fair that Republicans are held to higher scrutiny...

[Guest thebigjig]

You've heard completely wrong, then. Plenty of black staffers. Provided the same service to blacks that he provided to whites. The man completely changed. He just didn't make a huge public display about it.

-=Mike

Well, yeah... that and he apparently developed a taste in colored wiymyn folk too

 

just because he staffed his office with a few african americans (hey boy! fetch me them papers and a cup of black coffee) doesnt mean he completely changed

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So, the only reason a story is important is if a party BITCHES about something?

 

The GOP shouldn't HAVE to gripe about this (mainly because, unlike the Democrats, we can recognize when a person is doing an idiotic BUTT-kissing public display). It SHOULD be news no matter what the GOP says.

 

But it isn't.

 

Just as most of us figured it wouldn't be.

 

Heck, Democrats CAN'T be racists!

 

Except the only reason the Lott issue was a big f'n deal was because Democratic senators and left wing bloggers made a huge stink about it. I really don't care about this or the Lott issue to argue about it, though, so if you're just gonna sit here and mock Democrats over some silly little thing like this, uh, feel free.

[Guest MikeSC]

You've heard completely wrong, then. Plenty of black staffers. Provided the same service to blacks that he provided to whites. The man completely changed. He just didn't make a huge public display about it.

        -=Mike

Well, yeah... that and he apparently developed a taste in colored wiymyn folk too

 

just because he staffed his office with a few african americans (hey boy! fetch me them papers and a cup of black coffee) doesnt mean he completely changed

Can you point to anything racist he's done in the last 20 years? None of his staffers have ever complained about their treatment. James Brown LIKED Thurmond quite a bit.

 

Why is Byrd getting the "benefit of the doubt" that the late-Sen. Thurmond did not?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

So, the only reason a story is important is if a party BITCHES about something?

 

The GOP shouldn't HAVE to gripe about this (mainly because, unlike the Democrats, we can recognize when a person is doing an idiotic BUTT-kissing public display). It SHOULD be news no matter what the GOP says.

 

But it isn't.

 

Just as most of us figured it wouldn't be.

 

Heck, Democrats CAN'T be racists!

 

Except the only reason the Lott issue was a big f'n deal was because Democratic senators and left wing bloggers made a huge stink about it. I really don't care about this or the Lott issue to argue about it, though, so if you're just gonna sit here and mock Democrats over some silly little thing like this, uh, feel free.

So, basically, the media is only a tool for the left?

 

Shocking revelation.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

So, basically, the media is only a tool for the left?

 

Yes, Mike.

 

Your analysis of my statement is absolutely spot-on.

 

Because the news media isn't reporting something that no one outside of yourself and two other republicans around the world care about, and because they did report the outrage over the other case (which was, on the other hand, CLEARLY there), they're the fucking liberal media, man!

 

What would Hannity do?

[Guest MikeSC]

So, basically, the media is only a tool for the left?

 

Yes, Mike.

 

Your analysis of my statement is absolutely spot-on.

 

Because the news media isn't reporting something that no one outside of yourself and two other republicans around the world care about, and because they did report the outrage over the other case (which was, on the other hand, CLEARLY there), they're the fucking liberal media, man!

 

What would Hannity do?

That is EXACTLY what you said. The media made Lott's comments into a cause celebre because left-wing bloggers and Democrats griped, but ignore Dodd's comments because the Republicans HAVEN'T griped.

 

How is that, in ANY WAY, contradictory to what I wrote?

 

Don't get pissy because you made my point for me.

-=Mike

[Guest thebigjig]

I'm not giving Byrd the benefit of the doubt... I know absolutely nothing about him... I'm just curious

 

and its kind of funny how you have this "republicans and King George W. Christ can do absolutely NOTHING wrong" attitude

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Because when people gripe, it's news.

 

When people don't gripe, it's not.

 

I can point out PLENTY of cases where the Fox News wingnuts have bitched about something asinine and it actually filtered into LEGITIMATE news, because SOMEONE WAS BITCHING ABOUT IT!

 

Case in point: Vince Foster. Troopergate. Paula Jones.

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm not giving Byrd the benefit of the doubt... I know absolutely nothing about him... I'm just curious

 

and its kind of funny how you have this "republicans and King George W. Christ can do absolutely NOTHING wrong" attitude

Hardly. I've yet to praise Bush's ridiculous spending.

Because when people gripe, it's news.

 

When people don't gripe, it's not.

Or, as NY Times showed with Martha Burk last year, NOTHING at all can happen and they'll just invent a story.

I can point out PLENTY of cases where the Fox News wingnuts have bitched about something asinine and it actually filtered into LEGITIMATE news, because SOMEONE WAS BITCHING ABOUT IT!

Fox News was AROUND for that stuff?

Case in point: Vince Foster. Troopergate. Paula Jones.

Yeah, the media obsessed over those. And, uh, Vince Foster was a top WH aide who killed himself. It's a little difficult to ignore that.

-=Mike

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

And, uh, Vince Foster was a top WH aide who killed himself. It's a little difficult to ignore that.

-=Mike

Cause of death: suicide by stabbing himself in the back 87 times...

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Sen. Byrd, as everybody knows, was a Klansmen (wasn't he once a Grand master for W. Virginia?) for a nice chunk of his life.

 

Supposedly he joined in 1942 and quit in 1943. Even if he was kissing ass for a few years afterwards.

 

I don't think anybody's mentioned any links between Byrd and the Klan after 1947.

 

(And if voting against the Civil Rights Act makes one a Klansman and a bad guy, then the Republicans nominated a Klansman in 1964.

 

I could recognize that the Republicans helped the Civil Rights Act if you recognize that they then put up candidates to appeal to the people against the Civil Rights Act. A good portion of Black voters supported Nixon, and then about 4% of them voted for Goldwater)

 

As for Strom. I'd say that he shifted for his own survival. His 1946 campaign for SC governor wasn't quite as racist as his opposition. He disavowed racists like Gerald LK Smith in 1948. He voted against and filibustered civil rights legislation due to the people in his state who were against it was well. And then in the 70s and onwards, Strom started to hire black staffers and generally provide for his state.

 

As for Dodd. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know or forgot about stuff like that. I have heard some stuff that paints Dodd as either not being too smart or just partying alot

[Guest MikeSC]

Sen. Byrd, as everybody knows, was a Klansmen (wasn't he once a Grand master for W. Virginia?) for a nice chunk of his life.

 

Supposedly he joined in 1942 and quit in 1943. Even if he was kissing ass for a few years afterwards.

 

I don't think anybody's mentioned any links between Byrd and the Klan after 1947.

 

(And if voting against the Civil Rights Act makes one a Klansman and a bad guy, then the Republicans nominated a Klansman in 1964.

Voting against it doesn't make one a Klansman (Al Gore's dad wasn't one, from what I gather) --- but it does make one's record suspect.

I could recognize that the Republicans helped the Civil Rights Act if you recognize that they then put up candidates to appeal to the people against the Civil Rights Act. A good portion of Black voters supported Nixon, and then about 4% of them voted for Goldwater)

Honestly, I didn't see it. I didn't see Reagan or either of the Bushes as in any opposition to civil rights. They opposed the Civil Rights Movement leadership ---but that does not mean they opposed the rights. Dole had no real message --- but I doubt he was racist.

 

There hasn't been a real racist running for office for EITHER party in decades. Buchanan came close --- but he didn't actually run for office with the GOP.

As for Strom. I'd say that he shifted for his own survival. His 1946 campaign for SC governor wasn't quite as racist as his opposition. He disavowed racists like Gerald LK Smith in 1948. He voted against and filibustered civil rights legislation due to the people in his state who were against it was well. And then in the 70s and onwards, Strom started to hire black staffers and generally provide for his state.

And that's all I'd expect of anybody. Did his mind change? I don't know --- and I honestly don't care. If he'll provide the same service, whether he likes you or not, that almost speaks more highly of him. I don't need anybody to like anybody else --- I need them, though, to do their job and when the rules change, to change along with them.

As for Dodd. It wouldn't surprise me if he didn't know or forgot about stuff like that. I have heard some stuff that paints Dodd as either not being too smart or just partying alot

Dodd did what Lott did --- said something in an attempt to kiss the BUTT of a very senior Senator. I thought the outcry over Lott's comments was ridiculous (he was at Strom's 100th birthday party --- he's GOING to say something to make the geezer feel good about himself) --- and I'd have not been terribly thrilled if Dodd caught hell.

 

My beef is that while I'd like to believe that the media simply recognized Dodd's comments for what they were (a non-story, to simplify), but I still doubt they'd give a Republican who said the same thing a similar break.

-=Mike

[Some Guy 0]

The fact that the GOP hasn't made a stink about this speaks volumes. The Democratic race baiters had a field day playing the race card with Lott, but I see no outrage from them overthis and it is the same fuckign thing. ACcording to what the Dems portray themselves as they should be the ones outraged to haev a former Klansman in their midst. They should be the ones running Dodd out of office. Hypocracy, liberlism is thy name.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Voting against it doesn't make one a Klansman (Al Gore's dad wasn't one, from what I gather) --- but it does make one's record suspect.

 

Yeah.. I wish there'd be something on the net, like from CQ, mentioning the roll call on things such as this. The Republicans from Texas ad Kentucky who voted against the CRA were voted out of office in 1964 as well.

 

Honestly, I didn't see it. I didn't see Reagan or either of the Bushes as in any opposition to civil rights. They opposed the Civil Rights Movement leadership ---but that does not mean they opposed the rights. Dole had no real message --- but I doubt he was racist.

 

I'd say that the fight was lost for awhile after 1964. There's some resentment. And recognition of what Democrats have done, or have been percieved as doing. There's suspect actions from the GOP from the 1870s to the 1950s. Republican organizations in the South began to distance themselves from Black voters even in the 1920s.

 

I'm sure the numbers are out there. But, I think Bush in 2000 got one of the lower vote totals from black voters, and his showing in cities was one of the worst ever for his party.

 

There hasn't been a real racist running for office for EITHER party in decades.

 

True, on the national level, both parties ignore the guys who piss off large portions of America

 

Buchanan came close --- but he didn't actually run for office with the GOP.

 

He ran as a Republican in 1992 though. But, not in a general election.

 

And David Duke too. But, Duke benefitted from the dumbasses who vote for the whiter candidate. I found a story that claimed that areas in Louisiana that supported Duke helped give Blanco the victory over Bobby Jindal.

 

And that's all I'd expect of anybody. Did his mind change? I don't know --- and I honestly don't care. If he'll provide the same service, whether he likes you or not, that almost speaks more highly of him. I don't need anybody to like anybody else --- I need them, though, to do their job and when the rules change, to change along with them.

 

Yeah, basically voting just on your own principles and not what the people in your state want might get you a 'Profile in Courage' but it'll also get you defeated for re-election.

 

Dodd did what Lott did --- said something in an attempt to kiss the BUTT of a very senior Senator.

 

Lott is probably a bit more knowledgeable about Strom than Dodd is about Byrd. Even if Dodd's dad did serve in the Senate with Byrd

 

I thought the outcry over Lott's comments was ridiculous (he was at Strom's 100th birthday party --- he's GOING to say something to make the geezer feel good about himself)

 

I'd say that he could have kissed BUTT without going that far. The part about the 'country not having all these problems if he was elected' was overdoing it. "We voted for you in 1948" doesn't seem as objectionable.

 

And remember that Lott also said that about Strom in 1980.

 

My beef is that while I'd like to believe that the media simply recognized Dodd's comments for what they were (a non-story, to simplify), but I still doubt they'd give a Republican who said the same thing a similar break.

 

I'll put this out so you won't have to find it.

 

"Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has said, 'If a Democratic leader had made[Lott's] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever'"

 

[Although technically, Byrd isn't a leader at the moment. He'd be Pres. Pro-Tem if the Democrats had a Majority. And if he stepped away from that, Ted Kennedy would be next in line]

 

Although, we'd have to see about that claim. If a Dem made a statement that went right out to support a group like that now-a-days, there'd be reason to question them.

 

Dodd was probably glossing over a bit of Byrd's record

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

The Democratic race baiters had a field day playing the race card with Lott, but I see no outrage from them overthis and it is the same fuckign thing.

 

So 'I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment' equals 'When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either'?

 

I don't think so

 

ACcording to what the Dems portray themselves as they should be the ones outraged to haev a former Klansman in their midst.

 

There's not much that has linked Byrd to the Klan in the last 50 years. How about questionable statements? Anything from Byrd, other than that one 'white-n' moment?

 

They should be the ones running Dodd out of office.

 

Dodd is up for re-election this November. So, the Republicans have more power over his employment than the Democrats.

 

Anyways, if Dodd resigns, the Governor appoints a Republican.

 

Hypocracy, liberlism is thy name.

 

You should look into spellcheck. No offense or nothing.