Heh

What happens in the MSM when a former Klansmen is the leading attack dog of a black nominee for Secretary of State? Why, nothing- if he is a Democrat.

But Jeff Goldstein gets in a few licks.






55 replies
  1. 1
    Kimmitt says:

    Yes, yes, whenever a Republican who holds views counter to a Democrat who happens to be black is opposed, it’s not because of political differences, it’s because of race. We get it. It didn’t make sense the first time, and it still doesn’t make sense now.

    Also note that Dr. Rice is female, and the KKK is a sexist organization. Please don’t credit me with suggesting the obvious post on the subject.

  2. 2
    John Cole says:

    Well- racism is what you and your boys scream anytime a Republican votes against a black judge. And those Republicans weren’t even klansmen. So, your point?

  3. 3
    Lord Locksley says:

    All Byrdy really did was show the entire country just how small his Ku Klux Kock really is

  4. 4
    AllenS says:

    Excellent analysis Lord Locksley.

  5. 5
    jpe says:

    Well- racism is what you and your boys scream anytime a Republican votes against a black judge.

    I know that’s the standard response, but has anything like that happened lately? (by a non-fringe figure)

    Serious question, by the way – in good faith and all that.

  6. 6
    Harlan Pepper says:

    To my knowledge not one MSM outlet has disclosed the fact that Mr. Byrd is a (former) klansman… yet they were all up in Trent Lott’s ass with a microscope for a dumb comment he made at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond. Also, when Zell Miller made that electrifying speech at the RNC, the media bent over backwards to tar Zell (wrongly) as a racist segregationist ‘dixiecrat’. Dems certainly DO get a pass in the MSM. Its refreshing that voters seem to be getting tired of that garbage.

  7. 7
    Scott Harris says:

    The MSM may realize that Byrd’s Klan association is some 57 years in the past. Certainly, I would expect no one less that the President to embrace the ideals of rehabilitation, recovery and redemption.

    Of course, anyone is welcome to accuse Byrd to his face that his antipathy to Rice is racially based. An up-standing individual would be obliged to do so if that person believes it is, in fact, the case.

  8. 8
    Lurking Observer says:

    I’m curious, Scott. When was Strom Thurmond last associated with the Dixiecrats? Or with segregation? And how many people were willing to accuse Jesse Helms to his face that he was a racist?

    Yet, Thurmond and Helms are regularly held up as examples of how the GOP is riddled with racists, as Oliver Willis kindly mentions in just about every comment.

    I take it redemption is reserved for liberals?

  9. 9
    Scott Harris says:

    Setting aside the notion that Byrd is a liberal, which I must because such laughter causes me to snort my milk into my keyboard, I believe I referred, admittedly subtly, to the redemption of our own President. I might ask is redemption only reserved for the Right?

    And can one actually be a Klansman racist and a liberal as well…?

    Strom came to religion a bit later than Bob. Still, the racist tar-brush… well, I think it has been applied a little too illiberally, so to speak, all around. Entirely by folks who just don’t have an argument.

    Byrd and Thurmond don’t get played fairly on this issue. Somebody needs to step up to the plate, so I guess it will fall to me to call bullshit. Enough is enough.

    If all one has contra Byrd is an issue that died one year before Thurmond’s presidential bid… enough.

  10. 10
    Harlan Pepper says:

    Scott Harris

    Byrd never really gave up his kleegle hood. He’s voted against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas in addition to Condelicious. He used the term “white nigger” in a recent interview. You’re the only one spouting bullshit in this thread Scott.
    Q. Why you’re defending him?
    A. The D after his name.

    John nailed it.

  11. 11
    John Cole says:

    You people act like you never heard of the Ashcroft hearings and Ronnie White. All the democrats ever do is demagogue race.

  12. 12
    Scott Harris says:

    Harlan, there is an L after my name, and I post with my real name.

    Bring me the hood of Robert Byrd and we’ll talk.

    And, John… politicians demagoguing?!?

    John Ashcroft, the guy who lost his Senate seat to a dead guy? Missouri is the show me state.

    Let’s talk Ronnie White:

    February 2, 2001
    Web posted at: 2:23 PM EST (1923 GMT)

    By John King/CNN

    WASHINGTON (CNN) — House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt formally asked President Bush on Friday to renominate Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White for a federal judgeship. The African-American was nominated by President Clinton but defeated in the Senate after a campaign led by then-Senator and now-Bush administration Attorney General John Ashcroft.

    In a letter to Bush that was also signed by fellow Missouri Democratic Rep. WIlliam Clay Jr., Gephardt wrote: “Appointments to the federal bench are the most important and closely watched appointments that a president will make. With each appointment you will define your commitment to justice to each and every one of our citizens. Your renomination of Judge Ronnie White would be an important signal to those who have any doubt about your commitment.”

    Congressional Black Caucus members also made the request of Bush during a meeting this week. The White House said the president was noncommittal but promised to study the matter.

    Senior Bush aides, however, said it is highly unlikely Bush would renominate White, because doing so would in essence be a rebuke of the Republican senators who opposed the nomination — including and especially his new attorney general.

  13. 13
    Harlan Pepper says:

    Harlan, there is an L after my name, and I post with my real name.

    Well bully for you! You get a gold star for that extremely lame attempt at misdirection. WTG Scott!!

    Bring me the hood of Robert Byrd and we’ll talk.

    Even if I did, I’d wager that you’d continue spinning feverishly and offering uncomfortable apologies for it, just as you’re doing presently with regards to the documented pattern of ugly racist bigotry Sen. Vulture has often exhibited over the years.

  14. 14
    Scott Harris says:

    Yes, Harlan. Bully for me. I do get the gold star. And you don’t.

    Document the “documented pattern of ugly racist bigotry [of] Sen. Vulture” — by whom I guess you mean Senator Byrd.

    Something, please, within the last three decades. (I’ll spot you anything that can’t be poured in concrete and named after hisself.)

    “Sen. Vulture” doesn’t even google. And everything googles.

    Byrd’s office ought to be notified that I am now a Byrd ‘apologist.” I am one of his constituents – the emails are not pretty.

    I’ll take your wager on “feverish” and “uncomfortable.”

  15. 15
    RW says:

    ****yboard, I believe I referred, admittedly subtly, to the redemption of our own President. I might ask is redemption only reserved for the Right?****

    If Bush had shown up on Fox News Sunday with a bottle of Jack Daniels in his hand, I’d have called his redemption into question. As it is, Byrd went there in 2001 and talked about “white niggers”.

    There’s your example. Please don’t move the goalposts or word parse.

  16. 16
    Scott Harris says:

    [(pre)PS to John Cole: Thanks for hosting… some bloggers just can’t cope with a ‘robust’ comment environment.]

    I don’t call Bush’s redemption into question… even if he showed up on interstellar hologram with a bottle of Blanton’s single barrel and sixteen lines of Medelin’s best.

    Y’all want to loathe Byrd (and take the goalpost home)? Fine.

    On March 4, 2001, an interview with FOX News Sunday host Tony Snow was aired. In the interview Byrd was asked about race relations: “They are much, much better than they’ve ever been in my lifetime,” Byrd said. “I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us… I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, ‘Robert, you can’t go to heaven if you hate anybody.’ We practice that.” Then Byrd warned: “There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I’m going to use that word.”

    “We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”

    Byrd’s office later issued an apology.

    “I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today’s society. As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race.”

  17. 17
    Jeff G says:

    Scott —

    Byrds office issued and apology. Later. After the interview. When they realized the tarbaby was about to hit the fan.

    Listen: Byrd may no longer harbor racist thoughts; I don’t know, and neither do you, frankly. But as soon as he put on that Kleagle hood and recruited for the next round of cross burnings, he assured himself that his motives would from that point forwad always be suspect when it came to interactions with the mud people.

    And that was the point of my post: that even were Byrd’s motives blameless, the Dems are clearly tone deaf to allow his involvement in the defamation of Condi Rice.

    All of which you know. Which leads me to believe that you continue to argue the academic hypotheticals surrounding the idea of redemption in order to show off how “fair minded” you are.

    But of course, Bush’s drinking and Byrd’s decision to advocate for the subjugation of an entire race of people by force are hardly analogous to begin with.

  18. 18
    BumperStickerist says:

    I’m still disturbed at John’s notion of Jeff “getting a few licks in” on Byrd.

    ~ shudder ~

  19. 19
    Birkel says:

    I believe everyone trying to cast aspersions on Senator Byrd are way off base. No, I don’t mean that he’s not still a racist. I assume he is and always will be. No, I don’t mean that he’s not motivated by racism in his position against conservative blacks. No, I don’t think every street in WV has to, just has to, be named for his KKK ass.

    What I mean is that he’s the perfect front man for the Dems when they want to attack Condi. He can absorb untold punishment on the KKK issue. It’s well known by anybody who cares to know. But the Dems are so secure in their 90% share of the black electorate that no serious Senator gets any bad press for this. None.

    I mean, look at it this way: As a strategist, would you send Hillary into the trenches on this one? Well then name one prominent Dem who can take the lead and suffer no political damage. Such a Dem would have to come from a safe state. A state like Cali (Boxer) or Mass (Kennedy).

    Or, a Senator who probably won’t seek another term. Or if he does he’s so secure b/c of length of tenure that he can lead the troops into Little Big Horn without fear of death.

    That’s the story. And that’s why it’s important that the press is not covering this story the way it should be covered. It keeps black Americans from taking a closer look at their own political allegiance.

    Or maybe I’m wrong…

  20. 20
    Scott Harris says:

    I disagree with Jeff G here: I do know that Bob Byrd was, probably is, and maybe will be forever in some form a racist. Can’t be helped. He hates it. We hate it. Compensate.

    I don’t believe he does his job from that POV. I think he would fall on his sword first – in that weird Roman Senate world he is living in. If somebody would just pass him the sword. Please. Now.

    As that deplorable metaphor goes, usually I beat on Byrd like a red-headed step-child. (And must I rush to affirm that I abhor child abuse?)

    I truly hate, because it is so base, that Byrd is accused of assailing Rice because she is black. That just redlines the assometer.

    I’m not the kind of person who has any particular need to be liked. I’m not out to prove how ‘fair-minded’ I am. I play fairly, maybe. Like there’s something wrong with that.

    But of course, one might say “Bush’s drinking and Byrd’s decision to advocate for the subjugation of an entire race of people by force..”

    One might reply, “Refried coke-head, serial bankruptcy artitste, the agent of ‘the subjugation of an entire race of people by force,’ and his own Mother’s third choice for the legacy has access to the launch codes… or impotent, posturing, Augustan dinosaur.”

    It must be a neo-con world. This isn’t any conservative dream I ever heard about. (or, ‘about which I ever heard’ – but that would be a Churchill joke… back when war was… never mind.)

    Or. since America is turn-based play, and as Karl Rove is the only genius on the one side, let the dodge-ball truly commence.

  21. 21
    Harlan Pepper says:

    Well then name one prominent Dem who can take the lead and suffer no political damage. Such a Dem would have to come from a safe state. A state like Cali (Boxer) or Mass (Kennedy).

    Barak Obama?

  22. 22
    Jeff G says:

    My apologies, Scott, for not recognizing you innate fairness and your disaffected, lone-wolf individualism.

    Oh. And for trying to talk to you while you were clearly quite drunk.

  23. 23
    Harlan Pepper says:

    If the MSM publicized the fact that Sen. Vulture was a KKK Kiegel, that he voted against LBJ’s civil rights act, the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, and Condi Rice – Joe and Jane Sixpack would see the extended inquis^H^H^H^H^H^H^H confirmation hearing for the farce it truely is.

  24. 24
    mikem says:

    “And can one actually be a Klansman racist and a liberal as well…?”

    Troll alert just went off. Southern Democrats who ruled southern politics all through slavery and Jim Crow? The overall Congressional Democrats, who voted against the Civil Rights Act by a much higher percentage than their Republican colleagues? Liberal pundits who regularly use racist terms to describe conservative blacks (house niggah, plantation negro, uncle tom, etc.).
    Liberals consider the very notion of individual responsibility to be a ‘racist’ term, preferring group racial identities and skin color preferences to merit based hiring and admissions. Give me a break.
    Liberals may assure themselves that they are not racist, but they are not fooling the voters or, increasingly, black Americans anymore.

  25. 25
    Kimmitt says:

    Southern Democrats who ruled southern politics all through slavery and Jim Crow?

    Right, conservative Democrats.

    or, increasingly, black Americans anymore.

    Democratic candidates continue to average 90% of the African-American vote, plus or minus. Is your contention really that black people are too stupid to see their self-interest?

  26. 26
    Scott Harris says:

    My apologies, Scott, for not recognizing you innate fairness and your disaffected, lone-wolf individualism.

    Oh. And for trying to talk to you while you were clearly quite drunk.

    Well. Jeff G, Wolves are gregarious creatures. The ‘lone’ ones tend to die pretty fast.

    Statistcally, “clearly quite drunk” would be a fair, blind guess. Fat guy, no dick, two daughters, wife completely off the rails would be better,

    But, no. Alas.

    Liberal pundits who regularly use racist terms to describe conservative blacks (house niggah, plantation negro, uncle tom, etc.)

    I love to be lift quoted for that kind of non sequitor… Hell, I live for it. If I thought lit farts smelled like… anything.

    Makes one wish dearly to be really, really “clearly quite drunk” after all. (Awww, and I do poetics, too. Drunk. And homo or something, obviously.)

  27. 27
    mikem says:

    Glad you enjoyed it, Scott. Any chance you will explain how that is a “non sequitor”? It seems right on spot to me and many black Americans who complain. Or should we just bow before your smug judgement?
    Kimmit: So when liberals act, vote and speak as racists, then they are acting as ‘conservatives’? How nicely that fits in to your narrow view of things. See also, “increasingly”. Maybe Scott will explain what it means.

  28. 28
    Scott Harris says:

    Yeah, it is a non sequitor. I’d be happy. mikem, to explain how being a Southern Democrat is not quite the same as being a ‘liberal’ if you already didn’t get it.

    Bless your heart, you make “smug judgement” fit like Armani. I bow to you.

  29. 29
    mikem says:

    Ah, a true liberal. All challenges are just simply beneath you and always, always anticipated and deflected. Such magnificence.

  30. 30
    RW says:

    Right, conservative Democrats.

    Like Jimmy Carter, Fritz Hollings and Bob Byrd. Still flogging those talking points?

    Funny how words continue to mean whatever they’re needed to mean. Hey, whatever makes you sleep better….interesting that those “conservative” Democrats that couldn’t lose an election suddenly can’t win one.

    Go figure.

  31. 31
    Freud says:

    Scott Harris is most likely NOT drunk. His writings betray the rather classical signs of schizophrenia, perhaps admixed with a certain amount of dementia.

    Absent an in-depth interview, his actual condition is problematic, with possibilities ranging from precursor Alzheimer’s to true dementia. On the other hand, he may merely be a fucking moron.

  32. 32
    wild bird says:

    What a miserble excuse for a man that robbey byrd should be impeached and dose jessie jackson and al sharpton know of this?

  33. 33

    John, I’ll see you and raise you one.

    What happens when a former segregationist firebrand and proud son of Jim Crow who for years hypocritically had an African American mistress on the side spends the last of decade of his seemingly interminable Senate career doing a stuffed-animal act and contributing virtually nothing?

  34. 34
    Kimmitt says:

    Like Jimmy Carter, Fritz Hollings and Bob Byrd. Still flogging those talking points?

    Wait, is it your contention that Jimmy Carter opposed Civil Rights legislation? What are you talking about?

  35. 35
    k says:

    It’s non sequitur, not sequitor.

    Please, people, don’t make me come down there and whack you over the head with a dictionary.

    And, yes, I’m drunk…drunk with adept spelling and cognition skills.

    Oh, and, Scott, attempting to defend Byrd through clever cant and smarmy analogies appears pretty pathetic to me.

  36. 36
    HH says:

    As Byrd attacks Rice now, here’s how he attacked another famous Black person in the ’60s: “Martin Luther King fled the scene. He took to his heels and disappeared, leaving it to others to cope with the destructive forces he had helped to unleash. And I hope that well-meaning negro leaders and individuals in the negro community in Washington will now take a new look at this man who gets other people into trouble and then takes off like a scared rabbit.”

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/mlk/filmmore/pt.html

  37. 37
    Ricky says:

    Conservative Democrats in the south in general, Kimmitt. I’m a resident of GA & am well aware of the very LIBERAL Jimmy Carter.

    What “conservative Democrats” are you talking about?

  38. 38

    John,

    Do you actually believe that Byrd is opposing Rice because she is black? Or are you just saying that because you believe unfair accusations were made in the past, there is no reason for you not to make them?

    Why do you categorize this Democratic Stupidity? You are making no sense.

  39. 39
    RW says:

    Daryl,
    I’m just guessing, but I think that the DNC could’ve made a wiser choice of attack dogs to go after a black woman than Robert Byrd.

  40. 40
    RW says:

    I’m thinking “what would I think if the situation was reversed & it was Trent Lott going after a black female nominee from Kerry?”

    I’d think “how stupid is the GOP”?

  41. 41

    Ricky,

    What gave you the impression that the DNC chose Byrd to attack Rice? Why do you think it had anything to do with the DNC?

  42. 42

    Ricky writes: I’m thinking “what would I think if the situation was reversed & it was Trent Lott going after a black female nominee from Kerry?” I’d think “how stupid is the GOP”?

    Why would you think that? Does the GOP actually coordinate what every single Republican politician does? As for Trent Lott criticizing a black person, what’s he going to do? If you make it a point to never criticize a black person, no matter what he or she does, that isn’t being color-blind.

    This argument is pretty ridiculous. Democrats criticize Condi Rice. Democrats criticized John Ashcroft. Democrats criticize Michael Powell. Democrats criticize Cheney. Democrats criticize Rumsfeld. Democrats criticize Rove. Democrats criticized Feith. Democrats criticize Gonzales. Democrats criticize Andy Card. What’s the pattern here? Is it racism? Is it sexism?

    No, the pattern is that they criticize most Bush appointees.

  43. 43
    Terry says:

    Re the exchanges between RW and Daryl McCullough, I must say that a fair number of prominent black leaders see something more in these attacks on Ms. Rice, something some of them believe may be racism. See for example Colbert King’s Washington Post column of earlier this week, or the remarks of former UN Ambassador, Andrew Young, to name but two that have addressed this issue.

  44. 44
    RW says:

    Daryl,
    Most certainly almost everything that goes on is coordinated by the parties , which is one of the biggest problems.
    Zell Miller stated that he was quite happy with the Democratic party as a Georgia pol until he got to DC and found out that all the maneuverings of the senate were coordinated by Daschle and the leadership determined how things would play out.

    Yes, the parties pick the point men/women and most of the stuff we see has been planned. The infamous memo found on the shared server springs to mind.

    Special note: both sides do it.

    Sure, I expect the Dems to criticize Bush nominees, but those folks have a plan on how it’s handled. Do you recall Ted Kennedy going after Clarence Thomas during his hearings? NO!!!! Because they knew how that would look, so Kennedy kept his trap shut and let the others carry the freight.

    Sadly, that’s how the game is played.

  45. 45
    CadillaqJaq says:

    Putting race aside and looking at the more important issue, I think it was total idiocy for the Dems in the Senate and other offices of assumed respect to assail and vote against this nominee for Sec’y of State at this particularly perilous time.

    Knowing and admitting that Rice would be confirmed, the Dems still charged ahead, blindly running their traps. For what gain? Certainly not to garner more black votes, but perhaps to make Rice seem out of touch in the minds of her foreign counterparts?

    Thirteen Dems in the Senate voted against her, that’s almost double the amount of Nay votes any prospective SofS candidate ever received. Petty. And what suffers? The credibility of Rice ergo the credibility of the U.S. in the eyes of her peers.

  46. 46
    Republican says:

    Come on.

    Republicans are the pro-racist party to begin with. People are not pleased with Rice not because of her race (didnt you notice Powel was black as well and democrats supported him all the way) but because:

    1. She is a person who will call turn black into white for Cheney-Bush coalition
    2. She is a person supporting Nazi-style Bush policies
    3. She is dumb as a rock and due to her dumbness she will ruin relationships with the rest of the word totally. Powel tried to soften the damage Bush administration did and Rice will make it only worse

  47. 47
    HH says:

    “Powel was black as well and democrats supported him all the way”

    When pray tell, did this take place?

  48. 48
    Ricky says:

    And “Republican” brings the discussion to a quick halt. Fun while it lasted, though.

  49. 49
    jpe says:

    Thirteen Dems in the Senate voted against her…And what suffers? The credibility of Rice ergo the credibility of the U.S. in the eyes of her peers.

    So your argument is that the nay votes don’t pass a global test? I find that less than compelling.

  50. 50

    Ricky writes: Most certainly almost everything that goes on is coordinated by the parties , which is one of the biggest problems.

    I think you’re wrong. There is no reason to believe that the DNC chose Byrd to deliver an attack on Rice.

    Look, only 18 Democrats voted against Rice. So she won a majority of Democratic votes as well as Republican votes. For John and others to complain that the Democrats had it in for Rice is just ridiculous.

    What it seems to me is that for conservatives, winning isn’t enough. It is the very existence of any dissent that makes them hopping mad. In the vote for invading Iraq, a majority of Democrats voted in favor. Same with Bush’s tax cuts. Same with the department of homeland security. Republicans were not satisfied with the fact that they won these battles. They considered the fact that there was any opposition at all to be offensive.

  51. 51
    John Cole says:

    It is not the dissent- it is the tone and tenor of the dissent, Daryl.

  52. 52
    RW says:

    I think you’re wrong. There is no reason to believe that the DNC chose Byrd to deliver an attack on Rice.

    Maybe not the party (Mcauliffe) but certainly the Dem senate leadership. Zell Miller noted that pretty much everything is coordinated. And, the memo I mentioned earlier buttresses that. Byrd, Kerry and Boxer are “safe” senators.
    You won’t see Hillary or folks with tenuous re-election campaigns on the horizon carrying the water in such manner.

    Again, that goes for both parties.

  53. 53

    John,

    Okay, supposing that you believe that the administration has been lying to the public, exactly how can you convey that in a respectful tone? Yes, I know that you don’t agree with the premise, but I’m asking you to imagine the situation in which you believe you have been lied to on the most important issues confronting the nation. Is it possible or desirable that you maintain a respectful tone in such a case?

  54. 54
    Daryl McCullough says:

    Ricky,

    Why do you believe that? Who do you think asked Byrd to attack Rice? I’m asking for particular names.

  55. 55
    Bob says:

    Let me see. Paul Weyrich spent much time recruiting old Nazis as political operatives both here and abroad. Okay, some were Arrow Cross or whatever the Lithuanians who killed Jews in WWII called themselves.

    Jerry Falwell was an anti-miscegenationist at the start of his career. Trent Lott publicly opined about how things would still be quiet on the plantation if Strom had been elected President. Nixon worried that there were too many Jews in the Department of Labor. Didn’t Dubya kick off his first Presidential campaign at Bob Jones, where interracial dating wasn’t allowed?

    The point is that people change in their public lives. Robert Byrd grew with the country’s growth in the area of civil rights. I realize that the point of much posting here is to shut up dissent, but this whole thing about Robert Byrd is just silly. Clearly, it’s not black or white, left or right, it’s top versus bottom, and most everyone here is on the bottom.

    And you’re squealing like pigs, but you just don’t see the top man for what he is.

Comments are closed.