C’mon, people. In your feeble attempts to defend the indefensible, here is a quick suggestion. Recite what you have written in front of a mirror, and when you bust out in laughter at your own audacity halfway through, use that as a hint. The rest of us are going to laugh at you, too.
For example, Jeff Goldstein rightly takes Max Sawicky to task for his ludicrous defense of Chris Dodd’s remarks. Here is Max’s (spirited, albeit worthless) defense:
The effort to cook up an analogy between Chris Dodd/Robert Byrd and Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond needs a few sentences.
Robert Byrd is a great senator. His hands shake, but he is still sharp. Strom Thurmond was a great segregationist. In his final months as a senator, he was more out-of-it than in. Among other achievements, Byrd was a prime mover in blocking balanced budget amendments that would have screwed up the nation’s finances even more than the Bush Administration has. Thurmond evolved from a segregationist to a garden variety political hack. Byrd’s association with the KKK ended over fifty years ago. Trent Lott’s remark, not for the first time, reflected nostalgia for Thurmond’s glittering racist past. Comparison over. Can we please move on to the next canard?
Is Max speaking about this Robert Byrd?
At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey, the bill’s manager, concluded he had the sixty-seven votes required at that time to end the debate.
The Civil Rights Act provided protection of voting rights; banned discrimination in public facilities-including private businesses offering public services-such as lunch counters, hotels, and theaters; and established equal employment opportunity as the law of the land.
As Senator Byrd took his seat, House members, former senators, and others-150 of them-vied for limited standing space at the back of the chamber. With all gallery seats taken, hundreds waited outside in hopelessly extended lines.
Georgia Democrat Richard Russell offered the final arguments in opposition. Minority Leader Everett Dirksen, who had enlisted the Republican votes that made cloture a realistic option, spoke for the proponents with his customary eloquence. Noting that the day marked the one-hundredth anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s nomination to a second term, the Illinois Republican proclaimed, in the words of Victor Hugo, “Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.” He continued, “The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!”
Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the thirty-seven years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.
“It will not be stayed or denied.” Despite Byrds’s best efforts. Or this Robert Byrd:
More American fascism is exemplified in a letter written in December, 1944 from Robert Byrd, US Senator from West Virginia, to Mississippi’s notoriously racist senator, Theodore Bilbo. “I am loyal to my country,” wrote Byrd, then age 27, “and know but reverence for her flag. But I shall never submit to fight beneath that banner with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt, never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels.” Unlike the black soldiers with whom he would never submit to fight, Byrd didn’t serve in the military in World War II.
Youthful indisgression, I guess. Ancient history. But then again, you can’t teach an old dog new tricks:
Senator Byrd was interviewed by Fox News Sunday host Tony Snow in a segment that aired on March 4. While expanding on his comment that race relations are now “much, much better than they’ve been in my lifetime,” Byrd made reference to whites who are still opposed to equal civil rights by saying, “There are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I’m going to use that word.” He later issued a statement apologizing for his remark.
While NAACP President Kweisi Mfume denounced Byrd’s comments as “repulsive,” the comments have not generated the same degree of criticism previously reserved for conservatives.
“I couldn’t believe what I was reading,” said Project 21 member S. Kevin Washington. “Senator Byrd’s comments were first brought to my attention via voice mail from a personal friend. I had not heard it on a national news broadcast; not NPR; not outcries of disgust by well-known black faces around America. The same people who castigated Republicans – President Bush, in particular – as racist now give Byrd a pass for his using the word ‘nigger’ just because he’s a Democrat like them. What a bunch of nonsense.”
Please- as a lifelong West Virginian, please quit making excuses for Robert Byrd and tell me how he really isn’t racist, really never was, and how he has a good voting record. Not only does it make you look silly, but my ribs are sore from laughing at you.
IXLNXS
Okay so I take the time to write it. On actual paper using an actual pen. Then when I held it up to the mirror it was all backwards.
Max
I would agree that opposition to the civil rights bill was racist. I would not equate it to membership in the KKK. I assume Byrd has gotten past that position, unlike Trent Lott.
You then juxtapose the ancient stuff from 1944, for which there is no defense.
The recent ‘white n*gger’ remark to me is bone-headed and rock-stupid, not racist.
My professional experience with Byrd post-dates 1990, when in my view he played a crucial role opposing bad fiscal policy, and today, when he understands the pointlessness of this war as well as any senator. Maybe ‘great’ was too strong, but seemed a fitting rejoinder to dredging up stuff from the 40s that Byrd would repudiate.
In general, the civil rights organizations are still credible in my view, absent a few individuals, and in legislative confrontations Byrd is on their side, which is the right side.
So the race thing doesn’t wash.
burnplant
…and Max, that’s all we’ll here from John Cole. He has a real problem with follow-up. Too bad, you make some good points…
John?
JKC
That bit of counsel might also be directed at the 75+ posters in the thread below busy defending the pathetic moron Jim Bunning.
Ricky
Max,
They both gave praise to people and said that those people — during the time of their segretationist intentions — were good for America. That is indefensible and spinning is what won’t wash.
That there’s a blatant double standard in place (he’s now a good Democrat and votes the “right way”, so he can say that stuff) works only for your core audience, and lacks all rationality.
BTW, calling people who disagree with you ‘stupid’ doesn’t start things off very well. I think it’s pretty stupid to spin Robert Byrd, but I don’t think someone who does it is stupid. Besides, that’s a sign of someone seeking to smear those who disagree in order to diminish their character & render their arguments to worthlessness. Again, only the core back-slappers (on either side) buy into that tactic.
Bad form.
Fred
“…as a lifelong West Virginian…”
Aha! That explains everything. I see public schools in West Virginia weren’t so good when John was attending them.
shark
Hey, if Dems want to throw in with and defend at any cost a cross burning sheet wearer, that’s their business. And their hypocracy…
John Cole
A.) Max- you don’t get to pick and choose which aspects of Byrd’s history you like and choose them as the only ones relevant.
B.) Fred- Go fuck yourself. I learned that in school.
Ken Hahn
When the great Senators are listed somewhere at the bottom of the list will be the award for having stolen the most public money for their state. That would be Robert Byrd, thief of WV. Chris Dodd isn’t a racist, he just wants Bobby to leave somrthing in the treasury so he can steal it for Connecticut.
flagwaver
Jeebus, Max, not content to peddle your partisan illogic over at Protein Wisdom, you’ve decided to pollute the entire blogosphere?
Let’s see, now:
“I would agree that opposition to the civil rights bill was racist. I would not equate it to membership in the KKK. I assume Byrd has gotten past that position, unlike Trent Lott.”
Evidence, Max, evidence. Other than your ASSUMPTION, on what do you base your assertion that Byrd has “gotten past” his blatant racism? His recent references to “white niggers”? And what is your proof of Lott’s ongoing racism? No, don’t provide facts, just give us your “assumptions;” we’ll be satisfied with those. NOT!
“You then juxtapose the ancient stuff from 1944, for which there is no defense.
The recent ‘white n*gger’ remark to me is bone-headed and rock-stupid, not racist.”
Again, FACTS, PLEASE! On what basis, other than partisanship, do you excuse the “white nigger” comment as not racist? Because you say so? Nice try.
“My professional experience with Byrd post-dates 1990, when in my view he played a crucial role opposing bad fiscal policy, and today, when he understands the pointlessness of this war as well as any senator.”
I see – because he agrees with you on two issues (UNRELATED TO RACE, and on which you are both totally, completely, barking-at-the-moon WRONG), that means he’s not a racist? At least you now tacitly admit your partisanship on this issue.
“Maybe ‘great’ was too strong,”
Uh, YEAH! Great if you like filibustering – of Civil Rights bills, as well as appropriations to fight terror and protect our country. But, then you DO like those things, don’t you?
“. . . but seemed a fitting rejoinder to dredging up stuff from the 40s that Byrd would repudiate.”
And on WHAT, EXACTLY, do you base this assertion?
“In general, the civil rights organizations are still credible in my view, absent a few individuals, and in legislative confrontations Byrd is on their side, which is the right side.”
Credible? What does that even MEAN, in this context? That they agree with the Democratic Party “revealed wisdom” that affirmative action is THE RIGHT ANSWER? Byrd is on their side, “which is the right side”? Says who?
“So the race thing doesn’t wash.”
No, what doesn’t wash, Max, is your half-assed, ham-handed, illogical, partisan, hypocritical amateurish defense of Messrs. Dodd and Byrd. Give it a rest, would ya?
Terry
How does Max defend Byrd’s actions it the recent past, as pointed out by Jim Lindgren?
In 1993, Byrd joined with Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms to defend Congressional protection of the confederate flag as part of the insignia of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, opposing Carol Moseley Braun.
John Cole
That’s easy- Byrd has a firm handshake.
Ricky
I think I’ve got it: The only incarnation of Robert Byrd that one gets to choose when hopping in the time machine and then placing him in that era is the pro-affirmative action/Bush filibusterin’ shaky hand “great senator” (exceptin’ we’re to forget that “white nigger” stuff).
If Strom Thurmond goes back in time, he’s to assume the identity that he had at that time.
Now, who can call that a double standard? Seems fair to me!!!!
Kimmitt
“In 1993, Byrd joined with Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms to defend Congressional protection of the confederate flag as part of the insignia of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, opposing Carol Moseley Braun.”
Terry: You’re going to have to help me out; all I see here is a series of motions to table. There is an outright bill to do this, but it never cleared committee.
Since Byrd is not a sponsor, it is not at all clear what a vote not to table means.
Terry
As enumerated in the link that you provided, Kimmitt, on a number of the “procedural votes”, Byrd sided with Helms and Thurmond, among others. In the ensuing debate, Byrd said on the floor of the Senate, 1993:
“Many informed people believe that the 11 states that comprised the Confederacy stood on solid constitutional ground.
“Abolitionist sentiment in the North changed the terms on which legal questions had originally been settled in the old Union. John Brown’s raid on Harpers Ferry, in what is now West Virginia, made a peaceful settlement of the slavery question nearly impossible.
“Interestingly, only an estimated 5 percent of the population of the South owned slaves. Yet, hundreds of thousands of Southern men – most of them slaveless and poor – answered the call of the Confederate government to defend the sovereignty of their states. In West Virginia, it broke down about 2-to-1, I suppose, with about one-third supporting the Confederacy and the other two-thirds supporting the Union. Those men – brave and patriotic by their rights, almost to a fault – are the ancestors of millions upon millions of loyal, law-abiding American citizens today.
“In the classic Ken Burns Civil War series on public television, historian Shelby Foote recounted a discussion between a Confederate prisoner and his Yankee captor, who asked the Confederate soldier, ‘Why are you fighting us like this?’ To which the Confederate soldier replied, ‘Because y’all are down here.’
“That was not racism. That was not a defense of slavery. That was a man protecting his home, his family and his people.
“We are who we are today largely because of the War Between the States.
“Americans of Southern heritage need not defend slavery in order to memorialize the legacy of which they are a part.”
Kimmitt
The two statements were quite different; Lott explicitly referred to Thurmond’s run as a segregationalist, while the least tortured reading of Dodd’s statement is that the current Byrd is a good Senator and that the current Byrd would be a good Senator for any period of time.
Kimmitt
The full record Terry cites is here.
A quote which rather muddies the waters:
“I agree also with those historians who judge American chattel slavery as one of the most heinous crimes in American history, as it was in the history of Rome, who took as slaves defeated peoples, the Gauls, Ligurians, Illyrians, Germanic tribes, or whatever. When the Romans conquered a city, as a usual thing the conquered peoples were sold into slavery.”
I don’t agree with Senator Byrd on this issue. But I don’t think he’s racist. In much the same way that I don’t agree with most Libertarians on the issue of Affirmative Action but do not think that they are racst.
mark
Senator Byrd also portrayed a confederate general in the movie “Gods and Generals” – let us not forget.
Of course, Phill Gramm played a delegate from Virginia and George Allen also played a confederate officer, but at least those two men are southerners. Byrd is from a Union state.
Patrick
Kimmitt, you’ve got to be fucking kidding me. Byrd wore a FUCKING SHEET, and within my lifetime was still espousing a significant difference between blacks and whites. Any change in his public persona can’t possibly be believed as anything except political expediency.
Two words – term. limits.
Bloggerhead
“B.) Fred- Go fuck yourself. I learned that in school.”
Wow, John, they teach how to fuck yourself in West Virginia schools. I knew you guys had a fondness for kin, but…
Question: Why does a West Virginian lick his balls?
Answer: Because he can.
Follow-up Question: But, how can he?
Answer: They teach it in schools.
Al Maviva
Max,
Byrd opposed bad fiscal policy? By that I assume you mean “physical” and you are referring to the medicare reform plan’s cost sharing and means testing – and you are saying “fiscal” because that’s the vernacular way to say it in West-by-God-Virginny.
Surely, you don’t mean the term “fiscal” that refers to wise spending of money… after all, Sen. Byrd is the man who could take the Robert Byrd memorial train, to speak at the Robt. Byrd Memorial Elementary, from the Robert Byrd Memorial stage, at the Robert Byrd Memorial lectern, using the Robert Byrd Memorial Microphone, to lecture the children. Who are there for the Robert Byrd Memorial lunch plan.
The mere mention of Robert Byrd and fiscal policy puts me in mind of that scene in “Being John Malkovich” where Malkovich goes inside his head, and then goes to the restaurant. Except instead of John Malkovich, it’s the Robert Byrd memorial Robert Byrds I keep seeing…
RIGGS
More fine commentary from the left. Attacking the blogowner with such witty comments and biting satire, truly something to be proud of.
DU must be down tonight or something as there are loads of boring, confused and juvenile neolibs running around the interesting boards. Hard to navigate through all the spastic leftist screeds.
Kimmitt
“Byrd wore a FUCKING SHEET, and within my lifetime was still espousing a significant difference between blacks and whites. Any change in his public persona can’t possibly be believed as anything except political expediency.”
At some point, twenty years of a strong voting record and numerous (rather brutal) apologies mean something. Of course, we could come back with, “Bush was a FUCKING LUSH and within my lifetime was too busy drinking to competently manage an oil business that his father handed him on a silver platter.” People change.
Byrd was a racist. He probably still is a bit of one, deep in his heart. But he sure as hell doesn’t vote like one, and he hasn’t for a long time.
Al Maviva
By your logic, Kimmit, Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott are basically okay too. After all, they haven’t done anything particularly racist in the last wenty or so years, and I know Thurmond has apologized for some of his past positions, and Lott has groveled at the feet of a number of amused civil rights groups.
Sure, both Senators have been conservative, but they haven’t been voting for segregation. They simply followed the Republican Party planks on darn near every vote – but they haven’t been hanging out with the KKK or dropping the N-bomb in interviews so any bad past behavior (20+ years old) shouldn’t be held against them.
Unless you are saying that the Republican positions are what make Lott’s & Thurmond’s actions presumptively racist.
In which case your premise must certainly be that that the Republican party’s philosophy is inherently racist.
Interesting position there.
Patrick
Thank you for taking the words off my keyboard, Al. They either are all racists because of a segregationist past (even by geography), or they aren’t because they have clean voting records and no public statements to contradict their transformation.
Slartibartfast
“Of course, we could come back with, “Bush was a FUCKING LUSH and within my lifetime was too busy drinking to competently manage an oil business that his father handed him on a silver platter.” ”
But then the question would be, how could we tell when you started doing that?
Flagwaver
Um, Kimmitt, I recognize you are handicapped when it comes to dealing with logic and unpleasant (to your worldview) facts, but try to follow me, here:
Thurmond and Byrd both have ACTIVELY racist pasts (although Byrd’s, involving, as it does, active participation in a terrorist racist para-military group, is arguably far worse).
Thurmond and Byrd both have supposedly apologized for and repudiated their past evils (although a reasonable person could question the sincerity of either man on this) – it should be noted, however, that Byrd’s public statements might call into question his non-racist bona fides – “white niggers,” indeed!
Dodd and Lott each, at a laudatory event for their respective fellow previously-racist party members, made laudatory remarks about same. The remarks themselves, compared practically word-for-word, disclose no material differences in content or intent.
In the case of Lott, HIS OWN PARTY, spurred on largely by the right wing of the blogosphere, bitch-slapped him royally, and, effectively, terminated his political career. He will serve out his term, but stick a fork in him; he’s done.
In the case of Dodd, his own party and the left wing of the blogosphere FIRST tried to ignore it, THEN spent hours and hours and millions of words trying to parse non-existent differences in the situations to absolve Dodd. (Looking to me, for all the world, like nothing so much as an embarrassed cat trying to cover shit on a linoleum floor.)
What part of this don’t you understand, wanker?
Kimmitt
“Um, Kimmitt, I recognize you are handicapped when it comes to dealing with logic and unpleasant (to your worldview) facts, but try to follow me, here:”
This study may include information which you will find enlightening.
Flagwaver
Coulda told ya that a long time ago, Kimmitt. See, it is correct to note that effective/genius type people and incompetent buffoons BOTH feel supremely confident of their abilities. The difference lies in the fact that effective/genius type people actually ACCOMPLISH something (other than amusing the hell out of bystanders, that is).
Which would explain, for example, why W, who the left demonizes as a stupid buffoon, has accomplished much in three and a half years, and Al Gore, who the left apparently thinks is the smartest guy in the world, can’t get arrested.
Just sayin’, is all.
Think about it.
Kimmitt
Under Bush’s watch:
The worst terrorist attack in US history.
The largest nominal deficit in US history on the heels of the largest postwar nominal surplus in US history.
Likely to be the first President since Hoover to preside over a net job loss for the United States.
The most polarized electorate in post-Vietnam US history.
Fella’s gotten a lot done. I’m not sure why you like it.
Flagwaver
Oh Jeebus, Kimmitt, give it a frickin’ rest, will ya??? Do you partisan Democrats ever even actually LISTEN to the shit you spew??
“Under Bush’s watch:
The worst terrorist attack in US history.”
Conclusively proven to have been planned, and the infrastructure therefore commenced, and much of the plot actually put in place, under Billy Zipperpants. Who preferred Oval Office BJ’s to any REAL action regarding his “number one priority” of combatting terrorism. Did EITHER White House do enough about terrorism before 9/11? Of course not. Did W seriously get religion on the issue AFTER 9/11? I’ll kinda let the facts speak for themselves.
“The largest nominal deficit in US history on the heels of the largest postwar nominal surplus in US history.”
Which, believe me, pisses me off FAR worse than it does you. However, since you included the qualifier “nominal,” that implies your awareness that it is not, in fact, the largest deficit in history. Look at some facts. Look at the deficits we ran during WWII. Or during the Depression. Or under Jimmuh “Dictator Felcher” Carter. Bill Clintoon did everything in his power to AVOID getting balanced budgets during his tenure, but got them in spite of himself due to a Republican Congress and a robust economy, NEITHER of which can he take credit for. I grant you the fact that the Republican Congress have now become drunken pork addicts.
“Likely to be the first President since Hoover to preside over a net job loss for the United States.”
Given the most recent job creation figures, I’ll bet you LARGE dollars on that one.
“The most polarized electorate in post-Vietnam US history.”
The electorate wasn’t polarized under Billy Zipperpants? Or Bush 1? That THC is affecting your memory, dude. And, frankly, you and your ilk are almost ENTIRELY responsible for the “polarization” of the electorate.
“Fella’s gotten a lot done. I’m not sure why you like it.”
What surprises me is that YOU don’t – Prescription Drug Benefit, “No Child Left Behind,” proposed Illegal Alien Amnesty – shoot, you Lefties ought to be dancin’ in the streets. On my side, I’ll settle for the fact that (i) Taliban is overthrown in Afghanistan, (ii) al Qaeda is deprived of its state base, much of its financing, and approximately 60% of its leadership, (iii) murderous dictator overthrown, (iv) an interim government and a constitution in place in Iraq (and, after the current bullshit fizzles, WHICH IT WILL, we’ll have a peaceful Iraq), (v) Moammar Kadaffyduck VOLUNTARILY relinquishing WMD, (vi) the mullocracy in Iran under increasing internal pressure – can you say “buh-bye”?, (vii) that half-wit Basher Assad under increasing internal pressure, (viii) Kim Jong-Il now practically BEGGING to have eight-way talks, and (ix) last, but not least, NO NEW ATTACKS IN THE U.S. – am I OK with all that??? Oh, yeah!