The Dodd remarks have received no press other than Fox News, Roll Call, and the Washington Times, which, given the belated media response to the Lott comments, is surprising. Well, maybe it isn’t- that (D) at the end of an elected official’s name really can serve as a remarable shield.
What is surprising, however, is that I have not seen one liberal blogger comment on the affaiir, which leads me to pose this question:
If a liberal congrssman yells N—-R in the woods, would Atrios and Josh Marshall hear it?
Let’s do a quick rundown. Lott’s remarks about former Kluxer and separatist Presidential candidate Strom Thurmond:
“I want to say this about my state: 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.”
Dodd’s remarks about former Klan member and current Senator Robert Byrd:
“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,” said Senator Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.
I guess someone will have to explain the nuance and show me how these remarks are appreciably different.
Oh, and not that I am counting, but Mr. Talking Points penned not one, not two, but TWENTY-FIVE (25) pieces about the Lott affair (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25). Oh, and btw, those 25 pieces were written in an eight day period. To be honest, after 16 December 2002, I quit counting Marshall’s bloviating.
Fair and balanced, indeed. For extra giggles, here is a fun quote for you to chew on:
“If a Democratic leader had made [Lott’s] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever.” – Senator Chris Dodd, (D-CT)
Fair and balanced.
*** Update ***
More on the issue…
Chris Lawrence
In fairness, Gary Farber (who I guess still counts as a liberal, even though he’s probably been ex-communicated for being somewhat pro-war) posted about it a couple of days ago, before it hit the media.
John Cole
That is my point Chris- Gary Farber is a straight shooter.
Josh Marshall is not.
Kimmitt
There’s a little matter of Lott’s voting record over the past twenty-five years as versus Byrd’s.
HH
Vote with the party and be as racist as you please.. I see.
Armstrong Williams, who was furious at Lott and some members of his party, has more to say.
JayR
Dodd said a stupid thing and there is no doubt about it. But before giving him the Lott treatment let’s see if he passes the Lott test:
1. Does he give speeches and solicit contributions from white supremicist groups, as Lott does with the CCC? That would have to be no.
2. Does he have a terrible record of voting on race-related issues, as Lott does? That would have to be no.
3. Does he have a past history of being a segregationist, as Lott does? That would have to be no.
Others might disagree. In that case, it might be fair for the Democratic leadership to give Dodd the same treatment that the Republicans gave Lott. As Kevin Drum points out, Lott was not stripped of any committee assignments and is currently the chair of the fairly powerful Rules committee. Dodd happens to be the ranking member of said rules committee. There we go: problem solved. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
Now shut up and stop whining.
HH
Yeah, Lott’s really got a sweet deal… he was only the head of the entire GOP in the Senate until then.
JayR
Correction: It wasn’t Kevin Drum, but rather Matt Yglesias. But the point is the same.
JayR
HH: And your point is? Maybe Lott was held to a slightly higher standard because he was the leader of the Senate rather than just one Republican. But you can’t say that he has any less power than Dodd does at this point.
HH
How much power someone has isn’t the issue… Dodd smeared the entire GOP based on this and made it sound like, oh of course the Dems would rush to condemn it, and now he’s said the same thing. The original outrage over Lott had little, if anything, to do with how he voted, that came much later. Dodd’s statement in response is almost a carbon copy of Lott’s first statement, and of course, with no big media pressure, that’ll be the end of it. The idea that having power and not having power has anything to do with what you’re allowed to say and who you’re allowed to offend (and Juan Williams, for example, is no GOP partisan) when you’re one of the most powerful people in the country, period, is hair-splitting.
Jeff G
JayR wrote: “Does [Dodd] have a terrible record of voting on race-related issues, as Lott does? That would have to be no.”
Just out of curiosity (and I’m being sincere here), what does this terrible voting record entail?
JayR
“Just out of curiosity (and I’m being sincere here), what does this terrible voting record entail?”
Well, as one indicator, Lott’s last NAACP rating was, I believe, a 12. (Byrd’s, in comparison, was a 79. I don’t know what Dodd’s was.)
You can argue that the NAACP is or isn’t a good advocacy group for blacks; that isn’t my point. But at least one group that tracks issues that many blacks are interested in thinks that Lott is a poor advocate for their positions.
Jeff G
I wouldn’t argue that the NAACP is not a good advocacy group for blacks, but I would argue that disagreeing with the NAACP doesn’t make one’s voting record on race “terrible.” To believe it does, one would have to believe that the NAACP’s position represent the neutral standard for race fairness, which clearly begs all sorts of political questions.
Sometimes I think people really do believe that a principled disagreement with, say, race-based affirmative action, is a sign of deep-seated racism, either acknowledged or “latent.”
Ricky
Yep, there it is, folks. He’s a good affirmative-action votin’ Democrat, so all is well. Nothing to see here but double-standards and hypocrisy.
WTF? What part of being a kleagle in the KKK don’t you understand? Was that a joke or something?
Slartibartfast
I think that we’re finally around to comparing Dodd with Lott, Ricky. I know, it does throw one off when the conversation actually veers _on_ topic.
Ricky
Whoops….my bad.
JayR
“I wouldn’t argue that the NAACP is not a good advocacy group for blacks, but I would argue that disagreeing with the NAACP doesn’t make one’s voting record on race “terrible.” To believe it does, one would have to believe that the NAACP’s position represent the neutral standard for race fairness, which clearly begs all sorts of political questions. ”
I’m willing to cut Lott some slack on this, but mere indifference to the NAACP’s position should result in a middling score of somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-60. A score of 12 indicates that you are setting yourself in opposition to them on just about everything, which indicates to me a latent hostility to the group they represent, especially since not everything they stand for is unreasonable, even to someone who has a “principled difference with affirmative action.” Race-based profiling. Come on. What reasonable non-racist supports that?
But I’d be inclined to ignore this *in isolation.* I’d forgive most things in isolation. His dubious voting record? Forgiven, *until* you take his Strom Thurmond remark. His Strom remark and his dubious voting record. Ignored, *until* you take his enthusiastic support for segregation in the 1960s into account. Or his present association with the CCC. (“We’re the CCC! Like the KKK, only with different letters! And no hoods!”) Well, I take that back. Anyone who hangs out with the CCC is a closet racist.
When you can find the second Dodd incident to go with the stupid thing he said about Byrd then get back to me and I’ll change my tune…
Gary Farber
John, you list my blog under “Crosswinds – Careful, these range from center left to the far-lefties,” so I’d assume you count me when you say you “have not seen one liberal blogger comment on the affaiir.”
Yet I thought you’d read this, which was, it appears, the first mention by any blogger, per se. I then made an ass of myself here, but also added more as to what degree of punishment I thought Dodd worthy of; I realize that many will disagree, but so it goes.
This leaves me a bit puzzled. (I don’t disagree with your general point, and am not arguing with you about it.)
Hmm, after I wrote this, I see that the first comment here mentions me — thank you, Chris Lawrence — but it still doesn’t explain your puzzling blog statement. I do see your statement, John, that I am a “straight shooter,” for which I thank you — I’m only human, and hence imperfect, and I certainly have my biases, as do you and we all, but I do try to be intellectually honest to the best of my feeble abilities.
(Incidentally, Chris, regarding “even though he’s probably been ex-communicated for being somewhat pro-war,” yes, to a a significant degree, but I’ve never been a team player in any regard; a lot of my views simply happen to be more in alignment with “liberal” views, but many others are not; I do find it of interest how many of the big-name left blogs don’t link to me, or did briefly and dropped me (Kos, Atrios, etc.), compared to big-name right blogs, and egotistically don’t think it’s entirely my obscurity and dullness, but I can only speculate, not mind-read; bottom line is that too many people, be they right or left, sign up for a package of team views; I like to come to mine a la carte.)
RIGGS
So what Im reading here, in its most basic form, is that your racist is better than my racist for a given set of reasons.
How about I regard BOTH of them as undesirable for the offices they hold?
Its like arguing who was the ‘better’ mass murderer, Gacy or Dahmer. Neither choice is particularly appetizing. In the matter of these two men, partisanship has the best reason ever to disappear.
Kimmitt
Not particularly — it is disputed that Byrd is currently a racist.