Where's the outrage now Democrats?
Armstrong Williams

April 7, 2004 |

Sen. Robert Byrd, the longstanding Democrat from West Virginia, cast his 17,000th vote in the chamber last week. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) saw fit to mark the occasion with a rousing tribute in which he proclaimed, "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 than Sen. Byrd."

For obvious reasons, Dodd neglected to mention that Byrd is a former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Nor did Dodd dwell on the fact that Byrd voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or that Byrd broadcast his racial insensitivity by using the N-word during a 2001 appearance on Fox News.

Instead, Dodd simply praised the former Klansman from West Virginia as a gifted legislator and a stout defender of the Constitution.

This is somewhat puzzling considering that when Sen. Trent Lott remarked that the country would have been better off if former segregationist Strom Thurmond had won his 1948 bid for presidency, the Democrats demanded his ouster. And rightly so. Lott's racially-insensitive remarks were indicative of his upbringing in "a time and a place" that regarded blacks as inferior. Lott's remarks suggested that he just didn't get it, that he had no ability to truly empathize with what it means to be a minority in this country. The Democrats understood this. Flanked by the Congressional Black Caucus, they pumped their fists at Lott and demanded that he vacate his post.

Yet, they say nothing when one of their own praises a former Klansman. They haven't even asked Dodd to issue an apology. This is an outrage. Some things should not be explained away, like Byrd's affiliation with an organization that has a long history of hanging blacks from trees.

And yet, there is Dodd, on the Senate floor, demanding that Sen. Byrd "would have been a great senator at any moment. 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. ."

Really? A former Klansman would have been great during the Civil War? Great for whom? I'm not aware of many Klansmen who fought to free the slaves, or to uphold the union or to protect basic rights.

Had a Republican praised a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, the Democrats would have been up in arms. But when one of their own makes racially-insensitive remarks, they avert their eyes. Some things should not be ignored. Some things should not be subject to the whims of partisan politics. When our elected leaders spew racist remarks, they need to be held accountable - regardless of their political affiliation.

It would be nice if the party that demanded Sen. Lott's ouster for praising a former segregationist could be equally outraged when one of their own praises a former Klansman. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the Democrats to end their double standard on race.

<a href='http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20040407.shtml' target='_blank'>article link</a>

Hey, I am outraged. If I had my druthers, I'd have him tarred and feathered.

Satisfied?

just wondered why it wasnt plastered all over the news like when Lott made his comments

Because it's a conspiracy! A vast, left-wing conspiracy! Buhahahahah!

joebordenrebel Wrote:Because it's a conspiracy! A vast, left-wing conspiracy! Buhahahahah!

i thought it was only the right wing that could have a vast conspiracy?


:eek:

Well, I know you're from Mississippi and all but lemme tell you, son, they's this room with all these capitalists sitting around in uh what they call a cuh-ball and they's cackling to themselves sorta like heheh huh huh hehehehe buhhahahaha and they's taking over the world.

They already own the news and the schools. What next? One of 'em might even try to date your daughter! What then?! Why look who came home for dinner, honey!

joebordenrebel Wrote:Well, I know you're from Mississippi and all but lemme tell you, son, they's this room with all these capitalists sitting around in uh what they call a cuh-ball and they's cackling to themselves sorta like heheh huh huh hehehehe buhhahahaha and they's taking over the world.

They already own the news and the schools. What next? One of 'em might even try to date your daughter! What then?! Why look who came home for dinner, honey!

you aint old enough to be my daddy so dont call me son.

damn capitalist, why i think the whole country should rise up and revolt against the free enterprise crowd. coz after all communism works look at china & cuba those people sure are smiling because the yoke of capitalism was thrown off of their necks.icant believe communism failed in russia and eastern europe. must have been those pesky capitalistic westerners. workers of the world unite!!


anywhoo when you type that laughing thing---"heheh huh huh hehehehe buhhahahaha"--- i can almost hear it,it kinda makes me laugh

Look here, boy, what I was uh trying to do, see, was explain the whole librull cabal conspiracy in the voice, er uh, of uh foghorn leghorn. . .so uh, you see, son, it's just as simple as can be. Now, if'n you done took some offense to the Old South mannah in which Foghorn speaks well, then, boy, I guess'm you goinna have to take that up with whoever owns him, now, you see? But theah ain't no place in the barnyard for a think-skinned creepy crawlahs, now, you see? :chair:

joebordenrebel Wrote:Look here, boy, what I was uh trying to do, see, was explain the whole librull cabal conspiracy in the voice, er uh, of uh foghorn leghorn. . .so uh, you see, son, it's just as simple as can be. Now, if'n you done took some offense to the Old South mannah in which Foghorn speaks well, then, boy, I guess'm you goinna have to take that up with whoever owns him, now, you see? But theah ain't no place in the barnyard for a think-skinned creepy crawlahs, now, you see? :chair:

JBR,i took no offence to the son thing(was a reply i saw in a movie once). was you tryin to sound foghorn or haley?cawse it would be a shame to have a libruhl tryin to sound like thah consuvative govnah of our fair state of Missippi :D anyway type in that laugh thing i need a chuckle

I know it says basically the same thing the original post said but here is another article on the issue


Media Silent on Dodd Comments, Intense When Covering Lott
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
April 8, 2004

One week after a Democratic senator made remarks praising a colleague who was once part of the Ku Klux Klan, the mainstream media have been noticeably silent, especially when compared with the coverage of similar statements that toppled former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) from his leadership position in 2002.

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) made a speech on the floor of the U.S. Senate last Thursday commemorating the 17,000th vote made by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).

In his extended comments about the longtime Democratic senator, Dodd began by giving cursory adoration for what he believes Byrd has accomplished during his tenure in the Senate.

"It has often been said that the man and the moment come together," Dodd said. "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."

Continuing with his theme that Byrd's service would have been recognized "at any time" in America's history, Dodd imagined what role Byrd would have during the "founding of this country" and beyond.

"He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution," Dodd expressed. "He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century."

However, in delivering his speech extemporaneously and without the use of any notes, Dodd slowly ventured into controversial territory.

He said of Byrd, "You would have been right at the founding of this country, right during the Civil," pausing momentarily to think of what to say next and then uttered, "War."

In fact, Dodd went on to say in his adoration of the West Virginia Democrat that Byrd "would have been right at anytime."

Dodd encapsulated his remarks about Byrd when he said, "I cannot think of a single moment in this nation's 220-plus year history where [Byrd] would not have been a valuable asset to this country."

He added, "Certainly today that is not any less true."

But the problem some critics have had with Dodd's comments is that Byrd was once a member of the Ku Klux Klan during the 1940s.

He was also a staunch, vocal opponent to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and holds the distinction of being the only senator in U.S. history to vote against both the nomination of the late Thurgood Marshall as well as Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, the only two blacks ever appointed to serve on the nation's highest court.

More recently, Byrd told Tony Snow on "Fox News Sunday" in March 2001 that he believes "there are white [n-word]."

"I've seen a lot of white [n-word] in my time, if you want to use that word," Byrd stated to Fox News. "But we all -- we all -- we just need to work together to make our country a better country and I -- I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Nevertheless, succumbing to public pressure about his outrageous remarks, Byrd quickly issued an apology for what he had said.

"I apologize for the characterization I used on [the Fox News] program," Byrd said in a statement at the time. "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."

Consequently, Byrd was never reprimanded by fellow members of the Democratic Party for what he said.

The latest statements made by Dodd, though, are strikingly similar to comments made by Lott in December 2002 at the 100th birthday party for the legendary South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond.

Lott honored Thurmond at that time by asserting that if he had been elected president in 1948 running as a member of the segregationist Dixiecrat Party, then "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

Over the next few weeks in the mainstream media, Lott's remarks and subsequent apologies were widely broadcast and debated in various mediums, including Black Entertainment Television. The story was elevated to front-page status by nearly every radio, print, television, and Internet news outlet.

However, in what appears to be a clear example of the double standard in the mainstream press, Dodd comments have been reported in just a few news sources in entire week since they were uttered on Capitol Hill.

Robert Traynham, communications director for Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and the highest-ranking black Republican staffer in Washington, openly urged Democratic leaders to publicly reject Dodd's statements on Tuesday.

However, his suggestion has gone unheeded thus far.

Conservative black commentator Armstrong Williams accused Dodd of being much more blatantly racist than Lott.

"What [Dodd] said was worse than what Trent Lott said. It's raw racism," Williams exclaimed in a statement. "The fact that the Democrats have said nothing about his racist, bigoted comments shows that when Republicans say something they get tossed out of office -- but Democrats get away with it."

In fact, other than these few conservative black commentators and Republican lawmakers, Dodd's statements have gone completely unnoticed by the vast majority of the mainstream media and members of the U.S. Senate.

However, Dodd's own words about Lott in 2002 may come back to haunt him in 2004 in light of his ill-advised praise of Byrd.

In December 2002, Dodd told United Press International regarding the comments made by Lott about Thurmond, "If a Democratic leader had made [Lott's] statements, we would have to call for his stepping aside, without any question whatsoever."

He continued, "If Tom Daschle or another Democratic leader were to have made similar statements, the reaction would have been very swift. I don't think several hours would have gone by without there being an almost unanimous call for the leader to step aside."

Actually, Dodd was at the forefront of the movement to have a "bipartisan" censure of Lott to make him face the "reality" of what he had said.

Even likely Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry said in December 2002 during the Lott debacle that "there can never be an appearance of racism or bigotry in any high position of leadership."

At press time, no Democrats have come forward to denounce Dodd's controversial comments about Byrd.

<a href='http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/newswire/news2004/0401/040804-dodd.htm' target='_blank'>article</a>

I'm tired of this stupid thread.

The comments aren't the same.

Dodd obviously said something that was open to misinterpetation. He was trying to be nice, and he got a little carried away. At no point did he come close to direclty endorsing the KKK or Byrd's role -- however tangental -- in it.

Look at Dodd's track record. Is there anything else in his history that would suggest he is a closet racist? Is there anything in his track record to suggest he condones the KKK, or Byrd's former membership in it?

In contrast, there was no confusing what Lott said. It was a direct reference to Strom's presidential campaign -- and the only point of Strom's presidential campaign was to prevent racial integration of the South. Had the Democratic Party not added a strong antidiscrimination plank to its platform, there would have been no States Rights campaign for president and Strom would have found himself voting for Truman on election day.

To endorse Strom's 1948 presidential candidacy is to endorse segregation, plain and simple. There is no way around it.

And if that isn't enough, it wasn't the first time Lott said it. He said practically the same thing back in 1980: That our country wouldn't have suffered all these problems had Thurmond been elected president.

Does anyone seriously think Lott was referring to Strom's strong dollar policy or his plan for health care reform?*

Give me a break with these whiny conservative conspiracy theories.

------
* I'm making this stuff up. God knows what Thurmond thought about any issue aside from keeping the South segregated.

so in other words sf its ok for the dems to say a racist was good for the counrty if its one of their own, but when a republican says the same thing its wrong. boy isnt that the pot calling the kettle black

safetyeagle Wrote:so in other words sf its ok for the dems to say a racist was good for the counrty if its one of their own, but when a republican says the same thing its wrong.

I think I made my point pretty clearly. This wasn't it.

The criticism of Lott never had to do with the fact that he praised Thurmond. Many, many people praised him at that 100th birthday party. Praise of Thurmond wasn't the issue. Most people of all political stripes were open to the idea that Thurmond's thinking on race had evolved somewhat with the times.* And it was the man's 100th birthday, after all.

The issue was the fact that Lott specifically praised and endorsed Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign.

Praising Thurmond's presidential campaign was the equivalent of praising Byrd for donning white robes -- something Dodd never came close to doing.

Dodd's praise was poorly worded, but it is diffcult to argue he specifically intended to praise Byrd's racist past.

In contrast, it is hard to come to any other conclusion about Lott, who said:

"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."

For one thing, once reporters started digging around, they discovered this is a line he had used before. Then there was his connection to the Council of Conservative Citizens, and Lott's discreet praise for this group, which most reasonable people would consider racist.

It just isn't the same. Sorry.

-----

* It's possible we were all too generous, in light of the fact that he never in his life was willing to acknowlege his black daughter, a fact we only learned for certain after his death.

Buhahaheheheahahamuhahahahabuhahahah! :D

Schadenfreude Wrote:

safetyeagle Wrote:so in other words sf its ok for the dems to say a racist was good for the counrty if its one of their own, but when a republican says the same thing its wrong.

I think I made my point pretty clearly. This wasn't it.

The criticism of Lott never had to do with the fact that he praised Thurmond. Many, many people praised him at that 100th birthday party. Praise of Thurmond wasn't the issue. Most people of all political stripes were open to the idea that Thurmond's thinking on race had evolved somewhat with the times.* And it was the man's 100th birthday, after all.

The issue was the fact that Lott specifically praised and endorsed Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign.

Praising Thurmond's presidential campaign was the equivalent of praising Byrd for donning white robes -- something Dodd never came close to doing.

Dodd's praise was poorly worded, but it is diffcult to argue he specifically intended to praise Byrd's racist past.

In contrast, it is hard to come to any other conclusion about Lott, who said:

"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."

For one thing, once reporters started digging around, they discovered this is a line he had used before. Then there was his connection to the Council of Conservative Citizens, and Lott's discreet praise for this group, which most reasonable people would consider racist.

It just isn't the same. Sorry.

-----

* It's possible we were all too generous, in light of the fact that he never in his life was willing to acknowlege his black daughter, a fact we only learned for certain after his death.

:ownd: