# Former Klansman Named by Democrats to be Third in Line for Presdidency



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

*Former Klansman Named by Democrats to be Third in Line for Presidency*

Must be lonely for Byrd - too bad former Democrat Senator Fritz Hollings, who as governor of SC signed legislation ordering the Confederate flag to be raised over the state capital to commemorate the 100th anniversary of South Carolina's secession from the union and to protest the civil rights movement, decided not to run in '04 - they could have relived the glory days. And, don't get me started on the tales of camaraderie and fun Byrd might have enjoyed with the now deceased Democrat/Klansman Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black. I know Byrd has recently enjoyed dressing up as a confederate officer and hasn't been shy about dropping the "N bomb" in the senate, either. Oh, and how did Byrd vote against the Civil Rights Act of '64? Hmm? - Voted against it after he tried to filibuster it.

Yessiree, thank goodness all those southern racists joined the Republican party.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

You mean Grand Kleagle Robert Byrd who let slip forth this beauty during WWII while our good young men were fighting:



> Byrd commented on the 1945 controversy raging over the idea of racially integrating the military. In his book When Jim Crow Met John Bull[5], Graham Smith referred to a letter written that year by Byrd, when he was 28 years old, to segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi, in which Byrd vowed never to fight:
> 
> "with a ***** 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, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Thank you, this little tid-bit and the forthcoming reaction about to ensue on this thread, just really made my day.

Cheers


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

I don't believe Byrd's actions are excusable in the least. The key is that Byrd has rejected and criticized his past positions and actions, whereas Thurmond and Lott have not.

As these quotations from the Washington Post and Slate make clear, Byrd has repeatedly acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions and apologized for them. Lott, on the other hand, said that he had made a "poor choice of words", notwithstanding that his remarks praising Strom Thurmond's racist stand were entirely consistent with Lott's very recent involvement with the Council of Concerned Citizens, formerly known as the White Citizens' Councils.

James Tolbert, president of the West Virginia chapter of the NAACP and an occasional critic of the senator, said Byrd transcended his past by gradually embracing more enlightened social views and by simply owning up to his past mistakes. "He doesn't try to lie his way out of things," Tolbert said. "If he's wrong, he'll say he's wrong."
1. By relentlessly serving his state's economic interests, Byrd has secured his place as West Virginia's preeminent politician. As a long-reigning chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Byrd pumped billions of dollars worth of jobs, programs and projects into the state that did not have a single mile of divided four-lane highway when he began his political career. More than three dozen bridges, highways, schools and public buildings are named for him.
Still, says Ken Hechler, 90, a liberal Democratic former U.S. House member from West Virginia who served with Byrd in Congress, "It's impossible for anyone to try to whitewash the KKK and its overall symbolism."
"But at the same time," he added, "we honor those people who publicly admit the error of their ways."
Last week, Byrd said: "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times . . . and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."

See, for example, this exchange with CNN's Bernard Shaw in Dec. 1993:
Q: What has been your biggest mistake and your biggest success?

A: Well, it's easy to state what has been my biggest mistake. The greatest mistake I ever made was joining the Ku Klux Klan. And I've said that many times. But one cannot erase what he has done. He can only change his ways and his thoughts. That was an albatross around my neck that I will always wear. You will read it in my obituary that I was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. 
https://www.slate.com/id/2075662/


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Thank you, this little tid-bit and the forthcoming reaction about to ensue on this thread, just really made my day.
> 
> Cheers


Why? You don't defend everything the Republicans do. Why would you automatically expect liberals to defend everything the Democrats do?

It's an absurd selection on two levels. The man is pushing 90. He can barely walk. He only sounds as if he's all there when he reads from a script.

And I would not like to see someone with his past in a leadership position, even though I know he's repeatedly apologized for it and his voting record indicates he has changed. The NAACP gave him a 100 percent rating a while back.


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

And then, some time after 1993:



> On March 4, 2001, Byrd said race relations:
> 
> "Are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime.... 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. There are white *******. I've seen a lot of white ******* 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."


program stars out the word that he used, but it rymes with bigger and is not very well though of.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

crs said:


> Why? You don't defend everything the Republicans do. Why would you automatically expect liberals to defend everything the Democrats do?


But it is already occuring! Just read Jack's post above. My favorite part of it is the part where the thesis is basically, "Hey yeah he was a Klansman, but he brought *home the pork!* Got said right here:



jackmccullough said:


> 1. *By relentlessly serving his state's economic interests, Byrd has secured his place as West Virginia's preeminent politician. *As a long-reigning chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Byrd pumped billions of dollars worth of jobs, programs and projects into the state that did not have a single mile of divided four-lane highway when he began his political career. More than three dozen bridges, highways, schools and public buildings are named for him.


The very first thing Jack chose to quote, by his own ordinal ranking, was pork barrelling. Crs, I could not make this stuff up myself, it just gets handed to me!

However, I agree not all liberals are supporting this and would not argue with you there. I merely predicted the reaction and am getting it. That was not my doing


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

crs said:


> Why? You don't defend everything the Republicans do. Why would you automatically expect liberals to defend everything the Democrats do?
> 
> It's an absurd selection on two levels. The man is pushing 90. He can barely walk. He only sounds as if he's all there when he reads from a script.
> 
> And I would not like to see someone with his past in a leadership position, even though I know he's repeatedly apologized for it and his voting record indicates he has changed. The NAACP gave him a 100 percent rating a while back.


I agree. There are better choices for this position available. Senator Byrd has been criticized enough about his past. The man made a terrible choice early in his career, but he has changed, and it is time to move on. I feel the same way about GWB and his past cocaine and alcohol abuse.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

As a loyal GOPer and someone who absolutely disagrees with Sen. Byrd on just about everything I think we need to accept his public apology for his past. Fair is fair and I'm willing to forgive poor judgement in the past, especially for someone as old as he is. 

The difference in my mind is if a person is able to show some maturity and demonstrate that he has grown up. Senator Byrd has done that on many occasions, as has GWB with his past indiscretions.


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

For the record, this is not a new office for Senator Byrd, who was president pro tempore of the Senate from 1989 to 1995, briefly in January 2001, and again from June 2001 until January 2003.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> The very first thing Jack chose to quote, by his own ordinal ranking, was pork barrelling.


Nope, the first thing jack said was the fact that he personally disagreed with Byrd's past positions, the second was that the man had apologized. He then proceeded to compare this attitude to two other Southern politicans who did not apologize for similar positions.

It's after all that (the meat of the argument) that he indulged in that very dubious (but also very common in the US) way of judging the efficiency of a senator - the amount of pork he was able to muster.


----------



## Fogey (Aug 27, 2005)

It's quite humourous to see conservatives pretend to espouse liberal values such as political correctness! (only when it suits, of course).


----------



## iammatt (Sep 17, 2005)

Fogey said:


> It's quite humourous to see conservatives pretend to espouse liberal values such as political correctness! (only when it suits, of course).


JLP,

Is it possible that somebody can be both conservative, anti-racist, atheist and intelligent?

My guess is that you believe that it is not possible which may reflect on the inbreeding of the Royal family. Oops, I forgot that Dextershire didn't exist.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

iammatt said:


> JLP,
> 
> Is it possible that somebody can be both conservative, anti-racist, atheist and intelligent?


Ah, conservatives resent being typecast. So do liberals.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Fogey said:


> It's quite humourous to see conservatives pretend to espouse liberal values such as political correctness! (only when it suits, of course).


I think it is quite humorous for an admitted monarchist to pretend to espouse liberal values.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Nope, the first thing jack said was the fact that he personally disagreed with Byrd's past positions, the second was that the man had apologized. He then proceeded to compare this attitude to two other Southern politicans who did not apologize for similar positions.
> 
> It's after all that (the meat of the argument) that he indulged in that very dubious (but also very common in the US) way of judging the efficiency of a senator - the amount of pork he was able to muster.


You are suffering from WDS (Wayfarer Derangement Syndrome *TM) which is characterized by having been rhetorially thrashed by Wayfarer so often and/or so badly, one wishes to contradict Wayfarer on anything possible, so that one loses judgment and credibility as these contradictions are often only in the mind of the sufferer of WDS.

Case in point:

What I said:



Wayfarer said:


> The very *first thing Jack chose to quote...*


The sufferer of WDS will fail to notice Wayfarer said, "chose to *quote*" not, "The first thing Jack *said*." If the aflicted person read carefully, they will see Jack said:



jackmccullough said:


> *As these quotations from the Washington Post and Slate make clear,* Byrd has repeatedly acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions and apologized for them. Lott, on the other hand, said that he had made a "poor choice of words", notwithstanding that his remarks praising Strom Thurmond's racist stand were entirely consistent with Lott's very recent involvement with the Council of Concerned Citizens, formerly known as the White Citizens' Councils.


then followed by the referenced quotes from The Post and Slate. Your severe case of WDS has sapped your reading comprehension _mon ami_.

Sincerely,

The Institute for Study of Wayfarer Derangement Syndrome *TM


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> having been rhetorially thrashed by Wayfarer so often and/or so badly, one wishes to contradict Wayfarer on anything possible, so that one loses judgment and credibility as these contradictions are often only in the mind of the sufferer of WDS.


I see. Your ego seems to be expanding at a solid rate.

Let me sum up the exchange. Jack was pointing that senator Byrd apologized for his past misbehaviour. You completely ignored his point, but chose to stress that the article where this apology is referenced also praises Byrd for the amount of pork he musters. By doing so, of course, you were misrepresenting jack's position to make it seem that Jack himself found pork-mustering to be a good yardstick of the quality of a politician. I was merely debunking that misrepresentation. I freely admit I was not clear enough, that does not make your remark less irrelevant.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> As these quotations from the Washington Post and Slate make clear, Byrd has repeatedly acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions and apologized for them. Lott, on the other hand, said that he had made a "poor choice of words", notwithstanding that his remarks praising Strom Thurmond's racist stand


That's really a mischaracterization of what Lott said - though I expect that from you - the arbiter of all that is racist and that which is not. After all, you keenly observed that the ad against Harold Ford was really an appeal to latent "fears of miscegenation." Frankly, I saw the ad and such a thing never occurred to me, but I suppose we need a watchdog like you to point out what the REAL message is. You're willing to cut Kerry a break over his "stupid soldiers" remark an yet when Lott uses a poor choice of words to comment on a senator's life, Lott is explicitly stating to the entire American public that he's got a hankerin' to bring back segregation or thinks it was a good idea. Assuming he believed it, Do you REALLY think he would have openly stated that message in a public forum in front of cameras? Please - he was trying to be respectful to 'ol coot Thurmond. Certainly this is less offensive then Byrd's support, in 1972, to have the Senate's main office building named after Democrat Senator Richard Russell, Byrd's mentor and a leading opponent of the NAACP supported anti-lynching legislation?

Query, aside from Byrd's membership in the klan (and he has lied about how long he spent in it); what's the underlying message of Byrd voting against Thurgood Marshall - the first black Supreme court Justice? what's the underlying message of Byrd voting against the civil Rights Act? (these both occurred approximately 20 years after his klan membership allegedly ended); what's the underlying message of Byrd strutting around in a confederate officers uniform?; what's the underlying message of Byrd referring to "white ni_ _ers" on the senate floor?



> consistent with Lott's very recent involvement with the Council of Concerned Citizens, formerly known as the White Citizens' Councils.


Really? Intriguing - please do tell me how this occurred; you're a lawyer - explain how these two groups are related. You've conflated them and I'd like to know. Was this a legal entity - perhaps a non-profit that filed a name change with the secretary of state? Do they have the same shareholders, members, directors, managers? Is there some continuous chain of management or ownership that links one with the other? I'm intrigued how it is that these two entities are related - please explain. And, in any case, as far as I know, Lott's "involvement" with the latter organization consisted of giving a single speech. Geez, Jack - damning evidence. Did Lott write anything similar to Byrd, who in 1946, wrote "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia"?



> 1. By relentlessly serving his state's economic interests, Byrd has secured his place as West Virginia's preeminent politician. As a long-reigning chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Byrd pumped billions of dollars worth of jobs, programs and projects into the state that did not have a single mile of divided four-lane highway when he began his political career. More than three dozen bridges, highways, schools and public buildings are named for him.


That's lovely Jack - what does this have to do with the fact that Byrd's a racist and has a long history of it and that the Democrat party just put him in leadership again? What does it have to do with the fact that people like Democrat Fritz Hollings who retired in 2004 was pro-segregation, had the confederate flag hauled up over the SC State Capitol while governor, and kept getting elected as a Democrat until he retired? How does this mesh with your theory that racist Democrats fled to the Republican party when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964?

I know it must be heart breaking to you to question your comfortable little constructs - I think it goes something like this: All racists are Southern; All southern white racists are Republicans - but it ain't that simple. There are racists of all colors and in all parties - there is no monopoly. Frankly, short of segregation or apartheid, it's difficult to imagine anything more racist than affirmative action which explicitly calls for the identification of a person's race, ethnic background, or national origin and based on that to either confers or withhold benefits - and we all know that Democrats are almost entirely in favor of that kind of race-based discrimination.
And let me pre-empt an issue I'm sure is occurring in your mind. I may live in Atlanta, Georgia, but I'm not a southerner. I just wanted to get that out in the open because, from your previous posts, you seem to conflate southern with racism. Yes, oddly enough, I sense a bigotry in you - one against southerners.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Let me sum up the exchange. Jack was pointing that senator Byrd apologized for his past misbehaviour. You completely ignored his point, but chose to stress that the article where this apology is referenced also praises Byrd for the amount of pork he musters. By doing so, of course, you were misrepresenting jack's position to make it seem that Jack himself found pork-mustering to be a good yardstick of the quality of a politician. I was merely debunking that misrepresentation.* I freely admit I was not clear enough, *that does not make your remark less irrelevant.


Clear enough? Is that French for, "I was flat out wrong"? What is clear is that I said "the first thing Jack quoted" and you misread it and thought you would pick nits with me. Blew up in your face.

No hard feelings.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

"Sheets" Byrd? Oh no!


----------



## medwards (Feb 6, 2005)

Republicans elect Trent Lott to their second highest position in Senate -- minority whip: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/...&en=67a5a0133b680bde&ei=5094&partner=homepage


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> What is clear is that I said "the first thing Jack quoted" and you misread it


Apparently you will use every excuse in the book to refrain from adressing the matter at hand and explain how your remark could in any way not be wrong.

Suit yourself, I am done with that particular line of argument. Feel free to continue nitpicking and auto-congratulating yourself, you obviously love to have the last word.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Rocker:

1. How is this a mischaracterization of what Lott said?

2. Why should anyone show respect to "ol' coot" and unregenerate racist Strom Thurmond?

3. What, if anything, do you think the relationship is between the White Citizens' Councils and the CCC?

4. Find me someplace in any of my posts--there are over 500 of them, it shouldn't be hard--where I said, "All racists are Southern; All southern white racists are Republicans."


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> I don't believe Byrd's actions are excusable in the least. *The key is that Byrd has rejected and criticized his past positions and actions, whereas Thurmond and Lott have not.*
> 
> As these quotations from the Washington Post and Slate make clear,* Byrd has repeatedly acknowledged the wrongfulness of his actions and apologized for them. Lott, on the other hand, said that he had made a "poor choice of words"*, notwithstanding that his remarks praising Strom Thurmond's racist stand were entirely consistent with Lott's very recent involvement with the Council of Concerned Citizens, formerly known as the White Citizens' Councils.


"A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past," Lott said. "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

Lott, R-Mississippi
December 9, 2002

"My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life."

And at least one public person went on record to accept this 'rejection and apology' that you claim never was given -

Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said Monday he believes Lott did not intend for his comments to be interpreted as racist.

"There are a lot of times when he and I go to the mike and would like to say things we meant to say differently, and I'm sure this is one of those cases for him as well," Daschle said.

BTW story from 
with the headline 'Lott apologizes for Thurmond comment'

FWIW, perhaps you should stop reading and regurgitating Slate.com?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Your opinion may vary, but I think Lott's claim that he didn't embrace the discarded policies of the past was a transparent lie.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Your opinion may vary, but I think Lott's claim that he didn't embrace the discarded policies of the past was a transparent lie.


Then, IMHO you have no intellectual right to defend Byrd.

What about the words "I apologize"? Somehow you have rationalized that is not an apology either?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Your opinion may vary, but I think Lott's claim that he didn't embrace the discarded policies of the past was a transparent lie.


I think we should give Mr. Lott some benefit of the doubt as we give Mr. Byrd.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> Apparently you will use every excuse in the book to refrain from adressing the matter at hand and explain how your remark could in any way not be wrong.


Etienne, there is really no need to argue over this. I mean, it is objective reality. The evidence is before your eyes. You made a mistake. A clear one. I pointed it out clearly for you. Just be a man and admit your WDS caused you to mis-read something and your picking of nits blew up in your face. No one will think less of you, in fact I would think more of you, if you just simply admitted you mis-quoted me and were called on it.

You do not seem un-intelligent, in fact, quite the opposite. However your dislike for me is causing you to become intransigent in your positions, unable to admit or acknowledge clear cut facts. I think you would gain much more credibility with all if you could acknowledge things such as, "Yes, there are still some that hold raising minimum wage to an 'effective' level will not effect employment, but the evidence Wayfarer presented on the opinions of 1000 members of the American Economic Association did indicate the vast majority of the Ph.Ds in economics surveyed felt effective minimum wages negatively impacted employment". That would still leave room for dissent, but would manfully acknowledge the dissent is in the minority.

I apologize for my part in so alienating you and will attempt not to push buttons in the future and merely withdraw gracefully when logger heads are reached.

Regards


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

KenR said:


> I think we should give Mr. Lott some benefit of the doubt as we give Mr. Byrd.


One would think what is good for the goose, is good for the gander, no? Alas, it seems our willingness to make allowances is often selective.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Are you sure some of you aren't married to one another? 

Some of this bickering is really amazing. 

I don't mean this as a general statement, but a couple of the interactions here sound like what my grandparents used to do.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Lott apologized after his remark blew up on him. The problem is, as The Nation wrote in 2002, "there is no greater constant in Trent Lott's political career than his embrace of all things Confederate."

Byrd's _record_ indicates a changed man, at least on the surface, though I wouldn't blame anyone for being skeptical because I am. I don't know if you could make the same case for Lott. Where has his record indicated any change?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> Lott apologized after his remark blew up on him. The problem is, as The Nation wrote in 2002, "there is no greater constant in Trent Lott's political career than his embrace of all things Confederate."
> 
> Byrd's _record_ indicates a changed man, at least on the surface, though I wouldn't blame anyone for being skeptical because I am. I don't know if you could make the same case for Lott. Where has his record indicated any change?


Thank You, for providing the opinion of "The Nation" aka 'flagship of the Left' as fact for justification for a double standard. Particularly, since Sen. Byrd is such a "changed man" and no longer makes remarks that are insensitive regarding discrimination and persecution on the basis of race.

NEW YORK, March 2, 2005 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed outrage at the remarks of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who suggested that some Republican tactics on judicial nominations were similar to Adolf Hitler's use of power in Nazi Germany. In remarks on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Byrd compared a Senate rule cutting off debate on nominations to Hitler's use of constitutional means to push legislation through the German Reichstag at the start of the Nazi era.

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
"It is hideous, outrageous and offensive for Senator Byrd to suggest that the Republican Party's tactics could in any way resemble those of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.

The Senator shows a profound lack of understanding as to who Hitler was and what he and his regime represented

Senator Byrd must repudiate his remarks immediately and apologize to the American people for showing such disrespect for this country's democratic process."


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Ksinc, 
Sen. Byrd's comments were ridiculous and truly offensive to those who actually were persecuted by Hitler. He, as well as others, should remember that there are still some alive who can recount first hand of what life was as a Jew living in Nazi Germany.

His behavior seems to be more indicative of a disturbing ease of use of this comparison by his political enemies. The last time we had such "divisive" GOP president I don't recall elected naitonal figures referring to him in such a way. Truly disturbing how easily the "N" word rolls off the tongue with this crowd. No wonder those abroad see fit to defame our President. Heck why not, its OK for the Dems to do it why not Chavez and others.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Okay, don't take the opinion of The Nation. Instead, look at the facts that support the summary quoted above. They document a history going as far back as 1978 and as recent as 1998 of statements by Lott supporting Thurmond's segregationist candidacy in 1948, advocating for the restoration of Jefferson Davis' citizenship and for the values of the Confederacy, supporting the racist positions of Bob Jones University, supporting the Sons of Confederate Veterans and arguing insupport of "a lot of the fundamental principles that Jefferson Davis believed in," and repeatedly aligning himself with the Council of Conservative Citizens.

With regard to the CoCC, Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson, who has researched the group, argues, "There is no question of the resegregationist agenda of the Council of Conservative Citizens when four of the seven links listed on the home page for former Klan leader David Duke link back to the Council of Conservative Citizens." Other links, Jackson has noted, "deny the Holocaust and sell T-shirts with swastikas and Nazi stormtrooper symbols." 


This post is a paraphrase and summary of the content of the linked article. I would encourage anyone who is interested to read the entire article. Unless you want to claim that all of these things are made up, whether you agree or disagree with the political views of The Nation has little to do with the validity of the facts set forth.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> Lott apologized after his remark blew up on him. The problem is, as The Nation wrote in 2002, "there is no greater constant in Trent Lott's political career than his embrace of all things Confederate."
> 
> Byrd's _record_ indicates a changed man, at least on the surface, though I wouldn't blame anyone for being skeptical because I am. I don't know if you could make the same case for Lott. Where has his record indicated any change?


First off that article has a lot of crap in it. For instance, I'm not a member, but being a member of the Sons of the Confederacy and being proud of the battles and hardships that one's ancestors were involved in does NOT make that person a racist nor does it mean that the person is longing for the ante bellum South.

Also, Byrd didn't change his ways - he was a member of the clan in the 40s; he voted againstt the civil rights act and Thurgood Marshall in the 60s.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Rocker:
> 
> 1. How is this a mischaracterization of what Lott said?


Well, look at what he 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 - he's referring to something back in 1948 - it's obvious Lott didn't personally vote for him - he was too young; he's saying "we" when it actually couldn't include him. He's making a very general statement i.e, the state of Mississippi voted for him back in 1948 and he then follows up with another general statement "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years." Now you see race in this because - well, I suspect you see race as an issue in just about everything and since he's a southern white guy with an accent and he's a Republican, so, I suspect Lott is just de facto, racist in your brain. Now is it just possible Lott was referring to all kinds of issues and events that have happened since 1948 that tend to make conservatives unhappy - say, the handling of the Korean war under Truman, the appointments to he Supreme Court and the resulting Warren Court, the LBJ expansion of the welfare state, expansive interpretations of the commerce clause, the invention of penumbral/imaginary rights under the Constitution, etc.? That's certainly how I took his comment. You stated that Lott's remarks were "praising Strom Thurmond's racist stand" - as I said, I think that's a mischaracterization of what Lott said and you've imputed to Lott what you desired to hear him say. And, again, I say it strains all credibility to think that Lott, in front of rolling cameras, in any way wished to publicly declare that he supported segregation.


> 2. Why should anyone show respect to "ol' coot" and unregenerate racist Strom Thurmond?


Well, for one thing, you could read up on his service in WWII. That alone deserves respect, in my opinion. Lott may well have been motivated by the same feelings that motivated Bill Clinton to award former Arkansas Sen. J. William Fullbright, his Democrat mentor, a Medal of Freedom, the highest award that can be given to a civilian by the government. As you may know, Fullbright, segregationist, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Sometimes, in order to be gracious, you say nice things about a colleague who is retiring.


> 3. What, if anything, do you think the relationship is between the White Citizens' Councils and the CCC?


I have no idea - that's why I asked you. You implied that they were one and the same. You used "f/k/a" When I use f/k/a it's normally because a legal entity like a corporation or an LLC has effected a name change by filing appropriate documents - the ownership and management of the entity remain the same. I asked you how they were related.


> 4. Find me someplace in any of my posts--there are over 500 of them, it shouldn't be hard--where I said, "All racists are Southern; All southern white racists are Republicans."


You certainly haven't said that word for word. I exaggerated the implication of your comments for rhetorical effect. What you have stated are things like "by means of skillful use of racist appeals the R[epublican]'s have continued their domination of the South . . ." and their have been a variety of other comments referring to things such as the RNC's racist campaign, etc. In any case, the clear implication of your comment is that Republicans don't dominate the "north" for instance either because there are no racists in the north or fewer than there are in the South, and hence the Republican "racist appeal" won't work. It's also seems clear based on your comments about how southern racists moved to the Republican party (which I think has been more than adequately proved wrong), you seem to think that the Democrat party has clean hands, i.e., that it doesn't have racists, that it doesn't make racist appeals, that it doesn't create strategy based on racial appeals - I think this all complete crap! 
And thank god Atlanta hasn't had all the problems that the tolerant northerners have had in places like Crown Heights or Bensonhurst - yeah, no racism there.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Thank You, for providing the opinion of "The Nation" aka 'flagship of the Left' as fact for justification for a double standard.


The report on Lott's Confederate-based activities is either correct or incorrect, whether reported by The Nation or The Daily Worker. If you have facts to refute it, state them. Otherwise I think you are sidesteppiing the issue because you know you're wrong and do not wish to admit it.


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> Also, Byrd didn't change his ways - he was a member of the clan in the 40s; he voted againstt the civil rights act and Thurgood Marshall in the 60s.


You are talking about 40 years ago. Much more recently, the NAACP gave him a 100 percent rating.

Look, I don't support Byrd or his selection. But to use ancient history about Byrd to try to make a case for ignoring Lott's recent history is a big stretch.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, don't take the opinion of The Nation. Instead, look at the facts that support the summary quoted above.
> ....
> 
> This post is a paraphrase and summary of the content of the linked article. I would encourage anyone who is interested to read the entire article. Unless you want to claim that all of these things are made up, whether you agree or disagree with the political views of The Nation has little to do with the validity of the facts set forth.


Jack,

I'm certainly not debatting there are some facts embedded in that editorial, however what was presented by crs "The problem is, as The Nation wrote in 2002, "there is no greater constant in Trent Lott's political career than his embrace of all things Confederate."" is merely an opinion drawn from a skewed interpretation of those facts.

It does not represent a basis for saying Lott did not change his views, but Byrd did. Neither do the underlying facts from which it was drawn based on their biased viewpoint. The Nation is a prominent abolitionist voice. Surely they are no more objective than the ADL or other activists groups.

That Lott ever embraced (or continues to do so) ALL things Confederate is what has nothing to do with "the validity of the facts." I'm sure you can see that. Particularly, since as you noted as well it quotes Lott up to 1998 and we have Byrd's recent comments in 2005 to contrast.

What I don't understand is why anyone would take on the burden of defending Byrd in contrast to Lott. Why not denounce them both? Wouldn't that be the correct progressive and value-based position?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> The report on Lott's Confederate-based activities is either correct or incorrect, whether reported by The Nation or The Daily Worker. If you have facts to refute it, state them. Otherwise I think you are sidesteppiing the issue because you know you're wrong and do not wish to admit it.


It's the characterization that is an opinon.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

crs said:


> Much more recently, the NAACP gave him a 100 percent rating.


Yeah, that carries a lot of weight with me. The NAACP is certainly an apolitical organization that stands on principle and won't sell its soul for $1.50! LOL

unrelated to comment, but related to topic at hand:
https://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

You linked to newsmax just to make me laugh. I know you couldn't be serious.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

crs said:


> You linked to newsmax just to make me laugh. I know you couldn't be serious.


Smugness aside, what in the article is incorrect?


----------



## crs (Dec 30, 2004)

Rocker said:


> Smugness aside, what in the article is incorrect?


Oh, I think citing things out of the 1960s -- not to mention the 1860s -- is pretty silly because the demographics of both parties have changed quite a bit since then, especially in the South.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Your opinion may vary, but I think Lott's claim that he didn't embrace the discarded policies of the past was a transparent lie.


That's surprising.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*This will make a great future thread.*



. Frankly said:


> The above quote from Rocker will be a great future thread. Especially if we have the same participants as this thread.
> 
> As to Byrd, IMO, he's a fossil. But let us not forget that we have elected office holders and Byrd is beloved by most West Virginians, and keeps getting re-elected.
> 
> I wonder what % of Byrd's votes are from Black voters? I do know that Strom Thurmond got a progressively higher percentage of Black votes through the years.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Okay, don't take the opinion of The Nation. Instead, look at the facts that support the summary quoted above. They document a history going as far back as 1978 and as recent as 1998 of statements by Lott supporting Thurmond's segregationist candidacy in 1948, advocating for the restoration of Jefferson Davis' citizenship and for the values of the Confederacy, supporting the racist positions of Bob Jones University, supporting the Sons of Confederate Veterans and arguing insupport of "a lot of the fundamental principles that Jefferson Davis believed in," and repeatedly aligning himself with the Council of Conservative Citizens.
> 
> With regard to the CoCC, Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson, who has researched the group, argues, "There is no question of the resegregationist agenda of the Council of Conservative Citizens when four of the seven links listed on the home page for former Klan leader David Duke link back to the Council of Conservative Citizens." Other links, Jackson has noted, "deny the Holocaust and sell T-shirts with swastikas and Nazi stormtrooper symbols."
> 
> This post is a paraphrase and summary of the content of the linked article. I would encourage anyone who is interested to read the entire article. Unless you want to claim that all of these things are made up, whether you agree or disagree with the political views of The Nation has little to do with the validity of the facts set forth.


Geez, the piece is flimsy

Yeah, guess what racist signed the bill to give Jefferson Davis his citizenship back? Come on - yes, that's right - the bigot Jimmy Carter. :icon_smile_big: Robert E. Lee was granted his citizenship by Congress in 1973 - both a Democrat, Thomas Downing () and a Republican, Romano Mazzoli, sponsored () such a bill.

You love to skew things, man. How did Lott support "Thurmond's segregationist candidacy in 1948" - he was 7 years old!

Where/When did Lott advocate restoring "the values of the Confederacy"

Hey, I support "a lot of the fundamental principles that Jefferson Davis believed in" - for instance a limited federal government of enumerated powers, low tariffs, a strong military defense, etc. - so what?

What does any of this have to do with the fact the Byrd wore Klan robes, argued for its expansion after he had allegedly left the Klan, voted against the first black Supreme Court Justice, voted against the Civil Rights Act, like to dress up like a Confederate Officer, and is still a Democrat - in a leadership position?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> The above quote from Rocker will be a great future thread. Especially if we have the same participants as this thread.
> 
> As to Byrd, IMO, he's a fossil. But let us not forget that we have elected office holders and Byrd is beloved by most West Virginians, and keeps getting re-elected.
> 
> I wonder what % of Byrd's votes are from Black voters? I do know that Strom Thurmond got a progressively higher percentage of Black votes through the years.


and Lott is from Mississippi.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> However your dislike for me is causing you to become intransigent in your positions


I have no dislike for you, nor any appreciation of any sort. You are just attributing much too much importance to your person here. I must confess a flaw: I have a great difficulty remembering people's names (or pseudonyms on forums). It makes it difficult for me to have any kind of grudge (probably a good thing), it also makes it difficult to remember who is well-known for such or such position (a bad thing). I have indeed started very recently to remember your name, since you PMed me and have made allusions to my person several times. I can assure you that my interest stops there, though.

On the subject at hand, I stand by my position. You deliberately misrepresented Jack's position. You know it, I know it and tried to point it out. Obviously, though, you are not interested in discussing that and prefer to concentrate on nitpicking. A sufficient reason for me to choose not to discuss that subject any further (I am not that interested in defending Jack, after all).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I have no dislike for you, nor any appreciation of any sort. You are just attributing much too much importance to your person here. I must confess a flaw: I have a great difficulty remembering people's names.


Etienne:

Your fixation with me, as evidenced by how I will be the sole poster on a thread you single out to argue with, makes your words ring hollow; a lie if you will.

I tried. I held out an olive branch with an apology and you spit in my face. Please refrain from posting to me further, I shall not be replying to anything you have to say until you change your churlish position.

Regards


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

ksinc said:


> and Lott is from Mississippi.


Hi, What is your point? That Lott keeps getting reelected?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

rnoldh said:


> Hi, What is your point? That Lott keeps getting reelected?


Yes; and in Mississippi of all places. One of the links I read said voter registration among blacks in Mississippi has gone from 7% to over 70% while Lott has been in Congress (~30 years). Of course, most of the state is Republican, but he still wins some black votes.


----------



## rnoldh (Apr 22, 2006)

*He wins lots of Black votes!*



ksinc said:


> Yes; and in Mississippi of all places. One of the links I read said voter registration among blacks in Mississippi has gone from 7% to over 70% while Lott has been in Congress (~30 years). Of course, most of the state is Republican, but he still wins some black votes.


I worked with some Public Adjustors last year in Biloxi, Miss., right after Hurricane Katrina, working on some Casino Ins. claims.. We got to meet many people in Gulfport and Biloxi, Black and White.

I never heard one Black person complain about Lott, yet I would say most of them complained about GWB!

Lott is perceived as a true son of Mississippi, that brings home the bacon! I think he will be reelected if he chooses to run again.

BTW: I briefly met Lott and Gov. Haley Barbour in Pascagoula. Both were real gentlemanly types, and very polished politicians.

I hope this doesn't seem provocative, but I also perceived much less racial animus and problems in Gulfport/Biloxi, than in New Orleans, where I also spent some time.


----------

