Where's the outrage now Democrats?

Fox, I don't know where you live, but "double standard" works both ways in politics.

Lott specifically referred to a racist campign for president and endorsed it publicly. Makes no difference that it was in the past; he praised such a campaign in plain English. I don't get that it's the same thing here.

Because Dowd said that Byrd would have been exemplary "at any time" in his career. Same thing.

I couldn't agree more.....if Dodd gets lucky and avoids a shitstorm well, okay, he does.

Apparently the only net result is a bunch more whining in a period of our history where everyone is whining about something.......

I couldn't agree more.....if Dodd gets lucky and avoids a shitstorm well, okay, he does.

Apparently the only net result is a bunch more whining in a period of our history where everyone is whining about something.......

Hmm BPB is repeating himself again, but then it was worth repeating.

America is the culture of complaint.

Take note folks: BPB and I don't agree on much, and that should tell you something.

I can understand the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" mentality... but don't think it should overshadow the underlying "political witch hunt" mentality that is/was the motivating factor in both cases.

I have thought about this issue today while I was gone with my daughter and granddaughter shopping. It occurred to me that I was too long winded and didn't ever really get to the point. I'll try again.

What is a issue here is two men making statements concerning two other men who were in their past segregationist.

The first man, Trent Lott praised Thurmand and wished that Thurmand was successful in his run for presidency in a time when he was still an acting segregationist.

The above clearly points out Trent Lott's present approval of the beliefs that Thurmand held at the time he ran for president which were racist beliefs which means that Trent Lott must hold those views presently. That in my opinion is a no brainer.

The second man, Dodd (something or other) praised Bryd for his years as a senator and then he further went on to say that "some people praise people and say that they were good leaders in their time but you are a good leader in any time." (putting it into my own words)

Dodd could have meant that Bryd was just as good a leader or senator back when he was klu klux clansmen as he is today when he is not which would make him a racist by not caring about Byrd's racism of his younger senate career. Or he could have meant that old age has not affected Bryd in any way in that he is still as capable mentally today as he was when he was younger.

I personally would not vote for anyone who had racist beliefs because then they would be in a position to push those beliefs into laws that would affect our lives which is why I thought the Lott thing was a big deal and the Dodd thing could be a bid deal if we know for sure what he meant.

In any case, I am finished explaining this here. I may not have explained what I meant too well, but I did my best and I stand by my reasoning even if I can't articulate it enough to be understood by everyone.

I don't think it is necessarily that we are a nation of complainers, or maybe we are. I don't think it is a bad thing if we are for it is by airing things out and debating them that truths come out and problems get solved. Otherwise folks that have ideals and thoughts step into the vacuum while we are all unawares and change things. Which is what I think happened in the last few years. We became too comfortable and it is like we were attacked first by the terrorist and then some ideological fanatics. (just my opinion)

I agree with you Revel except in the case where you say that "Lott clearly thought....."

We can't know that it even crossed Lott's mind about what Thurmond's politics were when he ran for president. I took it that he was just saying Thurmond would have made a great president. For his time he very well might have since virtually everybody in Congress was racist back then. It was pretty much a rich white men's club. Admittedly both Thurmond and Byrd were probably more strident in their racism than most, but they both did have a change of heart and turned that around.

To say that we knew exactly what Lott was thinking or consenting to in his remarks, but that we cannot be sure of what Dowd was thinking?...well surely you see my point.

I think the two instances were identical based on the verifiable information that we do have.

foxfrye

The statement that Dodd made could have been taken two entirely different ways of which I tried to illustrate. If taken one way you are right, they are both contextually the same, if taken the other way then they are not. Trent's on the other hand was not so ambigious. (?spell)

We are in a different era with a supposed more enlightened view regarding the human race as a whole. If a person now says that they wish that someone who was known to have a very strong racist views to have been have successful in their run for the presidency says a lot about the person voicing such a wish.

Remember Earl Warren? He was a racist during WWII, and strongly voiced his bigotry against Japanese Americans. He changed after the war, and apologized to the Japanese Americans and worked for equal rights throughout the rest of his life.

Roll a die twice. If you do not get the same result both times it is a "double standard".

Acually, it probably has more to do with circumstantial differences.

Possible circumstantial differences: stature, voting record on race

Racist Democrat of the Month: Sen. Robert C. Byrd


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Josiah David Peske

(...)
Byrd is a Democratic senator from West Virginia. In the 1940s, Byrd served for two years as an active member and recruiter for the KKK, the notorious white-supremacist group which has actively, and often violently, opposed any expansion of the rights of African Americans. Even years after he allegedly broke ties with the Klan, a letter authored by Byrd was discovered promoting the clan and hoping for its growth and success. Byrd was one of the Democrats who helped filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964, speaking on the floor of the Senate for over 14 hours. He opposed the nominations of both African-American candidates for the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. On national television on Fox News in 2001, Byrd mentioned the word "nigger" twice, and never issued a spoken public apology. Byrd has referred to the late Sen. Richard Russell as his mentor, a man who was an unabashed champion of racism and segregation. And of course, there is no mention of any of these incriminating facts anywhere on Byrd's official Senate Web site. Although he would most certainly qualify for the "Racist of the Month," and even for "Racist of the Congressional Session," perhaps neither of these reflect the true scope of his intense fight against the advancement of civil rights and racial equality. A better award, perhaps one truly deserving of a trophy, for Byrd would be the "Racist of Forever". Clearly, the chronicle of the last 60 years of Byrd's actions seems to justify such an accolade.

(...)
From the California Review.

I thought everyone should see this as well.

an excerpt--About Byrd having a minor role in Ted Turner's movie about the Civil War--

We firmly believe that Senator Byrd has no business playing this role," Kevin Martin, spokesman for the AARLC charged. "You have to remember that this senator belonged to the Ku Klux Klan and the Klan came out of the aftermath of the Civil War. One of its primary functions was to continue an underground war against equal rights for African-Americans and former slaves."

Gavin told the group that he had never discussed the issue of Byrd's two-year membership in the KKK during the 1940s. The senator resigned in 1943, but is quoted by Scripps-Howard News Service as having written a letter to the imperial wizard of the racist vigilante group in 1946 stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia."

There is no mention in Byrd's official biography of his membership in the Klan.

Martin stressed that his coalition's opposition is not limited to Byrd's portrayal of a Confederate general. Martin asked rhetorically. "You cannot have a debate on this issue, logically, and appoint a Senate committee on race relations, while this person is serving."
He noted that a number of Democrats have been calling for a discussion of racial issues since the resignation of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) from his Senate leadership post over racially insensitive comments.

"How are they going to have a debate on race when they're the only party with a former Klansman in it?"

The AARLC had previously complained about Byrd's alleged racial insensitivity when, during an interview on the Fox News Channel on March 4, 2001, Byrd twice used the word "nigger."

"There are white niggers," Byrd told Fox News Sunday host Tony Snow. "I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."

Or the concept of innocent until proven guilty could apply. Does anyone have clairvoyant abilities to ascertain the intent of either of those guys? If nobody does, then similar gaffs should be treated similarly.

And similarly when circumstance is different non-clairvoyants should not ascribe to circumstantial difference a double standard.

"Unless you are outraged there's a double standard!"

"Feel the outrage my friend, can I go now?"

I read the Byrd article in its entirety. His use of the words "white nigger" were not put in a context to reveal his meaning in using them. Bottom line, he does not pursue a racist agenda. He does not tell us we need to have a segregated nation the way Lott suggested.

It doesn't bother you that he filibustered against Civil Rights?

And that he voted against both black nominees for the Supreme Court.

Those men were at opposing ends of the political spectrum-- One could say Thomas' political views were the issue for the vote against him, but Marshall?