Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Dems revert to Klan roots

It seems that the Democrats are busy this week attacking a black woman who is in line for one of the highest positions in the American government.

"Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to scare the American people," Sen. Robert Byrd , D-W.Va., said.

The Senate set aside most of the day Tuesday to debate the Rice nomination after Democrats revolted against a plan to confirm Rice last week, on the same day that Bush took his oath for a second term.

"We should have been done last week," Frist said. "I was disappointed that we are having to march through the debate today. But ultimately the vote will occur."

Republicans who took the floor to endorse Rice included Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record), R-Neb., who has been a sometime critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

"Dr. Rice has the intelligence, the integrity and the experience for this job. She has the president's confidence," Hagel said.
The Democrats really know how to pick their spokesman. Why if they have complaints against Dr. Rice would would they pick Senator KKK to voice them?

Well let us look into Senator KKK's roots:
Byrd was a local leader of the Ku Klux Klan for a period of time in the early 1940s, holding the title Kleagle; Klan recruiter. In a 1946 letter, he wrote, "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia." However, when running for Congress in 1952, he announced, "After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan." Still, in 1964 he opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Isn't that special. Who to better speak out against Dr. Rice than an anti-Civil Rights Democrat. Who indeed. Well what about Byrd's recent history?
Senator Byrd quit the Klan in the 1940s and has renounced it since. On the other hand, his history is worth revisiting, since it's something Democrats have been willing to tolerate, despite Lott-like remarks that would have ended a Republican's career. Only last year Mr. Byrd told Fox News that "there are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word. 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."

Mr. Byrd quickly apologized, but he wasn't denounced by Democrats, much less by the Clintons. Nor did the press corps use the opportunity to wallow in other Byrd racial lowlights, such as the 14 hours and 13 minutes he spent in an unsuccessful filibuster during the debate over the 1964 civil rights act, which he voted against along with 20 other Senate Democrats. The political press also didn't dredge up his votes against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, votes that made him the only Senator to have opposed the only two black Supreme Court nominees in U.S. history.
Is the good Senator anti-Black? Could be. Thurgood Marshall was a Democrat.
Which U.S. Senator is a former member of the Ku Klux Klan?

Which U.S. Senator wasn't just a member of the KKK but was a "Kleagle" -- an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head?

Which U.S. Senator said he joined because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values."

Which U.S. Senator wrote the following, three years after he claims to have ended his ties with the KKK: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union."

Which U.S. Senator also wrote that he would never fight "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, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Which Senator indeed.

The Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves.

If that is possible.

Welcome Instapundit fans. And Roger Simon fans. And Captain's Quarters fans.

32 comments:

AST said...

So Byrd's remarks are symptomatic of his early Klan roots. What's Barbara Boxer's excuse? or John Kerry's?

Mark Dayton's is that he's harebrained. If I were he, I'd be keeping a low profile until people forget his rabbit routine closing down his office in D.C.

Anonymous said...

"The Democrats ought to be ashamed of themselves.

If that is possible."

It isn't.

Barbara Skolaut

Clark said...

Apparrently, Dr. Rice has no other qualifications other than her race and sex, as that is all that right-wing Republicans can mention. For the president, her qualification is her loyalty--the only thing he values in an underling.
Also, Sen. Byrd's criticisms must be hitting home, since all your crowd ever notices is his activities of 60 years ago.

Anonymous said...

In 1989 Congresswoman Barbara Boxer defended the right of a convicted rapist (who had slit the throat of his victim and left her to die)to have a plush job on a congressional staff. When the victim protested, Barbara Boxer said "He paid his dues to society" (seven years in prison).
Chester Himel cmhimel26@msn.com

Robert Mandel said...

Clark, it's not that we care really what byrd said 50 years ago, it's the rank hypocrisy of it all. democrats get away with things no republican could. the point is that if the roles were reversed, Rice a dem, byrd a repub, the battle would be all over the nightly news, major newspapers and magazines, there'd be protests and jesse jackson would hold a vigil, et al. it's what byrd did, it's the absence of reporting, because we full well know how the game is played.

Clark said...

Another thing. Did Sen. Byrd oppose Colin Powell when he was nominated to head State. I couldn't find evidence of a roll call vote, in the link below, which leads me to believe that Powell was approved on a voice vote without opposition. It would seem to me that a klansman would be much more threatened by a powerful black man who was a four star general in the Army than by Rice.

BigDirigible said...

There are two distinct issues here. First is Byrd himself and his early career as a fine American. Second is the tin ear of whoever is directing Democratic strategy. There must be some Democrat in the Senate who could play attack dog without making such an ass of himself. It makes the party look feeble.

In any case, Byrd can thank his lucky stars he has no ancient National Guard career, or his enemies might enjoy themselves drooling over it and making up spurious accusations. Should they choose to sink so low, that is.

Clark said...

1 here's the link I forgot:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_107_1.htm

2 One thing I was reminded of while reading Hewitt's Blog is that a couple of years ago the big media was not particularly interested in Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential race.

Ramrod said...

Clark:

It's nice to have guys like you around to keep us on our toes. Nobody that I know would want to challange Dr. Rice, but if you do why not keep to facts without making up racist stuff to bolster you bolster your shakey position. Just imagine what "your side" would say if "our side" made racial remarks to oppose the nomination of an outstandingly well-qualified candidate.

Anonymous said...

Clark, if what happened long in the past is not an issue, than why is it that Charles Pickering has been excoriated for a position paper he wrote in the late 1950's, despite his later history and the overwhelming support of civil rights leaders in his home state of Mississippi? Why bring up Strom Thurmond's past history (as evidence of Republican racism), when it is rather similar to that of Byrd, although slightly higher-profile? Name a Republican politican who would have received a free pass on using the phrase "white nigger" not only once, but three times, on two separate occasions, as has Byrd, who has never been condemned by the mainstream media or his Democratic colleagues.

How far back do we need to go before bad deeds are irrelevant? Is there a different standard for Republicans and Democrats?

Timekeeper
Horologium

peapies said...

Something tells me one of Clark's nerves was punched let alone touched!

Too funny..."and another thing". Did you every think you would see the day when a liberal spent that much typing time defending their grand keagle.

AND yes. You are right. The only reasons republicans support Dr. Rice is because she is female and black and is a concert pianist, and Provost for Stanford for six years and professor of political science with various teaching awards, member,felow of many distinguished organizations and groups, author of various books on foreign policy matters with emphasis on Russian foreign policy, a served many post for Bush and in '86 served as special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, she earned her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981...but thats just the quick version of reasons I happen to think Dr. Rice is qualified to be SOS.

You Schmuck. Now go get your sheet reading for you R. Byrd C-Span re-run.

Anonymous said...

What a fuss, C. Rice. Good for her she's been successful. But too bad for her because she lies through her teeth.

Anonymous said...

What a fuss, C. Rice. Good for her she's been successful. But too bad for her because she lies through her teeth.

Anonymous said...

Trent Lott was forced from leadership you news challenged Clarkie......

and judging from the "lying threw her teeth post", I thought it was you fanatics that thought lying was GREAT...blue dress, oh thats right...vilifing women is your sport too..." Monica was stalker" oops, that pesky blue dress again

You want everything both ways, as usual.

Just admit it...your real problem is deep down you know and it pains you that you will be on the wrong side of history. period.

Greg said...

What's really racist is to imply racism in a place where there is none. You pick Byrd, but there are many others questioning Rice's ability to be Secretary of State. Her credentials as Bush's yes(wo)man do not qualify her for a post as prestigious as SoS. It's funny that it seems the Democrats are only racist when it comes to Rice, as there were no cries of racism when Powell was nominated and approved, with most Democrats feeling he was the best person for the job. If we were really racists, wouldn't we have raised a stink about Powell?

As my little brother always says, "He who smelt it dealt it." Meaning, of course, the first one to detect a stench is usually the cause of it.

Stop calling racism where there is none. Republicans know Dems' concerns are valid, so they have to revert to calling racism.

Greg said...

"We should have been done last week," Frist said. "I was disappointed that we are having to march through the debate today. But ultimately the vote will occur."

Yes, because of course, we should do what the president says without question, right?

kathianne said...

Excellent post. I too have linked:
http://teachersramblings.blogspot.com/2005/01/byrd-on-rice.html

Anonymous said...

As stated above, it's not a case of the Dems being racist, it's a case of double standards and hypocrisy. Yes, imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. However, having Byrd lead this particular charge is foolish in the extreme.

As far as Condi lying, oh nevermind; I was about to dredge up a decade's worth of quotes from top Dems regarding Iraq and WMD, but nevermind. It's too exhuasting, this game.

We need to stop bickering so much.

Anonymous said...

Greg: "Yes, because of course, we should do what the president says without question, right?"

No, you twit. We should do what the Constitution requires.

M. Simon said...

When Trent Lott came out with his Strom Thurmond musings I was in the lead in attacking him for his seeminly racist remarks. I had an article on the net in "Sierra Times" within a day.

I see no reason to give Byrd a pass.

I don't believe in double standards.

Clark said...

Ramrod: Exactly what facts am I making up? What "racist stuff" am I making up? I am just pointing out that "Kleagle Byrd" is denouncing Rice for her performance in office while her supporters are noting her race and sex.

Anon 1: I don't know. I am not a participant or supporter of the filibuster against Charles Pickering.

Amy: You are one of the few wingers to note some of Rice's credentials, which I don't question. Unfortunately, she is incompetent. For the record, I don't oppose her confirmation. The president won the election fair and square, and he has the right to fill his cabinet with yes men and women. Also, If you think only "liberals" oppose the Bush administration, read some Pat Buchanan, or Paul Craig Roberts, or Steve Sailer.

Anon. 2 I know that Lott was forced from leadership, the reason that I invoked Hewitt is that he pointed out in his book, and I think accurately, that the campaign against him was lead by the center-right blogosphere, not the Democrats or the media.

NewEnglandDevil said...

Here is the link to the Powell confirmation.

(if link doesn't work, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ntquery/D?nomis:73:./temp/~nomis7DYbMB::)

Text:

NOMINATION: PN100-107
DATE RECEIVED: January 20, 2001

Colin Luther Powell, of Virginia, to be Secretary of State.


LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS

Floor Action: January 20, 2001 - Received in the Senate.
Floor Action: January 20, 2001 - Placed on Senate Executive Calendar. Calendar No. 6.
Floor Action: January 20, 2001 - Confirmed by the Senate by Voice Vote.

ORGANIZATION: Department of State

CONTROL NUMBER: 107PN0010000

Anonymous said...

"that the campaign against him was lead by the center-right blogosphere, not the Democrats or the media."

Which is the point that you seem to be missing. The Donks tend to give themselves a pass when its one of their own, where the Republicans do not.

Anonymous said...

The question is: Did Rice know about the lack of WMD in Iraq and did she lie about it. From what I have read - I think she knew full well - before the war.

Marketing man said...

You have a nice blog here! I will be sure to book mark you.
I have a home business lead site. It pretty much covers home business lead related stuff. Check it out if you get time :-)

8709 said...

Alot of interesting comments on this blog, I was searching for some doctor related info and some how cam across this site. I found it pretty cool, so I bookmarked. I'll really liked the second post on the front page, that got my attention.

My site is in a bit different area, but just as useful. I have a mens male enhancement reviews related site focusing on mens male enhancement reviews and mens health related topics.

blogdollar2 said...

Hi, I like your blog!. I have a blog about texas used camper.
Stop by and check it out sometime at texas used camper

Steve Austin said...

Enjoyable blog. Please check out my dog blog.

jon said...

I was searching for dog treat info and found this post. I agree totally!

Paul

Joe Muka said...

Just checking out blogs for ideas to add to my site about residential voip and other voip stuff. (I know its a boring subject) I liked your site

paul said...

Of course, it is really the left wing who are the racists. How could I have been misled? You know, when conservatives get on this kind of rant, it just makes you all look like you are dying to use the N-word and you are all pissed that you cant anymore.
I am not saying that that is true, I am just saying that is what it looks like.
Republicans only ever bring up racism/sexism to discuss someone's hypocrisy.
Paulie11 from inside the Snakepit

M. Simon said...

Republicans were the original anti-racist party.

You know the First Republican President - Abe Lincoln.

The Dems are late to the scene and don't always have their hearts in it. Al Sharpton? Give me a break.

A larger % of Rs voted for the Voting Rights Act than Ds.

Very good of Johnson to break up the racist coalition in the Democrat party. The dishonor is that they had to be broken.