Robert C. Byrd, Embarassment to the State of West Virginia
- Former KKK Member (has never repudiated his Klan membership)
- Opposed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964
- Once Vowed to Keep the Military Segregated
- Opposed Thurgood Marshall's nomination to the Supreme Court
- Used "N" Word in a 2001 News Interview
- Byrd now promises to block Dr. Condoleeza Rice's confirmation as Secretary of State even though she was confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which he is NOT a member, by a 16-2 margin.
Question: Why does Byrd hold such contempt and loathing for a highly qualified and accomplished African American woman who grew up in Robert Byrd's "Segregated South" and who overcame untold racial barriers to graduate college at 16, become a top adviser to a President and, now, a Secretary of State nominee?
It's Time For West Virginians to Send A Message and Tell Byrd to Quit His Racist Ways and Represent West Virginia, a State Created by Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation Which Freed The Slaves (email Byrd here: http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html )
A former Ku Klux Klansman who once vowed to keep the military segregated is single-handedly holding up the confirmation of Secretary of State-nominee Condoleezza Rice, the first African-American woman to be appointed to the office.
"Senator Robert Byrd, an outspoken critic of the Iraq war, announced late [Wednesday] that he would not allow the Senate to approve Ms. Rice without a few days of consideration of her lengthy testimony, and at least a token debate on the floor," reports the New York Times.
Sen. Byrd's maneuver came just hours after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved her nomination by a vote of 16 to 2.
The West Virginia Democrat, who officially left the Klan in 1943 but continued to advise the anti-black group for years afterward, said through a spokesman that he was merely assuring that the Senate fulfilled its constitutional role of advise and consent.But the decision by Democrats to make Sen. Byrd the point man in the continuing assault against such a prominent African-American is a particulary awkward one, given his long history of racial misconduct.
In 2001, for instance, Byrd was forced to apologize after he blurted out the N-word twice during a nationally televised interview.
"There are white n****rs, I've seen a lot of white n****rs in my time," Byrd told Fox News Sunday.
In the early 1970s, Byrd pushed to have the Senate's main office building named after Sen. Richard Russell, a leading opponent of anti-lynching legislation who the West Virginia Democrat called "my mentor."
Byrd filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 14 straight hours. And three years after he said he'd left his white-sheeted brethren behind, he wrote to Georgia's Grand Imperial Wizard, urging, "The Klan is needed today as never before."
Sen. Byrd was also a fierce opponent of desegregating the military, complaining in one letter: "I should rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds."
Biography of Dr. Condoleezza Rice, National Security Advisor
Dr. Condoleezza Rice became the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, commonly referred to as the National Security Advisor, on January 22, 2001.
In June 1999, she completed a six year tenure as Stanford University 's Provost, during which she was the institution's chief budget and academic officer. As Provost she was responsible for a $1.5 billion annual budget and the academic program involving 1,400 faculty members and 14,000 students.
As professor of political science, Dr. Rice has been on the Stanford faculty since 1981 and has won two of the highest teaching honors -- the 1984 Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching and the 1993 School of Humanities and Sciences Dean's Award for Distinguished Teaching.
At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the Hoover Institution.
Her books include Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000 Republican National Conventions.
From 1989 through March 1991, the period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.
In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the Military.
She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco Symphony Board of Governors.
She was a Founding Board member of the Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula .
In addition, her past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco.
Born November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, 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.
She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been awarded honorary doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, the University of Notre Dame in 1995, the National Defense University in 2002, the Mississippi College School of Law in 2003, the University of Louisville and Michigan State University in 2004. She resides in Washington, D.C. July 2004
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think this is an excellent example of a smokescreen.
While Byrd may well be a racist, I doubt he opposes her nomination based on racism alone.
More importantly, Jay, you neglect to notice that many people who are clearly not racist also oppose Rice's nomination, based solely on more relevant things like her dishonesty, her skewed priorities (loyalty above truth, for example), her lack of diplomacy skills, etc.
You're acting a lot like a Democrat, Jay. You thinking of switching sides?
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
Byrd is an ass. i've always thought so. and i don't think he should be holding office.
...i don't think Rice should hold the office she's been nominated for, but it has nothing to with race.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Perhaps, Tom, he's ironically pointing out the fuss that would be raised if this were, say, Barbara Boxer and Bill Frist, instead. (Not here attempting to accuse Mr. Frist of Klan membership)
edit: if this sounds snarky, that wasn't my intention... I'm actually trying to agree with your "acting like a democrat" comment.
[ January 25, 2005, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. So he's merely pointing out that not all objections to a minority candidate are based on race? I'll pat him on the back and agree, then; I've always had the same opinion.
Somehow, however, I doubt that he's also agreeing that many of the people who object to Rice's nomination do so for valid reasons. I didn't get that vibe.
Remember the Estrada/Gonzalez thing?
With the Republicans deliberately nominating minorities in order to be able to accuse Dems of racism, Jay's kind of argument is going to get really tiresome really quickly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Did Byrd block Powell's nomination?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes, Barbara Boxer, who you are sounding a lot like Tom, also opposes her. After that resume it’s only the extremist leftists who are against her.
I thought Dr. Rice showed her diplomacy skill very well as she stood up to Boxer’s attacks.
Acting like a Democrat? How is that? Because I’m supporting a minority nominee? How racist of you to say Tom!
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:It's Time For West Virginians to Send A Message and Tell Byrd to Quit His Racist Ways and Represent West Virginia,
If this is the same West Virginia that produced at least one and possibly two of the perps in the Abu Ghraib debacle, I'm not sure Byrd is misrepresenting his constituency, sadly.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
What and no mention of Byrd's long history for being one of the kings of the pork barrel in American politics?
Or was the racism card just the hot button topic that would get the most coverage?
C'mon, Byrd is part of the overall problem, but Rice as secretary of state and the chief US ambassador could be an embarassment. And that has nothing to do with her sex or race. It has a lot to do with diplomacy and most importantly how much the rest of the world will trust what she says.
Powell was a great choice because of the stature he had attained in the world. And we all got to see how his credibility was destroyed after the Iraq invasion. An honest, honorable man took faulty evidence to the world body and staked his reputation (and our nation's as well) on it. The evidence, once proven faulty, destroyed his credibility.
Rice isn't the person to restore our credibility.
Byrd might be an unmitigated ass, but I believe he may be one of many who is right in opposing her nomination.
Edit to add: Isn't it interesting how the Republicans are now the party that can accuse the other of racism or sexism? Folks, you're seeing why the Republicans are performing so strongly in the elections... they made an effort to have the Big Tent and Bush's cabinet has been more racially/genderly balanced than any ever before it.
[ January 25, 2005, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Remember the Estrada/Gonzalez thing?
Tom, there is no Estrada/Gonzalez thing. There's an Estrada thing and a Gonzalez thing.
Estrada was absolutely opposed because he was Hispanic, but not because his opponents were racist. The fear was that they could more safely oppose him as a Circuit Court nominee than as a SCOTUS nominee, due to the effect of nominating the first Hispanic person to the high court. Naturally, this factored into the decision to nominate him as well.
Other nominees to circuit courts, more ideologically repugnant to the Democrats, went through with much less opposition.
The trumped up memo issue was a ridiculous smokescreen in and of itself.
Dagonee
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: With the Republicans deliberately nominating minorities in order to be able to accuse Dems of racism
If the shoe fits! Yes, there have been a high number of highly qualified conservative minorities that Democrats have filibustered. So if it’s racist to block them because they are a conservative minority, guess that means the Democrats are no longer the party of the minority races.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"So if it’s racist to block them because they are a conservative minority..."
Big if. Are you saying that it is, Jay? Or are you speaking tongue-in-cheek?
Because I don't think you'll find any Democrats here who'd agree with that statement, which suggests that you're attacking a straw man which doesn't exist in the wild as much as you'd think.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Jay, please explain why this unreconstructed racist didn't oppose Powell.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"After that resume it’s only the extremist leftists who are against her."
I'd just like to point out that a smashing resume does not a good employee necessarily make.
We've had ample time to observe Rice in her former role, and she was less than stellar in it by many standards. Many of the problems a lot of us see in her performance there are problems that would become critical to her performance as the head of the State Department. She doesn't appear any more suited to that position than Rumsfeld.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: any Democrats here who'd agree with that statement
Now that’s a hoot. Like I’m trying to find things Democrats agree with. I don’t take the Clinton approach of taking a poll before a belief.
But yes, I do think the Democrats have been very racist in their opposition to conservative minority nominees. Since they want to try and have minority as a trump card. I hope it backfires on them.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
That’s an easy one. He would have been the only one! Didn’t Powell fly through? I really think Byrd is objecting more out of his blind hatred of Bush then anything else. The KKK thing is always fun to point about ol Sheets Byrd!
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I don’t take the Clinton approach of taking a poll before a belief.
Bush does. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"I do think the Democrats have been very racist in their opposition to conservative minority nominees."
So you legitimately believe, then, that most of the objection to Estrada and Rice is based on their race?
See, this is something I find baffling. Were you merely pointing out a perceived hypocrisy, I could understand your behavior -- but you aren't. It appears that you aren't actually capable of recognizing real racism, which is a bit of a shame.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
That’s fine Tom, but you’re just proofing my point that it’s only extremist leftists who oppose her since you are one!
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
I know this has been asked before, but I don't think anyone answered..... Of all of the members on Hatrack who identify themselves as conservative, do any actually appreciate Jay's views, or his method of presenting them?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: recognizing real racism
So objecting to someone because they are a conservative minority is ok? That isn’t racism? Ok…. Gee…. I don’t think I’m the one who has the problem.
I know we’re not talking about hate crimes and what not here. But goodness. It’s still racist to oppose someone just because they are a conservative minority.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jay, if you are defining "extremist leftist" in a way that includes me, I'm afraid you're making "extremist leftists" into a group that makes up probably half the electorate. That really cheapens the word "extremist."
I'd like you to pick a single political position I hold, Jay, that you believe to be characteristic of the extreme left.
------
"It’s still racist to oppose someone just because they are a conservative minority."
Jay, I think you miss the point of Dag's earlier analysis. Those Democrats who opposed Estrada did so because they recognized that his race was going to be used against them -- cynically, and in what I consider a racist way, actually -- in order to push through further advancement. So while his race played a factor in their opposition, their opposition was in fact based on the the fact that the people who nominated him intended to use his race as a factor.
I'm not sure that opposing the use of race as a political tool is a racist policy; personally, I don't think it is.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: members on Hatrack who identify themselves as conservative
No. They’d rather I not discuss with ya all! They just like to stay in the background. But to me, it’s fun at times to see what the other side is thinking and hear their arguments. Oh well. I still like ya all, just don’t agree politically!
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
[Post deleted for general obnoxiousness.]
[ January 25, 2005, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: KathrynHJanitor ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That was unnecessary, Justa.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:They just like to stay in the background.
Yes. We're so shy, us conservative jatraqueros.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: his race was going to be used against them
Wait wait wait….. So let me get this straight. You’re trying to say that it was racist to nominate him. Therefore it made it ok to object to his nomination based on race? Ok. Wow… That’s pretty deep.
This and your hatred of Bush would put you into the left wing kook category for me. I don’t find it a shame to be called a right winger though!
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:I thought Dr. Rice showed her diplomacy skill very well as she stood up to Boxer’s attacks.
Did you, Jay?
I thought Rice showed evasiveness in the way she avoided answering Boxer's legitimate questions.
This attack of dems being racist is really getting old. Republicans haul it out every time Democrats happen to have legitimate questions about Republican candidates who happen to be a member of a minority group.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Ela ]
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I wouldn't exactly name Tom an extremist, Jay. That would be a huge stretch.
And yeah, as a conservative member of the board, this type of posting is difficult for me to read, because it embarrasses me on some level.
On a side note, I think that West Virginia is past the point where it can be embarrassed by anything at all. The state happens to be in love with Senator Byrd, as wacky as that may be.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
It was totally necessary. He is spouting nonsense without actually thinking about it. He decries anyone who disagrees with his own views as "extreme left" even when known conservative Republicans have publicly shown they disagree. He makes jabs at Clinton where Bush does the same damn thing. He is full of hypocrisy and will ignore 75% of a post in order to twist the other 25% out of context.
Either you respond by teasing or it will simply become a flame war.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: You like slumming into areas you don't normally go, like thinking, huh?
My degree is in Computer Engineering. How about you?
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:On a side note, I think that West Virginia is past the point where it can be embarrassed by anything at all. The state happens to be in love with Senator Byrd, as wacky as that may be.
I already said this.
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
My dad can beat up your dad.
EDIT: You sort of already said that Jutsa, what you actually said was that the state produced members of the Abu Ghraib scandal, but so did Pennsylvania and a few other states, so I don't know that this particular piece of evidence can be used to say a state has no shame. I wouldn't exactly lump PA and WV into the same category.
--ApostleRadio
[ January 25, 2005, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: prolixshore ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:My degree is in Computer Engineering. How about you?
Depends on which degree you want me to tell you about. You don't want to go the pissing match route with me on this. When you can think of a witty retort without trying to get too personal and wind up embarrassing yourself, you come on back now, y`hear?
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
<spelling nazi>
Just to clarify, it's y'all, not ya all.
</spelling nazi>
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: The state happens to be in love with Senator Byrd
Well, no, since he has pork barreled so much he has his name on ¾ of the state. This makes him impossible to beat in an election. He could be slightly vulnerable in 06 since he has been so cynical in the last few years. Especially since we voted overwhelmingly for Bush and he has slammed him no matter what he says.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"You’re trying to say that it was racist to nominate him. Therefore it made it ok to object to his nomination based on race?"
No. Re-read my post again until you understand it, please. I put it very clearly. If there is a specific part of that post you do not understand, ask and I will clarify it for you.
"This and your hatred of Bush would put you into the left wing kook category for me."
And since we'd never had this conversation before, your basic definition of a left-wing extremist is someone who, for whatever reason, hates Bush? Wow. That's pretty ... um ... vacuous.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: You don't want to go the pissing match route with me on this
You started the piss match. I’m still not impressed that you can think. You’re trying to accuse me of making this personal when we’re trying to have a discussion on a topic even though it was you who started the nonsense. I think that’s just typical. What say you?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
"I wouldn't exactly lump PA and WV into the same category."
While I realize PA has larger cities, when I consider my relatives from the backwoods thereof, compared to all of the current or past West Virginians I've ever met (Maybe they have to have graduate degrees to leave the state) I have no problem lumping them into the same category. AJ
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Jay, the polite thing to do would be to let Justa apologize for insulting you, and then drop it if he remains a boor and does not. It is not to your advantage in this situation to engaging in a pissing contest over degrees and certifications.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Re-read my post again until you understand it
I understand your post perfectly and maintain my point. We just differ on who the racist truly is in the situation!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"We just differ on who the racist truly is in the situation!"
If that's your assessment, Jay, you still don't understand my post. Read it again.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
PA is broken up into 2 (or possibly three distinct areas), the Philadelphia and Pittsburg areas and the rest of the state, which we call Pennsyltuckey. I'd say that the center areas of PA are on average worse than West Virginia.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: in this situation to engaging in a pissing contest over degrees and certifications.
I could really care less if he has a PHD in Quantum Physics and an MBA. His naive replies show his true thinking ability.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Jay, I think you miss the point of Dag's earlier analysis. Those Democrats who opposed Estrada did so because they recognized that his race was going to be used against them -- cynically, and in what I consider a racist way, actually -- in order to push through further advancement. So while his race played a factor in their opposition, their opposition was in fact based on the the fact that the people who nominated him intended to use his race as a factor.
I'm not sure that opposing the use of race as a political tool is a racist policy; personally, I don't think it is.
You don’t think it was racist to oppose him because of race since that was the reason they think he was nominated. What are you trying to say no one was racist in the situation?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Jay, you devolved into namecalling from your first post in this thread. You've consistently responded to arguments and ideas with quick categorization and name calling.
Dagonee
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 619) on :
Ah, excuse me, but when did "a few days of consideration of her lengthy testimony, and at least a token debate on the floor" consitute "blocking" an appointment? Delaying, perhaps, but I see no political maneuvering mentioned that would prevent Condi from being appointed. Am I missing something?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Jay, you devolved into namecalling from your first post in this thread. You've consistently responded to arguments and ideas with quick categorization and name calling.
What? Calling someone a liberal, leftist, or racist in context of the argument is hardly name calling. I’m not sure I ever hear ideas from Democrats. Usually just hate speech on how horrible someone is. Or that such and such is only good for the rich! Anyway….. if I offended anyone by calling them something I apologize. Totally unintentional. I enjoy being called a conservative right winger.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
quote:I’m not sure I ever hear ideas from Democrats. Usually just hate speech on how horrible someone is. Or that such and such is only good for the rich!
And... you also enjoy being called a hate-monger devoid of ideas?
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: you also enjoy being called a hate-monger devoid of ideas?
I just chalk that up to jealous envy
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
Oh, JEALOUS envy. Good. I was worried you might be chalking it up to some other kind of envy.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:I could really care less if he has a PHD in Quantum Physics and an MBA. His naive replies show his true thinking ability.
Which part? The part where I showed how Bush plays the polling game as well, or the part where I initially pointed out that Byrd's constituency is not going to want to oust him?
You seem to be wanting to turn this into a "burn the liberal scum" kind of discussion, while I have directly addressed things you said and been summarily ignored. While you are quite comfortable in ignoring your own internal inconsistencies when you speak, those same inconsistencies stick out like a sore thumb to the rest of us, some of whom you would probably otherwise having argue in your favor.
You aren't thinking your rambling through, and in parts of what you touch on (when you're on topic and not trying to roast a liberal straw man) you could have the support of others who post here regularly and loudly. But you could only do this if you took an extra minute to think about what you post before you do.
Anyone else who sees the irony here, raise your hand.
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Oh, JEALOUS envy. Good. I was worried you might be chalking it up to some other kind of envy.
You didn't get the memo? Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Oh, JEALOUS envy. Good. I was worried you might be chalking it up to some other kind of envy.
1 : painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage 2 obsolete : MALICE 3 : an object of envious notice or feeling <his new car made him the envy of his friends>
Synonyms enviousness, invidiousness, jealousy, begrudge, grudge Related Word covetousness; grudging; resentment, covet, crave, desire, hanker, long, want, yearn
Wow…. I didn’t realize there was so much to know about envy. Never really thought about “types of envy”
See, the reason I laughed at the story posted was the painfully obvious slant to it. There was no discussion about any other objections to Rice's nomination, the point of the article was clearly meant to imply that the only reason anyone would block Rice would be because they were racist.
That's not journalism. That's spin.
Posted by Ela (Member # 1365) on :
quote:See, the reason I laughed at the story posted was the painfully obvious slant to it. There was no discussion about any other objections to Rice's nomination, the point of the article was clearly meant to imply that the only reason anyone would block Rice would be because they were racist.
That's not journalism. That's spin.
I totally agree, Chris.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Synonym: [defined as] one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
quote:Redundancy: [defined as] the quality or state of being redundant : SUPERFLUITY ... a superfluous repetition : PROLIXITY ... an act or instance of needless repetition
I'm afraid the issue is one of redundancy. That is, the use of superfluous words -- aka redundancy -- is potentially the problem at hand.
[ January 25, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Which part? The part where I showed how Bush plays the polling game as well, or the part where I initially pointed out that Byrd's constituency is not going to want to oust him?
You seem to be wanting to turn this into a "burn the liberal scum" kind of discussion, while I have directly addressed things you said and been summarily ignored. While you are quite comfortable in ignoring your own internal inconsistencies when you speak, those same inconsistencies stick out like a sore thumb to the rest of us, some of whom you would probably otherwise having argue in your favor.
You aren't thinking your rambling through, and in parts of what you touch on (when you're on topic and not trying to roast a liberal straw man) you could have the support of others who post here regularly and loudly. But you could only do this if you took an extra minute to think about what you post before you do.
Anyone else who sees the irony here, raise your hand.
Your site saying that Bush uses polls was kind of funny. Inaccurate and leftist of course. Bush has been steady on his beliefs. Clinton would change at the drop of a poll! (which of course you don’t argue against) And yes, I address the part of Byrd’s constituency. Did you miss that? I’m hopeful for 06. No more pork! I fail to see any inconsistencies in my points. Hey, what happened to the piss contest? Weren’t you going to list all your degrees? By the way, my hand is up. I see the irony.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Hey, what happened to the piss contest? Weren’t you going to list all your degrees? By the way, my hand is up. I see the irony.
That sort of thing is rather frowned on, here. Papa Moose is most vigilant.
[ January 25, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Sen. Edward M. Kennedy and other Democrats used President Bush's nomination of Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state to rake his Iraq war policy over the coals Tuesday.
Despite impressive credentials, Rice failed to acknowledge mistakes in planning and carrying out the Iraq war, and defended misguided policies on torture and other subjects, Kennedy said in remarks prepared for delivery on the Senate floor.
"Before we can repair our broken policy, the administration needs to admit that it broken," Kennedy said.
[...]
Byrd and Boxer, opponents of the war from the outset, had one-hour speeches scheduled. They consider the war a mistake and Bush's postwar strategy inadequate as determined insurgents take a rising toll of American casualties. They hold Rice at least partly responsible, since she was Bush's White House national security adviser during his first term.
====================
Would it also delight Byrd to block Rice because she's African-American? Wouldn't surprise me a bit. That's not enough justification to let her sail into the office with full approval and validation of her previous job performance.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Inaccurate and leftist of course."
Jay, would you do me a personal favor and stop defining "leftist" as "not a fan of President Bush?" It's fairly inaccurate.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Jay, would you do me a personal favor and stop defining "leftist" as "not a fan of President Bush?" It's fairly inaccurate.
For you Tom I’ll try. Not promising anything you know how I like to rant sometimes. But since even Republican critics are considered liberal and Democrat supports are considered conservative, it might be fairly accurate.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
quote:My degree is in Computer Engineering. How about you?
Jay, Jay, Jay...I have to say that by pulling this one out of the hat, you've completely lost any credibility you may have had, with me at least. By citing your degree in this way, what you're saying is that by having a degree, this makes you smarter and more able to reason than someone who doesn't. That's such a logical fallacy that it is laughable.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What if Republicans criticize other Republicans? Do they become liberal? If Democrats support the war in Iraq (as Joe Lieberman has from day one) are they really closet conservatives?
There's a range between conservative and liberal, and people can hold beliefs on any part of it. There's also a range between Republican and Democrat, and it doesn't always match point for point with the conservative/liberal one.
If you're only going to poke fun at the extremes, all the people in the middle are going to ignore you. And there's an awful lot of them.
Posted by Happy Camper (Member # 5076) on :
I'd like your opinion on the definition of overwhelming, because the numbers don't seem too terribly overwhelming on Bush's win to me. I'm going back a bit here, I know, but if Bush won overwhelmingly, then the Governor's race and 2 of the house races were thorough trouncings in favor of the Dems. Overall in the house races Dems were voted for about 7 to 5, and the Dem governor won by almost 2 to 1. So I wouldn't take the Bush victory too seriously as an indication of Byrd's fate.
Okay, beyond that, I know the guy has his problems (and they're some doozies), but if he weren't around, I wouldn't have the job that I do, fwiw. He's pretty much single-handedly kept much of the state alive for a long time.
And AJ, I'm not sure whether to take your post as an insult or not. Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote:
quote: My degree is in Computer Engineering. How about you?
Jay, Jay, Jay...I have to say that by pulling this one out of the hat, you've completely lost any credibility you may have had, with me at least. By citing your degree in this way, what you're saying is that by having a degree, this makes you smarter and more able to reason than someone who doesn't. That's such a logical fallacy that it is laughable.
So when Jutsa Notha Name said:
quote: You like slumming into areas you don't normally go, like thinking, huh?
I couldn’t point out that I can think? Aka I have a high level degree? I didn’t see you saying anything to Justa. Tom was the only one to do that. Kind of makes me think you’re a bit biased here.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: I couldn’t point out that I can think? Aka I have a high level degree?
These two things are not the same. She was pointing out that having a "high level degree" is not necessarily indicative of an ability to think.
Moreover, you might as well drop the persecution complex; it isn't going to fly here.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In fairness to Jay, I think Justa was out of line, and Jay has a perfect right to feel offended.
That Jay may not know how to express himself particularly well, or may buy into a certain stereotypical line of thought, does not mean we're entitled to attack him personally -- even if, whether specifically or by implication, he commits the same sort of sin.
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Yes, please continue to defend Jutsa Notha Name. Doesn’t bug me in the least. Shows your bias And if you haven’t noticed, not much in the way of conservative thought flies here!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
same sort of sin? What? Oh come on. How is me asking him his degree any sort of sin. The dork took a personal attack on me and I made a come back. One in defense of myself. One I must say he chose not to respond to very much. I already said I could really care less what his degrees are in. Pointless… oh well. Sometimes it is so funny around here………
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And if you haven’t noticed, not much in the way of conservative thought flies here!
At leas tbe factual in your ranting. Check out an abortion thread some time, or a "right to die" thread.
Check out a gay marriage thread, for that matter. Or some of the anti-Bush threads.
When you make characterizations that are just flat out wrong, you undermine your credibility.
Dagonee
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Whatever, I stand by my points
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Oh, sure, I'm not denying that he may have a right to feel offended. I was just saying that I think the point that lma was making was that the ability to think and a degree did not necessarily coincide.
I will admit, however, that the last line of my post was perhaps overly snarky, and I apologize.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"same sort of sin? What? Oh come on. How is me asking him his degree any sort of sin."
It's not, Jay. I think one of your problems, perhaps, is that you have difficulty understanding context. Can you think of nothing that you have said which others might find fairly insulting, possibly even as it relates to their ability to think?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Quiet, you left-wing kook!
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
quote: Can you think of nothing that you have said which others might find fairly insulting, possibly even as it relates to their ability to think?
Well, sure. I’ve probably offended lots of Democrats. Insulting? What cause I said I had a degree as proof that I could think? If someone wants to take me responding to Justa out of context that’s their problem. Justa said I couldn’t think. I gave non political proof that I could. I really don’t think I need to defend myself on the fact that Justa is a looooser. Oops. Guess that’s insulting.
[ January 25, 2005, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Jay ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why have you ignored every substantive response to your major contention?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Insulting? What cause I said I had a degree as proof that I could think?
No. Your "similar sin" is implying that other people, including Democrats, cannot or do not think. Justa has said the same thing about you, which you found offensive. In the same way that Justa's comment was unfair and out of line, your comments about 48% of the population of the country are also highly unfair.
I should not have to explain this to you.
quote:Justa is a looser. Oops. Guess that’s insulting.
It would be if it were spelled correctly, certainly. As it is, it's kind of a compliment.
Posted by Zeugma (Member # 6636) on :
A looser gooser? Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
*vows to stay away from Justa, as I do not want to be goosed!*
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote: Justa said I couldn’t think. I gave non political proof that I could.
A degree really isn't proof that you can think. Just like you said this:
quote: I could really care less if he has a PHD in Quantum Physics and an MBA. His naive replies show his true thinking ability.
about Justa, your posts here are what others here are going to be judging you on, not whatever degrees you may or may not have.
And your posts here are, for the most part, childish and inaccurate, and oblivious of people's responses to you.
I had a freshman year prof who said something I really like... "A college degree proves to potential employers that you can put up with four years of bull****." That's really all most undergrads do, show you can jump through hoops. So how about responding rationally for awhile, and showing you can do more than dish the BS as well as put up with it?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, if everyone else is done name-calling, I just read this thread and would like to comment on the first post -- or the first few.
To me, what Jay was trying to say originally, was that given the Senator's past history and track record, this sure makes it LOOK like he is opposing based on race.
I mean, the old "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck" thing. He does have a history of racism, and I don't think anyone here at refuted that.
However, Tom is right in that just because this guy has shown non-favorable opinions of blacks in the past, does not necessarily mean we can assume that is the single factor he is using in opposing Rice. With his track record on race, it may be a contributing factor, but may not be the sole factor.
So what is the debate here? Is it a debate on whether or not Byrd is racist? Or whether or not Rice is a good choice?
Farmgirl
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Oh brother….. Glad I got under your alls skin. Maybe if you could actually counter some of my points instead of this petty stuff. Anyway, till our next conservative bashing-defending session This one started out so fun too
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Well, you could either make some points, or you could respond to any of the posts that have been about the posted article.
FG - my point was that the article posted does indeed make it look as if Byrd opposes Rice for purely racist reasons. Which does not mean it's at all accurate or complete, only that it's slanted.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I'll start off with a statement that is sure to draw some fire, especially on these boards.
I'm a Democrat.
Okay...on to the good stuff. Senator Byrd is a proven racist. There is no doubt about that fact. As such, any statement made by Byrd concerning any non-white person will always be viewed through the prism of a racist making yet another racist comment.
The unfortunate part about this is that he is a legally represented member of Congress, and his ignorance concerning race has the potential to overshadow what is essentially a sound argument. Rice is not qualified, on either grounds of morality or competency, to hold the position. What further upsets me about this situation is that her nomination is practically guaranteed precisely because of her race and gender.
Hearing experienced political commentators explain that no one wants to be the person voting agaist the first black female Secretary of State should have been the first nail in the coffin of her nomination. Instead, the PC police are rounding up anyone who disagrees with her nomination, pointing at Byrd and saying "Look, they're racists. That's why they won't approve her!"
Welcome to the new America. Liberty and Freedom for those with deep pockets and the people who agree with them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Maybe if you could actually counter some of my points instead of this petty stuff.
Since you've ignored pretty much every counter to your points, why would this matter?
Further, since you disowned your original contention when you said "I really think Byrd is objecting more out of his blind hatred of Bush then anything else," why should we bother trying to have a serious discussion with you?
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Hearing experienced political commentators explain that no one wants to be the person voting agaist the first black female Secretary of State should have been the first nail in the coffin of her nomination.
Since someone will say this about ever minority/gender first in high goverment posts, you seem to be nailing coffin lids shut for any ethnicity/gender combination that hasn't been approved to a particular office yet.
Dagonee
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Dagonee, You misunderstood me.
The basis on which a candidate should be approved should be determined by criteria that have nothing to do with race or sex. To nominate someone solely because of their race or gender, or to nominate someone to avoid the perception that you might be racist is an ignorant politically correct move. I supported Colin Powell's nomination because he was an intelligent, experienced person, who had the right skills for the job. When he was nominated, his race wasn't mentioned at all, not even by Byrd.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Surely you're not claiming Rice was nominated solely because of her race?
quote:When he was nominated, his race wasn't mentioned at all,
And this is patently false - his race was mentioned, in the same kind of comment, by lots of political commentators.
Dagonee
[ January 25, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
Rice is 50 years old?!? Wow, I'd've never guessed.
Quick advice, Jay: stop, take a deep breath, and argue with people only after repeating to yourself the following little mantra—
"My opponents are human, too. Their views derive from their own beliefs, which are contingent on the lives they've led and the experiences they've had. They are not ogres. They feel love and hate and pain and doubt and joy just as I do. I will never treat their views as purposefully evil, but as genuinely held, if perhaps untenable in the end. When arguing with them, I will stop before impulsively striking out, and I will read two or three times what they have written, making every effort to connect empathically with them and point out respectfully but firmly where I think they've gone wrong."
That's got to be your credo if you're going to successfully influence anyone, friend.
[ January 25, 2005, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: David Bowles ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
quote:Maybe if you could actually counter some of my points instead of this petty stuff.
And when a citation is made to a source countering what you said, it is "obvious leftist bias." Oddly, that wouldn't make it any more incorrect, that would only mean you are unwilling to listen to counters.
I'm not listing my various certifications because it is frankly none of your business. Furthermore, since your degree has nothing to do with the issue you are arguing, you gained zero credibility to begin with. Beating that dead horse and bickering over whose degree is better than the others is useless, though if mere certification trumps another's view then both you and I would be dwarfed by some others who post here more often than I. In the real world, things just don't work that way.
I know plenty of people who haven't thunk an original thought in their lives who have degrees in all sorts of fields, so you stating that as a defense was quite lacking from the start. Learn what it is like to not toe the line so much and you will find it rather liberating.
Oh, and I registered over a decade ago as a Republican.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
In the introduction of his book, it came out around last August, Byrd states that the Bush administration "is systematically, relentlessly and with stubborn arrogance making a mockery of these constitutional mandates through subterfuge, warmongering and intimidation of a Congress that is cowed, timid, and deferential."
If Byrd understands Rice to be a party to these tendencies, which he does, I think that it's safe to say that his problems with Rice are political and not racial.
[ January 25, 2005, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
quote:Your site saying that Bush uses polls was kind of funny. Inaccurate and leftist of course.
quote: I’m not sure I ever hear ideas from Democrats.
I have yet to hear one from you, so I would be careful about saying that.
quote: Whatever, I stand by my points
What were those again?
quote:So if it’s racist to block them because they are a conservative minority, guess that means the Democrats are no longer the party of the minority races.
If that is the only reason you need to object to their nomination then it is racism. If there are other issues that cause you to object then it might not be.
The fact that someone IS a minority doesn't mean that every person who disagrees with them is a racist..and not every person who agrees with the decision of a racist is one either....there could be many possible reasons why someone wouldn't want to confirm this nomination. Some may object to her honesty (or lack of), some to her past job performance....and some to her race, as awful as it is.
But to lump Byrd and Kennedy into the same "racist" category just because they both oppose her nomination is stupid.
Where did you get that degree again?
I want to make sure I don't send my kids there.
[ January 25, 2005, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Tom, why do you believe using race as a political tool is racist? It seems pragmatic to me. If there really is an advantage to doing so, I am not seeing the racism in recognizing it. The advantage is presumably real. Where is the racism in admitting it?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Byrd is clearly a racist and a bad person, perhaps even moreso than (e.g.) Trent Lott, although surely not as much as Thurmond was.
But damned if he hasn't given some lovely, eloquent speeches against the war.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Dagonee, Sorry for taking so long to reply (seriously, what are you people doing on here at 1:00 A.M?)
It's sometimes difficult to eloquently express thoughts and ideas on a message board (or e-mail). When I said that race was never an issue in regards to Colin Powells nomination, I was speaking specifically to the perceived notion that to not nominate him was somehow racially motivated.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well congratulations to her! Congratulations everyone!! Lets see how many nations we can alienate when the Secretary of State has absolutely no desire to even attempt diplomacy and avert the blunt actions of our war-mongering President!! Yeah!! Congratulations us!!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As long as you're making basesless predictions about the future, do you mind sliding some hot stock tips my way?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Sure Dagonee. I'm always willing to help!
Buy Haliburton, Lockheed-Martin, Titan, and ChoicePoint. All of these should be good for at least 4 to 6 more years.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, touche. Well done.
Allow me to respond thusly:
Posted by adam613 (Member # 5522) on :
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Is it really baseless to predict that having Codoleeza Rice as Secretary of State is going to lead to us alienating foreign countries? I don't know, I'd figure that would be judging someone on their record. It's possible that she won't do as she has done, but I don't think suggesting that she is going to can be accurately characterized as baseless.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
She was in a position where her responsibility was not to negotiate or engage in diplomacy. If she does as she has done, it would mean she was either a bad NSA or will be a bad Secretary of State.
Dagonee
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Sorry, I was talking about the active and apparently whole hearted support of a foreign policy that understandibly alienated many other countries. I'd agree that if she acted the same way as Sec of State as she did as NSA, she'd be a bad Sec of State, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about the apparent goals she has actively supported and her demonstrated lack of character and trustworthiness. I probably should have thrown in her inexperience with diplomacy too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's no surprise, though, that Bush is nominating a Secretary of State who supports his agenda. If that's what's alienating, then the alienation happened Nov. 2, not this morning.
Dagonee
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Mr Squicky, I tend to agree with you.
All we can do now is wait and see what happens. Unfortunately, Rice has been loyal to the point of fanaticism when it comes to the Hand Puppet, and I don't expect her to take a different approach as Secretary of State.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Dagonee, what made Colin Powell such a good Secretary of State was his ability to support the administrations agenda, but to do it within a diplomatically acceptable context. I sincerely doubt that he agreed with the majority of situations he found himself involved in, but he had an inate ability to provide damage-control. Rice doesn't seem to have this ability, and I think we're going to suffer for it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I pretty much agree that the big alienating thing was Geogre Bush's reelection, but the selection of a Secretary of State is a big factor for the future. Our current Secretary of State has displayed a contempt for the opinions of other countries, a record of not being particularly worthy of trust, and very little diplomatic experience. Based on these things, I don't think it's baseless to say that she is going to alienate other countries more than other possible candidates for the position would have. As I also said, it's entirely possible that she'll act very differently, but based on what she's shown, I think predicting that she will alienate other countries is a good bet.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It's no surprise, though, that Bush is nominating a Secretary of State who supports his agenda. If that's what's alienating, then the alienation happened Nov. 2, not this morning.
I understand, but is there something wrong with the Senate being obliged to rubber stamp Bush's appointments? If I were a Senator, I'd probably vote for her, after making sure the hearing was as contentious as it needed to be, but there seems to be something neglectful in approving her merely on the strength of the President's victory in Nov.
[ January 26, 2005, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It looked pretty contentious to me. I don't consider it a rubber stamp.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)