posted
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
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1572 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
That’s fine Tom, but you’re just proofing my point that it’s only extremist leftists who oppose her since you are one!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
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?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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
Posts: 11265 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 2473 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
