http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/spring04/005942.htm

Robert C. Byrd
Losing America
Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency
A ringing call to action by one of the country's longest serving and most respected legislators.

In the months and years following September 11, Senator Robert C. Byrd has viewed with alarm what he considers to be a "slow unraveling of the people's liberties," when all dissenting voices were stilled and awesome power swung suddenly to the president to fight a "war on terror."

This path violates historic American principles—it shows no regard for the balance of powers or the role of the Congress; it invades our privacy; and it eliminates public participation in and understanding of government. Swept along, we have entered a war without proper consideration and rushed dangerous legislation through Congress.

Now is the time to regain the Constitution, to return to the values and processes that made America great. Byrd does not shrink from speaking the truth to an ever more aggressive and imperial White House.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, author of a four-volume history of the U.S. Senate, has served in the Congress for fifty-one years, forty-five of them as a senator.

Robert Byrd is an outstanding senator and a true patriot.

Robert Byrd has been a member of the Ku Klux Klan and is still known to use the "n" word, despite having renounced his racist past.

I agree he has written some powerful speeches regarding this administration and the war, but it's hard to forget where he comes from.

OOOh....I did not know that he had been a member of the KKK. That is terrible..and my vision of him comes crashing down. People can change perhaps but having been a member of the KKK...wow...can anyone come that full circle? How in the world does he win re-election? Thought all the former Dixiecrat KKKers turned Republican like Stom Thurmond.

LOL, yea he was the majority leader for a while:

http://leader.linkexchange.com/X1654284/showiframe?
http://www.strangecosmos.com/content/item/6566.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2075662/

As a Catholic I believe everyone can be redeemed.

Byrd has renounced his past association with the KKK and the one time he used the 'N' word it was in relation to whites.

I know about the "white nigger" story in the Fox News interview, James, but that's not what I'm referring to (although that alone is of questionable taste as the "n" word has such offensive connotations, so offensive that most print articles will only refer to it as "the 'n' word" or print it like a curse word, as in "n*gger). But apparently Byrd also publicly used the "n" word in the Senate in 2002:

from: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=30035


Aside from having been a "Kleagle" for the KKK--someone who was paid $10 a head for each person he recruited into the KKK--he also voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yes, I suppose people can change, but Byrd's use of the "n" word in recent years has to make you wonder if a tiger can ever truly change its stripes.

Quoting a neocon misinformation site cuts no slack with me. I don't believe in prejudging people for actions they took 40 or more years ago but for what they are doing now. That's just a conservative no-tolerance mindset.

And now Byrd has a pretty good record on civil rights:

Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)

Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)

Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)

First of all, it's not "prejudging" when it's based on something that's already happened. To "prejudge," means to judge before the facts.

In addition, he's still using the "n" word, so it's not a matter of something that's all in the past.

You say Byrd's more recent civil rights record is good, and you cite votes on sexual orientation and money for minorites and businesses. But he voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. I know, there may be more to this vote than meets the eye, as with Kerry's voting against and then for the Iraq resolution. But coming from a one-time racist, this vote seems suspicious.

Also, James, it can't be that every time you disagree with someone you discount what they're saying by telling them they're citing conservative sources. Conservative sources are not always wrong. The fact is that liberals are a lot less likely to criticize Democrats than are conservatives, and vice versa. And some of their criticisms are valid. We are not perfect, and some of our actions do deserve criticism, whether coming from the right or the left. So there are truths that are glossed over by liberals.

I will grant you that people CAN change. But if Byrd has made such a turn-about on issues of racism, I'd think he'd stop using that "n" word.

You're prejudging what he has to say now based on his activities and votes of over 40 years ago. Everyone can change. Byrd has renouced his past associations and his past civil rights record. But a zero tolerance never forgiving the past mind set is most of what wrong with this country and the world. It's why the Israelis and Palestinians are still at each other's throats after 50 years. It's why whites and blacks are still divided in this country 150 years after the civil war.

As far as the 'N' word he's used it in relation to whites. Not as a derogatory word against blacks. There is a difference.

And World Net Daily is a notorious right wing misinformation site. You can't say they're liars when the say something bad about someone you like, then turn around and quote them just cause they are saying something bad about someone you don't like. That's just moral relativism and hypocrisy. Zero credibility is zero credibility. Unless you think these articles about Al Gore are completely truthful and credible:
The hallucinations of Al Gore

Losing, Al Gore style

Al Gore's temper tantrum

Have you no decency, Al?

How Gore reinvented greed

The Clinton-Gore way of counting

The last resort of a scoundrel

Be a man, Al: Concede

Gore not cut of presidential cloth

Gore's loose marbles

I never said I didn't like Robert Byrd. I said I think he's shaky on civil rights. But I also disagree with you that just because a conservative outfit says things we don't like about liberals that they are necessarily always making things up. Do you know for a fact that Byrd never said the "n" word in the Senate?

But really, James, it's irrelevant. I was merely pointing out that Byrd is not the saint some make him out to be. I have applauded his stand against Bush and the war in Iraq. He has made some brilliant speeches about that. I just question exactly where his heart is in regard to racism.

I don't say people can't change. But I'd be very uncomfortable allowing a convicted pedophile to live in the same neighborhood amongst my children. And I think reserving some measure of skepticism regarding Byrd's reformed attitude about racism is not a big stretch. Perhaps I am simply not as trusting as you. That doesn't make me a person of zero tolerance.

As far as this war goes, he had almost been alone in the Senate with his zeal in speaking out against it. Many young people from the left look up to him and he has been good for the party the last few years. He needs not use the N word..no place for that and he is no saint..however..sometimes older people say embarrasing things..believe me, my grandmother did..simply because they can be so set in their ways.

It says a lot for him to have come full circle like that.

As for the news sources, this one I am not so sure about but when I see stories by NewsMax or ones like it, I automatically take it with a grain of salt and try not to get upset about what they write.

My in-laws used the "n" word until the day they died, despite my husband and me trying to enlighten them as to how wrong it was. They didn't necessarily even mean anything bad by it--they'd just grown up hearing it all their lives. They were good people (Democrats, even!), and yet when you'd hear them talking about blacks in town, you could hear the racism and prejudice lurking behind what they were saying. The stereotypes, the negative images, the condemning of a whole race on the actions of a few. So all I was saying is that Byrd has strong racism in his past, and he may or may not be totally free of his old ways of thinking. And yes, I agree, Erin, that stories from conservative outfits have to be taken with a grain of salt, but like I said, that doesn't always mean they're lying.

This whole discussion has gone far beyond what it was ever meant to be. I was responding to a comment in this thread about Byrd being a a great and patriotic American. Well, he may be that, but I was just pointing out that those of us who are old enough to remember the 60s well remember Byrd as a horse of another color. Even you, Erin, said you were unaware that Byrd had been a member of the KKK. Was I wrong for exposing that? And I think that any person who is currently capable of calling people "white n*ggers" is probably not 100% free of his past.

Is it okay to say someone is an Italian JAP (Jewish American Princess)? As a person of half-Jewish descent, I find references like this offensive. Would a hispanic person be offended upon hearing someone say a person is a white pepperbelly? I think you get my drift. I'm not sure why we should excuse Byrd's use of the word n*gger just because he prefaced it with the word "white" and because his stand on the war in Iraq is admirable. His indiscretion in using that word doesn't make him an all-bad person. But I don't see where it's wrong of me to point out these facts about him.

. . . and let's be honest, you guys. If this were Bush or Cheney or some other neocon who'd been a member of the KKK and used the "n" word in recent years (even with the word "white" in front of it), we'd be all over him for it.

Double standards are wrong no matter which side of the fence you're on.

OK Sorry for the misunderstanding. I mistook your comment for saying the his critisizms of Bush had no credibility because of his past.

Zero credibility is zero credibility. I post several articles on Al Gore from WorldNetDaily. Do any of them have credibility in you your eyes? I don't think they do. You can't have both ways and denounce them when they say bad things about someone you like but quote them when they do the same to someone you don't like. That's just ethics of convience.

I never said he didn't. But I would want to know when he did and in what context before I denounced it.

Who was calling him a saint? I know I wasn't. I disagree with him on many issues. But he has renouced his past and I give the man credit for that.

Then why bring up his past in the first place. The thread was about his comments regarding Bush & the war, not about civil right. You're the one that interjected his past rather than sticking to the issue of what he said.

Comparing Byrd to a pedophile. Now you sound like Rick Santorum. That's a totally unfair comparison. And questioning what he says now on any issue just because of his activities over 50 years ago, that he has since renounced, is a zero tolerance additude.

Again it would depend on what context that it was used. I remember a few years ago during the Trent Lott flap. I like most on the left realized he was just being nice to Strom Thumond and meant nothing by it. It was the right that went after his for it because he wasn't always in lockstep with Bush. They used an innocent comment against the man for political reasons.

As I said before, a liberal outfit isn't quick to criticize liberals, even when they deserve to be criticized. Sometimes, you need to look outside of those sources to learn things you wouldn't otherwise hear about. The converse is also true. Do you think conservative outfits discuss Bush's lies and deceptions? Obviously not. But we know it's the truth.

My original post that started this whole thing was actually in response to something ap215 wrote, to the effect that Byrd was a great and patriotic American. I thought it was relevant to point out that Byrd has this "murkiness" in his past, and that therefore, some would have a different opinion of him.

As I said, the original comment was made in response to the observation that he was a great and patriotic American--a general statement about the man's character. Again, his racist past has some bearing on his character.

Really, James. I did not compare Byrd to a pedophile. I made an analogy. I have to wonder how black people now feel about Byrd, and I'd have to wonder how they'd feel having him living in their neighborhood. Maybe all has been forgiven by them? If that's true, then fine. But I didn't compare him to a pedophile, and you know it.

I will clarify once more, for the record. I think Byrd has given some brilliant speeches regarding Bush and the war in Iraq. I applaud him for that. I never said otherwise. And perhaps he has fully redeemed himself regarding his racist past. I just question whether the continued use of the "n" is indicative of some left-over attitudes from the bad old days. And yes, James, you're right: His racist attitudes are not relevant to his views on Iraq or Bush.

Okay?

We're not talking about the Wall Street Journal or even the National Review here. We're talking about a WorldNetDaily, a notorious NeoCon misinformation site. Either they are credible or they are not. You can't say they are credible when they are criticizing people you don't like but they aren't credible when they criticize people you do like. That's just moral relativism and hypocrisy.

A past that he has renounced. And Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. Do you think he wasn't a great and patriotic American?

And the fact that he has renounced that past has no bearing on his character?

Then its a poor analogy.

One use of the 'N' word and done so in reference to whites not blacks.

You and I simply don't agree on this subject. Everything I say is either wrong, or hypocritical, or irrelevant, or a poor analogy, or something. So I give up. I don't have the energy to continue arguing the same points over and over again. I gave up on the Martha Stewart thread. You win. As I said over there, you're right about everything.

I don't want to play anymore. :tongue:

Found this:

The Intolerable Robert Byrd

I continue to be astounded by the unmitigated gall of Senator Robert Byrd, the racist, pork-barrel specialist, Democratic senator from West Virginia. In additon to the previous outrageousness we've had to endure from this assclown, now we're compelled to listen to his criticisms of President Bush's landing and visit to the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln for a televised speech last week.

Along with his fellow Democrat whiners, the cost of the trip to the Lincoln is now being questioned. What these idiots don't seem to understand that the "cost" of the President grabbing a seat in that S-3 and flying out to that ship is miniscule alongside the morale boost it provided the crew of that ship and the people of this nation. As I commented here after the speech, it also sends a message to the rest of the world, one we've needed to send certain nations for a long time: don't mess with us.

But, it isn't the liberal whining about money that bothers me (all of a sudden they care about how my money's being spent?). What's bothering me is that, once again, Robert Byrd is opening his crusty old yapper, spouting the most incredulous crap and getting away with it. I fail to understand why this man, who has a record of racist activity and commentary, who filibustered against every major civil rights bill in the Sixties, has fought against the nominations of both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and who even played a Confederate general in a recent movie, has managed to be revered as such a statesman during his interminable run in the United States Senate. I doubt you would be able to find a single human being in the history of our nation who has managed to redirect more of the taxpayers money to his state, for the most meaningless projects, while proudly having his name slapped on every one of them.

In spite of his colorful past, Mr. Byrd gets a pass on everything he's ever done and said. The well-documented fact that he was not only a leader in a West Virginia Ku Klux Klan group, but encouraged their growth after he allegedly quit the organization seems to not mean much to the uaually intolerant left. Even his use of the expression "white n***ers" in a live interview on Fox News back in March 2001 failed to stir up a lot of rage in political circles, except perhaps among those rascally conservatives. I won't spell out that word here, but not out of some honor to political correctness. You see, I think the word is insulting and degrading, and just saying it invokes a specific negative concept in the minds of most people. Unfortunately, Mr. Byrd seemed to think that by sticking the word "white" in front of it, dropping an n-bomb on national television was acceptable. I believe "white trash" would have been a better term to use. Perhaps Mr. Byrd thought that expression might hit too close to home.

Now he's upset about the President's trip to the carrier:

I am loath to think of an aircraft carrier being used as an advertising backdrop for a presidential political slogan, and yet that is what I saw.

Senator, I'm loathe to think that you, a former galloping ghost of the town kleagle, haven't figured out that this was no slogan. This was the act of a man who, unlike yourself, had the profound responsibility to send military people to war, and this was his way of both welcoming them home and facing the American public to tell them of the end of the conflict. I haven't been in the Senate for 46 years, and I was able to figure this out.

I do not begrudge his salute to America's warriors aboard the carrier Lincoln, for they have performed bravely...but I do question the motives of a desk-bound president who assumes the garb of a warrior for the purposes of a speech.

Garb of a warrior? OK, Bob, now the gloves are off. First of all, we need a President that will appear to be a warrior. The rest of the world laughed at us from 1992 through 2000 because the occupant of the White House was more concerned about scoring chicks and burning down houses full of religious zealots then he was about the deaths of some of his own military people in places they shouldn't have been in the first place. (I'm assuming you saw Blackhawk Down?) So, if it's okay with you, most of the rest of us don't have too much grief over the Commander-in-Chief putting on a flight suit and taking a hop out to a carrier. Many of his detractors have criticized the President's own past military service, but the fact was he was a pilot in the National Guard, and he does know something about flying, so that gives him a whole frickin' boatload more experience than you, Senator Lynch 'Em. In fact, I even visited your web site and I didn't see anything in your bio about military service of any kind. I noticed that you did some welding during the second war. I guess you were needed here at home, you know, to help your fellow nightriders keep those dark people in line, huh?

As for desk-bound: Senator, I didn't see you standing on that pile of rubble in New York on September 13, 2001, bullhorn in hand, warning the people responsible that we were coming to get them. I didn't see you on the deck of that carrier, or visiting other military installations during the war to show your support. I don't see you all over the nation, visiting schools and factories, and conversing with business owners, and telling people that you want to cut their taxes because the money belongs to them. This comment comes from a man who's so busy with his own self-aggrandization that he doesn't see that his state is ranked next to last in per-capita income and has been 9 times between 1990 and 2001 (they were 48th the other three times). By the way, Mr. Byrd, did you know that your state also ranks 4th in the amount of federal tax expenditures each year? And, that's up from 7th in 1990! Nice job! So we spend more tax money in West Virginia than we do in 46 other states, yet the average annual income in your state is near the bottom. Maybe someone else needs to get up from his desk every now and then, what d'ya think?

To me, it is an affront to the Americans killed or injured in Iraq for the president to exploit the trappings of war for the momentary spectacle of a speech.

To me, it is an affront that a racist, a former member of one of the most violent hate groups in history, would have the gall to stand on the floor of the Senate and attack the President because he wanted to greet the sailors of that ship in grand style as they arrived home from war. I wonder if the Senator kept the television on after the speech, to see the men and women of that ship crowding around and pressing forward to greet Mr. Bush as he made his way around the deck. The affront to me is that this bigoted old gasbag somehow manages to get himself reelected time after time, that he's managed to skirt the darkness of his past and get the people of his state, and God knows how many Black people, to keep returning him for another term of endless speeches and legal thievery of the national treasury. I have to keep reminding myself that this senile old man is a Democrat, which means, because of some twist in the fabric of political history, he gets a free pass on his own personal history, use of nasty colloquialisms, and bad acting in Civil War movies.

I'm trying to imagine some Republican senator donning a German SS uniform to act in a movie because he had some distant relative who fought there in WWII and he wanted to preserve his personal history. Think of the political potboiler that would be.

Since we're on the subject, I understand that the 'ol Senator had something else to say about the miliary back in 1946, specifically about its desegregation:

[I will] never submit to fight beneath that banner [the American flag] with a Negro by my side. Rather would I 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.

I don't know if the Senator noticed, but may of the faces on that ship were Black. And, Senator, the men and women with those Black faces? Just want you to know that they don't work as waiters, or busboys, or porters. You know, like the kind of high-paying jobs available in West Virginia? No, Senator, those young people work alongside white folks, and Hispanic folks, and Asian folks. They launch and recover aircraft, the ones that our taxes pay for (at least those taxes that you haven't confiscated for some highway service road or new federal office building). They load ordnance. They do the technical repair and maintenance on the planes and the ship. Some of them even actually fly the planes or navagate that big ship. And, back on the ground, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, some of those Black faces fly helicopters, and drive tanks and Bradleys. Many of them carry a rifle and walk alongside their fellow soldiers.

And some of them die under that banner you're alleged to be so proud of. They don't die a thousand times, but only the one time it happens for all of us. And, standing over them are their comrades, no doubt some with white faces streaked with tears of sorrow because their buddy is gone. They die because they believe in something they can't hold in their hand, in something that transcends color and politics and the rantings of a narrow-minded, stupid old man who will be judged for his past in another place and time. They die because they don't want some invader attacking our nation and trying to trample Old Glory in the dirt.

That, Senator Byrd, is something that you will never understand.

Also, here is the quote in question:

On March 4, 2001, an interview with FOX News Sunday host Tony Snow was aired. In the interview Byrd was asked about race relations: "They are much, much better than they've ever been in my lifetime," Byrd said. "I think we talk about race too much. I think those problems are largely behind us... I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion. I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that." Then Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."

"We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."

Byrd's office later issued an apology.

"I apologize for the characterization I used on this program. The phrase dates back to my boyhood and has no place in today's society. As for my language, I had no intention of casting aspersions on anyone of another race."

Great speech here:

http://www.radiopower.org/robertbyrd.html

Also:

http://www.evote.com/features/2001-12/121901byrd.asp

Although I absolutley hate his past and some of his current comments about race, he is a real patriot. There were alot of americans in that time that joined just because it was a way of life where they lived. However, I have read he wasn't that active and now regrets even joining.