47 Comments

1. richard mcenroe:

No, it’s not. Remember, Rice is not a “real” black woman, just like Estrada and Gonzales are not “real” Hispanics. Just ask the pasty bigots of the Democratic Party.

Jan 25, 2005 - 10:22 pm 2. Katherine:

Richard,

Absolutely unbelievable. And how the hell this old bastard can get away with it?

Jan 25, 2005 - 10:37 pm 3. richard mcenroe:

Katherine ó You should be asking your local newspapers and your favorite TV news programs that.

And for the record… the above is a hideous scrolling accident of science. I was just trying to grab the quotes. For the record, “my” post starts at Byrd voted against the Civil Rights Act. If he had his way, not only would Condoleeza Rice not be secretary of state, she would not be allowed to vote.

The original blog from which I was trying to excerpt the quotes can be found at Power and Control . My apologies to the author and full acknowledgment of his authorshop of the other material.

Jan 25, 2005 - 10:45 pm 4. richard mcenroe:

Byrd filibustered and voted against the Civil Rights Act. If he had his way, not only would Condoleeza Rice not be secretary of state, she would not be allowed to vote.

In 2000, Hillary told a NARAL rally that the Republicans wanted to take away a woman’s right to vote. In 2004, John Edwards told a NARAL rally Republicans wanted to take away a woman’s right to learn to read. But only Robert K. Byrd stepped up and did anything about it, by gum

Byrd voted against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, votes that made him the only Senator to have opposed the only two black Supreme Court nominees in U.S. history.

Byrd wasn’t just a member of the KKK but was a “Kleagle” — an official recruiter who signed up members for $10 a head. He wasn’t just a Klansman, he was a Klan pimp, spreading their poison for pretty pathetic pay.

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

Byrd also wrote that he would never fight “with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

Where is the Congressional Black Caucus (Democrats all, since they won’t admit African-American Republicans) on this? Where is Barack Obama?

Jan 25, 2005 - 10:53 pm 5. richard mcenroe:

In fact, now that I think about it…

Barrack Obama Drop him an e-mail and ask “the future of the Democratic Party” how he feels about the company he keeps…

Jan 25, 2005 - 11:08 pm 6. Word Guy:

Ah yes, the ex-Kleagle lecturing a black woman from Birmingham whose childhood friend, eleven-year-old Denise McNair, was blown to bits by a dynamite bomb with three other girls in the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church one year before Byrd voted against the Civil Rights Act.

And he’s applauded in “progressive” circles for deriding her. Hey, his votes against Marshall and Thomas never cost him a thing. Can you possibly imagine if the party affiliations were reversed? Say a Republican ex-Bundist voting against Madeline Albright? Or even Strom Thurmond compiling an anti-black track record like Byrd’s. Amazing how that (D) after your name gives you a halo. Over your hood.

Shame.

Jan 25, 2005 - 11:09 pm 7. David Thomson:

ìAnd how the hell this old bastard can get away with it?î

Robert Byrd is not getting away with it! The blogging community is already taking action. This will increase the marginalization of the national Democratic Party; another nail is being driving into their coffin. It would not surprise me in the least if by 2008—the Democratic Party will be unable to even count on even 40% of the voting public to support its presidential nominee. Democrats will remain viable only in races for the US Senate, House of Representatives, and within the individual states.

I’m convinced that Barrack Obama is already distancing himself from Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Robert Byrd. He is already becoming a thorn in their side. Iím betting that they soon will wish that Alan Keyes had defeated him.

Jan 25, 2005 - 11:29 pm 8. lindenen:

How is Obama already becoming a thorn in their side? Details, por favor.

Jan 25, 2005 - 11:36 pm 9. David Thomson:

ìHow is Obama already becoming a thorn in their side? Details, por favor.î

Please note that Barrack Obama is ensconced in a very safe US Senate seat. And yet, he is is supporting Condoleeza Rice and shunning the far left wing of his party. I may be among the first to point this out—but Iím confident that more will notice in the very near future.

Now for some fun. The following link to a Volkswagen ìadvertisementî is utterly off topic. Still, a few people might find it funny:

http://www.boreme.com/bm/JAN05/a/vw-suicide-bomber/fr.htm

Jan 25, 2005 - 11:57 pm 10. windowlicker:

The Dems are completely tone-deaf. What can one say about loser John Kerry blocking the confirmation but “class act John, way to go for 2008.”

Then there’s this.

Jan 26, 2005 - 12:24 am 11. Harry:

“I’m convinced that Barrack Obama is already distancing himself from Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Robert Byrd.”

Er…. right. This is not about left or right particularly. Robert Byrd is not on the left of the party anyway, and Obama voting through Rice means little.

Jan 26, 2005 - 1:38 am 12. notthisgirl:

Well, this topic was being discussed on the Imus show this morning on MSNBC.

Later, he had Mike Barnacle(sp) on who works for the Boston Herald and is an MSNBC contributor. He likened Condi Rice to an “intellegent clerk for the Department of Motor Vehicles”. This is a paraphrase – but nearly exact quote. There should probably be a transcript of his show available relatively soon I’d guess.

I suppose that’s not surprising coming from an admitted Liberal who voted for John Kerry.

Are these people just pissed off because the Democrats didn’t get to post a black woman to a cabinet position first? Somehow that wouldn’t surprise me either …

And we are now seeing Hillary Clinton changing her spots right before our eyes … too funny!

Jan 26, 2005 - 4:49 am 13. Hermie:

The Republicans had Helms and Thurmond, and they were cited for decades by the Democrats and MSM as examples of Republicans’ racism.

The Democrats have Byrd, an actual KKK leader, and the MSM goes out of its way to hide his membership and call him a ’statesman’ and an ‘expert’ in the Constitution.

Yet Byrd’s KKK activities would’ve stripped away Constitutional protections from minorities, and have kept political office in the hands of rich white people like himself, Kennedy, Boxer, Kerry, Dayton, etc.

A prime example of how the Democrats are the party of hypocrites.

Jan 26, 2005 - 4:54 am 14. jedrury:

After a brief interlude of what passes for “fair and balanced” reporting, with Brokaw exiting stage left and Brian Williams entering as the

new boy of the block, NBS came out of it shell yesterday with a highly biased report of the Senate floor debate on Condi. The report was framed with excerpts from the Senate speeches of Kennedy, Levin, Byrd and Boxer set against the drone of Chuck Hagel. Everybody knows Hagel as second chair to the “Conscience of the Nation,” John McCain. Sorry, has my irony gotten the better of me?

Jan 26, 2005 - 4:57 am 15. Rhod:

Byrd is the most nausea-inducing member of the Senate if you discount Ted Kennedy.

He, Byrd, also amplifies the problems this thing called the Democratic Party suffers from today. Never mind an objective morality. The Democrats don’t even have a consistent or vital secular morality, which would exclude this disgusting and vile creature. The only thing that relieves Byrd’s presence is that on a good day, he’s worth a cynical laugh or two.

Even Karl Rove couldn’t have invented Byrd. A senile, arrogant, silver-haired, pontificating Southern racist diplomat in a silver-gray suit. It’s beyond satire.

Jan 26, 2005 - 4:58 am 16. jj:

Senator Byrd is fond of oration as an art form, and he does love an audience. I don’t believe he is the same person as he was years ago. As to the treatment of Condi Rice, it may be embarrassing, but the Dems are making a statement. They’re telling her that she’s in the big leagues now and that she is accountable to Congress. They’re also not happy with the President and giving him just the faintest whiff of what a real confirmation fight can be like. Can you imagine having to listen to Byrd and Boxer for weeks on end?

Jan 26, 2005 - 5:44 am 17. Patrick Tyson:

In 1971 George McGovern objected to a possible Supreme Court nomination for his Senate colleague and fellow Democrat Robert Byrd with the remarkable words, “I cannot accept a man who is mediocre, who is racist and who is unethical, for membership on the U.S. Supreme Court” — a prose portrait of Sen. Byrd that is difficult to reconcile with his more recent role as the “conscience of the Senate” during the Clinton impeachment trial.

http://www.policyreview.org/oct99/cox.html

This was a big topic on a fast-growing form of talk radio and on certain bulletin boards after Senator Byrd announced he was going to vote against confirming Clarence Thomas following that (in)famous weekend in 1991 because, as he put it, it was painfully obvious that it was Anita Hill who was telling the truth.

I’d vote to confirm Rice, but were I a constant and very vocal critic of the post-9/11 foreign and domestic policy of the United States, as is Senator Byrd, I’d see her appointment as one more bad choice and, having been in office for 46 years, I don’t think I’d spend much time worrying as to what the consequences would be if I said so. After all, “conservatives” of a certain type have been trying to defeat him at the polls since 1982.

Jan 26, 2005 - 5:51 am 18. David Thomson:

ì…and Obama voting through Rice means little.î

We will find out soon enough if Iím getting too optimistic concerning Senator Barrack Obama. One thing we know for sure: he is not another Tim Johnson who must worry about being reelected in the very red state of South Dakota! Obama is safely ensconced in Illinois and can pretty well do what he so desires. Why hasnít he joined the Condoleeza Rice lynching (pun is intended) party? I strongly suspect that this new senator will be a force for moderation within the Democratic Party. Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, knock on wood, are going to hate his guts.

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:13 am 19. charlotte:

(I posted these haikus elsewhere:)

“Ain’t no Rice puddin’

like my lily white mamas’!”

bellowed Bobby Byrd.

“Iraq is a mess!

You need to get cleaning, girl,”

barked Boxer to her.

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:15 am 20. Rick Ballard:

Couldn’t agree more, Patrick. Having Kleagle Byrd and the Hero of Chapaquidick as the true face of Democrat Party conviction provides perfect evidence of the depth and strength of the party. It’s a pity that Torricelli isn’t still there. He would give ethical weight to this assemblage of principled Dems. At least the Clinton weathervane spins on.

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:17 am 21. Knucklehead:

Lindenen,

I don’t know about “Thorn in the side”, but here’s a link to the transcript of first day of the Foreign Relations Committee’s hearings re: Dr. Rice – Jan. 18 transcript

Obama’s questioning is roughly in the middle of the transcript. After the obligatory stuff about MLK and such he goes on to phrase reasonable questions to Dr. Rice like a sane human being doing the job he was elected to do. Others who questioned behaved reasonably sanely, but the Dems should take Obama’s tact as a lesson in how to behave like intelligent adults. They won’t. They will continue to tolerate – no, not tolerate, encourage and admire – the behavior of Byrd, Kennedy, Biden, and Boxer. These people are bigots, not liberals.

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:21 am 22. charlotte:

Actually, I think this unconscionable situation works for Obama. He merely need not join in the lynching to look like one of those rare bird moderate Dems and position himself well for an ‘08 run with Hill. However, people like me will see his and Hillary’s complete lack of outrage at how their Party is behaving as craven, unprincipled, and self-serving. Obama simply voting in the majority for Rice is not near enough for a few of us. Feh.

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:27 am 23. R C Dean:

After the obligatory stuff about MLK and such he goes on to phrase reasonable questions to Dr. Rice like a sane human being doing the job he was elected to do.

Color me unimpressed. He already has a case of Senatitus bloviatus – he manages to ask all of one question in that entire mass of turgid prose.

Plus, he gets his facts wrong. He is busting Condi’s chops for the US “underfunding” its AIDS commitment, in blissful ignorance (to be charitable) of the fact that the US commitment is limited to a percentage of total giving by the Euros and others. We have given up to that percentage. When the Euros live up to their end of the deal, we will live up to ours.

Barack Obama will have numerous opportunities to distinguish himself from his odious and mediocre Senate colleagues. Let’s hope he takes them, but he hasn’t done so yet. He’s still brand new, of course, so this isn’t really intended as a criticism, just a reality check.

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:31 am 24. notthisgirl:

One more thing – Andrea Mitchell of NBC was also on Imus this morning. After Imus charactarized Byrd in a very unfavorable light, Mitchell went out of her way to distance herself from his comment on Byrd.

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:41 am 25. ricpic:

Gee, based on this post I expected Byrd to have said something really incindiary about Rice. In fact, all he said was that, in the runnup to the Iraq war she had used overblown rhetoric to scare the American people. You can disagree with what he said. You can present quotes of what she said to prove it wasn’t overblown. But doesn’t he have the right, as a member of the opposition, to make a relatively mild critical statement in the course of the Senate confirmation hearings. Does the fact that he was once a klansman deny him tthe right to criticize Rice in a political, not a racial, manner?

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:46 am 26. Laurence Simon:

Seeing as how Robert Byrd has been hauling billions of pork dollars from Washignton to Third World-like West Virginia, he’s been doing the next best thing to cleaning toilets in Third World orphanages… spending billions of Federal dollars on building all-new clean toilets in West Virginian orphanages.

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:47 am 27. Fausta:

Paranoid as I may be, it seems to me Hilary’s the one to gain over all this. She’s already singing the moderate tune while the rest of her Party sounds more and more deranged. A few months of this and she’ll be the “new voice of moderation”; campaign 2008 will be well on its way.

The Dems lost their way when they turned the Party over to the Clintons. The Party’s over, as far as I’m concerned, and it’s bad news for all of us, since our government needs two viable parties.

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:48 am 28. richard mcenroe:

JJ ó ” I don’t believe he is the same person as he was years ago. ” Sorry, but I don’t aacept that. People capable of spouting that kind of bile don’t change; they just learn what they can get away with in public. The man voted againts civil rights for blacks and against black Supreme Court nominees years, years after he allegedly changed his racist ways.

An “ex”-Klansman is like an “ex”-Nazi. You might go rewatch Dr. Strangelove…

Jan 26, 2005 - 7:22 am 29. David Thomson:

ìParanoid as I may be, it seems to me Hilary’s the one to gain over all this. She’s already singing the moderate tune while the rest of her Party sounds more and more deranged.î

The MSM will not be able to effectively slant their stories in 2008 to help Hillary Clinton. Yes, they will try. I can imagine it now. We will see stories comparing her to Joan of Arc, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher. Senator Clinton will be marketed as a butt kicking war goddess. But this bull slinging nonsense will be ripped apart by the blogging community. The presidential election of 2004 was the last hurrah for the MSM. The are rapidly becoming of secondary importance in the big picture scheme of things.

Jan 26, 2005 - 7:23 am 30. Steve J.:

RICE: Iraq’s aluminum tubes were “only really suited for nuclear weapons”

Energy Department experts and Powell’s own State Department intelligence bureau had already dissented from this CIA view, and on March 7, the U.N. nuclear agency’s ElBaradei said his experts found convincing documentation – and no contrary evidence – that Iraq was using the tubes to make artillery rockets. Link

Jan 26, 2005 - 7:26 am 31. Steve J.:

RICE: And I said, No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon ó I’m paraphrasing now ó into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile. 9/11 Commission

Ms. Rice confirmed in 2002 that information picked up by U.S. intelligence services indicated that an attack might be made on Mr. Bush and other leaders at the July 2001 Group of Eight summit in Genoa, Italy. Former White House officials confirmed that in response to the warning, Italian authorities closed the local airport, restricted airspace and positioned surface-to-air missiles around the city. WSJ, 4/1/04

Jan 26, 2005 - 7:27 am 32. Steve J.:

RICE: But it wasn’t just weapons of mass destruction.

MEMO TO RICE:

“We know for a fact there are weapons there.” – Ari Fleischer, Jan. 9, 2003

“But make no mistake — as I said earlier — we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about.” -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03

Jan 26, 2005 - 7:27 am 33. charlotte:

Oh, gee, Steve J. Same old, same old.

“we [the CIA, Clinton, Albright, many Democrat pols, the '98 Congress, Germany, France, Russia, Israel, Great Britain, Saudi Arabia, Iran and even most Iraqis, etc.] have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction.

That is what this war was about and it is about [among other things we have been articulating, to include Saddam not complying with UN resolutions for full and unfettered inspections, for shooting at US and UK planes in the no-fly zones, on humanitarian grounds for how he has violated his own population, and because of the need to seed democratic reforms in a failed and terrorism exporting Middle East, but it gets unwieldy repeating this message in full for every single press encounter and the UN couldn’t care less about human rights violations and genocide and illegal aggression toward US and UK patrols.” -Ari Fleischer Press Briefing 4/10/03

Jan 26, 2005 - 7:50 am 34. richard mcenroe:

Steve J ó Are you channeling Barbara Boxer?

Go back and read the resolution the Senate voted out. It is an incontrovertible fact that WMD was not the sole casus belli voted on.

And the other WSJ piece refers to recognition of a terrorist threat in one city in Italy. Rice’s testimony was both factual and honest.

With hindsight, could/should that have been extrapolated to a potential threat in the US? Yes. But no one ever shot dinner aiming with hindsight. And what should the US have done once it recognized that threat. Set up missile launchers in every American city? 1) We don’t have that many and 2) Can you imagine the reaction of New York lefties seeing Patriot launchers in Battery Park?

Jan 26, 2005 - 7:52 am 35. OJ:

Byrd is a disgrace to our system of Democracy. How he has managed to remain in the seat is beyond me.

Just so that you know, there are Senators looking to do important work.

http://www.rightviews.com/article.php?id=268

Sure, they are a minority… Kennedy, Boxer et al. are a waste of taxpayer funds. Perhaps they should look to legislating for their citizens as opposed to grandstanding.

Jan 26, 2005 - 8:03 am 36. Sandy P:

Obama’s a socialist and a gun-grabber.

Look at his record.

Jan 26, 2005 - 8:09 am 37. charlotte:

“Robert Byrd of West Virginia said (Rice’s) confirmation would be viewed ‘as another endorsement of the administration’s unconstitutional doctrine of pre-emptive war, its bullying policies of unilateralism, and its callous rejection of our long-standing allies.”

Not that Byrd has ever endorsed pre-emptive action against certain peoples in the past nor been a stand-alone filibustering, blustery bully himself, but I have to wonder: is Byrd saying that not yielding to the anti-US politics and paranoia of France, Germany, and Belgium is far worse than allying with Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Australia, Japan and South Korea? Or, is he saying that Putin’s Russia and Communist China are our “long-standing allies”?

“Byrd filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 14 straight hours… Sen. Byrd was also a fierce opponent of desegregating the military… 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”…

In 2001… Byrd was forced to apologize after he blurted out the N-word twice during a nationally televised interview.”

Quite a salty old dog, but new tricks? I don’t believe it.

Jan 26, 2005 - 8:35 am 38. richard mcenroe:

Now that I think about it, sending this malignant cracker to clean out Third World toilets is an insult to dysentery…

Jan 26, 2005 - 5:07 pm 39. PeterUK:

Off Topic, but a book by BBC staffers proves that some of the current sceptics formerly believed Iraq had WMD.http://highway99.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_highway99_archive.html#110438775416021585

Intersting are the comments about pesticides,tons of which have been found in that “green and pleasant land”

Jan 26, 2005 - 5:20 pm 40. richard mcenroe:

Bruce G over at Little Green Footballs had the perfect description of Condi’s anklebiters: “The Kleagle and the beagle, the boozer and the loser.”

Jan 26, 2005 - 6:30 pm 41. Wallace:

Not to mention that he is also the Pork King of the U.S. Congress. No telling how much of the taxpayers dollars he has syphoned off in useless drivel.

Jan 26, 2005 - 8:20 pm 42. Mr.Zeitgeist:

It is also interesting to note that Senator Ku Klux Byrd proudly portrayed Confederate General Paul J. Semmes (a slave-owner from Georgia)in the recent Civil War movie, “Gods and Generals”. There’s a long scene in which he’s singing “The Bonnie Blue Flag”, along with Ted Turner. Imagine the hue and cry if Trent Lott had done that!

Jan 26, 2005 - 10:00 pm 43. Steve J.:

richard mcenroe:”It is an incontrovertible fact that WMD was not the sole casus belli voted on.”

True and 3 out of 4 have been falsified:

?The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason. There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there’s a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two.The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it’s not a reason to put American kids’ lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there’s the most disagreement within the bureaucracy.”

Paul Wolfowitz’s interview w/ Vanity Fair: Link

Jan 27, 2005 - 12:07 am 44. R C Dean:

There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction,

No chance of Saddam reconstituting his program now, is there? Iraq will never again produce or use WMD on itself or its neighbors, will it? I count that as a plus.

the second is support for terrorism,

Iraq will no longer provide support and sanctuary for terrorists, will it? I count that as a plus as well.

the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people.

While there are still some Baathists and Islamonutters treating the Iraqi people criminally, I would say that at least now the Iraqis have a legitimate chance to build a decent society. I count that as a plus.

What exactly has been falsified? As far as I can tell, we achieved our major short-term goals in Iraq, and have a decent chance of achieving our long-term goals there.

Jan 27, 2005 - 5:14 am 45. richard mcenroe:

Steve J ó That is not the resolution Congress voted on and you know it.

Jan 27, 2005 - 7:51 am 46. doneup:

How many times does it need to be said? We overthrew Sadaam because leaving him there was intolerable after 9/11. If Gore had won he’d have done the same thing. We invaded to demonstrate our credibility after the Axis of Evil speech and to drive a wedge between and put pressure upon the terror sponsoring states of Syria and Iran. Lots of countries have WMD. Sadaam could have been off the hook if he’d just complied with the agreements he signed. He left a legal loophole for invasion that Clinton unsuccessfully tried to use in 1998. It’s interesting to note that No. Korea never signed a peace treaty either and the Korean war is technically only in cease fire. Another example of a stupid statesman is Noriega who made a speech saying that a “state of war exists between Panama and the United States”. The words of rulers have legal meaning.

Jan 28, 2005 - 2:45 am 47. PRIM:

Roger: You’re a BEACON! The Byrd post was indelible. He’s a serpent, and the Democrats’ worship of him as “Mr. Constitution,” is a gift to those of us who believe in seeing more Republicans elected. (Like you, I spent most of my life as a Dem, and am now appalled.)

I’d also like to praise and thank you for bringing Austin Bay’s 2004 email back. I respect Peggy Noonan, but her exhaustion is very tiresome.

Jan 28, 2005 - 6:08 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: