Condi vs The Klansman
I Love Condi Rice, but please don’t tell the wife…
Meanwhile, the Democrats are getting back to their racist roots. Remember - it was the Republicans who freed the slaves after all. Who better to grill a black woman than a former Klansman? (link to Power and Control via Spiced Sass)
“Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to scare the American people,” Sen. Robert Byrd , D-W.Va., said.
Byrd was a local leader of the Ku Klux Klan for a period of time in the early 1940s, holding the title Kleagle; Klan recruiter. In a 1946 letter, he wrote, “The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia.” However, when running for Congress in 1952, he announced, “After about a year, I became disinterested, quit paying my dues, and dropped my membership in the organization. During the nine years that have followed, I have never been interested in the Klan.” Still, in 1964 he opposed the Civil Rights Act.
Senator Byrd quit the Klan in the 1940s and has renounced it since. On the other hand, his history is worth revisiting, since it’s something Democrats have been willing to tolerate, despite Lott-like remarks that would have ended a Republican’s career. Only last year Mr. Byrd told Fox News that “there are white niggers. I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want to use that word. But we all–we all–we just need to work together to make our country a better country and I–I’d just as soon quit talking about it so much.”
Mr. Byrd quickly apologized, but he wasn’t denounced by Democrats, much less by the Clintons. Nor did the press corps use the opportunity to wallow in other Byrd racial lowlights, such as the 14 hours and 13 minutes he spent in an unsuccessful filibuster during the debate over the 1964 civil rights act, which he voted against along with 20 other Senate Democrats. The political press also didn’t dredge up his votes against both Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, votes that made him the only Senator to have opposed the only two black Supreme Court nominees in U.S. history.
9 Comments »
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://therazor.org/wp-trackback.php/309
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Scott -
Byrd was in the KKK, no doubt. What does that have to do with his comments about Rice? Does he in any way discuss her race? Does his history as a bigot and Klansman disqualify him from commenting on her performance as national security advisor?
Who’s playing the race card here?
Cheers -
Comment by Russell — 1/26/2005 @ 2:30 pm
Russ
Personally I think his history as a bigot and Klansman disqualifies him from Congress and civilized society.
Comment by Scott Kirwin — 1/27/2005 @ 9:29 am
Personally, I agree with you. But, his issues with Rice have nothing to do with race. Many conservative “pundits” have made the same point you have, and as far as I can tell it’s simple race-baiting.
Cheers -
Comment by rl — 1/27/2005 @ 12:36 pm
Russ
I’m race baiting for attacking an ex-Klansman’s grilling of a black woman?
???
Comment by Scott Kirwin — 1/27/2005 @ 1:58 pm
Scott -
Yes, because the fact that he was a Klansman, and the fact that she’s black, have nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If you want to make the case that Byrd shouldn’t hold office because of his history, that’s arguable, although I think the voters in WV get to make the call. Byrd’s comments about Rice, however, are on the merits of her performance as National Security advisor, and have nothing to do with race.
Cheers -
Comment by rl — 1/27/2005 @ 3:16 pm
Russ
Isn’t that a bit naive?
What if the situation were reversed, and a democrat was appointing an openly gay man to a high position. Senator Rick Santorum - no friend of the gay community - grills the man on his qualifications for the job. You’d have no problem with that? You wouldn’t be suspicious that Santorum’s homophobia affected his questioning of the man?
You are right that professionalism should triumph over personal beliefs. However what you may not understand is that this political theater: everyone knew Rice was going to be made Sec of State, so this was a show. And for a party that claims to represent minorities, trotting out Byrd looks bad.
Yes the people of WV put him in office, but he is ultimately controlled by the Dem leadership in the Senate. Both he and on the other extreme, Ted Kennedy, need to be pushed back into the closet if the Dems ever hope to reclaim the center and start winning elections.
Comment by Scott Kirwin — 1/28/2005 @ 9:42 am
No, it’s not naive.
First, the comparison to Santorum is not quite apt. Byrd hasn’t been in the klan in something like 40 or 50 years, and has disavowed the klan and all it stands for, publicly. Not so Santorum and his position on gays.
That said, if Santorum wanted to grill a gay nominee on the basis of his or her actual performance in a prior position, rather than on the basis of his or her sexuality, I’d have no problem with it. I would suspect that his questioning was motivated by some animus due to his position on homosexuality, but if left that out of it, more power to him. For the reasons cited above, I do not suspect Byrd of having the same animus towards Rice.
Both Kennedy and Byrd have reasonable points to make about Rice’s performance as NS director. No doubt they are also eager to score political points as well. Welcome to the big show. I think the fact that the Dems are marginal right now has basically given them the freedom to speak their minds, and I think that’s fine.
I note that conservatives have made much of the “klansman Byrd picking on black Condi” issue. It’s race-baiting garbage. It’s like saying you’re an anti-semite if you disagree with the neo-conservative agenda. Also utter crap.
Conservatives, correctly, jump all over Jackson and Sharpton when they play this kind of cheap game. Well, I’m jumping on you for the same thing.
Cheers -
Comment by rl — 1/28/2005 @ 11:09 am
Russ
Alright. I’ll grudgingly give you this one. But I’ll have to ignore my gut.
Nope. Nope. Nope. Sorry, I just can’t do that. Byrd hasn’t renounced his racism as Wallace did. Sure it may have been 40 years ago, but I don’t think there’s a statute of limitations on certain crimes. Joining the Klan is one thing; becoming a Grand Kleagle in it is a whole new ball game. That is a crime in my book, just like becoming a Nazi officer is more of a crime than say, joining the Nazi party.
I wouldn’t trust a former Nazi officer with his questioning Kissinger - a Jew - and I can’t trust Byrd in his questioning with Rice. The Dems should have used someone else.
Comment by Scott Kirwin — 1/28/2005 @ 12:49 pm
Scott, Your last point is the point, the Dems have a tin ear on this as on so many things. Comes from not having any ethics or underlying philosophy. To prove my point I give you John Kerry, Ted Kennedy. No, no, that’s ok, I don’t want them back, you keep them.
Comment by Ligneus — 1/29/2005 @ 11:57 am