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 -

Cheers -

???

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 -

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.

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 -

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.