Senator Byrd: Hypocrite
Recently Democrat Senator and erstwhile Ku Klux Klan member Robert Byrd compared Republicans to Nazis while criticizing that party’s push to get around Democrat threats to filibuster judicial nominations in the Senate. He had this to say about “majority rule” and filibusters in the Senate then:
Free and open debate on the Senate floor ensures citizens a say in their government. The American people are heard, through their Senator, before their money is spent, before their civil liberties are curtailed, or before a judicial nominee is confirmed for a lifetime appointment. We are the guardians, the stewards, the protectors of our people. Our voices are their voices.
If we restrain debate on judges today, what will be next: the rights of the elderly to receive social security; the rights of the handicapped to be treated fairly; the rights of the poor to obtain a decent education? Will all debate soon fall before majority rule?
But now here’s an indication of Byrd’s opinion about “majority rule” in the Senate back in 1975:
In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: “We cannot allow a minority” of the senators “to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there.” Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed.
Apparently Senator Byrd’s position on filibusters is directly proportionate to Democrat numbers in the Senate.
(via GOP Bloggers)
Update:
More on Byrd here, including details about his filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act for 14 hours, his votes against both African American supreme court justices, his use of the word “nigger” in a 2001 interview and his proclamation from 1947 that he would rather see “Old Glory perish” then serve in a racially integrated army.
Now you have to ask, why do Democrats keep this guy around?
Update:
In the post above I had Sen. Byrd making his comments about a racially integrated military in 2002. I was mistaken. He made the comments in 1947. I have edited the post to reflect the correct date.
Come to modernamerica.blogpsot.com if you would like to be beaten down by West Virginia Democrats.
You say gun ownership is necessary to a free society. Then why is America no longer a free society?
The 2nd Amendment is now moot. It was given to us by our forefathers so we could defend against a military takeover. That military takeover is on the verge of happening, and you aren’t even alarmed about it. In fact, you welcome it.
Why? Because it’s been a far right takeover, and you’re far right. You would only break out the rifles and resist by force if it was a left wing takeover. Which will never happen now because the far right beat them to the punch.
You’re like the average German was 70 years ago. You’re so cowardly and acquiescent that you rubber-stamp everything the far right has done the last thirty years.
America will continue to exist after martial law has been declared. America will still exist after an armed insurrection has been fought and won. But it won’t be the same America. It will be more like the Second American Republic. And it’s hard to say how many American republics there will be after that. Look at France.
In Jesus’ Glorious and Holy name,
Dean Berry — REAL American
I need to follow this guy home after work tonight. I wanna see where he’s buying his drug of choice. It must be good stuff…
There is enough ignorrance on both sides of the aisle!
“by and with the advice and consent” is fairly specific.
Talk about it and vote!
The Constitution is also specific about the votes needed to confirm!
Thanks for the help Likwid
Turns out the Byrd quote is from 1947
“his proclamation from 2002 that he would rather see “”Old Glory perish” then serve in a racially integrated army.”
I was looking in the wrong century.
Come to modernamerica.blogpsot.com if you would like to be beaten down by West Virginia Democrats.
Where is the Byrd “proclamation from 2002 that he would rather see “”Old Glory perish” then serve in a racially integrated army?
I can’t find it.
That’s funny. Rob’s post doesn’t even mention guns.
Two seconds on Google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Senator+Byrd%22%2C+%E2%80%9COld+Glory%22&btnG=Search
The correct quote is, “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.” – Democrat Senator and former KKK member Robert Byrd. Democrat KKK Byrd is often referred to as the “conscious of the Senate” by other Democrats.
Funny you had to go back to 1964 to excise Byrd’s evils, yet, you have more than one Republican Senator with more recent examples of the same behavior.
If you on the Right wanna open up a debate on racism and the two political parties, we’d welcome the opportunity. It’d give us the chance to remind folks of Dick Cheney’s vote against a King Holiday and resolution calling for the release of Mandela. Not to mention, the racist tenures of Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond.
The Senate Filibuster is a legislative guarantee afforded a minority party to exercise its constituent’s right to shape laws and government. It must not be taken away whether that representation is 20% or 47% percent of the Senate.
Despite the fact that more Bush nominees have been confirmed than those nominated by Clinton, social Conservatives like James Dobson are threatening political consequences if the ‘nuclear option’ is not successful. Stung by the Social Security setback, many on the Right are blinded to the ramifications of such a move, only desperate to defeat the Democrats again.
Seeing that it takes 66 Senate votes to advance an amendment to the Constitution, it seems reasonable that it take 60 votes to confirm a nominee. This past November, Conservatives had numerous chances to elect enough Senators to break the Dem’s filibuster, but with such defeats like Alan Keyes, the current balance reflects the country’s collective ideology.
You guys on the Right are always going on about ‘activist judges’ usurping the will of the people.
So how’s this different?
Wow.
I just returned from being out of town over the weekend. Looks like Dinoberry really teed off on me there. He went from zero to belligerent in only one post. Usually the craziness comes out after a volley of back and forth comments over a couple hours of comments. ‘Slarrow’ hit the nail on the head I think…clearly a gary-martyr.
Does dino get a parting gift for going belligerent faster than any other poster in sayanything history?? Just a thought.
I think you may have banned him too quickly though Rob. I think he was just about to tell me that his dad could beat up my dad.
thatcoloredfella brings up an irrelevant point, “Funny you had to go back to 1964 to excise Byrd’s evils, yet, you have more than one Republican Senator with more recent examples of the same behavior.”
Rob’s post is about Byrd. You do know that, right?
You guys on the Right are always going on about ‘activist judges’ usurping the will of the people.
Activist judges are ones who make law, not merely interpret and enforce them. Activist judges forget that the job of making law falls upon the legislative branch, not the judicial.
So how’s this different?
This is so different that it doesn’t even compare. This isn’t a case of the judicial branch making law. This isn’t a case of “usurping the will of the people”. And, it would also help to remember that the U.S. Constitution requires only a majority 51 votes to confirm a judge.
Activist judges are ones who make law, not merely interpret and enforce them. Activist judges forget that the job of making law falls upon the legislative branch, not the judicial.
No, Likwud is just parsing words.
In reality, no judge makes the law. That’s up to the legislative branch.
Calling someone an “activist judge” is merely namecalling because a judge has interpreted the law differently than you would like.
Dino’s actually being spamming a few other sites today. So I doubt there’s any connection with Gary.
Maybe politically ambitious neo-nazis, skinheads, KKK members, and people of all hate groups can learn something from Robert “KKK” Byrd, seriously.
All they’d have to do is adopt a few of the core Democratic principles and run under that ticket. Then they could attempt to exert their true principles of hatred in the political arena and they would be immune from media criticism because of the “D-shield” behind their name.
I think Robert Byrd is just ahead of his time.
Eh, you may have to deal with this for a few days. It’s probably a consequence of banning Gary; some nut decides he wants to feel like a martyr too. Doesn’t change the fact that you’ve made the right decision, though.
Wow! I go to work for a few hours, come back and you got nutjobs screeching about Robert Byrd and Jesus in the same post. Twice! I think this is going to be an interesting weekend here at sayanything.
I won’t pretend to defend Byrd’s yucky history but I am tempted to defend the point he was making in his speech. I read the excerpt on the blog Rob linked to and I didn’t see Byrd comparing Republicans to Nazis. What I did see was attention called to the dangers of stifling opposition through the use of the very mechanisms of democratic organisation. My experience is that filibustering has played a useful role in ensuring that the majority doesn’t trample the minority. I’ll grant that it’s been used for silly purposes and even bad ones such as Byrd’s repugnant nonsense in the past but I don’t think that your Republic is threatened if some candidates for judicial posts aren’t confirmed.
The more I think about it…I do defend Byrd’s position because I think it has been misconstrued by a rather superficial reading of his speech. He’s not calling Republicans Nazis…he’s pointing out the obvious example of a free society being subverted through democratic means. Byrd may have been wrong in everything else he has said but he’s right this time.
“I think that comparison is repugnant and not neccessary.”
HERE ARE SOME MORE COMPARISONS BETWEEN HITLER AND BUSH.
HITLER: THE BURNING OF THE REICHSTAG. BUSH: THE DESTRUCTION OF WTC. HITLER: THE ENABLING ACTS. BUSH: “PATRIOT” ACTS I AND II. HITLER: FATHERLAND SECURITY. BUSH: HOMELAND SECURITY.
IN JESUS’ GLORIOUS AND HOLY NAME,
DEAN BERRY — REAL AMERICAN
YOU SHAME OUR FOREFATHERS WITH YOUR STUPIDITY.
Maybe politically ambitious neo-nazis, skinheads, KKK members, and people of all hate groups — YOU LEFT OUT CONFUSATIVES/AMERINAZIS LIKE YOURSELF. — can learn something from Robert “”KKK” — HOW RIDICULOUS TO SEE THE POT CALLING THE KETTLE BLACK. — Byrd, seriously.
All they’d have to do is adopt a few of the core Democratic principles and run under that ticket. Then they could attempt to exert their true principles of hatred — WTF? WILLIE HORTON! THE RACIAL HATE CARD. GAY MARRIAGE! THE HOMOPHOBE HATE CARD. I SWEAR CONFUSATIVES HAVE A GENE THAT ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITS YOU FROM LYING!!! — in the political arena — IN THE POLITICAL ARENA, SOMEDAY, MAYBE A DEMOCRAT WILL HAVE A POP IN THE CIA SO HE CAN USE HIS CONTACTS TO CREATE INSTABILITY IN PLACES LIKE IRAN SO HE CAN COME RIDING IN ON HIS BIG WHITE HORSE AND SAVE THE DAY. AN ENTIRELY CONTRIVED SCENARIO. OR MAYBE IN TANDEM HIS DAD AND BROTHER CAN (COINCIDENTALLY?) AFFECT HIS ELECTION. AND ON TOP OF THAT MAYBE SOME HIS PARTY’S BIGGEST CONTRIBUTORS CAN CON THE GOVT INTO USING ONLY THEIR VOTING MACHINES SO YET ANOTHER BASE WILL BE COVERED IN THE WINNING OF AN “ELECTION.” FOLKS, THIS IS WHAT THE CIA HAS BEEN DOING FOR 50 YEARS IN THE THIRD WORLD. RIGGING ELECTIONS! SMEARING CANDIDATES TO GET THEM OUT OF THE RUNNING. — and they would be immune from media criticism because of the “”D-shield” — YOU ARE T-R-U-L-Y AN IDIOT. WHAT ABOUT DEAN? WHAT ABOUT GORE AND THE INTERNET? BE A MAN. STOP LYING. — behind their name.
I think Robert Byrd is just ahead of his time.
Joshua — I DIDN’T KNOW GIRLS COULD BE NAMED JUSHUA. THIS DAMN WOMEN’S LIB!!! [ March 4, 2005 @ 11:20 am
Dinoberry has been banned.
Jeez, what a nut…
Byrd brought up the Nazis when speaking of Republican tactics. I think that comparison is repugnant and not neccessary. If he has points to make he can make them without resorting to such odious tactics.
As to his stance on filibusters, I think he’s wrong. At some point judicial nominees must be allowed to be approved by a yea or nay vote. If these obstruction tactics continue to be employed one has to wonder if we’ll ever manage to get some judges appointed. The fact that Democrats don’t have enough votes in the Senate to block appointees they don’t like is irrelevant.
He emailed me and called me a Nazi after I banned him.
Guy was a real lunatic. I still can’t make much sense out of what he was trying to get at.