Senator Robert "Sheets" Byrd
 

Interesting that our first half-Kenyan president did such a moving tribute for the KKK member in the Senate, who actually tried to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Will the hypocrisy never cease...?

It's all in the Hope and Change

You mean like the hypocrisy of calling the President half-Kenyan for the sole purpose of trying to degrade the man, then in the same sentence dissing another regarding civil rights?

Byrd disavowed his KKK past a long time ago, and has spent the subsequent years doing a great deal of good for society through his position as a way of atonement.

Like an atoned pedophilic, homosexual priest?

he did filibuster, and vote against the civil rights act. he also voted against both thurgood marshall and clarence thomas when they were nominated to the supreme court...and he may have said the kkk was a wrong, but it wasn't long ago that he was trying to atone for using the 'n' word...i read some of his bio today. i found it...

well, they say don't speak ill of the dead, so i'll just say my condolences to his family.

Why should Obama care about what Byrd was up to in '64?


All successful politicians pander to their peeps. I've been to West Virginia and I can only imagine what it must have been like almost 40 years ago.

Joey says you can't do that. Hypocrisy.

Some others call it manners, though :tro:

you mean back before everyone edifice had the name 'byrd' on the front, in some form or fashion? surprised they didn't just rename the whole state.
west byrdginia

Politics - like it or not - is about steering resources to your peeps. These old fogies are like experts at it.

What he did was no different than what Cheney did as President of the US when Bush was serving under him ... he basically directed boatloads of resources to his peeps.

Peeps in Sheets

the Michael Jackson Family Edition

It is hypocrisy to extoll the virtues of someone who is now dead, when they were the opposite of everything you supposedly believe when they were alive.

If a Republican had either been a member of the KKK OR voted against the Civil Rights Act, we'd never hear the end of it. But Byrd does both, and pretty much embarassed himself on every occasion where he was near a microphone, and somehow he's another "Lion of the Senate"? Yeah, OK.

Look at what the press did to Senator Trent Lott when he said some very broad and sweeping flattery for 100 year old Senator Strom Thurmond. Lott never said he supported the Dixiecrat agenda, but he said of the former presidential candidate Thurmond something along the lines of "Maybe things would have been better had Thurmond won." That wasn't a racial statement, but don't try to tell the Left that one. Everything is racial when it suits them. But when Byrd, one of their own legislators, has speeches about "white n-words", and writings I won't repeat mentioned here (fourth paragraph, inset):

http://www.npr.org/blogs/politicalju...lf?ft=1&f=1014

everythings just great. That is the definition of hypocrisy, his death notwithstanding.

Byrd endorsed Obama.

Why wouldn't he extoll his virtues?

Everyone is missing the point. WE NEED TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS.

there you go again. :(

He was a White Lion.

There are people who started out thinking the Conservatives view of the world is simply the obvious common-sense truth (especially if they grow up surrounded by Conservatives.) When they get their 1st so called "good" job, it's only then that they realize that the world is set up to favor a very few in society. Then, they simply work harder (because that's the Conservative cure-all fix for anything) only to realize that hard work is often overlooked by the deciders. It's at this point (regardless of their future) that many people realize the Conservative view is a highly-oversimplified load of crap. Luck, looks, people-pleasing skills, family contacts etc. all rival hard work's value in moving up in the world. No, they didn't know this before. They bought the Conservative load of crap. Now they know. They go on with their life, and regardless of how well they do, they know the Conservatives are dead wrong. That's one reason there are a lot of rich people who aren't Conservatives. I say this, because people can be wrong about something early on in their life, and realize it. I'm not saying it happened with Senator Byrd. I think it's a possibility. It's also a possibility that he never changed, and just hid his true racist feelings until he died. Lott certainly had very few signs of changing his racist views. Not so with Byrd. On something like this, people will often let the harmed group make the call. Meaning that Byrd would have probably been gone if Blacks thought he hadn't changed. It's a fair issue to bring up. I think people were aware of his past, and made a judgement about whether he had changed inside. It is a judgement call. People constantly make excuses for Muslim Scum, and the main excuse is that they are born into the bad environment. Unfortunately, the Muslims rarely see the light, and, hopefully, Byrd did.

Well, I'd like to point out that what Byrd said in that paragraph on that webpage is worse than just about anything any non-Democrat has said regarding race relations in the last 50 years or so. George Wallace comes close, but he was another Democrat.

what joey can't see is that byrd wasn't frozen in his 1964 views unlike a lot of politician's. he renounced them while noting that the shame of those views would never leave him. he became a reliable vote in favor of civil rights legislation from 1967 onwards.

the george wallace reference is telling. wallace was an unrepentant racist as a politician. however, he also eventually renounced his racist past. the last years of his life he spent sunday's in black southern churches talking about his past and asking for forgiveness. the conservative movements dreaded "apology tour".

conservatives don't like change and apparently from the comments here, also don't believe sincere change is possible.

So the moral of the story is if you want to be racist make sure you're a democrat.

:tro::tro:

Can't we just celebrate his death without so much controversy?

:tro:

the moral of the story is that even racist's can change. party affiliation has nothing to do with it.

joey ignoring the argument and awarding trophy's is just precious though. you must be proud.

Oh you're right! My bad. Byrd would've got the same post from you if he was a republican. You're totally not a disingenuous twat!

Yeah I'm all about getting the trophy smiley. GFY twice.

i really don't think party affiliation matters. if there's ever a republican that admits past racism and demonstrates a change of heart the way byrd did, i'd feel the same.

i think the republicans on this board would like it to be about party affiliation. that let's them be resentful victims all over again. thus the studious ignoring of any argument that distinguishes byrd from an unrepentant racist. it's all about 1964 and nothing else.

and i wasn't targeting you with the trophy comment. that was all about joey's pretending my post in anyway reflected your 1 sentence analysis.

Oooook. When is the next bible study? We must forgive because Jesus forgave us and stuff.

Please save the Hallmark movie moments for a soap opera forum.



He was an old man when he stopped being a racist. Sure you can forgive him if you're naive enough to believe he changed. The truth is people don't really change and if they do "change" it's for selfish reasons.

your quote stops 42 years ago.

1969-2010 never happened and it's all about him being a democrat.

you got me.

first thing i'm reminded of when people say a democrat can change.......remember david duke? that guy ran as a conservative for governor of la. when his kkk and racist past was brought up, he said he'd changed. no one believed that either-so it goes across party lines.
as for nothing past 1969....as i said earlier, byrd voted against both thurgood marshall and clarence thomas for the supreme court. i'm pretty sure thomas was after 1969.

this was too:

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time, if you want 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 use of the term "white nigger" created immediate controversy. When asked about it, Byrd responded,

“ 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 ... In my attempt to articulate strongly held feelings, I may have(he may have??) offended people."
that was in 2001...

and then this, which i found just awful:
Byrd also said that his views changed dramatically after his teenage grandson was killed in a 1982 traffic accident, which put him in a deep emotional valley. "The death of my grandson caused me to stop and think," said Byrd, adding he came to realize that black people love their children as much as he does his. he had to come to that realization? what, did he think people that differed in color couldn't love? that's outrageous.

Most of his life he was a racist. Yeah I got you defending a complete d.ickhead. But just keep going because you're never wrong.

danny: unless it occurred in the last year, david duke has never publicly changed his views. he changed party affiliation and that's it.

coach: well done. you again deflected the argument. it's now about defending byrd and not responding to the ridiculous assertion that byrd got away with his pre-1967 views only because he's a democrat.

last word

no, duke was back about 18 years ago...lol last i heard, he got busted for illegal use of campaign funds and spent time in jail.
point is, no one believed he changed-and i don't believe byrd changed either-except publically. it's kind of like when mel gibson got pulled over that night when he was drunk, and started on his anti-semitic rant. he's always felt that way, but alcohol loosened his tongue. it's not as tho he changed his feelings just cause he had a few.
it was politically expedient for byrd to 'change'...now, i didn't know the man personally, but i know how resistant humans are to change. i also know that the private persona can be far different from the public one. he's a politician, and was a good one, which is why he stayed so long. but his actions, and his words, showed that maybe he wasn't as changed as he portrayed himself.

That's true. O.K. Lets not kid ourselves here. You can't compare someone who votes for helping poor Blacks to someone who doesn't vote to help poor Blacks. He voted to help Black people in this country. Fact is he helped the same people he is accused of hating. Democrats do take this into account. Being a modern-era Democrat is not exactly what most present-day haters of Black People would probably choose to be. It's not like he got elected to a National Office. West Virginians made the choice (overwhelmingly by the way) to keep him their Senator. I would never have done that.

I think the one big exception is views about people can change. I actually think (for instance) Milton Bradley is not the Devil he is painted to be. I think he has a personality disorder of some type. It's a problem. I do not think he's a bad person. I don't think most people that hate him would feel that way if they new him. By the way, there are a ton of people (that you like right now) that you would dislike if you got to know them... Really.

Talk about trying to re-write history. "A fleeting association?" give me a f'n break.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...t_elected.html