Durbin slanders his own country

[DKW 86 7,451]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn19.html

Durbin slanders his own country

June 19, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Throughout the last campaign season, senior Democrats had a standard line in their speeches, usually delivered with righteous anger, about how "nobody has a right to question my patriotism!" Given that nobody was questioning their patriotism, it seemed an odd thing to harp on about. But, aware of their touchiness on the subject, I hasten to add that in what follows I am not questioning Dick Durbin's patriotism, at least not for the first couple of paragraphs. Instead, I'll begin by questioning his sanity.

Last Tuesday, Senator Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, quoted a report of U.S. "atrocities" at Guantanamo and then added:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

Er, well, your average low-wattage senator might. But I wouldn't. The "atrocities" he enumerated -- "Not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room" -- are not characteristic of the Nazis, the Soviets or Pol Pot, and, at the end, the body count in Gitmo was a lot lower. That's to say, it was zero, which would have been counted a poor day's work in Auschwitz or Siberia or the killing fields of Cambodia.

But give Durbin credit. Every third-rate hack on every European newspaper can do the Americans-are-Nazis schtick. Amnesty International has already declared Guantanamo the "gulag of our times." But I do believe the senator is the first to compare the U.S. armed forces with the blood-drenched thugs of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Way to go, senator! If you had a dime for every crackpot Web site that takes up your thoughtful historical comparison, you'd be able to retire to the Caribbean and spend the rest of your days torturing yourself with hot weather and loud music, as well as inappropriately provocative women and insufficient choice of hors d'oeuvres and all the other shameful atrocities committed at Guantanamo.

Just for the record, some 15 million to 30 million Soviets died in the gulag; some 6 million Jews died in the Nazi camps; some 2 million Cambodians -- one third of the population -- died in the killing fields. Nobody's died in Gitmo, not even from having Christina Aguilera played to them excessively loudly. The comparison is deranged, and deeply insulting not just to the U.S. military but to the millions of relatives of those dead Russians, Jews and Cambodians, who, unlike Durbin, know what real atrocities are. Had Durbin said, "Why, these atrocities are so terrible you would almost believe it was an account of the activities of my distinguished colleague Robert C. Byrd's fellow Klansmen," that would have been a little closer to the ballpark but still way out. I think some people are getting the Dem now.

One measure of a civilized society is that words mean something: "Soviet" and "Nazi" and "Pol Pot" cannot equate to Guantanamo unless you've become utterly unmoored from reality. Spot the odd one out: 1) mass starvation; 2) gas chambers; 3) mountains of skulls; 4) lousy infidel pop music turned up to full volume. One of these is not the same as the others, and Durbin doesn't have the excuse that he's some airhead celeb or an Ivy League professor. He's the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Don't they have an insanity clause? 

Now let us turn to the ranking Democrat, the big cheese on the committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Leahy thinks Gitmo needs to be closed down and argues as follows:

"America was once very rightly viewed as a leader in human rights and the rule of law, but Guantanamo has drained our leadership, our credibility, and the world's good will for America at alarming rates."

So, until Guantanamo, America was "viewed as a leader in human rights"? Not in 2004, when Abu Ghraib was the atrocity du jour. Not in 2003, when every humanitarian organization on the planet was predicting the deaths of millions of Iraqis from cholera, dysentery and other diseases caused by America's "war for oil." Not in 2002, when the "human rights" lobby filled the streets of Vancouver and London and Rome and Sydney to protest the Bushitler's plans to end the benign reign of good King Saddam. Not the weekend before 9/11 when the human rights grandees of the U.N. "anti-racism" conference met in South Africa to demand America pay reparations for the Rwandan genocide and to cheer Robert Mugabe to the rafters for calling on Britain and America to "apologize unreservedly for their crimes against humanity." If you close Gitmo tomorrow, the world's anti-Americans will look around and within 48 hours alight on something else for Gulag of the Week.

And this is where it's time to question Durbin's patriotism. As Leahy implicitly acknowledges, Guantanamo is about "image" and "perception" -- about how others see America. If this one small camp of a few hundred people has "drained the world's good will," whose fault is that?

The senator from Illinois' comparisons are as tired as they're grotesque. They add nothing useful to the debate. But around the planet, folks naturally figure that, if only 100 people out of nearly 300 million get to be senators, the position must be a big deal. Hence, headlines in the Arab world like "U.S. Senator Stands By Nazi Remark." That's al-Jazeera, where the senator from al-Inois is now a big hero -- for slandering his own country, for confirming the lurid propaganda of his country's enemies. Yes, folks, American soldiers are Nazis and American prison camps are gulags: don't take our word for it, Senator Bigshot says so.

This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing; it's about senior Democrats who are so over-invested in their hatred of a passing administration that they've signed on to the nuttiest slurs of the lunatic fringe.  It would be heartening to think that Durbin will himself now be subjected to some serious torture. Not real torture, of course; I don't mean using Pol Pot techniques and playing the Celine Dion Christmas album really loud to him.    But he should at least be made a little uncomfortable over what he's done -- in a time of war, make an inflammatory libel against his country's military that has no value whatsoever except to America's enemies. Shame on him, and shame on those fellow senators and Democrats who by their refusal to condemn him endorse his slander.

[ssl73 0]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn19.html

Durbin slanders his own country

June 19, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Throughout the last campaign season, senior Democrats had a standard line in their speeches, usually delivered with righteous anger, about how "nobody has a right to question my patriotism!" Given that nobody was questioning their patriotism, it seemed an odd thing to harp on about. [/color][/b].

164637[/snapback]

I'm guessing Max Cleland would probably disagree with the statement "...nobody was questioning their patriotism...".

[TexasTiger 13,053]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/steyn/cst-edt-steyn19.html

Durbin slanders his own country

June 19, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

Throughout the last campaign season, senior Democrats had a standard line in their speeches, usually delivered with righteous anger, about how "nobody has a right to question my patriotism!" Given that nobody was questioning their patriotism, it seemed an odd thing to harp on about. But, aware of their touchiness on the subject, I hasten to add that in what follows I am not questioning Dick Durbin's patriotism, at least not for the first couple of paragraphs. Instead, I'll begin by questioning his sanity.

Last Tuesday, Senator Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, quoted a report of U.S. "atrocities" at Guantanamo and then added:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings."

Er, well, your average low-wattage senator might. But I wouldn't. The "atrocities" he enumerated -- "Not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room" -- are not characteristic of the Nazis, the Soviets or Pol Pot, and, at the end, the body count in Gitmo was a lot lower. That's to say, it was zero, which would have been counted a poor day's work in Auschwitz or Siberia or the killing fields of Cambodia.

But give Durbin credit. Every third-rate hack on every European newspaper can do the Americans-are-Nazis schtick. Amnesty International has already declared Guantanamo the "gulag of our times." But I do believe the senator is the first to compare the U.S. armed forces with the blood-drenched thugs of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. Way to go, senator! If you had a dime for every crackpot Web site that takes up your thoughtful historical comparison, you'd be able to retire to the Caribbean and spend the rest of your days torturing yourself with hot weather and loud music, as well as inappropriately provocative women and insufficient choice of hors d'oeuvres and all the other shameful atrocities committed at Guantanamo.

Just for the record, some 15 million to 30 million Soviets died in the gulag; some 6 million Jews died in the Nazi camps; some 2 million Cambodians -- one third of the population -- died in the killing fields. Nobody's died in Gitmo, not even from having Christina Aguilera played to them excessively loudly. The comparison is deranged, and deeply insulting not just to the U.S. military but to the millions of relatives of those dead Russians, Jews and Cambodians, who, unlike Durbin, know what real atrocities are. Had Durbin said, "Why, these atrocities are so terrible you would almost believe it was an account of the activities of my distinguished colleague Robert C. Byrd's fellow Klansmen," that would have been a little closer to the ballpark but still way out. I think some people are getting the Dem now.

One measure of a civilized society is that words mean something: "Soviet" and "Nazi" and "Pol Pot" cannot equate to Guantanamo unless you've become utterly unmoored from reality. Spot the odd one out: 1) mass starvation; 2) gas chambers; 3) mountains of skulls; 4) lousy infidel pop music turned up to full volume. One of these is not the same as the others, and Durbin doesn't have the excuse that he's some airhead celeb or an Ivy League professor. He's the second-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Don't they have an insanity clause? 

Now let us turn to the ranking Democrat, the big cheese on the committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Leahy thinks Gitmo needs to be closed down and argues as follows:

"America was once very rightly viewed as a leader in human rights and the rule of law, but Guantanamo has drained our leadership, our credibility, and the world's good will for America at alarming rates."

So, until Guantanamo, America was "viewed as a leader in human rights"? Not in 2004, when Abu Ghraib was the atrocity du jour. Not in 2003, when every humanitarian organization on the planet was predicting the deaths of millions of Iraqis from cholera, dysentery and other diseases caused by America's "war for oil." Not in 2002, when the "human rights" lobby filled the streets of Vancouver and London and Rome and Sydney to protest the Bushitler's plans to end the benign reign of good King Saddam. Not the weekend before 9/11 when the human rights grandees of the U.N. "anti-racism" conference met in South Africa to demand America pay reparations for the Rwandan genocide and to cheer Robert Mugabe to the rafters for calling on Britain and America to "apologize unreservedly for their crimes against humanity." If you close Gitmo tomorrow, the world's anti-Americans will look around and within 48 hours alight on something else for Gulag of the Week.

And this is where it's time to question Durbin's patriotism. As Leahy implicitly acknowledges, Guantanamo is about "image" and "perception" -- about how others see America. If this one small camp of a few hundred people has "drained the world's good will," whose fault is that?

The senator from Illinois' comparisons are as tired as they're grotesque. They add nothing useful to the debate. But around the planet, folks naturally figure that, if only 100 people out of nearly 300 million get to be senators, the position must be a big deal. Hence, headlines in the Arab world like "U.S. Senator Stands By Nazi Remark." That's al-Jazeera, where the senator from al-Inois is now a big hero -- for slandering his own country, for confirming the lurid propaganda of his country's enemies. Yes, folks, American soldiers are Nazis and American prison camps are gulags: don't take our word for it, Senator Bigshot says so.

This isn't a Republican vs Democrat thing; it's about senior Democrats who are so over-invested in their hatred of a passing administration that they've signed on to the nuttiest slurs of the lunatic fringe.  It would be heartening to think that Durbin will himself now be subjected to some serious torture. Not real torture, of course; I don't mean using Pol Pot techniques and playing the Celine Dion Christmas album really loud to him.    But he should at least be made a little uncomfortable over what he's done -- in a time of war, make an inflammatory libel against his country's military that has no value whatsoever except to America's enemies. Shame on him, and shame on those fellow senators and Democrats who by their refusal to condemn him endorse his slander.

164637[/snapback]

Republicans just love these distractions from the failures of their numerous inept policies. Really fires up the wingnuts on this board and elsewhere. Durbin did you a favor. Why not contribute to his campaign fund?

[Tiger Al 0]

Republicans just love these distractions from the failures of their numerous inept policies. Really fires up the wingnuts on this board and elsewhere. Durbin did you a favor. Why not contribute to his campaign fund?

Amen, brother-man.

David pulls out the 'Klan card' on the Democrats now. Nice, Dave, nice. Why don't you just ask us to send in some pics of us in our sheets so you can host them, free of charge, of course???

[DKW 86 7,451]

Republicans just love these distractions from the failures of their numerous inept policies. Really fires up the wingnuts on this board and elsewhere. Durbin did you a favor. Why not contribute to his campaign fund?

Amen, brother-man.

David pulls out the 'Klan card' on the Democrats now. Nice, Dave, nice. Why don't you just ask us to send in some pics of us in our sheets so you can host them, free of charge, of course???

164643[/snapback]

Two really good ideas actually...

I would of course have to offer disclaimers.

Was reading about Byrd's new book http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8272822/

A senator's shame

Byrd, in his new book, again confronts early ties to KKK

Subcommittee on Immigration April, 2002 in Washington, DC. 

By Eric Pianin

Updated: 12:12 a.m. ET June 19, 2005In the early 1940s, a politically ambitious butcher from West Virginia named Bob Byrd recruited 150 of his friends and associates to form a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. After Byrd had collected the $10 joining fee and $3 charge for a robe and hood from every applicant, the "Grand Dragon" for the mid-Atlantic states came down to tiny Crab Orchard, W.Va., to officially organize the chapter.

As Byrd recalls now, the Klan official, Joel L. Baskin of Arlington, Va., was so impressed with the young Byrd's organizational skills that he urged him to go into politics. "The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation," Baskin said.

...

Despite his many achievements, however, the venerated Byrd has never been able to fully erase the stain of his association with one of the most reviled hate groups in the nation's history.

"It has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one's life, career, and reputation," Byrd wrote in a new memoir -- "Robert C. Byrd: Child of the Appalachian Coalfields" -- that will be published tomorrow by West Virginia University Press.

Latest account

The 770-page book is the latest in a long series of attempts by the 87-year-old Democratic patriarch to try to explain an event early in his life (@ age 26-27 can it be called a youthful indiscretion?) that threatens to define him nearly as much as his achievements in the Senate. In it, Byrd says he viewed the Klan as a useful platform from which to launch his political career. He described it essentially as a fraternal group of elites -- doctors, lawyers, clergy, judges and other "upstanding people" who at no time engaged in or preached violence against blacks, Jews or Catholics, who historically were targets of the Klan.

...

While Byrd provides the most detailed description of his early involvement with the Klan, conceding that he reflected "the fears and prejudices I had heard throughout my boyhood," the account is not complete. He does not acknowledge the full length of time he spent as a Klan organizer and advocate. [B]Nor does he make any mention of a particularly incendiary letter he wrote in 1945 complaining about efforts to integrate the military.[/b]

...

Few blacks settled in the state (WV), and even today African Americans constitute little more than 3 percent of the population.

...

Byrd recalls in his book that when he was a small boy, his adoptive father, a coal miner, left him with a friend in Matoaka, W.Va., one Saturday while he went to participate in a parade. Watching from the window, young Byrd saw people dressed in white hoods and robes and wearing white masks over their faces. Some years later, he wrote, he learned that his father had been a member of the Klan and took part in the parade.

His parents and the boarders who lived with them inculcated Byrd in "the typical southern viewpoint of the time," he wrote. "Blacks were generally distrusted by many whites, and I suspect they were subliminally feared."

...

By the time Byrd began organizing for the Klan during World War II, the organization had largely morphed into a money-making fraternal organization that was virulently anti-black, anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic.

...

1945: Byrd said in the Dec. 11, 1945, letter -- which would not become public for 42 more years with the publication of a book on blacks in the military during World War II by author Graham Smith -- that he would never fight in the armed forces "with a Negro by my side." Byrd added that, "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."

...

During his Senate campaign, he told a newspaper reporter that he personally felt the Klan had been incorrectly blamed for many acts committed by others.

...

During the 1960 presidential campaign, Byrd, who was closely allied with then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (Tex.), tried to derail the Democratic front-runner, Sen. John F. Kennedy (Mass.), in the crucial West Virginia primary. At Johnson's urging, Byrd supported Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey (Minn.) in the primary. Kennedy allies retaliated with leaks to the press about Byrd's work as a Klan organizer. Byrd said in his book that as a result he received hate mail and threats on his life.

Four years later, Byrd's Klan past became an issue again when he joined with other southern Democrats to oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Byrd filibustered the bill for more than 14 hours as he argued that it abrogated principles of federalism. He criticized most anti-poverty programs except for food stamps. And in 1967, he voted against the nomination of Thurgood Marshall, the first black appointed to the Supreme Court.

...

Byrd came to realize that he would have to temper his blatantly segregationist views and edge toward his party's mainstream if he wanted to advance on the national stage. (Glad to know it wasnt because he discovered he was an ignorant racist bigot.)

...

Anyone hear stupid enough to believe that Byrd actually changed or just adjusted his speech to gain power. If the Libs are right about Pryor doing that, why can they not see Byrd doing the same thing?

[Tiger Al 0]

Dave calls all Democrats racist, KKK bigots. Brilliant, Dave.

(@ age 26-27 can it be called a youthful indiscretion?)

"Youthful indiscretion" was the term W used to describe his drinking problem. If I'm not mistaken, he was in his late thirties at the time. Was that a 'youthful indiscretion?'

"Youthful indiscretion" was also the term Bob Livingston used to describe his affair he had at age 41. Can that be called a 'youthful indiscretion?'

[TexasTiger 13,053]

Dave calls all Democrats racist, KKK bigots. Brilliant, Dave.

(@ age 26-27 can it be called a youthful indiscretion?)

"Youthful indiscretion" was the term W used to describe his drinking problem. If I'm not mistaken, he was in his late thirties at the time. Was that a 'youthful indiscretion?'

"Youthful indiscretion" was also the term Bob Livingston used to describe his affair he had at age 41. Can that be called a 'youthful indiscretion?'

164649[/snapback]

I think Henry Hyde was 43 when he had the affair with a young thang he called a "youthful indiscretion."

I don't know, maybe if you're looking back on something that you did 60 years ago, it may very well seem like something done in your "youth."

[DKW 86 7,451]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

[Tiger Al 0]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

164675[/snapback]

That looks like a 'slightly associated question.'

Won't address the KKK part? I probably wouldn't, either.

[DKW 86 7,451]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

164675[/snapback]

That looks like a 'slightly associated question.'

Won't address the KKK part? I probably wouldn't, either.

164697[/snapback]

I never said ALL Dems were Klan members. I just question why you support a party that keeps them in positions of power and leadership. David Duke was run out of the Republican Party. Why cant you guys admit that Byrd is too dirty and bad politics and move on? Make him resign or replace him in a primary. Whatever just get him off the page. How much damage to the US reputation does having a high ranking official known as supporting the KKK for many years. One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

[TexasTiger 13,053]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

164675[/snapback]

That looks like a 'slightly associated question.'

Won't address the KKK part? I probably wouldn't, either.

164697[/snapback]

I never said ALL Dems were Klan members. I just question why you support a party that keeps them in positions of power and leadership. David Duke was run out of the Republican Party. Why cant you guys admit that Byrd is too dirty and bad politics and move on? Make him resign or replace him in a primary. Whatever just get him off the page. How much damage to the US reputation does having a high ranking official known as supporting the KKK for many years. One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

164702[/snapback]

One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

Yeah, the Dems ought to follow the example of the Repugs in running Strom Thurmond out on a rail. Oh, wait...they welcomed him with open arms.

[DKW 86 7,451]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

164675[/snapback]

That looks like a 'slightly associated question.'

Won't address the KKK part? I probably wouldn't, either.

164697[/snapback]

I never said ALL Dems were Klan members. I just question why you support a party that keeps them in positions of power and leadership. David Duke was run out of the Republican Party. Why cant you guys admit that Byrd is too dirty and bad politics and move on? Make him resign or replace him in a primary. Whatever just get him off the page. How much damage to the US reputation does having a high ranking official known as supporting the KKK for many years. One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

164702[/snapback]

One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

Yeah, the Dems ought to follow the example of the Repugs in running Strom Thurmond out on a rail. Oh, wait...they welcomed him with open arms.

164705[/snapback]

Well maybe we need to get rid of them both. Throw in Ted Kennedy and you pick another and we are on our way.

I do not support Strom Thurmond in any way. I do not support Kennedy, Byrd, Helms, Gore Sr., or even Mr. Confederate Flag on the SC State House Sen Ernest Hollings, and many more. I would hope that the Dems would let up on this and lets actually save SS, reform health care with a real system, fix the schools and do something about immigration, NAFTA, CAFTA, the environment and budget deficits and oil usage.

Instead we are consumed by worthless stuff on crap that is now in the past.

[Tiger Al 0]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

164675[/snapback]

That looks like a 'slightly associated question.'

Won't address the KKK part? I probably wouldn't, either.

164697[/snapback]

I never said ALL Dems were Klan members. I just question why you support a party that keeps them in positions of power and leadership. David Duke was run out of the Republican Party. Why cant you guys admit that Byrd is too dirty and bad politics and move on? Make him resign or replace him in a primary. Whatever just get him off the page. How much damage to the US reputation does having a high ranking official known as supporting the KKK for many years. One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

164702[/snapback]

David, don't you think it's up to the people of WV to replace him, not the DNC? If WV wants to re-elect him, why is that my problem?

[DKW 86 7,451]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

164675[/snapback]

That looks like a 'slightly associated question.'

Won't address the KKK part? I probably wouldn't, either.

164697[/snapback]

I never said ALL Dems were Klan members. I just question why you support a party that keeps them in positions of power and leadership. David Duke was run out of the Republican Party. Why cant you guys admit that Byrd is too dirty and bad politics and move on? Make him resign or replace him in a primary. Whatever just get him off the page. How much damage to the US reputation does having a high ranking official known as supporting the KKK for many years. One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

164702[/snapback]

David, don't you think it's up to the people of WV to replace him, not the DNC? If WV wants to re-elect him, why is that my problem?

164709[/snapback]

Guilt by association.

I dont buy the "Our b*****ds are better than your b*****ds." A b*****d is a b*****d no matter the stripes.

[Tigermike 3,066]

Is Robert Byrd a lost twin of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine? They sure look a lot alike.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

164675[/snapback]

That looks like a 'slightly associated question.'

Won't address the KKK part? I probably wouldn't, either.

164697[/snapback]

I never said ALL Dems were Klan members. I just question why you support a party that keeps them in positions of power and leadership. David Duke was run out of the Republican Party. Why cant you guys admit that Byrd is too dirty and bad politics and move on? Make him resign or replace him in a primary. Whatever just get him off the page. How much damage to the US reputation does having a high ranking official known as supporting the KKK for many years. One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

164702[/snapback]

One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

Yeah, the Dems ought to follow the example of the Repugs in running Strom Thurmond out on a rail. Oh, wait...they welcomed him with open arms.

164705[/snapback]

Well maybe we need to get rid of them both. Throw in Ted Kennedy and you pick another and we are on our way.

I do not support Strom Thurmond in any way. I do not support Kennedy, Byrd, Helms, Gore Sr., or even Mr. Confederate Flag on the SC State House Sen Ernest Hollings, and many more. I would hope that the Dems would let up on this and lets actually save SS, reform health care with a real system, fix the schools and do something about immigration, NAFTA, CAFTA, the environment and budget deficits and oil usage.

Instead we are consumed by worthless stuff on crap that is now in the past.

164708[/snapback]

Well, Strom's gone now.

[DKW 86 7,451]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

164675[/snapback]

That looks like a 'slightly associated question.'

Won't address the KKK part? I probably wouldn't, either.

164697[/snapback]

I never said ALL Dems were Klan members. I just question why you support a party that keeps them in positions of power and leadership. David Duke was run out of the Republican Party. Why cant you guys admit that Byrd is too dirty and bad politics and move on? Make him resign or replace him in a primary. Whatever just get him off the page. How much damage to the US reputation does having a high ranking official known as supporting the KKK for many years. One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

164702[/snapback]

One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

Yeah, the Dems ought to follow the example of the Repugs in running Strom Thurmond out on a rail. Oh, wait...they welcomed him with open arms.

164705[/snapback]

Well maybe we need to get rid of them both. Throw in Ted Kennedy and you pick another and we are on our way.

I do not support Strom Thurmond in any way. I do not support Kennedy, Byrd, Helms, Gore Sr., or even Mr. Confederate Flag on the SC State House Sen Ernest Hollings, and many more. I would hope that the Dems would let up on this and lets actually save SS, reform health care with a real system, fix the schools and do something about immigration, NAFTA, CAFTA, the environment and budget deficits and oil usage.

Instead we are consumed by worthless stuff on crap that is now in the past.

164708[/snapback]

Well, Strom's gone now.

164730[/snapback]

So is Helms, Gore Sr so what is your point? I was using the historical and present as an illustration of those I wouldnt have in the Senate in any way.

[TexasTiger 13,053]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

164675[/snapback]

That looks like a 'slightly associated question.'

Won't address the KKK part? I probably wouldn't, either.

164697[/snapback]

I never said ALL Dems were Klan members. I just question why you support a party that keeps them in positions of power and leadership. David Duke was run out of the Republican Party. Why cant you guys admit that Byrd is too dirty and bad politics and move on? Make him resign or replace him in a primary. Whatever just get him off the page. How much damage to the US reputation does having a high ranking official known as supporting the KKK for many years. One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

164702[/snapback]

One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

Yeah, the Dems ought to follow the example of the Repugs in running Strom Thurmond out on a rail. Oh, wait...they welcomed him with open arms.

164705[/snapback]

Well maybe we need to get rid of them both. Throw in Ted Kennedy and you pick another and we are on our way.

I do not support Strom Thurmond in any way. I do not support Kennedy, Byrd, Helms, Gore Sr., or even Mr. Confederate Flag on the SC State House Sen Ernest Hollings, and many more. I would hope that the Dems would let up on this and lets actually save SS, reform health care with a real system, fix the schools and do something about immigration, NAFTA, CAFTA, the environment and budget deficits and oil usage.

Instead we are consumed by worthless stuff on crap that is now in the past.

164708[/snapback]

Well, Strom's gone now.

164730[/snapback]

So is Helms, Gore Sr so what is your point? I was using the historical and present as an illustration of those I wouldnt have in the Senate in any way.

164742[/snapback]

The Dems are holding up Bush's plans to fix health care and the budget deficit? What plans are those and where is the obstruction?

[DKW 86 7,451]

You ever heard me back even one of them up?

164675[/snapback]

That looks like a 'slightly associated question.'

Won't address the KKK part? I probably wouldn't, either.

164697[/snapback]

I never said ALL Dems were Klan members. I just question why you support a party that keeps them in positions of power and leadership. David Duke was run out of the Republican Party. Why cant you guys admit that Byrd is too dirty and bad politics and move on? Make him resign or replace him in a primary. Whatever just get him off the page. How much damage to the US reputation does having a high ranking official known as supporting the KKK for many years. One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

164702[/snapback]

One that voted against the CRVA of 1964, etc?

Yeah, the Dems ought to follow the example of the Repugs in running Strom Thurmond out on a rail. Oh, wait...they welcomed him with open arms.

164705[/snapback]

Well maybe we need to get rid of them both. Throw in Ted Kennedy and you pick another and we are on our way.

I do not support Strom Thurmond in any way. I do not support Kennedy, Byrd, Helms, Gore Sr., or even Mr. Confederate Flag on the SC State House Sen Ernest Hollings, and many more. I would hope that the Dems would let up on this and lets actually save SS, reform health care with a real system, fix the schools and do something about immigration, NAFTA, CAFTA, the environment and budget deficits and oil usage.

Instead we are consumed by worthless stuff on crap that is now in the past.

164708[/snapback]

Well, Strom's gone now.

164730[/snapback]

So is Helms, Gore Sr so what is your point? I was using the historical and present as an illustration of those I wouldnt have in the Senate in any way.

164742[/snapback]

The Dems are holding up Bush's plans to fix health care and the budget deficit? What plans are those and where is the obstruction?

164747[/snapback]

And where are the Dem plans? And why do we not hear anything but Gitmo, Gitmo, Gitmo?

Why dont we actually engage in meaningful debate on those and SS reform, and others? Why dont the Dems come out with a passable healthcare policy, cuts to the National budget expenses, SS reform, etc. Can the Dems at least start contributing to the debate again? Are we not all tired of just complaints?