RIP Sen. Robert Byrd

[Point of Order]

Thank goodness he hung on until a Democrat was president or we'd be subjected to endless "Bush and Cheney killed Sen. Byrd" blather.

Whatever the merits, or lack or merits, to all discussed in the posts on this thread, it's all now been resolved at a higher level that the one on which we get to operate.

It was Tom Coburn who prayed for Byrd to die just before the HCR vote.

 

[Point of Order]

I chuckled at reading the theory that Byrd changed his views on Civil Rights out of political expediency. A couple of problems with that: 1. All he had to do to get re-elected was keep bringing in the pork, and 2. I'm not sure such a change would have helped him all that much in W. Va.

 

[NatureBoy]

Here's a paragraph from Robert Draper's 2008 GQ profile of Byrd:

"Quietly, however, Byrd was endeavoring to shed his bigotry. Upon arrival to the Senate in 1959, he hired one of the Capitol's first black congressional aides and also integrated the Capitol police corps for the first time since Reconstruction. In 1974, Byrd campaigned on behalf of Tennessee congressional candidate Harold Ford Sr. When Mike Willard was hired by Byrd to be his press secretary in 1976, he was warned by a staffer that 'you probably shouldn't tell the senator' that Willard had a black adopted son. But Willard did, and eventually Byrd made the son one of his senatorial pages. He admitted to one aide during the '70s that his motivation for joining the Klan was 'racial prejudice' and that he was consciously fighting to overcome it. To another aide, Byrd confided that he 'deeply regretted' his early civil rights voting record. And by the '70s, his votes had swung the other way. When the federal holiday for Martin Luther King came to the floor in 1983, Byrd grasped its symbolic significance. 'I'm the only one in the Senate who must vote for this bill,' he gravely told his subordinates. A quarter century later, the former Klansman endorsed America's first black presidential nominee, and the circle was complete."

Here's a link to the story:
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200808/senator-robert-byrd-congress?currentPage=1

He tried to atone for his past with more than words. It's others' choice to believe whether it was enough. I know what the man meant to that state. As poor as it still is, it likely would have been worse if not for what he brought back to West Virginia.

 

[YankeeFan]

Here's a paragraph from Robert Draper's 2008 GQ profile of Byrd:

"Quietly, however, Byrd was endeavoring to shed his bigotry. Upon arrival to the Senate in 1959, he hired one of the Capitol's first black congressional aides and also integrated the Capitol police corps for the first time since Reconstruction. In 1974, Byrd campaigned on behalf of Tennessee congressional candidate Harold Ford Sr. When Mike Willard was hired by Byrd to be his press secretary in 1976, he was warned by a staffer that 'you probably shouldn't tell the senator' that Willard had a black adopted son. But Willard did, and eventually Byrd made the son one of his senatorial pages. He admitted to one aide during the '70s that his motivation for joining the Klan was 'racial prejudice' and that he was consciously fighting to overcome it. To another aide, Byrd confided that he 'deeply regretted' his early civil rights voting record. And by the '70s, his votes had swung the other way. When the federal holiday for Martin Luther King came to the floor in 1983, Byrd grasped its symbolic significance. 'I'm the only one in the Senate who must vote for this bill,' he gravely told his subordinates. A quarter century later, the former Klansman endorsed America's first black presidential nominee, and the circle was complete."

Here's a link to the story:
http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200808/senator-robert-byrd-congress?currentPage=1

He tried to atone for his past with more than words. It's others' choice to believe whether it was enough. I know what the man meant to that state. As poor as it still is, it likely would have been worse if not for what he brought back to West Virginia.

Thank you.

That's along the lines of what I was looking for.

 

[DanOregon]

Funny thing about Byrd - it isn't like he NEEDED to appeal to black voters to keep his seat. Even today, the state has a black population of under 4 percent.
You want to rip on him for being part of the Klan more than 50 years ago? Fine. But only after you've taken the time to examine where every other Senator has stood on race issues since then. It's laughable that race-baiters like Limbaugh have no problem mocking Byrd - I guess the problem wasn't racism, but being inconsistent.

 

[The Big Ragu]

I chuckled at reading the theory that Byrd changed his views on Civil Rights out of political expediency. A couple of problems with that: 1. All he had to do to get re-elected was keep bringing in the pork, and 2. I'm not sure such a change would have helped him all that much in W. Va.

Funny thing about Byrd - it isn't like he NEEDED to appeal to black voters to keep his seat. Even today, the state has a black population of under 4 percent.
You want to rip on him for being part of the Klan more than 50 years ago? Fine. But only after you've taken the time to examine where every other Senator has stood on race issues since then. It's laughable that race-baiters like Limbaugh have no problem mocking Byrd - I guess the problem wasn't racism, but being inconsistent.

This is not a matter of getting elected. For him it was a matter of wielding power within the Senate, which was way more important to Byrd than anything. He was never going to get elected president with his past, so he knew that being the most powerful man in the Senate was his ceiling.

Byrd didn't get much respect from his colleagues early in his career. He had a powerful ally in Lyndon Johnson, and after that, he would have been the redneck clown in the back without redefining himself.

It was when he was battling Teddy Kennedy for the whip position in the Senate in the 1970s that he started his colossal shift to distinguished gentleman with more enlightened views. He also couldn't have brought that pork into W. Virginia without the power in the Senate he wielded. He became head of the appropriations committee -- which in effect made him the most powerful man in the Senate -- in the late 80s, essentially until he died, because he was able to change his colleagues perceptions of him. There is no doubt his racial views changed because being a racist prick meant less to him than being a powerful man in the Senate did. By all accounts he relished it.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Your typical snark aside, YF, you're the one assuming facts not in evidence. I never said "everyone does." It's an opinion.

Try engaging in an argument without being condescending. I know you can do it.

That particular view of Helms' 1990 campaign isn't exactly a minority one.

James Meridith endorsed David Duke, when he ran for governor of Louisiana. The guy may have been the first black student at Ole Miss, but is he really the proof that Jesse Helms was a beacon of enlightenment? And why on earth would anyone try to paint Jesse Helms as anything but a redneck (self described), while Robert Byrd was an unavowed racist in comparison? Using that silly James Meridith/ergo line of reasoning, David Duke must have been a better friend of the black man than Martin Luther King, Jr.

Those unreconstructed Southern / obstructionist politicians, like Helms and Byrd, were who they were. One wasn't morally superior to the other, in my opinion, because neither was particularly moral. Their racist pasts were a function of a time and place. When those attitudes couldn't get them where they wanted anymore, they became what they needed to be to get to where they wanted to be. It's that simple.

Look, I haven't condemned Byrd as a racist. I specifically said that I did not condemn him and said that I was not surprised that a man born 92 years ago would not have the same enlightened views that prevail today.

All I've said is that we shouldn't gloss over his "joining" the Klan. He didn't tag along with a friend to some meeting on the way to the saloon. He founded the local chapter. And it was the launching pad for his political career, so it's a little disingenuous for him to warn others about the Klan when it did so much for him.

And this thread isn't about Jesse Helms either. I just stated that Helms & Thurmond didn't get the same benefit of the doubt from many here about their racial views.

Now, you may disagree with me about Helms. That's fine. (Though, I think it would be odd for an avowed, unrepentant racist to work to end AIDS in Africa.)

And finally, I asked for evidence of actions that showed Byrd had changed his ways & beliefs. Words are cheap. What evidence is there besides his own words that he was a changed man?

I truly don't know. Maybe there's a mountain of evidence I'm unaware of. I'd be happy to have my eyes opened on this subject.

If someone wants to post some evidence that through his actions Byrd was a changed man, I'd be happy to read it.

Here's this ...

In the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People's (NAACP)[63] Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress (spanning the 2003–2004 congressional session), Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100 percent for favoring the NAACP's position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. Only 16 other senators received that approval rating in the session. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently."[64]

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

I chuckled at reading the theory that Byrd changed his views on Civil Rights out of political expediency. A couple of problems with that: 1. All he had to do to get re-elected was keep bringing in the pork, and 2. I'm not sure such a change would have helped him all that much in W. Va.

Um, Byrd didn't just elected and poof he was king of pork. It took him years, decade prolly the 1980s, before the funds started rolling in.

 

[D-3 Fan]

I was completely unaware of the news of his passing until I saw this thread a few minutes ago.

I'm going to get into the debate of his past and his place in Senate history. I'm going to put it this way from my POV:

I didn't agree with everything he did or say. With that said, I respected him, just like Teddy or anyone else in the U.S. Senate.

Let the historians like Doris Kearns Goodwin et al. review and judge Byrd in U.S. political history.

 

[Pilot]

Byrd obviously isn't getting a pass for his KKK days, as is made clear by the tone of this discussion.

But it is interesting to look at the NYT obits for both Byrd and Thurmond:

Byrd: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/politics/29byrd.html
Thurmond: http://nytimes.com/2003/06/27/obituaries/27STROM.html

The same author, btw. The history of race relations as it relates to Byrd is in the 16th graf. It's in the headline with Thurmond.

Obviously it did play a larger part in Thurmond's rise to power, and was more recently news thanks to the Trent Lott hubbub, but that nevertheless seems like a pretty drastic contrast to me.

I don't know how you're not more aware of that when your write the story. Seems like you're asking for trouble by setting it so low. I don't think it needs to be in the headline, but it has to figure in somewhere near the very top of the story, even if it's just a "once a KKK member, later became an major advocate for bla bla bla"

 

[dooley_womack1]

I love how quick people are to defend his membership in the Klan. I'm guessing that would not be the case if he was (gasp) a Republican.

We defend or just ignore the fact that one-third of the Founding Fathers were slave owners.

"They were a product of the time they lived in" is either an acceptable excuse 100 percent of the time or it isn't. Just take your pick---and be consistent about it.

I mostly agree with this, though I don't think history defends or ignores the ownership of slaves by many of the Founding Fathers.

But I don't think many here applied that standard to Thurmond or Helms.

I also think that if we're going to judge people's conversions on these matters, we should base our judgments on their actions, not just their words.

It's easy to say you reject your past views. How did you live?

I don't know enough about how Byrd lived his life to judge him, but I do know that Thurman & Helms -- by their actions -- appeared to live by their newly expressed beliefs.

Also, 21 is right. Maybe Robert Byrd is a saint, but that doesn't mean we should ignore Byrd's KKK past. It's part of telling the whole story of Senator Byrd, and for Evil to get upset every time someone "trots it out", is silly .

How would you tell his story? Where would you include his founding of a KKK chapter? Would you leave it out?

Ask Carol Moseley Braun or the makers of some of the race-baiting political ads he approved about how enlightened Helms was. Thurmond did truly seem to have changed in much the way Byrd did.

 

[Armchair_QB]

I don't think any of the three ever really changed. Byrd just gets a pass because he's a Democrat.

 

[Blitz]

RIP Senator Byrd and condolences to the immediate and extended family on the passing of an extremely accomplished politician.

 

[Boom_70]

Byrd obviously isn't getting a pass for his KKK days, as is made clear by the tone of this discussion.

But it is interesting to look at the NYT obits for both Byrd and Thurmond:

Byrd: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/politics/29byrd.html
Thurmond: http://nytimes.com/2003/06/27/obituaries/27STROM.html

The same author, btw. The history of race relations as it relates to Byrd is in the 16th graf. It's in the headline with Thurmond.

Obviously it did play a larger part in Thurmond's rise to power, and was more recently news thanks to the Trent Lott hubbub, but that nevertheless seems like a pretty drastic contrast to me.

I don't know how you're not more aware of that when your write the story. Seems like you're asking for trouble by setting it so low. I don't think it needs to be in the headline, but it has to figure in somewhere near the very top of the story, even if it's just a "once a KKK member, later became an major advocate for bla bla bla"

"That's Adam Clymer of The New York Times. He's a major league ass hole"

 

[deskslave]

Thank goodness he hung on until a Democrat was president or we'd be subjected to endless "Bush and Cheney killed Sen. Byrd" blather.

Is this a joke? Or are you actually serious?

If it's a joke, it's not particularly funny. If you're serious, then what the blue hell are you talking about?

 

[Drip]

I chuckled at reading the theory that Byrd changed his views on Civil Rights out of political expediency. A couple of problems with that: 1. All he had to do to get re-elected was keep bringing in the pork, and 2. I'm not sure such a change would have helped him all that much in W. Va.

Funny thing about Byrd - it isn't like he NEEDED to appeal to black voters to keep his seat. Even today, the state has a black population of under 4 percent.
You want to rip on him for being part of the Klan more than 50 years ago? Fine. But only after you've taken the time to examine where every other Senator has stood on race issues since then. It's laughable that race-baiters like Limbaugh have no problem mocking Byrd - I guess the problem wasn't racism, but being inconsistent.

This is not a matter of getting elected. For him it was a matter of wielding power within the Senate, which was way more important to Byrd than anything. He was never going to get elected president with his past, so he knew that being the most powerful man in the Senate was his ceiling.

Byrd didn't get much respect from his colleagues early in his career. He had a powerful ally in Lyndon Johnson, and after that, he would have been the redneck clown in the back without redefining himself.

It was when he was battling Teddy Kennedy for the whip position in the Senate in the 1970s that he started his colossal shift to distinguished gentleman with more enlightened views. He also couldn't have brought that pork into W. Virginia without the power in the Senate he wielded. He became head of the appropriations committee -- which in effect made him the most powerful man in the Senate -- in the late 80s, essentially until he died, because he was able to change his colleagues perceptions of him. There is no doubt his racial views changed because being a racist prick meant less to him than being a powerful man in the Senate did. By all accounts he relished it.

Are you serious?

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

Charleston Gazette editorial

Sen. Byrd was much loved by people who voted for him again and again, who turned out to hear and cheer him when he told stories or fiddled. Some of the appeal was habit. It was the comfort of the known and even the self-interest of keeping a senior senator in power. Some of his popularity came from genuine gratitude for good work -- either in helping constituents when they called, or winning federal funding for projects that stimulate local economies. Certainly the lure of a winning streak -- and even participating in it -- had its appeal. How long could he go?

Still, there was more.

Throughout his life he demonstrated a great capacity to learn and to change. He repudiated the racism of his youth. Perhaps it was politically expedient to do so at first. Later, he spoke in the same breath of two votes in his Senate career that he regretted -- his vote against the Civil Rights Act and his vote for the Tonkin Gulf resolution, both in 1964. The statute he opposed outlawed racial segregation in schools, workplaces and public spaces. The one he supported opened the way for the long, protracted and deadly war in Vietnam.

http://wvgazette.com/Opinion/Editorials/201006290035