Posted on 06/16/2007 8:39:57 AM PDT by Mobile Vulgus
In a rather soft boiled story on West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd's dotage and his uselessness as an able bodied member of the Senate, at 89 he's currently the longest serving Senator in American history, the AP did the right thing in reminding the readers that Byrd was once a member of the Klan. Yet, they had to go and ruin the truth by claiming that Klan members are "certainly conservative."
In fact, this AP story amazingly tries to make it seem as if Byrd had only late in life become that member of Congress that has been "endeared" to "many liberals", hinting that it only just dawned on him after 53 years in the Senate to become a liberal. The AP imagines that Byrd somehow "remade" himself into a liberal over the Bush administration's Iraq policy, as if he never was one before that.
Colleagues said Byrd agreed to have Murray lead the floor fight, even though the Iraq issue is close to his heart. Since the war's outset, he has ranked among Bush's harshest critics, a role that endeared him to many liberals and proved again that a skillful politician can remake his image if he stays in office long enough...What is with this "remake his image" stuff, AP? Do you imagine that Byrd has been Barry Goldwater until we set our first boots on the ground in Iraq?
But, here is the worst part. As mentioned, the AP imagines that only conservatives could ever be a Klan member.
...His political origins were certainly conservative, including a stint in the Ku Klux Klan — membership for which Byrd has repeatedly apologized. His 14-hour filibuster of civil rights legislation in 1964 was among the longest in Senate history.I see. Once again we have the myth that only conservatives (a word that is used to denote Republican today) were against civil rights.
Does it occur to the AP that the bulk of those politicians against civil rights in the beginning of that era were Democrats? Does it occur to them that the civil rights bills that later passed assuring blacks their equal rights could not have passed were it not for the strong support of the Republican Party? Does the AP not know that the Dixiecrats who led the fight against civil rights for blacks were NOT Republicans, nor conservatives, but merely racist in imputes? There were no "conservative" principles at stake as far as the Dixiecrats were concerned in that time period.
Apparently expecting the AP to represent truthful American history is expecting far too much.
Blah, Blah, Blah,
Smear, Smear, Smear
Other then trying to shut whites up is there a point to the AP article?
Byrd's statue is currently housed in the Capitol Rotunda, as shown in the picture, and it is said if you stand under the statue the senator's hand points directly at your pockets.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_byrddroppings
Doesn't work though. We all know what they are, particularly the writers who try to cover it up.
NOT Republicans, true, of course.
Not conservatives, depends on what you are trying to conserve. In their case it was white dominance. They also tended to hold attitudes with regard to other issues (Communism/socialism, moral decay of society, taxation, etc.) that lined up very well with non-racist conservatives. They had essentially nothing in common with any other political groups in America.
There were no "conservative" principles at stake as far as the Dixiecrats were concerned in that time period.
Bull puckey, they were attempting to conserve white supremacy by Jim Crow methods.
I would contend that Jim Crow is, and always was, a very anti-conservative policy, if you view American history as a whole. From the standpoint of the south Jim Crow was an attempt to salvage as much as possible of the pre-war social system, a very conservative issue from their point of view.
It is simply not possible to intelligently discuss whether a particular policy is conservative or not unless you first define the principles you are attempting to conserve.
True, and largely forgotten.
However, the yellow dog Democrats were an intensely conservative bunch.
I contend it was a perverted conservatism in its attitudes towards racial issues, but you certainly cannot argue they were liberal or radical in any way.
I live in Texas and I’ve never encountered a racist in my daily life. That doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but they’ve largely been discredited and (thankfully) for the most part keep to themselves.
From the days before the Civil War, Democrats have always been the party to aggravate and exploit racial differences. The main difference today is only a change in the skin color of many of the racial exploiters. On the other hand, the Republicans were always the true civil rights party as this page on Michael Zak's Grand Old Partisan website shows:
I grew up and left the south over 30 years ago. But amongst the 40-odd guys that I grew up with (friends, school buds, etc)...I’d say that 12 are KKK members and all 12 are staunch Democrats...which they will tell you to your face that they are Democrats. One of the 12 is a church deacon, since age 30, and one of the top union dudes in the county. The only absolute in this KKK membership deal is that 99 percent of the members are non-college graduates. Over the years of going back home and getting updated...you notice that most of the higher educated guys never got hooked up with the KKK...for whatever reason.
He who controls the past, controls the future. :/
While Frederick Douglas, Harriet Tubman and Martin Luther King Jr. were all GOP, Slavery, Insurrection and Segregation were Donk, Donk and Donk.
You forgot to mention James William Fulbright ... whom Bill Clinton's has stated was a mentor of his and who Clinton looked up to
Conservatism -- at least one of its definitions -- is marked by adherence to traditional norms and resistance to rapid, sweeping change. Forget the slogans, the party labels, and all the usual knee-jerk, rah-rah crap -- opposition to desegregation was the conservative position.
A that time and on that issue, the large majority of Southern Democrats were conservative. The Republicans and some, mostly Northern, Democrats held the progressive, reformist, -- dare I say liberal? -- position, which was also, I scarcely need say, the correct and moral position.
We're so in love with describing someone as "a conservative " or "a liberal," and loading those terms with all kinds of emotional baggage, that we risk losing sight of what the words mean. In the Middle East, our goals are liberal -- sweeping changes, wiping out old traditions particularly as regards women. In the eyes of Wahabbists, we're radical liberals. Don't be afraid of the word.
I seem to remember ol' Ted had a copy of 'Earth in the Balance' in his little cabin.
I still think he was deep throat.
My liberal family members think the scandalous Wilbur Mills was a Republican.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.