Maybe it's just me, but it looks more (from looking at the complete text at the sites you linked to) like he was claiming Lott would have been "right [in the leadership]" of the nation at any of those points, not correct in policy at those points, and that his personality embodies those qualities which always seem to be present in great leaders. Whether or not anyone agrees with this, it seems from the "Some were right for the time...Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time" part that this is what was intended. He also indicates that he would have been "in the leadership crafting the Constitution" after using the word "right" in its first particular historical instance, and says before that he would have been a great Senator at any moment.

Was it a stupid way of saying what he said? Yeah, it was, especially the Civil War bit, but it seems not to be analogous to Lott's statement except for it being a stupid comment, since it was phrased so poorly. But it's not what a few seem to be making it out to be once it's read as part of the entire statement.

He's the ranking member of the Senate Rules and Administration committee. Of course, Trent Lott is the chairman.

Wrapped up in all of that however is the understanding that Dodd will not be called out by the press and his fellow liberals (a redundancy, granted) the way Lott was, for doing the same damn thing, nearly word for word.

Whch oughta tell us something.

Look, I don't like Chris Dodd. (And for the record, I'm a conservative Republican.) But I don't think his comment is comparable to Trent Lott's. Lott specifically commented approvingly on Strom Thurmond's racist past. Dodd commented that Byrd would have been a good man to have at any point in the country's history, without telling us which point in BYRD's history he was talking about.

Let's follow the philosopher's rule of charity and try to read his comment in the best way possible. So here's my alternative explanation. Perhaps he meant that he approves NOT of Byrd's past racism, but of Byrd's abandonment of the KKK specifically and racism more generally. So maybe he means that Byrd would be a good man in any time period NOT because it's always good to have a racist around BUT because it's always good to have someone around who's not afraid to question their own beliefs and repudiate those beliefs after concluding that they are morally wrong.

Frankly, I think it WOULD be a good thing to have that kind of a person around during the Civil War. You need people to come across from the other side of the aisle. In fact, West Virginia became a separate state after the civil war because these counties renounced the Confederacy and chose loyalty to the Union. Exactly what we might most charitably imagine time-travelling Byrd doing.

Clearly, this alternative explanation fits better, unless you think Dodd is both an evil racist and politically very stupid. I think the reason people have not seen this possibility is because of partisanship, on both sides. The substance of the argument doesn't matter-- it's just another battleground where Republicans and Democrats are fighting.

Let's follow the philosopher's rule of charity and try to read his comment in the best way possible.

Did the liberals do that about Lott? Did YOU? Let's see how you read his statements....

. Lott specifically commented approvingly on Strom Thurmond's racist past

See, that's just it; he said nothing about the racism, what he was speaking of was a strict constitutionalism. Clearly, this alternative explanation fits better, unless you think Lott is both an evil racist and politically very stupid...I think the reason people have not seen this possibility is because of partisanship... which raise a few questons about your response, to MY mind, anwyay..

Neither Trent Lott nor Christopher Dodd are racists. They were just trying to say something nice to old men with despicable pasts. I merely argued that Lott should resign his post because of his gross stupidity. He should not have caught himself in an awkward position unprepared. That’s why a senator has speech writers.

I don’t want to see Senator Dodd hung from the nearest tree. However, I do expect to see the major media give his remarks the same attention that they did with Senator Lott. The bias of these people has gotten so out of control that they no longer even pretend to be fair. One gets the distinct impression that they think advocacy journalism against Republicans is their moral obligation.

Okay, Bithead. Since you wondered, I was in favor of Trent Lott stepping down because of his remarks. I think the primary difference between the two situations is that Dodd only said he approves of Byrd and not his ideas at any specific time. On the other hand, Lott said he approved of Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid. Both men were "just trying to say something nice to old men with despicable pasts." But Dodd only said something nice about the old man, and Lott said something nice about the man's despicable past. That's the difference.

Lott said America would have been better off if Strom had won the presidency in 1948. Well, the platform of Strom's Dixiecrat party was undeniably racist. (See it here.) You could also describe it as "strict constitutionalist," but it was clearly racist. And as for the philosopher's rule of charity, here's my charitable reading of Lott's comments. Perhaps he approved of Thurmond's stand for state's rights and strict constitutionalism and etc., and was not talking about the racism inherent in Thurmond's segregationist ideas. That's the most charitable reading I can come up with and I still think it deserves condemnation. To say that America would have been better if the Dixiecrats won, except for the whole segregation thing is like saying that it would have been better if the Communists won except for the whole no-private-ownership-of-property thing. The racism was the point, not a footnote. And if Trent Lott couldn't see that, then yes I think he was stupid, and probably a little bit racist.

“But Dodd only said something nice about the old man, and Lott said something nice about the man's despicable past. That's the difference.”

This distinction seems senseless. No, it sound downright goofy. Dodd’s claim that Senator Byrd “would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation" is just as nutty as Lott’s earlier comments. Dodd also said the following: "Some were right for the time. ROBERT C. BYRD, in my view, would have been right at any time." The prosecution rests its case.

Instapundit has linked to the entire speech of Senator Dodd:

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2004_04_04_isthatlegal_archive.html#108142759212567976

On the other hand, Lott said he approved of Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid.

Yes, he did... and Thurmond ran as a strict constitutionalist. Which, you will recall, I made mention of.

And Byrd? Let's see... would you call a Grand wizard of the Klan, racist, I wonder?

Oh, but that's just a *slip* on Dodd's part, eh?

I don’t want to see Senator Dodd hung from the nearest tree. However, I do expect to see the major media give his remarks the same attention that they did with Senator Lott

Which means the press ought to be calling for his head.

David,
If you can't tell the difference between praising someone who has done bad things in the past and praising a bad thing that someone had done in the past (ie running for president on an explicitly racist platform), I can only write that off to willful ignorance.
Note that many Senators have praised Strom recently- both Dems and Repubs. And no one has complained, because that's normal for the Senate. No Senator other than Lott has recently suggested that America would be better off if Strom's racist campaign had been successful. Likewise, many have praised Byrd, but no one, including Dodd, has praised his former racist positions. Dodd's praise mentioned the Civil War, which makes people think about Byrd's past (which I detest, BTW- Id love to see him out of the Senate), but it never explicitly or implicitly suggested that Byrd's prior, racist positions were grounds for praise.

The prosecution rests- nice to see that even you recognize that you aren't interested in presenting or evaluating the issue thoroughly, merely in putting together the best case you can to defend your senseless, goofy position.

The other major difference between these two statements was Lott's own history of association with racists. Josh Marshall pointed out after Lott resigned that the weird part wasn't that praise for racism brought Lott down, is was that he's been doing that for his entire political career, and it was weird that this one moment got such media exposure.

Wu

Butthead,
On the other hand, Lott said he approved of Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid.

Yes, he did... and Thurmond ran as a strict constitutionalist. Which, you will recall, I made mention of.

Fer Christsakes, did you read the link? 3 of the 8 platform positions Strom ran on were explicitly segregationist. Strom ran as an independant because of race. He left the Democratic party because of race. If you want to stuff your head up your ass and pretend that racism was merely a minor part of Strom's campaign, feel free, but don't expect the rest of us to join you up there.

Wu

FWIW, if it had only been the "liberal media" calling for Lott's head, he would have just ignored them and stayed on. The biggest reason he fell is because of pressure from neo-con mouthpieces like the National Review and Weekly Standard. They correctly saw Lott as reinforcing the old "scratch a conservative and you'll dicover a racist" axiom, which they've almost successfully buried in the past few years.

David Thomson: Dodd said, "I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation's 220-plus year history where he [Byrd] would not have been a valuable asset to this country." He did not say, "I cannot think of a single moment in this Senator's 87-year history where he was not a valuable asset to this country." See the difference? The speech commends the man, not the past behavior.

Imagine the apostle Peter giving a similar speech about Paul, who persecuted Christians before he converted and became a Christian himself. Peter might say, "I cannot think of a single moment in Christianity's history where Paul would not have been a valuable asset to this religious community." Of course Peter wept for all the Christians who suffered and died because of Paul's persecution, but he also recognized what a great man Paul was after he saw the error of his ways.

Would Kleagle Byrd from 1946 have been the right man during the civil war? Absolutely not. Would Senator Byrd from 2004 have been the right man during the civil war? Chris Dodd would say yes.

Fer Christsakes, did you read the link? 3 of the 8 platform positions Strom ran on were explicitly segregationist. Strom ran as an independant because of race. He left the Democratic party because of race. If you want to stuff your head up your ass and pretend that racism was merely a minor part of Strom's campaign, feel free, but don't expect the rest of us to join you up there.

Would it help your undertsanding if I told you I stuided his 48 campaign less than 20 years after it was waged? I find the link you posted interesting, and yes, there was a rcial past in Thurmond. I've never denied that. But that was not at the center of his 48 campaign.

and the point you seem to be running away from; What was Byrd doing in '48? What was he saying?
He was still recommending appointments to then-Imperial Grand Wizard Samuel Green, and calling blacks "race mongrels" and vowing that he would rather "die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again" than fight "with a Negro by my side."

So, Dodd thinks this guy a hero that would ahve fit right in?

And here's the point you're dancing around....

If you think Thurmond a racist and are willing to condem both he and anyone suporting him (then and now) on that basis, (Lott for example) how in the world can you treat Dodd's statement any differently?

I find your apparent defnese of Dodd in light of his statements, while condemming Barr, ...bizzare, at best, and in truth, partisanly disingenuous.

Bithead:

1. I am glad you are now able to admit that Thurmond ran as a racist, as well as a strict constitutionalist. If you think (as you appear to) the latter is totally unimportant in comparison to the former, I am frankly puzzled. Was it unimportant to those who supported him and opposed him in 1948?

2. Yes, Byrd certainly WAS a racist in the forties, as demonstrated by his membership in the Klan, and by your quotes in the last post. He was wrong, and the things he said then were reprehensible and morally repugnant.

But is he a racist now? Dodd didn't say anything nice about Byrd's views in the forties, or even the sixties. He compliment the Byrd of 2004, who has disavowed his racist past. If you can show me evidence of Byrd's racism from the last fifteen years or so, I will be happy to agree with you that Dodd should be lambasted and censured for his remarks.

“The other major difference between these two statements was Lott's own history of association with racists.”

Where is the evidence to support this contention? Also, Senator Lott made his weird comments in front of a racially mixed crowd. This latter fact has been mostly ignored.

“Would Kleagle Byrd from 1946 have been the right man during the civil war? Absolutely not. Would Senator Byrd from 2004 have been the right man during the civil war? Chris Dodd would say yes.”

Chris Dodd did not make the distinction between the Senator Byrd of 1946 and 2004. Thus, he deserves to be ridiculed. Censured? Nope, and neither did Lott earn such a response.

I am glad you are now able to admit that Thurmond ran as a racist

That's NOT what I said.

Do you understand there's a difference between being a racist and running as one?

Yes, Byrd certainly WAS a racist in the forties, as demonstrated by his membership in the Klan, and by your quotes in the last post. He was wrong, and the things he said then were reprehensible and morally repugnant.

But never changed his ways from them. As late as the 90's he was still doing it, on national TV no less. (I"ve seen White Niggers in my time") Do you suppose he meant white who act like black people?

But is he a racist now?

Without question.

And here's the point you're dancing around....

If you think Thurmond a racist and are willing to condem both he and anyone suporting him (then and now) on that basis, (Lott for example) how in the world can you treat Dodd's statement any differently?

I think that Thurmond and Byrd were both racists. Their viewpoints were reprehensible. And Id much rather have had them both out of the Senate long ago, even if they had abandoned their prior viewpoints. People make mistakes, but some mistakes are ugly enough that their perpatrators should step back off of the public stage. IMO.
[And, I've never believed folks like Helms or Byrd. I find it hard to believe that such a strong belief could be so casually laid aside. I think he either never strongly believed in race, and merely used it as a prop, or that he's faking it today].

The problem I have with your characterization is that I perceive a profound difference between saying in general that (Byrd/Thurmond) is a good person, or a good Senator NOW, and praising their actions in the past.
As I said, most of the Senate has praised either Thurmond or Byrd or both at one time or another. None of that general praise raised any eyebrows. Dodd's statement was stupid because mentioning both the Civil War and Byrd in the same sentence brings Byrd's former racism to mind, but he never said anything that could be perceived as support for Byrd's positions at that time.

If he had, I would be yelling as loud as everyone else. A few weeks ago, some dumbass Dem blasted a Repub of Mexican descent for being part of some 'white' cabal, and followed that up with an even more contempible comment about how 'you all look the same to me.' I condemned it then, and again now for good measure.

Wu

Where is the evidence to support this contention?

Probably Lott's history of chuminess with the Council of Conservative Citizens, which he did finally renounce in 1992 after his association became public knowledge. The CCC, for those who aren't familiar, is an offshoot of the old White Citizens' Councils and the fact that Lott was a segregationist back in his college days a bit thereafter.

Byrd also, for the record, renounced his membership and association with the KKK, just as Strom renounced his old segregationist ways.

But here's the thing. Dodd was praising Byrd's leadership qualities, saying that he would have been (right) in the thick of drafting the Constitution, of national leadership during the Civil War, and so on. Dodd said nothing about Byrd necessarily always being correct in his positions, but was rather praising the qualities in him that make one a natural leader. These exist independently of any particular beliefs he held; Hitler was a very charismatic speaker, for example, and saying that does not mean that I endorse or approve of in any way his beliefs.

It is, however, impossible to separate the Dixiecrats from segregation. Now, I do think too much was made of Lott's comments; he was just careless when praising an old man. The problem with Lott was his history and the fact that that kind of carelessness probably means Republicans don't want him in power. That being said, saying "the country would be better off" under that Thurmond's leadership can be very plausibly read as "the country would be better off if we'd had a leadership more committed to segregation," as the Dixiecrats and Thurmond were.

In this case, though, you need to give more weight to Ingraham's paraphrase than the actual substance of the speech Dodd gave to interpret Dodd's comments the same way. To say that Dodd was just being careless but said something that could plausibly be said, ignoring the possibility of carelessness in eagerness to praise an old public servant, to tacitly praise Byrd's old racist position is to say that Dodd meant Byrd (that Byrd, not this Byrd, of course...one can't complain about Byrd and yet still harp on how Thurmond saw the error of his old ways, and there's no indication Dodd intended that at all) would have been correct in his positions. In isolation, the snippets Ingraham took out do give that impression, since the word "right" is ambiguous in that usage. But in context, it becomes clear that by "right," Dodd is speaking in shorthand for "right in the middle of," (and thus instead of "right," the appropriate segment is "right in,") rather than "correct."

Contest Dodd's statement all you want and claim Byrd is not a good leader, but don't twist them this way, because there is no plausible in context reading to give the impression that Dodd had anything kind to say about the racist positions Byrd used to hold. He, firstly, did not claim the old Byrd was an individual with correct positions, and he didn't say anything kind about Byrd's beliefs in that period of time.

A few weeks ago, some dumbass Dem blasted a Repub of Mexican descent for being part of some 'white' cabal, and followed that up with an even more contempible comment about how 'you all look the same to me.'

Out of curiosity, where was that?

Vivek,
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/state/8040153.htm?1c

Wu

Bithead,
...a difference between being a racist and running as one...

Wow, if that is the essence of defending Strom, I'd advise you to quit before the hole gets too deep.

Dan,
shame on you for giving play to this ridiculous, out-of-context, contrived slam on Dodd by a hack newspaper like the Washington Times. House of Payne figure out the true context by going to the speech, and you should have done as much. I know you're on vacation, etc... but if you couldn't put in the work, you should have erred on the side of caution.

This is a non-story and Lott's comments at Thurmond's last birthday party should have been as well. If Thurmond had still been a Democrat, they would have been.

I have to say Dodd's comments, like Lott's, bear the strong suggestion of thoughts that the Senator put into words himself without running them by staff. This is almost always a mistake. Senators should naturally have their own thoughts and some are even able to speak extempore, but speaking without clearing the tone and content of one's remarks with staff is tempting fate.

In this case, staff would likely have advised Dodd to confine his remarks to Byrd's dedication and service to the Senate as an institution, his mastery of its rules, his history of the Senate, his jealous devotion to the interests of West Virginia. No one could have objected to that. Similarly Lott could have avoided all the trouble over the Thurmond remarks by addressing his comments to any of the 99 years of Thurmond's life in which Thurmond did not run for President.

This wouldn't have meant either Dodd or Lott would be immune to the gibes of snot-nosed moral poseurs in the press and the blogosphere, but these are of little consequence. The point is that the alert senator is aware that it is best not to be controversial unless one wishes to be controversial; staff is there to see that controversy is avoided unless it is something the senator really wants for some reason. Since the reason will usually not be a very good one staff is also there to try and talk him out of it, but this is unnecessary most of the time.

...a difference between being a racist and running as one...

Wow, if that is the essence of defending Strom, I'd advise you to quit before the hole gets too deep.

Two things;

First, the defense being put up here for Byrd seems equaly subtle.

Second, my purpose was not to defend Thurmond per se', but rather compart the two situations.

By this time I have learned to generously give special treatment to Democrats for their failure to adhere to their own logic intellectually and ethics behaviorially, excusing them also on affirmative action-like grounds. Otherwise they wouldn't have a Party.

Correction of a typo:

COMPARE the two sitautions.

And Joe, you make that eventuality... their being without a party... sound like it's supposed to be a BAD thing. I'm not sure I see it so.

Bithead,

First, the defense being put up here for Byrd seems equally subtle.
As I've said before, House of Payne has put together the context of the quote by going to the speech. It's Byrd (2004) that is clearly being referred to, since he was not even alive during the civil war. Now Dodd and I both believe his racist past is behind him, and that's a fair matter for you to disagree with, but it hardly casts any shade of racism on Dodd or myself.
Whether this is subtle, I don't know, but I don't think your defense of Strom was effective or subtle.

Second, my purpose was not to defend Thurmond per se', but rather compare the two situations.

Without going too much into clichés about comparing fruits, let me say that you would have been closer to the mark had you attempted to defend Lott instead of Strom. Even so, defending Strom (2004) is one thing, defending Strom's presidential run is near impossible.

I'm not a criminal, but I'll run to enact the policies they want.
I'm not a racist, but I'll run to enact the policies they want.
I'm not a polluter, but I'll run to enact the policies they want.
....you get the picture.

sincerely,

Wrong on two counts.

First You and (apparently) Dodd are making the assumption his racist past is behind him. Much depends, contextually, on that being true. His leaving that past behind is hardly a closed question, given his actions and statements over even more recent years, to say nothing of the vites in the Senate we have him on record with.

Secondly, I was simply exploring the background of Thurmond fairly. Thta is, I'm afraid, something Byrd's defenders seemingly don't seem to want to do when comparisons start getting drawn between the two men. Byrd's defenders seem to want to ignore his past and focus on heir fantasy of Thurmond's.

Bithead,
the test you really want then is how Thurmond and Byrd compare in their renounciation of past racist positions. Such a comparison might leave one of us more vindicated, or not, who knows? It's a bit too much work for me tackle, unfortunately. But if anyone had links (both sides please, for comparison), I'd take a peek at them, for sure.

see ya.

Well, that was sure interesting. As the referee, I have to remind the debate participants that both sides have forgotten one of the basic rules when dealing democrats and their sometimes "misinterpreted" public statements. That rule is that democrats get a free pass when they make insensitive remarks or statements. Only repbulicans can be held accountable. Please factor this rule into further debating on this subject.

(Chuckle!)

I rather thought that to be the central point of my argument.

Follow on, of possible interest to this thread:

Bithead / 4/13/2004 06:19:59 PM

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Members of a black leadership group are asking Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) to resign from his position in the United States Senate because of recent comments he made regarding Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV).

Project 21 spokesman Kevin Martin said he is outraged at the comments made by Dodd and is shocked that Dodd was allowed to make them without any backlash whatsoever.

"How could Senator Dodd have made the comments he did with a straight face? And how can he believe he's going to get away with it?," Martin asked in a press release. "Robert Byrd is a former leader in the Ku Klux Klan, and later an opponent of civil rights legislation. I can think of many places in American history where I wouldn't want him setting our nation's agenda."