LOL! Well done.

When a Klansman like Senator Byrd calls you a Nazi, does that mean he is complimenting you?

My friend's dad ran against Senator Byrd in 1982 so he should be up in 2006.

What rule did Byrd change as majority leader? I haven't seen this before.

Thanks





__

---

_____________________________________
You're not stuck in traffic. You ARE traffic.

I am going on memory here, but when Byrd was Majority Leader, the Democrats lowered the filibuster threshold from a 2/3 majority to the current level of 60 votes.

and what about when the head of republican party in new york likens howard dean to an al qaeda terrorist?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

I didn't follow that, but, if it is as you describe, maybe we need a new chairman in NY.

How about a deal? Let's get rid of both of them.

When Senator Lott said something that could be construed as being supportive of de iure segregation (and that also could have been construed as saying something nice about a 100 year old man), the Republicans tossed him as majority leader in a matter of weeks.

Senator Byrd is not only a (former) Klansman, but he is also the only Senator to vote against every black nominee to the United States Supreme Court. He just recently joined a minority of Democrats in voting against the nomination of a black woman to be Secretary of State. He recently used the "N word" in a interview". It takes a lot of chutzpah for someone with his history to call others Nazis. Unfortunately, it's par for the course for the Democrats to ignore it. After all, he hates President Bush so he must be good.

ok, that's great. but, as a party at this point in time, what can they do? the guy is bad, but the fact that he continues to be a senator says more about the people that voted for him than it does about the dems.

if he was in an official leadership position at this point in time, i'd expect him to be dealt with. but he's not, as far as i am aware, so what is to be done?

moreover, i don't see him as any type of spokesperson for the party.

---

f/k/a mclamb6

The Democrats could find someone to run against him in the primary and fund that person. Or they could tell him that he needs to retire. Or they could nominate someone else for president pro tempore. Or they could make an exception from seniority rules when it comes to being ranking member on committees. Or they could allocate speaking time on the floor (or is it the well in the Senate) to someone else.

For someone that is not a "official spokesman", he gets in the media a fair bit.

how do you know they haven't told him to retire or funded someone else to run against him?

why didn't the repubs do the same with lott?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

How many black nominees to SCOTUS have there been in the past 30 years, or ever? Anyone else besides Clarence "buy Scalia, get Thomas free" Thomas and Thurgood Marshall? I'd guess that he's probably one of the few Senators who actually voted for both of these nominees (Byrd, Kennedy, and Inouye are three I could find). What a stupid argument.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I think that there is a tremendous difference between Senator Byrd's consistent positions over 30 plus years and Senator Lott's having made one statement that could be construed as supporting de iure segregation. But, let's assume that they are the same thing.

Senator Lott has largely disappeared from public view. It is also my understanding that he was not going to run for re-election, but was merely serving out his term. Senator Byrd has most certainly not disappeared and will probably run for re-election again. Even if he doesn't run this time, he has run for re-election numerous times after it was quite well known that he was a Klansman and that he has taken positions that a Klansman would take.

I doubt that Senator Byrd would be asked to retire because of his views as his current statements, that the Republicans are Nazis, are entirely consistent with the mainstream of the Democratic party. How are they different from what Michael Moore has said? President Carter, after all, was honored to sit beside Mr. Moore at the Democratic National Covnention. How are they different from what Howard ("I hate all Republicans and everything they stand for") Dean has said ?

On the other hand, the overwhelming majority of Republican voters do not think that de iure segregation was a good thing, and I don't know of any RNC Chairman that has expressed universal hatred for all Democrats and everything they stand for.