Pork Barrel in the News

[RedsBaron]

"This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past...The first Senate, which met in 1789, approved 19 rules by a majority vote. Those rules have been changed from time to time...So the Members of the Senate who met in 1789 and approved that first body of rules did not for one moment think, or believe, or pretend, that all succeeding Senates would be bound by that Senate...It would be just as reasonable to say that one Congress can pass a law providing that all future laws have to passed by two-thirds vote. Any Member of this body knows that the next Congress would not heed that law and would proceed to change it and would vote repeal of it by majority vote." Robert C. Byrd, 1/15/79, Congressional Record.
When Senator Byrd participated in the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it required a 2/3s vote, 67 Senators, to invoke cloture. In 1975, Byrd led an effort to reduce the number of Senators necessary to limit debate to 60, the present number necessary to invoke cloture.
Seantor Byrd had at least two honorable, reasoned arguments he could have made this week in opposing Republican efforts to reduce the number of Senators necessary to invoke cloture to a simple majority, 51 Senators.
1. He could have acknowledged his prior position on this issue and stated that he was wrong then, that one Senate can bind succeeding Senates, and that the number of Senators necessary to invoke cloture should never be changed. He could then have made his arguments as to why no change should be made.
2. In the alternative, after acknowledging his prior position in the 1970s, he could have made a "Goldilocks" argument (one soup is too hot, one too cold and one "just right"): 67 votes were too many for cloture, 51 is too few, 60 is "just right."
It would have been interesting to hear what arguments Senator Byrd could then have made to support either proposition.
Instead, Senator Byrd decided to in effect say that Hitler and Republicans were similar, a tactic used by others in last year's election when some of those opposed to President Bush equated him with Hitler.
If a Republican called a Democrat a Communist, the Republican would be accused of McCarthyism. How is a Democrat in effect calling a Republican a Nazi any more acceptable?

[RedsBaron]

There may have been a time I would have agreed with you, but WV isnt the state it used to be. A socially conservative Democratic governor in Joe Manchin and being called for Bush right after the polls closed on Election Day.

A lot of Democrats in WV that may run for Senate are more conservative than Byrd and Rockefeller. The primaries will be very interesting to see when Byrd is up.

I'm assuming that Senator Byrd will run for re-election, and be re-elected in 2006. Given his age, that may be his final term. If so, Governor Manchin may be will positioned to become his successor. Should Senator Byrd not serve out his full term after 2006, Governor Manchin could appoint himself to the Senate. If Senator Byrd retires after one more full term, Governor Manchin could then be completing his second term and be the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the Senate seat in 2012.

[Redsfaithful]

I'm sure it was intentional RB, but you didn't answer my question.

And my question is the important issue, not Robert Byrd's past transgressions, or opinions.

Like I said, Republicans are great at misdirection.

a tactic used by others in last year's election when some of those opposed to President Bush equated him with Hitler.

No one having anything to do with Sen. Kerry's campaign said anything of the sort.

[GAC]

Like I said, Republicans are great at misdirection.

Obviously so are some others.

The term "Nazi", and the names of those associated with this ideology (Hitler, Eichmann, etc), along with the acitivities of the 3rd Reich, have been used alot by the left to identify/associate members of this administration. And it is simply absurb and should not be tolerated (regardless of party).

It's obviously a term being thrown around too loosely by those who have no idea what a Nazi is or what they perpetrated. Because if they knew, then they wouldn't be usely it such.

But I think the reason they like to use it is because they know it's a term that brings about a desired result... insult and injury.

And right now, that is about all the left can do right now.

I've been listening to guys like this professor Churchill and Senator Byrd, and others on the left who have used the Nazi analogy, and I just shake my head and laugh in disbelief. Even Ted Kennedy came out afterwards and applauded/agreed with Byrd's remarks.

What happened to Byrd when he used the "N" word on the floor of Congress in 2002? Anything? It was rationalized and explained away. But Trent Lott makes a ill-timed statement and it cost him his job. Any hypocrisy there at all?

During a meeting last month with black Democrats in Washington, D.C., Dean joked during a speech, “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.”

If Bush or any other Repub made that statement, even if done in humor (does that excuse the remark?), what would the outrage be?

[MWM]

If you're not good at misdirection, you have no chance at being elected.

And it's not like the Republicans have never compared Democrats to communists.

[WVRed]

What happened to Byrd when he used the "N" word on the floor of Congress in 2002? Anything? It was rationalized and explained away. But Trent Lott makes a ill-timed statement and it cost him his job. Any hypocrisy there at all?

Trent Lott!!! Trent Lott!!! Trent Lott!!!

For some reason, I do find it laughable that Byrd using a word that is considered a "racial slur" and "hate speech" is explained away and being called misdirected, much like the Nazi comment is, yet the same people would crucify Dick Cheney for telling another senator to do a not very nice thing. Im not condoning Cheney, but you can pretty much put those two in the same category, no more, no less.

No one having anything to do with Sen. Kerry's campaign said anything of the sort.

That is true, but I believe he was referring to MoveOn.org comparing Bush to Hitler, which is something that has been up for the Dead Horse Award for some time now.

Regardless of whether they were with Senator Kerrys compaign or not, there were some Democrats who did compare Bush with Hitler.

[RBA]

There you go again with half-truths. It's already been pointed out numerous times that Moveon.org did not compare Bush to Hitler. A contest that Moveon.org sponsored had an entry where one of the entrants compared Bush to Hitler. We all know the accusation that moveon.org compared Bush to Hitler is a lie. Why do you believe in repeating it?

[WVRed]

There you go again with half-truths. It's already been pointed out numerous times that Moveon.org did not compare Bush to Hitler. A contest that Moveon.org sponsored had an entry where one of the entrants compared Bush to Hitler. We all know the accusation that moveon.org compared Bush to Hitler is a lie. Why do you believe in repeating it?

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Redsfaithful]

That is true, but I believe he was referring to MoveOn.org comparing Bush to Hitler, which is something that has been up for the Dead Horse Award for some time now.

Regardless of whether they were with Senator Kerrys compaign or not, there were some Democrats who did compare Bush with Hitler.

Absolutely, but if you want to start digging up things that random internet websites have said about the opposition then I promise you that I can find you some very interesting things from right wing websites. There are people who speak without thinking on both sides.

Bush isn't a Nazi. Republican party, even the current leaders who I think are a lot worse than the average Republican, aren't Nazis.

But some of the things they've proposed and done in the past four years seriously restrict personal rights and the ability of a minority party to have a voice. Those things tend to remind people of totalitarian regimes who did similar things. And it's not a bad thing to use what happened in Germany as a lesson that restricting the rights of individual citizens and giving more rights to the government (or to corporations, which is just as bad in many cases) can often be a bad idea. I can remember when conservatives agreed with that, until their president told them to change their minds.

I don't think America could ever be a totalitarian regime as long as the current structure of government is kept relatively the same. It can certainly get up to some terrible things, but we have a system where turnover in leadership is mandated. But when one of the parties starts talking about getting rid of filibustering then I think we have a problem.

Especially when it's talking about changing things because Democrats didn't push through something like 5% of the judges that Bush nominated last go round, a number that was smaller than the number of judges Congressional Republicans refused to pass under Clinton.

Republicans are overreaching right now, and it's going to eventually cost them. There's almost always a backlash when one of the parties does this, and I think we're seeing it a bit with Bush's Social Security fiasco.

[RedsBaron]

I'm sure it was intentional RB, but you didn't answer my question.

And my question is the important issue, not Robert Byrd's past transgressions, or opinions.

Like I said, Republicans are great at misdirection.



No one having anything to do with Sen. Kerry's campaign said anything of the sort.

Tell you what RF-this thread started as a discussion about Senator Byrd comparing Republicans to Hitler. You are the one who has wanted to direct the thread elsewhere to a topic you want to discuss, and you have thus far not indicated in this thread whether or not you have any disagreement with Senator Byrd's remarks. You tell me your position on the Senator's comments, then I'll respond to your question if you are truly interested.

[MWM]

204 of Bush appointees have been confirmed. 10 have been blocked.

[Redsfaithful]

Tell you what RF-this thread started as a discussion about Senator Byrd comparing Republicans to Hitler. You are the one who has wanted to direct the thread elsewhere to a topic you want to discuss, and you have thus far not indicated in this thread whether or not you have any disagreement with Senator Byrd's remarks. You tell me your position on the Senator's comments, then I'll respond to your question if you are truly interested.

I think his speech was inspired. I've read the entire thing, and I couldn't have put it better myself.

The media, Jewish groups, and Republican leaders are cherrypicking, the latter because they realize it's a great way to direct public attention away from the fact that they want to nuke filibustering, completely crippling the minority party in the Senate.

You'd think they wouldn't want to do that - realizing that the day is going to come when Democrats control the Senate again. But I think there are people in the Republican party who honestly want the destruction of the Democratic Party, so they think this is a great step along that road. I think it's a damn dangerous step. Anyone who wishes Republicans and Democrats could get along once in a while and compromise now and again ought to agree with me.

[RBA]

Tell you what RF-this thread started as a discussion about Senator Byrd comparing Republicans to Hitler.

Did he campare republicans to Hitler or did he do a "comparison between Adolf Hitler's Nazis and a Senate GOP plan "

Notice the 's after Hitler. Was distortion also a part of the Nazi game plan?

[RedsBaron]

Did he campare republicans to Hitler or did he do a "comparison between Adolf Hitler's Nazis and a Senate GOP plan "

Notice the 's after Hitler. Was distortion also a part of the Nazi game plan?

Senator Byrd: "Hitler's originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions in modern conditions are carried out with, and not without, not against, the power of the State....Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality."
Senator Byrd compared Republicans to Hitler, not Hitler's Nazis, although I can't see a huge distinction between compared to Hitler himself or the Nazi party.

[RedsBaron]

But I think there are people in the Republican party who honestly want the destruction of the Democratic Party, so they think this is a great step along that road. I think it's a damn dangerous step. Anyone who wishes Republicans and Democrats could get along once in a while and compromise now and again ought to agree with me.

The Chairman of the Democratic Party has publicly proclaimed that he "hates" Republicans-not just that he disagrees with Republicans or that Republicans are in his opinion wrong on certain issues or misguided-no, he "hates" Republicans.
Meanwhile, Senator Byrd finds similarities between Republicans and Hitler.
I'm glad Howard Dean and Senator Byrd don't want the destruction of the Republican Party and only want to get along and compromise.