Originally posted by Dr. ZaiusYour perceptions of Democrats are wildly inaccurate at best and slanderous at worst. Kindly put a sock in it.
Yeah, that book by Sen. Byrd sounds like a real-page turner. Moral hero - that's what I think of when I hear the name Robert C. Byrd....well, that and former KKK adherant. I sometimes marvel at the man's inner resources...I mean where does one find the moral courage to cast stones at an universally maligned president, when there are so many buildings left in West Virgina still to be identified and eponymously renamed?Sigh...hopefully Sen. Byrd will serve several more consecative senate terms and continue to inspire us all with the same sense of strident self-righteousness and turgid meglamania that have characterized the post-presidential career of that other great bastion of American conscience - Jimmy Carter.
As to the other title, since when did the Democratic Party suffer from a lack of ruthlessness, calculated or otherwise? The Clintons are possibly the most adept Machiavellian maniupulators seen on the national stage in recent memory. Contrary to the book title's implied arguement, prior to their recent victories in the Senate and House, the chief thing keeping Dems out of political office, wasn't a lack of ruthlessness, but was rather a lack of composure (Howard Dean), and coherent message (John "Prevarication" Kerry).
I just finished House and Senate by Ross K. Baker
I'm now in the middle of two books with opposing viewpoints:
Why the Electoral College is Bad for America by George C. Edwards III
and The Case Against Direct Election of the President: A Defense of the Electoral College by Judith Best.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Your perceptions of Democrats are wildly inaccurate at best and slanderous at worst. Kindly put a sock in it.I just finished House and Senate by Ross K. Baker
I'm now in the middle of two books with opposing viewpoints:
Why the Electoral College is Bad for America by George C. Edwards III
and The Case Against Direct Election of the President: A Defense of the Electoral College by Judith Best.
That's the spirit, O Dem! Read on!
Nothing personal, by the way...Sen. Byrd just happens to be one of those political creatures I can't bear to watch without wanting to throw things at the t.v.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Because he was in the KKK 40+ years ago? Get over it.
Well, his being a member of the KKK, regardless of how long ago it was, is pretty damning in and of itself. However, I also dislike him because he's an egotistical, grand-standing, bumpkin, (who's presided over the naming of 200+ buildings in W. Virginia after himself) who insists on dressing down the Senate with "home-spun" moral lectures...which, coming from him, is a little hard to take.
BTW, would you give a Republican who used to belong to the KKK the same kind of deferenetial treatment you afford Byrd? And if the answer is no, why not?
Originally posted by Dr. ZaiusYes, being a member of the KKK is never a happy face sticker on one's record, but Sen. Byrd saw the error of his ways and has apologized for it: "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times . . . and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened." - I believe in the power of redemption, so I can forgive him. And in fact, the NAACP gave him a 100% rating for the 108th Congress. So I give the guy some slack.
Well, his being a member of the KKK, regardless of how long ago it was, is pretty damning in and of itself. However, I also dislike him because he's an egotistical, grand-standing, bumpkin, (who's presided over the naming of 200+ buildings in W. Virginia after himself) who insists on dressing down the Senate with "home-spun" moral lectures...which, coming from him, is a little hard to take.
As for your other points: I fail to see any egotism in Sen. Byrd (and I've watched most of his speeches in some form or another). He does have a rhetorical flair about him, which is where I see your "grand-standing" charge come in, but the same could have been said of Patrick Henry or Thomas Paine. As for bumpkin, he was born in the 1920s and raised in one of the poorest states in the Union. Come on.
When it comes to the buildings named after him in W. Virginia (which actually number 38), say you were a Senator who had served in public office for over 55 years and the state was going to name a site after you, would you not preside over these events, or at least attend? Your opinion is rather shortsighted.
BTW, would you give a Republican who used to belong to the KKK the same kind of deferential treatment you afford Byrd? And if the answer is no, why not?It would depend on how long ago it was and whether he felt remorse for those actions. Byrd left the KKK long before I was born, and he certainly remorseful.
Conversely, let's look at former Sen. George Allen (R-VA). While not a member of the KKK, he is certainly a racist (as evidenced by the 2006 campaign), and a lot more recently than Byrd. See what I mean?
But this is a digression. I don't want to be off-topic. If you'd like to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.
Originally posted by Strangelove
But this is a digression. I don't want to be off-topic. If you'd like to continue this discussion, feel free to PM me.
Sure thing.
BTW, I take it by your handle and sig that you're a Dr. Strangelove fan. I've gotta say that this was not my favorite Kubrick picture. I thought 2001, The Shining, and Lolita were all better. Besides the last 10 minutes (which were brilliant) I found Dr. Strangelove somewhat lackluster. Maybe it's a Republican thing. 😎
Originally posted by Dr. ZaiusI'm not sure if it's a Democratic thing, but Dr. Strangelove is my favorite film of all time 😄
Sure thing.BTW, I take it by your handle and sig that you're a Dr. Strangelove fan. I've gotta say that this was not my favorite Kubrick picture. I thought 2001, The Shining, and Lolita were all better. Besides the last 10 minutes (which were brilliant) I found Dr. Strangelove somewhat lackluster. Maybe it's a Republican thing. 😎