Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Bill Clinton's Eulogy of Robert Byrd
Bill Clinton raised some eyebrows the other day when he spoke at a memorial service for Robert Byrd, the late senator of West Virginia, who died last week. In his address, Clinton directly addressed the former membership of Byrd in the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). According to Clinton, Byrd was a member of the Klan because he wanted to get elected. Well, I guess that clears that up. Case closed.
"And the country would have been a whole lot better off had Strom Thurmond been elected president."
- Trent Lott at an event honoring Strom Thurmond prior to his death.
Do you remember the firestorm that greeted Lott's statement? Lott had to vacate his senior leadership position with the Republican Party as a result. Of course, there is nothing for Clinton to vacate; it's just another little stain on that legacy of his.
What does it say about Byrd? It is true that he was a member of the Klan for a period of time in the 1940s. As the times changed, so, apparently, did Byrd. Yet, he was not just a young recruit to the Klan. He was in a position of some leadership
(a Kleagle), who reportedly was responsible for recruiting himself.
Sean Hannity in recent years, made a habit of calling Byrd "Robert KKK Byrd". Was it fair? Many on the Democratic side said it was not. Yet, what if Byrd had been a Republican?
In the final decades, Byrd tried to distance himself from his past. He called it a mistake on his part. He became known as an expert of the Constitution-even if he once felt it didn't apply to black people. What he was noted for was being a master of pork. You couldn't list all the bridges and buildings named after Byrd in W Virgina due to all the goodies he brought home-at the expense of all the tax-payers of the nation. Byrd was an example of why there should be some form of term limits. He was elected senator in 1959 after being in the House of Representaives from 1952. For anyone to spend that many decades in Washington will usually lead to some form of abuse.
Let Byrd rest in peace. However, my question is whether Bill Clinton will take the same heat from the mainstream media that Lott did.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
I agree that had he been a Republican, people like Olberman and Maher would've been calling him "KKK Byrd," so it would be hypocritical of them to take offense at Hannity's characterization. That's a rather large skeleton in the closet.
But Clinton's remarks and Lott's are fairly dissimilar, no? Clinton is saying that Byrd's membership in the KKK was a mistake and that he learned from it and changed. Lott was saying that if Thurmond (who ran on the segregationist platform) had been elected, America would've been better off. Better off because we'd still be segregated?
Even if he didn't mean it that way (and honestly, I don't think he did- Lott is not a stupid man), it's a monumentally foolish thing to say, especially for a politician who cares about public opinion.
Anyway, I can see your point about how the situations are similar in some ways, but I don't think the comment comparison is apt.
Was he making excuses? Perhaps, but it's a eulogy, and that sort of thing is expected.
While I think that maybe too much was made of Lott's statement, it's not even in the same ballpark as Clinton's. I mean, wasn't Thurmond running on a segregationist platform? Saying that things would have been a lot better in that case isn't the same as saying that he did it in order to get elected.
Atticus,
I suppose there is a lot to infer from both statements. Lott regretted his words but he was simply trying to say something nice to a man on his 100th birthday (or 99?). linton was giving an awkward excuse.
We can forgive both men, but do you think the media will treat Clinton as harshly as Lott was treated?
Lance,
Of course, in 1948, Thurmond was a strong segregationist, which is why Lott came to regret his remarks. He should have left that part out of it altogether. He was trying to say something nice on his birthday.
Gary, I know the answer/angle you're looking for here: The liberal media will be nicer to Clinton than it was to Lott. But the point both Lance and I made is that you can't judge the media's response by these two incidences because they are dissimilar, not equal, etc.
Off topic, I came to your blog today, looking for a response to the Obama/Israel summit (maybe I missed it?). You seem to be something of an expert on U.S. Israeli affairs, and I was curious as to your opinion about the very strong terms in which Obama described his support for Israel. From what I've read in your previous blogs, this would be contrary to your feelings about the president.
Atticus
If you think they are dissimilar, I would say you are splitting hairs. I guess nothing is identical.
As to the Obama-Netanyahu visit yesterday, I welcome the president's remarks about support for Israel. I do have doubts as to Obama's actual support for Israel based on prior actions. I suppose I suspect there was something cosmetic about that meeting yesterday. I hope I am wrong.
I am starting to hear reports about anti-Israeli demonstrations yesterday against the visit.there was some violence against a few Jews in SF yesterday. I am concerned about that and trying to get more info.
If you think they are dissimilar, I would say you are splitting hairs. I guess nothing is identical.
Come on, Gary, do you really not see the difference between saying that things would be better if the segregationist candidate won and that a guy made a mistake by being in the Klan? For Pete's sakes, the first one is implying that being a racist is good! The second implies the exact opposite! How much more different can you be than by being the opposite?
(And yeah, Lott probably didn't mean it that way, but that's not the point.)
"(And yeah, Lott probably didn't mean it that way, but that's not the point.)"
If Lott probably didn't mean it that way, why was he treated the way he was? It was probably a clumsy attempt to say something nice about a guy who was celebrating his 100th birthday.
Lott meant exactly what he said. He was inadvertently revealing his true feelings.
Byrd was still viciously opposed to the Civil Right Act in 1964. At the time, everyone knew that both the core support AND the core opposition were located within the Democratic Party. Hannity would have loved Byrd at the time. Byrd mellowed, which I guess is OK.
Clinton was a clumsy fool, and he told what he should have known was a lie. He should have said, Byrd lived and learned. So did Hugo Black. It doesn't help to be condescending. At the time he joined the Klan, Byrd believed in what he was doing.
It was probably a clumsy attempt to say something nice about a guy who was celebrating his 100th birthday.
Okay, let me spell this out.
I agree that if a conservative had said what Clinton said, the left-wing pundits would be all over it.
I agree that too much was made out of what Lott said, and all he could fairly be accused of is not thinking enough about his statement before he said it.
I disagree that Clinton's statement and Lott's statement are comparable. They're pretty much the opposite of each other.
Lance,
I just think they were both clumsy choice of words. Lott made a one-sentence statement. Clinton went into a subject he would better have left alone and he would say that now. I am just pointing out the disparate reaction in the media. You disagree because you say the statements were apples and oranges. Let's leave it at that.
The disparate reaction was BECAUSE the statements were apples and oranges. That's the logical piece that seems to be eluding you.
OK, OK, I get it. Y'all think there statements have absolutely o relevance to each other , but I do.I guess we have to agree to disagree.
Lott represented a family dynasty which had been yellow-dog southern Democrats when that was "the white man's party," the political faction which moved wholesale into the Republican Party circa 1970, and now dominates it. Lott was a racist, who usually knew better than to admit it.
Lott's state DID vote for Thurmond in 1948. Lott WAS proud of that. He wasn't just trying to make an old man happy.
Clinton has no such history.
Byrd doesn't either, but he does have a history of being a knowing and enthusiastic member of the Klan, who later found it convenient to set that aside. It took him a while. Clinton should have admitted that about Byrd.
Siarlys,
I am no expert on Lott. What his family did or his state did five decades ago is irrelevant to me. The issue is Lott. What kind of man is he. I have no indication that he is or was a racist.
Its been MORE than 50 years since Byrd was in the KKK. About 70 years. I still care about it. It seems you do too.
Siarlys,
It's not that I care about Byrd having been in the KKK 50-70 years ago, I care more about the hypocrisy that surrounded the issue.
Post a Comment