Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (8070)	3/3/2005 9:12:28 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Jewish Groups Denounce Byrd's Nazi Remarks Captain's Quarters Two Jewish groups have denounced Senator Robert Byrd for his equating Hitler and the GOP and have demanded an apology and a retraction, the AP reports today, in a development that may signal a crack in the media disinterest that has marked Byrd's antics up to now. The first group to criticize Byrd was the the Republican Jewish Coalition, a group that Democrats could dismiss as partisan. However, the second group, the Anti-Defamation League, will not so easily be disregarded by Byrd's colleagues: <<< Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Wednesday that Byrd's remarks showed "a profound lack of understanding as to who Hitler was" and that the senator should apologize to the American people. "It is hideous, outrageous and offensive for Senator Byrd to suggest that the Republican Party's tactics could in any way resemble those of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party," Foxman said. >>> The leader of the Republican Jewish Coalition called on his Democratic counterpart, Ira Foreman, to condemn the minimization of Hitler's atrocities to a simple political dispute. Ira Foreman has no comment at this time. Perhaps when Harry Reid gives him access to his manhood, he'll think of something to say about how a former Klan member just reduced American politics to the level of genocide, hijacking the deaths of millions of Jews just to score a cheap political shot. Now that the ADL has made demands for apologies and retractions, maybe we'll also see editors discover their own guts and start reporting this old fraud the way he should be exposed. We'll know more tomorrow morning. UPDATE: Check out what the Democrats have decided to complain about instead: <<< Nevada Democrats are decrying remarks by U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons condemning "tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals" for their opposition to the war in Iraq. Gibbons, a possible Republican contender for governor in 2006, made the remarks at a Lincoln Day dinner Friday in Elko, according to the Elko Daily Free Press. ... Sean Sinclair, a political adviser to Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, also an early entry into the governor's race, called Gibbons' remarks "disappointing." "He is so far to the right of where this state is and where most of the country is," Sinclair said. "It is these kind of bombastic statements that stopped him from being in leadership positions in Congress. Folks haven't been able to trust what he is going to say next." >>> Not that Gibbons' remarks shouldn't get criticized (if they're inaccurate), but it's interesting that calling someone a "hippie" gets one disqualified for leadership in Congress, but having an ex-Klansman calling his opposition Nazis doesn't. That's Howard Dean's Party of Hate for you. Posted by Captain Ed captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8070)	3/3/2005 9:16:04 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

CNN's Inside Politics Covers Byrd's Nazi Remarks Captain's Quarters CNN jumped into the fray over Senator Robert Byrd's Nazi reference in its Inside Politics look at the blogs. Hugh Hewitt played the segment on his show tonight as Judy Woodruff, Jacki Schechner, and Abbi Tatton reviewed the Byrd scandal through CQ and Radioblogger: <<< WOODRUFF: ... Time now to check what's going on in the blogosphere. And with me once again today to talk about what they are talking about, CNN political producer Abbi Tatton and Jacki Schechner. She's our blog reporter. So, Jacki, I bet it's not baseball. JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN BLOG REPORTER: No, it's more like Byrd. We've already heard what Senator Robert Byrd said on the floor of the Senate, comparing Republican tactics to Adolph Hitler's rise to power. Conservative blogs all over it. Over at Captain's Quarters, he's got plenty to say, including this comment: "Byrd, with his attempted filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is the last person who should be standing in the well of the Senate calling anyone a Nazi." As some people may remember, that filibuster [lasted] 14 hours. ABBI TATTON, CNN POLITICAL PRODUCER: So the conservative bloggers linking to this last night, and outraged for a couple of reasons. First of all, the comments by the senator himself, like what he actually said, but also the coverage of those comments. Radio Blogger here looking at how the mainstream media has covered what Senator Byrd said. He goes through newspapers, cable news channels, left-wing blogs, other news channels as well, saying that there's no mention of Byrd. >>> Kudos again to Inside Politics for reporting on the stories making the rounds on the blogs, even when we cover what the mainstream media seems to ignore. UPDATE: Reuters has added coverage as well: <<< A U.S. Senator's likening of Republican strategy on blocked judicial nominees to Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany drew condemnation on Wednesday from top Republicans and the Anti-Defamation League. Sen. Robert Byrd on Tuesday compared Republican threats to change Senate rules to outlaw procedural hurdles that have blocked 10 of President Bush's judicial candidates to Hitler jamming legislation through the German Reichstag. "Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side," the Democrat from West Virginia said. "Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal." Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership, said in a statement, "Senator Byrd's inappropriate remarks comparing his Republican colleagues with Nazis are inexcusable." >>> UPDATE II: The New York Times carries an earlier AP report in its Thursday edition, which omitted the Anti-Defamation League condemnation of Byrd: <<< A Jewish Republican group accused Senator Robert C. Byrd on Wednesday of making an "inappropriate and reprehensible" reference to Hitler in criticizing a Senate Republican plan to block Democratic filibusters: (((A Jewish Republican group accused Senator Robert C. Byrd on Wednesday of making an "inappropriate and reprehensible" reference to Hitler in criticizing a Senate Republican plan to block Democratic filibusters.))) >>> No mention is made of any other independent calls for apologies and retractions, such as Abraham Foxman's statement earlier today. Posted by Captain Ed captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8070)	3/3/2005 9:39:29 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Byrd's Incoherent Defense Captain's Quarters Senator Robert Byrd's office issued a defense of his remarks comparing Republican attempts to bar filibusters on judicial nominations with Naziism in the Senate earlier this week. Unfortunately, it appears that Byrd's staff suffers from the same incoherence that afflicts their boss most of the time: <<< Sen. Robert Byrd's description of Adolf Hitler's rise to power was meant as a warning to heed the past and not as a comparison to Republicans, a spokesman for the West Virginia Democrat says. ... "Terrible chapters of history ought never be repeated," said Tom Gavin, spokesman for Byrd. "All one needs to do is to look at history to see how dangerous it is to curb the rights of the minority." >>> Put aside all of the historical inaccuracies that one has to swallow for that argument to work, such as the fact that the Enabling Law basically abdicated the Reichstag and made Hitler a dictator, and that the Brown Shirts had driven most of Hitler's political opponents out of the Reichstag by that time anyway. If we are to take Byrd's comments at face value, how can we not come to the conclusion that he sees the GOP as a malevolent threat on the order of Hitler? After all, if Republicans simply represent legitimate political opposition in Byrd's mind, then he would argue against their position based on the merits of the case. That's not what Byrd did. He deliberately and repeatedly mentioned Hitler and the Nazis to imply that as the end result we would face if the Republicans limited debate on judicial nominations. If he had meant to say that taking away the filibuster would lead to the tyranny of the majority, then all Byrd would have to use would be the lower chamber of Congress as an example, and not the Nazis. That has really been the issue with a few traditionalists in the Senate; they don't want to be a senior House and like their ability to extend debate. However, for Byrd to argue that, he would have to defend his record for changing the cloture rule four times to suit his own purposes during his tenure as Majority Leader two decades ago. No, Byrd meant to smear the GOP as a second coming of the goose-stepping Nazis, but perhaps he thought that the speech would garner notice only from the DC inside circles and the Democrats' MoveOn base, which didn't exactly shy away from making the same comparison all during the presidential election (or even afterward, as Janeane Garofalo proved after the State of the Union speech). His mistake was getting caught -- and his office's mistake will be in resisting an apology for it. Byrd occupies no leadership positions in the Democratic Senate, but his seat comes up for election next year. All indications are that Byrd intends on running for re-election. Perhaps this episode will finally convince West Virginians to retire this doddering old fool. Posted by Captain Ed captainsquartersblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8070)	3/4/2005 11:29:47 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Byrd Backpedals Little Green Footballs Robert Byrd seems to realize in some dim fashion that he may have crossed a line, with a pitifully weak, dishonest denial: <<< Byrd Denies Comparing Republicans to Nazis. WASHINGTON - Sen. Robert Byrd’s description of Adolf Hitler’s rise to power was meant as a warning to heed the past and not as a comparison to Republicans, a spokesman for the West Virginia Democrat says. Nonetheless, two Jewish groups and a pair of GOP politicians chastised the senator on Wednesday, including one who recalled Byrd’s Ku Klux Klan membership as a young man. Byrd’s comments, which he made Tuesday in the Senate, came during his speech criticizing a Republican plan to block Democrats from filibustering President Bush’s judicial nominees. “Terrible chapters of history ought never be repeated,” said Tom Gavin, spokesman for Byrd. “All one needs to do is to look at history to see how dangerous it is to curb the rights of the minority.” Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the Senate’s No. 3 Republican, called for Byrd to retract his comments, saying they “lessen the credibility of the senator and the decorum of the Senate.” Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, called the remarks “poisonous rhetoric” that are “reprehensible and beyond the pale.” >>> The Nazi/Hitler rhetoric really is getting worse out there at the fringes of the Democratic Party, and the poison is spreading into the mainstream. This seems a much more serious transgression than the one that forced Trent Lott to resign. Will anyone on the left side of the aisle stand up and call for Byrd’s resignation? UPDATE at 3/3/05 9:09:54 am: While Byrd blithely compares America to Nazi Germany and gets a pass from his party, over at Daily “Screw Them” Kos the Kidz are whining about Republican “hate speech” (you’re going to laugh when you see what they’re calling “hate speech”) and clamoring for Republican Congressman Jim Gibbons’ resignation. (Hat tip: Geoffrey.) <<< Jim Gibbons, an extremist Republican Congressman from Nevada, offers the latest version of the GOP “dissent is treason” talking points, coupled with the threat of violence against political opponents: “I say we tell those liberal, tree-hugging, Birkenstock-wearing, hippie, tie-dyed liberals to go make their movies and their music and whine somewhere else,” Gibbons said to another burst of applause. ... He said that they are the same people who wanted to go to Iraq and become human shields for the enemy. “I say it’s just too damn bad we didn’t buy them a ticket,” Gibbons said. Laughter rippled through the room, mingled with more applause. (Emphasis added.) This kind of hate speech has no place in civil society. By engaging in such base commentary, Rep. Gibbons has declared himself unfit to hold office and must resign. >>> littlegreenfootballs.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8070)	3/4/2005 11:52:17 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Moron Byrd Wizbang By Kevin Aylward on Asshats Charleston Daily Mail columnist Don Surber is the only member of the mainstream media taking on Sen. Robert Byrd in his home state of West Virginia. Surber looks back at Byrd's 1964 filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the pain and embarrassment it caused. He also digs up this great letter: <<< The one-man talkathon staged by Sen. Byrd for 14 hours last night and this morning indicates the extent to which a mind warped with hate and prejudice will go -- even in the hallowed halls of Congress. "Sen. Byrd has not only done his state and our nation a great disservice, but has in addition exposed his family and friends to great embarrassment. The shame and stigma that attaches to his continuing acts against civil rights legislation is positive evidence that he is still a present-day advocate of the principles of the Ku Klux Klan. "The sooner he is removed from the public and political scene, the better chance democracy will have to survive in America and the free world." Willard Brown President NAACP Charleston, WV June 10, 1964 >>> You Don's his column in the Charleston Daily Mail or access it via his blog. As I've been saying to anyone who will listen, one day soon all columnists will also be bloggers. wizbangblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8070)	3/4/2005 12:39:27 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Byrd’s political consistency The QandO Blog Posted by: McQ Bobby Byrd stepped in it yesterday with a classic breach of Godwin's law. But let's not hold that against West Virginia favorite (KKK) Kleagle. Instead let's examine Byrd's words of wisdom yesterday pretaining to filibusters. <<< "The Senate is intended for deliberation not point scoring. It is a place designed from its inception, as expressive of minority views. Even 60 Senators, the number required for cloture, would represent just 24 percent of the population, if they happened to all hail from the 30 smallest states. Unfettered debate, the right to be heard at length, is the means by which we perpetuate the equality of the states. In fact, it was 1917, before any curtailing of debate was attempted, which means that from 1806 to 1917, some 111 years, the Senate rejected any limits to debate. Democracy flourished along with the filibuster. The first actual cloture rule in 1917, was enacted in response to a filibuster by those who opposed U.S. intervention in World War I. [...] The Senate is the "watchdog" because majorities can be wrong, and filibusters can highlight injustices. History is full of examples. >>> Well he's right, history is full of examples. And as Eric Pfeiffer at NRO's "Beltway Buzz" reminds us, there was a time in history when Byrd wasn't exactly fond of filibusters: <<< A senior Senate staffer writes in to note the following on Senator Robert Byrd’s opposition to ending filibusters on judicial nominees: “Sen. Robert Byrd took to the Senate floor today railed against what he called the ‘nuclear option’, but has previously spoken in defense of what is really just a constitutional option. But I think he said it best before when he explained that a majority has the right to make its own rules:” ‘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 be 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.’ — U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd, Jan. 15, 1979 “In fact, Sen. Byrd led the charge to establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 - including a number of precedents that were designed specifically to stop filibusters and other delay tactics that were previously authorized under Senate rules or prior precedents,” >>> Robert Byrd, now and then. I'm not sure of the technical term but could it be described as "Kleaglish" behavior? qando.net

To: Sully- who wrote (8070)	3/4/2005 1:16:32 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

TED RALL PARROTS BYRD: Kevin McCullough Crosswalk.com Hmmm...notice this? Batty Bobby Byrd has at least the excuse of being OLD. How does Ted Rall explain his blatent insanity? Were his parents also siblings? I'm just not sure that he was given the same amount of brain cells as the average human being. And his syndicators must have taken pity on him because he's not even funny. Click on link to see Ted Rall's repugnant cartoon.... images.ucomics.com crosswalk.com

To: Sully- who wrote (8070)	3/4/2005 1:42:12 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Ted Rall and Robert Byrd, Like Peas And Carrots Blogs for Bush Ted Rall must have been one of Senator Robert Byrd progenies in the KKK or something... A recent cartoon of his, "Reasons Bush Isn't Like Hitler," is four frames which paint Hitler in a positive light compared to President Bush. See the cartoon in the extended entry... What is Rall trying to suggest in the last frame? That Bush should shoot himself? Ted Rall's blog has also a number of posts on the Bush-Hitler comparisons. tedrall.com UPDATE: Kevin McCullough found the cartoon yesterday... Click on link to see Ted Rall's repugnant cartoon.... images.ucomics.com Posted by Matt

To: Sully- who wrote (8070)	3/7/2005 2:23:03 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 35834

Byrd on filibuster-busting The Washington Times: Opinion/Editorial In an op-ed last week in The Washington Post, Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd wrongly claimed the Senate had "rejected" seven of President Bush's 20 nominees to the federal bench. He also argued that Senate Republicans threaten free speech by considering rules changes. We hold floor debates in high esteem and appreciate the machinations of partisan politics. But Mr. Byrd not only was inaccurate; the senior senator's own voting record runs contrary to his partisan parsing that appeared in The Post. First of all, Mr. Byrd was wrong to state the Senate had "rejected" 20 Bush nominees, since none has been voted on. Mr. Byrd also said that: "By a simple majority vote, a Senate filibuster on judicial appointments would be 'nuked' for all time." He also posited a right to "unlimited debate." This from a senator who is himself something of a pioneer in filibuster-busting. As Republican Sen. John Cornyn pointed out to us, Mr. Byrd led the charge to change the rules in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987, and, in some cases, to do precisely what Republicans are now proposing. In 1977, Mr. Byrd called for rule changes to break a post-cloture filibuster on a natural-gas deregulation bill. In 1979, he advocated the quashing of objections to appropriations bills by having the chair -- not the full Senate, as had previously been the case -- rule on questions of germaneness. His 1980 move changing voting rules for nominations was meant, in his own words, to "deal with a filibuster." In 1987, Mr. Byrd pushed a new precedent ruling out "dilatory" tactics during roll-call votes regardless of whether cloture had been invoked. At a time when Democrats dominated the Senate, Mr. Byrd thought nothing of tweaking procedure to quell dissent. As a matter of law, he was within his rights to advocate such changes. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution establishes that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." The senator wasn't shy in justifying changes, either. "This Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past," he said in 1979. The rules "have been changed from time to time," he said. In fact, the founders wanted this, he reasoned: "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." But now that Republicans would cast off the "dead hand" of the past, Mr. Byrd objects. Mr. Byrd, a member of the Senate since 1958, knows as well as anyone that the Bush nominees will pass if they get the up-or-down vote they deserve. It's yet another sign of the lengths to which some Senate Democrats will go to obstruct the president's judicial nominations. washtimes.com