NAACP, NY Times Whitewash Robert Byrd’s Past
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Somebody at the NAACP either needs a history lesson or is being intentionally deceptive about somebody’s horrid past just because the person in question was a liberal Democrat (don’t tell me which it is and ruin the suspense).
From Mike Riggs at the Daily Caller:
On Monday the organization [NAACP] released a statement from NAACP President and Chief Executive Benjamin Todd Jealous claiming that Byrd’s life “reflects the transformative power of this nation.”
Jealous goes on to say that Byrd, who once asserted that it was an affront to dignity to ask white men to serve alongside blacks during World War II, “went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country.”
A stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act? Not only did Byrd vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he filibustered it for almost three months. He also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Either Mr. Jealous doesn’t know Byrd voted against passage of those things, or he’s saying that Byrd later went on to support the idea of those bills he didn’t originally vote for — he was “against it before he was for it” — John Kerry’s flip-floppin’ grand-daddy.
Here’s a reminder about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not that the facts seem to be a major concern:
House of Representatives:
Democrats for: 152
Democrats against: 96
Republicans for: 138
Republicans against: 34
Senate:
Democrats for: 46
Democrats against: 21
Republicans for: 27
Republicans against: 6
So, 37% of Congressional Democrats were against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, vs. 20% of Republicans in opposition. That’s 63% of Dems, and 80% of Republicans voting for passage.
But anyway, back to how racist Republicans are…
The New York Times got in on the Byrd whitewashing act, too.
Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd both voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Thurmond was still a Democrat at the time it passed). Only one, however, had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Which one? You’d never guess if you only had New York Times obituary headlines to go by.
Both obits, it’s worth noting, were written by Adam “major league a-hole” Clymer.
(h/t James Taranto)
**Written by guest-blogger Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Who’s sorry now? Marion Barry’s life saved by Filipino nurses he despised
May 20, 2012 10:25 PM by Michelle Malkin
40 Comments
CNN anchor astonishment after student in viral photo with Obama won’t say she’s voting for him
April 27, 2012 05:51 PM by Doug Powers
53 Comments
Conservative consumers: Stand your ground
April 25, 2012 04:22 AM by Michelle Malkin
183 CommentsWhere’s the DOJ? Twitter lynch mob thirsts for Zimmerman’s blood
April 23, 2012 10:58 AM by Michelle Malkin
93 CommentsDon’t do business with progressive appeasers
April 11, 2012 09:24 AM by Michelle Malkin
294 CommentsMediaTakeout.com embarrasses itself in attempt to paint me as a raaaaacist
April 10, 2012 08:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
65 CommentsAnother colorless Kodak moment for Progressives of Pallor
April 9, 2012 04:34 PM by Michelle Malkin
80 Comments
Categories: Media Bias,Race Hustlers
JustOneMinute
» Mama Also Said There Be Days Like ThisPundit & Pundette
» Patterico's chilling account of harassmentDaily Caller
» Documents likely contradict Warren’s claim of not knowing Harvard promoted her as minority
Has Byrd been nominated for sainthood yet? How about a Nobel peace prize?
Like I said on another thread, the media demonize Rand Paul for questioning just facet of the CRA but lionize Byrd after he blocked the entire act – unreal!
I don’t mean to denigrate but is “whitewash” the opposite of “black hole”? Sounds like a racial slur to me.
I hate it when people use numbers – and even worse, hard numbers like percentages. What, they taught you dead white people math in school?
I know Byrd publicy repudiated his past associations and beliefs. I am trying to find where Strom ever publicly repudiated segregation. I am sure I must be missing it somewhere. Can someone help me?
Nobody that I’ve heard/seen has mentioned how this career politician has robbed the Treasury of the US to promote himself (his name is on how many buildings?). The Treasury does not belong to him or West Virginia. He is not a patriot.
“Gore offered no criticism of Thurmond, saying the retiring senator has since “repudiated” those views.”
Al Gore says so, so it must be true.
Maybe they can name the airport in Washington D.C. after Byrd. Ronald Reagan’s name shouldn’t be contaminated by any structure in the District of Columbia.
If God was going to give the planet an enema, he’d stick the hose in D.C.
Well Doug, m’ ol’ bud, I’ma gonna jus’ ruin it all fer ya.
Y’ see, a looney leftwing liberal coulda burned down an orphanage, an’ he would git a pass frum the lame steam media.
BUUUUT, a Christian Conservative would still be labeled an “armed robber” if he stole a piece of gum when he was 4.
Isn’t this when Orrin Hatch normally sings a song praising a fallen brother from the worthy opposition? It’ll be hard to top his ode to Teddy.
He fathered a child w/ a black woman, so it’s assumed he was less than confirmed in his racist views; after all, we apparently are able to judge the earnestness of Byrd’s conversion as true, why can’t we just assume Thurman’s to be equally thus?
Notice, also, that back in 2000 when the e-e-e-e-evil George W. Bush was running for the White House, and the (w)hole kerfuffle was going on, not one reporter or other media type argued Bush’s portrayal of Clymer.
Just sayin’…
I hope you are kidding. You are, right? You think the fact that he knocked up a black woman means he wasn’t racist?
I am not judging the earnestness of either. I am just trying to figure out where Thurmond publicly repudiated segregation, whether it was in earnest or not.
Where’s the NAACP’s sympathy for the black West Virginians who may have likely suffered in the 1940′s as a result of Byrd’s propagation of racism among that state’s white business and housing owners?
No, but he publicly acknowledged he was the lady’s father. A hardcore racist would never do that.
Memory holes are convienent when you can use one.
Remember, NAAL(for liberal)CP thought Bill Clinton, with his monochromatic cabinet, was just terrific. But President Bush, with a black Secretary of State and a black Secretary of Defense, was racist.
So, their sympathy is selective.
Perhaps a little history lesson is in order Mr.Powers.
The Civil Rights Act was a North-South issue and not a Democrat-Republican issue. And it radically altered the political landscape of the South.
The lesson in all this:
If you’re a Liberal Democrat, your crap doesn’t ever stink.
Byrd is a racist is refuted by Thurman is a racist?
No. But whether or not they publicly repudiated their views can go a long way in explaining their different treatment after death.
The cynical side of me, and I think it’s ultimately accurate, says Byrd ultimately supported the CRA because he and LBJ realized it would mean blacks would wholesale forever become Democrats, and therefore the second-class patrons he thought they were or should be in the first place. Nothing like keeping them on the plantation, and this time by THEIR choice. Pathetic.
Had Thurmond remained in the democratic party, the god on earth for all good leftists, you would have excused him as well. This thread is about Robert “Sheets” Byrd, btw. Stick to the topic.
‘Scuse me, but maybe you missed the part where Doug specifically made the disparity in treatment between Strom and Byrd a topic in his post? Would ya like me to copy and paste it for you, or do you know how to use the scroll button to get to the top of the page?
Hahahahahhahhaaaa. Quit you’re killing me.
“A stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act? Not only did Byrd vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he filibustered it for almost three months. He also opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.”
What part of that do you not understand Chap? You can say anything and everything you want publicly, does not change his history. Oh Wait, A Liberal Democrat, well then we can give ole sheets a pass.
Thurmond believed in the doctrine of Separate but Equal which apparently many blacks support today. Congressional Black Caucus anyone? BET or Ebony anyone?
On the other hand Byrd supported an organization that hung black men to their death. Sorry I don’t see them as similar.
Given that Byrd was using the “n” word into the 21st Century, what makes you think that his verbal repudiations were anything but “words, just words”?
Where did I dispute that? All I said was that he later publicly repudiated this history and I am having trouble finding where Strom did the same What part of that do you not understand, stillontheroad?
As I said, I make no claims as to his sincerity. I am sure only he and Jesus know the truth in his heart.
chapoutier said:
I could not care less what Strom did or did not do – I care about a known Grand Kleegal or whatever it is of the KKK and by his position in that outfit caused unknown and probably never be known crimes against black people and now they, the Ilk of Liberalism, are whitewashing this human garbage. Spare me the comparisons of anyone with this individual. Other than other human garbage like him.
Who was Strom Thurmond?
I’d say actions speak louder than words.
Convenient when you can choose which racists you care or not care about, isn’t it?
And remember, it was Doug, you know…the blogger…that brought up the comparison, not me. Why don’t you mouth off at him for a while?
Except when it comes to Byrd, who had a stellar civil rights record in his later years, right? I mean, just 4 posts above you dismiss his actions because of his one unfortunate word “in the 21st century”.
To the contrary, you were the one condemning Thurmond for not publicly repudiating his former views.
chapoutier said:
I think not — you are the person that states that by Sheets saying he was sorry, all should be forgiven.
I didn’t condemn. I asked if he did. You can’t even keep your own posts consistent. Please don’t try to parse mine.
No. I said that people that express public repentance are often treated more kindly in death. I made no judgments as to whether or not Strom was privately repentant or if Byrd’s repentance was sincere.
Time to reread the comparison:
Quit trying to wriggle out from under your own words. You used that specifically as a justsification for the difference in treatment between Thurmond and Byrd.
Can I sum it all up?
Two guys die. The NY Times gives better treatment to the KKK guy than the non-KKK guy because he remained a loyal Democrat.
Did I miss anything?
Whitewash? Well that is nice-The Exalted Cyclops was always partial to white-the whiter the better as they might say at the Saturday Night Cross Burning. Yes the Dear Klansman did repent didn’t he? He never quit using the N word but then old habits are hard to break.
Yes perhaps the NAACP and the NY Times said something that was not altogether true, but if they only do it just this one time perhaps we shouldn’t make an issue of it. And I do not want any of you white guys bringing up Hymietown-Jessee Jackson, or Blood on the Diamonds Jews-Shuck Sharpton or even The Most Hip Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s anti-semetic rants. No sir, none of you white guys do that: it’s my turn
But Dear Klansman Byrd did reach out to the Black folks and always offered them this advice, dear man he was (tear, sniffle).
===
Let your sidearm be like Master Card:
Don’t Leave home without it.
Apparently a former member of the clan, but otherwise the point of the thread. The nub is, apostasy is the ultimate crime to Democrats, but racism is the essence of their being.
I used it as an alternative explanation, not a justification. You can choose to believe it or not, but I have been entirely consistent.
txvet2 said:
I wonder what the thread count was on the ole Sheets he wore, being a Grand Wazoo and all. Oh wait, he repented and was a really good guy.
A distinction without a difference, as they say.
Not being a Democrat, I don’t have access to the membership rolls of the KKK so I’m not all that sure that he ever actually quit.
There is a world of difference.
If I say that your wife drinks to forget the pain of being married to you, that is not justifying her alcoholism, just explaining it.
Although… in her case, it might be justified as well. Bad example.
If I say that some guy robbed me for drug money, that is an explanation, not a justification.
txvet2 said:
Point taken, I digressed for a moment there – waxing curious but then – he was a verimin ridden swine so who cares what he wore, just that he ended up being a really good guy.
I’ll accept that. You propound a theory that the difference in treatment between Byrd and Thurmond was possibly being caused by the fact that Byrd verbally claimed to have changed his views, while Thurmond only acted on his evolving opinions – although Byrd continued to use racially charged language well past the time when he had supposedly repudiated those racist views. Now that’s disingenuous, to use one of your favorite slurs.
Yeah. Well, he wasn’t carrying a membership card with paid up dues, if that’s what you mean.
The fact is there is no such thing as a former KKK member. Just like there is no such thing as a former alcoholic. The AA memeber knows he’s an alcoholic for life; he’s just not drinking at this particular point in time.
The KKK member still has the same typical democrat racist beliefs. He’s just not burning crosses at this particular point in time.
Nope.
I thought torture was outlawed in the US.
That Thurmond evidently never publicly repudiated his earlier segregationist views is irrelevant. His actions later in life indicate that he abandoned those views.
The question is whether Byrd was sincere when he publicly repudiated those views.
Actions speak louder than words…
In other words, his actions are the public repudiation ergo he did publically repudiate them. Same as Byrd repudiating his KKK memberhsip.
Now that we have established that, Doug Powers is right to bring up the disparate treatment in the headlines.
Did Byrd ever pay for his “crimes”? Did he pay reparations to the people he harmed? Did he crusade to destroy the KKK? Was he removed from a position of power and influence for his crimes? Or was he given a pass because he is a democrat?
Chap; only one was still using the N-word on Sunday morning news shows within the last decade. Byrd may have mea culpa’ed but his racist soul never changed. ONLY HIS PARTY AFFILLIATION MADE HIM A SAINT, NOT A RACIST BIGOT SEXIST HOMOPHOBE PIG BASTARD.
Speaking of White-Washing… I don’t see any stories about J. Christian Adams, the former DoJ lawyer blowing the whistle on the New Black Panther Party scandal expect for Fox and some blogs.
The former DoJ attorney has revealed that an official with the DoJ lied under oath, that they are stonewalling on the reasons they are dropping the case. Which by the way he says was the easiest case of it’s kind ever to see the light of day and the Do(in)J is saying it had no merit.
So here we have a dept of injustice granting favoritism to a NBP party member who also happens to be a local democratic official and they further are saying… the DoJ that is… are saying that they want to see no more cases brought up on like this where it concerns blacks or liberals being charged with violations of the Voters Rights Act.
Think Obama won’t trample over your rights and defy the laws of our land?
He will. And he will laugh about it with his marxist pals.
This is your president.
Speaking as a thirty-something conservative, I’m glad that both of those old dinosaurs are no longer in office. I grieve for the families, but not for their absence from the halls of office.
Thurmond existed for one purpose, to make conservatives look racist. Yet another reason to go RINO hunting. Term limits, baby! Purge the old dinosaurs!
Dear AlohaGuy;
I’d like to ask you to refrain from making my job appear more straightforward than it is.
Sincerely,
Beelzebub
I’ll be interested to see if the Democrats demand the ouster of any politician foolish enough to say something nice about Byrd, the way they did with Lott. (Whew. Right thread, this time.)
Byrd didn’t only verbally claim. He acted as well, his unfortunate quote notwithstanding.
He will and he did.
No, you didn’t miss anything. Thanks for the laugh.
The people who are standing up and praising this piece of human garbage is unbelievable and amazing. In Milwaukee’s Journal-Sentinel both the editorial board and an African-American columnist weighed in with praise of Sen. Byrd. The newspaper could have simply put in a blurb about Sen. Byrd’s death but to have two opinion pieces in praise of him is purposely attempting to whitewash his past. He was what he was, good and bad, pretending otherwise is delusional.
But was Byrd’s position heartfelt or opportunism? It looks to me the NYT and NAACP have basicly decided that if you are a cur who decides to back liberals, ‘we will overlook everything you did and whitewash it’…this is not honest. Comparing the two obits, you can see the bias and spin on behalf of Byrd, Chapoutier.
If anything it illustrates the intellectual and moral corruption of the NYT and NAACP.
Your differentiation involved only what he said.
I somehow doubt that “unfortunate” would be your term of choice if the circumstances were reversed. Try again.
Indeed. But I was not talking about my differentiation. I was talking about, and thus why I quoted, your incomplete characterization of the situation.
I will call it racist. I think almost every person has made racist comments, whether we meant them to be or not, at some point. I do not think most people (even conservatives) are racist, however.
Devolving into lies, as usual. I hadn’t posted anything on this thread prior to this quote:
So if it’s Byrd it’s “unfortunate”, if it were Thurmond (which it of course was not) it would be “racist”. The reasonable conclusion from Byrd’s statement is that he continued to normally think in those terms long after his lip-service repudiation. I think we’ve made the point, which is that you’re a hypocrite up to your eyeballs, but you’ll admit it when Hell freezes over, if you believed in Hell.
You believe that like you believe in the tooth fairy.
I almost missed this, but it should be addressed. You claimed that the reason for the disparate treatment might be due to whether or not they publicly repudiated their views, but now claim that I somehow incompletely characterized the situation. How, pray tell? Since they have acted similarly in recent years, the only point of differentiation to be made is your quoted claim (or the point of the blog item, of course) I mischaracterized nothing, and I cut and pasted your remark, so I didn’t misquote you.
So you think it is a lie–not even debatable–to say that people that repudiate their crimes or evils are generally thought of better in death than those that don’t?
You are an odd little egg, txvet.
Um, how exactly was I unclear that I am willing to call Byrd’s statement racist? If you thought more and typed less, you might save yourself and your fingers some effort.
They are not mutually exclusive. Just because I focused on the public repudiation aspect does not mean that your description of the two men was accurate. You made it a point to bring up Strom’s actions wrt civil rights later in life, and did not do the same for Byrd, thus implying Byrd had none. Which is wrong. Just because it didn’t have to do with my immediate argument doesn’t mean I can relish the opportunity to correct yet another of your errors in judgment and reason.
This statement by the NAACP just reveals what their true nature, race hustlers. They would have been better served to lament his past and say something nice about his opportunistic votes afterward. Or nothing at all.
I for one am happy they are so clueless. It makes them less dangerous- but only slightly.
rac·ism (rszm)
n.
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
Racism and the charge of racism are digusting. Whats worse is that now it is being used as a political tool which, in my mind, is worse than actual racism.
La Raza, NAACP, and any other group who purpose is built around promoting a race is racist. People who label people racist in order to achieve something for their race is racist. Its disgusting.
I don’t define myself by my race. A lot of other people try to including the above mentioned groups. Its a freaking question on the census for goodness sake.
On my census form under the “Race” question I checked “other” and wrote in American.
I did too although I wondered if I put black if that would give me some free government benefits or other special favors. After all, my name went on there too.
Oh, you did sneak back in. I must have left the back door open.
You were responding (apparently) to my comment about Thurmond. I know you hate it when people purport to know what you’re thinking, if anything. You didn’t mention Byrd and there was no reason to assume that was who you meant.
I can see why you have an aversion to couortrooms. Just because I focused on the private repudiation aspect of Thurmond’s career wrt civil rights later in life in response to your implication that he had not repudiated his past, does not in any way imply anything at all about Byrd.
I can throw crap with the best of them, and certainly better than anything you’ve managed so far, but as a point of fact, I throw out most of my best material wrt you. I don’t want to hurt your feelings. Which brings us to:
You claimed that your first post was in response to something I’d said. That was a clear lie. The rest of your post is, well, strange. But then so is most of what you post, although in this instance I have to make allowances for the fact that you’re defending an individual and a political party that bases virtually every action and thought on racism. It would be tough even for a competent lawyer.
Don’t be silly txvet.
First, don’t flatter yourself into thinking you could ever hurt my feelings. I am confident in my knowledge I am better than you, and confident in your knowledge of the same. Any words you could throw out to hurt me would have about the same effect as that of a petulant child striking out against his daddy.
Second, of course your intention was to compare disfavorably Byrd to Strom by setting up the false dichotomy of words vs actions.
Third, I never claimed my first post was in response to something you said. That is just your poor reading comprension coming back to bite you again. I will try to reverse engineer your, for lack of a better term, “thought process” to assume that you took my statement “I was talking about” in post 71 to refer to my original argument and not my comment in Post 64. I don’t know how you could, but I have learned to stop being shocked at your lack of cognitive abilities and rather just sit back and shake my head in amazement/profound sadness for your family.
I left out the part where keyboards need a breathalyzer after 10pm..
Well, you ain’t real bright, but there’s nothing wrong with your ego. I suppose it’s a defensive reaction to sponging off of your wife.
no surprise you’d be in here defending old sheets byrd!!
you’re a typical condescending racist liberal who thinks people of color can’t make it without a good white ‘bwana’ like you to take care of them
you’re trash.
Well done Doug. Those two headlines end the debate by thermselves of whether the NYT is the left wing rag that we conservatives know they are. Bravo.