Double Standard?

First, let me say I have never been a fan of, admirer of, or even liked former S.C. Senator Strom Thurmond.

I never believed he changed his racist, segregationist views in spite of the appearances of having done so.

The man was engaged in political expediency, that's all.

However, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott (R) was vilified by the media and the Democrats when he said, stupidly, that Thurmond should have been elected President (States' Rights ticket in 1948).

Recently, Senator Chris Dodd, CT, praised W.VA. Senator Robert "Sheets"/"KKK" Byrd and said,

"You would have been a great senator at any moment....you would have been right at the founding of this country, right during the Civil War..."

Yea, right, which side? Byrd used to be in the Klan!

Not one word of outrage from the Democrats.

Of course this isn't the first time Democrats have gotten away with outright racism and praising of racists.

Bill Clinton called former Arkansas Senator J. William Fullbright his mentor!

Fullbright was an archsegregationist who fought the civil rights bills!

Once again the Dems get a pass.

I hope like I have never hoped for anything else that Condie Rice runs against Hillary in 2008.

Rice will demolish her in debates and expose the racism and hypocrisy of the Democratic Party once and for all.

 

Very good, Mike!

I don't know the time but a number of networks will televise National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice's testimony before the 9/11 Panel tomorrow.

This will give America an opportunity to hear the most powerful woman in America (perhaps the free world) display her incredible brilliance!

I still think President Bush would do well to drop VP Cheney and replace him with Rice.

 

If we shouldn't hold it against a frequent poster on a DL board that he's promoted degree mills and uses racist epithets (what WAS the fellow's name?), why should we hold it against whozits that's he was a despicable kluxer?

I thought in the church of moral vacuity one's past counted for nothing, or something like that.

 

That is the common rationalization of the Republicans - that they have worked hard and deserve what comes their way. And the corollary, as depicted above - is that all the others (I guess this means the poor, uneducated, and Democrats???) somehow deserve their lot.

Certainly both are true in some cases, but Republicans like to extend their personal experiences to society as a whole, and assume that everything still holds.

Losers are losers for a reason. Winners are winners because they deserve it. Is that it?

I say luck and skill are confused more than most realize. To all the winners, is it all due to skill, or is there just a little bit of luck mixed in too? Food for thought.

 

Actually it boils down to personal responsibility and hard work.

I get carried away at times when I post about issues I am passionate about but I am really pretty fair minded.

I don't really think the Democratic Party is all bad. There are many good, decent, honest people in the Democratic Party (Lieberman, Bayh, Herseth, Babbitt, Carter, Miller, Rockefeller, etc.).

There are many in the GOP that I cannot stand (Lott, Helms, Bloomberg, Toomey, Grassley, etc.). But overall, I think the GOP is more in favor of personal responsibility, less inclined to tax and spend, and less likely to intrude into private lives.

It's big government versus small government and I think the GOP wins hands down even though Bush is somewhat out of step with the rank and file of the Party on this particular issue.

 

I would love to see that debate, too, but I think that Hillary's innate visciousness and instinct for dirty fighting would give her the advantage over Rice's academic politeness, even though Rice is probably the smarter of the two.

 

>>Actually it boils down to personal responsibility and hard work.<<

And luck and money, and if you are the right sex and color. Believe me, as someone who was once told that men deserved to make more than women, I know that is it not always hard work.

>>But overall, I think the GOP is more in favor of personal responsibility, less inclined to tax and spend, and less likely to intrude into private lives.<<

The GOP is currently into borrow and spend, which doesn't work in the long run.

Less likely to intrude into private lives? This is the party that wants to decide who can be adopted, who can be married, what sovereign tribes can do on their land, what kind of sexual position you can use in your own bedroom and which library books you can be check out without ending up on a terrorists list.

"Democrates want to be in your wallet; Republicans want to be in your bedroom."

 

Re: Re: Double Standard?

I am not sure the public would appreciate nor tolerate that kind of nastiness.

This is what I look forward to in the upcoming debates. Kerry comes across as an angry and nasty man.

I think the public will not appreciate that in him during the debate. Dean came across as a nasty and angry man and it simply turned off the voters.

But, we'll see. By the way, Dr. Rice is currently doing an excellent job at the 9/11 hearings.

 

Condi Rice???

I've heard tell that Condi Rice is one of those "power women" who have no time for a relationship in their lives, who see nothing but domination and professionalism as their goal, who do not take time to smell ANY flowers, other than those of their own creation. Maybe Hilary is this type as well. God knows we've had enough men who act like that.

But, what the world needs now is Love, Sweet Love.

 

My guess? The testimony of Condi Rice will prove to be very embarrassing to Richard Clarke, and will enhance the public approval ratings of Rice, perhaps catapulting her into the mix of possible Republican presidential candidates for 2008.

Cy

 

RICE PLANS NO APOLOGY IN 9/11 TESTIMONY

Get ready for the Condoleezza Rice media circus. Today President Bush's National Security Adviser goes before the 9/11 Commission to publicly to lay out the facts of what the administration was doing in the months leading up to the attacks. Her opening statement is expected to be about 20 minutes long, and while the White House has not released the text, it is expected to be a barnburner. Of course, before she has spoken a single word, the media and the Democrats are already attacking. Rice is not planning to apologize for the attacks on 9/11. This is already causing a stir, but the White House is correctly pointing out that only the terrorists are responsible for what happened on 9/11.

She is also going to be grilled by the "nonpartisan" (yeah right) commission over the testimony of Richard Clarke. But why? He has already publicly contradicted himself...why should she be expected to answer for that?

And lastly...Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle has weighed in...warning Dr. Rice that she should tell the truth. "It's important for her to be as truthful and forthcoming as possible. Nobody could give the commission a more precise understanding of what happened and why." Oh really? The Bush administration was in office 7 1/2 months before 9/11, and the Clinton administration had 8 years. Why would she have the ultimate explanation for what happened and why? Wasn't it President Clinton that failed to act after several Al-Qaeda attacks?

 

You are speaking about a minority (although vocal) of the the Republicans. Many (such as John McCann) have consistantly supported women's rights and individual freedom. Unfortunately many disaffected Democrats have switched over to give the "Religous Right" (IMO Illreligous Wrong) spin on things, whihc unfortunately is a main reason I have voted against several "Republican" candidates of late. Give us back the Barry Goldwaters of the past!

 

Surprisingly enough, I wasn't thinking so much of women's rights. But you are correct, just as with any party, the vocal ones tend to be the ones that color your view.

I've even voted for a Republican before, and do like McCann.

 

Deb does make some good points. But, when it comes to just about any issue one can always find bipartisan support.

John Ashcroft has plenty of supporters among conservative Democrats.

When I speak up for the GOP I speak for the moderate element within the Party. I used to belong to the Ripon Society. I have always considered myself a moderate Republican and have voted for Democrats when the GOP candidate was too far to the right.

I want the Party to follow the TR-Wilke-Dewey-Landon-Lodge-Scranton-Romney-Rockefeller-Collins-Snowe-Powell-Rice-McCain-Talent-Sununu-Graham path. I think Bush is moving in that direction and is more moderate than given credit for being.

His actions with regards to civil rights, the appointment of minorities, and his 15 billion dollar AIDS proposal for Africa are very moderate and, the rights thing to do.

Remember, there are many GOP'ers who belong to the NAACP; I have been a member for more than 20 years. Many GOP'ers belong to the ACLU; I used to but they have gone beyond the pale in the past five years or so.

When Bush is reelected, and I am convinced he will be (Sorry Mitt Romney, for stealing a line from your debate with Shannon O'Brien.), I think you will see more moderate policies.

 

Jimmy,

I got one for you. There are Republicans admire. I really respected Teddy Roosevelt. Bombastic, sure ...but he did so much for the environment and government reform. I admire Abraham Lincoln. Words cannot describe what he has meant to our country. Richard Nixon, for ALL of his faults,and there were many, was a great in foriegn relations. I respect, admire and would( Oh my I cant believe I am saying this) vote for Colin Powell should he ever run for president. I am still a Democrat and also a pragmatist.

 

First, I cannot believe I left Arlen Specter off my list.

Second, wow! I haven't come across anyone who openly admitted liking Richard Nixon in many, many years.

I think Nixon was an excellent President during his first four years. He not only did a great job in foreign policy, although I think he dragged the Vietnam War out too long, he was good on many other issues.

1. He directed HEW (HHS) to increase funding to 111 predominantly black colleges.

2. More Hispanics were appointed to high positions in his administration than in any previous ones.

3. More full-time women were appointed to policy-making positions than any other previous administration.

4. The Nixon administration supported the passage of the ERA.

5. BIA increased funding

6. EPA creation

7. Child Care initiatives

8. Welfare Reform

I could go on and on. Had it not been for Watergate and Nixon's lying, he would have gone down in history as a great President. What a shame!

 

Liberal bias in the media is so complete and obvious that it's not even worth discussing.

 

You would have seen a story about it on Fox News ... but really nowhere else. I'm talking about Democratic Senator Chris Dodd's assertion that former KKK member Robert Byrd would have been "right" for any era in American history ... specifically during the Civil War.

My point is that Trent Lott had to resign a leadership position in the Senate after the media erupted into a frenzy after his remarks about Strom Thurmond. It took only two days for the Vigero to hit the fan for Trent Lott. It's been about six days now since Dodd's remarks about Robert KKK Byrd. What is the press saying? Well, thus far CNN, USA Today, The New York Times and The Washington Post have completely ignored the story, even though some black congressional staffers are complaining. The only place you will find a published story about Dodd's remarks is in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call.

Again .. what you have here is the liberal media protecting a powerful Democratic Senator. If someone else gives this story some legs, the rest of the media will reluctantly join in; but you can be sure that no member of the establishment liberal press is going to start this ball rolling.

 

But his environmental records is abysmal!

That alone will cause me to vote for anyone else.