Am I the only one who suspected that Strom Thurmond would die this year? When you've defined your whole life by your career, it's almost certain that you'll die not long after your career ends. Still, it's an astonishing thing: Strom Thurmond actually remembered World War I!
He reminds me of my own Congressman, a nasty old fart named John Dingell. He defined his whole existence by mouthing whatever platitudes would keep him in office. So why be surprised that once he was out of office, he could find no further reason to exist?
I have no love for this man. Indeed, if I had my druthers we would limit Senators to two or, at most, three terms, so phenomena like him would not be a part of our Republic. But, "if wishes were fishes we'd never need food." He was a big part of American history, and deserves the dignity of being saluted for his service to our nation.
Farewell, Strom Thurmond. You did many awful things as a politician, but you also did some noble and commendable things. We know your like (cf: Mauren Dowd) are still with us, but on the whole, you served your nation with distinction. You were a part of our history, and we thank you for that.
Never heard of this fellow, but if I am understanding the post he was a senator until he was 100 years old? That's amazing.
In Strom's defense, he was the first senator to hire an African-American on his staff. I wonder if Maureen has any African-Americans working for her . . . as a fact-checker maybe?
Wasn't Thurmond the leader of the Dixie-crat revolt against Truman in '48 because Truman wanted to end segregration in the military? Didn't he switch from the Dems to the GOP because the GOP is more racist? Is it possible for anyone to point out anything he did as a senator that wasn't self serving?
He was already dead, just walking around on borrowed time from some higher being.
Er, make that, "she could hire one as a fact-checker, maybe."
[irony]
Wonder if Robert Byrd wishes he'd get a free pass like Ol' Strom does whenever they mention their respective records on, um, racial equality.
Strom: distinguished Senator
Byrd: disgraced former member of the KKK.
[irony /]
I'm just saying.
Tom... you are selling Strom very short. I've picked some highlights from his career on my blog http://www.upforanything.net For the best summary of his amazing life, check out http://www.TheCarolinaChannel.com
To call him self serving is about as wrong as it gets, just ask his constituents. I'll admit Strom had some real flaws and his time as a segregationist is the darkest part of his life, but don't allow that to replace all the good he did in his life.
No, the Democrats were more racist at the time that he switched parties. Come to think of it, they're still more racist now.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Anyone can call any politician self-serving if he has served in the U.S. Senate or U.S. House long enough. Newt Gingrich began his political career as a Rockefeller Republican after all. If that is not a Road to Damascus conversion for God’s sake then nothing is.
Of course Strom Thurmond changed his position on race, as did any politician who survived those seminal changes between the 50’s and 70’s. Was Strom Thurmond a racist? He was earlier in his life. But, like George Wallace he slowly changed his views in the face of political realities. Politicians commonly change their views on issues throughout their careers. The real question is whether Thurmond changed his views out of expediency or out of a sincere change of heart.
I am not sure which, however his service to his country and his constituents over his lifetime IS commendable. He won fourteen decorations between 1942 and 1945 including the Bronze Star with “V” and the French Croix de Guerre. Thurmond DID hire blacks to staff his offices and DID support black colleges. This is noteworthy whether his conversion was expedient or sincere.
Maureen Dowd is so cynical she should run for office. In fact, she fit in rather well with the Clinton White House throughout the last eight years of the twentieth century did she not? She certainly hates George W. Bush and his father. She always hated Clarence Thomas.
Now she paved the groundwork for her and others to hate Clarence Thomas forever. Rather clever is it not? Dowd gives no credit to Thomas for making it on his own. She snidely dismisses Clarence Thomas' dissenting opinion by snidely dismissing his opinion as, "giving the effort to balance bigotry in society the moral weight of a Benetton ad." Is this the stuff of hate or what?
Did Clarence Thomas REALLY require affirmative action to matriculate at Yale? He might have qualified due to good grades and test scores, you know. I do not remember anybody ever actually impugning Clarence Thomas' academic qualifications, do you? They provided no evidence if so. Maureen Dowd cleverly disguises her own deep-seated hatred of anything conservative, and anything Bush, by cynically influencing others with her own misplaced cynicism.
I do not see Clarence Thomas as "an angry, bitter, self-pitying victim" that Maureen Dowd does. Is this just more NYT or Maureen Dowd propaganda? I believe so. I always read the NYT opinion and editorial pages with a jaundiced eye since I first subscribed to it in 1980. Recent scandals give many good reasons for Americans do so, too. This misdirected rant is just another good reason.
Dismissing Thomas'nomination as a "preposterous claim that he was 'the best-qualified' man for the job," is laughable. Does anybody really believe Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Thurgood Marshall were the best-qualified people for SCOTUS? Or, were they simply totems for the Democratic Party? Roosevelt nominated Felix Frankfurter for Chief Justice of the United States in 1941 even though he had no experience as a judge whatsoever. I wonder why conservatives never mention that when Bush 41 or 43 nominate judges.
Dowd further blaming "President Bush, the Yale legacy who also disdains affirmative action," as "playing affirmative action politics in the preliminary vetting of a prospective Supreme Court nominee" is equally laughable. Does any American actually believe Democrats do NOT play "affirmative action politics" when nominating Ginsberg or Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court? Does our favorite opposition party never play affirmative action politics with ANY appointments? This is very rich indeed.
Maureen Dowd just might be the bellwether for the Democrats. This woman is clearly angry, ahistorical, and cynical toward anything not liberal. People should read her columns accordingly.
I suspect he died a few years ago, but nobody noticed...
My favorite idea for a Strom Thurmond T-shirt:
"I went to Strom's 100th birthday party, and all I lost was my senate majority leader seat."
Tim the Soldier
Dean,
You know you liked that last one. Now get that look of intellectual superiority off your face ;).
Tim the Soldier
Tim:
Good one.
A mention of this post and others similar to it can be found here
Kevin,
I certainly hope you're not implying Thurgood Marshall or Ruth Bader Ginsburg were unqualified.
Marshall served as head of NAACP for 20 years, was chief counsel in arguably the most important case ever to come before the Court, served on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and was the solicitor general. When Marshall joined the court, he'd argued 32 cases before the Court and won 29.
Ginsburg, a law professor for her alma mater, Columbia, at one time, served as general counsel for the ACLU. She argued six cases before the Court and was successful in five. She was nominated to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Prior to her nomination, she had developed a reputation as an intelligent, highly competent jurist.
By the time of Thomas' appointment, he had almost no experience as a defense attorney, prosecutor or law professor. He was on the Court of Appeals for around two years before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Indeed, I'd like to comment further on how incredibly unqualified, ineffective and inept Thomas is, but it's difficult to find many opinions Thomas has written, especially nothing even remotely close to a major decision. The vast majority of the time, Thomas joins Scalia or Rehnquist in their opinions.
So, I'm gonna be honest, I don't always agree with Maureen Dowd, and while I do, of course, think Marshall's and Ginsburg's nomination had to do with other factors, I do think they were at least in the running for best qualified, whereas Justice Thomas has never been qualified to be on any bench, let alone that of the highest court in the land.
Alison.