I dunno Dean. I don't think that the press jumped all over Lott *because* he was "reflective of the leadership of one of America's two great political parties." This certainly made the story juicier but I cannot help but think that much of it was the "gotcha" mentality: it was more proof of the liberal left's contention that Republicans are racist. Given the controversy of this proposition and the strong denials of racism by mainstream Republicans, the left simply couldn't resist the "gotcha."

Dodd's story, offering no emotional gratification for the press, isn't really a story at all. Ask yourself this, if Dodd were a Republican do you believe that this slip would be ignored?

He's an AMERICAN senator. He has to vote on lots of things that affect all Americans, not just the people in his state. So, I think he should be held accountable in the same way other politicians are regardless of party.

Dean, the Lott affair bubbled around the blogosphere for a couple of weeks before it became news. God help me but I'm not going to go back a check out how long it took for right-leaning bloggers to issue their condemnations, though the Corner is still apologising for Lott's comments. And sorry, but WTF does Doonesbury have to do with Dodd's statement? What double-standard? Until the liberal blogosphere starts apologising for Dodd, there is none, and that link is a dishonest attempt to suggest some of them have.

If Dodd was SML I'd expect him to resign, and if Senater Kerry were to defend him and call him an 'inclusive man', I'd condemn that. If it took a media firestorm for him to do the right thing, I'd condemn that too. Doublestandards, anybody?

Dodd's not just some American Senator. He sits on the Senate Foreign Relations; Rules and Administration; Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs; and Health Education, Labor & Pensions committees. He's a legacy Senator, following his old man to D.C. He's as big a player on Capitol Hill as Trent Lott was.

While it might not be as big a deal as Lott, it is still a big deal. A bigger deal than the ammount of play it is getting in the media (outside of FoxNews, of course). This one will get swept under the rug until Dodd runs for his seat again next time.

Max,

Dean, the Lott affair bubbled around the blogosphere for a couple of weeks before it became news. God help me but I'm not going to go back a check out how long it took for right-leaning bloggers to issue their condemnations

Hours. The Right bloggers were immediately condemning Lott. It was the Right bloggers that stayed on Lott and made his blunder news. We hammered his ass over and over until he stepped down.

I know because I was one of them. You are welcome to use our google and search our archives for Trent Lott. It'll give you an idea of how consistent we are...

I don't see this as having anything to do with who or how many someone represents. If that was the case, nobody would have cared about Lott's statement, since all that mattered was what he stumped for and how he voted. The issue is with the character of the individual. I'm not comfortable condemning presumed crypto-racism from any politician. When's the last time a senator blew hot air during a speech without even having a clue what he was talking about, let alone failing to recognize the possibility that his words could be interpretted as crypto-anything? Still, if you're going to flip out over Lott's statement, you're presumeably pretty high strung, so why not flip out on Dodd? But then, maybe the lefties have started taking their medication now so everything's cool.

My wife is quite correct, of course: right-leaning and Bush supporting weblogs were all over Trent Lott within hours, and brought the heat to a fever pitch.

Be careful before you speak, for facts know no partisanship.

Facts, facts, facts. What facts, in particular, are you talking about, Dean? If you read what I said carefully, Dean, you'll note that I professed ignorance as to the reaction of conservative bloggers, and thank you Rosemary for pointing me in the right direction; on this blog it was certainly worthy of praise. My point was, a bit more time before we start casting judgement? But no, I must be a raving partisan cos' I vote Dem, no quarter given. Now Dean, I think that 'link' is deliberately misleading, and that you should either explain why it isn't, add an update, or remove it.

I'll note, too, that Dodd was briefly head of the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton Administration.

"My wife is quite correct, of course: right-leaning and Bush supporting weblogs were all over Trent Lott within hours, and brought the heat to a fever pitch.

Be careful before you speak, for facts know no partisanship.

So I can assume without bothering to google, that contrary to your profestations of liberal tolerance, you've always been consistent in being a "right-leaning and Bush supporting weblog"?

Mark,

Ha! I've been writing and commenting on this blog for almost 2 years. I have always been a Bush supporting and right-leaning person. By default, the blog has appeared to be "right-leaning and Bush supporting weblog" at least 40% of the time.

That's what happens when spouses with different beliefs write together.

Max, et all:

The linked post moved. I hate when you can't clearly link an article. I tried to fix it, hopefully it worked...

ok sorry! Jumped the gun on that one. But who am I apologising to, Rosemary or Dean?

Max,

No apology necessary. It was a misunderstanding and if Dean were available he would have fixed it.

All better now! :-)

Dodd was making some sappy sentiment about how Byrd is a man for all seasons and times. A "good" decision maker no matter what time he lived.

Lott was making a statement that had we followed Thurmond's lead and instituted segregationist policies the U.S. would a better place today.

There is a difference between sappy sentiment and foot-in-mouth condonation of racism.

Wrong.

Lott was blowing smoke up an old man's ass. It was sappy sentiment.

The only difference is the amount of slack a Democrat gets by the lefties.

Rose: fair enough.

I was wrong about something else, Dean, or at least Dean's World, doesn't follow Limbaugh's lead, it's the other way around, Just got my daily dose of Rush and what is he talking about? Byrd and Dodd.

Dean's World: Show Prep for El Rushbo. :-)

I'm one of the more conservative commenters on this blog, I think. When I blogged myself, I rabidly attacked lefties for stupid statements and not holding themselves to the same standard that they held Republicans.
Heck, I still think Sen. Santorum's vilified remarks are misrepresented and misinterpreted.

But I'm with j Swift on this.
Lott said, specifically, that if Strom Thurmond had been elected President, it would have been good for the country. Strom Thurmond's campaign platform included very racists planks. Thus, Lott's statement clearly (if inadvertantly) expressed support for racist attitudes.
Dodd, however, praised Byrd's leadership, and said his leadership would have been good for the nation at any point, not just now. That is far from being as disturbing, because it praises a trait, not a specific view.
In no way can that statement be interpreted to mean that Byrd's former membership in the KKK was a good thing, or that he would use the views that led him into that membership to enact policy on the US. By praising Byrd's "leadership", he could more easily (but clumsily) be praising the maturation that led to his leaving the KKK, which is a good thing.
I don't see it as the same thing at all, myself.
This criticism of Dodd, and Byrd by extension, seems identical to what I consider one of the worst tendencies of the Left: to assume that people cannot change.

While we're discussing double standards, do LLL cartoonists get to use racist language without any repercussions? Just wondering. (From the Drudge Report)

j Swift is exactly right. Not only do right-wingers look desperate flogging these non-issues into hamburger, they prove that they really don’t understand what is wrong and why.

nathan,

Well, he did explicitly say that Byrd's "leadership" would have been good for the country during the Civil War. Now, the context was in the middle of a laundry list of American history (he'd have been good during the Founding, good during the Civil War, good during the various crises of the 20th century).

Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat platform would have been well known in the Senate, particularly by Trent Lott. Similarly, Byrd's former KKK membership is also well known in the Senate, as well as his tendency to make unfortunate remarks on the subject of race in America. Unless you are _trying_ to give the Congressional Black Caucus a poke in the eye, it's just not wise (or, obviously, true) to say that what the U.S. really needed during the Civil War was this guy who used to be part of the KKK.

On the broader subject, could we possibly suggest to the Senate as a whole that a less effusive style would be more successful? Their brains seem to get twisted when they try to give those over-the-top compliments to each other. Your esteemed colleague from the great state of [your state here] may be a nice person, but he's not the best thing since sliced bread, no matter how much you need his vote on your bill later.

I've commented about this elsewhere and I believe those on the right who are truly outraged are just playing dumb.

My self-generated talking points.

1. Yes, the left has said, Dodd could have phrased things differently, better. They have not embraced the comments 100 percent.

2. Lott was ousted not by the left but by his own party. If he had not had a long history of voting against miniroty interests, I don't think they would have kicked him out. Dodd has no such "racist" (notice the quotes please) record - quite the reverse as a matter of fact.

3. Byrd has long ago sought penance for his stupidity for 10 months in the KKK - (and a couple of letters of support after he left in 1946. Let me repeat that - 1946.). He has since proved his mettle by voting continuously (don't parse me, call it a generalization) for bills that protected the rights of all Americans.

Albeit, with one not so small exception - the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Though that isn't as cut and dry as it is usually presented it is still a blackmark on his record.

4. The media response is different for the reasons stated above, not lefty-righty anything.

Thank you.

A somewhat helpful link.

At the risk of beating a dead horse:
Sam,
The only way Dodd's and Lott's statements are equivalent (ignoring the topological similarity of their surnames) is if you assume that when Dodd uses the words "leadership", he is trying to imply the "leadership" of being in the KKK. That's a huge stretch by any reckoning. I don't like Byrd. I think he's one of the worst Senators and should have been kicked out long ago. But not for an association long since ended. Maybe Byrd only quit the Klan for political expediency; maybe he still believes its precepts....or maybe he doesn't. But you are trying to nail this statement of Dodd's to Byrd's distant past. It really can't be done.
The only way for Dodd's statements to be tantamount to support of the Klan is if you assert that a person cannot learn from mistakes, and once a Klanner, always a Klanner.

My outrage against Lott was partially due to his comments blunting the effect of the drubbing the Democrats took in the 2002 election. Since he was a leader of MY party, I took his comments personally. Also, as a member of a multi-racial family, I was personally offended by the notion that racism was worthy of praise.

Am I as upset about Dodd? No. Why? Because he is not the leader of MY party in the Senate. And also because I expect racism on the part of Democrats. It is part and parcel of their policies of affirmative action to look down their noses at "inferior" races. It is one of the reasons they do not get my vote. Dodd's comments are hardly revelatory. The racism of the Democratic party is institutional.

I was offended by Lott's comments because I expected more from a Southern politician who had experienced first-hand the pain of racial politics. But Dodd's comments are JUST what I expect from a condescending Northeastern patrician with no first-hand knowledge of race politics in America.

Like it or not, the Democratic party has a vested interest in prolonging the victimization of its constituency. For it has no constructive appeal to its membership, only punitive appeal against its constituencies purported victimizers. It seeks not to solve problems, but to profit from them.

That may sound like a cynical view. But there is a reason my familty converted from the Democratic party in the 1970's. Today's Democratic party is about two things - 1) Extending the victimization culture, and 2) killing unborn babies. These twin pillars of Democratic dogma do not appeal to me. I'm all for solving problems of victims, and let's talk about the six different parties that have an interest in pregnancy. But I need more than the reactionary stances of Democrats to appeal to me.

Should leftists be as ashamed of Dodd's comments as Rightists were of Lott's. Yeah, in theory. Am I holding my breath waiting for the Left to rise up and condemn one of their own. HA! The Left is not about principles and ideals. It is all about power. Why would I expect them to punish one of their own when he fulfills all of their requirements - he is in power.

Oh, and the KKK wasn't formed until years after the Civil War ended, so it still doesn't make sense to try and tie Klan membership to the laundry list of historical moments.

Nathan,

I think the point is that right-wingers, not left-wingers are the ones who took down Lott. Your justifications of Dodd, though they ring hollow, are no less than I expected.

"The only way Dodd's and Lott's statements are equivalent (ignoring the topological similarity of their surnames) is if you assume that when Dodd uses the words "leadership", he is trying to imply the "leadership" of being in the KKK. That's a huge stretch by any reckoning. "

Yeah, and Red and Maroon are really completely different colors - to interior decorators that is.

Bloggers who took down Lott: Atrios, Marshall, Reynolds. They're the main ones. Atrios and Marshall did the digging. This is my take on it; as I wasn't very much aware of the rightie-blogosphere at the time, I stand to be corrected. Scott Harris, your rhetoric has an interesting surface glossiness, but the predictable depth and internal consistancy of a Limbaugh rant.

Interesting take nathan. If Dodd releases a book like 'Good People Beget Good People' some time in the future, allow me to renounce that sentiment.

One last point, Lott wasn't 'taken down'. He was bumped to the next most influential position available when Republicans realised they weren't gonna get away with it.

Max,

I wasn't ranting so much as expressing my resignation at the deterioration of the once great Democratic party. As for Rush Limbaugh, the man does not appeal to me.

Perhaps we should have a Godwin's Law 2.0 for evidence of a lost argument when Limbaugh's name is invoked.

Max,

One last point, Lott wasn't 'taken down'. He was bumped to the next most influential position available when Republicans realised they weren't gonna get away with it.

That is just insulting. I am personally offended by that remark.

Andrew,

I've commented about this elsewhere and I believe those on the right who are truly outraged are just playing dumb.

We aren't outraged. We expect nothing less from Democrats to hold themselves to different standards.

We also expect all the blind partisans to line up like lemmings right behind Dodd.

Scott Harris:
“Am I as upset about Dodd? No. Why? Because he is not the leader of MY party in the Senate. And also because I expect racism on the part of Democrats.”

Scott, you and Rosemary obviously have issues with Democrats. That has caused you and other Democrat haters to ASSUME that Dodd was saying something about race. He wasn’t, Lott was. That’s the difference if you’re still sane enough to see it.

Max,

Yes, we did take down Lott. I know, because I was part of the take down squad. My outraged letter to the editor was printed in the Washington Post, and the Dallas Morning News. I also contacted my Congressman and Senators and received personal replies - probably because my letters were published in major newspapers. I am a sustaining member of the Republican National Committee and have been so since 2000.

So you don't know what the hell you're talking about. We held the majority in 2002, and without our efforts, Marshall and Atrios would have been spitting in the wind. But go ahead and stick your head in the sand. Plug up your ears. "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you." If we responded to Marshall and Atrios, it was because in this case, they were right. But their moral inconsistency is on display (or rather, not on display) for all to see as we speak.

This one will get swept under the rug until Dodd runs for his seat again next time.

That would be now. He's up for re-election in 2004. Of course, he's facing no real opposition so far. I'm a Connecticut voter and I had no idea who's running against him. I googled up the people who are running for the Republican nomination and they're all complete unknowns who've never held political office before.

If he does get re-elected, it's not necessarily because the people of Connecticut love him. It's partly because the CT Republican party seems to be totally unable to produce a viable alternative.

shep,

I am not into holding politicians accountable for every little rhetorical mistake. But Dodd went beyond suggesting Byrd had a long and distinguished service for which the country could be grateful. He specifically said that Byrd would have been right for any era, including by specific reference the Founding Era, and the Civil War.

I am not a head-hunter. Just as Lott was not publicly censured by the Senate, I am not asking that Dodd be censured. All I am suggesting, not expecting mind you but suggesting, is a little moral consistency. Both Dodd and Lott were overexuberant in their attempts to praise old men.

One of my favorite games is to upset right-wing ideologues by saying nice things about Clinton. I may be a partisan, but I am not a blind partisan. Similarly, it is hard to validate left-wing outrage when it is only directed at right-wing partisans, and has no substantive connection to values.

Shep,

I don't assume that Dodd MEANT to be racially insensitive. But neither do I believe that Lott MEANT to be insensitive. Both men said foolish things without thinking, and without considering the impact of their words. If anything, Dodd's statement was worse because it is officially part of the Congressional Record. At least Lott's remarks were at a non-official private birthday party, not in front of the entire Senate. I give Dodd the benefit of the doubt on his intentions, but Lott also gets the benefit of the doubt.

Scott,

Don't waste your time explaining to the lemmings. They've already been issued their talking points.

Republicans bad.

He wasn’t, Lott was. That’s the difference if you’re still sane enough to see it.

I totally see it. Lott was glorifying a reformed Dixiecrat for his birthday. Dodd was stroking a former klansmen for his anniversary.

Birthday does not = Anniversary

I see a difference! I see the light! I've been saved! Can I get an AMEN?!

So let me get this straight, Scott. If I say anything nice about you in any way, I am expressing full support and approval for anything stupid you did when you were 8 years old.
Okay, I'm clear on that.

Draw a direct connection between Dodd's statement and Byrd's membership in the Klan, and you have a point. Anything less, and you don't. With that being said, I think Hillary should have been censured for her comment about Ghandi and gas stations. Typically, the left gave her a pass. Just like they let all sorts of things pass when its their own guy, like letting Al Gore get away with "reinventing" himself (can you say "No integrity in regards to his self-image"?) and "inventing" the internet. I also believe Dan Quayle was shafted by the liberal-leaning media. All of which begs the question, Mr. Harris, what exactly did you mean by "no less than you expected"? If you expect me to stop thinking just because I vote Republican, you are worse than the lock-step liberals I revile over at the Democrat Underground. I will continue to form my own opinions based on my own perception and judgment, regardless of derisive comments from either side. I just never expected to suffer it from a fellow conservative.

nathan,

You're missing part of my point. Dodd said that Byrd "would have been a great Senator at any moment." The spin for Byrd's KKK associations being relevent is that he meant "at any moment in his career," as well as "at any moment in American history." This is at the very least a plausible reading, though not inevitable.

Dodd could have made the point that Byrd, to his credit, overcame the extremely negative associations of his past, but he didn't. I certainly wouldn't make the argument, "once a Klanner, always a Klanner," but Byrd's KKK past is not an isolated incident in his career. His continuing record on race relations is nothing to be proud of--and THAT is why Dodd's reference to the Civil War is problematic.

I'm merely pointing out a counterargument to your position. I'm not saying that Dodd is a horrible person--but if Lott gets nailed for a major implication, then the same sauce ought to apply to Dodd. I think Lott deserved what he got, and I think Dodd deserves some bad press for being stupidly offensive.

Sam,
Okay, I guess I can see what you mean... (and you know a "but" is coming, right? [grin]), but in reading Dodd's statement, if he'd ended with "at any moment", I could easily see the implication of it being followed with "...in his career." Obviously, that would false. Heck, his tendency to provide pork barrel spending to get stuff named after himself shows bad leadership in my book! But since he followed it with the laundry list of historical moments, including the founding of the country (before the KKK was even conceived of), I just took it to mean that Dodd was implying Byrd was good at dealing with Senate issues in divisive times, LIKE the Civil War era. So maybe this is just a comprehension issue? My reading comprehension went in a more innocuous direction, rightly or wrongly?

nathan,

Yes, exactly. I'm quite sure you took his statement in the sense that he meant it--praise for an elder statesman in his party who is a recognized master of parliamentary procedure and Senate gamesmanship. However, the broader context of Byrd's career links up unpleasantly with some of the events Dodd referenced.

Lott was likely trying to reference Thurmond's general conservative credentials, not piss off a chunk of his constituency, when he made the comments that cost him the Senate Majority Leader position. That's why I don't think it comes down to a question of intent, as anyone can just say, "Oh, you misinterpreted what I said."

It's a question of political judgement, so when Dodd linked Byrd to the Civil War, the broader context of Byrd's career cast a distinctly unfavorable light on the allusion. Like I said earlier, it's not just the former KKK membership--although many of Byrd's other statements didn't get much press, so it's entirely reasonable that someone might not have thought of them. But if you know Byrd's history, the idea of him being a positive figure in the Civil War is just bizarre.

The concept that an individual, with whatever hardwiring us human beings have, would make the same "good" decisions no matter the time is friggin silly. You could not begin to guess how the culture and times would impact on that individual's decsion making.

Dodd might as well have been talking about a science fiction novel on alternative history with some previous incarnation of Byrd living in that time.

Putting my foot in it again :-) I should have made it clear I was talking about Republican politicians, the senators and congressment etc., not casting aspersions on the perfectly commendable actions of 'grassroots' Republicans who pressurised their representatives to dicipline Lott.

To clarify, if we were to apply the Lott treatment to Dodd, we would do exactly nothing; Lott was demoted to the most influential position Dodd now holds.

And one last passing shot: I can not believe people are still putting 'invent' in quotemarks when they refer to Gore's statement. Unfathomable.

The furor over Lott (from the Left and the media) (redundant, I know) was silly. A problem like Lott is the responsibility of his party, and Dodd should be the responsibility of his party. The party's handling of problems like this can then be used as reliable indicators of the heart of the party.

That's been my rule ever since I left the Democrats after they circled the wagons around Bill Clinton. I realized there was a serious hole at the heart of the party. Call it what you will, my label was "moral and political compass." They haven't proven me wrong yet.