The bad-mouthing of Senator Byrd...

[kentuck]

Yes, Senator Byrd is a conservative Democrat. He has never said he is a "liberal". Yes, most everyone here disagreed with his vote on Alito. However, most everyone here applauded him when he was the only Senator with the backbone to stand up for the Constitution and against Bush before the invasion of Iraq. He was a hero. Yes, we don't always agree with him, but his positives far outweigh his negatives, in my humble opinion.

[Burma Jones]

1. Yep

[iconoclastNYC]

2. Conservative democrat is an oxymoron

And that's the problem.

[bryant69]

6. How is it an oxymoron?

Our parties are not driven by ideology but by politics. Granted the Republicans have done what they can to make their party the "conservative party" and democrats have, to a lesser extent, tried to create ideological unanimity in the Democratic party. But neither effort has been wholly successful, nor have they been the norm, historically speaking.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[iconoclastNYC]

7. Our party is being driven by ideology

The DLC's Corporations first ideology has pushed us away from our roots, alienated our base of support, blurred the distinctions between the two partys, made our party look weak, and discouraged people from being involved in politics.

[bryant69]

9. Interesting Argument. But doesn't really apply does it?

but yeah, the DLC is, to a certain extent driven by ideology. As is, say, the Sierra Club. And the NAACP. And so on and so forth.

I get the impression that's a stock answer that you just shoved in because you didn't really have much of an argument. But I could be wrong, of course.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[iconoclastNYC]

17. You said: Our parties are not driven by ideology.

This is an assanine comment, and you just admitted as much.

[bryant69]

41. OK allow me to clarify the definition of party

Party means a political party made up of individuals who have diffferent ideals. See for example, teh Republicans, the Democrats, and so on and so forth. Basically they are organizations dedicated to getting people elected. The goal of the Democratic Party is not just to push a liberal agenda (and frankly not even mainly that) but to get Democrats elected.

You made a nonsensical comparison to the DLC which is, in essense, a lobbying group. The DLC has an idea about what the Democratic Party should be doing and they push their opinion - they are ideologically driven. Same with any number of other political groups - like the NRA or AARP or Greenpeace and so on on so forth. THey push their idea of what good government should entail - i.e. ideology. But, in general, they do not put up candidates. It's much easier to be ideologically pure if you don't actually have to run for anything.

So, allow me to reiterate, for those who haven't caught on yet.

The prime goal of the Democratic party - get Democrats elected.

The prime goal of the DLC - to push a moderate, pro-business agenda (under the theory that such will help Democrats get elected).

The prime goal of Greenpeace - to push an pro-environemental agenda (somewhat regardless of who gets elected).

Got it?

Bryant

[Minnesota Libra]

19. I'm certainly glad DU.......

doesn't consider "conservative Democrat" to be an oxymoran because I wouldn't be here. At least DU wisely realizes Democrats generally agree on most things and can work together for the better good while still disagreeing on a few things. DU does not require lock step like "free republic" does.

[QC]

35. Conservative Democrats have been around since the beginning

of the party and they are still fairly common. You might not like them, and I know I don't, but it's pure foolishness to declare that there's no such thing. It's like someone who doesn't like the color orange denying that it exists.

[iconoclastNYC]

44. Guess it depends on what your definition of conservative is

And what it means to be a Democrat. I don't believe that our tent should be so big that we allow corporatists who vote to dismantle the the New Deal but then again I'm a proud LIBERAL.

If you want to be conservative go join the conservative party. They're known as Republicans.

[QC]

49. Can you read?

"If you want to be conservative go join the conservative party."

I am not a conservative, as I stated in the post to which you were attempting to respond. I am, however, a person who knows a bit about the history of the party and has some contact with reality.

[mattclearing]

3. I'm not a huge fan, but he's certainly not the worst Dem Senator. n/t

[wakeme2008]

4. My problem with Byrd is

he said he trusted Alito at his word. I would never trust Alito with anything.

[Dr Fate]

30. Anyone who trusts Alito is either lying on purpose or stupid. n/t

n/t

[ISUGRADIA]

39. I question a man who votes for Alito tusting him but voted against

the confirmation of Thurgood Marshall as a Justice.

[Mass]

5. The problem with Byrd is that he still lives in a world that does not

exist anymore. He wants to preserve the constitution and the Senate role and that is the only thing he cares, hence his votes for Alito and Roberts, for example.

For example, his vote against the IWR was not a vote because the war was bad. It was a vote to preserve some of the Senate prerogatives. He wants to preserve the Constitution, but is ready to amend it in order to prevent same-sex marriage.

So, he is far from being the worst of the Democrats, but I cant say I like him. I wished that WV had better to offer.

[Skidmore]

8. As much as I was disappointed in his vote, I interpreted his voting

thusly as honoring a gentleman's agreement he made with the 14. Apparently the consensus among that group was that Alito's nomination did not constitute a threat. He had given his word to this group, and he kept it. In this world of shifting loyalties where someone's word means nothing, he did what he saw as the honorable thing. I don't fault him for that. I wish he had not tied himself to this group though.

[MyNameGoesHere]

10. wth?

Damn his wanting to protect the constitution, burn him i say!

[FreedomAngel82]

12. He lost that when he voted for Alito

[Mass]

14. Is it about preserving the Constitution or our rights?

Byrd has no problem restricting our rights, as he proved by voting for Alito and Roberts, and by supporting the FMA, as long as you do not restrict the Senate rights, all is fine.

[MyNameGoesHere]

37. Yeah who cares if he

loves the constitution and understands that the Senate has a duty. Burn him I say. We don't need any help in congress worthless senator as him anyway....

[Mass]

46. I am sure that those against whom he used his constitutional right to a

filibuster to prevent them to have equal rights do agree with you.

Or those against whom he preached defending DOMA in 1995.

Or the women and all the minority whose rights' he threw down the river this year because he thought we should not have liberal judges (but who cares if we have judges who will suppress our rights).

He loves the Constitution the same way the * do. Stopped in time.

[Catrina]

25. I have to disagree with you. Were you watching him desperately

trying to stop this war back when it was considered treasonous to do so? We had no voice then, and for me, he spoke the words I WANTED to say to those who turned a deaf ear to the millions who tried to get their attention.

What struck me most about his early speeches against the war was how he talked about the Iraqi PEOPLE. He worried about them, on the Senate floor. He talked about them as human beings who would suffer horribly if this war were to happen, and he was right.

He was the only Senator at the time, who refused to use the words 'collateral damage' and said they are not 'collateral damage, they are PEOPLE'.

He is conservative, but he does have the courage of his convictions, even if sometimes I disagree with him ~ he was under intense attack throughout the last four years from the right ~ but never once apologized or backed away or became defensive on his position on the Bush administration and on their war.

When he wiped the floor with Sen. Frist on the filibuster, it was a classic, a joy to behold as he reduced Frist to the level of a schoolboy who had not done his homework and when Frist couldn't take anymore and left, Sen. Byrd just said ~ 'wheeeerrre is my opponent'? He looks innocent but has a subtle sense of humor ~ I laughed my head off ~

[FreedomAngel82]

11. So if he cares about the Constitution why did he vote for Alito?

[Mass]

13. Because keeping the filibuster (a Senate privilege) was more important

than our rights (except may be for the white straight man), even if keeping the filibuster means that you are going agree you will not use it. Senate Privileges are even more important than the Constitution, in his mind.

I have no bad feelings for Byrd because of his age. As I said, he lives in a world that does not exist anymore, but he should have done the right thing and quit his seat in 06.

[iconoclastNYC]

18. What good is the filibuster?

If you can never use it? And if you do the Rethugs will just go nuclear anyway. So what's the point? What did we really save by not filibustering Alito?

Bryd was chicken shit to filibuster because he was afraid of loosing his seat. He's a coward.

What we need to do is preserving the f'ing Supreme Court. Once they get enough right wingers on this court Congress will have no power.

[Dr Fate]

27. But i thought Reid said Republicans would "Rue the day they go nuclear"

Tough talk- but just talk.

[Bridget Burke]

15. I certainly don't agree with all of Senator Byrd's actions.....

But I'd gladly trade him for either of my senators.

[madokie]

16. Me too. I would hate to think that anyone could please everyone all

the time, I wouldn't trust the person that could as far as I could throw 'em.
Sen. Byrd know's the gravity of the situation, understands it full well.

[Minnesota Libra]

20. Apparently, I'm one of the very few.....

....that agrees with about 75% of what Senator Byrd stands for and does and disagrees with not much more than 25%. Yes, I'm a proud Conservative Democrat, I like Senator Byrd alot, and I'm a newbie. Three strikes and counting!!! :freak:

[jarab]

21. A belated welcome, Minnesota Libra!

...O...

[Minnesota Libra]

23. Thank You so much.....

.....for a very warm welcome. :donut:

[Odin2005]

22. All conservatives dems I know are only conservative on social issues.

This is the problem, people are so worried about party purity on social issies we are driving people who are socially conservative but are with us on economic issies (who I will call "populists") In a 2-party system you can't win by only pleasing one corner of the ideological chart, you need 2 corners, we either have to compromise on social issies and get some of the populists on board, or compromise on economic issies and get some libertarians on board. Ideological purity doesn't work in a 2-party system.

[annabanana]

24. The man is an institution

and should be taken on his own terms. I feel that he sometimes does not (whether willfully or negligently) see what the body politic has become, and will continue to see the Senate, the "world's greatest deliberative body", as it was in more robust times..

[Dr Fate]

26. True- but some of us decided to use the Filibuster to see who listens.

I liked him, but he and the other Pro-Unitary Executive/Anti-Base Democrats can ask Pro-Alito people rather than me for money from now on.

I'm just Pig-headed that way. I saw the Filibuuster as a "line across the sand" test to see who was willing to listen to the active base over polls and people who dont even volunteer for DEMs. Byrd failed that test, as did others.

From now on, I only give directly to progressive Democrats who I percieve listen to ME and people who think like ME.

I'll never forget it- as long as I live. It was the day that certain forces in the Democratic party made it clear that they did not want input from the active base.

[Pushed To The Left]

40. That's also why I like Feinstein much more now than I did

As disappointing as some of her other votes have been, she listened to the people and did what was right when it came to the Alito filibuster. Those 25 Democrats are heroes, and I won't forget the stand they took for us!

[WI_DEM]

28. Nice try but you'll never change the purists

who believe that your a dino unless you agree with them 100%.

[Dr Fate]

29. Expecting DEMs to be anti-Unitary Executive is not a call for purism.

I dont mean *saying* you are anti-Unitary Executive, I mean PROVING it with your vote.

Expecting Byrd to listen to Democratic donors & volunteers instead of the Religous Right is not a call for purism either.

[Justice Is Comin]

31. Did you know

that Byrd wrote the amendment that has made the port deal illegal?

Prior to his amendment, any foreign government involvement which controlled a person or entity that would potentially affect U.S. security, it was up to the discression of the CFIUS as to whether to require a 45 day investigation period.

In 1993, he authored the Byrd amendment which was put into law that made it illegal for them not to do it if it involved our national security. It is no longer discressionalry.

They didn't do it. So all twelve departments who signed off broke the law. Clear and unequivocal.

Byrd has to be one of the most beneficial Democratic Senators ever to be in that chamber. I wasn't happy with the Alito cave-in either. But there had to be more there than we were privy to.

[Dr Fate]

32. The Unitary Executive does not care what Byrd thinks about the ports.

"there had to be more there than we were privy to."

That sums up the problem I have.

Certain Democrats dont want the active base to be privy to much of anything- and they certainly do not want our input-unless thay input is a check, that is.

If we are not "privy" to something, then when is Byrd and the other Pro-Alito DEMS going to make us privy to it? Why the secrets? Who are they playing?

[wallybarron]

33. Check where Byrd's

money comes from. Check what he's done for WV.

[Justice Is Comin]

34. I'm going to point out something

you may not have thought of. It didn't occur to me either until I forced myself to see his rationale.

He didn't take the safe route as so many of the other Benedict Arnolds did. Most of the sell out Dems voted yes on cloture and no on confirmation. That was the coward way of covering their ass.

Byrd didn't do that. Why? Do you remember that he said he asked Alito point blank in their meeting if he would ever vote to give the president unbridled power in contradiction to the constitution. And Alito told him flatly he would not.

Right then and there, I believe Byrd took him at his word. And here's the payoff. When Alito is faced with those decisions, I think he is going to flash back to that moment and face his promise to Byrd. It may be the biggest surprise to the G.O.P. since Souter.

Two men of enormous stature looked the devil in the face and gave each other a binding verbal pact. Alito knows Byrd is holding him to it.

[dweller]

42. K&R for your insight in this

and for Byrd's voice against this illegal war in Iraq, and for the fact he's still standing these many years.

for when he goes, we've lost a mighty voice in the Senate.

i'm saddened there are so few rec's on this thread.
dp

[Dr Fate]

47. How will Byrd hold him to it? Anyone who trusts Alito is lying to himself.

How will Byrd hold him to it? Impeach him? Yeah, right.

[Catrina]

36. I don't think there's anyone more anti 'unitary executive' than Byrd.

That is why the Bush people hate him so much, and he has voted on more issues than Alito. I think he believed Alito ~ maybe it's naive of him to do so. Or maybe he knows more than we do ~ he's been around a lot longer. I didn't agree with him, but we'll have to wait and see (and hope) that he was right ~ he was right about Bush, about the War, about many things. I wish there were more people like him in the Senate.

[Dr Fate]

48. I don't think there's anyone more PRO 'unitary executive' than Alito

Who Byrd voted for, refused to Filibuster and claims to trust.

[ISUGRADIA]

38. I'd be more sympathetic if he thought LGBT people were more

worthy of civil rights protections as are African Americans (a cause he came to support only when he wanted to be Democratic leader in the 1970s).

[Katherine Brengle]

43. There are parts of his past some of us aren't capable of looking past.

[depakid]

45. Well, I'm not inclined to agree

Byrd has been in Washington too long- it's high time for him to retire.

If he cared even ONE IOTA about the Vonstitution- he wouldn't have voted for Alito. The man's insincere- and belongs on the sidelines.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Absolutely 100%. n/t