Politics: J'accuse!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You would move mountains to forgive Strom his transgressions, but accuse Byrd of being instrumental in lynching? Did your high school history class run out of time to cover events after 1948?

I was home schooled. Mom insisted we learn history from a 1949 Encyclopedia Brittanica. she felt all later editions painted Nixon in an unfair light.

And I never said Lott/Strom were right or okay. But they are both a product of their times and enviroment. Ultimately, Lott said something really dumb- I don't think he meant he could have gotten his crops in more cheaply after 8 Strom years. dodd doesn't have the old White guy who grew up in the south thing going for him. It was a very stupid thing to say, to single out the Civil war period.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Well, there's our answer to my question about your motive. Did you oppose the canonization of St. Paul because he'd been a coatrack at St. Stephen's farewell party?

Moreover, many of the era's really nasty political racists never changed their positions -- Bull Connor, James Eastland, and Lester Maddox come to mind. Byrd and Justice Black did.*

Strom did as well, which is why the praise of him as a senator by Lott and others was fine -- until Lott said that he should have won the presidency on the Dixiecrat's explicitly racist platform in 1948. That's where Lott crossed the line.

In a nutshell, that's the difference between Lott and Dodd.

*Heck, even George Wallace expressed regret for his racial sins -- at least enough regret to get black support in his last campaign. Although there are some who note his "I won't ever be out-n######ed again!" statement and contend that his racist platform was merely a campaign gimmick, which was easily discarded by him when he didn't need it anymore.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Not Me
All you haev done is explain to me what Lott said and what you think is wrong with what he said. That is not explaining how what Lott said is DIFFERENT from what Dodd said.

Simple. In his hosannahs to Strom, Lott said that America would have been better off if a person running on an explicitly racist platform had won the presidency in 1948. Had Dodd said in greasing Byrd something like "it would have been great for America if Senator Byrd had become president during his term as Grand Imperial Wizard," then it would be the same. Since it's not the same, that means that it is different.

Now, if you want to say that Dodd shouldn't have praised Byrd at all because he is a pork-guzzling, pedantic blowhard, well that's another thing.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Not Me, I think this is an answer to your question posed to everyone else on the board.

No he hasn't. All he has done is said "Lott said this and this is bad." That isn't explaining the difference. To explain the difference he has to fill in the blanks in this sentence "Lott said this and Dodd said this and their statements are different because [insert explanation of difference here]."

Simply stating what Lott said and why you think what Lott said was a bad thing to say is not explaining the difference between what Lott and Dodd said.

There is a reason that no one has explained the difference, YKWIM.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Simply stating what Lott said and why you think what Lott said was a bad thing to say is not explaining the difference between what Lott and Dodd said.

Lott said he wished, and still wishes, that a party that ran on a single-plank, segregationist platform had won the presidency, and that if it had our country would not have the problems it has now.

Dodd made very general comments about Byrd being a good guy. If Lott had said exactly what Dodd had said, but with "Thurmond" substituted for "Byrd," I wouldn't find it troubling. I wouldn't agree with it, but I wouldn't find it troubling.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
No he hasn't.

You can also try NotBob's explanation, which in addition to capturing it pretty well has the added benefit of a little insouciance tossed in. We can keep going if we need to.

There is a reason that no one has explained the difference, YKWIM.

No, IDKWYM. But given our glacial progress on the matter, I'm beginning to think you believe the difference has something to do with self-hatred.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Bob Since it's not the same, that means that it is different.

I understand that they said different things. But why is what one said worse than what the other one said? There is a reason that you cannot articulate why one is worse than the other.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
We can keep going if we need to.

No let's not. You guys are unbelievable. I am speechless.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No let's not. You guys are unbelievable. I am speechless.

This whole exchange is such a great example of how (relative) moderates on both sides (on this board) get pissed off at the other side's comments to people who are just wackos. It can start out as a perfectly reasonable conversation; then a wacko comes in, people on the other side of the wacko get pissed off and become more extreme, and moderates on the side of the wacko (though not by any means in utter and total agreement with said wacko) don't see how the wacko has influenced things and decide that the other side is totally insane.

Yeah, I realize that made no sense.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
This whole exchange is such a great example of how (relative) moderates on both sides (on this board) get pissed off at the other side's comments to people who are just wackos. It can start out as a perfectly reasonable conversation; then a wacko comes in, people on the other side of the wacko get pissed off and become more extreme, and moderates on the side of the wacko (though not by any means in utter and total agreement with said wacko) don't see how the wacko has influenced things and decide that the other side is totally insane.

Yeah, I realize that made no sense.

It makes a lot sense, relative to its competition.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
It makes a lot sense, relative to its competition.

If you sub in Not Me for wacko, liberals for people on the other side, and sgt club for moderates on the side of the wacko, it might be easier to understand. As an example. Everyone participates, though.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Not Me
I understand that they said different things. But why is what one said worse than what the other one said? There is a reason that you cannot articulate why one is worse than the other.

You keep saying that no one can say how they are different, but you (and Club) have completely failed to say how they are the same.

So. How is the statement that someone (with a past that admittedly contains shameful, shameful parts) is a (notwithstanding) great man the same as saying that someone else's particular shameful, shameful act was good and correct?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No let's not. You guys are unbelievable. I am speechless.

Good point. Let's just stop.

To blur the lines sufficiently, I'm willing to stipulate that

(1) Lott saying [something nice about] Thurmond was Wrong! Evil! Worthy of Shame! because Thurmond [in his past was an evil, racist prick]

And that =

Dodd saying [something nice about] Byrd was Wrong! Evil! Worthy of Shame! because Byrd [in his past was an evil, racist prick]

(2) And [the mass media*] failing to crucify Dodd as they did Byrd demonstrates their incomparable liberal bias because the statements are absolutely equivalent!

Whew! See, guys, wasn't that easy?

Gattigap

* Excepting FNC, NYPost, Wash Times, and other Moonie-owned and Murdoch-owned properties, natch.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Tim Noah, writing in Slate, talks about recent demographic research revealing that more of us now live in "landslide counties" -- counties where 60% or more voted for one or the other presidential nominee. Somewhat hyperbolically, Noah says, "[t]he likelihood that you will ever argue politics with your neighbor is diminishing rapidly, because it's less and less likely that, politically, you and your neighbor will ever disagree."

I can't believe that people are relocating in large numbers to counties of like-minded souls. I have to think that this change reflects that the political parties have realigned on cultural splits. Anyway, it's interesting.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Good point. Let's just stop.

To blur the lines sufficiently, I'm willing to stipulate that

[stuff]

Me too, but only if we mean "crucify" in the metaphorical sense, as opposed to the Mel Gibson's Snuff Film sense. That seems a little harsh.