Redstate

Byrd renounce his racism about 3 decades ago?

Is this really the sort of diary that RedState is looking for?  Cheap  smears?

Nice try. Thanks for the live demonstration of liberal double standards.

I'm sure Trent Lott appreciates your apparent belief in leaving the past in the past. Why not share that philosophy with leading liberal blogs like americablog?

Oh, right, we already know the answer to that. Double standards.

Trent Lott got in trouble for saying that Thurmond's  Presidential platform would have been good for the country.  He did not get in trouble for being at the birthday party.

There are people with double standards on both sides of the fence.  That doesn't mean reasonable people should write diary entries titled "So and So is a racist" unless they actually feel that So and So IS a racist.

Trent Lott got in trouble for saying that Strom Thurmond would have been good for the country, which took place at a birthday party, which is the point I actually made.

"There are people with double standards on both sides of the fence."

Ah well then. I should just go ahead and ignore the thousands of left wing nuts I'm writing about, since both sides have baddies.

"That doesn't mean reasonable people should write diary entries titled "So and So is a racist" unless they actually feel that So and So IS a racist."

If you are going for obtuse, it's working. That headline is sarcasm, flyerhawk, sarcasm. It's what americablog says about conservatives in similar situations. Like country club speeches and appearances at Rosa Parks' memorial.

If you can't be bothered to understand the point, I wonder why you can be bothered to reply?

This is what he said....

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party

I understood the point completely.  Why would you want to compare this place to a unruly place like AmericaBlog?

It must run in the liberal blood. I didn't compare this place to americablog. I posted a story at this place in which I talk about americablog.

Maybe (definitely) lefty hypocrisy is immaterial to you. Maybe (definitely) it doesn't bother you that a republican KKK retiree wouldn't get quite the same honors that Senator Byrd receives from Democrats but would nevertheless result in sweeping indictments of conservatives everywhere as card-carrying klansmen. Maybe (definitely) you don't care about what trash liberals are out there talking. I care.

So are you going to keep trying to minimize this by paraphrasing, rephrasing, downplaying and revising? Because doing so undermines your affected disdain for the americablogs of the world and puts you firmly in their hypocritical camp.

Lott got in hot water because he implied support for Thurmond's segregationist platform. Where did Hillary imply support for Byrd's KKK activities?

Nice pic of Hillary in a hood. Classy, that.

Oh, and that newsmax article is hilariously awful.

Dear Mobys,

  Please make sure you note when other liberals have already used up your talking points. Otherwise, my eyes get tired.

 Many thanks,

absentee

"I am grateful for your strong leadership and commitment to New York in the wake of this disaster," Republican Govorner Pataki wrote Byrd after 9/11.

You get tired expending the energy reading something like three common sense sentences, but somehow found the time and desire to photoshop klan hoods on Hilary and Byrd?

I think you're taking this whole politics thing a little too serious at this point.

Unless your whole post is lighthearted and meant to be funny, which I guess wouldn't be as bad.

Did someone send out a notice that we were all going to collectively forget what sarcasm is today? Or is it just the libbies?

you missed the general point of my post ;)

honor him at some other historic civil rights icon's home that I missed somewhere?

Using Hillary's name sure brings something out of the woodwork, doesn't it?

... incorrectly.

I really don't see the connection here.

Lott did embrace Thurmand's presidential run and therefore what it stood for.

I don't have a problem with the diary, but I have a problem calling Lott's comments the same as going to a Robert Byrd birthday party.

It's simply a failure to understand the difference between what someone implies and what someone else infers.

Regardless, how about the numerous other comparisons? If you're a conservative, those should concern you.

I linked them up, you can also see the dozens of other posts in my diary and blog, and hundreds of other blogs, especially Michelle Malkin, about this very hypocrisy.

Do you suggest because the Lott thing wasn't totally egregious that this problem doesn't exist? Stuff and nonsense.

He's been caught saying it in public in recent years, so whatever renouncements he has made, it seems unlikely that he has actually changed much.

... in 2001, on Fox News Channel.

Libs give him a pass because he said "aw man... sorry y'all. Sorry bout that. I forgot not to say that. My bad and whatever."

That may not be an exact quote.

No but he doesn't seem to bothered by or feel the need to condemn him.  Hilary's a jerk and Byrd should hang it up but like other "former" racist Thurmond he'll probably stay on until he's 100.  You seem to be picking and choosing which racists upset you.

who choose to fail to understand the very point of the diary does it seem I'm "picking and choosing which racists upset me".

Did Hillary make any racist remarks at the celebration?

Lott got a bum deal, but im not sure that calling names makes things even.

It's sarcasm. The very first line of the diary entry has your answer.

She seems to hate everyone including herself...

I usually try to avoid diaries that use the word "Hillary" or any derivation of "racist" but you seem to be getting unfairly beaten up.

I have to disagree with you about Lott's comments at Thurmond's birthday party.  IMO most Senators probably look in the mirror and think they see a President staring back out at them and they know that the greatest compliment to pay a colleague is to tell him (or her) that they would make a wonderful President.

That's all Lott was doing just like it's all Christopher Dodd was doing when he said pretty much the same about Robert Byrd.  

I agree with your larger points - that this sort of "so and so's a racist" is almost always a cheap smear and this case is no exception.  Equally importantly, we ought to discourage this kind of thing at Redstate rather than encouraging such diaries with recommendations.

Let me tell you something Thorley. I'm not calling Hillary a racist. I"m MOCKING that assertion.

Did you read my post? Do you understand my point?

The whole point is the double standard here. Did you follow the links to americablog?

I'm mocking the idea that this makes Hillary a racist, and I explicitly pointed out that it takes liberal logic being applied to make her so.

How about mockery? Sarcasm?

I can't believe at Redstate of all places I have to explain the point of this diary entry.

"At least, that's the conclusion that we would draw if we were using liberal logic."

It's the very first line of the diary. The point of the whole thing is that, if this were a CONSERVATIVE we'd be in the midst of a firestorm, JUST LIKE after Trent Lott's comments.

Lefty blogs go nuts when conservatives merely attend funeral services for deceased civil rights icons, and yet they make not a sound when Hillary Clinton brings a former Klan leader, who was using racial slurs as recently as 2001, to the home of Frederick Douglass for a birthday party.

It's blatantly hypocritical and overtly exposes that they don't actually believe the racist accusations they so routinely make.

I just can't even go on explaining this. It should be obvious. It's one thing when the resident mobys and liberal troublemakers intentionally don't get it, but when regular redstaters entirely miss the point it's just disturbing.

Like I just said at my blog, it's no wonder we lose media wars so routinely. We can't even seem to master snark.

diary. Acting like everyone else is too stupid to appreciate your genius isn't gonna help.

(1) Sarcasm can still be offensive. Hillary in KKK garb isn't actually knee-slapping hysterical.

(2) Your example of Lott was particularly ill-chosen, since his situation and Hillary's aren't at all comparable. As was explained about six times before you finally conceded the point.

(3) The rest of your diary is mostly an attack on americablog -- you keep asking everyone what they think about it. Newsflash: we think it sucks. Who cares?

(4) Knocking "liberal logic" in a post with that Newsmax article is just too precious.

(5) I think there's a good diary that could be written about Rosa Park's funeral and associated issues of race and race-baiting, and I look forward to reading it if you decide to write it.

yes, poor attempt by absentee to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. he needs to listen to rush for 6 weeks and learn how to do it from the master

but, as your excerpt shows, lott did not mention stroms segregation platform

which has been my point all along about that unjust smear of lott

an old dying man that was the first southern senator to hire a black aide, ie Armstropng Williams and who was a major leader in a strong defense

it was in no way meant to reference segragation

as lotts whole career and strom's gop career shows

And here I thought this would be a careful indictment of American leftism, discussing the codification of race in Affirmative Action, the persistence of inherently racial groups like La Raza and NAACP, and such.

.. that means a lot. Doesn't take geniuses to appreciate something patently obvious. But it does take a bunch of liberals undermining something obvious to make it less so. Case in point.

As for your "points":

(1) More double standard. Hillary in KKK hat, not good, but Steve Gilliard putting Steele in blackface A-Ok. Former Klansman being celebrated at civil rights landmarks, fine. Future supreme court justices attending funerals, not fine. Etc etc etc ad infinitum.

(2) Your selection of the Lott example to the exclusion of the other examples, priceless. And since you once again failed to understand something, I'll point out I conceded nothing of the sort. I simply said that even if it weren't the best example, does that mean the rest of the examples don't count? You seem to miss the opening lines of things. I did the opposite of conceding the point by arguing that it was merely what people inferred, not what he implied. Spelling things out for you is getting tiresome.

(3) Americablog is my example that's true. Are you suggesting because you and the other five surviving liberals at redstate don't particularly cheer for redstate and it's number two position among liberal blogs that it is therefore inconsequential? Wrong again.

(4) Absolute nonsense. You didn't even make a point.

(5) It's been written about. Your failure to click off of whatever page you happen to be reading or to use google doesn't constitute a need for me to type something up for you.

correction:

(3) Americablog is my example that's true. Are you suggesting because you and the other five surviving liberals at redstate don't particularly cheer for AMERICABLOG and it's number two position among liberal blogs that it is therefore inconsequential? Wrong again.

I must have missed the prohibition on illustrating liberal hypocrisy in the rules.

Yet I see that the replies to this thread show differently.  I came here after hearing Rush sing praises of it, but apparently, those posting are either liberals in disguise or conservatives who can't read.

I believe the writer was going for irony here?  The left, who is quick to proclaim Barbara Bush a racist for quoting Katrina victims as saying they almost better off than before, completely glaze over the fact that their poster child presidential nominee is celebrating birthdays with klansmen (former though he may be) at former houses of African American icons?  Hypocrisy at it's best and the title of this thread summed that up quite nicely.

I had hoped to engage in intellectual exchanges of ideas here, hopefully this will get better.

Mobys are what we call liberals disguised as conservatives. In this case mostly it was the professed liberals. And it's because I invoked the name Hillary (hushed awe ensues).

Read the rest of the red, it's quite nice around here ... usually. The liberal content is a little higher than normal these days, but I guess that's the price of success.

that's all

see link

http://www.redstate.org/comments/2005/11/16/14214/665/28#28

Look, Augustine liked it, so you obviously struck a chord.

(1) Perhaps you might indicate who you think is upset at your pic of Hillary in KKK that wasn't upset by Gilliard's pic of Steele.

(2) The Lott example is what most of the comments were about. Since you were upset by the comments, it's the most relevant. I agree the others are better.

(3) I didn't mean to say it's inconsequential, I'm just suggesting a reason why no one here wants to engage with you when you keep asking "hey, what about americablog?" If you want to argue post this on dKos, if you want an amen-chorus try FR. I honestly don't think people here really care one way or the other, but maybe I'm wrong.

(4) Whoo-hoo!

(5) Yes, thanks, I've read a lot about it, I was just trying to suggest a way to restructure your diary.

a while back. Y'all might enjoy this.

"Perhaps you might indicate who you think is upset at your pic of Hillary in KKK that wasn't upset by Gilliard's pic of Steele."

It's an example of the double standards you see. Remember when I made that diary about Hillary ....

"The Lott example is what most of the comments were about. Since you were upset by the comments, it's the most relevant. I agree the others are better."

That is only the case in the long series of comments begun by flyerhawk, my first reply to which I brought up Lott, and which the rest of us debated for many subsequent posts. It was not, however, the main point of my diary entry, hence it was not in my diary. Like Thorley, I don't think he said anything racist at all, was just giving chummy platitudes to the old man.

"I didn't mean to say it's inconsequential, I'm just suggesting a reason why no one here wants to engage with you when you keep asking "hey, what about americablog?"

I bring up americablog in the comments as an indication that I am not making up this idea that conservatives are treated that way. I also bring up Howard Dean, I don't hear you addressing Dean's comments. I've also put diaries up here and numerous blog posts about various others doing the same thing. It's a tapestry. But americablog is an excellent example. It's an influential liberal blog literally brimming with hate, and yet it's treated like some type of enlightened love fest. It's the whole liberal hypocrisy thing.

"Whoo-hoo!"

Ditto.

"Yes, thanks, I've read a lot about it, I was just trying to suggest a way to restructure your diary."

Aside from the fact that you can't do that at redstate, I don't feel particularly compelled to do so. Anyone who is even a casual observer of liberal blogs and MSM will immediately recall dozens of incidents where conservatives were burned at the stake for far less obvious offenses than taking a former leader of the Klan to the home of Frederick Douglass for a birthday party.

Like, what's that guy's name?

Oh yeah. Trent Lott. Samuel Alito. William Bennett. George Bush. Laura Bush. ...

But who cares about hypocrisy?  It's only in the mind of a relativist that hypocrisy becomes such a horrible crime.

In politics and the media hypocrisy is important, whether it is philosophically or not.

One of the fastest ways to disarm someone who is attacking you with an unjust pointy stick is to demonstrate that their stick is pointed selectively.

The beam in their eye matters as politics and media go. Tried and true.

I never voted for strom, being a dem until 2001, but I also never voted against him. As a lawyer, he was great help on soc sec dib cases and he was a great advocate for originalist judges and a strong defense.

also, his foundation paid for my law school books

I met Armstrong Williams at his Wash office when i was up there representing a labor union in the early 90s and was kind of shocked as I really came away seeing that for Strom to hire him and have him be the main face in his office was a revelation

I thought that Lott got shafted.  It was a dumb mistake.  

But that's life in the big city.  

I was simply pointing the differences between the two.