Where's Democratic outrage/embarrassment over Robert Byrd?

[system]

*Originally posted by Bob Cos *
I believe this is something of a gross mischarecterization of the issue, I think the question was the degree to which he would allow certain religious-political views to color his enforcement of the law of the land – which rather goes to the heart of his public duties.
**

Unless his religious views had some real impact on the execution of his duties as a Senator,

[/quote]

Ahem: confirmation hearings were for Attorney General. As such, his religious views and their impact on his enforcement of the law of the land were relevant.

Astorian’s point, I thought, was not specifically that the tactic used by the Democrats in assessing Ashcroft was inappropriate. The point was that they did not employ the same standard in the assessment and election of their own leadership.

Perhaps, but confirmation hearings for appointment of the executive branch are a different animal from Congressional leadership selection. Now there is an aspect of this that stinks, and when one steps away from the partisan mudslinging, I grant this readily. However, the two issues are not stricto senso comparable.

If Byrd’s actual record–even if we limit it to his “recent” record–is the only thing that can assign any legitimacy to OP (that’s how I read your comment above), then the same would apply to Ashcroft, I would think. Supposition that his religious beliefs would prevent him from carrying out his duties–whether or not you agree with this notion–is not the same as pointing to a specific blemish on his record where that was the case.

I believe, once more, that the Ashcroft questions went to the heart of the matter on his appointment: he took specific political qua religious positions in direct opposition with the law of the land on a number of fairly important issues. As such, it strikes me as legitimate in the largest sense of the word, to ask questions in that connection. It was not, I believe, supposition, but rather based on direct statements. And again, I don’t think it is fully accurate to say it was a matter of religious belief but rather an issue of the nexus between belief and the law. Ashcroft can believe what he wants – as AG he also has to enforce the law, which is in direct contradiction with some of his politico-religious stances. Some tension there.

You might find the rhetoric of the OP inflammatory–I didn’t enjoy the Marshall comments myself–and there may be no lack of examples of Republican dirty linen, but that doesn’t mean the central point of the OP is invalid. And, BTW, lest this be interpreted as partisan, I’m a registered Democrat (though, admittedly, I feel no strong allegiance to either party). If I’ve misinterpreted your point, let me know.

Well, I hope I have clarified to an extant: I do believe there is some difference to be made btw questions posed in confirmation hearings and the --what is the phrase-- “consideration” of membership in the Congress.

(in re the OP: I found the approach hypocritical)

However, that said, it is sad to learn about Big Byrd’s past: frankly I never read any of the KKK past stuff before.

Still, given I already had a low op re his Pork Past, hardly that surprising. Echoing the rest of the comments on the issue from TS et al.

[Esprix]

Everybody!:

Oh the white folks hate the black folks,
And the black folks hate the white folks,
To hate all but the right folks
Is an old established rule,
But during National Brotherhood Week,
National Brotherhood Week,
Tipper Gore and 2 Live Crue* are dancing cheek-to-cheek!

Let’s write a new verse for Democrats and Republicans!

(Many thanks to Tom Lehrer.)

Esprix

[sub]*Or “Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark.” Or “Rodney King and David Duke.” I’ve heard and performed several versions of Tomfoolery - take your pick. ;)[/sub]

[tsunamisurfer]

A sad footnote: I saw Byrd on television a week ago. Evidently, he is suffering from a rather severe neurological condition, as his hand while grasping a microphone was shaking like the proverbial leaf.

Parkinson’s?

Speaking of pork-barrel spenders, the Republicans have plenty to account for, as well. Where is Warren Rudman when you need him?

[ElvisL1ves]

For instance, the ship Lott arranged to have built in his hometown that the Navy doesn’t even want? Or all the C-130’s built in Gingrich’s district that the Air Force didn’t even want? Or all those road projects Bud Shuster had started in his own district while being one of the most strenuous decryers of pork in Democratic-controlled districts? Et cetera ad nauseam.

I’m sure we agree that porkbarreling is an institutional problem, and a perpetual one at that, not a partisan one.
There are other conditions that can cause muscle tremors, especially in the elderly (which Byrd certainly is). They’re not necessarily debilitating, but have to be annoying and sometimes embarrassing. Dunno what he’s got, though.