How come Robert Byrd could stand on the floor in a REAL filibuster against a war vote and the media
never mentions it but Ted Cruz gets all this attention in a bs stunt???? I'm tired of the left being ignored. ENOUGH!
= new reply since forum marked as read
The biggest problem with the left is the refusal to look for allies. Our Government is built on coalitions NOT idealistic left and right wing politics. The Democratic Coalition of the New Deal started to be formed in 1896. It took 40 years to take power for it took 40 years for the members of that Coalition to learn they HAD to work together. The New Deal Coalition combined the Solid South (Segregationist to the core, but also rural progressive farmers who wanted Government control of the Banks) with inner city labor (Who wanted Government Control of Corporations AND protection of Labor from Corporations), inner city African Americans (Who wanted work and an end to racism). That was a mix, but it worked, for out of that Mix we ended up with the New Deal, the first efforts of Civil Rights under FDR and Truman (and later the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which also started the break up of the Coalition), aid to inner cities starting with FDR and reaching its peak under Johnson, assistance to farmers, paving of rural roads, and extensive controls over the banks of the US.
At times the Coalition did not like each other, but as a whole they wanted certain things done and stayed together (and avoided issues that divided them) till those things were done. The build up took a biblical generation, but once in place it rolled over the GOP. The US turned so Democratic that from 1930-1994 the House was Democratic except for the Congress elected in 1946 (serving from January 3, 1947 till January 3, 1949). The Senate would stay Democratic form 1930-1981 except for the election of 1952 (The Senate was GOP controlled from January 3, 1953 till January 3rd 1955). You had very few filibusters during this time periods for Democrats had almost 60 seats by themselves after most elections (the GOP thought it was a huge victory when the held 45 out of 96 late 100 seats of the US Senate).
Now, that coalition is dead. The GOP started to kill it with the Taft-Hartley Act. The Red Scare in the US was more an attack on Labor then Communists (And one side affect was the most effective labor organizers were driven out of most unions do to most of them being left wingers and thus accused of being Communists in the 1940s, 1950s and into the 1960s).
The GOP has always favored individual rights, for they know if you do NOT have income those rights are meaningless. Thus a higher percentage of more GOP members of congress voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 then did the percentage of Democratic members. Many of those same members of both parties voted AGAINST repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act (and one of the reason Labor did not support McGovern in 1972, he had voted AGAINST repealing Taft-Hartley Act).
Then the GOP went after recruiting white Southerns (The GOP is NOT against asking for support from a group it finds discussing, if it means votes). They did this by stressing how the 1964 Civil Rights Act "Favored" African-Americans over whites (The GOP cared less if the accusation was false, for like calling any and all Labor Communists the key was if the accusation was effective not if it was true or false).
On top of this, the GOP managed to convince Wall Street that it could undo the Regulations imposed on Wall Street by the New Deal. To this claim, something Wall Street wanted more then anything else, provide the money the GOP needed to implement its other ways to break up the Democratic Coalition. Vietnam showed that the American People are more forgiving of a Hawk that was wrong then a Dove who was right, thus the GOP turned increasingly hawkish. The Spread of Suburbia tended to break up the old neighborhood ties of both Rural America and Inner City America, weakening the hold that older generations tended to have over younger generations, thus permitting recruitment of more young people into the GOP (We are talking of the 1970-2000 period here). The GOP even made sure what was presented to most students in High School where more pro-GOP position then pro-Democratic positions (For example Labor History was ignored unless it was violent and then blamed on Labor, the same with Race, ignored, unless it involved violence and could be blamed on African Americans, since most such violence could NOT be blamed on African Americans just ignored for the GOP conceded the African America Population to the Democratic Party in exchange for Southern White Voters).
This was the Situation where the Democratic Party slowly lost its huge advantage in voting starting with Nixon, accelerating with Reagan and taking control of Congress AND the Presidency under Bush II.
The Democratic response has been pathetic. It reminds me of the decline of various empires as they are falling. The Leadership is more worried about who is in control of their declining state then opposing any invaders. They work out deals with the invaders against they own people, in efforts to stay in power. Given a choice between defeating an invader AND suppression of revolt of the people, it is the later they go after every time. This happened at the Fall of the Roman Empire, The fall of the Mongol Empire in China, the Fall of the German Empire in 1918 and even the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 (Through in the last name decline, the Army refused to put down the people, thus accelerated the fall of the Soviet Union).
I see the same problems within the Democratic Party. A refusal to work with like mined people on the grounds they are NOT 100% in agreement with the people in charge. Worse, I have seen people attack potential allies for not being 100% perfect then look upon them as possible coalition members. This brings me back to Byrd
Senator Byrd was a product of his place of birth (West Virginia) and had all the good and bad from being born and raised in West Virginia. He was pro-labor (and pro-Coal). He was also pro environment, but at the same time pro-coal (Yes that could be an inherent conflict but one he could work around). If you read about the attempts to unionize coal miners from WWI into the 1930s you will find out that one of the first steps Coal miner owners did was to recruit southern African Americans to work mines, where the mines had tried to form a union and had gone on strike (After 1912 immigration from Europe came to an end as Europe slowly worked its way up to WWI, it would resume in 1919, but then stop in 1924 with immigration restrictions). Due to a lack of immigrates wages went up in the 1910s, which provided labor some cushion so that workers could risk a strike. To undo these wage increases AND to replace the striking workers Mine owners turned to the South after 1912. Now racism among miners was known before this time period (for it was wide spread even in the US) but it increased rapidly as miners saw these African Americans as Scabs and strike breakers (Most of the African Americans did not know they were going to a mine with labor problems, all they were told was it was a job with high wages for them).
Rural Western Pennsylvania is similar to West Virginia, it has a long history of coal mining and the memories of these 1920s strikes are now long forgotten, but the hatred of African Americans for what was perceived such African Americans did to the Strikers during those strikes is alive and well in the Great Grand Children of those Strikers is alive and well (Through the cause of the hatred, the Strikes are long forgotten for even in West Virginia they are NOT talked about, I went to school where a shoot out occurred in 1928, but it was NOT even MENTIONED).
Anyway, the miners of West Virginia and my home area of Western Pennsylvania became more and more anti-African American for they came to see African Americans as strike breakers and Scabs. With Unionization in the 1930s this tended to lessen, but those strikes of the 1920s were just plan mean (The old joke was "It was a peaceful mining strike, you could count the dead miners on two hands"
. Byrd came of age in this period, the memories of the 1920s strikes were still fresh, what the mine owners did was still fresh and that African Americans were viewed as tools of evil mine owners were still widely held. Sorry, it would be almost impossible NOT to be a racist coming from such a back ground. That Byrd later came to support those same law and to expand them is a sign of someone who was capable of growing, something a person with a close mine can not.
In 1964 West Virginia was NOT about to support the Civil Rights Act. The state would only pass its own do to the 1964 Federal Civil Rights Act, which included a provision that it would have to defer to a similar state agency with similar powers (i.e. West Virginia passed its Civil Rights Act so that it could enforce the 1964 Civil Rights Acts instead of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts being enforced by the Federal Government).
Now, as West Virginia put its racism behind it, so did Byrd. In many ways he was more progressive then West Virginia was a whole when it came to race, for his position changed as times changed:
For the 2003–2004 session, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[59] rated Byrd's voting record as being 100 percent in line with the NAACP's position on the 33 Senate bills they evaluated. 16 other senators received that rating. In June 2005, Byrd proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King, Jr. National Memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that, "With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently
AS to his use of "White N------" in 2001, I grew up with people who used that term, that term was NEVER a term used against an African American and African Americans who heard its use never took it as an attack on them, but an attack on the white man it was directed at. I knew several men of Byrd's generation who used that term and NEVER used the term "N-----" by itself. They thought the later term an insult against all African Americans while the term used by Byrd was an attack on people who were low down untrustworthy no accounts who also happen to be white. Like his KKK and his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act a reflection of his background not his internal beliefs. That is shown by the support the NAACP gave Byrd in the 1990s till his death.
Yes, this is a long dissertation, but I go into it for the left needs to be united NOT divided. The Left has to look at its CORE and look to allies to help it achieve those core improvements to society. Your attack on Byrd clearly shows you prefer the IMAGE of racial tolerance, instead of its reality. You prefer African Americans have the right to be President along with the right to starve, as opposed to making sure all Americans have access to food and housing.
We on the left have to look at the good In people and how they can help achieve a better society, instead of looking at their faults. If we on the Left do not do that, we will fail for without support of the people who voted for Byrd we can NOT achieve power and without power the left can do nothing. Most of the people who voted for Byrd supported what he stood for and as a whole that was more left wing then right wing. Remember Ben Franklin's comment "United we prevail, divided we are defeated" that was directed at the coalition that wanted Independence, but it is true of any coalition we have to take the bad with the good to achieve the good. As the old pray goes "Lord, Give me the Strength to change the things I can, the endurance to accept the things I can NOT and the wisdom to know the difference". In many ways that pray sums up any coalition, staying together to achieve what is achievable not fighting each other over some perfect situation. The same with people, look at how they can help the left achieve its goals, not for the perfect lefty.
I watched THAT FILLIBUSTER on the SPAN. And yes, I remember the real good coverage of it. 
RIP Senator, there are people here still making fun of you as well and denying the obvious media bias
