NYT Cuts Some Slack for an Old KKKer

A Democrat, of course.

Here's a bit of an article, today:

.... Underscoring the Democrats' dissatisfaction, Senator Robert C. Byrd, an outspoken critic of the decision to go to war, announced late in the day that he would not allow the Senate to approve Ms. Rice without a few days of consideration of her lengthy testimony, and at least a token debate on the floor. His refusal to join in the unanimous consent of all senators for a quick vote effectively torpedoed the administration's hopes to have her nomination approved Thursday.

"Senator Byrd and others believe that the Senate's advise-and-consent constitutional responsibilities are not a rubber stamp," Mr. Byrd's spokesman said.

"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has held two days of hearings. Senators should have a chance to review those hearings, read the transcripts, and think about their votes before casting them."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell will remain in office until next week, when Ms. Rice's nomination is expected to be approved....

It seems to me that, were Sen. Decrepit Byrd a Republican, this article would not fail to note that the objection to unanimous consent to the confirmation of a black woman came from the only member of the Congress who is also a former member of the Ku Klux Klan.

Now, Sen. Decrepit Byrd has every right to object to unanimous consent. He has every right to do so, for any reason whatever. Including the reason his spokesman gave.

But it also seems to me that, were Sen. Decrepit Byrd a Republican, the New York Times would not fail to speculate that he might have other (racist, sexist) motivations — being a former Klanner and all.

Don't you think?

I know, I know: I'm being ridiculous. A Republican discovered to have been a Ku Klux Klanner would also have been pilloried in the press and driven in disgrace from office — if he had ever been elected in the first place.

(Thanks, Matthew.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 01/20/05 07:51:07 PM
Categorized as Media.