100% true. It’s a blog, life is short etc etc.

What Dave Heasman said above (clearly not having bothered to read the piece under discussion) was that any attempt to mention what Byrd himself actually did amounted to smearing him by association with the Democratic Party simply because it used to contain a bunch of racists who are all now Republicans, when in fact it amounts to smearing him by association with himself. I’m certainly not so stupid that I think the Dems haven’t changed, and would never claim they hadn’t*, but that doesn’t mean that Dave isn’t talking utter bollocks.

* Although I do claim that, if you’ve changed your mind about race, you probably shouldn’t reminisce quite so fondly and proudly about the time you tried to stop the Civil Rights Act. It gives a bad impression.

Basically yes. Byrd has completely repudiated his past and has a very good record over the last thirty years with respect to being fair to the blacks, which is why they vote for him.

Well, obviously not, since Robert Byrd, the senator under discussion, is still a Democrat. Is anyone who tries to equate Robert Byrd before 1968 to Robert Byrd today deliberately trying to deceive?

The point is that the BBC print Byrd’s proud reminiscences about using the filibuster in ’64 without mentioning what he used it for. That’s not a vague thing about Democrats generally; it’s very specifically about Robert Byrd. I might add that his obvious pride in what he did doesn’t give me confidence that he regrets it, which in turn leads me to think that he might not have changed his mind on the issues concerned.

But, hey, if he’s racist, he must be Republican, right?

You’re missing my point. The guy is a racist. His being a Democrat is interesting but not the point. Where is the delusion and lunacy in pointing out his racism?

Oi Bish, hand in your crozier. Until 1968 the Democrats in the south were unreconstructed racist filth by & large. Then Nixon with his Southern Strategy got them all to become Republicans, which before then had been prod to be "the Party of Lincoln".
It boils down to anyone trying to equate Democrats in the South before 1968 to Democrats in New England now is deliberately trying to deceive. Is that you?

Am I missing something? I just read a discussion about a Democrat senator’s use of the filibuster to try to thwart the Civil Rights Act should have been brought up when celebrating his use of the same technique to thwart appointment of conservatives to the Supreme Court.

How is that delusion or lunacy?