How Many Coincidences Make a Trend

Right Voices – Just FYI

Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.
Robert Byrd, D-W.Va.
Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.
John Kerry, D-Mass.
Carl Levin, D-Mich.
James Jeffords, I-Vt.
Jack Reed, D-R.I
Mark Dayton, D-Minn.
Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii
Evan Bayh, D-Ind.
Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa
Richard Durbin, D-Ill.

Let me guess… No one finds it odd one bit that the man who voted against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas found a need to vote against Condi Rice, while he’s also a former KKK operative.

Hmmmm…

How many “coincidences” does it take to define a pattern?

This entry was posted in Interesting. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Vinny, you’re really stretching with this one. All but one are men. Is that a coincidence, or all they all sexist, too?

    Byrd was probably THE most vocal opponent of the war in Iraq. His vote against Condi — and the others with the (D) after their name — was a reflection of that. You can read what Byrd said, scrolling down to the bottom for the salient points.

    If you want to call him a racist, please explain why he voted to confirm Colin Powell.

    And if I were Karl Rove, I’d make damn sure that I nominated every minority under the sun to my cabinet, so that if there was ANY opposition, you could trot out the race and sex cards, and not deal with any bonafide issues raised about the candidates.

    Got a problem with Gonzales? Racist! Got a problem with Condi? You’re a racist AND a sexist!

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com Vinny

    Actually I think my question was how many coincidences does it take to equal a pattern, which I still think is something worthy of discussion.

    And as for Powell, well Byrd would’ve been an absolute fool to vote against him because even the most strident of Democrats couldn’t paint him as some neocon lackey, and that would be obvious.

  • pete from astoria

    RBK
    I hear what you’re saying about the race card, but there are some differences in the way that it’s practiced. When republicans/conservatives or others bring up the issue, it’s usually pundits, journalists, talk-radio, and bloggers.
    When democrats/liberals use the race card, it is the democratic politicians themselves who make the claims, which are then parroted by the mainstream media.
    The other difference is that when republicans/conservatives “play the race card” they are usually defending someone. Democrats/liberals tend to use the race card in a different manner, usually regarding public policy.
    For example: If you want welfare reform, you’re racist. If you’re tough on crime, you’re racist. If you cut taxes, you’re racist. If you want immigration reform, you’re racist. If you want voting reform, you’re racist. If you’re for educational standards, you’re racist.
    Etc. etc. etc.

  • http://www.robertkbrown.com/ RKB

    Vinny, you’re really stretching with this one. All but one are men. Is that a coincidence, or all they all sexist, too?

    Byrd was probably THE most vocal opponent of the war in Iraq. His vote against Condi — and the others with the (D) after their name — was a reflection of that. You can read what Byrd said, scrolling down to the bottom for the salient points.

    If you want to call him a racist, please explain why he voted to confirm Colin Powell.

    And if I were Karl Rove, I’d make damn sure that I nominated every minority under the sun to my cabinet, so that if there was ANY opposition, you could trot out the race and sex cards, and not deal with any bonafide issues raised about the candidates.

    Got a problem with Gonzales? Racist! Got a problem with Condi? You’re a racist AND a sexist!

  • http://www.insignificantthoughts.com/ Vinny

    Actually I think my question was how many coincidences does it take to equal a pattern, which I still think is something worthy of discussion.

    And as for Powell, well Byrd would’ve been an absolute fool to vote against him because even the most strident of Democrats couldn’t paint him as some neocon lackey, and that would be obvious.

  • pete from astoria

    RBK
    I hear what you’re saying about the race card, but there are some differences in the way that it’s practiced. When republicans/conservatives or others bring up the issue, it’s usually pundits, journalists, talk-radio, and bloggers.
    When democrats/liberals use the race card, it is the democratic politicians themselves who make the claims, which are then parroted by the mainstream media.
    The other difference is that when republicans/conservatives “play the race card” they are usually defending someone. Democrats/liberals tend to use the race card in a different manner, usually regarding public policy.
    For example: If you want welfare reform, you’re racist. If you’re tough on crime, you’re racist. If you cut taxes, you’re racist. If you want immigration reform, you’re racist. If you want voting reform, you’re racist. If you’re for educational standards, you’re racist.
    Etc. etc. etc.