[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Crash: I have, but what does it matter? My experience is no match against your mighty gut feelings!

Your "experience" doesn't count for squat. Meanwhile, I'm not basing anything on 'gut feelings' just the FACT that the Democratic party made a Klan member the head of its party in the Senate for over a decade, but feigns outrage over people like Jesse Helms, just because he's a member of the other party. The FACT is, Democrats have never lifted a finger against members of their own party that are actual flesh and blood racists, and have in fact, promoted them to high offices.

[Dork.]

And yet, Byrd was elected to the Senate nine times, and has held his seat for 49 years. So, obviously, the people of West Virginia think he is doing a good job representing their interests, just as the people of North Carolina thought highly of Helms. The types of people who get elected from an area do say something about the character of the people who live there.

If there's one lesson to be learned in this thread before is goes further into the toilet, it's that Americans in different parts of the country are as different as people anywhere in the world, and the people they elect reflect these differences. These differences can be so great that it's a wonder anything gets done in Congress at all.

BTW, According to Wikipedia, Byrd is the last remaining Senator to have voted on a bill for Statehood, and has served in the Senate for longer than Barack Obama has been alive.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Your "experience" doesn't count for squat. Meanwhile, I'm not basing anything on 'gut feelings' just the FACT that the Democratic party made a Klan member the head of its party in the Senate for over a decade, but feigns outrage over people like Jesse Helms, just because he's a member of the other party. The FACT is, Democrats have never lifted a finger against members of their own party that are actual flesh and blood racists, and have in fact, promoted them to high offices.

There are plenty of Democrats that are not Byrd supporters. Do you mean Democrats as in the Democratic party, or Democrats as in citizens that identify themselves accordingly?

[stupendousman]

...and Byrd is the only Senator I know who has used the word "n*gger" in public (on TV no less) in the last 15 years.

But, I digress. Helms and Byrd come from "a different time" as they say. They were likely raised and spent a good deal of their young adult life being taught that blacks and minorities were not their equals, much like white liberals teach their children that southern rednecks and born-again Christians are not worthy of equality or respect. Some folks, you just can't reach....

[tie]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

The types of people who get elected from an area do say something about the character of the people who live there.

Exactly. Helms supported apartheid in South Africa. He opposed AIDS research funding because, "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." He called all blacks "Fred." He was a strong opponent of the civil rights movement. Representatives like this certainly say a lot about their constituents.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

...and Byrd is the only Senator I know who has used the word "n*gger" in public (on TV no less) in the last 15 years.

Nogger? You gotta watch for those eggnog addicts!

[besson3c]

Have any of you guys ever had sex with Jesse Helms?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Have any of you guys ever had sex with Jesse Helms?

Seriously, besson.

-t

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Your "experience" doesn't count for squat. Meanwhile, I'm not basing anything on 'gut feelings' just the FACT that the Democratic party made a Klan member the head of its party in the Senate for over a decade, but feigns outrage over people like Jesse Helms, just because he's a member of the other party. The FACT is, Democrats have never lifted a finger against members of their own party that are actual flesh and blood racists, and have in fact, promoted them to high offices.

Funny you should mention that. In fact, the Democrats have lifted a finger against members of their own party that are actual flesh and blood racists - by changing their platform over time to include civil rights, and exclude segregation and Jim Crow. They also started reaching out to African-Americans by supporting legislation to at least attempt to fix the long and ugly history of racial discrimination.

This process took a while, but by the end of the 1960s, the conversion of the Democratic Party on civil rights was pretty much complete. The Democratic Party was no longer the official party of segregationists and racists, at least not in the official platform. Coincidentally, the most prominent pro-segregation politicians, like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and others, switched parties from Democratic to Republican at around the same time. Hmm, what an odd coincidence.

Some of the old racists remained Democrats, and simply kept their views hidden to avoid scrutiny. Others, like Robert Byrd, have at least apologized repeatedly for their old ways and views:

Originally Posted by Robert Byrd, 2005

I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened.

Hell, even Strom Thurmond redeemed himself slightly in his later years by repudiating some of his past behavior. Something ol' Jesse never did. There's no feigning outrage for Jesse Helms - he really was an unrepentant racist in my view. And I would say that about anybody with Jesse Helms' views and voting record, regardless of whose party that person belonged to.

Of course, you'll probably accuse me of saying that all Republicans are racist, and no Democrats are. Nope - on the contrary, there are fine Republicans who are the furthest thing from racist, and there are plenty of racist-to-the-bone Democrats out there (we saw quite a few of them come out of the woodwork during the primaries, unfortunately).

But the difference between the Democrat and the Republican parties is this - the Democrats went through a long and painful process 30+ years ago to make their party platform inhospitable to racists and segregationists. The Republicans aren't racists per-se, but they would like to think that left-over racists in their party simply don't exist, so they don't have to do anything in particular to purge their ranks in a similar fashion. So any pointing out of race problems within their ranks invokes one of a predictable series of responses:

1) There are no racists in the Republican party.
2) We are the party of Lincoln, so by definition there cannot be a racist Republican.
3) The Republican you claim is a racist really isn't one, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
4) You say a Republican has racist views? Quick, look over there! It's Robert Byrd, who used to be in the KKK, and he's a Democrat! Aha! That proves that there are no racist Republicans!

Isn't it time to move past all this? There's a reason black voters are the most reliable Democratic voting block - and it ain't because we're "gullible". We know when politicians are actually making an effort, and when they aren't - and the Republicans claim and want to be supportive, but really aren't interested in doing anything pro-active other than appoint specific people to positions (e.g. Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, etc.). Which is fine and wonderful, but it isn't enough to erase all the other issues on which prominent Republicans took an anti-civil rights stance for years without any sort of rebuke from the party leadership.

If you really want to be seen as moving past the legacy of racism, you have to DO something about it. Actions speak louder than words. BE the party of Lincoln in the 21st century, instead of just claiming it over and over again. Praising Jesse Helms as some kind of great conservative icon while pretending his clear record against civil rights didn't exist certainly isn't the way to do it.

[vmarks]

There were racists within the Republican part at one time, just as there were racists within the Democrat party at one time.

The Republican party was the first to welcome black candidates following Reconstruction, and in fact, the only coup within America happened in North Carolina, when white Democrats violently overthrew the elected black Republican. http://www.ah.dcr.state.nc.us/1898-wrrc/ is the state commission report on the coup.

Helms worked with black Republicans, to the benefit of black communities and the community as a whole. http://www.wral.com/news/video/3165782/ - go to 6:57 and see Dr. Ada Fisher of the GOP National Committee speak about this. (EDIT: they've cut her time in the video)

Fisher remembers that during her tenure in the Public Health Service it was because of Jesse Helms that she was able to help build a community health clinic, The Plain View Health Services, Inc. in a predominantly black town, Greenevers, NC in Duplin County after being denied assistance from then members of democratic governmental administrations. (This is what she was speaking about- she recounts it here: http://getadoctorinthehouse.com/pres...ses/070408.asp )

So you see, you're unfamiliar with Helms' actions, the same sorts of actions you think ought to speak louder than words.

Now, I would never say that all people who support Democrats are gullible, although I think we can agree that some are within any large group. I think it's easy to see that people who support Democrats do so because they believe what they've been told, when what they've been told isn't necessarily so. But I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't know of Helms' support to his all of his constituents, white or black, or that you didn't know that blacks have a long history of candidacy within the Republican party, predating that of Democrats. After all, why bother with the truth of actions, when you can believe the words of people who think just as you do?

[Gee-Man]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

There were racists within the Republican part at one time, just as there were racists within the Democrat party at one time.

Mostly agree, although I'd say "were and are" instead of using the past tense like you just did.

The Republican party was the first to welcome black candidates following Reconstruction, and in fact, the only coup within America happened in North Carolina, when white Democrats violently overthrew the elected black Republican. http://wcoup.blogspot.com/

Unless Jesse Helms was about 100 years older than his stated age, this isn't relevant to the discussion in this thread. This is merely more "we're the party of Lincoln" defense.

Helms worked with black Republicans, to the benefit of black communities and the community as a whole. http://www.wral.com/news/video/3165782/ - go to 6:57 and see Dr. Ada Fisher of the GOP National Committee speak about this. (EDIT: they've cut her time in the video)

Fisher remembers that during her tenure in the Public Health Service it was because of Jesse Helms that she was able to help build a community health clinic, The Plain View Health Services, Inc. in a predominantly black town, Greenevers, NC in Duplin County after being denied assistance from then members of democratic governmental administrations. (This is what she was speaking about- she recounts it here: http://getadoctorinthehouse.com/pres...ses/070408.asp )

So you see, you're unfamiliar with Helms' actions, the same sorts of actions you think ought to speak louder than words.

I'm sure Helms occasionally worked with black Republicans, the few that there are. This link you provided doesn't tell me the context of the clinic (who exactly opposed it? Why?), but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt - you found a positive accomplishment for blacks in his career. Hell, I'll give you another one for free - he didn't oppose (at least eventually) providing help to Africa to combat AIDS. However, there is overwhelming evidence detailing his very public record opposing civil rights over a 50-something year career. You seem to be unfamiliar with Helm's actions yourself, so let me tell you about some of the actions I'm talking about:

1) Opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act (and never said he was wrong to do so)
2) Filibustered the 1984 extension of the Voting Rights Act.
3) Had a well-known habit of calling all black people "Fred".
4) Called Martin Luther King, Jr. a "communist" on numerous occasions.
5) Opposed the creation of a national holiday for MLK Jr., and even filibustered it until other Republicans forced the issue to come to a vote.
6) Got his start as a campaign strategist for Willis Smith in 1950, a strongly pro-segregationist Democrat, against Frank Graham, another Democrat. Helms helped create an ad that said "White people, wake up before it is too late. Do you want Negroes working beside you, your wife and your daughters, in your mills and factories? Frank Graham favors mingling of the races."
7) Dismissed the civil rights movement as a cabal of communists and "moral degenerates."
8) During the height of the non-violent civil rights protests, said, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights."
9) Taunted Carol Mosley-Braun, the Senate's first African-American female. Helms followed Moseley-Braun into an elevator, announcing to Utah Senator Orrin Hatch: "Watch me make her cry. I'm going to make her cry. I'm going to sing 'Dixie' until she cries." Then, emphasizing the lines about how "good" things were before the Civil War ended slavery, Helms sang "Dixie."
10) Was the biggest champion in the Senate of South Africa's apartheid regime. Opposed any kind of action against that country to discourage their racist system of government.

This is all old and well-documented stuff, written down long before Helms' death. I'm not simply imagining his record. I found even more horrible stuff with regards to his record on homosexuality, but I'll leave it to you to google it, provided you actually take an honest even-handed look, and not just dig up only complimentary things about the man.

Now, I would never say that all people who support Democrats are gullible, although I think we can agree that some are within any large group.

Agreed, there are always gullible people in any population. But you can't get a consistent 90%+ voting block in almost every presidential election by simply magic - this is a real constituency that took actual work to gain the trust of, not just some fancy words. As you may know, blacks used to vote Republican in large numbers for a very long time until the switchover happened. This isn't an accident.

I think it's easy to see that people who support Democrats do so because they believe what they've been told, when what they've been told isn't necessarily so.

This is bogus. It's not just what we've been told - Republicans really don't care about civil rights issues. I don't mean that they're racist - they honestly, truly, don't seem to care at all. Want proof? Go to John McCain's website. Look for any mention of civil rights there in the "Issues" section. Do a search on the phrase "civil rights". Can't find anything? That's because it doesn't exist - he has no mention of civil rights at all. Now try the Republican National Committee website. Same search. You'll find one link - from a speech in February 2006 by President Bush, to celebrate Black History Month. Nothing in the "Issues" section, no mention anywhere else.

Now try Barack Obama's website. Right there in the "Issues" section, a number of extensive and detailed policy prescriptions re: civil rights. Now try the Democratic National Committee. Lookee there - under "Agenda", you find Civil Rights and Justice.

You still want to tell me that Republicans are the party most suited to the African-American and minority vote? While blacks, as a group, certainly don't vote based exclusively or even primarily on civil rights issues, we sure as hell take notice when one party simply pretends the issues don't exist at all.

I can see what people do, not what I've been told. The Democratic Party clearly supports civil rights, not just by saying it, but by actually working on it. The Republican Party doesn't have a record of doing the same in modern times. This is a fact.

But I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't know of Helms' support to his all of his constituents, white or black, or that you didn't know that blacks have a long history of candidacy within the Republican party, predating that of Democrats. After all, why bother with the truth of actions, when you can believe the words of people who think just as you do?

More "we're the party of Lincoln" stuff. Again, you don't need to tell me that blacks were supportive of the Republican Party in the past - I'm well aware of that. The issue is the current incarnation of the Republican Party. This version doesn't bother to do anything at all to support civil rights, and doesn't seem to think they need to. They then are shocked, shocked! - to discover blacks and other minorities voting for Democrats in embarrassingly lopsided majorities.

I'm not the one who is believing the words of like-minded people on faith. Your defense of Jesse Helms, which only focuses on the positive while claiming any negatives are simply made-up by his opponents, is highly disingenuous. Maybe to you guys, the man wasn't pure evil. I get that - you really like his conservative stances on other issues. Fair enough - if I were a conservative, I might buy into that part just a little bit. I just don't buy this "he was never a racist" argument that you seem to keep wanting to pursue, despite all evidence to the contrary.

[vmarks]

Hypothesis: Civil Rights don't need to be addressed in a presidential platform. Evidence: Barack Obama's success as a candidate for President of the United States of America. Clarence Thomas' position on the Supreme Court. Dr. Rice and General Powell's positions as Secretaries of State and head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. What is holding anyone back if it's possible to achieve all this? Conclusion: Clearly, the battle for civil rights is won.

At one time, black Americans did not have the same constitutional protections as whites. Now, all Americans do, because the civil rights struggle is over and won. This is not the same as saying that there are not major problems for a large segment of the black community, problems like the quality of public schools, the high incidence of crime, personal irresponsibility - What it does say is that they're not civil rights problems, and to act as if they are leads to a serious misallocation of resources.

What we're doing is judging people on the content of their character. That's how you get to a future where race plays no role- by not letting it play a role today. And thankfully, that's been achieved. Insisting on electing the people who talk about race, obsess about it, is electing people who are interested in the past, not the future.

What I intended to show you by giving you the full picture from 1898 to present is that the Republican party is consistently the party that you dismiss as 'party of Lincoln' - from then through to today, in the current incarnation. The difference is that today, everyone has Constitutional guarantees, everyone has opportunity, and the struggle for civil rights is won.


Here's the mistake you made: You're looking for examples of Helms doing things for "the black community" in his assistance in starting the Plain View Health Services. It's not about, should not be about, "the black community" -- instead, it's about EVERYONE'S community, serving all constituents. This Democrat approach of giving lip service in focusing on "the black community" is the approach that's won over some black voters. The proper role of government is not to give out services to whichever subset of a community is the favorite this week (or, 'which constituency do I need votes from this season') - it's to serve the community by not infringing on your rights and staying out of your way. Less government means more freedom. Freedom is good for everyone. Unfortunately, Democrats seem to be promising more government.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

here's the mistake you made: You're looking for examples of helms doing things for "the black community" in his assistance in starting the plain view health services. It's not about, should not be about, "the black community" -- instead, it's about everyone's community, serving all constituents. This democrat approach of giving lip service in focusing on "the black community" is the approach that's won over some black voters. The proper role of government is not to give out services to whichever subset of a community is the favorite this week (or, 'which constituency do i need votes from this season') - it's to serve the community by not infringing on your rights and staying out of your way. Less government means more freedom. Freedom is good for everyone. Unfortunately, democrats seem to be promising more government.

qft

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Gee-Man 

Funny you should mention that. In fact, the Democrats have lifted a finger against members of their own party that are actual flesh and blood racists - by changing their platform over time to include civil rights, and exclude segregation and Jim Crow. They also started reaching out to African-Americans by supporting legislation to at least attempt to fix the long and ugly history of racial discrimination.

Why is it Democrats always try and point this up as some glowing badge? The Democratic Party WAS the party of segregation, WAS the party of racial discrimination, and was the party that was late to change all of that. On every major civil rights vote since the 1930s, the Democratic record is far worse than the Republican record.

And no, the party never did a thing to lift a finger against flesh and blood racists, who did in fact remain Democrats. (Which by the way, was MOST segregationist Democrats.) As I said, people like Byrd were even promoted, long after the party changed its tune.

None of this would even matter all that much, except for the fact that it's ridiculous that the party with the far WORSE record on matters of civil rights during the time when the largest civil rights battles were being fought, today tries to take far too much credit for civil rights, and tries to vilify and discredit the Republican Party that has the better record.

This process took a while, but by the end of the 1960s, the conversion of the Democratic Party on civil rights was pretty much complete. The Democratic Party was no longer the official party of segregationists and racists, at least not in the official platform.

The end of the 1960's is nothing to be proud of. Republicans were on the right side of such issues in greater percentages a decade earlier, when the stakes were far higher. Republicans started with the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960. When golden boy Kennedy was elected, notice there was no act of 1961, 1962 or 1963. He wasn't any major civil rights proponent, despite the white-wash bullcrap that's been scripted since. Kennedy's only vote on the matter (the 1957 act) was in the negative, and he was AWOL for the 1960 act. Yet the white wash is that he's some glorious civil rights champ simply because of the D after his name, while Nixon who has a far better REAL record on civil rights, is vilified.

This is just the kind of thing I for one am sick and tired of- Democrats extolling how wonder their party's record is, when in reality, it sucks. Meanwhile, vilifying every Republican they can on these issues, simply because there's an R and not a D.

Coincidentally, the most prominent pro-segregation politicians, like Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, and others, switched parties from Democratic to Republican at around the same time. Hmm, what an odd coincidence.

Another of those 100% bullshit myths that's been repeated so often, and yet never researched that it's almost comical when I see it repeated here again. It's a perfect illustration of what vmarks was pointing out- how one person will start the ball on a myth, it'll get quoted, then spread around like the gospel with no one thereafter ever bothering to go back and check the facts.

The FACT is, Strom Thurmond is the ONLY prominent southern segregationist to have switched parties in 1964. Every quote and bullshitted line you'll find about this usually goes something like: and all the segregationist Democrats, like Strom Thurmond, became Republicans blah blah blah..." But Strom is the ONLY one named. Because he is virtually the ONLY one. Look it up.

Robert Byrd is the living embodiment of what really happened- most of the segregationist Democrats remained Democrats. And why wouldn't they? Who is it that imagines that they weren't welcome in the Democrat party, either pre or post civil rights movement era? Was Byrd (a Klan member, who spent most of the 1950's and 60's doing everything in his power to oppose civil rights legislation) demonized, ostracized, or made to feel in any way unwelcome in his party? Was making him the MAJORITY LEADER doing any of that? On what planet does this myth come from that any segregationist Democrat was ever punished, kicked out, made to feel unwelcomed, or even not PROMOTED by the Democrat party? It's just that- a MYTH.

Strom left not because he wouldn't have been welcomed, and easily promoted and celebrated long after the civil rights era by the same Democrats that put a Klan member at the head of the party- he left for his own political reasons due more to a shift in conservative vs. liberal ideas of the party that have nothing to do with civil rights or race. None of Strom's shenanegans as a segregationist were ever as a Republican, and 100% as a Democrat where it was welcomed during the time he was that way.

The irony of Strom, AND for that matter Helms, had either of them simply kept a D after their name and not an R, you and others would be here yappin' about what a great guys they were and thinking nothing of him having been promoted to whatever position within the Democratic party. You'd post a few quotes from either man about how they changed their tune, and can't we all just forgive and forget? Guaranteed this is true- because Byrd et al absolute prove it.

All any of this is about is the simple matter of a D or an R following the name, not what any of these twits has actually done or not done, what racist bile they ever spat, or what terrorist group that lynched blacks that they belonged to- that's the true gist of it.

Some of the old racists remained Democrats, and simply kept their views hidden to avoid scrutiny. Others, like Robert Byrd, have at least apologized repeatedly for their old ways and views/

MOST of the 'old racists' remained Democrats, and again, on what planet did any of them really have to do anything to 'avoid' scrutiny'? What 'scrutiny' did anyone put to Byrd before making him majority leader? (We all saw the P.C. bullcrap outcry when Lott merely suggested that Thurmond was right for his old school views- but no Dem batted an eyelash at making an ACTUAL Klan member the leader of the Democratic party in the senate).


What punishment for their segregationist ways did anyone ever put to William Fulbright? Al Gore Sr? Sam Ervin? None. They all went on to prominent positions in the party.

Hell, even Strom Thurmond redeemed himself slightly in his later years by repudiating some of his past behavior. Something ol' Jesse never did.

vmarks did a good job of pointing out how most of what you think you know about Jesse Helms is merely heresay and un-sourced quotes. Now, the man may be a complete scumbag- he's a politician, so it's highly likely. But what gets me, is that it's absolute fact, if he had remained a Democrat in the mold of Byrd and others, you wouldn't know any of the heresay and un-sourced quotes about the man, and you'd probably be here posting some repentance quote from him. I'm personally not defending Helms, I could care less, he's some crusty old politician, and frankly, I hate most politicans, they're the most worthless sort of nitwits the lot of them. Just I do get sick of the selective 'outrage'. You probably couldn't even find a quote from any of the MAJORITY of segregationist Democrats that remained in the party, and it's simply because no one bothers to spew them and yabber about them until no one can even find where they originated from. The simple fact: the segregationists that remained Democrats have been given a pass on such scrutiny, the few that went over to the Republican party haven't.

Isn't it time to move past all this? There's a reason black voters are the most reliable Democratic voting block - and it ain't because we're "gullible". We know when politicians are actually making an effort, and when they aren't - and the Republicans claim and want to be supportive, but really aren't interested in doing anything pro-active other than appoint specific people to positions (e.g. Clarence Thomas, Colin Powell, etc.). Which is fine and wonderful, but it isn't enough to erase all the other issues on which prominent Republicans took an anti-civil rights stance for years without any sort of rebuke from the party leadership.

This is a separate issue, but it's been addressed many times. Giving block support to the Democratic Party actually weakens blacks politically, not really helps them. It's a foolish position to give such block support to any party, and I'll flat out tell you that. It means in a nutshell, the Democrats don't have to give a flying rat's ass about you- they can count on your block support without doing anything. No other party has to give a flying rat's ass about you either- they can count on you not supporting them anyway. Therefore, NO party has to lift a damn finger for you, or really give a good rip about you. Now, granted, that's inherent of politicians anyway, none of them actually does give a flying rip about you (or most anyone else), beyond you voting for them- but to actually believe that Democrats do simply because you hand them a nearly guaranteed vote, is just beyond silly.

It's funny that you point to people like Thomas, Powell, Rice, etc, but fail to note the irony that the Democrats that claim to love you so much haven't given you all that great a list of high office appointments to match. The last black Democrat appointed secretary of state was... who exactly again? Black supreme court justices number what, 1 to 1? Senators, what is it, 3 Republican, 2 Democrats? Democratic presidential candidates prior to Obama that were a. serious candidates, and b. got the nomination or even stood a chance? Uh,,, none? Hate to break it to you, but none of that is all that impressive coming from the party that constantly tries to claim civil rights, and demonizes the other side on civil rights.

Praising Jesse Helms as some kind of great conservative icon while pretending his clear record against civil rights didn't exist certainly isn't the way to do it.

First of all, I'm personally not interested in some P.C. version of what being pro-civil rights means. The actual civil rights movement, and the dumbed down P.C. nonsense that passes today are two entirely different things, the later being where people that fought tooth and nail FOR civil rights are trashed and vilified, and morons that were totally civil rights roadblocks are championed. I've no interest what-so-ever in being party to anything that coddles people that are part of the later version.

Secondly, I'm not praising or defending Jesse Helms personally. He's probably a complete bastard asshole. But then again, so is Robert Byrd. If YOU want to move past all of the baggage of the past, maybe consider giving up blind support to a party that hasn't actually done all that much for you or anyone else, claims a past that doesn't actually exist, promotes people just as nasty as Helms ever was, just pretends there's anything to fear from Helms, yet nothing to fear from his ilk that remained Democrats. It's all just a crock of **** that at the core revolves around myth, hype, and simple R vs. D.

[beb]

As much as I agree with a lot of comments here, Mr. Helms personally helped members of my wife's family. Being in Virginia, they were not necessarily his constituents, but without his direct influence, nothing good would have come to their situation.

Say what you will about his bigotry, racism and ignorance. However, at the end of the day, he did a lot of good things for a lot people. Sometimes it takes a necessary evil to get good things done unfortunately.