Glenn has pointed out (rightly or wrongly, I don't know--I don't get around the blogosphere as much as he apparently does) that so-called "right-wing" blogs were much harder on Trent Lott than the lefty blogs are being now on Dodd in his own "Trent Lott" moment.

There are at least four things going on here, I think, though I should start by clarifying terminology, because a lot of the so-called right-wing blogs (including, among many others, this one, Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan) aren't really right wing, except in the very narrow definition of "not opposed to the war."

Now, if someone were to use such a restrictive definition, and put our round pegs in such an otherwise square hole, then part of being "right wing" is intrinsically liking Republicans, and being at least somewhat racist. Thus, it might have appeared surprising to people who confuse such things that these "right-wing" bloggers were attacking the leader of the Republicans in the Senate for simply saying things that we all agree with in our hearts anyway.

Of course, the reality is that few of us are truly "right-wing," and many of the sites that were did in fact defend Lott, not because they are racist or knee-jerk Republicans, but because they saw a double standard being applied (as the current Dodd situation amply demonstrates). Two examples that come to mind are Sean Hannity and Fred Barnes (who is even this week using the Dodd case as an example of why Lott was treated unfairly).

So, anyway, this notion that "right-wing" blogs took down Lott is mistaken--he was taken down by libertarian blogs that were offended by such statements coming from anyone, particularly someone in a national leadership position.

But the second thing was that many, including me, never liked Lott to begin with, for many reasons having nothing to do with dumb racist remarks. Many Republicans considered him a disaster, always rolling over for Tom Daschle (most notably during impeachment), and were happy to use this as an excuse to rouse up the Democrats to make getting rid of him a quick and bi-partisan effort. I'm not aware of any similar unhappiness with Chris Dodd among Democrats.

The third, of course, is that there's a perception that the Republicans have a history of racism to live down, so a Democrat can get away with things that a Republican cannot, as has been demonstrated by the object of the controversy, Senator Byrd, for decades. This is, of course, nonsense, since Republicans remain the party of Lincoln, and the Democrats have much more recent history in such matters (their dirty little secret remains the fact that much of the sixties civil rights legislation would never have passed without significant Republican support--too many southern Democrats opposed it). But the myth carries on, and the donkies feel that by pandering to the black community they inoculate themselves against charges of racism, and unfortunately, given the mindset of the media, they're probably right. Because of this unfair perception, there is a need for Republicans to bend over backwards to censure any hint of true racism, and Lott certainly appeared to be guilty of that.

The fourth is a simple matter of integrity. Democrats tend to defend their own much more viciously than Republicans, almost always placing party over principle. The most notable example of this is to compare the difference between how Republicans treated their criminal president, sending senior party leaders down Pennsylvania Avenue to the White House to tell Richard Nixon it was time to go, while Democrats rallied around the corrupt Bill Clinton almost to a man and woman. Or compare Clinton's treatment to Bob Packwood's.

So don't hold your breath waiting for any denunciations of Chris Dodd from the port side of the blogosphere in any manner resembling the fire that Lott received from either the true or so-called right.

Dodd said the current incarnation of Byrd might have been a good Civil War senator; Lott said the previous incarnation of Thurmond would have been a good President.

Also Lott's "punishment" was to be made Chair of the Senate Rules committee - Dodd's current position is ranking member of the same committee.

So to hit him with the same penalty is to do nothing.

And Democrats have far more blunt ways of destroying their politicians. They are called "primaries".

Actual punishment is beside the point Duncan. I'm just talking about the lack of criticism. And it's not clear what Dodd meant, and AFAIK, he's said little since to clarify it.

I'm just talking about the lack of criticism. And it's not clear what Dodd meant..

Um, so what is there to criticize?
Its not like Dodd has (so far as I know) a long record of making dumb racial comments.
There nothing here.

Duncan, I'm just pointing out the double standard. Do you really doubt that if it had been a Republican making such remarks about a fellow Republican Senator with a similar history to Bob Byrd, that there would have been a firestorm from the left and the press?

I read Dodd's comment to mean that Byrd would have been on the right side (the Union) in the Civil War, despite his previous advocacy of racism and segregation. I don't think that's offensive or racist.

I read poor Trent's remarks to mean that he thought the U.S. would've been better off if Thurmond had been allowed to advocate and enable racism and segregation from the Oval Office. I think that's offensive, racist, and stupid.

I think that in both cases, the Senators were simply mouthing platitudes, with little thought whatsoever as to the import or meaning of their words, something that senators tend to do, given the consequence-free environment and sycophancy of their surroundings.

This is one reason that Senators don't do well on the presidential campaign trail (Kerry being a notable example). They're not used to people actually paying attention to their bloviations.

Having been born in West Virginia, let me take the time to do a 'Richard Clark' and apologise for putting this national discrace known as "Robert KKK Byrd" upon America.

Ummm... not to seem too ignorant, but what is this whole Chris Dodd thing? Links? I've not seen it on any TV news or major web news site.

- Eric.

Never mind. Don't normally follow links to other blogs, decided to this time and found the link there.

Hmmm, lots of interesting media bias fodder in the lack of widespread coverage of these remarks.

- Eric.

I really, REALLY hate the terms "left wing" and "right wing." There are a number of common, but different, political philosophies, and they tend to get shoehorned into one or the other columns. Consider that Pat Buchanan and libertarians are both usually called "right wing" – absolutely ridiculous.

I've posted a few comments here and there on Progressive blogs and discovered that .. I'm not only a white male but I'm also a Right Wing Conservative, I'm racist, sexist, speciest, hell bent on letting the eeevil nuclear scientists poision the environment. And I'm mean.

Imagine. It took a set of Progressives to define me. I'm awed.

It's nice to see that turnabout is fairplay WRT Dodd's comments--but even the play it's getting on the blogosphere isn't going to result in major old media attention.

In a slow news period, they wouldn't be able to avoid being dragged into it--but with all the recent news out of Iraq & with the 9/11 commission, old media editors can justify sloughing off the Dodd news due to more important news concerns. (also, the foreknowledge that RainbowSharptonPushFundraising Coalition will never call them on it helps.)

"I read Dodd's comment to mean that Byrd would have been on the right side (the Union) in the Civil War, despite his previous advocacy of racism and segregation."

Coincidentally, Byrd has one (and only one) movie credit. In 2003 he played a Civil War general in "Gods and Generals". Wanna guess whether he was Confederate or Union? That movie role was the closest he'll ever get to fighting in the Civil War, and he chose the wrong side. In 2003.