He's politically dead. So why do his constituents still vote for him?

     My views are very far removed from those of the Democratic Party platform. Much more so in many instances from that of the Republican Party. For this reason, it may seem odd that I would defend the Democratic Senator from W. Virginia, but hear me out. Regardless of what opponents of Senator Byrd think, not one of them can say that he doesn't do what he thinks is right. Whether what he does actually is right or not may be a different story altogether; but unlike many in politics, Senator Byrd does not allow media opinion to interfere with what he believes is right.     Anytime Byrd's name is mentioned such a preamble is necessary. Accusations of racism and political incorrectness abound. It is my argument that a man can be wrong about some things and right about others. If Senator Byrd has not in fact mended his backward racist ways, then he is surely wrong in this matter. But since my defense of Senator Byrd has nothing at all to do with race or racist issues, I see no need to further elaborate on these matters.     OK, back to 2003. Since Senator Byrd is one of the very few members of our national legislature that actually uses the Constitution and various laws to make decisions on policy, I have to defend him regardless of personal affiliations that ended 60 years ago.     When the Senate rushed through the 484 page Homeland Security Bill in just a few days, who was the man that stood up and said that its impossible to ensure that such a lengthy document adheres to the Constitution? Who asserted that any kind of meaningful debate is impossible in such a short time?

Robert Byrd.     Who reminds the Senate of the way bills are supposed to arrive, and by what means they are to move through the legislative system according to our laws to become law? (It seems that our legislature has so many laws to pass that it always searches for ways to expedite the process).

Robert Byrd.     Who reminded the Senate that it is Congress, and not the President, that is to declare war on nations despite overwhelming pressure to ignore our Constitution and assimilate into the popular bilateral opinion, and then (rightly) accussed his collegues of being spineless for not doing the same?

Robert Byrd     And today, September 22, 2003, who was the only Senator to arrive to ask for what the administration requires an additional 20 billion dollars? That's right. Robert Byrd. Under admonishment by all attending peers (3 or 4 others actually showed up), Senator Byrd actually wanted to know why this money was needed. That evil man. In a time when Americans have indicated that they do not approve of the massive and seemingly long-term expenditure required for our latest foreign "policy", Senator Byrd seems to be the only senator that, reflecting actual public concern (gasp!), wishes to inquire as to what we are paying for.     So they bring in the ambassador for a one-night appearance when no senators are present, issue out this latest addition to the Iraq "budget" (Senator Byrd stated he received it about 3 hours before), and ram it through, no questions asked. After all the argument against Byrd for his "unreasonable behavior", he summed up his argument (and mine) as eloquently as anyone ever could:

"But you want 20 billion dollars!"     Surely a few questions are in order to just hand over this money. At least let us know what we're spending it on in some general sense.     My sentiments exactly. Senators make so much money and are so removed from the reality that is the United States of America that it is refreshing to see one that recognizes that Americans still care about a buck. Ever moreso when it's accompanied by 19,999,999,999 of them.