Byron York wonders why the Washington Post is wondering why Robert Byrd enjoys his image as a "pillar of the Senate", as the Post recently called him:

There was a striking passage in last Sunday’s Page One Washington Post story about Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) headlined, “A Senator’s Shame: Byrd, in His New Book, Again Confronts Early Ties to KKK.”

“Historians, political analysts and admirers have long sought to reconcile Byrd’s early Klan affiliation with his image as a pillar of the Senate,” reporter Eric Pianin wrote. “More extraordinary is how he managed to overcome such a blot on his record to twice become Senate majority leader.”

It’s true. Byrd has indeed enjoyed an image as a pillar of the Senate. And given his history, that seems a bit odd.

How do you suppose it happened? Do you think a newspaper — say The Washington Post — might have had something to do with it?

* * *

Over the years, the Post has often steered clear of Byrd’s history with the Klan.

There were very, very few exceptions, such as the story in 1981 in which reporter Martin Schram directly confronted Byrd over the issue and got an extremely chilly response. Much more common was the admiring Post profile of Byrd from 1999 — the paper was lauding Byrd’s opposition to the Clinton impeachment — which began this way:

“Sen. Robert Byrd is a believer in holy documents. They are the sacred tools for defending his Senate against the savages. The Bible is one such holy book. He learned to read with the King James Version and, seventy-some years later, has little use for any other Bible. Something about modern translations seems to sap the words of their sacred power. The U.S. Constitution is also holy writ. Watch him wield it. ...”

Not until 2,532 words into a 2,779-word story did the Post say this:

“As a young man campaigning for the West Virginia legislature in the ‘40s, Byrd briefly joined the Ku Klux Klan, hoping to gain votes. He quickly quit and has spent the past half-century publicly regretting it.”

The Post didn’t even go on a crusade when, in March 2001, Byrd twice used the N-word on national television. The paper published just one story, when Byrd apologized.

And now, after all these years of mostly soft-pedaling Byrd’s past, the Post wonders how it is that Byrd has managed to be regarded as a pillar of the Senate.

How do you suppose that happened?

Meanwhile, Don Suber looks at a related topic that I probably should file under Muggeridge's Law:

The Robert C. Byrd Memorial for Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Roll that last sentence around in your head for a few minutes.