[ceejayoz]

> Edit: if this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it.

It's always interesting to me how technologically literate HNers suddenly forget how to use a search engine when they don't want to acknowledge a point. It took me like 15 seconds to Google. Bottom half of the page:

https://books.google.com/books?id=UjO6L2hv0mIC&pg=PA341&lpg=...

[Turing_Machine]

Oh, I found that one, but the quote isn't sourced there either, and this appears to be a hit piece biography of Thurmond. Even taking it at face value, the quote is grossly taken out of context, just as I said.

"I don't have anything to apologize for. I don't have any regrets. I may have said some things that I could have left off, because I favor everybody receiving equal treatment. Race should not enter into it. It's merit that counts."

In any case, I'm not trying to claim that Thurmond wasn't a racist, no matter how much you'd like to pretend that I am. Strom Thurmond absolutely was a racist. So was Byrd. Both later denied it (Byrd with his "change of heart", Thurmond with his "state''s rights" argument). But, oddly, only Byrd's denial is given credence. Why?

Edit: given the full, in context quote, the source appears to be: http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/07/13/met_233245.s...

Which also says: "U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., no longer supports racial segregation." So much for Thurmond never having repudiated it. That's literally the second sentence in the piece.

"Intellectual dishonesty", indeed.

[ceejayoz]

> Oh, I found that one...

You said:

> If this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it.

You then dismiss it as a "hit piece", apparently out of nowhere - the author (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Bass) appears reputable and I can't find anything Googling that indicates it was controversial in any way.

> Which also says: "U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C., no longer supports racial segregation."

It has been pointed out to you elsewhere that the "state's rights" pivot is something of a dog whistle - moving away from explicit support for racial segregation was a political necessity (see also: the famous Atwater quote in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy).

The significant difference between Thurmond and Byrd is, IMO, the level of contrition. "No longer supports" isn't the same thing as "happy to apologize and keep apologizing", especially when the latter comes with demonstrable action to right the injustices.

[Turing_Machine]

"If this "1998 interview" exists, Google appears to have no knowledge of it."

Your book link does not describe it as a "1998 interview", and in fact doesn't cite the original source at all.

And no, I don't just dismiss it as a "hit piece". I dismiss it because Thurmond claims to have given up segregation in the very next sentence. Thus making paulv's claim that these "quotes" show that Thurmond never repudiated segregation clueless at best, and likely actively dishonest.

"No longer supports" isn't the same thing as "happy to apologize and keep apologizing","

It is if the "apologies" aren't sincere.