http://reason.com/who/who120602.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/books/beginnings/9904/ol.strom/Old.Strom.html

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Strom_Thurmond.htm

voting record per ACLU:

• 106th congress: http://www.acluaction.org/aclu/scorecard/?chamber=S&session=106&x=8&y=14#SC

• 105th: http://archive.aclu.org/vote-guide/120.html

• 104th: http://archive.aclu.org/vote-guide/Thurmond_S.html

http://www.americanpolitics.com/123097Thurmond.html

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/refs/Mozilla_Scrapbook2/kaus_thurmond.html#apology

http://www.scpronet.com/point/9610/p06.html

Brad De Long notes We knew that the conservative right was willing to go to great lengths to try to destroy the credibility of witnesses who accused [Clarence Thomas] of sexual harassment. We did not know that Senator Strom Thurmond's aides were willing to risk criminal liability by giving [David Brock] access to confidential FBI files.

http://tollbooth.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_tollbooth_archive.html

http://reason.com/9910/fe.sp.bottle.shtml

http://reason.com/9806/ci.js.bottle.shtml

Here's someplace I think I agree with him: In Senate debate over the National Arts and Cultural Development Act in 1963, another precursor to the final legislation, Strom Thurmond was the only opponent of the bill to speak. Doubting the constitutionality of arts subsidies, he objected to the supporters' contention that government involvement in arts subsidies was covered under the "general welfare" clause and raised the specter of government control of the arts: "the Federal Government has the power to control that which it subsidizes and experience proves that when the Federal Government has the power, that power is eventually exercised." (10) This argument of the defeated opposition would surface again and again in the next thirty years.

User Options Recent Changes Help Page