The Landrieu-Lott political nexus
What Lott and Landrieu share in common and why the Democrats' latest race-baiting gambit can only backfire.
Democrats have figured out a way to overcome the natural Republican advantage in the South, says the post-Louisiana election, 'Happy-Days-Are-Here-Again' 'Conventional Wisdom'.
The 'massive', 'landslide' run-off victory by incumbent Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu against GOP challenger Suzanne Haik Terrell, 52-48%, is 'proof' -- PROOF! -- says CNN and (add the rest of the Ivory Tower media establishment here) that November 5 was a fluke -- a one-day-wonder that likely will never -- EVER! -- "happen" again. Republicans, says prominent Democrat fundraiser, Dan 'Bubba-Is-As-Honest-As-They-Come-And-Lott-Is-A-Racist' Rather, just got 'lucky' one black Tuesday five weeks ago.
Ah, but watch out, O GOP: The 'overwhelming' Landrieu 'triumph' December 7 shows that, far from door-nail-dead, the Party of Nancy Pelosi and 'Barbra' Streisand is staging a stunning comeback, roaring back to life with a vengeance, says the Washington Post.
Hip-hip, Hurray! Hip-hip, Hurray!
Every where you look (no matter where), Democrats are gloating, celebrating, dancing, doing cartwheels.
Judy Woodruff wears a big, fat smile again; Peter 'Voters-Were-Just-Throwing-A-Childish-Temper-Tantrum' Jennings sports a 'We Won Louisiana -- and Lott Must Resign!' button on the set.
Gee, the only thing I see missing here is a full-tilt, Wellstone "funeral" victory rally in Washington, complete with ticker-tape parade and balloon drop and Lott burned in effigy, but at the rate they're going, Democrats may just go for it.
Psychologically, I guess you can say the poor Dems have slipped into a sorta weird, post-November 5 state of denial -- yet again.
After the November GOP sweep, for about oh, say, a couple of weeks, we kept hearing a din of media-Dem excuses for why, despite the worst economy since Stone Age, Democrats got hosed; it was because, oh gee, we just couldn't get 'our message' across to voters, you see. Big Bad Bully Rush wouldn't let us! FOXNEWS gagged us! Oh, and the evil Washington Times was in on the scheme, too! (Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!)
November 5 was a con-job -- the culmination of some dark, 'right-wing' plot -- hatched in the White House by diabolical mastermind Karl Rove -- to keep that wonderful Democrat 'message' from reaching voters.
We Wuz Robbed - yet again!
Behind the Daschle 'Rush-Limbaugh-Is-A-Threat-To-Human-Civilization', and the Al Gore 'zeitgeist' mumbo-jumbo, lay a not so subtile, if clumsy, push to rationalize -- explain away -- the Democrats' devastating, Election-Day waterloo.
Politically, it was the psychological equivalent of some strange relapse into 'Bush-Is-Illigitimate' fantasy-mode.
Had it not been for the Bush-stacked, "right wing" Rehnquist Court, Ice-Tea Al would be sitting in the White House today, don'tcha know!
That's how Dems 'rationalized' -- attempted to de-legitimatize -- Bush's triumph two years ago. (Interestingly, if, as Dems claim, Gore did win Florida, then this nefarious 'plot' to cheat Al Gore is bigger and broader than we thought. Who else was 'in on it'? Why, USA Today, The Miami Herald, The Chicago Tribune, The Los Angeles Times and CNN, that's who! Their recount of Florida ballots in the months after Gore 'conceded' showed that 'illegitimate' Bush not only won, but would win by even bigger margins using the Gore 'dimpled-chad' standard statewide. Man, what a right wing plot!)
And, for weeks after November 5, the 'We-Wuz-Robbed' Democrats were at it again, only this time, rather than SCOTUS, the focus of Dem-excuse-making was this "right-wing" media cabal 'out there', 'talking up' Saddam and war and terrorism, rather than Social Security.
Gee, it's as if atomic weapons in the hands of terrorists somehow had greater importance than adding prescription drug benefits to Medicare! Or the Augusta National Gulf Club "crisis". Or the Winona Ryder "crisis".
Then, oh, say, a couple of weeks ago, Dems switched from denial to outright clinical depression.
The enormity of their defeat began, albeit gradually, to sink in.
So depressed was the media, they wrote Landrieu's campaign obituary weeks before the run-off.
'Oh, what's the use?', they cried. 'Landrieu's a goner -- this is the South, all hope is lost!'
In the media 'expectations game', in other words, Sen. Landrieu had lost already, Republicans scored yet another icing-on-the-cake Senate seat, strengthening their majority overall and perhaps on Senate committees.
The pundits even cast Landrieu as the 'underdog' -- even though polls taken after Election-Day, when she failed to reach the 50% required to win, showed the 46-year old incumbent, daughter of former New Orleans Mayor Moon Landrieu, far ahead of her much-less well-known GOP challenger. One poll, in fact, had Landrieu enjoying double-digit advantage over the 48-year old Terrell, a former attorney and current state Elections Commissioner.
Hmmmm...famous Landrieu name, big poll lead, Democrat state, plenty of campaign moola, incumbency -- gee, some 'underdog', eh?
The real 'underdog', media malarkey aside, was Suzanne Terrell, who was hoping to make Louisiana history by becoming the first Republican to win a U.S. Senate seat in 130 years -- a Republican woman to boot.
On Election-Day, as a twist-of-fate GOP tide swept the rest of the nation, Terrell got only 27% of the vote from her fractured party. Republican Gov. Mike 'My-way-or-no-way' Foster, even after his choice went down in defeat, refused to endorse the GOP standard bearer, even mulling backing Landrieu. He came around eventually, but so grudging was his tepid 'endorsement', it actually ended up hurting Terrell's chances.
Yet, despite it all, Landrieu's once formidable double-digit lead all but evaporated. In a Mason-Dixon match-up before the President's visit December 3, Landrieu still led, but just barely -- 48%-43%.
A Mason-Dixon taken the day after Bush's visit had Terrell up, 49%-46%, though statistically well within the poll's margin of error. By Friday, however, the 'Bush bounce' had faded after a report of a U.S.-Mexico sugar trade deal, vehemently denied by the White House, dominated election coverage in the run-up to Dec. 7. The announcement of high-level Cabinet resignations December 6, moreover, didn't help matters much, either. (Outgoing Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil reportedly leaked his resignation letter to the press 3 days early.)
The local media pounded Terrell, the Landrieu campaign pounded Terrell, hour after hour, day after day -- there was no let up.
Several observations:
-- Landrieu, reiterating, was no 'underdog'; the media expectations game, by hook or crook, had it backwards.
-- Landrieu was touted by the media as a very conservative Democrat, a powerful and close ally of President George W. Bush. Landrieu votes with the President almost all the time, voters were told both in the media and in Landrieu campaign ads.
-- Landrieu, given incumbency, a famous name, high job approval ratings, huge campaign warchest, little known rival, GOP divisions, no serious party challenge, favorable image (60% positive), heavily Democrat state (57% Dem) should have walked away with this election, cleaning Terrell's clock by 10% percentage points minimum, not the 52%-48% squeaker.
-- Reaching 51%, by my math, is a heck of a lot easier from 46% (what Landrieu got November 5) than from 27% (what Terrell got November 5).
-- It's hard to nationalize a local contest -- which is what Landrieu-Terrell amounted to -- in the absence of a, well, national election. GOP control of the Senate was a November 5 fait accompli, Homeland Security had already passed the Senate. With diminished stakes, Landrieu-Terrell turned to issues closer to home.
-- The November GOP sweep would not have been possible, all things being equal, under Louisiana's quirky system. which lumps primary and general elections together.
To illustrate, take Missouri and Georgia, where GOP Senate challengers knocked off incumbents (What Terrell tried to pull off in Louisiana). Would the Georgia and Missouri GOP nominees, given Terrell's constraints, i.e., little name ID and only four weeks to mend fences after a devisive primary, successfully have rallied the troops, boost name recognition to levels competitive (many voters still didn't know who Terrell was), overcome a double-digit deficit in the polls -- all in time to win?
Fat chance. Missouri's Jean Carnahan and Georgia's Max Cleland would face far better odds under Louisiana's system, and likely would have won reelection. Georgia GOP Sen.-elect Saxby Chambliss would be looking for work -- dittos Sen.-elect Jim Talent of Missouri.
I repeat: The November GOP sweep would not have been possible, all things being equal, under Louisiana's bizarre election system. Winning the primary is only the first step; 'healing the wounds', uniting the party, rallying the troops, raising money and name recognition and settling on a winning campaign theme usually take months, not weeks. Ousting a popular incumbent -- and Landrieu was popular -- is no easy feat. It demands patience and hard work, but, above all, time.
Momentum, sans time to exploit it, is of little use. That was upstart Terrell's problem.
Next to McCain-Feingold, the Louisiana system is the best incumbent protection racket going.
For Republicans, the good news out of Louisiana is that Democrats and their media pals in the Beltway are gleaning all the wrong lessons from the Landrieu-Terrell showdown. They're back in denial -- November 5 never really happened, you see -- mis-underestimating Bush, frothing at the mouth, back on the attack (See Lott). Er, Democrat alternative vision for the country? They still have none (the Party's torn by bitter feuds -- loony left versus moderates versus conservatives) and Party leaders can't speak publically ('Better-Red-Than-Dead' Pelosi is too far left, while Tommy 'America-Is-Losing-The-War-On-Terror' Daschle, in losing the Senate, stands completely discredited).
Attacking a President carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders, moreover, is never good form -- as 'strategy, attacking a leader who projects strength, vision, direction galore is stupid beyond absurdity -- and self-defeating.
It's why Democrat fortunes are crumbling worse than Arafat headquarters in Ramallah. If there were such a thing as bankruptcy Court in politics, Democrats would be filing Chapter 11.
Another long-term dilemma for Democrats (highlighted in Landrieu-Terrell): The Party's wholesale reliance on minority voters. Dems couldn't win without it, given the Party's abysmally poor showing among white voters. This will backfire -- big time -- come 2004, presidential elections. There are reports that former Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile, in a push to increase minority influence over the Party's nominating process, will field black local 'favored sons' in key primaries in '04. Throw in Al Sharpton's expected challenge, and you've got the recipe for mucho problemos for Democrats in '04. Indeed, so worried was CNN, they openly blasted the plan as "disastrous", warning Brazile Monday on Inside Politics to call it off, or face certain GOP victory. To Sharpton, it's a ploy to keep him from winning southern primaries.
So what's the November 5th bottom line? What really happened -- what was the message? Pundits and analysts will be chewing it over for years to come, but here's my For-What-It's-Worth: November 5, more than just a banner night for Republicans, was a watershed.
But it goes deeper than that.
November 5 was nothing short of President Bush's re-election. That's right -- his RE-ELECTION. It was voters, by way of the ballot, sending the media and the Democrats, who've repeatedly questioned Bush's legitimacy, a powerful message: Bush, whether you like it or not, is our President, we elected him, and if there was any lingering doubt, then let our vote tonight finally lay that doubt to rest.
November 5 was a chance for voters to do November 2000 over again. Bush may not have been on the ballot a month ago, yet, for voters, he was.
Who can forget how the President, days after the towers collapsed, famously stood atop the rubble of Ground Zero, grabbed a bull-horn and, with these immortal words, vowed justice: "I can hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!"
That's the moment Bush 'became' President, says the media.
Wrong: America, last time I checked, already had a President on 9/11 -- George W. Bush. In America, you see, Presidents become Presidents, not when Chris Matthews and his media ilk say so, but per the constitution, the day that man or woman takes the oath. In Bush's case, the day was Saturday, January 20, 2001 -- not 9/11, not after. End of story.
Speaking of oaths, here's my intrepid prediction: The post-Landrieu Democrat euphoria will soon give way to all-out depression in January. That's when a bigger GOP House majority gets sworn in and Tom Daschle goes back to being feet-of-clay Minority "Leader". His Party faces even steeper odds in '04 with 10 Dem Senate seats up for grabs in states Bush won in '00.
*Reality*, like lies, has this funny way of catching up with people, now doesn't it?
Speaking of reality checks, there is, for Republicans, one major caveat, I'm afraid: Trent Lott.
(But, before I go on, I've got some B r e a k i n g - N e w s just in: U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, calling Lott's remarks at Sen. Thurmond's recent birthday party "shocking" and "appalling", says apologies aren't enough and called on Lott to resign).
Now, for the caveat. No, Lott's comments, the center of the current Washington media firestorm, aren't the problem. Heck, he's apologized again and again already, and that, in my opinion, should be the end of the matter. Besides, what career politician in Washington hasn't, over the course of that career, slipped and said something he or she later regretted saying? Few would pass that No-Verbal-Gaff purity test.
(Oops, more B r e a k i n g - N e w s just in: Zimbabwe president Robert Mugabe, calling Lott's birthday comments "racist" and "chilling", tonight said apologies aren't enough and called on Lott to resign).
No, Lott's problems, sorry to say, are only beginning. If you think there's a 'Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Racist-Lott-Has-Got-To-Go!' media lynch-mob loose now, man, O man, you ain't seen the half of it yet. Just wait till the press gets wind of what you're about to lay eyes on. I picked it up serendipity while surfing the internet this morning. (I find it astonishing that the 'Scratch-A-White-Man-And-Underneath-You'll-Find-A-Klansman' media has yet to pick up on it).
(Sorry, must interupt again with more B r e a k i n g - N e w s to report: The European Union (E.U.), in a joint statement issued moments ago, said apologies from Lott aren't enough and called on him to resign).
Back to what I unearthed this morning.
First, it turns out that Sen. Lott, several decades ago, said some pretty racially incendiary stuff. You're probably thinking 1980, when foot-in-mouth Lott, at a rally in Jackson, Miss., made similar remarks that have landed him in hot water 22 years later, i.e., that the country would be better off today had it elected Thurmond president when he ran in 1948 as a third-party Dixiecrat on a segregationist platform.
(Sorry, another interruption -- more B r e a k i n g - N e w s just in: The 'Blacks-Only, Whites-And-Jews-Stay-Out!' Congressional Black Caucus says apologies from Lott aren't enough and called on Bush to extradite the Mississippi Republican to the Hague where he faces fresh indictment on several counts for verbal hate crimes).
Okay, where was I? Oh, I remember: The Lott remarks I refer to go back even further, impossible to defend as merely "poorly chosen" words or "mistakes of the head, not of the heart," (Lott's explanation on the Sean Hannity radio show Wednesday) and they're lengthy, so I'll quote them here directly (this is a letter from Lott to a late Mississipi Senator in which he vowed never to serve in an integrated military):
"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
(More B r e a k i n g - N e w s just in: Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, calling Lott's birthday remarks "stunning" and "horrifying", "a chilling example of GOP intolerance," says apologies aren't enough and called on Lott to resign. Al Sharpton, visiting in Baghdad, praised Saddam's statement as "bold" and "courageous").
But it gets worse still -- far worse. (Hope you're sitting down).
(My apologies, but more B r e a k i n g - N e w s just in: In a joint statement this morning, Osama bin Laden and Louis Farrakhan, calling Lott's birthday remarks "intolerant" and "reprehensible", brushed off his latest apology and called on Lott to resign).
Now here's the absolute stunner: Sen. Trent Lott was a former member of the Klu Klux Klan! Bet you didn't know this, eh? Well, I confess, neither did I. Again, I find it amazing this smoking gun has, given the feeding frenzy, so far slipped under the 'Gotcha!' media radar.
Some of the harrowing details:
Sen. Lott, more than just a run-of-the-mill KKKer, was an active recruiter, charging $10 per sign up, according to Graham Smith, author of When Jim Crow Met John Bull, who unearthed the letter.
Lott also wrote the following: "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here" as well as "in every state in the Union."
In light of all this, Sen. Lott, I believe, should do the right thing and step down as Senate Majority Leader. To do otherwise would send exactly the wrong message that Republicans tolerate throw-back, knuckle-dragging racists a la Lott in the ranks.
Oops, hold on a sec...no, not more Breaking News -- I just need to fact-check something real quick...be right back...
Oh no! I did it again! Please, dear readers, please forgive me, but I'm afraid I've made another boo-boo -- a real major-league-ger.
Folks, that KKK stuff wasn't Sen. Lott's biographical background at all -- it was Sen. Robert Byrd's! Byrd, not Lott, was the Klansman. Sheesh! Should have been more careful...silly me.
Well, at any rate, on this 'Mr. Lott, When-Exactly-Did-You-Stop-Lynching-Blacks?' news conference Friday, I offer my two cents:
Wrong move, Lott. Very wrong move. You could, in an instant, put this whole brouhaha to rest. There's one -- and only one -- way, though.
How? Piece of cake: Take to the floor of the Senate tomorrow and renounce your membership in the Republican Party, announce your intention to cross over and join Bobby Byrd (D-KKK) and the Democrats and, as the ultimate act of "penance" for past sins, pledge your vote for Tommy Daschle as Senate leader.
Those 3 simple steps would mean the end of the Lott "crisis" because, as everyone knows, being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry -- no matter what you do, no matter what you did, no matter what you say, no matter what you think.
Washington's lib-PC-fascist-media-lynch-mob sets the standards, you see, and being a Republican is, well, a crime in itself -- a hate crime, no less. Want "cleansing" -- "moral redemption"? Want past sins forgiven? Join the Democrat Party.
Think I'm kidding, right? Well, you're wrong. The Democrats=Good, Republicans=Evil fixation is exactly how liberals/Democrats see the world. Ask yourself: Why does a filthy, dirty, sheet-donning racist troglodyte like Robert Byrd get a pass in the media, Hollywood, academia, while Republicans get crucified for verbal gaffs?
Answer: Because this has nothing to do with race, this has nothing to do with segregation, this has nothing to do with civil rights. There's only one bottom line here, baby, and that bottom is: Political power. Democrats are hungry, they want power, and are willing to do whatever it takes -- character assassination, racial McCarthyism, you name it -- to get it.
If, to reiterate, we learn anything from November 5, it's how much the black vote means to Democrat survival in a post-9/11 world, with the country turning increasingly conservative and a President whose name is synonymous with security. That's what the 'Trent Lott-Supports-Black-Lynching-And-Segregation' uproar is all about: Tar all Republicans with the Klu Klux Klan brush, ergo, slow the Democrat meltdown post-November 5, slam the brakes on GOP inroads into minority communities.
That's the Landrieu-Lott political nexus: Race -- how Democrats, unable to broaden their party's appeal, will race-bait or face oblivion as a party. Ginning up the black vote is, now more than ever, a staple of political survival for struggling Democrats. Black turnout saved Landrieu's seat, though barely. Making Lott the center of controversy, Democrats are convinced, crimps Republican momentum and buys the Dems time to regroup, plan their next move, and potentially set the stage for a comeback in '04.
Only one thing wrong with this thinking: It's a 'Operation-Was-A-Complete-Success-But-The-Patient-Died' strategy. Black turnout saved Landrieu, yes, but in Missouri and Georgia, huge black turnout was little help to Democrats. Dittos South Carolina and bellwether Florida, where Republicans cleaned house. Again, hate to belabor the point, but Louisiana's *lump-primary-and-general-election-together* incumbent protection racket is why Terrell fell short, though she came surprisingly close. The Dem fixation with Lott is, moreover, a metaphor for a deeply divided party -- a party out of step, out of ideas, searching for new bogeymen, unable to compete in the arena of ideas or offer constructive solutions. Democrats, in making Lott the be-all and end-all focus of their agenda, are basically saying, 'look, we don't have anything positive nor compellingly new to offer, but voters, listen up! Republicans are evil demons with pitchforks, eat puppies for breakfast, eat children for lunch, hate women, hate blacks -- oh, and can't wait to kill Grandma....'
Unable to debate ideas on the merits, Democrats rely solely on the Ad-Hominem attack -- a flawed strategy and a clear signal of a party in decline.
Another reason why, this time, race-baiting comes-a-cropper: George W. Bush, the compassionate conservative whose growing Latino appeal scares the bejeebers out of Democrats. The former Texas Governor won over 50% of the Latino vote and more than a third of the black vote during his '98 reelection campaign.
Given Bush's winning ways and enormous cross-party appeal, Democrats worry over '04, and it's small wonder.
Now, a word on Lott's remarks. Sure, I agree they were stupid, but let me ask you this: Suppose KKK Byrd offered, word-for-word, the same remarks, would the press go thermonuclear? Would the media lynch-mob demand blood and guts? Heck, would we even be discussing it still?
Well, we don't need to speculate.
Recall the media's reaction to Byrd's recent use of the N-word on national television? A collective yawn.
The Congressional Black Caucus? Silence.
John Kerry? Gee, what N-word?
Teddy Kennedy? Oh, we all make mistakes, it's not like he drowned a woman or somethin'. Besides, we all have skeletons in our trunk, er, closet -- get a grip!
Tom Daschle? Uh, what Byrd remarks?
All-Lott-All-The-Time CNN? Oh, C'mon, that's just Bobby Byrd -- no big deal. The good ol' boy said he was tired, so why make a federal case of a slip-of-the-tongue?
All-Lott-All-The-Time-MSNBC? Not a peep, and on and on.
Mention Byrd's KKK roots, and liberals will tell you, 'Oh, get real, he's only human, that's all in the past -- forgive and forget.' Mention Lott's fraternity vote 42 years ago, and the same hypocrites throw a conniption. 'Ah-ha! See? I told you he's racist! Resign! Resign!'
So, because KKK Byrd is a Dem, we let bygones be bygones, ignore the stains of his ugly past. Trent Lott? He's a Republican, right? Well, then, off with his head -- now! No apologies acceptable!
The Byrd issue isn't 'They-All-Do-It-So-Leave-Lott-Alone' warroom dodge, either. Robert Byrd was, for 12 years, Senate Majority Leader. Senate Democrats, including some of the hypocrites calling for Lott to resign, picked KKK Byrd -- this was their leader for 12 years. Having known Byrd's ignominious history as a Klansman, their vote to elevate him as their moral compass is a moral indictment of the Democrat Party.
It's also an indictment of the 'See-No-Dem-Evil, Hear-No-Dem-Evil' media -- they, too, knew of Byrd's past, yet hypocritically stood silent.
Memo to Dems/media: Hurling stones from your glass houses isn't very bright. Get busy and clean up your own act -- then lecture us..
I repeat: The Dems' momentary Lott/Landrieu euphoria dissipates come January as Republicans, 229 in the House and 51 in the Senate, charge up Capitol Hill. Will be fun to watch.
I am, by the way, as Latino as they come, and proud of it -- so spare me the 'You're-Just-A-Racist-Angry-White-Male' crapola.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
