Lott Decried For Part Of Salute to Thurmond(Senate Leader Hails Colleague's Run As Segregationist)

Washington Post ^ | 12/07/2002 | Thomas B. Edsall

[KQQL]

Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked criticism by saying the United States would have been better off if then-segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948.

Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration for Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

[BillCompton]

applying our current enlightened state to a totally different time,and,using something such as this to throw a poor leader overboard

Disagree. If we were criticizing Thurmond, you would have a point. Lott, the current leader, said we would have been better off if a segregationist had won the presidency in 1948. What was the purpose of this comment?

[Non-Sequitur]

So you inferred he was talking about segregation.

I don't think Lott was promoting segregation, he was just too stupid to realize the implications of wishing for a Thurmond win. There is no doubt that Thurmond's run for the presidency was in response to Truman's integration of the military in July 1948 and because of his and Hubert Humphrey's support for Civil Rights laws. A Thurmond administration would have fought to the death against any kind of legislation that weakened segregation.

[BillCompton]

...attacks on Lott over this kind of stupid remark just reinforce the PC strictures on speech.

So, in the name of anti-pc, we should not be held responsible for the things we say? I care what politicians say and do. What did he mean by his statement? I expect the truth and if I don't like the truth I will hold him responsible. If I am lied to, I will hold him responsible. This is not "PC strictures of speech." It is "words mean things."

[HoundsTooth_BP]

I agree that Lott is not smart, but attacks on Lott over this kind of stupid remark just reinforce the PC strictures on speech. It's particularly discouraging to see them on a conservative forum like this one.


I AGREE.

[buffyt]

I agree, Frist sounds great to me as Pres. in 2008, and taking Chester Trent Lott's job now. Excellent suggestions. Nickles for VP maybe? (anyone would be better than Hillary or Gore)

[Catspaw]

The one thing you don't do is give your enemies the weapons to use on you and that's what Lott did.

[opocno]

Lott has put the Senate Pubbies in an excruciating position - since every reporter will ask them if they agree with Lott's position or get them to explain what they think Lott really meant, preferably while the cameras are rolling.

Lott should stay as MS senator, but resign as majority leader. Let Nickles take over. Then we can go out and kick some 'Rat a$$.

BTW, I agree with the post that said Lott let Clinton get away with calling white black and black white.

[BillCompton]

Time to move on and focus on the real enemies.

I'll tell you what: If you get a signed afidavit from the Dems that they will not make a big deal about this, like Repubs gave Byrd a pass on his "I'm a white nigger" remark, I will drop it. The ostrich approach has its problems though.

[Huck]

Lott, in his clumsy way, simply stated that his long time friend would have been a good national leader.

That's your favorable spin on it. But what Lott actually said, unfiltered, uninterpreted, was this:

I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Had Senator Lott, whose profession requires that he understand the specific meaning of words (he is a legislator, you know) referred to a specific, recorded historical event: The casting of electoral votes to the Dixiecrat Party in the 1948 election. And he gave what looks to me like an endorsement of that party. We'd have been better off, he appears to say. Spin all you want. But I am looking at what he actually said.

He did not endorse all of Thurmond's views. He simply stated the US would have avoided many problems with Strom as President.

You want to generalize it; But Lott did not. He didn't say he personally thought Thurmond would be a "good leader." He said that in 1948 Mississippi voted for Thurmond and that'd we'd have been better off if he'd won. It makes sense to me to see what the platform was that he ran on.

Time to move on and focus on the real enemies.

Yeah, yeah. Nothing to see here. Move along. No sale, friend. In order to effectively defeat our enemies, we need effective leadership. And IMO, having a Senate leader who appears to endorse the Dixiecrat party of 1948 is not effective leadership. We shall see if this is much ado about nothing or not. Take care.

[nicmarlo]

I don't think he will survive as leader. This is really bad.

One can ONLY hope.....maybe now, Bush will see it needs to be done and make more changes. He can put pressure on Lott to step aside and let someone else take his place as Majority Leader.

[BillCompton]

I'm trying to recall,were many great strides against segregation made during the term of the winner of that election,1949-early 1953?

Well, there weren't any. Perversely, It was Thurmond who was the first important southern politician to become a Republican to support Barry Goldwater for President. Until then, Democrats completely dominated the south because of reconstruction. It was the southern democrats who prolonged and were synonomous with segregation. It was Barry Goldwater's candidacy that chased blacks from the republican party. It is time to get some of them back, but Lott's comment opens an old sore. Stupid.

[Neville72]

I've never thought much of Lott as a leader. This stupid, hambone statement of his is a perfect leadin for the Republicans to elect a new majority leader when the next Congress convenes in January. The meathead needs to go.

[BillCompton]

Excellent post.

[Snake65]

Lott, the current leader, said we would have been better off if a segregationist had won the presidency in 1948. What was the purpose of this comment?

Bump for how I feel about this. Lott stepped in it big time. People need to be reminded that the Republican party is responsible for the Voting Rights Act, many Democrats voted against it.

Lott handed it to the Dems on a silver platter. No distortion of this statement is needed to start the "Republicans are racist" cry once again.

[Saturnalia]

DOH

[Non-Sequitur]

People need to be reminded that the Republican party is responsible for the Voting Rights Act, many Democrats voted against it.

Many Republicans voted against it, too, including Thurmond.

[Snake65]

Bump 49 by Huck.

The Chicago Tribune is all over this in this morning's edition. At least it didn't end up on the front page.

[Neville72]

The White House should be working quickly to find a new leader who isn't such a stumblebum like Lott. Mitch McConnell gets my vote. He's articulate, a strict constitutionalist and unlike Lott thinks well on his feet.

I'm glad this didn't happen a week ago down here in Louisiana or the DRats would have plastered it all over the state to motivate black turnout.

[MWS]

I am with you on this one. Lott's stupidity could ultimately help Republicans in the long run if we play this properly. It is a known fact that Lott has maintained his power by strong-arming those in his own party. It could be to our benefit to distance ourselves from him on the basis of this statement, so as to pressure him to step down. Maybe then we could get a more capable Republican Senate Majority Leader to strengthen our position in this time of great opportunity.

A failure to do this might cost us in the long run. When one finally has his opponent over a barrel, he cannot afford to make stupid mistakes that might allow him a chance to make a comeback.

[Catspaw]

I believe "stunned silence" is a fairly accurate description of the crowd's reaction:

The gathering, which included many Thurmond family members and past and present staffers, applauded Lott when he said "we're proud" of the 1948 vote. But when he said "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if Thurmond had won, there was an audible gasp and general silence.