Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trent Lott Must Go [Andrew Sullivan Gets 1st Dibs in Line]
Andrew Sullivan.com ^ | Dec. 9, 2002 | Andrew Sullivan

Posted on 12/09/2002 10:23:15 AM PST by ewing

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last
To: Bikers4Bush
Whatever happened to Jessi yelling about "Hymie Town"?

Non sequitur; irrelevant.
41 posted on 12/09/2002 10:49:11 AM PST by BillCompton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ewing
David Frum said much the same thing today.

I agree.

But then I've wanted Lott to leave for some time now.

DAVID FRUM'S DIARY

DEC. 9, 2002: MOMENTS OF TRUTH
Speak Up, Trent: Trent Lott did himself and the Republican party serious damage with an ill-judged remark at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party on Thursday – and the damage is only growing.

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.”

According to Tom Edsall of the Washington Post, “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.”

Edsall explained the reason for the gasp thus: “Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was the presidential nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948. He carried Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and his home state. He declared during his campaign against Democrat Harry S. Truman, who supported civil rights legislation, and Republican Thomas Dewey [who it should be said supported civil rights rather more firmly than Harry Truman did]: ‘All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches.’

“On July 17, 1948, delegates from 13 southern states gathered in Birmingham to nominate Thurmond and adopt a platform that said in part, ‘We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race.’”

Lott’s birthday remark drew scant attention at first. It was broadcast live on C-Span, but the only media source to take note of it on Friday morning was ABC.com’s “The Note.” On another day, the Note’s report might have triggered a media stampede, but the announcement of the firing of Paul O’Neill and Larry Lindsey at 10:05 am on Friday obliterated all other Washington news.

Edsall’s story appeared on Saturday morning, as did a more matter-of-fact one in South Carolina’s The State. A spokesman issued a perfunctory “clarification”: “Senator Lott’s remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong.” And that would seem to be that. Saturday’s news was dominated by Iraq’s “nobody here but us chickens” reply to Security Council Resolution 1441. On Saturday night Mary Landrieu pulled off her down-to-the-wire victory in the Louisiana Senate race.

The Lott story seems to have been left behind in the dust. And yet I cannot help thinking that this story is not over – that Republicans will hear Lott’s words quoted at them again and again in the months to come.

I for one do not believe Trent Lott is a racist or a segregationist. My guess is that his speechwriter gave him note cards with a few jokes, and that when Lott finished reading them, he launched himself into what he probably intended to be nothing more than a big squirt of greasy flattery.

But that’s not what came out of Lott’s mouth. What came out of his mouth was the most emphatic repudiation of desegregation to be heard from a national political figure since George Wallace’s first presidential campaign. Lott’s words suggest that one of the three most powerful and visible Republicans in the nation privately thinks that desegregation, civil rights, and equal voting rights were all a big mistake.

These would be disgraceful thoughts to think, if Lott thought them. If Lott thought them, any Republican who accepted his leadership would share in the disgrace. So Lott needs to make it clear that he does not in fact think them. He owes his party, his state, his country, and his conscience something more – something much more – than a curt “I am sorry if you were offended.” If he can’t do that, Republicans need to make it clear that Lott no longer speaks for us.

42 posted on 12/09/2002 10:49:28 AM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
If Bush wants to get rid of Lott, this would be an opportune time.

Bush has no authority, nor desire, to get rid of Trent Lott.

The only place where there is an obsession to get rid of Trent Lott is Free Republic.

43 posted on 12/09/2002 10:50:27 AM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Capt. Tom
It is probably more of a statement about Lott's poor knowledge of history more than anything else. He clearly wanted to say something nice to Strom at his 100th birthday party. He didn't think through the comment in any detail whatsoever. So what!

While I think he should be given a break I also know that the lefties will beat this into the ground. It's so typically dishonest of them.

44 posted on 12/09/2002 10:50:30 AM PST by RAT Patrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ewing
I think so. I think Allen is a rising star along with Rick Santorum. Here are my own top 3 for Majority Leader: Allen, Nickles, Santorum.
45 posted on 12/09/2002 10:50:55 AM PST by David1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: ewing
Lott talked about "problems," not racial problems. Maybe racial problems is what he meant (although I kind of doubt it,) but it's certainly not what he said.

And all the people who are making a big deal of Lott's stupid comment are helping to shackle all of us with PC speech codes.

47 posted on 12/09/2002 10:52:24 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: David1
Santorum would be a great pick as well, very presentable to the public and good with female voters..
48 posted on 12/09/2002 10:53:03 AM PST by ewing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
It's not Bush's place to make Lott step down.

It should come from his senate colleagues.

This was not just a gaffe. Or if it was, it was spectacularly ill-considered one.

It cannot just be swept under the carpet.

49 posted on 12/09/2002 10:53:22 AM PST by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BuddhaBoy
Lott may not be a racist, but he is exceedingly STUPID and ineffective as a leader, and he has caused Republicans a ton of grief over the years. I say cut our losses and move on.

My sentiments exactly. That, and his lack of a spine.

I don't think he even realized that Thurmond's position back then was segregationist. He was just praising Thurmond as a long-time political leader. Lott wasn't being racist, he was being an idiot. But being an idiot alone is good enough reason to have him step down.

50 posted on 12/09/2002 10:54:19 AM PST by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: anechoic
It's not just about state rights:
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary120902.asp
51 posted on 12/09/2002 10:54:36 AM PST by David1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
"Elect George Allen!
Articulate, smart, telegenic, Virginian, etc."

Forgot one needed trait...blood-thirsty.

52 posted on 12/09/2002 10:55:40 AM PST by rvoitier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ewing
Lott said that his state was proud to vote for Thurmond in 1948 and that the racial problems in the South might have been avoided if Thrurmond was a national leader in the 1950's (when he appointed the first black staff members in the Senate)

Actually, Lott said nothing about "racial problems". I don't think race or racism was even on his mind when he was making the comment. He just said Thurmond could have helped "the problems we've had", type unspecified. It's only Jackson et al who are claiming that that was necessarily a reference to "racial problems".

53 posted on 12/09/2002 10:55:55 AM PST by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BillCompton
Maybe to you and Jessy it is but not to me and a lot of other people.
54 posted on 12/09/2002 10:56:10 AM PST by Bikers4Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Dan Day
Well, Thurmond ran under a segregationist issue. So its only natural to think about race.
55 posted on 12/09/2002 10:58:40 AM PST by David1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Personally I don't want rid of Lott. The way the Republican party is headed lately we may end up with Lincoln Chaffee as Majority Leader
56 posted on 12/09/2002 10:58:44 AM PST by billbears
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana
It cannot just be swept under the carpet.

It's not being swept anywhere. Lott's clarified it.

He got carried away with a tribute to an old man!

The overreaction here, as elsewhere, is reaching the point of hysteria.

57 posted on 12/09/2002 10:59:49 AM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Siobhan
IF lOTT DOES GO.....WOULD HE PLEASE TAKE HATCH ,SCOTISH lAW MAN SPECTER WITH HIM.....3 BIRDS WITH ONE STONE.
58 posted on 12/09/2002 10:59:58 AM PST by Zeno44
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: billbears
No way we will end up with Chafee. So don't worry about that. ;-)
59 posted on 12/09/2002 11:00:04 AM PST by David1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: David1
Well, Thurmond ran under a segregationist issue. So its only natural to think about race.

Sure, if you engage your brain first -- something Lott is not always known to do.

Thurmond's run was over half a century ago. I doubt its particulars were fresh on Lott's mind. Lott has worked with Thurmond on a daily basis for the past zillion years, I'm sure his more recent interactions were a lot more in the forefront of Lott's memory than the ancient history.

60 posted on 12/09/2002 11:01:59 AM PST by Dan Day
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-179 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson