Posted on 12/12/2002 1:53:42 PM PST by VaBthang4
Hannity.com Frontpage:
"Saying he used "a poor choice of words," Trent Lott spoke with Sean on the newsmakers phoneline at length on December 11th in an exclusive interview. This follows a firestorm of criticism by Liberals and Conservatives alike in reaction to comments made by Lott at Sen Strom Thurman's 100th birthday party."
Each time Hannity whines about it not being fair because other folks have slipped off the hook for past stupidity or crime he (Hannity) shows his own lack of principle and his shallowness. Moral equivalence is an argument used only by dishonest or dumb folks.
Lott should be removed from his leadership role because he is not fit to lead ..... not only for the stupidity of his recent statements but for his mistakes and failures such as, the impeachment, the power sharing agreement and his reluctance to promptly act on the Homeland security bill until the President had to set him straight.
If the folks in Lott's home state keep electing him thats their business, but that does not mean that the Republicans owe him a leadership position. We must be consistent in our requirement for integrity and demand it from our own just as surely as we demandit from the Dems.
IMO, we also ought to be looking for folks with who are not suffering from brain damage caused by too much toupee glue and hair spray.
Regards
I wouldn't characterize what Lott did as "spouting." It was an off-hand remark that tangentially hinted at segregation. Carl Levin said the exact same thing a few weeks back. Bill Clinton gave a medal to a man who was a segregationist, and dedicated a statue to him. That, to me, is more "spouting" than what Lott did. Now, if Lott had said that he wants to "slap some [black] people for his mental health" and then try to explain it away as "[white] hyperbole," then that would be spouting (see Charles Barron 8/18/02).
The danger now is that the whipped up passions (dare I say "shrill voices" that incite Americans) are beginning to blow things to such proportions that a myth is emerging right before our eyes.
-PJ
And Lott is not on record supporting it either. There is racism going on here but it is not against blacks.
Here is the exact quote from the brief:
"Moreover, racial discrimination does not always violate public policy. Schools are allowed to practice racial discrimination in admissions in the interest of diversity."That is a statement of fact about the justification for affirmative action, not the proclamation of a racist belief that the media reports and your posting would have us believe.
So it's a non-starter even given that I don't agree racial discrimination is good public policy.
You can't kill Lott for it in a world where affirmative action in the form of quotas, test and performance norming, and other colormindful programs exist. I don't buy the redressing past wrongs BS of affirmative action. If you choose my neighbor over me simply because he's black and I'm white, you racially discriminated. Period. Anyone on the left having an issue with Lott's statement in the brief has to answer for the same thing in the form of affirmative action.
(I will now act as if you haven't heard enough legitimate reasons the past four days.)
He should resign as Majority Leader because he is now a liability to the Republicans.
Fresh off a surprise GOP sweep that was thought unlikely because of black voters' supposed undying loyalty to the Democrats, Lott, with one ridiculous statement in praise of a reformed segregationist's rejected philosophy, has given Democrats and all others left a new reason to rally blacks and other minorities back to the plantation under the "They're All Racists (or Uncle Toms)" banner.
This is more damaging than the left's smearing of the Willie Horton ad, the controversy over visits to Bob Jones University, or Dick Armey's "Barney Fag" Freudian slip (if Frank weren't so damaged himself by his now-legendary poor choice of boyfriends, that could have been much worse). Reading Lott's comments -- not listening to the audio portion or watching the speech, but simply reading them -- there is 0% ambiguity about his words in praise of Thurmond's 1948 presidential run, which, at the time, Strom himself touted as a pre-emptive strike against legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The inference that the unqualified "problems" that Lott mentioned had to do with Americans choosing integration over segregation is only unreasonable to the dense and the willingly foolish.
Like Thurmond, and his fellow reformed race-baiter, the late George Wallace, Lott was thought to have had a troglodytic outlook on racial issues that was unlearned his decades in public office serving alongside minority colleagues. If someone had brought up his activities in his frat house, it would be easy to say, "It's irrelevent; that was a long time ago." That won't wash now! His reckless, foolish statements just days ago breathed new relevence into his past actions.
It's just plain dumb to blame the Democrats for this. They are who they are. They live for moments like this. They will make something out of nothing as long as it will slime the other side, which is why they never talk about Byrd. Being aware of that, there's only one thing that can be done: make sure you don't give them a real reason. Lott broke that rule.
Since Thurmond joined the Republicans, he has been one of the elder statesmen of the party and the Senate itself. His dedication and energy are the stuff of legend, enhanced by his becoming a father in his seventies. In later years, he gained respect that transcended politics. It's hard to root against anyone who's about to become an entire century old unless they are evil personified. Thurmond's time fitting that description are well in his past.
All that time, Republicans managed to show him respect without applauding every single step he took. And just when it seemed like the GOP was going to have a feel-good story to end this Senate session, what happened? Lott laid a daisy-cutter sized rotten egg that stunk up the Capitol and gave conservatives palpitations!
Earlier today, I answered a previous question from you: "Was Reagan wrong to honor Thurmond with these words?"
My response was:
"These words?" Absolutely not.While reading this transcript [of a Reagan speech] -- which I presume you did -- did you notice how Reagan managed to turn the trick of honoring Thurmond without coming close to saying anything that could be misinterpreted as endorsing segregation? Do you think that was an accident?
Now, I will ask you a question: which of my comments do you think is inaccurate? Do you think that Lott has gained prestige as a result of this brouhaha? Does it elevate his stature as a leader in the Senate? Is he the one who should be trusted at the helm of that august body at this rare moment of American history when the Republicans control both legislative branches and the White House (albeit with slim margins in Congress and despite losing the popular Presidential vote)?
Why should Lott remain as Leader?
I eagerly await your answer. Don't chicken out.
Because like the southern blacks stood up to the "race-baiters" you so thoughtfully listed, Lott and the GOP should and must once and for all stand up to the race-baiters of today and say hell no. Once that is done then the Senate republicans can, if they choose, use legitimate issues to force him out. If that does not happen the strongest conservative in the senate could replace him and would never5 dare to challenge the race hustlers again.
Get real. Charles Barron is a NYC councilman. Tell me, where is his place in line for the Presidency? Hundreds of millions of Americans would have to be killed before he'd be in charge. Barron can be ignored like the flea that he is.
Tellya what, we'll bring that up when Barron runs for an office that will have some effect on those of us out of his jurisdiction, like Sharpton is going to have to do if he's stupid enough to run for President like he promises.
Geoff Metcalf, formerly of WorldNetDaily, has a saying: "It's not who's right, it's what's right." The race hustlers are right in the sense that Lott shouldn't be Majority Leader. And that's all they're right about. They are not going to have -- dare I say? -- the whip hand just because Lott blundered himself into oblivion!
This is a bad situation regardless of what happens next, because either the GOP will have a Senate Majority Leader widely perceived as racist, or they will have to swallow hard and give in to the race hustlers. Think, people! Which is the less awful scenario? I vote for the latter. Giving the left their "pound of flesh" is really an "ounce of prevention" that will [prevent] many "pounds of cure" whenever racial issues arise in Congress -- and you can bet they will make sure they come up as frequently as possible with a wounded Lott leading the opposition!There were very few detectable Lott fans here at FR, but now some of you want to save him to win a pyrrhic victory over people who are wrong most of the time, but have a legitimate point now? I can hardly believe it!
-PJ
Thanks YOU HardiHood! That's excellent perspective. It's like the fella who gets up early every day for thirty years to hold a job for his family instead of sleeping in for the welfare check. Sure he gets tired, and it's not fair...but he can be proud of himself.
Regards, sw
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.