A Very Sorry Majority Leader

AFTER A WEEK of confusion, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott held a press conference Friday in an attempt to clarify his position on segregation. "Segregation is a stain on our nation's soul," said Lott. "Let me be clear: Segregation and racism are immoral."

Stop for a moment and think about that. Almost half a century after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, almost 40 years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and it's necessary to report that the nation's third-ranking Republican does, in fact, reject segregation. That commentators around the country have spent more than a week debating whether Trent Lott is racist or just inept is a measure of the damage his comments have done. It was a bad week for Trent Lott and for the Republican party.

The saga began Thursday, December 5, at a now infamous 100th birthday tribute to Senator Strom Thurmond. Lott, like the other speakers, heaped praise on Thurmond for his long career. Then Lott went too far. "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."

Thurmond, of course, ran for president as a States' Rights Dixiecrat in 1948. As the name suggests, the Dixiecrats split from the Democrats for one reason: to defend segregation. Even the Army, Thurmond used to say back then, couldn't force whites to share their "swimming pools" and "chuches" with the "Nigra race."

Although many journalists were present at the recent birthday party, few quoted Lott's offensive remarks in their stories the next day. ABC News online mentioned the comments, and National Journal's "Hotline," an inside-the-Beltway political newsletter, served as a megaphone, running the story under the headline "Lott Proud of Dixiecrat Role." Liberal Internet journalist Josh Micah Marshall began commenting on his website, talkingpointsmemo.com. And late Friday afternoon, Washington Post reporter Thomas Edsall called Lott's office for a clarification.

Instead, he got a rationalization and even a mild rebuke. "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." Those words appeared in the Post story Saturday. And while that article also contained stunned reactions and strong criticism from Washington observers, Lott wasn't worried. At a holiday party thrown that night by ABC reporter Sam Donaldson, Lott told guests that his comments weren't a big deal, and that Strom Thurmond believed principally in a strong national defense.

Lott's second written statement came Monday, after Tim Russert raised the affair on Meet the Press, and other Sunday shows also discussed it. The statement read: "This was a lighthearted celebration of the 100th birthday of legendary Senator Strom Thurmond. My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life."

These two Lott statements didn't work for fairly simple reasons. The first one blamed those who were offended by Lott's remark, and the second one plainly contradicted his words. By Tuesday, amid growing criticism of the original tribute to Thurmond's presidential bid and Lott's ineffective clarifications, his office released another written statement. "A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth and I apologize for my statement to anyone who was offended by it." Critics jumped on this statement, too, pointing out that Lott chose a descriptive word, "discarded," rather than a judgmental one.

Early in the week, there was already a dramatic difference in the way the comments were received by Republican staff on Capitol Hill and their bosses. Younger staff members seemed to grasp the offensiveness of the substance of Lott's comments and the extent of the political damage. The same cannot be said of Republican elected officials. The early strategy--to a senator--was to keep quiet. "If you're going to shoot the king," said one aide, "you'd better be sure you kill him."

"By Wednesday and Thursday," Lott would say later, "it got quite active." Lott's chief of staff began calling local conservative activists to enlist their support. His message was direct and, some believe, threatening: We will remember who is supporting us in this time of need, and you'll want to be on that list.

Lott, too, was on the phone. While many of his Senate colleagues had avoided criticizing their leader in public, few had spoken on Lott's behalf. Lott had already spoken to a handful of Republican senators, and by midweek he started calling the rest to explain his comments, to assure them that the worst was over, and to encourage them to offer their public support.

Lott took those explanations public himself on Wednesday, in phone interviews with conservative talk radio host Sean Hannity and CNN's Larry King. (Lott would later explain that phone interviews were the best he could do since he was vacationing in Key West, where there aren't television stations to provide a studio. As a measure of sincerity, that didn't help.) His apologies were stronger, but so were his rationalizations. "When I think back about Strom Thurmond over the years, what I have seen is a man that was for a strong national defense and economic development and balanced budgets and opportunity, and that's the kinds of things that I really had in mind."

The appearances failed to quell the growing chorus calling for Lott to step down. Black groups called the remarks "racist," and with virtual unanimity--excepting Pat Buchanan, Bob Novak, and Sean Hannity--conservative commentators ripped Lott. Democrats, in a display of moral courage they reserve for Republicans and race, piled on. Al Gore, perhaps the most accomplished race-baiter in politics today, ran toward cameras everywhere to express his horror. John Kerry, who in an unrelated development last week announced a presidential exploratory effort, called for Lott to step down as majority leader.

At the White House, meanwhile, the administration debated the proper response. On the one hand, it has never been President Bush's style to insert himself into a controversy. On the other, the substance of Lott's offensive remarks required a strong presidential rebuke. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer had said earlier in the week, "From the president's point of view, Senator Lott has addressed this issue. He has apologized for his statement, and the president understands that that is the final word from Senator Lott in terms of the fact that he said something and has apologized for it." Fleischer said Bush supports Lott as majority leader "unquestionably."

But those comments came before Lott's phone interviews, and by Thursday it had become clear that Bush would say something about the issue at a speech he was scheduled to give in Philadelphia. As Bush's staff discussed whether the president should single out Lott by name, Bush settled the debate personally. He would mention Lott directly.

"Recent comments by Senator Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country," said Bush. "He has apologized, and rightly so. Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals. And the founding ideals of our nation and, in fact, the founding ideals of the political party I represent was, and remains today, the equal dignity and equal rights of every American." The president went on to say that suggestions that segregation is acceptable were "offensive" and "wrong," but Fleischer told reporters that Bush did not expect Lott to resign. Lott immediately issued a statement embracing the president's criticism.

By Friday, tensions between the White House and Lott had grown. Sources say Lott made clear that if he were forced to step down from the Senate leadership, he would also likely resign his Senate seat, a significant development because Mississippi's current governor, Ronnie Musgrove, is a Democrat. He would appoint a replacement for Lott, presumably a Democrat, leaving the Republicans with a precarious one-seat margin.

When word leaked that Lott had scheduled a press conference for late Friday afternoon, preceded by a conference call with Republican senators, many on Capitol Hill assumed he would announce that he was stepping down as majority leader. He didn't.

"I have asked and am asking for people's forbearance and forgiveness as I continue to learn from my own mistakes and as I continue to grow as both a person and a leader."

Asking for forgiveness is reasonable--everyone makes mistakes. But wanting to do so and remain leader is not. The controversy is no longer just about Trent Lott. It's about the Republican party. Despite what Democrats would like to suggest, this is not because most or even many Republicans are secretly nostalgic for segregation. They aren't. Rather, it's because Lott failed to deal swiftly and seriously with the substance of his original comment. And it's because Republican officeholders, however understandable their instinct for self-preservation, failed to speak out strongly against one of their own on a matter of principle.

What's clear is this: The more Trent Lott speaks as the third-ranking Republican in America, the more his problem becomes the party's problem. "I want the Republican party not to be hurt by this," Lott said Friday. "I want us to find a way to reach out and to build on our mistakes that we have made in the past." Us to find a way? Our mistakes? We have made?

"I'm not about to resign for an accusation for something I'm not," Lott declared, responding to accusations that he is racist.

Perhaps he would consider stepping down for something he has become: a burden for his party.

You're just amazing. As big a fan of President Bush as you are, I would expect you to be as infuriated with Lott's stupidity as I am. Are you a member of Lott's staff or something?

And for about the one millionth time: Lott must go not because he's a racist. He's not. He must go because he's an incompetent leader who single-handedly creates disasters for his party. I would think that the minimal standard for being an effective majority leader would include the ability to avoid becoming a millstone around his party's neck.

Hmmm.....Then Chafee jumps !!!......

That would almost be a good thing. The one way for the president to turn this mess into something positive would be for him to advise Lott that he needs to step down. Then if Lott not only steps down as majority leader but even resigns his Senate seat, a lot of moderate voters will be impressed with the president's dramatic demonstration that he has so little patience with nonsense on the subject of race that he acted to remove the senator even at the cost of losing the Senate. There would be a short term set back in losing the Senate, but the GOP would be well situated to enjoy a very positive outcome in the next two elections. That can't be said if Lott stays on as majority leader.

There would be a short term set back in losing the Senate, but the GOP would be well situated to enjoy a very positive outcome in the next two elections. That can't be said if Lott stays on as majority leader.

I don't know about that. You know another message that would send is? In two consecutive elections, voters installed GOP majorities (albeit tiny ones) in the US Senate. In both of those elections, they p!ssed those majorities away because they were too lily-livered to stand up to and refute the hateful propaganda and lies spread about them by the Democrats. They were more interested in getting the media to love them (something that will never happen) than in fighting for the conservative principles that voters put them office to advance.

Why should we keep voting for them under these circumstances? I could see a lot of voters asking this question.

Why should we keep voting for them under these circumstances? I could see a lot of voters asking this question.

I certainly would.

But what really amuses me is the moral indignation from the anti-Lottites and appeasers who having lined up with the race baiters on the Trent Lott firing squad are now totally pissed because he won't stand still while they execute him.

Hilarious.

He's bluffing. If he resigns his leadership position but stays in the Senate, he may someday achieve political redemption. If he resigns from everything, he returns home in political disgrace - bye, bye future high dollar lobbyist position - and remembered by the voters of his state and the rest of the country as the one who trashed the hard work, prayers etc. that brought about the Republican victories on November 5th.

Never underestimate an egotistical fool's capacity for self-destruction.

Exhibit A: William Jefferson Clinton

Would you please explain what "lie" is being told about Trent Lott? All the Democrats have to do is play the clip of Trent's own words at Strom's party.

Yeah, that's right, the Dems never said anything mean about us until Trent Lott opened his mouth and made a stupid remark. So now we're supposed to join in the selective outrage and political opportunism of the race whores and socialists to torpedo a man who we feel is a lousy Majority Leader. God forbid we remove him for being a lousy leader - we might show that we stand for something. Instead we have to let our enemies trump up a phony hot-button issue and use it to define and demonize us, and then jump on the bandwagon as a show of atonement.

But I'm sorry. I forget. It's all about Trent. Nothing else matters than to save that dimwit's position of privilege.

No, I'm sorry. I forget. It's all about getting our pound of flesh four years after Clinton's impeachment. It's all about making the country-clubbers feel good by sticking it to those dumb redneck yahoos in the South, who all should have been strung up after the Civil War. And if we have to tacitly admit that our opposition's propaganda is the truth in order to get what we want, thems the breaks.

How can the republican party take truly principled positions on topics such as school choice, affirmative access (not action), conservative judges,etc., IF we are led by Lott. Every position we take will be viewed through the lens of "racism".

This whole thing was handled badly and allowed to get blown way out of proportion. That's because Repubs still don't know they're up against a street fighter mentality, and don't have either the will or ability to respond in kind.

What Repubs should have done was to strongly question the intelligence of anyone who believed Lott still subscribed to the "Dixiecrat" line re segregation. He NEVER stated in his praise of Strom Thurmond that a 50some-year-old segregationist platform was the primary (or any other) reason for his speculations about a Thurmond presidency. That was an inference drawn by journalists!

Damage is done, though - but will the Pubs ever learn?

It could be significant, depending on the what's and when's.
The actually MS statute regarding this was posted earlier:
Mississippi Statutes on interim US Senators.
It would be the driving force on the significance or insignificance of a Lott threat/bluff.

This is why I think Lott is bluffing. The threat to hand his seat over to a democrat rings hollow, because the interim Musgrove would appoint has to stand for election in 90 days. Mississippi's special election laws won't carry the appointed Senator over to the 2004 election like the Widder Carnahan. A hypothetical interim would either have to stand for election before the end of March or if Lott waited to resign when the Senate reconvenes, the interim would have to stand in November. Either way, it would be dicey for someone like Chafee to flip knowing the interim could very well be voted out in short order reverting the Senate back to GOP control again. Remember even during the period of a Lott resignation and a hypothetical Musgrove interim democrat, the GOP still controls the chamber unless of course a GOP Senator flips. Presumably at that time there would be a less spineless Majority Leader.

If Lott is blackmailing the Republicans, he disgusts me even more. For whatever it's worth, I think his comments at Thurmond's birthday celebration are relatively insignificant. They just demonstrate a galactic ignorance and is just another in a series of gaffes how Lott acutally serves the democrats with his ineptitude. Anybody wonder why in addition to the GOP Senators, there isn't a raft of Dem Senators calling for his head. The only ones I have heard are the clowns from Massachusets and "Dung-Heap" Harkin. What about Boxer, Hillary and the rest of them? There's something there with Lott we don't know about.

I don't want to say Lott is stupid. He is the ultimate Washington insider and knows how to do the Potomac 2 step. That being said, he is not a leader that I and a lot of other conservatives trust or respect.

You're nuts. If he quits, he returns to a hero's welcome in Mississippi, can make boatloads of money serving on the boards of five or six Mississippi companies he's helped over the years, and his voters will say "Ef you" to the Yankee establishment that forced him out.

In other words, he'll screw the party over twice in the same month.

And we're supposed to feel loyalty to this man?

On FoxNews they have interviewed folks to reveal balance and Lott's true character. MSNBC and CNN have interviewed folks to tell how bad they think Lott's words were.

The NAACP has once again shown their true colors. So have the Democrats. The media has worked it's charms. The print media regurgitates articles just like this one. Look at what they have done here.

Even the title trashes Lott. He's a sorry Majority Leader. The implications go beyond his recent comments. They are targeted to do as much damage to him as possible, above and beyond the seemingly endless slanderous non-truths regarding his specific comments.

This article is more of a damning revelation regarding the media and it's tactics, than plowing new ground with regard to Lott. May the media be recognized for the divisive manipulating bastard press that it is.

This nation is in desparate need of people who can clearly recognize facts and report truth. For the most part, our media has revealed itself to be incapable of neither of these duties.

The leftists in this nation have demanded Lott resign for his supposed bias. I would like to offer up the suggestion that those who are truly guility of bias be the ones to resign.

Here's a news flash of my own for our nation's media. We could use more accurate information and less editorials on more relevant topics. Just report the facts you idiots, we can assess the implications for ourselves.

Now, appologize and step down.

Side-splitting to see all the work done electing Republicans since before I was born pissed away over Trent Lott. Trent Lott. A two-bit hack with a big mouth whose only conviction is segregationism.

Get used to saying "President Gore" or "President Kerrey" or "President Hillery". Get ready to bend over for socialized health care, more and worse grabbing of private land with the evironment as an excuse, gun confiscation, the whole bit, just so we can make a few racist crackers happy

Real funny.

I'm constantly running into what amounts to complete rebellion and total repudiation by the young generation over what big brother liberalism has taught them in publik educashun. Strong reactions and scepticism over any form of blatant propaganda. Conservatism if it remains aligned with the truth has a bright future.

You are on the money. Those in a panic over a tribute to the one Republican most responsible for there even being a President Bush, today, show an absolute lack of understanding of how normal people, at all levels, react--and how to motivate their reactions in the ways you want--if you stick to the truth. The slavish, knee-jerk acceptance of the Leftist racial rant, that some are advocating lately, is totally absurd. Those in this panic could not justify half of the things for which they give lip service in a debate with a true College Conservative, if their jobs depended upon it.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

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.