A Very Sorry Majority Leader

The Weekly Standard ^ | 12/14/2002 | Stephen F. Hayes

[NYS_Eric]

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.

Stephen F. Hayes is a staff writer at The Weekly Standard.

[over3Owithabrain]

Correct, I refuse to answer "Why do you beat your wife?"

[willyboyishere]

If Lott DOESN'T wind up resiging, he'll certainly be obliged to do a song-and-dance for the rest of his term,
and be yet more neutered even than he was before. If he DOES
have to resign ("for the good of the party") his replacement will be a virtual Democrat, the other face of
Nancy Pelosi. Lott's fate, one way or the other, of course, is the ultimate payment Republicans should expect by now to be getting in perpetuity
for ALREADY being too accommodating to the Democrats.

[sinkspur]

So go ahead. Kill the American Republic and all hope of freedom in the world for a thousand years just to keep your man Lott happy.

You're delusional. Seriously delusional.

[A.J.Armitage]

Republics have fallen before. Rome went from a republic to a military dictatorship dressed up with republican, monarchical, and religious decorations. The people who brought that about were the same sort of people the Democrats are. Unless Republicans hold them in check, it will happen here. And Republicans won't be able to do squat without appealing to non-white voters because of demographics. And keeping Lott will throw away any chance of getting a decent proportion of those votes before it's too late.

A thousand years is optimistic, BTW. It was much longer between the fall of the Roman Republic and 1776.

[sinkspur]

You're being melodramatic. And, you're not a seer.

[F16Fighter]

" Let's be the party of Trent Lott. Let's give every single non-white in the country a big, personal F you. Let's lose everything in 2004.

Let's see demographics make sure we never elect another Republican President and never get a majority in either house.

So go ahead. Kill the American Republic and all hope of freedom in the world for a thousand years just to keep your man Lott happy."

Lott may or may not be a boob, he may or may not be an effective ML if he remains one, but your doomsday scenario is absolute lunacy.

Just to recap:

Trent Lott was merely perceived to infer something only a psychic might know -- that he is DEFINITELY a "racist." For that the sky is falling??

Sit down, brew a cup of chamomille and ignore the race-baiting goblins, the paranoid within GOP circles, the media, and marxist Democrats -- savor the GOP majority in the House, Senate and Presidency. The true big picture? The Republic IS saved...

[A.J.Armitage]

It doesn't take prophesy to figure out how it is.

Nietzche got the start of the world wars within one year.

And he said the 21st century would be worse than the 20th.

[A.J.Armitage]

Trent Lott was merely perceived to infer something only a psychic might know -- that he is DEFINITELY a "racist." For that the sky is falling??

The word you're looking for is "imply".

Perception is everything. The particular perception in question, which is not that Lott in particular but that the Republican Party in general is racist, if allowed to stand, will kill the GOP as an electorally viable party. Which means the United States becomes a one-party country, a disaster in itself, a far worse one because of the one party in question.

Sit down, brew a cup of chamomille and ignore the race-baiting goblins, the paranoid within GOP circles, the media, and marxist Democrats -- savor the GOP majority in the House, Senate and Presidency. The true big picture? The Republic IS saved...

Ah yes. Two years of nominal control, unable to actually do anything domestically because Lott's given the Black Caucus everything they want (and STILL looks like a bigot), followed by the decent into a thousand years or more of tyranny. The true big picture is the two years.

Let me make one point clearer: the Republic-ending catastrophy we're facing isn't a Democratic win. It's the loss of the Republican Party as a viable party.

[F16Fighter]

"The particular perception in question, which is not that Lott in particular but that the Republican Party in general is racist, if allowed to stand, will kill the GOP as an electorally viable party, which means the United States becomes a one-party country, a disaster in itself, a far worse one because of the one party in question."

This incident is NOT the GOP's Hiroshima as you've imagined.

IF this blatant lie is allowed to "stand," the entire Republic and what it presumes to represent is nothing but a sham, and it's citizens not worthy of liberty. Period. Of ye of little faith...

Let me make one point clearer: the Republic-ending catastrophy we're facing isn't a Democratic win. It's the loss of the Republican Party as a viable party.

Again, with all due respect, IMO your assessment falls short.

As for your charge that Lott is seen conceding to the Black Caucus, I'm sure Dubya will step in and suggest a "slight" change in venue...

[Kay Soze]

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..."

What shall Mr Lott's future demands of the GOP be?

Lott has committed more segregationist / racist acts then Clinton had committed acts of infidelity.

He obviously could care less about the GOP, Conservatisim or the US, save for his desire to lead it / them.

I am so old that I can remember a saying we once could use in the Republican Party:

“Character Matters.

I had to remove that bumper sticker from my SUV.

The good ole days.

[Kay Soze]

What's worse is that there is a struggle between Blacks and Hispanics within the Dim-o-cratic party and PRIOR to supporting Lotts racist past and curent positions we had real oppurtunity to gain more black votes.

[A.J.Armitage]

This incident is NOT the GOP's Hiroshima as you've imagined.

Not if Lott goes.

IF this blatant lie is allowed to "stand," the entire Republic and what it presumes to represent is nothing but a sham, and it's citizens not worthy of liberty. Period. Of ye of little faith...

What lie would that be? That Lott said the segregationist candidate should've won? He said it live on C-Span.

As for your other comments, I guess you're not objectively pro-tyranny, but simply pro-tyranny.

Again, with all due respect, IMO your assessment falls short.

But you have no counter-assessment.

As for your charge that Lott is seen conceding to the Black Caucus, I'm sure Dubya will step in and suggest a "slight" change in venue...

I'm not sure what you think it means, but a venue is the location where something is carried out, like a trial or a concert.

You've over-estimated Dubya and underestimated Lott's craven self-interestedness.

[maica]

*** Just one more example of why it is SO important to elect more principled individuals than we have been doing lately.***

The kind of person you are wishing for very likely does not want to put himself or his family through what passes for politics these days. Personal destruction has become a game.

Playing to win is also a principle, and unless you believe that Trent Lott is a racist, you should not call for his scalp over remarks at a party. President Bush needs a Senate majority to get anything through congress, and HE holds Lott's fate in his hands. W will provide all the backbone Lott needs for the next few months. Then there can be a change of leadership, before the 2004 elections begin.

[maica]

***
LOL, I opposed Lott for ML before you even knew who he was. If Lott steps down now, he's an admitted racist and if you can't understand that then you shouldn't be in the debate.***

I am amazed at how many on FR cannot see this. If he steps down, then the race-baiters and their willing accomplices in media will say into eternity that his departure was an admission of guilt. They already think derogatorily of all white southerners anyway. If Lott left they would just start pushing on the next one.

He has to stand and take the medicine.

[Kay Soze]

He Must step down as Leader-

People of Mississippi have a right to elect their own reps which may reflect their values.

They may be satisfied with Trent Lott.

"But the United States Senate deserves better leadership than Trent Lott.

The American people deserve a Republican leader that reflects their highest values."

"Character Matters"

[thoughtomator]

I would say that the record shows that Sen. Lott is not comfortable in a racially integrated society. However, there are a lot of different issues tangled up in this deceptively simple situation - perhaps enumerating them can help untangle it.

#1: The race issue

A) Sen. Lott is not a racist in the sense that he wants to do bad things to black people. Even though he shows nostalgia for the segregation era, there is nothing in the record showing hostility towards other races - merely a desire to not associate with them. There is a broad middle ground between being a cross burner and a forced-busing racial quota bean counter, and the Senator is somewhere in that middle ground. I suspect that his fond feelings for that era are due to its relative simplicity rather than hatred.

B) Sen. Lott has a clear understanding that as a matter of public policy, segregation is a dead issue. No matter what he tells his therapist, nobody need fear that he would attempt to push such a policy - his political instincts for self-promotion are far more dominant and would veto any urge to do so.

C) Sen. Lott is extremely insensitive to the fact that an era he looks upon fondly was very unpleasant to the folks who got the short end of the stick. The fact that it didn't occur to him how badly his statements would come off, even in the context of flattering an old man at his 100th birthday party, shows a profound lack of political sense coming from a politician.



#2: The reactions

A) Democrats are raising hell over this because they are demagogues and hypocrites. They care nothing for racial equality, their motivations are: 1) to make the political opposition look as bad as possible; and 2) to convince their racial interest group factions that they are their saviors. This faction may also be hoping for a longshot realignment of the Senate into Democrat hands.

B) Conservatives who are raising hell over this are doing so out of sincere dedication to the principle of equality under the law for all citizens and to the ideal of a color-blind society.

C) Democrats who are silent now are hoping to keep Lott safe, since they have reliably been able to manipulate him, and since the truth of his statements, if the GOP does nothing, will be a very formidable weapon in 2004.

D) GOP party members who are supporting Lott are doing so for two reasons which mirror the first group of Democrats: 1) to deny the opposition a political victory; and 2) to support their man while he is under fire. Of these, only the second has any merit, which makes this camp marginally better, from a moral point of view, than either Democrat faction. This camp is also disproportionately worried about the longshot of a Senate realignment, having been traumatized by the Jeffords incident not long ago.


Issue #3: Leadership

A) Senator Lott has a long history of giving in to the opposition on important issues. The epitome of this is the impeachment debacle as so eloquently described by David Schippers. Judged on adherence to conservative principles, Lott is the worst conservative leader in generations. He has given conservatives no reason to go out on a limb to back him up, as he has never gone out on a limb to back up ANY conservative principle. It is quite likely that his is among the 700 FBI files that Clintons acquired, making the potential for blackmail by the opposition alarmingly high. Combined with his behavior in accommodating them on crucial issues, it is reasonable to posit a hypothesis that he has in fact been blackmailed on at least two occasions (impeachment and the 'power sharing' agreement) already.

B) Although his social voting record is solidly conservative, his fiscal record is extremely statist. He is the reigning king of pork-barrel legislation. While by this measure he might be considered a very effective leader, any thinking conservative is aware that this politics of selfishness is the greatest reason for the steady increase of government interference in all areas of American life. In the long term this behavior helps to achieve socialist policy goals, not conservative ones.

C) He's got serious foot-in-mouth syndrome. This of course brings us full circle to the incident that got us into this discussion in the first place. This wasn't the first nor the last time. He often demonstrates by his statements that he is a leader more appropriate to the 1960s than the 21st century. As leadership positions are few, it is vital that we put people in those positions with a thorough understanding of the here-and-now.

D) If he put as much effort into really leading as he is doing in trying to save his own bacon, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. But he hasn't done so... and he's had many more chances than he should have gotten.

[Credo]

Well said Thought. If this was isolated, Lott would not be in any trouble. The problem is his subtle backstabbing of Conservatives and their issues. Even in the Impeachment, although he maneuvered to make the case impossible to present, he voted for both articles. That way he could go back to his constituents and claim he stood up for justice.

There are 3 scenarios for Lott now.

1. He stays majority leader. The President's speech the other day gave Lott a way out and described what Lott said at Thurmond's birthday gathering to a tee. To any thinking person, the comments were patently offensive and actually untrue especially if you were a black Mississippian. Lott is weakened as Majority leader, but in a way he becomes merely a figurehead with the Republican Committee Chairmen and the President of the Senate - "Big Time" Cheney pulling the strings.   Before Jeffords flipped, Republican Senators were complaining that their arms were sore because Cheney was twisting them so much.  If one thinks the tax cuts passed due to Lott's efforts, one really needs to take a look at Cheney's promotion of the administration policy.  Lott was really just window dressing and hopefully will be the same in the upcoming Senate Senate sessions.  Cheney can take the limelight from Lott by being the face of the Republicans in the Senate. not Lott.
2. He steps down as leader and stays in the Senate.  At this point, I would say give the Committee Chairmanship of the new leader to Lott. Put him on Appropriations so he can shovel pork to Mississippi.  We could have Trent Lott everything in Mississippi.  This would be good as he would no longer have his rug draped head in front of the cameras as GOP leader.
3. He Resigns from the Senate.  There apparently is rumor that he actually threatened this.  Take a look at this Thread in terms of the Mississippi statutes provisions for filling an US Senator's unexpired term - http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/806411/posts. The Democrat Governor can appoint an interim and probably would appoint a Democrat.  The problem for the Democrats is that the new interim Senator has to stand for election in short order.  My reading of the statutes again indicates that this special election would occur in 90 days if Lott resigns before the Senate going back in session.  Musgrove could hold the election November 2003 if Lott waits until the Senate reconvenes to resign.  Either way if Lott resigns we're looking at a Democrat Senator who has been appointed holding his seat at most 10 months - maybe even only 3 - attempting to stand for election.  My recollection is that interim appointed Senators generally don't fare all that great.  Chafee & Miller are recent successes.  Can anybody remember the names of the Senators that replaced Gore and Bentsen in '93 when they took their jobs in the Clinton administration?  Hutchinson (Kay) and Fred Thompson took those interims out.  Anybody remember Seymour in California.  He took Pete Wilson's job when he became Governor.  He's the reason we now have  ChiFi Feinstein.
   If Lott actually threatened this, then the GOP Senators could say put up or shut up.  The GOP still has the majority - although tenuously.  Would Chafee actually leave the fold if he knew there could be a new GOP Senator in a matter of months?  Lott could go back down to Mississippi & sell toupees or join the cheerleading squad for Ole Miss again.  Again if he threatened this, he demonstrates this is all about him.

Which do I advocate?  I would stress #2.  I would hope the GOP would not actually allow themselves to be blackmailed by Lott.  Even in #1, I think the White House is the winner as Lott will have to tread carefully with the President as he really saved his bacon.

[kcvl]

Sorry, but I can't get outraged when the people making the claims are dressed like this...

And do this...

THE BLACK LANDMARK THE CLINTON LIBRARY RAZED

How many times do they have to play the race card before all of you wake-up? It's NOT about Lott it's about STEALING what they couldn't win in an election!

I suppose I am so use to the Clinton type politics and the media ignoring them that I refuse to get outraged over their hypocritical views.

[gore3000]

If the part in bold is true, then I'm disgusted. Talk about blackmail on Lott's part.

So am I. It is time for Lott to leave. He has always had a bad case of foot in mouth disease. He has been a terrible leader in the Senate. When he had the majority he failed to use it. In my view, it was his fault that Daeschle ever became majority leader. If he had had a spine he would have told jumping Jim Jeffords that he would filibuster any bill that he wanted passed if he changed parties. He has always acted in a spineless manner and in my view there is something for which he is being blackmailed and therefore cannot represent us.