Replies

The Post has it wrong. The moral hypocrisy of the Left is moving this forward. They said nothing when Clinton awarded Fulbright the Presidential Medal of Honor for crying out loud. To bestow that honor on an avowed racist was okay for a Democrat, I guess. You've probably seen my editorial printed in the Washington Times today, but I've reposted it below. (BTW, I sent it to other major media outlets, but they won't dare use it because it exposes their own hypocrisy).

While not a fan of Trent Lott, I feel compelled to respond to the selective outrage regarding his comments at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday. On May 5, 1993, the Washington Post quoted former President Clinton’s comments at an 88th birthday ceremony for former Arkansas Senator William Fulbright where Clinton bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on the man he described as a “visionary humanitarian, a steadfast supporter of the values of education, and my mentor."

Of course, the man Clinton was praising was a rabid segregationist. In 1956, Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement entitled the "Southern Manifesto." This document condemned the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Its signers stated, among other things, that "We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means."

Fulbright later voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And he did so because he was a segregationist and believed in separating the races — in schools and other public places.

More recently, in October 2002, Clinton traveled to Arkansas to dedicate a 7 foot bronze statute to Fulbright, and still nothing from the press admonishing Clinton for honoring a racist.

I'm not making excuses for Trent Lott. He should have apologized for his insensitive comments, and he did. Nor am I making excuses for Strom Thurmond's past. I'm questioning the hypocrisy of selective moral outrage by the Left.

He should have apologized for his insensitive comments, and he did.

If that is exactly what he did, Lott wouldn't be in so much trouble. Let's review.

First he gets a PR flack to do a two sentence statement, that basically says to those who were offended... "go get Bent"
Then, when that doesn't work, he does his own written statement that basically says... "I am sorry you are an idiot who doesn't understand what I meant"
That didn't fly, so he went on Hannity and apologized half-heartedly.

What he should have done is what Torie suggested in another thread... quoting Torie:

That is why Lott needed to make a forceful speech that, after pondering it, he finally and all too tardily understands differently, and that that segregation and Jim Crow were evil, and why he thinks that regime was evil, and why he thinks Mississippi is so much better off now that it is gone, and how wrong he was to ever at any time to have supported it, and how much he admires the courage and self sacrifice of those who caused it to end, and that many of the votes and comments he made in the past he now wishes he could take back, because they conveyed precisely the opposite message.

Lott for some reason is unable to do that. He can not say that his views in the past were wrong. He says now... finally that segregation is wrong... but a thief can say stealing is wrong, but that is the easy part.

Lott genuinely needs to explain how he feels. What happened in the 60's when he was leading his frat against integration. How did he feel when the civil rights workers were murdered. How his position evolved. What made them evolve. I think the country would be very forgiving, if Trent Lott truly has repented, and he opens up his heart.

Fat chance on that happening though.

This whole "scandal" has the signs of an all night bull session at the DNC headquarters with James Carville presiding: "What do we do now after the November defeat to regain the upper hand, to energize our base, to put the Mean-Spirited Party on defensive, so that even with the majorities in Congress, it is unable implement its agenda?"

No, it's not the hypocrisy of the Liberals that's at work here. This is something new: scrutinizing trite words that are usually allowed to go with the wind after being spoken at birthday parties and other such occasions. A thousand worse things have been said somewhere by politicians since Lott remarks happened. It's a manufactured scandal from the getgo, I maintain. There is really nothing to see here, never was, and I refuse to allow the media and the Left's propagandists to dictate my priorities and concerns.

Far worse things were said by the New Jersey poet laureate one LeRoi Jones and he won't resign either! Far worse and far more consequential, because they are in a "poem" (really an agitprop piece) that is being reprinted and is being taught to our children!

Like the Bolsheviks in 1917 the American Left has little support in the society. But like the Bolsheviks, they Left has mastered the machineries of power, so that it can flex its muscle, dictate policies, cultural trends, contents of national debates. The best thing for the opposing side including Senator Lott to have done would have been to dismiss and ridicule the stage acted outrage and expose the scandal manufacturing process itself! Instead, we consent to act in an absurdist play that is being directed by the extreme Left with the outcome pretty much controlled by it!