Trent Lott's Debacle - Now, Bush Must Act

December 14th, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

Once again, in his own indelible words, the Republicans' Senate Majority Leader-elect:

"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."

~Trent Lott - December, 2002

When Strom Thurmond ran for President, he was a segregationist Dixiecrat spurred into revolt against the Democrats by Hubert Humphrey's Civil Rights plank in the '48 Democratic Party platform. Mississippi was one of four segregationist Southern States that voted for Thurmond. Segregation was the purpose and limited appeal of the Dixiecrats. It was the banner under which they marched.

The plainest sense of Lott's words are that he approves of the above.

Even though I don't believe that's what Lott meant, nor that he's a racist, that fact is inescapable. It takes backpedaling and damage control to escape the plain meaning of what Lott said and explain what's really in his heart. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

The only way to for Trent Lott to address Thurmond's '48 campaign would have been to chart how far the retiring senior Senator from South Carolina has traveled in the last 54 years, and to use him as a metaphor to further illustrate how far the South and America have come. Had he done this, Lott could have simultaneously honored the Centenarian Senator and reiterated that Republicans, like the South and like America, have learned the errors of racism and segregation, and have long since embarked on a better path.

That Lott could not grasp this after decades in Washington is striking, particularly since this isn't the first time he's failed to navigate this reef. Speaking after a Thurmond speech for Ronald Reagan in 1980, then-Congressman Lott told the crowd: ""You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."

Now, the Democrats are all over the opportunity Lott has injudiciously provided to them. That it seems unfair is irrelevant. He left himself open for the sucker punch and got pounded. He's only made matters worse with his tepid series of apologies: too little, too Lott. He is finished as a Senate Majority Leader of even mediocre effectiveness. It's time to cut our losses.

President Bush needs to invite Lott to the ranch in Crawford, and offer him a more artful and diplomatic rendering of the following:

"Senator, with your ill-advised remarks you've brought turmoil and embarrassment on yourself, the party, and the country. You've served all well in the past and I thank you for that service from the bottom of my heart. Unfortunately, the events of the past few weeks call for a reassessment of the nature of your future service. The horses have left the barn, but there does remain an open path for you, a path that is both honorable and humbling: step aside as Majority Leader and continue to serve in the Senate.

I understand the sacrifice my request places on you, and sympathize with it's burden, but our nation and our agenda are in peril.

I need you, and I'm asking you as you President to do this for the good of America."

[steve7]

Even if you disregard Lott's comments at Sen. Thurmonds birthday party, I felt that he should have stepped down after the impeachment process that he completely bungled. To me, it was obvious that he was being controlled during this process by outside forces, and made the impeachment managers look terrible. I believe somebody had (has) FBI files on Lott, and has rendered him completely ineffective.

[texastoo]

JMO, but I think it's the best solution left to us.

Just when do we the people ever get to decide anything?

From what I have read, the main reason people are against Lott is the impeachment. IMHO, Trent Lott was probably receiving orders from the higher-ups in the GOP. If you recall during that debacle, ex-pres. G.H. Bush never uttered even one comment about Clinton. Ex.pres. Carter, Ford and every other has-been politician spoke out.

IMHO, the reason G.H.Bush didn't say anything was his son was already gearing up for the presidential run. I doubt very seriously if G.W.Bush could have beaten encumbant Al Gore.

This is all politics and Trent Lott has been part of the team for the Bush family. Trent Lott probably does not have as much power as you think. He just takes orders from the higher-up elites.

True, he let his mouth overload, but I don't think he is a racist.

[sinkspur]

Don't even begin to play the blackmail game with us - you and Lott will lose, big time.

How? If Lott leaves the Senate, the GOP is back to a 50-50 deal with the Democrats.

Lott's got the whip hand here.

And there is no way he loses, whichever way this goes.

[EternalVigilance]

If you think this country is far right, think again.

You got a problem with conservatism?

[mrsmith]

"the Lott remarks are a great opportunity for Republicans everywhere to address an issue they have been dodging for years. "

That is my view too. I hope it is Rove's.

With their new control of congress and the executive, the Republicans will be replacing Dem black patronage programs with Republican black patronage programs.
That will mean the end of the Dem monopoly of the black vote and agenda.

Lott's 'punishment' for his impolitic remark can be to headline and take credit for these new programs. Funny how politics works so strangely.

[John Lenin]

Hey, it's Lott who was down on his hands and knees yesterday promising the race pimps the sun, the moon and the stars...not me. If anybody is surrendering here, it's Trent.

Think about it, is Lott going to give in to Jesse Jackson, has he ever done so ? Did you see Sharpton this morning, he is going ballistic, I doubt even Donna Brazille can get him to stop from running for the presidency now. If Sharpton runs, who benefits ?

[BuddhaBoy]

Just remember to write back, after Lott steps down.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Yes, it's a good solution. But it is hard to underestimate the hubris and egoism of politicians in America in these latter days.

For them, Bill Clinton is that far from an anomoly: "It's all about me". Some rise above it -- there are always some that use honor and the overall good as their guide. It would be nice to find out that Lott really was amongst them, but it is hard these days to think of many who operate on such principle in the U.S. Senate.

I don't think such people have the ability to see that the people of America still honor personal sacrifice above most other things -- the willingness to lay down your personal station, your personal stature, for a greater good. Lott doing what you propose would raise his stature, amongst Republicans and the great unpolitical mass at least. He's pretty much on bottom -- but think of the multitude of bottom-feeders that we have out there these days.

We've reached a point where most, at least in Lott's position, feel that honor is for suckers. They get in the midst of the fight, and don't realize that their enemies have leaped upon their mistake and have them cornered, requiring a sacrifice and a retreat.

I guess that's just all to say, I don't think he'll take this route, even if offered by the President, anytime soon.

[Dave S]

Lott would be replaced by a rat. He is holding all the cards.

The Rat could only serve 90 days before a special election would be held. You really think Lott is going to be effective in getting anything done in the next 90 days?

BTW, that brings us to 50-50 where we were two years ago. It doesnt toss control to the Dems. Chafee and the others arent going to jump because it has to be clear to them what's going to occur in 2004 (additional Republicans in Senate). They dont want to end up with an office next to Jeffords in outer siberia.

[Sabertooth]

I blame the rats for making a mountain out of a mole hill.

A predictable mountain out of a stupidly unnecessary molehil of Lott's own making.

I blame the rats for the double standard.

I blame the GOP for gutlessness in holding the Democrats to any standard.
Our low standards for them are a bigger problem than their high standards for us.

I blame Lott for handing them the sword they now wield.

I'm in absolute agreement.

Lott is a spineless, unprincipled buffoon, but... if we play this wrong, we will lose the senate before the new term starts. It's a fragile majority, and we need to keep it, even with a stupid dickweed like Lott in charge.

Isn't the best solution to get another Majority Leader and have Lott remain in the Senate? That's the premise of my post at the top of this thread.

[John Lenin]

You got a problem with conservatism?

No, but I have a problem with losing.

[Jeff Chandler]

Even if you disregard Lott's comments at Sen. Thurmonds birthday party, I felt that he should have stepped down after the impeachment process that he completely bungled. To me, it was obvious that he was being controlled during this process by outside forces, and made the impeachment managers look terrible. I believe somebody had (has) FBI files on Lott, and has rendered him completely ineffective.

 

I can't disagree with a word of that. I would like to see someone else in his place, but not under these circumstances. Lott should not be forced out by the likes of Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, etc., and their media cohorts. The rats must never be allowed to succeed with their high tech lynchings.

[MonroeDNA]

Ditto what you said. Good piece, BTW.

[ApesForEvolution]

I don't get a ping to this brilliant essay? Saber, this Ape is hurt.

[The Iguana]

Sink,

You could also say I'm fighting on the side of Robert George, David Frum, David Brooks, Bill Kristol, Peggy Noonan, Armstrong Williams, James Taranto, and the editorial boards of the NY Post, National Review, and the Wall Street Journal.

To name just the ones off the top of my head.

As for Waters and Lee? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I refuse to accept the notion that Lott did not know what he was saying; did not know that the Dixiecrat ticket was about segregation and Jim Crow first last and foremost (as opposed to fighting communism or a strong national defense - give me a break!).

The more I learn about Lott - and not just his distant past, but his present day and recent past as well - the harder it is to accept the notion that Lott, at best, has a serious moral blind spot when it comes to race relations (to say nothing of horrible political judgment); at worst, he harbors what can only be described as racist leanings.

Men can grow. I have no reason to think that Lott can't. But he'll have to do it somewhere other than the majority leader's office.

Sorry, Sink. Your loyalty is admirable but quite misplaced.

He doesn't deserve it.

[Sabertooth]

I don't think such people have the ability to see that the people of America still honor personal sacrifice above most other things -- the willingness to lay down your personal station, your personal stature, for a greater good. Lott doing what you propose would raise his stature, amongst Republicans and the great unpolitical mass at least.

Exactly.

Al Gore had such an opportunity after the first lawfully-mandated Florida recount. Had he been capable a gracious concession then, his stature as a statesman would be acclaimed, and the '04 nomination would be his.

Instead, he clutched for power, and is diminished. Lott still has a chance to avoid such a fate.

[EternalVigilance]

Lott's got the whip hand here.

Of course he does, but unless he puts the good of his party and country ahead of his own interests (by doing what is suggested by this thread), it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

[MonroeDNA]

Unfortunately, Lott is compromised, with his FBI file in a dem database. Bisexual stuff, while in college, as a male cheerleader.

The dems won't let him resign his ML post, without resigning from the Senate.

[Jeff Chandler]

A predictable mountain out of a stupidly unnecessary molehil of Lott's own making.

True

I blame the GOP for gutlessness in holding the Democrats to any standard.
Our low standards for them are a bigger problem than their high standards for us.

True

Isn't the best solution to get another Majority Leader and have Lott remain in the Senate? That's the premise of my post at the top of this thread.

Not under these circumstances. The pubs must stand up to the rat bullies and their media cohorts once and for all.

[sinkspur]

He has voted twice against extending the 65 civil rights act, once against the 64 act being extended.

Yes. He has some good company on those, including many Democrats.

Voting against a particular bill without knowing what amendments were added tells me nothing. Did the Civil Rights Act set quotas?

Ronald Reagan initially opposed the MLK holiday. Why? Because he thought we had enough federal holidays. Trent Lott was among MANY who opposed the MLK holiday.

As to blacks on his staff, I'm not sure that proves anything either. Clarence Thomas didn't have any blacks on HIS staff until three years ago.