A request for clarification, as I often get my Bob Jones controversies oncfused: was it the tax-exempt status or the eligibility of Bob Jones students for federal financial aid and student loans that Lott supported? Or both?
Posted on 12/14/2002 10:47:02 AM PST by 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."
Could you post a link where Lott's uncle said that Lott was a dues paying member of the CCC? That and the refusal to sponser the honor to the three murdered freedom riders are the biggest points I think.
The extension of the application to the south of the voting rights monitoring of the Civil Rights Act (there was no vote regarding extending the Civil Rights Act itself; that has no sunset clause), can be defended I suppose because there may not have been any evidence by then that blacks were still being disenfrancised, or more so in the south than in the north, and thus it was discriminatory, and should be ended or applied nationwide. The merits of that are fact driven arguably, not principle driven.
Again, I caution against weakening a case by overstating it. Your two solid bullet points may well be enough to put a stake in his heart, particularly if it can be substantiated that Lott was a dues paying member of the CCC, and has been lying about it. I fear that one, if true, will cause him to exit from the senate. That one is on a whole different level. I hope it proves to be untrue.
The Rat could only serve 90 days before a special election would be held.
I didn't know that.
I wrote a better speech for Lott to have said than his patronizing, cheery speech of yesterday.
"I grew up in a different age. I took my early opinions from the people around me, my parents, my schoolteachers, etc., whom I had no reason as a youth not to respect as my elders. Even in college [re the effort to keep blacks out of his frat] I had not yet become enlightened to the true nature of man and equality.
"Thank goodness I have long changed my youthful views, and I have worked consistently in public service to try and make America better for all people. (Bla bla..)
"However, I feel that my comments, as thoughtless as they were, may have embarrassed my President, my fellow Senators and Congressmen and women, and my party. Therefore, not to allow my party to ever have to hear from their detractors that we are a party who tolerates even slightly bigoted views, I heretofore call for a new vote among Senate Republicans for Majority Leader. I beg forgiveness from the President, from my colleagues, and most of all from the American people, whom I respect deeply and whom I am so sorry to have wronged. Bless you all."
If he could choke something like this out, he might be left with some b*lls and a lot of respect from us all. However, apparently he is playing sandbox blackmail and if he doesn't get to be King then he is going to take all the Tinker Toys and go home to Mommy.
We can't feed the RATs. Stand with Lot over this issue, and later we can fight him about his lack of a spine.
Sinkspur your posts of Lots questions in return put everything in perspective and helped me sort this out in my head...thank you.
I'm still trying to figure out just what "our" agenda is.
It obviously is neither control of our borders from illegal invasion and intrusion, pushing through conservative Court nominees, nor budgetary limitations for the radical anti-American NEA, nor shrinking the federal government.
Anyone doing any destroying here it is Trent Lott.
Why should he care about the "good" of a party that thinks he's too racist to be Majority Leader?
I wouldn't. I'd tell the GOP to stick it.
Unfortunately, Lott is compromised, with his FBI file in a dem database. Bisexual stuff, while in college, as a male cheerleader.
You know, he does have that "sissy boy" look about him.
A request for clarification, as I often get my Bob Jones controversies oncfused: was it the tax-exempt status or the eligibility of Bob Jones students for federal financial aid and student loans that Lott supported? Or both?
You're crazy. That stuff would have been out six years ago, when he succeeded Dole as Majority Leader.
This is "George W. Bush dancing naked on a bar" crap. It never happened.
Lott's supporters seem to want it both ways.
They point out when taking the responsibility for this away from the President, and rightfully so, that ultimately, this decision lies with Lott's Senate colleagues. (While of course ignoring the fact that Lott is going to in all likelihood do what the President tells him to do, irregardless of any invocation of the separation of powers).
But the Dems can take a long walk off a short pier...this is a decision by Republican leaders about who is going to lead them and be one of the most prominent faces on our Party.
So Lott was saying, "I'm a racist and proud of it."? Is that what you're trying to imply?
Nice try, but no cigar.
Very well said.
"Once and for all?" Not under these circumstances.
This is a skirmish. Lott as Majority Leader is a liability in the greater battle.
I guess we need to change the discussion from him being a racist, because doing so would feed the RATs when/if he leaves. But if we make the focus on his flippant remarks we can get him to step down as ML without resigning his seat.
Dang...now I'm back on the fence.
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.