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."
Lott is going to leave, I stand by my prediction that he is out by tomorrow.
This sentence is unbelieveable!
You don't think Lott meant anything racist, or that he is, in fact, racist, still it's an "inescapable fact" that he is racist.
Help me out here. I don't get it.
I need you, and I'm asking you as you President to do this for the good of America."
And, were I Lott, I'd look Bush in the eye and say
Mr. President, do you think I'm a racist?
If you don't, why are you asking me to step down instead of defending me?
I'm too racist to be Majority Leader, but not racist enough to have me on your team?
Then Bush spanked him and Lott stood up and took his beating in public. But, its not enough for you.
Lott has to be detroyed.
Since this is the base of your thesis, it really should be supported- which you haven't even tried to do.
It's not an easy political calculation IMO.
And those who want Lott out have canonized themselves as being the only ones who have any integrity, because, even though Lott's not a racist, he did screw up impeachment.
Tell me how that has the remotest thing to do with "integrity."
Either Lott's a racist, and you don't have the guts to say so, or he's not, and you're carrying out a petty vendetta.
Oh, and Lott's not going anywhere. Not any time soon.
And destroyed he will be, if that is what it takes. Lott is gone.
Help me out here. I don't get it.
The inescapable fact is not that Lott is a racist, it's that on the very face his breathtakingly ill-considered remarks, the plainest sense was that he was paying homage to Strom Thrumond's segregationist campaign of 1948.
When someone says, "I'm gonna kill him," the plainest sense is that he intends murder, though an examination of context might inform us otherwise.
Words mean things, and Lott's words mean he is through as Majority Leader.
Very nice. At least your honest about it.
"Ef" your phoney "integrity."
You want to destroy a man because the race pimps have embarrassed you, they say Lott's a racist, and you dance to their tune.
This is about petty, selfish, vindictiveness on the part of some conservatives who've never like Lott anyway, and they see their opening.
Well, you better grow some cajones, son, because Lott's not going anywhere, at least not on YOUR timetable.
Lott has to be lassoed to keep from destroying the GOP majority in the Senate and our agenda.
"Segregation is wrong. Segregation is wrong."
Were you sleeping when he said those words?
I'll bet you $1000 hard cash, or any amount less, that you are wrong.
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.