Yeah, that's it.
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."
I'll mark that down...
:;sinkspur advocates the most destructive outcome to this possible::
There...
I also did not want Lott as majority leader, I expressed that opinion here 3 weeks back.
I hold Republican politicians entirely responsible. It's their job to finish off the Democrats who've shot themselves in the foot, and they've repeatedly failed to even try to get it done.
What you have written here is very very important and is where the Republicans have utterly failed. We all know one big reason why they have failed is because of media bias. Now is the time they can possibly change this by using the bully pulpit of the presidency and the majority in the senate and house to point out these inequities and if the media does not report fairly what is said, this inequity should also be pointed out with every means available.
So, you will defend me when I'm no longer a target, but you won't defend me when I AM a target?
And, why don't you ram it up the RATS rear end NOW while the whole country's watching?
Yeah, that's it.
Very well said, and I totally agree on both points.
You dont think Bush could get McConnel, or Frist, Nickles or Santorum for that matter, to agree to give Lott his choice of chairmanship and pork. Get real. All would willingly agree to this to have shot at replacing Lott.
He also can't damage his post-Senate career. Lott's being doing things for Mississippi a lot longer than Bush has been around, and he could make a pretty penny sitting on some Mississippi boards of companies he's helped.
Want to bet. Bush has one of the biggest rolladexes in existence. He is the all time fund raiser. He is enormously popular, especially in places like Mississippi.
Question why would all these Mississippi corporations want to pay him back for what he's done. Most would be more interested in what he could do for them now. If he could no longer bring home the bacon, there is little reason to have him around. Especially if being associated with him is going to cause trouble for them. Ever think of what Milk producers in New England think of Jeffords these days.
Plus he'd be a hero to those in Mississippi who voted for him because he'd have been railroaded out of Washington by a Northeastern establishment that they despise anyway.
Perhaps, but to many he would just be an embarrasment. I think most Missippians want to get past their sordid past and dont want to continue to be associated with Jim Crow and segregation. Besides virtually all of the potential replacement for Lott are Southernors as well.
If you're going to label me a racist, when I'm not, you better be ready to go down with me, because I'm taking you down with me.
Why would Lott care? He's the American equivalent of a Nazi if you stick the label of racist on him.
I think GOP politicians secretly adore media bias, as it often gives thier cowardice an alibi.
Regards,
The Prez.
Republicans Continue to Embrace Racially Divisive Politics
When incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott told a roomful of people that "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if America had voted for Strom Thurmond's segregationist presidential campaign in 1948, his words shocked the nation.
It was almost inconceivable that, in 2002, an incoming Senate Majority Leader would even imply that segregation would have a beneficial effect on the country.
But then we learned this wasn't the first time.
In 1980, Lott said almost the same exact thing, saying at a political rally, "You know, if we had elected [Thurmond] 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."
Do Senate Republicans really want someone with a pattern of racially divisive statements and a history of supporting organizations with racist policies and goals as their leader? Does Lott's statement represent the values of the Republican party?
With the GOP supporting voter intimidation efforts in recent elections, it's hardly a surprise that they would choose someone like Lott as their leader.
Lloyd Grove of The Washington Post told Tony Snow that James Carville was behind this. It is about getting back control of the Senate NOT about Trent Lott. Who do you think James Carville works for? Had you ever heard of him before the Clintons?
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.