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."

[hinckley buzzard]

"Funny that he was good enough to be elected ML for five times"

The current issue aside, do you think the Senate has functioned effectively and appropriately the last eight years?

I know the democraps are obstructionist but that's just politics as usual.

The impeachment fiasco, which surfaces on these threads, was more than a frustration. It was a sign that something isn't right with the majority. Lott's DOA rebuff to the House made no sense.

I would concede that there weren't 67 votes to be had; but a sober airing of the evidence, out of respect for the House managers and the nation, and the victims of clinton's crimes, would have been a salutary tonic.

No need for hysterical Monica sideshow crap, just the goods, presented professionally. Then take a vote and let the chips fall where they may.

It was an opportunity for Lott to show the nation that the issues weren't "all about sex," regardless if clinton had been convicted or not. As it happens it was probably good that he wasn't. But Lott blew the opportunity
to elevate the public debate.

In so doing Lott undermined the credibility of every good faith Republican in the House and Senate who wanted the truth to come out. And that's an issue of his lack of integrity.

As for "power-sharing," did you find that a good example of Lott's leadership? I found it to be an inexplicable cave-in.

There's something sick and twisted in the Lott Senate. I have no secret knowledge as to what it is but I know what I see. And coming back to the issue at hand, it all revolves around Lott himself.

Remember, this is the man who said it was easier being the minority leader because he didn't really have to be responsible for anything.
So now he's leading a slim majority. how much confidence do you have in his commitment to leadership?

Finally, how many other people offerred their praise to Thurmond, but without finding it necessary to mention his segregationist campaign?

Many fellow senators and other people have been praising the old man but only Lott apparently, needed to dredge up 1948. Why?

In the Bob Jones case, the Justice Department already filed an amicus brief. Why did Lott feel the need to file a separate one in which he explicitly sought to preserve the right of the private school to practice "racial discrimination(the words he used in the brief)?"

Some one said this was actually a First Amendment case.
Fine. Have there been no other challenges to the First Amendment that Lott could have chosen as a vehicle to display his devotion to civil liberties?

Fortunately perhaps, we here in the bleachers have kibbitzing rights without having to make decisions. But for my money-- No, ML Lott isn't worth a bucket of warm spit--and hasn't been. He's dangerous, and he needs to go.

[my right]

I think GOP politicians secretly adore media bias, as it often gives thier cowardice an alibi

Perhaps you are right, but why? Why are they collective cowards. If someone could solve this quandary it may be possible to put a real dent in their media machine.

[EternalVigilance]

Lott's got leverage; that's evidenced by the fact that rumors are surfacing about the fallout of forcing him from the Leadership.

Oh, you mean the blackmail lead trial balloon that came crashing to the ground last night?

[Endeavor]

"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."

And you'd love that, wouldn't you?

You approve of a blackmailer. By your own statements, I'm left to infer that you approve of "any means necessary."

[ApesForEvolution]

"Fine, Mr. President. Enjoy dealing with Tom Daschle. Again."

And you believe that if he did that that his ability to do it requires leaving him in leadership by blackmail. You make the case against the Lott.

[WRhine]

Get off your high horse. It's like this Cat, if Lott resigns under pressure from the powers that be then the RATS get rewarded AGAIN for their gutter smear tactics and they will SOON find another republican target.

I can't believe how many so-called conservatives want to assist the democrats in lynching Lott and risk losing the Senate over his non-specific remarks that he thought Thurmond would have made a great president. At his 100th Birthday Party for Christ Sakes!

If you want the democrats to retake the Senate, keep on going on this.

A Smarter Party would stand up to the democrats and tell em' in no uncertain terms, that if they want to play these kind of games then every Race-Baiting, Socialist, Commie, Criminal Democrat (covers just about all of them) are going to have their lives turned inside out...starting with the KKK Grand Wizard in Virginia. Enough is enough.

[TLBSHOW]

that blackmail bs was from the du or some left wing web site

[ApesForEvolution]

Ignorant is what liberals love to see in conservatives that is how they win calling you and me racist.

Which is a good reason, if you wish to be a party leader, to avoid even the appearance of being a bigot. Let alone a poor leader that bends over to RATS at every opportunity.

[cynicom]

Dave...

OK..Run Lott off he has deserved it for a long time. Now what???

[deport]

All the things you cover are justified to be explored. I'm not saying they shouldn't nor that Lott has been a great Senator or leader. But the flip side of this situation is reality.... And imo that reality is the democrats are out to play hard ball politics, rough, dirty and below the belt. That said they want the Senate back or as much power back as they can get. That is all this is about at the present time.

If they succeed in this endeavor and I think they most likely will then we, you and all the rest of the citizens will dance the Democrat jig. Extortion, racism, who knows what else will be used to get their way. Each time it works it only becomes easier to use the next time.

Either stand up to it or accept it as a way of governing for the future... just my opinion, of course as I don't have the insight into all this that most around here seem to have.

[Victoria Delsoul]

"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

Why deny the fact the Mississippi voted for Thurmond? I don't see anything racist on Lott's statement and he has apologized for any "racist" implication his statement might've had. Lott has already said that segregation and racism are immoral, a "stain on our nation's soul" and "one of the lowest moments in our nation's history." Since GW is making endless efforts to attract blacks and especially Hispanics, no one could believe that the GOP is a Party of racists. We have endless threads at FR regarding how GW should stop attracting Hispanics.

I don't jump to the Liberal game of gotcha! The Democrats are looking for any excuse to regain power. It's just too bad that some of us can't see it and let their dislike for Lott take over.

[ApesForEvolution]

The Vacant Lott's pluses and minuses columns are pretty lopsided and this was a big minus.

[Endeavor]

Here, maybe this'll help: http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

[EternalVigilance]

that blackmail bs was from the du or some left wing web site

Hell if it was.

Sinkpur has been weilding that club at us for the last two days...and it has been picked up by others as well.

Trent Lott resigning from the Senate would be a betrayal of the highest order.

[deport]

Okay, now you've succeeded in ousting Lott, what's next? Back to power sharing and maybe with another jumper say hello to ML Daschle.... Right now it appears that Lott is most likely gone, so what is next?

[tsomer]

"I wish to announce that I will be resigning my seat in the U.S. Senate. My resignation will be effective as soon as my Senate colleague Ted Kennedy is indicted for the murder of that poor girl, Mary Jo Kopechne."

And: Maxine Waters steps down for false allegations of drug running against the Bush and Reagan administrations, made during the Clinton administration and apparently in order to obscure Clinton's direct involvement while governor.

Robert Byrd steps down for his membership in the KKK.

Any others?

[tsomer]

"I wish to announce that I will be resigning my seat in the U.S. Senate. My resignation will be effective as soon as my Senate colleague Ted Kennedy is indicted for the murder of that poor girl, Mary Jo Kopechne."

And: Maxine Waters steps down for false allegations of drug running against the Bush and Reagan administrations, made during the Clinton administration and apparently in order to obscure Clinton's direct involvement while governor.

Robert Byrd steps down for his membership in the KKK.

Any others?

[EternalVigilance]

I can't believe how many so-called conservatives want to assist the democrats in lynching Lott and risk losing the Senate over his non-specific remarks that he thought Thurmond would have made a great president.

The only risk of that happening is if Trent Lott is a spoiled, selfish traitor.

[Sabertooth]

Why deny the fact the Mississippi voted for Thurmond?

Mississippi's vote for Thrumond was a vote for racist segregation. Why say that one is proud of that vote?

At the top of the thread, I scripted an alternative means for Lott to ackowledge Thurmond's candidacy while simultaneously honoring his change of heart and extolling the best in America. Would you agree that if Lott had said something like that, there would now be no controversy?

[Sabertooth]

The only risk of that happening is if Trent Lott is a spoiled, selfish traitor.

Details, details...