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."

[TigersEye]

If Lott steps down he will be giving a tacit admission that he's a racist and the dems will push until he resigns his Senate seat. That's the long and the short of it.

The dems are pretty smart too. They've got the pubs doing their dirty work.

[TLBSHOW]

Many posters here at fr are being played. By rats!

[Sabertooth]

The dems are pretty smart too. They've got the pubs doing their dirty work.

Most of the dirty work has been done by Lott... how did the Democrats manage that?

This "pawns of the Democrats" shtick is wearing a bit thin. Really.

When a party or a people is strongly divided over a politician, that politician can rightly be described as "divisive." Senator Lott is now far too divisive to remain as Majority Leader.

[dogbyte12]

Most of the dirty work has been done by Lott... how did the Democrats manage that?

Statement #1 12-8-02 by Lott spokesman: Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong." So... on Saturday, we read that we who think it was offensive are idiots to read anything into it. Strike #1

Statement #2 12-10-02 This was a lighthearted celebration of the 100th birthday of legendary Senator Strom Thurmond. My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life." It was lighthearted that I said that I thought the dixiecrats were swell. Get a life folks. Strike #2

Statement #3 12-11-02 "A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth and I apologize for my statement to anyone who was offended by it." Lott uses the word discarded instead of wrong, which is telling. i.e. If people believe that I was talking about the discarded 2002 Mercedes, they were wrong, I am referring to the 2003 model. I am sorry for the confusion. Again, he fouled up. Strike 3...

Finally, he actually stated late this week, that he believes segregation was wrong. After 3 failed statements didn't cut it. This is Jesse Jackson's fault how exactly? Did Jesse help him in releasing his statements?

Trent Lott would have ended this by last week-end with a simple declarative statement that he apologized for his words, segregation was wrong, he doesn't believe in it any more, and it is immoral, and he is utterly chagrined that his off the cuff remark on it's face seemed like he was supporting a policy that was a stain in our history.

Trent did this to himself.

[Sabertooth]

Trent Lott would have ended this by last week-end with a simple declarative statement that he apologized for his words, segregation was wrong, he doesn't believe in it any more, and it is immoral, and he is utterly chagrined that his off the cuff remark on it's face seemed like he was supporting a policy that was a stain in our history.

No no no... you see last weekend, Trent was still being possessed by the eeeeeevil Democrats.

Nice play-by-play, btw.

[dogbyte12]

I just dug up this fun fact from 1988...

The more inclusive Cochran approach contrasted with an embarrassing experience that Trent Lott encountered in his successful 1988 bid to the U.S. Senate. After his opponent, Congressman Wayne Dowdy, had accused Lott of having hired only 2 blacks among the 163 people he had hired since his election to the U.S. House in 1972, Lott responded that he had hired 5 or 6 and that few African-Americans had ever come to him for a job (Coleman, 1993; Shaffer, 1991).

So from January 73 to Summer 88... in 15 years... Lott hired 5 or 6 of them colored folks out of 163 staffers. 3% of his staff in other words. In a state that is 36.6% african american. Does Lott feel shagrined by this? Does it bother him to even hire a few "colored folks" for PR purposes?

No.

In 1999, the Washington Post, during the CCC involvement scandal with Lott, took a look at his staffing once again. He now had 1 black, a mail room worker, on a staff of 65. Or 1.5% of his staff... again in a state with 36.6% black citizens, when the national average is 12.3%.

I am not a proponent of affirmative action, but this is scandalous. Any US company with this kind of record would be hauled into court. Of course Congress exempts itself from civil rights violations.

[MHGinTN]

Do you actually think it wise for the president to be seen 'telling' the Senator or ordering the Senate what to do? The president should send a messenger to the Lott home and make plain the fact that Lott is and will remain nothing but a liability as long as he holds on to the Chairmanship. But forcing Lott to leave the seat is the job of the pubbies in the Senate. It is they who must have the balls to set this buffoon aside for new leadership. Will they do it? I'm really starting to wonder, given their weakness in letting the depsotic democrats frame the issue. has even one lilly-livered pubby in the media or in office asked one of these mouthing off democrats just why no one has even bothered to ask Lott what he meant to infer would have been avoided had Strom been elected? As Rev. Peterson put it on Fox last night, this is all about power, the democrats loss of it, and the republican's inability to exploit it!

[Sabertooth]

"Do you actually think it wise for the president to be seen 'telling' the Senator or ordering the Senate what to do?"

No, I'm just giving a basic outline. See my #46 on this thread.

[Torie]

Well he brings home the pork and 20% of the black vote, so everybody loves him anyway in Mississippi.

[Torie]

Some of the moderates seem to be anxious that Lott's replacement will be a red meat type. I suspect ambivalence is rampant in the GOP caucus, and that there is no joy in Mudville anymore. In any event, I am not sure what is best myself, although I have a strong leaning, and counsel patience. There is no need to rush to a decision. I read the transcript of Lott's mea culpa speech. It was better than I thought. He sort of implied that he may have fallen short earlier in his career. Obviously, he needs to do more. And the CCC wild card lurks.

[Texasforever]

but I am troubled that some of them are not simply standing up for the GOP in their mind, or fighting the liberals, or what have you, but are simply racist themselves, and actually do agree that the dixiecrats were swell folks.

Pardon me but that is a racist statement.

[TLBSHOW]

as Jesse Lee Peterson said

And Republicans who fail to support him are displaying cowardice.

[Texasforever]

Trent Lott would have ended this by last week-end with a simple declarative statement that he apologized for his words, segregation was wrong,

He did that with his very first apology and the Whitehouse accepted it as shown in the Dec. 10th WH press briefing. Then the next day Olypia Snowe came on CNN and demanded a press conference from Lott. Then the Whitehouse backed her up. Meet your new Majority Leader Snowe.

[dogbyte12]

Well, Lott got 11% of the black vote in 2000. But who is counting anyways? ;)

Actually the vote totals in Mississippi are quite fascinating. Lott won 66% of the vote, but actually lost in voters under 30 49 to 48. Go all the way to voters 60+ though, and Lott won 78 to 20%

[Torie]

I should add that one test will be how well Lott handles hostile press questioning. And he will need to make himself available to the press. Hiding in a bunker will be a signal that he really has lost his ability to be effective. I have this Walter Mitty desire to be a part of that press. I have so many questions to ask. What I would really like is a 30 minute interview with Lott.

[BraveMan]

Be prepared to be vilified as a traitor to the GOP for taking the position that Lott should step down. . .

This man's life will be ruined and it will be all YOUR fault . . . < /sarcasm >

[Torie]

Well I was just winging it, and repeating what I heard. Obviously, that is somewhat unwise. I probably should make a list as to whom I can trust regarding factual assertions. Sadly, the list will not be all that long.

[John Lenin]

Lott's not going anywhere, keep the faith. You don't throw a guy out after an election sweep. Let the whiners whine. It's funny and in time when they see what a mistake they made we can say "I told you".

[TLBSHOW]

Looks like the right is doing the rats work for them

Like

Kathleen Parker

Laura Ingraham

Andrew Sullivan

Jonah Goldberg

Michelle Malkin

and many others...

[TLBSHOW]

Ann Coulter would never write the bs that the SO CALLED right wing writers wrote this week! In fact she took on Al Sharpton on Hannity and Colmes last night!