Trent Lott's Debacle - Now, Bush Must Act

December 14th, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Dave S]

It was a question. Did I leave the question mark off. If so sorry.

[Torie]

Feeling lonely?

[TLBSHOW]

Are you?

Every writer that attacked lott that is a so called right wing writer can never again write for our side without a barf alert.

[Torie]

Every writer that attacked lott that is a so called right wing writer can never again write for our side without a barf alert.

That is a statement of supreme hubris. I don't mind being alone, or close to it, in some of my views here. I call them as I see them.

[Torie]

I might add, that most articles from columnists might now need a "barf alert" if you had your way. OF course, I don't think any article should. It is sophmoric, and I don't need juveniles instructing me as to what/who is good and what/who is bad.

[wardaddy]

Good post Sink!

[TLBSHOW]

So why are these “girly boys,” as Ann Coulter once called them, acting as if Trent Lott burned a cross on Colin Powell’s lawn? Most of them have ulterior motives. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, wants to prove his social liberalism to moderate readers. Opposing the right-winger from the Deep South is a natural way to achieve that goal.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/806502/posts?page=342

[Dave S]

So why are these “girly boys,” as Ann Coulter once called them, acting as if Trent Lott burned a cross on Colin Powell’s lawn? Most of them have ulterior motives. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, wants to prove his social liberalism to moderate readers. Opposing the right-winger from the Deep South is a natural way to achieve that goal.

Oh so its wrong for us to infer motives from Lott's own words but you know the motives of those who critize him. Isnt that called hypocracy? Just curious. Have a good evening.

[Torie]

Andrew Sullivan, for instance, wants to prove his social liberalism to moderate readers

Sullivan is hard wiring. He doesn't feel a need to prove anything to anybody about how PC or un PC he is. In fact, in probably takes pleasure in being out of anyone's box as much as possible. He is an independent thinker, and calls them as he sees him, which is why I am sympatico with him. And he is a social liberal, except where he isn't. I like that too. The fact is that most mainstream conservative intellectual opinion has nothing but caustic things to say about Lott's comments, and amended comments, and just how long it took for Lott to finally utter the statement that he thought segregation was wrong, something he has probably never said before in his life.

[TLBSHOW]

What is your ulterior motive for attacking Lott and the President who I may add has already told you his thoughts about Lott? In case you missed it, its right here.

FLEISCHER: The president's judgment call is that what Sen. Lott said was offensive and that was wrong, that Sen. Lott has, rightly, apologized for it. And that's what the president shared yesterday. And I think these are some of the issues that will come up later today.

CBS: And that's good enough for him to put the issue to bed?

FLEISCHER: This is what the president has said.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29989

[Texasforever]

something he has probably never said before in his life.

Why should he say something is wrong that only exists today at the pleasure of blacks and democrats?

[TLBSHOW]

So you see no problem with you and the others doing the rats work for them?

[Sabertooth]

Isnt that called hypocracy?

That would depend on which one of him is posting.

[TLBSHOW]

Everyone of those writers including I may add Noonan are now being used by the rats against the right, you see no problem with that?

[TLBSHOW]

oh wow that was a good one LOL

So answer the question what is your real motive?

[Torie]

None. They are not obsessed with "Rats." Neither am I. They are just interested in doing what seems ethically defensable, and what is the long term impact on the political goals which they wish to foster. What the "Rats" want is irrelevant, and a distraction. In fact, some "Rats" have been defending Lott. Perhaps you missed it. Daschle was for while, and former Senator Simon has been, for example.

[Torie]

Because it is right. And from his perspective, because it is the only way to save his skin, to the extent it is not too little too late.

[Sabertooth]

The fact is that most mainstream conservative intellectual opinion has nothing but caustic things to say about Lott's comments, and amended comments, and just how long it took for Lott to finally utter the statement that he thought segregation was wrong, something he has probably never said before in his life.

Ya know, you just rang quite true... I'm having an ever-tougher time believing this...

"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."

...is the statement of a man who never held the belief the words convey, or perhaps doesn't harbor some affinity for their meaning still.

[Torie]

Add Bennett, Derbyshire, the WSJ editorial page, the whole gang at the Weekly Standard, Sowell, Krauthammer, O'Byrne, and well just about the entire mainstream conservative intellectual movement. Has your beloved Coulter (I don't consider her an intellectual but whatever) actually penned a piece on this matter?

[Texasforever]

Because it is right.

When there is an accounting done of why after 50 years of self-flagellation, 6 trillion bucks down the rat hole with blacks just as bad off as they were in 1948 then I may agree with you. There has to come a time when the mirror and responsibility is turned on those that have failed to take advantage of sincere attempts to right past wrongs.