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."
Don't you remember when Jimmy "ethnic purity" Carter accused Reagan of using racist code words during campaign speeches in the 1980 campaign?
Ron Jr. was so ticked off by it, there was a flap over whether he'd shake Carter's hand on Inauguration Day.
Give that man a cigar.
We said the same thing about Newt and Livingston. TLB he can't withstand this, he just does not have enough goodwill and a party with grit to survive. The shame is that no matter who replaces him, they will not dare challenge the democrats for fear of being hung out to dry alone. Republicans are so cowed that I wonder why the hell they even try to gain the majority.
"Segregation is a stain on our nation's soul. There is no other way to describe it. It represents one of our lowest moments in our history."
"I grew up in an environment that condoned policies and views that we now know were wrong and immoral, and I repudiate them. Segregation and racism are immoral."
It's funny how some will jump all over comments that I feel were taken out of context, yet look the other way when he clears up any misunderstanding by his comments by clarifying his stance on the issue at hand.
Senator Lott, who I will be the first to say has made decisions in which I don't agree with (leadership-wise), should have been more aware of statements he was going to make in light of him being the majority leader. That post held by a republican should assume that anything and everything you say will be covered by the press, and misconstrued in anyway possible. So yes, that was an ignorant and stupid mistake upon Senator Lott.
That being said, we know his stance on a terrible part of our history. It's not in support of segregation. But, I will ask my fellow freepers. Does a stance held a man 50 years ago bar somebody from saying any kinds words about him today in 2002? Is Senator Lott banned from praising President Washington? Washington owned slaves. I proud to say that we're pretty dang well off because of his leadership and the other founding fathers. I guess President Bush should resign because he has a portrait of President Washington in the White House. (according to this logic.)
For those who have read any of my posts regarding the civil war will see that I'm very pro-union and am very much against the Democratic south foolishly trying to leave the Union. I'm ashamed of my heritage in that sense. I'm a Southerner and proud to be from Texas, but I'll be the first to stand up against what the South did and the terrible things done to African-Americans afterwards.
This is the year 2002, and I would like to think that most people in power in DC would be against the racism that the South (and north as well) pushed in the past. I know there are some in DC who have shady pasts. Sen. Byrd is one of them. But, I honestly believe that Senator Lott does not support the evils that were done in the past, and his words condemning those actions speak for clearly for themselves.
Yeah, that rings a bell. Can't remember if it was the same speech as the one with Carter's code words. Dunno about Lott's involvement.
Seems to me I recall that Reagan was criticized for lacking the Civil Rights credentials to honor the slain, or speak there, or something along those lines.
Mark me as skeptical of your words "Bryd" and "censored."
Of course they're not dumb. The heat on Lott is coming from President Bush and from conservative talking heads like Peggy Noonan, Jonah Goldberg, Andrew Sullivan, John Podhoretz, Thomas Sowell, David Horowitz, Michelle Malkin, John McWhorter, Charles Krauthammer, John Fund et al, not from the Democrats. Hillary knows Lott is God's gift to the Democrats. The NYT knows Lott is God's gift to the Democrats. Tom Daschle knows Lott is God's gift to the Democrats. They also know that Lott has a good shot at blackmailing his colleagues into letting him stay on. Why in heaven would they want to mess up a dream scenario like that?
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.