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."
Your scenario is fine with me.
BTW, I wasn't intending that Bush ought to publicly dictate anything, I should have made it clear that it ought to be a private conversation. Perhaps that's not possible in Crawford, but I intended that invitation be made in the interests of graciousness, diplomacy, and hospitality. However, as I said, I'm sure there are more artful ways of going about what I was outlining.
The nation wouldn't be better off, and Lott didn't say that the nation would be better off with segregation in 1948.
He then was incredibly foolish in saying something that could so easily be interpreted so contraversially.
I'll agree with you here.
He then compounded that error with an underwhelming apology.
There've been FOUR apologies, and there will be more. How many are enough for you?
Basically, Lott is either a racist jerk, or an idiot suffering from diarrhea of the mouth.
Actually, you'd get rid of Trent Lott if he got a traffic ticket. This is still about impeachment, isn't it?
He is upset at Lott... for apologizing. I do know what is in his heart alot better than some of the Lott apologists here, 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.
I am so thankful Bush is the president. I have a sneaky feeling this is more an age thing than anything else. Those of us who were born say after the 1964 voting rights act, have a very different experience than those born before.
I grew up knowing that slavery and Jim Crow were sad relics of the past, and that anybody could make it in this country regardless of race, with a combination of intelligence, drive, and opportunity.
My co-worker is 60. Went to segregated schools, drank at separate fountains, and didn't actually know any black person personally growing up. Your formative years do matter. I knew stupid people of asian decent, brilliant african americans, and Mexicans who could play basketball. Living in a desegregated world made me realize that both quotas, and segregation were both poor policies. I think Trent Lott's kids (does he have some) would have a much different world view, conservative yes, but more exposed to the differences around them
Just my random musings.
Not too long ago 3,000 innocent people were killed by people who sought to divide us. We have thousands of young men and women who are about to put their lives on the line for us and they need us to stand together behind them and not be bicking over something that was said at a friggin birthday party no matter how stupid it was. It's time to suck it up and stop worrying about things that don't quite equate with massive outbreaks of smallpox, or a nuclear devise detonating in a major US city.
Did Reagan say that segregation as a matter of public policy was acceptable? Lott's amicus brief sure said so.
I pray you are right!
You can't bring up Thurmond's '48 campaign without bringing up segregation. That was the defining theme of the Dixiecrats.
That Lott didn't understand this tar baby is the reason he's under the gun right now.
I will not be disappointed because he will not be "removed." If he chooses to leave on his own, or submit himself to another vote, that's fine.
But neither sanctimonious conservatives nor rabid race-pimps are going to force him out on their timetable.
And, he will leave the Senate.
1) Committee chairmanship of his choice so he can continue to bring home the pork for Mississippi.
2) Promise of an ambassadership to the country of his choice or a job with a major lobbyist in 2004 should he care to retire then rather than serve his entire term.
3) The gratitude and respect of his comrades and party.
On the other hand if he doesnt step down, Bush should make it clear to him that Mississipii will suffer as will his post Senate career. That he will be persona non grata in Republican circles and that Bush will continue to separate himself from him.
In other words, make him an offer he cant refuse!
Unless a miracle happens I say he announces he is stepping down by Tuesday morning.
I don't think Lott is a racists, I think he is mindnumbingly stupid!
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.