Preach it.
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."
No problem. If we lose the senate now or in 04, I hope Bush and the republicans will not blame it on the conservatives. They whine and plead for our votes, scare us that the sky will fall etc etc and then they rise up in all their self righteousness and destroy their own. That is not politics.
And what, good Sinkspur, is sanctimonious about taking alarm at what are plainly - on their face - racist comments?
Especially when he's said them on more than one occasion?
You continue to defend the indefensible.
This party will sacrifice far too much moral stature - and any chance of passing a real conservative agenda - so long as the neo-confederate, segregationist stink of Trent Lott continues to trail our passage.
I'm not as reticent as Sabertooth. Lott's comments are racist on their face. His "apologies" have been tardy and disingenuous. And a fair case can be made that, based on the evidence, Lott *is* a racist.
And conservatives demonstrate a similar blindspot by blindly defending one of their presumed (though I never presumed it) own no matter how much validity the charge may have - simply because of the repulsiveness of some making the charge.
There is no reason to continue wasting valuable moral and political capital defending this man.
He's not worth it.
Preach it.
He also can't damage his post-Senate career. Lott's being doing things for Mississippi a lot longer than Bush has been around, and he could make a pretty penny sitting on some Mississippi boards of companies he's helped. Plus he'd be a hero to those in Mississippi who voted for him because he'd have been railroaded out of Washington by a Northeastern establishment that they despise anyway.
The gratitude and respect of his comrades and party.
His comrades unseated him because he's a racist. That's not a sign of respect or gratitude.
Lott's in the driver's seat on this one, DaveS, not Bush.
Thank you anyway.
Doesn't anybody see what's really going on here? The rats don't care if Lott goes or stays, and they don't care if they can use this "issue" in 2004. They want to force the Republicans to"prove" that they aren't bigots by agreeing to the liberal agenda on everything from the minimum wage to affirmative action to welfare, free medical care, abortion, etc., etc., etc..
Once they're done with Lott, they'll Bork someone else. They can't be allowed to succeed, even if their success carries with it the positive effect of getting rid of Trent the Roundheeled. They must be defeated every time they do this. That's the big picture.
Lott is not stepping down. Although I am not fond of him as Majority Leader, I listened to what he had to say. He apologized last evening. I am a bit concerned about his appearing on BET, etc, not because he might say something racist, but because I don't think he speaks well without prepared notes.
There HAS to be compromise on certain issues in the Senate. Why? Beacause the Repubs do not have 60 votes to override filibusters of various legislation, etc. What the trick is I suppose is to determine what items can be compromised on without chucking one's core beliefs out the window.
Lott will stay as Majority Leader, but he will hav to tread carefully.
Your post is right on, and is in fact the only path open to having a united party going forward together in strength come January.
In fact, it bears repeating once again:
"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."
By the way, I don't care how it is delivered or where...the important thing is that it is heard and acted upon.
Lott borked himself. Blaming the Democrats is like blaming the cow for the manure on your boot.
Lott single-handedly stopped the case for impeachment against Clinton.
Lott decided to go for PBA ahead of Homeland Security, until Bush stopped him
Lott agreed with Daschle not to go for a two-seat committee majority unless the Republicans won Mary Landrieu’s seat BEFORE the latest election.
That is just a start, but I think that is REAL enough for you.
Half of Free Republic is in favor of legalizing drugs too, which means Free Republic is representative of nothing. It's a discussion forum.
It's not clear whether Lott is a racist or not. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. It is clear, however, that he is a dufus and incapable of being an effective leader of the Republican Party. Lott's out by Tuesday.
Early in the week, I thought he could be saved. Now, it's clear he's toast. Think Gingrich, Toricelli, Packwood, and all the others. Once things reach a certain level, there is no turning back. Who allowed them to get to this level because he was on vacation and not near a TV studio, Lott. He brought himself down.
AS far as Lott's concerned, that's more akin to firing a General who incredibly botched a campaign. Definately something we must do. Cut the man loose.
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.