Skip to comments.
Lott supported by some blacks in home state after remarks
Washington Times ^
| 12/15/02
| Janita Poe, COX NEWS SERVICE
Posted on 12/14/2002 10:55:22 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:59:39 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
LULA, Miss.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: deadhorsealert
1
posted on
12/14/2002 10:55:22 PM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
Maybe somebody here has the statistics (I don't), but my understanding is that Lott runs far better among black voters than most Republicans. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought I saw somewhere that he routinely gets 20 to 25% of the black vote, while most Republicans fall below 10%. Does anyone here have the true numbers? I've also heard that Strom Thurmond always got more black votes than the average Republican.
2
posted on
12/15/2002 12:29:37 AM PST
by
puroresu
To: puroresu
The answer is RINO Lott is an excellent pork barrel politician. Black people aren't voting for Lott because Lott longs for the return of the confederacy. He gets their votes because he brings home the bacon from Washington. Same reason all those Republicans voted for Tim Johnson in S Dakota...
3
posted on
12/15/2002 1:39:04 AM PST
by
ambrose
Comment #4 Removed by Moderator
To: puroresu
I think you're wrong, he only got about 5% (I think that's what one recent thread said)
5
posted on
12/15/2002 2:11:00 AM PST
by
xm177e2
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: xm177e2
7
posted on
12/15/2002 3:26:35 AM PST
by
puroresu
To: BlueJambi
Well, it's the old liberal double standard. One of them can make an outright racist remark or recommend segregation for blacks, and it's okay. But if a Republican makes some comment that high strung people interpret as racist, we're told that even the possibility that hyper-sensetive people might think it's racist is enough to merit tossing the offender overboard. Since no one in the Republican Party advocates segregation for whites today, the rule there is to find out if they supported it 40 years ago, and then to go after them. Having purged the "racist" from the party, we can then announce that we have higher standards than the Democrats. After all, we punish members who aren't racists if the Democrats say they are, while the Democrats don't do anything to their members who really are racists. See how this "higher standard" thing works?
Besides, how can we demand that Bill Clinton be pushished for felony perjury and obstruction of justice when we allow Lott to make off-the-cuff comments to retiring colleagues at birthday parties?
Wasn't it Barney Frank who coined the term "appearance of impropriety"? Well, there you go! Lott has the "appearance of impropriety". He made a few remarks that no one paid a bit of attention to until Jesse Jackson, a racist, declared them to be "racist". Other racists like Sharpton joined in. As expected, a large chunk of the GOP, to avoid being called "racist", sided with the racists.
8
posted on
12/15/2002 3:52:48 AM PST
by
puroresu
To: puroresu
I think you summed it up pretty well just now.
To: All
its telling that this thread got so little replys
10
posted on
12/15/2002 7:59:35 AM PST
by
TLBSHOW
To: puroresu
bump
11
posted on
12/15/2002 10:18:48 AM PST
by
swheats
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson