Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: AppyPappy
What racial remarks?

OK, Hank, let's review.

Lott said that WHEN Strom ran for President (1948) his state voted for him.

He said that they were proud of voting for him (in the Presidential election of 1948).

And that had the rest of America followed their lead (in the Presidential election of 1948) we wouldn't have had "all these problems."

OK, how do YOU interpret these remarks. Please note in advance that, despite Lott's claims to the contrary, that there was NO mention of defense or fighting communism in the Dixiecrat Platform of 1948 - Thurmond was running almost completely on segregation.

18 posted on 12/18/2002 10:11:44 AM PST by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]


To: dirtboy
OK, how do YOU interpret these remarks.

He was being nice to Strom. Why don't you ask for clarification from Lott before ASSUMING what he meant? George Bush has praised Lott in the past. Can we assume that George Bush is a racist?

27 posted on 12/18/2002 10:13:31 AM PST by AppyPappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy
Please note in advance that, despite Lott's claims to the contrary, that there was NO mention of defense or fighting communism in the Dixiecrat Platform of 1948 - Thurmond was running almost completely on segregation.

Would you be offended if I didn't believe that just because you say it?

Obviously, you have a copy of the Dixiecrat Platform in front of you.

Would you mind terribly sharing it with us?

36 posted on 12/18/2002 10:16:22 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy
And that had the rest of America followed their lead (in the Presidential election of 1948) we wouldn't have had "all these problems."

OK, how do YOU interpret these remarks.

To tell you the truth, I took "all these problems" to mean the problems with terrorism. I never saw any way to connect that to black people, and the belief that Lott was endorsing segregation still seems to me to be an unsupportable stretch. (But don't get me wrong: under any circumstances it was a moronic comment.)

Whether I'm right or not, Lott could probably have deflected this by unloading both indignant barrels in response, but instead he opted for the Jimmy Swaggart option, pleading guilty to the charge. At that point, his fate was sealed. There's no defending a man who won't defend himself.

77 posted on 12/18/2002 10:27:19 AM PST by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: dirtboy; AppyPappy
Thurmond was running almost completely on segregation.

Acutally he was running on States Rights [one of which would have concerned segregation].

But Lott was not talking about the campaign, but a Thurmond Presidency! (As remote as that might have been!)

So, do you think that would have been the only thing a President Thurmond would have had to deal with? Or would have dealt with?

For example, you think a President Thurman would have done nothing about the North Korean invasion of South Korea because he would have been tooooooo busy signing executive orders dealing with segregation?

130 posted on 12/18/2002 10:43:28 AM PST by F-117A
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson