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

To: Jhoffa_
"What did it for me was the BET interview. He crossed the Rubicon right then, imho."

That did me in as well.

It was a disgusting thing to do.

Trent could have fought, he could have turned this into a national debate on race, and racism as a blackmail card. He could have discussed Jackson's "Hymietown" comment, Sharpton's Tawana Bradley incident, the "white nigger" episode (and yes, if it's OK for a US Senator to use that word, then it's OK for me to use that word), and FOUGHT for himself.

Instead, what we get is the nation's top Republican selling out the GOP agenda, and apologizing to anyone darker than George Hamilton who crossed his path.

306 posted on 12/20/2002 11:22:29 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies ]


To: Luis Gonzalez
A ditto bump, LG.
308 posted on 12/20/2002 11:25:31 PM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Yes.

I am a little bothered also that he didn't get more of a defense from the right.

I mean, Daschle even opened the door with his apologizing FOR Lott's stupidity.

I really think it was a real opportunity that could have been crammed successfully right back down their throat with a bare minimum of effort.

Heck, if anyone has a shameful history in this regard it's them. From Carl McCall (sp?) to "Jew Bastards" to the Civil Right's Act, they don't have a leg to support them under any kind of serious scrutiny.

But, that was yesterday. Today I am just hoping our agenda didn't get too dinged up and that our brave politicians won't be ashamed to put it forward.

There's really no use in having control if they don't have the nerve to push our agenda.

314 posted on 12/20/2002 11:30:07 PM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
"... and apologizing to anyone darker than George Hamilton who crossed his path. "

Oh.....THANK YOU, Luis!

The first really good belly laugh I've had in days!
317 posted on 12/20/2002 11:32:33 PM PST by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
He could have discussed Jackson's "Hymietown" comment, Sharpton's Tawana Bradley incident, the "white nigger" episode (and yes, if it's OK for a US Senator to use that word, then it's OK for me to use that word), and FOUGHT for himself.

Yes, but he would have been accused of passing the buck, which would not sit with him well, either. You know, like everybody does it.

324 posted on 12/20/2002 11:41:41 PM PST by Dec31,1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Lott's BET interview was the thing that changed my opinion, too. Once he gave in, denounced the south as having "immoral" leadership, and promised to support affirmative action, I could no longer in good conscience back him.

However, the point I have consistently tried to make in this debate, has been that the attack on Lott was about a lot more than Lott himself. It was an attempt by the Democrats to move our culture so far to the left on racial issues that no one would ever dare to cross the "civil rights" lobby again. The goal was to thoroughly demonize everyone who has ever strayed from the politically correct line on racial issues, or ever will in the future.

If it is now agreed by all "correct thinking" people that Lott's off-the-cuff, friendly praise of Thurmond was such an appalling thing that it merits his demotion and earns public repudiation from everyone, then we're in a whole new realm of thought control. There is no logical reason why praise of our founding fathers will not be soon prohibited as well.

Another target of the left in their attack on Lott was the supreme court. It was designed to frighten "centrist" judges like O'Connor and Kennedy into upholding affirmative action in the upcoming Michigan case. After all, the racist firestorm the left ignited, with help from weak-kneed conservatives, ended with opposition to affirmative action being effectively declared to be beyond the pale politically. Any judge who rules against affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides now knows he or she will be tarred as a racist. Courageous judges like Scalia and Thomas won't be intimidated, but I'm not so sure about O'Connor and Kennedy. Keep your fingers crossed. Say a prayer, because in post-Lott America, we're gonna need it.

If the court does throw out quotas, there will then be a demand that congress reverse the decision, or be smeared as "racist". The Democrats will demand enactment of another "Civil Rights Restoration Act". The media will then ask, "Will you Republicans join the Democrats and pass this important civil rights bill, or are you racist?" There will be plenty of wimpish GOP politicians, including some in the Bush white house, who will want to cut and run on this issue. As with Lott, once the race card is played, they will melt. The precedent has now been set.

The Republicans are, for the most part, terrified of a minority voting block that votes 90% against them already. Any group that voted 90% against the Democrats wouldn't get the time of day from them. In fact, Democrats declare open warfare on any group that even votes 55% against them. But given the choice between infuriating millions of conservatives who voted for them in the last election, or angering a "civil rights" lobby whose votes they will never get no matter what, what do you think the Republicans will do? What have they always done when the race card is played? What did they do when Lott's innocuous comments were declared to be "racist"?

By not defending Lott from the beginning against Orwellian charges, the Republicans, including Lott himself and many establishment conservative columnists, have set a precedent that will haunt us for many years, if not for the rest of our lives.
344 posted on 12/21/2002 12:13:34 AM PST by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies ]

To: Luis Gonzalez
Luis, Lott had no courageous will to address any of the many issues surrounding the cynical political exploitation of racial tension that this event unleashed. He had no standing. It was obvious what he meant by his remarks at Thurmond's gala ... he was throwing a bone to a remnant element of his Mississippi constituency who still grasp the nostalgic vision of their Jim Crow past. He wasn't paying tribute to Thurmond's Senate career or conservative, patriotic stalwart service. It was about the '48 Thurmond platform, his State's support of it, and the better America and Mississippi that would have resulted had ol' Strommer been elected.

What did he mean that things would have been "better"? There is a legitimate proposal to ponder when some Dixie old timers note that in "racist" 1950 Atlanta, a black father en route to enroll his son in a black-only college had to aim his car toward a restaurant or filling station that offered "Blacks Allowed" restrooms where his wife and kids could satisfy their travel break - while in "enlightened" 2000 Atlanta, the black mother and her kids can use any restroom and attend any college anywhere - only there's no father living in the family to drive them there, no college plans cuz the kids dropped out by 10th grade, and there's no money for a family car anyway.

If Lott felt the "problem" in America was the obliteration of strong Black American cultural roots in the institutions of family, church, education, community well-being and lawfulness, and personal industry since the "Civil Rights" movement and all its State largesse won the war in the 50s-60s - he should have said it straight out. And, let's be real, he wasn't speaking to Strom - who has morphed into a Sid and Marty Kroft puppet (God bless his soul) - he was speaking to the wistful nostalgia for a South that some of his Mississippi "greybeards" who were there would argue was safer, friendlier, more cooperative, prosperous and happier for Whites and Blacks and their friendships and shared community alike. Regardless of the level of morality or truth underlying that sentiment, he had to know that ANY articulated or intimated support for that bygone, divisive Jim Crow social order evokes a big, big blowup of "s**t". To give a "shout out" to America's long past, and wholly reviled, racial segregation system with a wink and a nod like Trent did is just plain idiocy - for any politician, much less the incoming Senate Majority Leader. A guy who is to lead a Senate majority newly won - a party automatically under unyielding seige of smears, deceits and despicable personal attacks gushing from the disempowered leftists of the Democrat Party and their ethically corrupt cohorts in the elite media ... needs to comport himself with the utmost of care and savvy. Stuuuuupid stuuuuupid man tried to blowed up the hard won GOP leverage in D.C. ... was fixin to blow'd it up real good!

Well, the Trent Lott joy ride on the "Peter Principle" express finally "petered" out. I've defended the guy on this forum, but his birthday toast and subsequent performance of obsequious (and insincere) apologies were nauseating and insightful to the quality of his character and judgement. And the size of his brainpan.

The Democrats and their media whores manically overplayed, as usual, the winning hand they were given. They're in worse shape now than before the mess. Frist is - to all evidence - virtually unassailable to left wing smears, and he IS conservative. This was painful, but it is a huge gain for the GOP going forward. Frist is the mentor, benefactor and natural leader of EVERY new GOP Senator elected six weeks ago. He, along with the President, made this Senate majority a reality by recruiting, funding and handling the incoming Freshmen. Lott, had he survived, would have been rolled by lefty race-baiters at every opportunity, to the ultimate demise of any welfare reform, conservative judicial nominations of Southern jurists, dismantiling of affirmative action schemes, Tort, SSA and Medicare restructuring, school choice, ANWAR redesignations and other Conservative legislation that might find it's way into the Chamber. Lott was kaput. Frist is new school, smart, talented and unencumbered by the usual political baggage. He'll be a tremendous face for the Party, and he'll cement the Senate team and force Democrat support of popular measures. He can tackle Medicare reform and testify to the pernicious effect of abusive tort litigation on the cost and availability of medical care. Hastert, Frist and Bush are an effective, systematic and effective troika each of whom have the deft touch necessary to move conservative policy into legislation and ultimately law. This issue was a Godsend.

370 posted on 12/21/2002 3:58:31 AM PST by ArneFufkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | 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