Replies

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.

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 3:13 AM EST by puroresu

True and if we learn something its that we fight back.

The response should have been immediate, angry, and unified.

We blew it.

The sight of us beating ourselves up to a pulp was so damned pathetic, that even Daschle started feeling sorry for us.