GOP Warming to 'Racist' Label? Lott Attacked, Byrd Ignored (Wrong approach alert!)

Republicans must secretly enjoy being smeared as racists by their Democratic critics. There's simply no other way to explain the pathetic non-response of elected GOPers and their handful of media defenders to this weekend's attempt to paint Senate Majority Trent Lott as a dyed-in-the-wool, segregationist-loving bigot.

Lott finds himself once again in the crosshairs of the Democratic racial sensitivity police over his birthday tribute to retiring South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond, who turned 100 last week.

"Meet the Press" host Tim Russert got the ball rolling, telling his roundtable of panelists yesterday, "Trent Lott, the Majority Leader of the Senate, was at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond the other day and had this to say: '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 these years, either.'"

Not wanting to appear as if he was directing the criticism himself, Russert invoked the comments of civil rights pioneer, Georgia Rep. John Lewis.

"John Lewis, a congressman, former civil rights leader, said that Strom Thurmond ran a segregationist campaign in 1948 and that Trent Lott is just dead wrong," he noted.

Russert then revealed, "Jesse Jackson called NBC News this morning and said Trent Lott is a Confederate and he should resign as majority leader. How big of a problem is this for Trent Lott?"

Of course, the immediate answer from Russert's roundtable guests should have been, "Not as big a problem as the Democrats have with ex-Ku Klux Klansman, Sen. Robert Byrd in their leadership."

But instead, none on Russert's panel - neither liberals David Broder and Joe Klein nor conservatives Robert Novak and William Safire - managed to recall that the Democrats had a bonafide former white-hooded, night-riding Grand Kleagle in their midst.

Instead, the best the conservatives on hand could do was dismiss Lott's remarks as a lighthearted exaggeration offered in the exuberance of the moment. When it comes to issues of race, GOP defenders apparently prefer to remain firmly on the defensive, no matter how ugly the attacks become.

Still, for Republicans who aren't eternally delighted to be smeared as bigots over the most minor racial infractions, perhaps someone ought to ask Rev. Jackson when he'll be calling for the resignation of his political kinsman, the Senate's ex-Klansman.

After all, it was only last year that Sen. Byrd appeared on "Fox News Sunday," uncontrollably blurting out the "N"-word not once but twice.

In case Rev. Jackson and defanged conservatives like Safire and Novak missed it, the Democratic Party's racist Kodak moment went like this:

"I just think we talk so much about it that we help to create somewhat of an illusion," Byrd told FNS host Tony Snow. "I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, 'Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody. We practice that'"

Then, appropo of nothing, the ex-Klansman erupted, "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word."

If the former cross-burner's comments aren't enough to render the Democratic Party mute on matters of racial insensitivity, there's always the family of America's first black president, Bill Clinton.

Here's former first brother Roger Clinton having a Robert Byrd moment himself on a 1984 police surveillance videotape:

"Some junior high nigger kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the nigger down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the nigger down, he let him up. The nigger blindsided him."

Naturally, except for NewsMax and nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity, the press never made an issue of the Clinton brother's ugly "N"-word tirade, even though the audio has been widely available since at least 1996. Imagine the reaction if a tape of President Bush's brother hurling racial epithets like they were going out of style had suddenly surfaced.

On second thought, maybe Trent Lott should accede to Jesse Jackson's demands and resign. After all, any party that has this much ammunition and continues to allow itself to be browbeaten on race without firing back probably doesn't deserve to lead.

This gets it so wrong I don't know where to start.

First of all, you don't defend the good guys by saying the bad guys are worse than us. Byrd's KKK background has nothing to do with the current Senate Majority Leader wishing we had elected a segregationist Dixiecrat in 1948. Read the transcript. There is no way around what he said. I think we deserve an explaination of why Senator Lott said what he said.

Second, it is a big mistake to blame this on a PC media. We are the party that think "words mean things." We are not the party of touchy feely irrationality. This mushy Newsmax.com piece is completely incoherant. The fact is that better than 90% of blacks vote democrat and we should do a lot better. Stupid crap like this compeltely undermines the bonafide efforts we are making to attrack black votes. This was a huge mental error on the part of a normally savvy Lott but it will cost us big time unless we show that we are not the party that wishes that a bunch of racist rabid-segregationist had taken executive control in 1948. This is not a criticism of Strom Thurmond. He is a historic Senator who changed his beliefs and has made amends. But there is no excuse in Lott damaging the party in this way. At least we are owed a plausible explaination for how this was not a racist comment, or he needs to step down as leader.

If Lott's comment is ignored, that will make all of us a lot more free not to have to worry all the time about whether something we say might be deemed offensive or insensitive by somebody. If a big deal is made of what Lott said, we will all be more subject to tyrannical PC speech codes.

I am a lot more worried about the liberty of individuals in this society than I am about the electoral prospects of the Republican Party, especially at a time when the next election is 11 months away.

I appreciate what you are saying, and I thought the thing was dying. Unfortunately, NewsMax.com, Andrew Sullivan, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Slate and Meet the Press have all done stories on it. I think it deserves a discussion here. I don't think what is said here is going to let any cat out of the bag. This is damaging to us and I, for one, want us to get this one right. We have to show we care about this issue. Bush nearly lost Florida because of a huge black turnout in Florida. Why? Because James Byrd got drug behind a pickup truck in Texas. A little of this stuff causes a dispraportionate stain on Republicans. We need to be ready to cut our losses and rehabilitate.

Someone posts something truthful and several adolescents always jump in to say, "Well, how about Kennedy?" or LBJ, etc. to obfuscate. The fact that Clintoon, Kennedy, LBJ, Je$$ie, or Robert$on did or said such and such and were/are idiots has nothing to do with the topic.

When one of my daughters would try such I would reply "Salt Lake City is the capitol of Utah." They learned obfuscation didn't work.

'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 these years, either.'

Trent Lott and the state of Mississippi supported Strom Thurmond in 1948. I see nothing racist about the statement.

How many Conservative Senators will not vote for Lott to be Senate Leader? How many in the Senate are Conservatives? Are there more Conservative Republican Senators than Conservative Democrat Senators? How many are RINOs? Moderate RINOs? Moderate non-RINOs? Staunch Conservatives? Moderate Conservatives? Liberal RINOs? Liberal non-RINOs?

This is what David Frum from the National Review just wrote about this:

I for one do not believe Trent Lott is a racist or a segregationist. My guess is that his speechwriter gave him note cards with a few jokes, and that when Lott finished reading them, he launched himself into what he probably intended to be nothing more than a big squirt of greasy flattery.

But that’s not what came out of Lott’s mouth. What came out of his mouth was the most emphatic repudiation of desegregation to be heard from a national political figure since George Wallace’s first presidential campaign. Lott’s words suggest that one of the three most powerful and visible Republicans in the nation privately thinks that desegregation, civil rights, and equal voting rights were all a big mistake.

I agree with you, Bill. This is not the first time that Trent Lott has led his party into the Wilderness in the Senate.

During the Nineties, he got rolled time and again, by the Bubster and by Daschle. Now he can't have enough presence of mind to keep his mouth from going South at a public ceremony.

Southern pride is a good thing. I grew up in the South and I have ancestors who served in both the Union and Condfederate States armies.

Pride in the Confederacy and its valour-at-arms is not the same as disavowing civil rights and desegregation. It sure as hell sounds to me as that is what Trent Lott said.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

Who gives a rats ass. The blacks vote for the dims at a 98% rate and you worry if Lott said something that Jessie himie town jackson worries about.He did not mean it as a racist thing. I think half his staff is black. Thurmond was the first southner to have a black staff member.

You were ahead of the curve on this one!

Thanks for noticing, but I wish I had been wrong about it all. I thought he was going to get a pass last night. National Review and Andrew Sullivan have ensured that enough conservatives are going to look into the story that something has to happen. This won't go away on its own.

Lott’s words suggest that one of the three most powerful and visible Republicans in the nation privately thinks that desegregation, civil rights, and equal voting rights were all a big mistake.

I disagree.

Republicans are so scared to be labeled a racist that even the "suggestion" of racism is a hot potato. Lott's comments were not directed toward desegregation, civil rights, or equal voting rights. However, the truth doesn't seem to matter. Republicans find it easier to attack one of their own rather than risk being branded a racist themselves. It amazes me how Republicans leaders are constantly "borked" without putting up a fight. We cannot win the culture-war if we do not dispute the charges that the Republican party is a racist party.

Lott's comments were not directed toward desegregation, civil rights, or equal voting rights. However, the truth doesn't seem to matter.

How can you assert that? He knows enough history to know that Mississippi voted for Thurmond in 1948. The only purpose of the Dixiecrat party was to ensure states retained the right to enforce segregation and to ensure there would be no marriages between the races. No one disputes this as a matter of historical fact. While you might like the federalist states-rights aspect, the purpose those rights in Thurmonds case (in 1948) was to keep a strict seperation between the races.

Lott's comments were not directed toward desegregation, civil rights, or equal voting rights.

I'm glad somebody finally pointed this out. Jackson, Russert and everybody assumes, probably incorrectly, that Lott's comment had to do with race. I think it was that conservative, not racist, policies would have been better had Strom been elected. And I agree with Lott. We didn't have a conservative president until Reagan.

I disagree with you. It is relevent and necessary to point out the blatant hypocrisy of the lying, lunatic, liberal left. The more the american public knows the democrats are liars and double-standard hypocrites, the sooner we can start rolling back the tide of liberalism that has nearly drowned this country.

Most americans don't know that Al Gore's daddy (and most democrats in congress) voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the left's willing accomplices in the media won't report those inconvenient facts.

I do, however, agree the republican response first needs to directly refute the leftist's implication of republican racism. But it must also be pointed out it is liberals who are the real racists. Race baiting, poverty pimping political whores like Jesse Jackson and his ilk have to be exposed for the smarmy partisan hypocrites they are.

BTW, I also think Lott is a poor senate leader, and seems content to let republicans govern as a minority party even when in the majority.

I don't dispute Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential platform. However, Trent Lott was only 7 years old at the time. I don't believe he was thinking about the racial problems of the 40's and 50's when he was praising Thurmond.

I am not a big fan of Lott because he doesn't have a backbone against the Democrats. I fear he will apologize for his "racist remark" even though he didn't intend for it to be racist.

I am curious to know if people on FreeRepublic believe he was talking about desegregation, civil rights, and equal voting rights when he was praising Thurmond.

I don't dispute Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential platform. However, Trent Lott was only 7 years old at the time. I don't believe he was thinking about the racial problems of the 40's and 50's when he was praising Thurmond.

This is what Lott said:

"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."

He is being very specific. This business about Lott being 7 years old at the time doesn't hold water. I wasn't born yet I know that this is a terrible insult to blacks, always assuming he meant what he said.

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.