Vacant Lott: The GOP and the Ghosts of Mississippi

Can George W. Bush and the Republican party really afford to have Trent Lott (R., Miss.) be its face in the United States Senate? The question has to be pondered as the wannabe Majority Leader tries to dig himself out of his latest mess.

As everyone knows by now, in a Thursday testimonial to the retiring Senate legend, 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 of followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

"These problems?" When Thurmond ran for president in '48, it wasn't as a Republican or Democrat. It was as the candidate of the State's Rights Democratic party — founded explicitly to keep Jim Crow alive.

On Friday, Lott spokesman Ron Bonjean tried to cover for his boss with a two-sentence statement: "Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong."

Unfortunately, those words just didn't cut it. The incoming Senate Majority Leader was speaking directly to the moment in time when Thurmond split the Democratic party over Harry Truman's embrace of a civil-rights agenda.

From the Mississippi State Democratic party's official sample ballot for the 1948 election, here's some of the "problems" that Mississippians feared: "A vote for Truman electors is a direct order to our Congressmen and Senators from Mississippi to vote for passage of Truman's so-called civil rights program in the next Congress. This means the vicious…anti-poll tax, anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever."

Perhaps Sen. Lott should ask Alabama-born Condoleezza Rice — whose childhood friends were killed in a church bombing — if she believes her life would have been better if Strom Thurmond had become president.

So, Monday night, faced with mounting criticism of his comments, Lott issued another apology. This time, it was, "A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embrace the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement." "Discarded policies" — that's a quaint, benign quaint phrase that effectively sidesteps the real horror that was Jim Crow. The new statement itself was very nice and, all things considered, one might give Lott the benefit of the doubt — if he didn't have a record, unmatched by any other current leading Republican of paying homage to a romanticized view of the "old South."

That's right. This isn't the first time Lott has been caught up in "a poor choice of words."

In a 1984 speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Miss., Lott declared: "The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform."

In 1998, it was revealed that Lott had spoken several times to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a "racialist", neo-white supremacist organization. Lott claimed that he didn't know about their philosophy, believing it to be a benign "conservative" group. In fact, he had written a regular column for the CCC's "Citizen's Informer" publication over the course of several years. It's also rare for any member of Congress to write for an outside group's publication without getting an idea of what positions the group advocates.

Furthermore, Lott's uncle popped up to say that his nephew well knew what the CCC was about. Just ten years ago, Lott praised the CCC's philosophy. A year before all this came to light, Lott hosted the CCC in Washington.

Several black Republicans (including this writer, a Republican National Committee staffer at the time) approached Lott to address the problem. He demurred. His office made it clear that the senator had said all he intended to say about the CCC.

Yet Lott plays the "image" game when he feels like it. On at least one occasion, when he was Senate Majority Whip, black staffers were abruptly summoned into his personal office — to provide "color" to photos in a media profile.

This is a problem unique to Trent Lott, not a "southern conservative" one. Newt Gingrich of Georgia, and Texans Dick Armey and Tom DeLay, the architects of the 1994 GOP takeover of the House, are all southerners. They've all been attacked for various "sins" against liberal orthodoxy on Medicare, taxes, regulation, etc. But none has left a trail of offhanded racially charged comments. Lott has — and doesn't seem to care.

We're supposed to believe that this latest gaffe is "a poor choice of words" — one that just happens to pop up over and over again?

Yes, maybe African Americans need to "get over" slavery and Jim Crow. But why can't Trent Lott "get over" the civil-rights movement?

Most people don't expect a 100-year old Thurmond or an 85-year-old Robert Byrd (D., W.V.) to completely escape their racist pasts. But Trent Lott is an adult baby boomer, of the same generation as the current and previous presidents. The leaders of this generation supposedly went through the '60s and supposedly learned a few things about race. That seems true of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. But Trent Lott is waxing nostalgic about the Confederacy and Dixiecrats.

For Republicans who don't want to ponder the potential ramifications of race on the party, consider that this is a man whose cluelessness extends beyond racial matters:

This is the same Trent Lott who oversaw the continual shrinking of the Senate Republican majority between 1996 and 2000.

This is the same Trent Lott who seemed oblivious that a frustrated Jim Jeffords would bolt the party, and had the Senate over to the Democrats.

This is the same Trent Lott who ticked off social and defense conservatives in 1999: As Air Force Lt. Kelli Flinn was being court-martialed for having an affair with a married man and lying about it to a superior, Lott declared that the military had to "get real." Rather than punishment, Lott felt that "at the minimum, [Flinn] ought to get an honorable discharge."

George W. Bush and his guru-advisor Karl Rove have to ask if this is a man who should have a prominent position in the "new" Republican party. It's not as if there aren't more interesting alternatives: The ideal choice would be telegenic Bill Frist of Tennessee. As chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, he helped restore the GOP majority. (The one downside for Frist is that the surgeon may be too smart for the position. As one veteran Senate staffer put it, "The smart guys don't win these leadership races because it would be too intimidating to the other senators. You have to be just smart enough to do the job, but not so smart as to make the other members of the club feel inadequate.")

There's also Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, the incoming Senate Majority Whip. He's a forceful champion of free speech, especially in opposition to the McCain-Feingold version of "campaign-finance reform."

Even outgoing Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma would be an improvement — and someone who pushes real tax reform. In other words, these are people who have some genuine ideas and can be good spokesmen for the party and its principles. In all cases, they'd be a significant improvement to lead the GOP.

Ultimately though Bush, Rove, and Co. have to ask: "Do they want someone who deserves to be Senate Majority Leader — or a man who seems to continually fantasize being white majority leader?"

The Republicans should kick out the leadership when they become ineffective, much the same way a large corporation would. Treasury Sec. O'Neill just got a pink slip. Maybe it's time for Lott to get one too. He doesn't do anything except cut bad deals.

It is unlikely that there will be a better opportunity to make the change. Dubya should leap on it and get it over quickly.

I think this latest incident with Lott can be exploited by Bush and Republicans, including Lott himself, to show to the nation that the Democrats are not the only "sensitive" party.

Lott should apologize, which he already has, and resign from being Majority Leader, paving the way for a more conservative and noncompliant Majority Leader.

This way, the Republicans score points as well as appoint a leader that will not compromise with Little Tommy the way Lott has done.

You, and everyone else on this thread, are overlooking the fact the the GOP Senators voted for Lott and elected him to be their leader.
Do they know something you don't?

Yes. They knew how to lose Senate Seats and get rolled by Bill Clinton and Tom Daschle.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

How is everyone's local news reporting this?

I heard this morning on my 'Newsradio' station that Trent Lott said :"That the country would've been better off when Thurmond ran in 1948 as a segregationist"

After that the reporter played a clip of a black congressional member who said: "I can't believe Trent Lott said that. He will hear about this in January"

As you know, idiot Trent Lott didn't say anything about segregation. I was wondering if anyone else noticed Trent's statement 'reworded'.

After reading your response it appears to me that Reconstruction of the South is complete and being Politically correct seem to fit most of you folks.

***

Wha? Being politically correct has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the need to dump Lott.

Lott is exactly like his predecessor, the late Sen. Bob Dole, who - while being comatose - effectively killed the Contract with America, did absolutley nothing with majority control of the Senate and ran the worst presidential campaign of the 20th century.

Lott screwed up the Clinton impeachment.
Lott gave Daschle equal power despite holding the majority (50 plus VP Cheney).
Lott pushed Jeffords out the door, lost the majority and let Tom "Puff" Dasshole push him around for 18 months.

This race thing bothers some GOP African-Americans like this author. It doesn't really faze me. I don't think Lott is a racist. Maybe he is.

But if he's not a racist, then Lott's comments reveal him to be dumber and clumsier than most Republicans thought already.

Since we already know he is weak and ineffectual, adding dumb and clumsy to the list doesn't make him any more attractive as the leader of my party in the Senate.

Sinkspur asked why the GOP Senate members would keep Lott as leader. The answer is a weak, ineffectual, dumb and clumsy leader maximizes their individual power and influence.

HEY! HO! Lott's Gotta Go!!!

Lott should go.

He should have gone after he gave Clinton a pass and p!ssed all over the House Impeachment Managers. The man is an embarrassment. Worse, he is a cowardly, invertebrate compromiser and ineffective as a leader. Somewhere in his background he also must have ample blackmail material.

It's a shame a stupid and PC insensitive remark is what might do it, and not the real reasons. But, any port in a storm.

Dump Lott and get somebody in there who will be effective!!

Lott's comments were done infront of CSPAN cameras, and he 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 of followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." Pretty hard to reword. (The Washington Times did not print a full quote of Lott's remarks, however, in its coverage.)

>"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 of followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." <<

One SIMPLE question Lott could answer:

What specific problems do you mean, Trent?

He had to have specific problems in mind. If the problems weren't racial problems, all he needs to do to clear himself is name what he was referring to. What he said, he said deliberately and forcefully, with conviction.

Why hasn't trent Lott yet explained: "What I meant to say was..."

any port in a storm.

Unfortunately, these attacks on Lott do not constitute a port but rather a reef. The South, which is essential to any conceivable Republican or conservative success scheme, has a large contingent of folks who have no truck with racism or segregation but who are unwilling to spit on the Confederate flag or their ancestors memory just to accomadate the politically correct demands of 2002 whether espoused by the left or the neo-cons. They will not see the sacking of Lott for this minor transgression as a friendly act. Sitting out the next election would doom GWB, or do you expect Jesse and Al to come over to his side if Lott is dumped. A cursory perusal of the election returns from Louisiana could be constructive for you on this score.

I am no fan of Lott, never have been, but oppose this witch hunt.

Regards.

>>You are right about Trent's deficiencies. But to push Lott out the window now would be an affront to free speech and expression. He just said some silly things at a birthday party, that's all he did.<<

Trent Lott is Senate Majority Leader. Nobody is questioning his first amendment rights. But if you think Trent Lott is free to say anything he wants without consequences, especially things which reflect badly on the Republican Party, I respectfully disagree.

He just said some silly things at a birthday party, that's all he did.

***

But as leader of the Senate GOP he doesn't have the luxury of saying silly things at a birthday party, on the floor of the Senate or anywhere else.

If you want to wear the mantle of leadership, you must also bear the responsibility of being circumspect in all of your actions and public expressions.

Yes, Lott has the free speech right to say whatever he pleases.

But as the leader of the GOP Senate he has a responsibility to NOT say silly things.

Yes, even people in positions of high responsibility sometimes make foolish remarks that attract opposition. haunt them. When Democrats say "silly things," I haven't heard a clamor for their resignations. When EMK can run his car off a bridge and drown a woman with near impunity, why can't Trent say a "silly thing" at Strom's birthday party? If I were Trent, I would not step down over this. However, I do not think Trent has been an effective majority leader. My discontent grew within his first year on the job. But his effectiveness as leader is a separate issue from a "silly remark" at a birthday party.

>>When EMK can run his car off a bridge and drown a woman with near impunity, why can't Trent say a "silly thing" at Strom's birthday party? <<

Because we hold ourselves to a higher standard. What was "silly" about a statement that appears racist to many if not most who heard it, and was not meant as a joke?

(Or if it was, why was it not said in a lighthearted tone, and no one laughed?)

>>If people aren't free to say an occasional foolish remark, they really do not have free speech, and the country is not free. Trent embarrassed himself. That should be punishment enough in this instance. Everyone says something foolish from time to time and regrets it.<<

Nobody is questioning his first amandment rights.

But if you think the Senate Majority Leader has the right to make a speech with racist overtones (rightly or wrongly understood), and be free from criticism from those he claims to represent (namely, me and any other Republican)....I am forced to disagree.

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.