Selective Moral Outrage - Looking beyond Trent Lott’s gaffe.

National Review Online ^ | 12/10/02 | Mark R. Levin

[Poohbah]

Yup. But the "gosh, the Dems do it too" stuff is just the mirror-image of Larry Flynt "defending" Clinton by coming out with other folks' skeletons...

[BillCompton]

If lot had said that Thurmond was a great man and his mentor, not problem. The problem is that he wished for a revised history that would have strengthened segregation. That's different.

[Texas_Jarhead]

hypocrisy is fundamental to liberalism

[ModelBreaker]

Yup. But the "gosh, the Dems do it too" stuff is just the mirror-image of Larry Flynt "defending" Clinton by coming out with other folks' skeletons...

Actually, I thought the author was making a completely different point. Clinton excused his behavior by accusing the right (often falsely) of acting the same way. The author is not excusing Lott's conduct and is quite explicit about that.

Rather the author is pointing out the hypocricy by the left and it's media organs. They go hysterical about Lott and ignore the N word by Byrd and ignore Fullbright's history when Clinton gives him an award.

The point was that the left's PC hysteria is not motivated by any real concern for PC. Rather, it is a weapon to be used selectively to silence opponents and to gain political power.

That said, Lott spoke inappropriately and we should not be hypocrits. When one of ours misbehaves, we usually take him to task, eg Richard Nixon and now Trent Lott.

[kinghorse]

Gaffe's azz.

[Poohbah]

Fair 'nough.

Too many Freepers are willing to say "well, it's from the left, yada yada yada."

The best we can hope for is that this was just a moment's idiocy, one of many.

[unspun]

hypocrisy is fundamental to liberalism

Good use of words. Maybe that'll be the title of Anne Coulter's next book: Liberal Fundamentalism

[RAT Patrol]

Unfortuantely, all these skeletons in our history are there to find for anyone looking. I thing the point is not "where we were" but "how far we have come," and in such a short time.

There is the issue of "Will this argument work?" But there is also the issue of truth. Lott didn't mean it the way Jesse Jackson and others are choosing to take and exploit it. I think that's the point in exposing Clinton. Not to get anyone off the hook or say "they do it too." Rather, the point is to say "Clinton was not endorsing segregation and neither was Lott."

Do you see what I am trying to say? I hope. (I can be articulation challenged sometimes, lol.)

[Poohbah]

You are presuming a level playing field that does not exist.

Lott has got to go.

[RooRoobird14]

I don't defend what Lott said, because it was DUMB, he should have known better than to say things like that. He knows about the GOP hating race baiters in the media and Congress and how they're just waiting to bash the GOP over the head with anything

What makes me want to vomit, however, are these high and mighty hypocrite RATS like Al Gore(whose father voted against the Civil Rights Act and whose family forced their black maid to sit in a hot car while they dined in "Whites Only" restaurants). The recent "enshrinement" of a man like segregationist Fulbright as recently as six weeks ago (without a peep from the NYT and WP leftists) is equally vomit-inducing.

The left wing GOP-bashing hate machine is full gear today, but you didn't hear a thing when Cruz Bustamente used the N-word or when the KKK recruiter had his "slips of the tongue."

Let all those hypocrite @ssholes foam at the mouth over this. Lott apologized. Even if he does resign, I guarantee you the race-baiters WILL NOT let the matter go. They won't be happy until Lott blows his brains out, or forks over all his worldly possessions for "Reparations" to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Frankly, I wanted Lott out as majority leader for a while (for being a spineless), but then who will fill his shoes? It better be someone who's an improvement!!!

BTW, the reason that Little Tommy D@sshole actually excused Lott's comments is because he wants that spineless, ineffective wooss as majority leader.

[Imal]

There is a big difference between honoring a segregationist and honoring his segregationist behavior, and Trent Lott illustrated this by doing the latter when he should have done the former.

Going on about how Thurmond's Dixiecrat segregationist presidential campaign should have succeeded was both unnecessary and assinine, unless, of course, Lott was sincere in wishing for the success of racial segregation, which is what primarily defined the difference between the "Dixiecrats" and the Democrats. In referring to that campaign specifically, Lott was, in no uncertain terms, waxing nostalgic about an openly segregationist endeavor.

I expect better from a man in his position of national trust, and I don't apologize for doing so.

Lott apologized, but I think he deserves every lash the press and his colleagues deal out to him.

[RAT Patrol]

You are probably right, though it is terribly unfair and unjust.

[GulliverSwift]

Lott also needs to go because he is a coward. Daschle knows how to rule with an iron fist. The next Republican Senate leader needs to follow in his footsteps.

[Verginius Rufus]

That should be Orval Faubus, not Orville.

According to William Doyle in An American Insurrection: The Battle of Oxford, Mississippi, 1962 Faubus had promised Eisenhower that the Arkansas National Guard would protect the black students who were trying to attend Central High School, but then double-crossed Ike.

[A2J]

The problem is that he wished for a revised history that would have strengthened segregation.

Please, tell me, where forced integration has prospered Americans in general and blacks in particular?

It anything, it has lead to urban blight and suburban expansion, i.e., natural segregation.

[wcdukenfield]

The comment in reply No. 5 got it exactly right. I don't see this article as even a defense of Lott, but rather a discussion of the hypocracy and political demagoguery of the Left.

They've tolerated far worse comments and far worse intentions from Democrats for the last 50 years. They know that Lott is not a segragationist. They know he's not a racist. This is the usual race-baiting.

In short, the media claims moral outrage, but is very selective about - just like the article says.

[housethatruthbuilt]

Clinton said, "If [Fulbright] were here today, I'm sure he would caution us not to be too utopian in our expectations, but rather utopian in our values and vision."

since when are liberals utopian in their values???? sounds to me like Fulbright was a conservative

[KamMan]

Not that I am for it, but why all the talk against segregation? I don't know how many responses I read were that of black Americans but it appears to me that black Americans want nothing to do with America anyway. They identify themselves with Africa even though they have been in this country as long as any of the whites. They manufacture clothes with names like "FUBU", an acronym for "For Us By Us." Black Americans are doing just fine segregating themselves. There are black universities, black fraternities and sororities, black beauty pageants and blacks television stations. So is all of this banter about Lott's gaffe just PC posturing or what?

[Terridan]

Where, can we, as white folk, demand an apology and resignation of Maxine Waters, for her outrageous call on the black community, to "quit burning your own neighborhoods, go to the white man's neighborhoods..."
This was stated on Los Angeles television, that carried throughout the state, following the Rodney King verdict, and subsequent riots. I wonder if Reginal Denny has a case against her for inciting violence???