To: wcdukenfield
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...
2 posted on
12/10/2002 11:05:52 AM PST by
Poohbah
To: wcdukenfield
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.
To: wcdukenfield
hypocrisy is fundamental to liberalism
To: wcdukenfield
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.
12 posted on
12/10/2002 11:37:20 AM PST by
Imal
To: wcdukenfield
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.
To: wcdukenfield
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
To: wcdukenfield
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???
20 posted on
12/10/2002 12:32:31 PM PST by
Terridan
To: wcdukenfield
Mark Levin!
One of a rare breed: An American Lawyer of the pre-sixties variety, whose Character and Moral Integrity were formed in the days when the pursuit of a career at Law led to Nobility.
To: wcdukenfield
As far as I'm concerned, Lott was RIGHT! Anyone who thinks
the country if better of for integration has his head up
his ass. Crap like this is why I no longer take NR.
24 posted on
12/10/2002 2:46:35 PM PST by
RWCon
To: wcdukenfield
Lott should be replaced, the sooner the better.
To: wcdukenfield
I dislike Lott as much as the next RINO-hater. He should resign. But not over this.
To: wcdukenfield
It is very difficult to find anything conservative in this posting. I have been busy with my practice, and have not seen what Senator Lott said at the party for Strom Thurmond. But from the comments on this thread, it appears that he lamented the fact that Thurmond only carried four States in his 1948 run for President. From a Conservative standpoint, that is in fact lamentable. Thurmond was the only Conservative running in 1948. Both Truman and Dewey were basically Liberals.
While Harry Truman had many admirable traits, his pushing of Federal intervention in Southern affairs, which triggered the split in his party, that brought about the Thurmond candidacy in 1948, was simply wrong--simply contrary to the whole spirit of the Founding Fathers, who respected the very considerable cultural differences in the different States. That respect is what Federalism was all about. Thurmond understood the point, and rallied Southern Conservatives against something that was wrong--demonstrably wrong--interference with local society. Those who happen to agree with the social values that Truman was promoting, seem to be missing the whole point.
As for Fulbright? He was rather a "Liberal." That he did seek to defend Arkansas' racial traditions, however, is not to his discredit. Rather, it is to Clinton's discredit, that he did not.
Having said all of that, however, I do not think that you will find that either Senator and former Governor Thurmond, or his close associates, ever said anything mean spirited about any member of any race. His stands were based upon principle, never the sort of racial antagonism, that Bill Clinton tried to foment, while pretending to be doing just the opposite.
While on the subject, one can only wonder at what is happening to National Review. Buckley was not particularly close to the former Southern leadership. But he was very closely associated with Barry Goldwater, who most certainly was closely associated with that leadership. The present Republican base is because of Thurmond's joining the Republican party, and bringing with him a lot of former Democratic Conservatives, when Goldwater won the nomination in 1964. This article makes one wonder if Buckley has turned his back on Buckley! (His former publisher, Bill Rusher, even wrote a very lucid book on the subject of the realignment that would thereafter make the Reagan election possible, in the 1970s.)
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
31 posted on
12/10/2002 3:30:26 PM PST by
Ohioan
To: wcdukenfield
bump
To: wcdukenfield
Ya know, this just supports my theory... if in doubt ALWAYS vote Republican because we can count on the media to do their job... when it's a Republican. It seems the liberal media goes to republican events looking for something to be offended and outraged about. Unfortunately, they construed Lott's comment to be an endorsement of racism. I'm more ashamed of the "Black Leaders" who are blowing this way out of porportion. Clinton's endorsement of Fulbright was not seen as an endorsement of his earlier segragationist policies, because the media was not LOOKING for a reason to be offended by Clinton or portray him as a racist. Vote Republican. Keep Lott where he is and note the media bias.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson