Why Lott should resign as majority leader (vanity)

12/10/02 | me

[xlib]

Today on Rush a black air traffic controller was expressing his outrage over Trent Lott’s comments at the birthday party. Rush made several comments, including the point that while racism surely persists, it’s much less common than it once was, that everybody has obstacles, some hurdles are greater than others etc. The caller was surprised to discover that RUSH LIMBAUGH IS NOT A RACIST!

This is the dilemma conservatives face: although many, if not most, conservative policy ideas would benefit the poor and minorities if implemented, conservatives are widely assumed to be indifferent or hostile to the poor and minorities.

There are some parallels between our dilemma and that of African Americans. During segregation, the trailblazers were exceptional people; Jackie Robinson was one of the best ever to play the game, the first black students at the University of Alabama were all honor students. But millions of ignorant rednecks just saw “dumb, uppity niggers.” These folks endured the abuse, and persevered, because they were conscious of something larger than themselves that they represented.

We too are subject to the false assumptions of ignorant people; these assumptions are often amplified in popular culture and the media, and it limits what we can accomplish. We have two choices: we can whine about liberal media bias, the double standard for liberals and conservatives caught in ethical lapses, etc etc, or we can heed the advice given to Condi Rice by her parents: you’re going to have to work twice as hard, and hold yourself to a higher standard, than those who oppose you.

I was never prouder to be a republican during the impeachment than when Bob Livingston announced his resignation on the house floor. He had the guts to choose a higher standard, and the grace to accept his fate for falling short of it. The fact that Bill Clinton can debase the oval office and then try to portray a 21-year-old intern as a stalker, or that Jesse Jackson can yap about “Hymietown,” or that Robert Byrd can ramble on about “white niggers,” and survive politically, doesn’t surprise me. They are democrats, and the ethical bar is set low. But republicans must choose a higher standard, and Trent Lott’s comments make him unsuitable for the job he seeks to reclaim.

[John Lenin]

I'm not willing to give up control of the Senate over a remark that people like you are blowing out of proportion. Like I said, blacks don't vote GOP anyways and I don't think they are going to change if Lott steps down. When Maxine Waters quits and a lot of other racist blacks in government do the same, I'll consider it, but to have a double standard and lose the Senate is rediculous. I'm glad Lott said what he said, he just beat the reparations crowd to the punch. He said it before in the 80's . So what, big deal. Let the hypocris cut their throats first.

[CenterRight]

Here's a link to a one-hour video and audio recording of the C-SPAN broadcast of Thurmond's birthday celebration. It includes Lott's entire speech. I have in on my screen now and I'm reviewing it.

http://www.c-span.org/politics/

The link to the Javascript is at about the center of the C-SPAN page. I'll transcribe the remarks by Lott, preceding his "all these problems" statement. There is no printed transcript on the Internet that I can find, at least not yet.

Feel free to click on the link above, download the 1-hour recording and follow along with me. If you're following along with me, fast-forward to exactly halfway through the recording. That is where Lott's speech starts.

Dole introduced Lott by mentioning that when Strom Thurmond was landing by glider in Normandy on June 6, 1944 Trent Lott was only three years old. http://www.c-span.org/politics/

Verbatim transcript of the beginning of Trent Lott's speech:

Well thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you my good friend and my predecessor, my hero, Bob Dole, for that introduction, that very brief introduction I might add [Laughter] But for Senator Strom Thurmond's family and friends and admirers all, it's a great pleasure for me to be here with you today, and I know that you're enjoying every minute of this. And I knew that the previous remarks would be just as they were. I mean, after all, Bob Dole received the Republican nomination and dang near was elected President of the United States telling Strom Thurmond jokes. [Laughter] If he'd just gotten himself some new material there toward the end he would have done it. [Laughter] I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for President we voted for him. [Laughter] We're proud of it. [More laughter] 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 WAS JOKING, PEOPLE.

The quotation that has been bandied about as so-called "proof" of Lott's "racism" was clearly told for laughs. It was at the beginning of the speech, after Dole told a few Strom Thurmond jokes. Then Lott stood up and said that in 1996, Dole was nominated for President "and dang near was elected President of the United States telling Strom Thurmond jokes."

Then came the quotation that everyone is bleating about, and it got a few laughs, exactly as Lott had clearly intended. Then came more jokes, including one about how "the Capitol froze over" inserted in place of "hell freezes over," and a reference to Dole's Pepsi commercial with Britney Spears.

[Rudder]

The Republicans could turn an apparent loss into a net gain.

This would be a great strategic move.

A principled move would be to also evict Strom Thurmond.

The real guilt of racism is Thurmond's and not Lott's. Anybody asking for Thurmond to resign? This whole mess is schizoid: Thurmond is the one who engaged in the racism, and yet no one is focusing upon him. Lott says Thurmond is a good guy and ---blam!--Lott is the bad guy because he flattered a racist. The racist goes off unchallenged, but Lott is raked over the coals. I want Lott out because of his spineless, RINO behavior. But to charge Lott with racism and to allow Thurmond go unscathed makes no logical sense at all!

Neither will resign, because this flap is all bluster and no substance.

[CenterRight]

Edward Kennedy, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts, drove his car off a bridge and killed his passenger, Mary Jo Kopechne. If his name hadn't been Kennedy, he would have gone to prison for manslaughter.

Daniel Inouye, a Democratic senator from Hawaii, reportedly raped a woman.

Joe Biden, a Democratic senator from Delaware, is a plagiarist.

Barney Frank, a Democratic congressman from Massachusetts, had a gay prostitution ring in his basement.

Jim McDermott, a Democratic congressman from Washington state, passed a recording of a phone conversation (that had been made without the participants' knowledge) to a newspaper. One of the participants in the phone conversation was Newt Gingrich. McDermott's action was a felony under state law.

Hillary Clinton, a Democratic senator from New York, reportedly called a Jewish political advisor a "fu**ing Jew ba**ard." Her husband, Bill Clinton, repeatedly referred to the black vote as "the ni**er vote."

Jesse Jackson called Jews "Hymies" and New York City "Hymietown." Louis Farrakhan called Judaism a "gutter religion."

But let's go out and lynch Trent Lott.

[lavaroise]

I hate the howls of Dems.

[GilesB]

So - in spite of what you see today, you eagerly buy the Democrat's spin? The Dixiecrat plank opposed the laws - what was it about the laws that they opposed? I freely admit that I don't know....but when history tells me of an "anti-lynching" law put forth by the same folks who are now pushing "hate crime" laws, it makes me suspicious. I am fairly confident that your blanket statement of what State's Rights meant then is about as accurate as those today who try to saddle Bush as a racist because he opposed "hate crime" laws.

TODAY, the only thing you and others want anybody to know about "State's Rights" is the ugly racist environment of the South at the time. You make it sound like the only issues were racial issue - SORRY - not true. But racism and the fight against it are all you were taught and all you remember. State's Rights are about the Constitution, about the sovereignty of the States in our republic and a struggle against the crushing impositions of a nanny state. Someone who calls themselves "Southern Federalist" should understand that.

If State's Rights disappear (and they largely have), you get silly, national 55 mph speed limit laws and individual rights are not far behind - because once the Federal Government has demonstrated its ability to make a state toe the line, it is a simple matter to make all the peon inhabitants of those states also toe the line.

The issues of poll tax, lynching, Jim Crow should have been fought simply as constitutional issues instead of by an imposition of federal law. The desired results would have been achieved, with less chance of the huge expansion of federal power that occured in the 30s and 40s and later in the 60s. While the underlying philosophy of restricting federal power was sound a worthy, the opponents of State's Rights were successful in reshaping the debate into strictily racial tones (granted, with marvelous help from some supremely stupid and ugly southerners). They were so successful then that today a person who goes by the name "Southern Federalist" can write: "In 1948 'States Rights' meant one thing: the right of the states to enforce racial segregation."

It is the job of the Supreme Court to restrain "state-level statism". Federal statism is NOT justified by fighting state statism. Most of the destruction of our Constitution has occured with that very justification. State statism IS different than Federal statism in that the state is more localized, less powerful and therefor more easily escaped, fought and/or changed. If we have to have one or the other, I'll choose state statism every time!

It may be that Strom Thurmond was an "enemy of human freedom" in 1948, but his candidacy as a Dixicrat is NOT irrefutable evidence of such.

[xlib]

Your list is more complete than the one in my original post, (we both left out Sharpton's Tawana Brawley hoax) but it reinforces my argument. We can choose to be the principled party, or we can lower our standards to match the dems. Lott should not be lynched, he just shouldn't be majority leader. What he said is inexcusably stupid for someone in that position, and it hinders his ability to advance the conservative agenda.

[xlib]

Thurmond has already resigned, in effect, by not seeking reelection. And I've not contended that Lott's remarks disqualify him to serve in the senate, just that they disqualify him to lead it.

[A2J]

Well Senator Lott should clarify what "problems" would have been avoided if everyone had voted like Missippi in 1948

Agreed.

He could start with forced busing and forced integration that has failed miserably at the cost of billions of dollars. Such forced integration has never worked and never will as witnessed by the differences in schools in the urban and suburban areas where "natural segregation" has resulted in continuing white flight, which doesn't help the blacks at all.

He could have also said that forced integration has lead to more strife and segregation between the races than ever before.

You're right, he should have and could have said more. But then again, he would have been villified for telling the truth.

[steve-b]

But Trent Lott didn't make a racist statement. He simply said that the SC Senator would have made a good president.

Get real. Thurmond launched a third-party run in 1948 for one reason and one reason alone.

I'll be charitable, and assume that Vacant Lott was simply too dumb to apply the correct activation sequence (1: Brain, 2: Mouth). If so, this jabbering does not show Lott to be a racist person, but the comment itself is still a racist statement.

[A2J]

1) No way in Hades do I want the Sharptons and Jacksons of this world deciding when "my" Senate majority leader resigns.

Excellent point!

To remove him after those whiners cry out is to say that they have more morality than the Republicans have. If the GOP remove Lott, they will be playing into the whiners' hands.

Let this blow over for a year and then remove him for his lack of leadership skills, not for an alleged racist remark.

[MEGoody]

Okay, so what was the point of this rant. Why should Lott resign?

[steve-b]

Laura Ingraham pointed out tonight that Tom Daschle was pretty soft on Trent

Well, duh. The last thing Tiny Tom wants is for the opposition to install a real leader.

[A2J]

I believe most people who are calling Strom's presidential platform "racist" are misguided and don't understand what Strom was standing for.

He ran on an anti-government platform, not a racist platform. He opposed the intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the states. He was only being true to his Southern heritage in doing so.

To wish to live with people of similar beliefs and goals is not racist; it's natural (i.e., "Birds of a feather..."). Racism is the taking of action against someone based upon their race.

Forced integration, on the other hand, is not natural and is in direct opposition to the Constitution as well as natural law.

[L.N. Smithee]

I'm not willing to give up control of the Senate over a remark that people like you are blowing out of proportion....When Maxine Waters quits and a lot of other racist blacks in government do the same, I'll consider it, but to have a double standard and lose the Senate is rediculous.

Whoa...who said anything about "giving up control of the Senate"? Lott should lose his job as Majority Leader. No less than that should happen, IMHO. If he becomes just Senator Lott and not Senate Majority Leader Lott, the count doesn't change. Check your civics textbooks, pal!

I'm glad Lott said what he said, he just beat the reparations crowd to the punch.

What nonsense. This has nothing to do with reparations -- it's a totally separate argument. If anything, this won't do anything but fire up the reparations boosters!

He said it before in the 80's . So what, big deal. Let the hypocris cut their throats first.

You don't know the actual issues before you decide which side you're on! When I first started answering you, I thought you were just misguided. Now, I know you're totally ignorant regarding politics altogether.

Thurmond's saving grace among people who didn't think much of him was that he has renounced his racist actions of half a century ago. Now, the top GOP Senator in the twenty-first century is saying a segregationist should have been President fourteen years before the Civil Rights Act!

"So what, big deal"? Anyone who says "So what, big deal" about what Lott said is too dumb to vote!

[ApesForEvolution]

I totally agree, but they have to get on it. It's kind of funny all the race pimps that are coming out...lots of good sound bites to use against them later.

[ApesForEvolution]

I totally agree, but they have to get on it. It's kind of funny all the race pimps that are coming out...lots of good sound bites to use against them later.

[ApesForEvolution]

"You said it yourself -- the Demos "remain silent" about their racists. So, if someone points that out, what will they do? Play back the tape of Lott's "joke" and say, "Checkmate!"

This is one of those moments when people have to decide what the heck it is they want -- to show that their standards are higher, or to feebly say, "If they can get away with it, we should be able to also."

EXACTLY. And, I might add, I knew it would only be a matter of time before Duncehead gave the GOP a reason to get better leadership for the GOP Senate Majority.

I see the fallout of this as being good for the GOP and conservatives against the racist image as well as getting a better leader for the GOP Senate.

[xlib]

Okay, so what was the point of this rant. Why should Lott resign?

Because, by making this stupid comment, or joke, or whatever you want to call it, he has demonstrated once again that he lacks the political skills needed to be the GOP's point man in the Senate.