Why Lott should resign as majority leader (vanity)

I honestly think that Tom Daschle's inital instinct to cut Trent some slack was to some degree based on his preference for Lott over potentially stronger opponents in the Leader position. (When Tom is being nice to someone, don't assume that it is strictly charitable. Tom is a shrewd schemer.)

I think Lott understands the need to be accommodating to Dems in some ways of day-to-day business, but I think he doesn't know when he ought to switch away from accommodating strategies. Daschle has noticed this. He has noticed that Trent is not very good at whipping his RINOs into shape and drawing a line in the sand. There are many, many instances of Lott's failures in this regard over the years; of course, the Clinton trial is the best example.

(Gosh, Trent just gave away the whole farm, letting Bumpers mock the Constitution and ultimately the Senate itself. Because Trent was afraid of failing, he was afraid to try. He wanted to "get back to business"--but the real business of the Senate under the Constitution was that of convicting the sitting President for his rather high crimes, not cowering before inarguably maniacal opinion polls like a slavish ideological Democrat.)

I think Daschle's initially "forgiving" attitude toward Lott was also motivated by the preference for Lott to remain in place in order for the Dems to continue the race-baiting attacks. The fact is, Daschle is a Saul Alinsky-style radical. He has generally bought into Hillary's approach of making accusation after accusation after accusation (and lying incessantly) as the best means of effecting social (political!) change.

Someone might say that this radical-liberal philosophy doesn't explain Daschle's initially gracious approach toward Trent Lott. But it does when you realize that Daschle is actually a Clinton wannabe. The Clinton style is to let surrogates do the really vicious stuff (Carville, Begala, Jackson, Sharpton, etc.)--so as to appear gracious in the nasty fight.

Tom wants to be the soft-spoken guy in the whole mess. This is his political persona. When he gets manuveured into the role of angrily griping against our POTUS on the Senate floor (as he did before the election), he can't pull it off very well. And he knows that. It's not his "bag."

Attacking the conservative talk show hosts is another illustration of the fact that he understands the Dems' Alinsky-style game plan, but he would rather let other guys be the ones executing it.

Ah, but Daschle still does what he has to do in the political arena--even when he doesn't always like his team-player role. Maxine Waters forced him to become an agitator against Lott. The fact that he can get forced to change his stance so radically and so quickly is just proof that he doesn't yet have sufficient stature to be the Clintonian hypocrite playing the nice-guy role--because he is not the real leader of the Dems' attacks against the Republicans.

***

Notice that the above analysis, if correct, underscores the fact that the Dems hope Trent Lott will not resign. That's the last thing they want to happen.

The implications of this are ominous. That brings me to Rush Limbaugh's take on the whole subject. It gets complicated, but I think Rush is wrong about some pretty important points. As I said on another thread, Rush is now suggesting on the radio that the Republicans ought to stonewall the Dems to let them reveal their true colors as unreasonable and mean-spirited. He thinks that this will create a backlash against them.

He is arguing that we can write off the Blacks. This is temptingly pragmatic, but I say that this is not a good long-term strategy of racial conciliation, and it would represent an abandonment of Bush's plans to reach out to the Blacks for as long as it takes to wake them up.

Rush thrives on controversy--and controversy is sometimes good--but writing off a major segment of the populace in not appropriate strategy for a properly inclusivist President of a pluralistic nation.

Thus, I still think Lott should resign his ML post. His statement was mild in some ways but politically hideous in spite of its mildness. And Rush's sarcastic suggestion that Lott should use Bill Clinton's approach (waffling over word meanings, sending out spokesmen, assembling prayer groups, etc.) is actually an argument that Lott should RESIGN.

Rush hasn't noticed this, but it is obvious--in that it is obvious that Republicans should NOT resort to Clinton's approach.

Rush is letting his own wittiness obscure his judgment.

To show you what I mean, let me point out that his proposal that we just write off the Blacks flies squarely in the face of the fact that he has been getting some pretty interesting calls from long-time Black listeners to his radio program. The very fact that these political sleepers are calling in should remind us that we are poised to make a lot more progress with the Blacks. And it would behoove us not to blow it now.

Even if we write off the Blacks, the very fact that the Republicans are facing withering accusations of racism will likely disturb the Hispanics whom Bush has been courting with considerably more success.

Besides, there are a lot of white "undecideds" who will NOT understand the hypocrisy of the Dems if we take Rush's approach. Gosh, they will just see the present hypocrisy of Republicans who are refusing to clean house.

We have to seize the high moral ground. We have to do things in a way of crystal clarity for the undecideds. It's precisely because the undecideds are not all that discerning. That's why they are still undecided.

A lot of the white undecideds have family backgrounds of extreme Democratic populism (what I would call the Woody Guthrie crowd--even if they don't know who he was), and they have been taught all their lives that Republicans have instincts as oppressors.

Of course, these suspicious fence-sitters will typically come to their senses and vote with the Republicans when they see that the Dems are undermining national security. In other words, there was a real backlash against the Dems in 2002. But we can't count on it to spill over as a continuing resentment against the Dems in the present controversy. The present backlash does not clearly involve the war. And it will be hard for the Republicans to frame the Dems' rhetoric as unpatriotic.

Thus, we could lose the votes of the undecided crowd if the issues swing away from the issues of the war--and back to the confusing social stuff which is the historical bread and-butter of the Dems' political deceptions.

And the fellow who doesn't think this could happen in the present political scenario should do a little soul-searching. Even those of us who are NOT "undecideds" but serious conservatives found Trent Lott's remarks NAUSEATING.

And remember this: Many of the Dems are becoming pretty hawkish in the war effort. They may yet succeed in resetting the agenda of political controversy. Historically speaking, its what the Dems do very well except where war itself is directly involved.

I hope that our POTUS will see the very real political danger in all of this stuff--pretty quickly. As I said, the only place of real safety is the inarguably high moral ground. We need to publicly accept Trent Lott's apology. As Robert Novak would say, It's the Christian thing to do. But we need remove Lott from his leadership role and do it pretty fast. Our POTUS needs to take the issue of alleged racism within the Republican Party completely off the proverbial table.

And that will snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat.

***

BTW, most of the FReepers who have been posting on this topic seem to agree with me thus far, not with Rush. See also my post #19 at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/804675/posts?page=19#19

Because I have to head down the mountain for bit, all I can say, after two readings of your post:

You have my vote for POST OF THE DAY!

I totally agree, but on THAT basis, even I would have supported Lott on principle. The way he has handled this and allowed this to become exactly what it is, his defining moment of collapse, makes it even more apparent to me, a vociferous anti-Lott supporter, that his Leadership has been compromised and he can not be effective as the new GOP Senate Majority Leader.

What I'm saying is that if the forces of the Left are going to ceaselessly attack Lott for his harmless comments, they should also clean their own house. African-Americans should be able to see this plainly: the Left is coddling its own unrepentant racists, and it only raises the issue of race when it can be used as a political stick, to bash someone like Lott.

Thanks.

At the risk of stating the obvious, let me offer another point of evidence for my thesis that Daschle was actually delighted with the whole controversy even when he was being "gracious" in downplaying the implications of Lott's remarks. (See below).

Daschle changed his tune immediately when Maxine Waters got on his case about being nice to Lott.

Think about that. Only hypocrites can make this kind of quick change of position. This, in turn, argues that when Daschle was taking his earlier position that Lott's remarks should not be blown out of proportion, he was just trying to cast himself as the nice guy who was above the whole nasty mess. It's his preferred role when he thinks the controversy has sufficient energy to continue in spite of his nice-guy approach.

He really does want to position himself at the top of an ugly heap. But when Maxine Waters reminded him of the Dems' game plan, she was also automatically pointing out that the only one who can be "aloof" is the guy at the very top. And with the current DNC, that isn't Daschle.

A real leader could have ignored her. But Daschle can't, and he knows he can't. He's just one of the pawns after all.

...the forces of the Left ...should also clean their own house. African-Americans should be able to see this plainly...

To return to the analogy I drew in my 'rant,' trailblazers trying to overcome false stereotypes cannot afford to be preoccupied about what their opponents or their hoped-for converts "should" do. What our leaders need to do is set a standard that is above reproach, and cull from the leadership those who fall short.

Dasshole is simply a reed blowing to and fro on the winds of xxxlinton and mccauliffe. The RATS can scream and holler all they want, but if the GOP does the right thing here, we will be able to say

"Look, we lost a leader because he made some comments that were mild and had no mal-intent. You, however, cover, let slide and even *embrace* the covertly racists amongst you. Let's look at some examples (list too long to even start here)...We hold ourselves to a standard of loving all men and women in America and not denegrading any by our actions or our words. When you (RATS) are willing to do the same, we will take you seriously. This wasn't about your standards, it's about ours. The party that brought the civil rights bill of '64 to the President's desk."

"...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..."

Obviously you don't have a clue what a lynching was or what the idea of a federal anti-lynching law was. The analogy to "hate crimes" legislation is ludicrous.

I can't find the content of the specific proposal being discussed in '48, but the law proposed in 1937 was to begin with in no way race-specific, so the hate-crimes analogy is hot air. It defined a lynch mob as "an assemblage composed of three or more persons acting [together] without authority of law, to kill or injure any person in the custody of any peace officer. . . ." The bill did not make lynching itself a federal crime. It was aimed at local and state governments which were refusing to enforce state laws equitably, not to mention colluding with lawbreakers.

The Gavagan bill stated that any local or state officer who refused to protect an individual in custody or to prosecute lynch mob members would be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine up to $5,000 and imprisonment up to five years. Any officer actually aiding a lynch mob would face a prison term of from five to 25 years. Finally, the bill made the county where a lynching took place liable for damages of $2,000 to $10,000 payable to an injured victim or, if killed, to his survivors. (Source here)

According to the 14th Amendment, Section 1, no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." According to Section 5, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

Anti-lynching legislation like the 1937 bill is constitutionally appropriate on the most conservative interpretation of these provisions. The legislation targets state officials responsible for extending the protection of the laws to those under the state's jurisdiction. It does not criminalize lynching; it criminalizes the failure of state officials to comply with section 1, which is a power specifically "enumerated" for Congress in section 5. This is the most conservative interpretation possible of equal protection.

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.

You take a lot on yourself, don't you? What in the world gives you the right to make assumptions about what I was taught and what I 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.

You fail to give me any documented example of any other issue that was emphasized in the 1948 Dixiecrat campaign besides preserving Jim Crow, so all this rhetoric is pretty pointless. In 1948, in the real world, not in the world of your opinions, "State's Rights" was a code word for segregation, and everyone knew it.

If State's Rights disappear (and they largely have), you get silly, national 55 mph speed limit laws

Right. Let federal legislation fine state officials for colluding with terrorist murder-gangs, and the next thing you know, you gotta drive fifty-five. Crushing, for sure.

The issues of poll tax, lynching, Jim Crow should have been fought simply as constitutional issues instead of by an imposition of federal law...It is the job of the Supreme Court to restrain "state-level statism". Federal statism is NOT justified by fighting state statism. .

This is a false alternative. Because state-assisted lynching and at least some classes of state-mandated segregation were violations of the 14th Amendment, as Justice Harlan argued in his dissent in Plessy, and since the poll tax had no other purpose than to frustrate the intent of the 15th Amendment, Congress was authorized under section 5 of 14 and section 2 of 15 to "enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions" of these Amendments.

The idea that the Supreme Court has some unique power to interpret and defend the Constitution is a myth that became a liberal dogma during the Warren Court. In reality, all three branches of government have an obligation to uphold the Constitution. The Congress has an obligation to use the powers specifically given to it in the Constitution to enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. These are straightforward enumerated powers.

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).

You come close to acknowledging reality in that last clause, but not close enought. No one on the Left had to "reshape" the debate on State's Rights into "racial tones." At the end of the 19th century and first half of the twentieth century, Southern Democrats were entirely upfront in declaring from the rooftops that for them State's Rights were all about the right of the Southern States to maintain a racist nanny state.

Fifty years ago racism was not just a bad attitude on the part of "some supremely stupid and ugly southerners"; it was the explicit organizing ideology of a whole system of tyrannical state control of many different aspects of the lives of white and black citizens alike.

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.

Sure, like it's easier for the North Koreans to fight and change their tyrrany than it was for the Russians, because North Korea is smaller. Exactly how easy would it have been for blacks to fight Jim Crow in Mississippi in the mid-20th century, if you entirely eliminate the actions and interventions of the federal government? What strategy, short of exercising the right of revolution, would you have suggested to them?

If Congress had done its constitutional duty twenty or thirty years earlier and enforced the 14th and 15th Amendments, the Left would not have had such an easy time convincing blacks that the Constitution is their enemy, and that genuinely unconstitutional federal action (racial preferences, for example) is their only hope of making it in America.

If we have to have one or the other, I'll choose state statism every time!

Yes, tyranny always looks better when we expect that our kind of people will be running it.

GilesB has challenged my assertion that Strom Thurmond ran as an enemy of human liberty in 1948. I think it is important that conservatives expose the idiocy of Neo-Confed nostalgia about mid-20th century Thurmond-style "State's Rights," so I am posting a bit of documentation.

Let me stipulate that Senator Thurmond changed course subsequently; as several posters have pointed out, the Fool Lott should have praised that, not the '48 race.

Anyone who denies that preserving Jim Crow was a principal aim of the Dixiecrat campaign is either playing games or too deluded to argue with. I think it was the only aim, but let's not quibble: it was at least one aim of the Dixiecrats to preserve the Southern status quo of 1948.

Jim Crow was sheer statist tyranny, sheer big government. It extended the control of government over the personal lives, businesses, amusements, and associations of both black and white citizens. It was structurally the direct forerunner of the PC tyranny contemporary Democrats would like to impose and to some extent are imposing. The ideology has changed from white racism to multiculturalism, but the statism was the same.

Below are some examples of what the Jim Crow regime involved. I am leaving out entirely laws establishing discrimination in the state's own services (education, etc.) and concentrating on state interference with the economic and personal liberties of individuals

ENTERTAINMENT

Alabama: It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided.
Alabama: It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other at any game of pool or billiards.
Alabama: Every employer of white or negro males shall provide for such white or negro males reasonably accessible and separate toilet facilities.
Georgia: All persons licensed to conduct a restaurant, shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room or under the same license.
Georgia: It shall be unlawful for any amateur white baseball team to play on any vacant lot or baseball diamond within two blocks of a playground devoted to the Negro race, and it shall be unlawful for any amateur colored baseball team to play baseball within two blocks of any playground devoted to the white race.
Georgia: All persons licensed to conduct the business of selling beer or wine...shall serve either white people exclusively or colored people exclusively and shall not sell to the two races within the same room at any time.
Louisiana: All circuses, shows, and tent exhibitions, to which the attendance of more than one race is invited shall provide not less than two ticket offices and not less than two entrances.
Virginia: Any public hall, theatre, opera house, motion picture show or place of public entertainment which is attended by both white and colored persons shall separate the white race and the colored race.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Mississippi: Any person guilty of printing, publishing or circulating matter urging or presenting arguments in favor of social equality or of intermarriage between whites and negroes, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

MARRIAGE

Arizona: The marriage of a person of Caucasian blood with a Negro shall be null and void.
Florida: All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent to the fourth generation inclusive, are hereby forever prohibited.
Florida: Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room, shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding 12 months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.
Maryland: All marriages between a white person and a negro, or between a white person and a person of negro descent, to the third generation, inclusive…are forever prohibited, and shall be void.
Mississippi: The marriage of a white person with a negro or mulatto or person who shall have one-eighth or more of negro blood, shall be unlawful and void.
Wyoming: All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mulattos, Mongolians, or Malaya hereafter contracted in the State of Wyoming are, and shall be, illegal and void.

SERVICES

Georgia: No colored barber shall serve as a barber to white women or girls.
Georgia: The officer in charge shall not bury, or allow to be buried, any colored persons upon ground set apart or used for the burial of white persons.

TRANSPORTATION

Alabama: All passenger stations in this state operated by any motor transportation company shall have separate waiting rooms or space and separate ticket windows for the white and colored races.
Alabama: The conductor of each passenger train is authorized and required to assign each passenger to the car or the division of the car, when it is divided by a partition, designated for the race to which such passenger belongs.
Maryland: All railroad companies are hereby required to provide separate cars or coaches for the travel and transportation of the white and colored passengers.

Any defender of this system of intrusive, controlling government, bent on imposing an ideology on a society by sheer force, was to that extent an enemy of human liberty.

And by the way: if segregation was the dearly beloved Southern way of life, why did these states need laws to prevent whites and blacks from eating in the same room? Perhaps a suspicion that free people, even Southern white beneficiaries of the system, might make choices that didn't fit the plan?

Bump.

I do happen to think that the South has been unfairly denigrated by the North in some ways. (There were some noble aspects of the Confederacy's struggle against the Union, and these things have been largely ignored for the obvious reason that the North won the war.)

But segregation was an abomination. It even bothered me when I was a little kid in Texas (and that despite the fact that race does not seem to have been as big a deal in Texas as it was in some places).

Thanks so much for your informative post.

My father is from Alabama, and while he has shed the bitterness from growing up segregated, he has never forgotten it. The more I learned about what he endured as a youth, the more I appreciated the freedom of movement I took for granted growing up in California.

One of my strongest memories of my early years (pre-kindergarten) is when my mother took me and my sisters shopping, and I got my first real restaurant hamburger at the lunch counter at Woolworth's in downtown San Francisco. As I learned later in life, that's something my father never got to do.