Why Lott should resign as majority leader (vanity)

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.

"But Trent Lott didn't make a racist statement. He simply said that the SC Senator would have made a good president. People are inferring racism into his comment. They can do the same with anyone, forcing them out of office. "

I am sorry but this is what has to stop. What Lott said is that the country would have been better off if the civil rights and integration never happened. To claim otherwise is just being foolish. Thurmond was the standard beared of the Dixiecrats who were founded on the principle of segregation of the races as governmental policy. I do not want to argue wheterh this is "racist" because this word has been nearly denuded of meaning.

The point is that Lott has now revealed that he believes racial segregation is preferable to racial integration and clorblind governmental policy. That his non-apology states that he does not now hold the "discarded" policy of segregation, only compounds the problem because he indicates that he has only adapted his policy view from segregation because history has past it by.

Since Lott has chosen to reveal his true beliefs, he is disqualified from leading the Republicans inthe Senate. He has been lousy at the job, anyway, and I am actually happy this issue comes up now so he can step down as majority Leader and we can get someone who can lead in such a manner that Republicans will continue to hold the Senate. He was ineffective before and did not deserve to continue the job as leader. Now, his new baggage makes him impossible as a political leader, period.

Those Dems are right when they say "if he didn't believe it why would he say it?" Lott has to resign now-- not form the Senate seat, but only from the Leadership position. We really can not take another two years of being rolled by the likes of Tom Daschle.

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

2) Lott needs to go, but not now and not for this. A racist, smart enough to get to where Lott is without a peep of his racism surfacing before this, would be sly enough to never say those words. Lott was obviously saying something much different than you and all the race-baiters (not including you in that group) infer. Maybe something as terrible as "Clinton would have never gotten the chance to have BJs in the Oval Office" - but clearly not "Blacks would still be second class citizens".

3) As mentioned elsewhere, his sharing arrangement is reason to remove him - so let's do that AFTER the GOP makes it clear that Jessie Jackson does not run the party.

The caller was surprised to discover that RUSH LIMBAUGH IS NOT A RACIST!

What does it mean to "not be a racist"?

Does it mean that you look the other way when a Black person kills a White? Does it mean that one refuses to talk about the crime statistics that show a much higher percentage of Blacks commit crimes than the percentage of say Jews who commit crimes? Does it mean that it's okay to have an all Black basketball team, but it's not all right to have an all White board-room? Because if it does than I'm a racist too.

But if one judges on the content of a man's character, or on his ability; and he doesn't give a damn if the guy is Black, or White, or Green, what is he? If he admires Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell, or Clarence Thomas, or Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan, what is he? I want to know. Because that's the category I fit into.

ML/NJ

It will make no difference at all what Lott does.

The GOP was called racist before, and it will after.

If Lott gives in to the race-baiters, they will do it more.
(Its kind of like battered wife syndrome) If the Senate wants another leader in January, fine.

Lott did not suddenly decide to announce, after winning the majority, in a time of war, that he wants a return to segregation.

It's all to dramatic for my taste, every Senator and Congressmen, know him, and KNOWS he is not a racist.

And it is cruel to say otherwise.

I am sorry but this is what has to stop. What Lott said is that the country would have been better off if the civil rights and integration never happened. To claim otherwise is just being foolish.

I have some points for people's considerations. First - if I've not read the whole story then someone please show me where he said the above. As I see it the ONLY way you can make what Lott said say what you've said is if you define Trent Lott in context of 1948. However, the past 50+ years would tell me that Lott is not a segregationist. He may not have the best political record but I see nothing that would make him an instant segregationist due to his statement at a party honoring Strom.

At worst Trent Lott is guilty of not thinking his comment through to all of its potential conclusions. At best he was doting on an old man who has served his country well and wanted to say something that would prop up Strom Thurmand. Or maybe it's that Strom Thurmand was more than a 'racist' and that time would have ultimately dealt with the issue of racism whether a segregationist won or not.

.02

Lott did not suddenly decide to announce, after winning the majority, in a time of war, that he wants a return to segregation. It's all to dramatic for my taste, every Senator and Congressmen, know him, and KNOWS he is not a racist. And it is cruel to say otherwise.

Exactly! People are just broad brushing him so quickly over this. I'm not a huge Lott fan - but he is most certainly not a racist.

Oh, that is total crap! The man had obviously forgotten the specifics of the platform that Thurmond had run on. I also question your recollection (and the recollections of the race purveyors) - obviously there were other planks to the Dixiecrat platform...but all certain people remember is that one plank - and not necessarily without good reason.

Strom had many ideas in his political life. He was not a shallow or insipid man. To imply that segregation was the ONLY idea behind his candidacy is silly. Lott obviously was saying that Thurmond would have made a better president than Johnson or Kennedy or whoever-the-heck Democrat was elected president in that election. To assume that he meant more makes one dumber than.....dumber than......well, dumber than Trent Lott!

1. We shouldn't shrink from doing the right thing just because JJ and AS happen to agree. They will make political hay from this as long as they can; in this case the right thing AND the smart political move is to dump him now.

2, 3. I don't think Lott's a racist; I think his political savvy is woefully inadequate to the role he seeks to regain, and as you and others have pointed out, this isn't the first dumb thing he's done.

Jackson and Sharpton would NEVER agree with the real reasons to dump Lott. Doing so at this time invites more of the same - just like Reagan's backing away from Bork brought us Anita Hill.

Caving in to craven idiots just because they're yapping is a sure way to make them yap more.

Reminds me of my friend's parrot - every time he goes into the kitchen, it squawks - so he feeds it to get it to shut up!

Had the race baiters not gone into a frothing frenzy over this, we wouldn't be wasting the band-width on it now!

True, Lott is no racist, but he is no strong leader, either. After the recent election, the GOP needs a tough common sense leader, not an old school southern with a TV preacher hairdo. Lott was perfect for his time, sharing power, etc... but his time is PAST.

Here's an idea: pretend to give the blacks and liberals a victory by demoting Lott now, while the issue is hot. Replace him with a Republican with cajones and no hint of old boy cracker attributes. Viola! The GOP gets a tough leader while acting contrite for the cameras. The on with the conservative agenda at a furious pace.

It's good politics, good tactics, and the future of our country is more important than any one senator.

The GOP is truly color-blind

Of course they are. That's why so many of them around here run around exclaiming "Islam: Religion of peace." LOL.

The democrats were and are racists too. But both the GOP and the DNC institute their racist policies differently. The GOP likes to bomb muslim nations. They aren't civilized enough after all to know what to do with all of that oil.

The democrats believe that all blacks and hispanics are stupid and lazy and thus need plenty of government hand-outs. And for the most part the GOP either believes this too (because they continue to expand government social programs even after claiming that they are the party of smaller government) or are simply afraid of their own shadows. I mean after all....it is more important not to be called a name than to save the taxpayers billions of dollars. They might not be able to hold onto their precious power.

Lott did nothing wrong. And calling for his resignation in this case shows a gross cowardice that plagues our nation. Policitical correctness has turned men into little sniveling cowards who cannot bear to be called one of the terrible names that the communists lable them with. "Anti-Semite", "racist" and "intolerant" is what is considered a political argument nowadays.

Oh come on! Jesse and Al are the only ones who give a darn about this anyway. Let them rant and rave. Do you think that this will help their cause? Get real.

Lott is majority leader and all their hissy fits will do nothing to change it. Why don't they attack their own former klan member, senator Byrd? Because he's a dem, that's why. No one believes that this will affect Republicans.

Many on this thread don't like Lott because he acts like a gentleman. He tries to persuade instead of jamming policy down the throats of those he opposes.

I was wrong when I predicted that the Congress would become under Democratic control, with under the table deals between the two parties to assure power sharing. What Rush mentioned today, however, tends to strengthen my belief that there IS no real difference in the two parties. Someone (I forget who he mentioned) said that the Republican Congress would try to get passed what they could before the next election, but not to expect much. This sounds like the same old story we have heard for the past 30 yrs. These crooks will never change and nothing will ever get done to make government smaller or lighten the burden on the average citizen. Lott is just the fall guy for the typical do-nothing Republican party who play the "good guys who want to make government smaller" to the "bad guys" (the Democrats) who want to make it bigger. BOTH parties have no intention of letting go of any of their power that doling out our money gives to them. It's just a scam, folks, and as their dumbing-down of America continues, there will soon be no one but stupid citizens and Mexicans who vote in this country.

OK, I 'll show you: The nearly exact language was "My state [Mississippi] voted fro Thurmond when he ran for president in 1948. We are very proud of that vote. In fact, if the other states had joined us, things would have been a lot better and we would not have had all these problems over these years. "

Part of Lott's idiocy is that he was obviously a child in 1948--54 years ago. He did not vote in 1948 but he was the one that announced how proud he was of that vote. This is all his topic, he is bringing up the topic of how people voted for president in 1948. The principal issue of Thurmond's third party run as a dixiecrat in 1948 was the continuation of segregation as governmental policy. This is what backing Strom in 1948 meant. It was a third party founded on that issue. For Lott to grab a shovel and unearth this issue and declare his pride for his state's voting for segration in 1948 is political suicide for a Republican in 2002. This is not groveling to the Black Cacus. It is an imperative for self-survival to get rid of Lott simply onthis comment alone. It will cripple the GOP takeover of Congress and this idiot[Lott] is unable to see it.

Then there is the additional factor that Lott should have been removed anyway because he is not a leader and ignorant. And I mean that precisely.

What Lott said is that the country would have been better off if the civil rights and integration never happened.

Lott said no such thing. And even if he did it so what?

You are reading into his words that which is not necessarily there. On the other hand, there is a colorable argument to be made that the 1964 civil rights legislation did in fact harm this country. If Lott had some balls (which he doesn't and this is what makes him a horrible leader) he might just stand up for the beliefs you claim he holds.

Then again, he claims he doesn't hold those beliefs. It's morally bankrupt to take one statement juxtaposed to a lifetime of political activism and proclaim that the statement voids his actions.

Lott should have been canned along time ago. But certainly not for this.

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.