Posted on 12/10/2002 5:35:47 PM PST by 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.
The answer is to apologize, explain and be nice.
Then just smile at them while they whine like a bunch of little girls.
I knew that someday we would agree on something. Today is that day.
And he wouldn't have done this had he become President why?
I disagree. You have to know what the 1948 dixiecrats were about to understand that saying if strom won in 1948 we wouldn't have all the problems we have had, to realize that my interpretation of what h Lott's statement actually means. See my posts above.
"On the other hand, there is a colorable argument to be made that the 1964 civil rights legislation did in fact harm this country."
I actually agree with you. But the issues are different. Forced public accomodations is an invasion of the association right. It would have been better merely to remove the jim crow laws --which the dixiecrats were upholding and that is the public policy that a present day politiican cannot claim to be proud of his state's prior support in 1948. Hopefully, that would eventually enough to result in a colorblind society.
"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. "
The distinction between 1948 governmentally required segration as embodied in jim crow laws supported by strom's dixiecrat platform AND the opposing the 1964 forced governmental association, was made in the above paragraphs. On a purely political level, however, the nature of the present climate does not allow a politician to make that distcinction and announce that he opposes forced association and this does mean he is for forced segragation. LOTT DOES NOT UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS AND JUST TAKES A CROWBAR TO THE ELECTION VICTORY BY ROUSING THE DEMOCRATS' FALSE CLAIM THAT REPUBLICANS ARE RACIST.
LOL. Perhaps you just want to say "this minute is that minute." I will most assuredly say something on this very thread that will be disagreeable to you. :)
If I recall correctly, Gordon Parks got the same sound parental advice.
If Lott is removed as Majority Leader, he may well resign his Senate seat altogether (and perhaps run for Governor of MS in 2003?), thereby allowing Democratic Governor Ronnie Musgrove to appoint his successor.
I'm not stating this scenario as a reason not to remove him as Majority Leader, by the way. It wouldn't bother me in the least if he were replaced (and not just because of this incident). But we should all understand the possible consequences of that action.
This is going to be all we will hear for a week now!
"Trent Lott REALLY is a racist.. We have two quotes to prove it! He doesn't say it outright, but you know he's thinking it don't you? Don't you? DON'T YOU! Of course he is! He's evil. He's not stupid, he's evil! He's an evil, evil man! Just like the other Conservatives!"
Just great..
Lott has to know what the Dixiecrat Party was all about. Suppose the words "just slipped out." I am still at a loss to account for the frame of mind that would just randomly pick the 1948 presidential run out of the air when casting about for something nice to say about Strom. Even to recall Strom peeing out the door of the Senate Chamber into a bucket in the cloakroom during his big filibuster would have been better.
Then his apology makes it worse by referring to segregation as "the discarded policies of the past" rather than forthrightly saying that segregation was wrong. What he said could mean no more than "It would have been nice to be able to keep Jim Crow, but I know we can't go back now." Besides which he apologizes in weaselly modern fashion for "offending" people, not for saying something that was objectively wrong to say.
Lott is an adult, of sorts, and he said what he said. I am not much interested in what he meant. I am a little tired of people in our society saying stupid, harmful things and then bleating defensively about what they "really meant." The words he spoke have a meaning, and it is a reprehensible meaning. Lott said them, and then he shilly-shallied around for days, and finally he issued an ambiguous non-apology.
Furthermore, this is not the first time the d**n fool has said stuff like this. At this point, I don't care whether he has a secret nostalgia for Jim Crow that he can't keep to himself, or whether he is just completely irresponsible in his use of language. A man who can't control his tongue has no more business in a position of political responsibility than a man who can't control himself in any other way.
Dump him.
So think over your "Moral Outrage" as to what happened; what was really said that is worth a man's career. The "Masada Wing" of the GOP is trying to use this issue to get even with Lott but could lose the Senate.
Ain't it? It's exactly why Lott and his entire merry band of eunuchs who've made Republican Leadership an oxymoron need to be removed. The sooner the better.
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.