This whole things smacks of being simply another stupid liberal witch hunt, but with conservatives who can't stand Lott joining in as this being the opportunity to finally move him aside.
I can't stand Lott, and hope like crazy that he will somehow not be Majority Leader, because he's a demonstrated incompetant boob. But by joining liberal scumbags in finding something racist in what he says is just wrong. Strom's version of "state's rights" would have prevented Roe v. Wade, the affirmative action decisions, and a whole host of other liberal scumbag judicial activism.
Maybe it would have been more helpful for Lott to have clearly distinguished what he was saying, that he was against the racist policies but for the overall theme, although it's unfortunate that we keep having to say "I have black friends" everytime this issue comes up. But then again, that is why Lott is a bozo and unfit to lead.
I in no way see how someone in 1980 or today can be equated as being a supporter of segregation and Jim Crow just because they say they're for state's rights, and we as conservatives are being foolish to give in to it (again).
Bump.
There was no ambiguity to his statement. Everyone at Strom's party with any brains thought long and hard how to phrase their praise.
"States' Rights" was 95% about segregation. Dewey's platform - I was amazed to read - was reasonably conservative without being segregationist, so there was a good Truman alternative already out there. If the Dixiecraps had *really* just wanted limited government, they would have bolted to the Republicans, even in 1948.
Strom winning in '48 would have been an unmitigated evil, giving a national mandate for Jim Crow (and I say this, like almost all South Carolinians, as a lover of the post-60s Strom). Only a complete political idiot or closet racist would dream otherwise. I'll give Trent the benefit of the doubt: he's an idiot.
I personally view this as the RATS assisting conservatives in making the GOP and our conservative views even more appealing and stronger.
