Selective Moral Outrage, Part II: Why only be outraged at Lott’s remarks?

National Review Online ^ | 12/11/02 | Mark R. Levin

[wcdukenfield]

On September 24, 2002, the Senate Democrats set aside time during morning business to pay tribute to Strom Thurmond. What's remarkable about every one of these statements is that they were effusive in their praise of Thurmond, and none contained any negative reference to Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid as a Dixiecrat, let alone any reference to his segregationist past.

What are we to make of this? Are these senators sympathetic to segregation? Of course not. Clearly, it would have been inappropriate to use the occasion to disparage Thurmond. Their purpose that day was to honor him. And they did.

Some have argued that their grievance with Trent Lott is more particularized. During Thurmond's 100th-birthday celebration, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Lott says he was not referring to Thurmond's segregationist views. Many Democrats aren't buying this explanation. While refusing to label Lott a racist — who, in fact, is a cautious legislator who tends to seek comity rather than confrontation — they apparently insist that his comment was intended to be racist.

Well, then, what are we to make of Democrat Senator Carl Levin's September 24th praise of Thurmond? Among other things, Levin said, " ... I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Strom Thurmond and honoring him for his unparalleled record of public service to this Nation." And then a few sentences later, Levin says, "In 1948, while he was still Governor, [Thurmond] ran for President as a State's Right Democrat and received 39 electoral votes, the third best showing by an independent candidate in U.S. history."

Are we to conclude that Levin was honoring Thurmond for, among other things, his historic showing as a segregationist candidate in 1948? If not, why else would Levin have mentioned it in the context of praising Thurmond's career?

Of course, Levin's not a racist, either. He made this statement in the same vein as Lott did. Yet, there's no condemnation of Levin — either from Democrats or Republicans. And so goes the politics of selective moral outrage.

[FreeTheHostages]

I love Mark Levin. The Great One rules. I wished I agreed with him here. I do wish, but I can't. But what Sen. Levin said wasn't that "we wouldn't have had all these problems." He didn't say that. And that's the problem with what Sen. Lott said.

The only explanation I'd buy is that he was just thinking outloud of saying something to please Sen. Thurmond, something he didn't believe but said anyway.

But what Sen. Lott *did* say is very troubling -- I can't buy an explanation that indicates it's not troubling.

[MeekOneGOP]

The media should refer to Robert Byrd as:

Robert Byrd, former KKK Clansman.....

[FreeTheHostages]

True.

And Kissinger, former mass-murderer.

And Clinton, known rapist.

[OldFriend]

It was ALWAYS about state's rights with Thurmond and that was his goal throughout his entire career. He spoke often on the topic and never wavered from his beliefs.

That said, not being a mind reader I have no idea what Lott could have been thinking. Too bad it didn't stay a thought rather than words.

However, I am not about to be yanked around by the commie/libs in the media. The more they protest the more I am in support of Lott staying Majority Leader. Perhaps, like with Dick Army who was roasted for an unfortunate remark, Lott will learn who his real friends are on both sides of the aisle and this will give him the backbone he's been missing.

[Mo1]

Well, then, what are we to make of Democrat Senator Carl Levin's September 24th praise of Thurmond? Among other things, Levin said, " ... I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Strom Thurmond and honoring him for his unparalleled record of public service to this Nation." And then a few sentences later, Levin says, "In 1948, while he was still Governor, [Thurmond] ran for President as a State's Right Democrat and received 39 electoral votes, the third best showing by an independent candidate in U.S. history."

Hmmmmm .. interesting

[Caliban]

"we wouldn't have had all these problems."

Is a cliche...it is filler...it is dunder head drivel...it was a dumb thing to say to make contact with a 100 year olds few brain cells...it was a stooopid compliment that has given BOTOX BITCH Nancy Pelosi permission to set her BLACK RABID THIN BLACK SKIN step and fetchers out to attack Trent Lott...it is a "relief valve" for the blacks to act upon...because they are REALLY REALLY pissed that their black leader Maynard Jackson was spit on by Clinton/McAuliffe, and that McCall was SPIT on by Clinton/McAuliffe, that Alan Paige was SPIT on by Clinton/McAuliffe and that Harold Ford was SPIT on by Clinton/McAuliffe/Nancy Pelosi....

What we have here is a bunch of unhappy blacks...who can't speak out against WHO they ARE really angry with...

Look...Lott can and has been a DOLT...but he is OUR DOLT...and it is up to OUR party to decide...NOT Nancy. NOT the segregationists BLACK Caucus to TELL US what to do with OUR DOLT!

[Howlin]

Remove Carl Levin!

[rintense]

Mark does it again. This article is 100% DEAD ON.

[Phantom Lord]

The Great One is again Great. My wife and I are huge fans of his. I love when he rips Colmes.

[FreeTheHostages]

I guess that's true. The "I was just blathering and not thinking" defense is the only one I'd buy.

[colorado tanker]

Uh, Mark, there is a double standard in the media and politics. Dems get a pass on race, Pubbies don't. But you knew that.

[Mo1]

HA! .. works for me .. but I don't think the Dems will ask him to leave

[colorado tanker]

something he didn't believe but said anyway Gee, d'ya think a politician would do a thing like that?!

[FreeTheHostages]

On a bad day. Yes.

[FreeTheHostages]

oops, lol, that was sarcasm. sorry. sheesh -- having a busy day here.

[Diverdogz]

Exactly. Mark Levin is trying to do damage control by defending the defensible. But he totally ignores the elephant-sized gaffe of Lott's. Exactly what "problems" does Lott think we would have avoided if Strom, running on the Dixiecrat platform, had won the presidency.

And frankly, I expect better analysis from Mark Levin.

The only explanation I'd buy is that he was just thinking outloud of saying something to please Sen. Thurmond, something he didn't believe but said anyway.

I agree with that - there are many times I've said something stupid...but didn't really even mean it anyway. But, we can't afford these kinds of goofs from our Senate leader. Lott needs to go.

[bybybill]

The 2004 election has begun.

[FreeTheHostages]

But, we can't afford these kinds of goofs from our Senate leader. Lott needs to go.

I'm listening to that. I'm also listening to other posts here that say don't let the Dems push us around and Lott is *our* leader and stay loyal to the Republicans. Hmmm. I don't know what I think. I guess, I'm definitely loyal to the *party* but the question is whether Sen. Lott is what's best for the party. And as to the Dems pushing us around -- well, if Sen. Lott's a liability, I'd be happy for the party's sake to push him over. He's just one guy. The Republican party, to make it in the 21st century, *has* to be able to relate to all types of people. And I'm definitely not buying Mark Levin's point taht this was no worse that what Sen. Carl Levin said.

So I'm all about party loyalty, but that's not the same thing as loyalty to an individual. And I'm all about circling the wagons when a Republican innocent is being hunted by the Pelosi sharks. But is he an innocent?

I guess I really want to hear what he has to say today. If he can persuade me he's an innocent on this, I'm behind him. But the Republican party's interests, not Sen. Lott's, come first. And for the majority leader in the Senate, I have high expectations. Minor gaffes are OK. Major ones aren't. We have to win in 2004. This is all bigger than Sen. Lott.

[Political Junkie Too]

If a case can be made that the Democrats selective outrage is on par with their selective mourning and selective positions on international matters, then Lott's snafu might get blurred in the noise. If the public believes that Democrats stand for nothing except political expediency and saying and doing anything to win, even hyping Lott's gaffe while ignoring their own, then this could blow over by 2002.

Lott should step down as Majority Leader, though, just to put the issue at rest. His rush to call a vote on it last month was a mistake, too.

-PJ