Click Here!
Posted on 12/11/2002 3:03:47 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
Oooh, that's good. "Today, I am calling on my fellow Americans on the other side of the aisle to stop the politics of racial division."
Suit yourself...you probably voted for Perot.
Yes they should.
But the mistake Lott made was to give the impression that he was for segregation in general, or prefered the Dixiecrat platform the Thurman ran on.
Incidentally, my sweetheart, the woman I married is of a race other than mine so... I know a thing or two on this topic.
So I agree, you do learn a lot about race relations when it becomes a family matter.
My sister's first husband was black, another sister's first husband was black and Irish, my brother's first wife was Korean, another has a wife from Guam...and I've had so many black friends that some people actually accused me of being prejudiced against the white race. (I am white).LOL
Her nickname is Pilar...
Lott said that, huh? Indeed. One minor point, though. Lott was joking when he said it. And, strangely enough, people were laughing.
Context, anyone? Context?
Just what, exactly, did Thurmond disavow. Certainly not his stalwart stand against Federal dictation of private and local affairs and institutions. He has been the driving force behind Republican efforts to move the Federal Judiciary towards strict construction for over a generation. In a very real sense, Bush owes his Presidency to Strom Thurmond. The Rehnquist appointment, in fact, was one of Nixon's payments for Strom Thurmond's support.
As for your taking stuff out of context? I believe that the States' Rights Democrats put together a full platform, addressing a gauntlet of issues. You simply pulled the racial part out. I will grant you that that was by far the most significant difference between the SRDP and the Democrats and Republicans that year, but they were not a single issue party.
The Anthropology views that you quoted from Thurmond sound so much like some of the things that Teddy Roosevelt wrote on numerous occasions, that I am surprised that you as a Republican stalwart would want to make such an issue over them.
I am sure that your intentions are honorable. But you need to get off of the high horse. We, who claim to be Conservatives, should never even consider crucifying one another over differences, however strident, on historic issues. Because history is so important to Conservatives, we naturally have stronger views on historic issues than other people. The Left understands this, and is delighted to use those strong feelings as a way to drive a wedge among us. This is why they have stirred up such a hoopla over the Confederate flag. This sudden attention to Lott is a similar ploy.
Republicans should stop even discussing it from any standpoint other than outrage at the idea that the Left would dare suggest that one be crucified for having a different historic perspective. The answer should be, "tell us which issue on the table today, you want to discuss?" The 1948 Presidential campaign is not such an issue.
You need to understand that the Left does not have the high ground they claim on racial and religious controversies; anymore than three generations ago, they had the high ground on labor relations.
You may have no problem with a Federal anti-Lynch law, but some of us still do. It is the same problem that we have with Federal "Hate Crime" legislation; with Federal legislation telling people they cannot even take the labels off their mattresses; with Federal legislation telling business men or working men, with whom they may associate or do business; with Federal legislation defining what citizens of any particular State may do to arm themselves for personal protection.
The Federal Government was not set up to be the Policing agent in the American system. The Police power was left with the States. Strom Thurmond understood that in 1948, and I am sure that at 100, he still understands that.
You and I may have very different social values. But neither of us has the right to have the Federal Government enforce our Social values on our neighbors. This idea that the Federal Government is the ultimate problem solver for every group with a wish list is the real problem in America today.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Even in Nazi Germany, they did not crucify one for expressing a viewpoint on an historic question, which had nothing to do with Hitler's current program. One could probably have expressed the view in 1938 that Kaiser Wilhelm I should or should not have done something in 1884, without fearing the Gestapo. But you, my arrogant friend, aspire to censor what opinions today's generation of politicians may have on what happened in 1948, and the consequences. And what is your justification? You think that the political enemies of the man you would shoot down, will make hay with his views.
Well they have made hay, all right. But it is from the reactions of so-called Conservatives, bent suddenly on internecine warfare to appease an absurd fantasy. That fantasy is that the public--the objective or not already committed public--will somehow be inflamed because one Senator expressed admiration for what another Senator did 54 years ago. Do you have any idea how silly that is? The people making all that noise about their outrage are the already committed verbal warriors of the Left. They are not people who were on our side who have suddenly shifted.
The correct response should have been to laugh in their faces and then denounce their irrationality for thinking the American people are so stupid that they would be taken in by this sort of contrived controversy.
Stop playing into the hands of propagandists who want to undermine your heritage by dividing its defenders on stupid diversionary issues.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
You have the right to speak your mind. You do not have a right to have the really stupid ideas you choose to express taken seriously and treated with respect. You have the right to keep silent and merely be thought a fool. You also have the right to open your mouth and remove all remaining doubt.
Trent Lott's "speech"--if you can call it that--was a tribute to the most honored Senator of the present era. It did not call for feedback, except from wacko fanatics and Leftists looking to make angry statements for the purpose of creating division among Conservatives, and intimidating the susceptible into not criticizing the socio-political fruits of "Liberalism." Whoever heard of making a poltical issue out of a brief toast-like compliment to one being honored? What you are calling "feedback," is moreover, a demand that he be purged from a position of Senate leadership--and for what? An historic opinion on a political election that took place 54 years ago! If this all seems rational to you, perhaps there really is a "dummkopf" on this thread.
You have the right to speak your mind. You do not have a right to have the really stupid ideas you choose to express taken seriously and treated with respect. You have the right to keep silent and merely be thought a fool. You also have the right to open your mouth and remove all remaining doubt.
I would be more than happy to have anyone judge the intellectual contents of my posts on this thread vs. your posts on this thread. Let us just leave it at that. We will both be known by our work product. Fair enough?
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
You have the right to speak your mind. You do not have a right to have the really stupid ideas you choose to express taken seriously and treated with respect. You have the right to keep silent and merely be thought a fool. You also have the right to open your mouth and remove all remaining doubt.
By all means, let him have the credit for it: His answer for analysis, a trite, insulting cliche'.
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.