Click Here!
Posted on 12/11/2002 8:17:36 PM PST by winin2000
The crux of the onslaught against Trent Lott would seem to be, "How can you argue the U.S. would have been better off electing a segregationist?" Well, it only makes sense to examine that question in the context of both history and, more to the point, what his opponent had to offer.
It is easy to lose sight of just how far the pendulum has swung on what is deemed respectable opinion on matters of race. Not too many years ago, the political spectrum in toto was, by today's standards shockingly "racist." And elected officials, who are now idols of the left, were no exceptions. And I'm not simply talking about the abundant Southern Democrats who were segregationists; there's much more.
Woodrow Wilson, for example, was a dogmatic, practicing white supremacist, enforcing segregated office during his tenure as president of Princeton University and while in the White House. An often forgotten gem of his on the subject of immigration:
“I stand for the national policy of exclusion. . . . We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race. . . . Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson.”
I must have missed the news account of Rainbow/Push's protest march in front of Wilson's Presidential Library and think tank.
Too far back you say? Okay, fast forward a few years. Who could possibly have said something as repugnant as:
Californians have properly objected (to Japanese immigration) on the sound basic ground ... that the mingling of Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results."
Nobody important. Only FDR.
Still not recent enough to the period in question? Okay, let's deal with the gentleman whom Senator, then Governor, Thurmond waged his rebellious campaign against in the first place. The man who is hailed as a visionary for his breaking down the color wall in the military. So happens Mr. Harry Truman wrote in private correspondence:
“I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.”
And for good measure, he wrote to his daughter that the White House kitchen staff was an "army of coons."
And lest you retort that these examples are not analagous, consider again the specific complaint against Lott. Although none of the Democrat vultures pecking at his carcass will make the straightforward accusation that he is a racist, they wax indignant about the propreity of having in high leadership someone who arguably thinks - who THINKS - America would have been better off under a President Thurmond. Some thoughts, however latent, are just too ugly to tolerate; whether they manifest themselves or not.
Now, that being the case, how can you seriously argue that these examples of rank, personal racism among liberal icons is irrelevant because they were sound on matters of policy. Truman's candid contempt for blacks is fine and dandy because, see, he got the ball rolling on integration. Yet Lott, whom no one can credibly accuse of attempting a recission of any of the substantive "civil rights" laws, is unfit to serve because he might have some deep-seated respect for the segregated society in which he was brought up.
Well, sorry folks, I ain't biting. The opportunism displayed on this forum these past few days is contemptible. From absolutist righties nursing impeachment grudges to self-righteous Yankees who see the Southern GOP base as some kind of albatross politically, most, if not all, calling for Lott's head have ulterior motives. I don't once recall seeing on Free Republic this kind of vitriol on the question of race and the Old South directed at Jesse Helms. And put your whitewash away, my friends; I love the man dearly, too. But the man who was elected to the Senate as commentator on a North Carolina newscast regularly attacking the civil rights revolution never formally repudiated his views on race. He simply stopped talking about it.
Why is Helms fit for Rushmore, yet Lott's sin is unforgivable?
Well, I for one will not let mortal fear of what kind of campaign ad will be run against us two years hence drive me to throw an innocent man to the wolves, giving craven idiots like Al Gore and professional anti-white demagogues like the Black Caucus yet another Republican scalp to hang on their wall.
I hope I've convinced a few folks to join me.
How about focusing on an immediate removal of Robert "KKK" Byrd from the Presidential line of succession (I bet you didn't know that, as Senate President Pro Tempore, he's President if President Bush, VP Cheney and Speaker Hastert are all killed).
Doubt it all you wish. I didn't say Reagan made some pronouncement to that effect personally (though he probably did at some point) but it's unarguable that his Justice Department assisted the pro-Bob Jones side in that case.
This was considered a little daring nineteen years ago, but it hadn't yet become the capital offense it is today.
I again return to my question: How pure on this subject would you like to be? Apply modern racial hysteria retroactively and American history will have one long rogue's gallery and no heroes.
This transcends the Lott issue -- there is the much bigger picture...
You can't allow legitimacy to the Democratic snipers for nailing the occassional Pubby with his pants down while they conveniently ignore their own orgies of ethics malfeasance and offensive quotes. We have Robert Byrd, Hillary Clinton, Maxine Waters, Willie Brown, Democrats ad infinitum.Capece??
It is we who ought to be pointing out their silly double standard and hypocracy over and over -- we only have a million and one examples thus far....NOW IS THE TIME.
That approach is the "everyone else does it" approach. It only works for Democrats, because the lapdog press will only present those arguments in a favorable light when Democrats make them on behalf of other Democrats.
When Republicans try it, it does not work. The arguments we present will not be presented as we wish; they will instead be presented as the product of a bunch of whiny, spoiled brats, and we will do more damage to our cause.
Yes, the rules are different. Life ain't fair, get over it.
This needs to be resolved quickly and ruthlessly. It's gone on about four days too long already.
I didn't present this post in the vein of the Clintonoids' "everybody does it" schtick when the subject was crimes and arguable treason rather than an unsavory opinion ingrained in American culture that we only recently outgrew.
My only concern here is a sense of proportion, reason, and justice. I am not going to sic the thought police on someone who's been perfectly inoccuous on matters of equality under the law.
I've been here quite a few years, and if you've read enough of my posts, you know I give wide latitude to the Republicans on questions of needed compromise to ensure political success. But press be damned, I'm not budging on this one.
I didn't present this post in the vein of the Clintonoids' "everybody does it" schtick when the subject was crimes and arguable treason rather than an unsavory opinion ingrained in American culture that we only recently outgrew.
My only concern here is a sense of proportion, reason, and justice. I am not going to sic the thought police on someone who's been perfectly inoccuous on matters of equality under the law.
I've been here quite a few years, and if you've read enough of my posts, you know I give wide latitude to the Republicans on questions of needed compromise to ensure political success. But press be damned, I'm not budging on this one.
Thank you for clarifying your stance. It's nice to know who your friends are...
...and aren't.
Stop being a patsy for the hypocrites of the Democratic Party...
Laugh at them. Ridicule them for their ethical double standards. Hold up quotes from Hillary Clinton, Robert Byrd, Willie Brown, Maxine Waters, Donna Brazile, etal.
I'd feel sorry for these sombitches if we ever truly put them on the defensive. They'd back off like the French Army asked to defend Paris.
How in hell did you cull that idea from what I just posted?!
The "accomodationists" of the moment are those who agree with you! The easiest choice in the world would be to roll up into a fetal position and lead Lott to the slaughter in the (false) hopes that those mean, nasty Democrats stop saying bad things about us.
I'm the one willing to take the heat here. You aren't!
Hypothesis contrary to fact.
I'm the one willing to take the heat here. You aren't!
Because I do not see the strategic gain from doing so, but you do, because a neutered and impotent Republican majority leader continues and expands the accomodationist stance you admitted was to your liking.
When Republicans try it, it does not work. The arguments we present will not be presented as we wish...This needs to be resolved quickly and ruthlessly. It's gone on about four days too long already."
I can only be thankful I'm not sharing a foxhole with you. Are you sure you're not a Frenchman??
My solution for dealing with the exceptionally foolish in combat might be viewed as being overly ruthless...but it does prevent repeat incidents.
Lott blew it. Now we have to clean up his mess. Sorry if it interrupts your desire to wallow in it for a couple of years.
Mess"?? You must call 911 for a hangnail.
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.