Skip to comments.Why Gang Up on Lott When Rather and Wallace Get Off?
Posted on 12/11/2002 10:09:09 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Why Gang Up on Lott When Rather and Wallace Get Off?
The liberals would love to see Trent Lott out as Majority Leader. But, I am dismayed by the number of Republicans and conservatives calling for Trent Lotts head over his remarks about Strom Thurmond.
While not saying anything directly racist, Lott implied he agreed with Thurmonds segregation views when Thurmond ran for President in 1948.
Lott quickly, and decently, apologized for the remark.
. . .I'm sorry for my words, Lott told radio host Sean Hannity Wednesday.
They were poorly chosen and insensitive, Lott said.
Lott then explained that he made his comments in this context:
When I think back about Strom Thurmond over the years, what I've seen is a man that was for strong national defense and economic development and balanced budgets and opportunity, and that's the kinds of things that I really had in mind.
I believe Lott. For several good reasons, but one important one. He would have been crazy to want to imply he supported segregation.
And another good reason is that Lott has a long, good record when it comes to race issues and fairness.
But sadly, Republicans are scrambling to attack Lott. Why?
One of things I discovered early in my career is that if a conservative wants to get really accepted by the media and get a lot of air time, he or she needs to attack a fellow conservative.
A conservative is crowned by the liberal establishment when he/she engages in ritual sacrifice of a fellow conservative.
This ritual act occurs when the conservative gets an op-ed in the New York Times or the Washington Post, and uses one of these platforms to attack a fellow conservative.
After the ritual, the conservative gets a liberal halo and is "cleared" for plenty of air time on CNN, ABC News, Nightline, and so on.
No, I am not participating in the sacrifice of Lott.
Lott may not be the savior of the Republican party, but he doesnt deserve to be ruined by an ambiguous remark that some have deemed offensive. I can understand why people may be disturbed, but I also appreciate Lotts apology and explanation. End of story.
Instead, I was wondering when the major media would get around to reporting Dan Rathers racist remarks.
I am talking about his comments in July of 2001, while on the Imus show, when Rather slammed CBS news exec for forcing him to report on the Gary Condit story.
Rather said on air, "What happened was they [CBS management] got the willies, they got the Buckwheats. Their knees wobbled and we gave it up."
Of course, the Buckwheat term is used to describe a frightened black man. At the time of Rathers use of the term, NewsMax noted that other public figures had gotten into hot water, even lost their jobs, for using the term.
Not limousine liberal Dan Rather.
Or what about his CBS colleague Mike Wallace. Wallace once said, with film rolling, that Blacks and Hispanics had difficulty filling our loan applications. According to Wallace, they were simply too busy eating watermelons and tacos to learn how to read and write.
The comments made by Rather and Wallace are far more insensitive than anything Trent Lott has said. Why have they never been held to account or asked to resign?
The liberal hypocrisy continues.
Lott is a recognized leader of the Republican Party; a party that has been stereotyped as racist and Lott's comments only reinforce that mistaken impression and hurt the entire party.
Why? Lott is one of the best things they've going. Almost as good as Daschle. He and Daschle hatched the agreement that saved Bill Clinton from removal. Nah. I think they want a lot more than to have him step down as Majority Leader. They want him to resign from the Senate so the governor can appoint a new Senator -- a Democrat Senator. I say, no way. Hang in there. If he's forced to step down from the leadership position, then they'll howl until he's forced out of office altogether. Blank 'em if they can't take a joke.
If he's that weak, he'll be completely ineffective as a leader. We cannot afford that.
My thoughts, exactly!
That's not beyond the realm of possibility--or probability, for that matter.
Yes, Lott can be crazy AND stupid. And he probably is.
With 49 solid votes for a filibuster...Lott gives that filibuster a figleaf of "idealism" to avoid charges of petty partisanship.
Lott has fatally damaged himself.
He needs to do the right thing now and remove himself from consideration.
Some folks need to make a similar trip to Lott's office, and have a similar chat with him.
Well Poohbah you finally went over the edge with that one. Sorry but that was too much.
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.