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 Lott’s head over his remarks about Strom Thurmond.
While not saying anything directly racist, Lott implied he agreed with Thurmond’s 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 doesn’t 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 Lott’s apology and explanation. End of story.
Instead, I was wondering when the major media would get around to reporting Dan Rather’s 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 Rather’s 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.
In the end, it is all about political expediency. The faction inside your Party who prevails will be the one who convinces the most Republicans of their view of his relative liability or usefulness.
As an outsider, I would opine that he has hurt your party more than helped already. It seems that he has alienated the more conservative members of your party by things he has done having nothing whatsoever to do with this flap.
HA!!!!
You noticed, huh?
Well face it, he could've threatened [to try to] break your neck as he's been know to do, right?
So c'mon now, give credit where it's due!
There's actually been a marked improvement whenever threats have been replaced with insults.
Just chalk-up the whole experience to:
"One can fool some of the people some of the time; but, not all of the people all of the time."
Whereby you may assume your (rightfully earned) place in the, "all of the people" column, now. {g}
Just between you & I?
I love that guy to pieces, I swear.
...makes me look so moderate. :o)
I think the howling could be lessened considerably if it was made known that the removal of Lott would be met with a complete- and public- investigation of a Democratic senator for criminal activities that would result in his loss of office as well...particularly if it were one mentioned as a potential Democratic presidential or VP candidate. I'm sure some likely suspect could be found, and in the aftermath of the Gary Condit scandal, I expect some quick backpedalling would result.
If not, Bush could always begin replacing ALL the Demovcratic holdovers he's kept on since the Clinton administration, including all the Democratic U.S. Attorneys brought in to replace the Republicans tossed out by Clinton...if Bush hasn't cut a deal with the Democrats already, hoping to gain support for a war in Iraq from some Key Democrats, without which his reelection chances may be nil.
-archy-/-
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.