Why Gang Up on Lott When Rather and Wallace Get Off?

newsmax ^ | 12/11/2002 | Christopher Ruddy

[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.

[xm177e2]

Yeah, the American Family Association is made up of a bunch of RINOs who just want a little love from the liberal media.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

[BOOTSTICK]

Maybe it's because Lott is an inept, ineffective leader.

[Texasforever]

I agree. I hate the thought of being ridiculed by the likes of jackson, Sharpton, Algore, etc.

Uhh, YOU won't be ridiculed you are doing your job just fine. I am sure they will give you a big old gold star. How are you doing on the flashing lights?

[TLBSHOW]

lol

[SwordofTruth]

Let the Senate have their election for the position. Hopefully, someone else will win the vote.

Haven't they already had their election for the position and chosen Lott?

[Reagan Man]

That too. But above all else, when the time came, Lott was incapable of handling Jeffords rebellion and the sh!t hit the fan. BIGTIME!

That doesn't mean we should demand Lott's head and possibly lose the Senate in the process. If we take that course, the liberals win and we conservatives lose. I don't like it at all.

[TLBSHOW]

BLACK LEADER TO SEN. TRENT LOTT: "DON'T GIVE IN TO RACIST


And this press release will vanish into the "Deleted Items" folder, or the trash can next to the fax machine, in most news outlets.


Do you want to bet on it?

[Tall_Texan]

Over the edge or not, Lott needs to stay out of the Senate leadership. He's a tarred man.

If Gary Condit had been say, House Whip, during the Levy stuff last year do you think he would have been able to be effective in his role in the House leadership? No way. Every day a new story would come out tarring him and the leadership would be asked why they weren't calling on him to step down. They didn't do much of that in Condit's case because he was essentially a nobody in the House already.

Lott, OTOH, is the expected Majority Leader and he's now tainted with the R-word big time. Fair or not, deserved or not, he infects the image of the entire party as long as he's viewed as a leader of the party - someone who is influential in what bills and what nominations come up for a vote.

For the good of the party, he's got to go. Not resign his Senate seat (he won't need to - he can use the same "let the voters decide" mantra that sustained Condit) but certiainly step down from any leadership role in the Senate.

Name one reason why we should continue with this ineffective dolt when there are several other qualified Senators who could easily take his place? Let's get some new blood in there. Somebody that isn't tainted with the R-word and symbolic ties to Strom Thurmond and outdated segregationist ideas.

And, for Mr. Ruddy, the reason Lott isn't getting a pass from conservatives is because he's not worth trying to save. He's kowtowed to the Democrats too often, even when the Democrats would not show him the same courtesies in return. He's Bob Michels and Gerald Ford all over again. Surely there's a dozen better options.

Time for Trent to move to the back of the bus.

[Texasforever]

Maybe it's because Lott is an inept, ineffective leader.

Or maybe it could be that many of you are so damned bitter about the election that you smell blood in the water.

[Texasforever]

Time for Trent to move to the back of the bus.

That sounds racist to me.

[Texasforever]

Time for Trent to move to the back of the bus.

As a matter of fact that is so racist that you should resign from FR because a black lurker may take offense.

[jospehm20]

I do not believe Majority Leader Lott is a racist. If that is the case, it would be wrong for him to resign over this non event. In case y'all have not noticed, politicians say really stupid stuff all the time. This is PC run amok. Forget what the 'Rats say and look at how they act. If they really want to expel racists from the Senate tell them to have KKK "conscience of the Senate" Byrd resign first. This is about getting Lott out of the Senate and having a 'Rat governor appoint a 'Rat replacement for him. Lott has already apologized for being stupid and that should be the end of it. Did Byrd apologize for his remarks last year? I do not like Lott but I would not like to see him chased out of the Senate by the double standard that the totally dishonest 'Rats use to judge people.

[SerpentDove]

..Lott, OTOH, is the expected Majority Leader and he's now tainted with the R-word big time. Fair or not, deserved or not, he infects the image of the entire party as long as he's viewed as a leader of the party -
someone who is influential in what bills and what nominations come up for a vote.

For the good of the party, he's got to go. Not resign his Senate seat (he won't need to - he can use the same "let the voters decide" mantra that sustained Condit) but certiainly step down from any leadership
role in the Senate.

Name one reason why we should continue with this ineffective dolt when there are several other qualified Senators who could easily take his place? Let's get some new blood in there. Somebody that isn't
tainted with the R-word and symbolic ties to Strom Thurmond and outdated segregationist ideas. <<

Shhh...now see what you've done. In the mind of Texasforever, your ideas are not only in contrast with his, but you are now a Democrat. He said I'm not a Republican, and in fact I'm in the NAACP.

Brilliant mind, that.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"They didn't do much of that in Condit's case because he was essentially a nobody in the House already."

Condit was a member of the House Intelligence Committee, a little known fact because the liberal media didn't report it at all. Human events did......

That became particularly important after 9/11, but you're right. No democrats called on HIM to step down.....

[SerpentDove]

Shhh...now see what you've done. In the mind of Texasforever, your ideas are not only in contrast with his, but you are now a Democrat. He said I'm not a Republican, and in fact I'm in the NAACP. *snicker*

Brilliant mind, that.

RE: Posts #49-51

[TLBSHOW]

Republicans who fail to support him (LOTT) are displaying cowardice.

JESSE LEE PETERSON

[TLBSHOW]

Republicans who fail to support him (LOTT) are displaying cowardice.

JESSE LEE PETERSON

[Tall_Texan]

Umm, I think the name is "Patterson". Reverend Patterson to you.

[Tall_Texan]

Well, my mistake. It is Peterson. Seen this guy on tv a dozen time and I could have sworn it was Patterson. My bad.

Anyway. Booting Lott isn't cowardice. It's political common sense.

[TLBSHOW]

Umm, I think the name is "Patterson". Reverend Patterson to you.

SORRY I AM ALWAYS RIGHT AND ONE OF THE LIBERALS WORST NIGHTMARES!