Click Here!
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.
You have two choices: feed the beast ONCE, or feed the beast every frickin' day between now and November 2004.
Vacant Lott kinda foreclosed your other options for you. Get PO'd at him, not me.
Son, that would be like betting on the Sun rising in the east. I'll gladly take the bet.
Conservative press releases die a quick and invisible death unless they can be used to damage the conservative movement, in which case they will be put to that purpose.
You lost a pool.
Lott has lost any chance to move the GOP agenda forward.
He's the bigger idiot.
Real question: who's the bigger idiot, the idiot, or those who knowingly follow an idiot?
If Lott is not in actuality a racist, then he's a blithering idiot. He is also a completely compromised leader--the price of getting anything done in the Senate will be making Tom Daschle the de facto majority leader.
We cannot afford to expend the political capital needed to save this toupeed mediocrity's leadership post.
Bulldoze the Vacant Lott!
The only way Lott will avoid The Eternal Democrat Filibuster is for him to do EXACTLY as Daschle wants. You thought his last go-around was bad? Dear God Almighty, you ain't seen nothin' yet.
How so, Jim? Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard? Shouldn't we do what's right regardless of whether there is a media firestorm? Trent Lott said that we'd have been better off electing a pro-segregation, pro-poll tax Dixiecrat (not a Republican, mind you) in 1948 on AT LEAST two occassions. How many times, Jim, does he have to say it before we believe him? Many people (some here at FR I've found) agree with Lott that Thurmond should have been elected president. Why is it so far-fetched that Lott believes what he said (AT LEAST twice)? How is it weak-kneed to purge our party leadership of people who believe what Lott said? Isn't it the right thing to do? The weak-kneed thing is to let Lott remain. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Just because Kerry and others are right on Lott's removal as Majority Leader, it doesn't logically follow that it's the wrong course of action-- that would be a fallacy.
Which means that you and every other "conservative" trying to hang Lott because of this have helped hang Trent based on false evidence of bigotry. You feeling good about that?
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.