Posted on 12/11/2002 11:08:13 PM PST by kattracks
Anybody can put his foot in his mouth but making it a habit is too much, especially when you are in a position where your ill-considered words can become a permanent albatross around the necks of other people whom you are leading.
That is the situation now, in the wake of Senator Trent Lott's latest gaffe, his widely publicized statement that we would have been better off if Senator Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Senator Thurmond ran on a platform of continued racial segregation.
Does Senator Lott have any idea what racial segregation meant to black Americans -- and, indeed, to many white Americans, whose support was essential to passing the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s that did away with Jim Crow in the South?
Let me recall a personal experience from that era. Although I lived in New York, during the Korean war I was a young Marine who was stationed in the South. On a long bus ride down to North Carolina, the bus stopped very briefly in Winston-Salem so that the passengers could go to the restrooms. And in those days there were separate "white" and "colored" restrooms.
The bus stopped next to the white restrooms and I had no idea where the restrooms for blacks might be located -- or whether I could find it in time to get back to the bus before it left. So I went to the men's room for whites, leaving it to others to decide what they wanted to do about it.
I figured that if I were going to die fighting for democracy, I might as well do it in Winston-Salem and save myself a long trip across the Pacific. It so happened that nobody said or did anything. But I should not have had to face such a choice while wearing the uniform of my country and traveling in the South only because I was ordered to.
This was just one of thousands of such galling experiences -- many others were far worse -- that blacks went through all the time during the era of racial segregation that Senator Thurmond was fighting to preserve as a candidate for the Dixiecrats in 1948.
If Senator Lott spoke without thinking about all this, that might be one thing. But he made the same asinine statements back in 1980 and apparently learned nothing from the adverse reactions it provoked then.
More important, such statements are going to live on as long as Trent Lott is leader of the Senate Republicans. Whatever the issue and whatever the election, Senator Lott's statements are going to be a recurring distraction from the serious concerns his party, the Senate, and the country will be confronting.
The changing demographics of the country mean that Republicans over the years will have to make inroads into the minority votes that now go automatically to the Democrats. Remarks like Senator Lott's will be a permanent albatross around the necks of Republican candidates trying to win the votes of blacks or of others who want no part of a racist past that was overcome at great cost.
The position of black Republicans will be undermined especially, if not made untenable. And any blacks considering becoming Republican candidates, or even Republican voters, will have to have some long second thoughts.
As someone who is not a member of any political party, I will not be directly affected. But any American who wants to see the two-party system working will be affected when one party's self-inflicted wounds make its long-run viability questionable in the face of changing demographics.
Back in 1998, Representative Bob Livingston was scheduled to become Speaker of the House, just as Senator Lott is now scheduled to become Majority Leader in the Senate. But when a personal embarrassment in his life became public, Congressman Livingston announced his resignation, in order to spare his party.
While Bob Livingston resigned from Congress, though he had violated no Congressional rule, all that Senator Lott would need to do to spare his party would be to step aside from the role of Majority Leader in the Senate. Will he do it? Time will tell.
A tin ear and a loose tongue are a bad combination for any publicly visible leader, and Senator Lott has shown both on other occasions and on other issues besides race.
©2002 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Democrats can't use this against Republicans in 2004 because they know the Republicans would use Byrd's real racist words against them if they dared try such a smear campaign.
The Speaker of the House is Denny Hastert, not Trent Lott.
Vacant Lott is senate Majority Leader.
It won't stick to the Democrats because 1) Byrd isn't the leader of the Senate Democrats and 2) it goes against type for Democrats to be racist. Yes, I know the old time segregationists were all Democrats. Doesn't matter. In the public perception, Democrats as racist goes against type, while Republicans as racist reinforces what a lot of people have been suspecting or even saying out loud. Bitch all you want; that's the way it is.
Democrats can't use this against Republicans in 2004 because they know the Republicans would use Byrd's real racist words against them if they dared try such a smear campaign.
Wanna bet?
Add Cal Thomas.....the chorus grows. I hope Lott's not getting booked for any of the Sunday shows. By then his views will matter only as historical perspective.
Face it. He isn't worth the effort to save and he really has nobody to blame but his own stupid self for saying what he did. He can't claim he was misquoted. The quote stands (unfortunately) on its own. It does not need to be rationalized or contextualized. The quote easily fits in the next NAACP get-out-the-vote ad all by itself.
Keeping Lott is like playing the $8-million shortstop that bats .212 because we "can't afford to release him". Never mind he's an embarrassment to the team. Never mind that he keeps making errors at critical junctures. Never mind that he strikes out whenever runners are on base. Too much has been invested.
It's time to cut our losses - plain and simple. Lott had some sympathy working his way when he got booed at the Wellstone funeral (the thanks these Democrats show for all he's done for them!) but he's just nuked that and then some.
Lott is Exhibit A of why Republicans are called "The Stupid Party" and his defenders don't even have the sense to see the gift they've been handed. Send this guy to the bench and give somebody else a turn at bat. Almost anyone in our dugout is a better choice.
You're right. That would never happen if Lott stays on as Majority leader. </ sarcasm>
If that's your best argument for keeping Lott, you don't have an argument. Trent Lott has made himself the Marge Schott of the Senate.
Notice the conservatives are coming out against Lott. I'm guessing that's because they're dreaming of a conservative Senate majority leader.
Well, consider this:--IF Lott steps down AND stays in the Senate---and a conservative Senate Majority Leader emerges....Chafee and Snowe will have their reason to bolt the party.
Conservatives should think this through before they take pen in hand.
Except that Lott is utterly incapable of fighting. Did he fight during impeachment? Did he fight Daschle's "power sharing" deal? Did he fight Jumpin' Jim? Did he fight Leahy's judicial logjam? Has he ever fought anything?
A 98-pound weakling has no business picking a bar fight—and when he does, he definitely has no business running to his 6' 4" buddy for backup. By the same token, a spineless appeaser like Trent Lott has no business making outrageous, easily twisted statements. If Lott were actually fighting back and defending himself, by going after Grand Fleagle Byrd for example, I might be willing to cut him a measure of slack (although I'd still think he's an idiot). But no, he wants to keep on looking moderate and conciliatory and calm and Senatorial, while letting real conservatives do all the heavy lifting. No dice—he dug this hole, he can either climb out of it himself or starve to death down there at the bottom.
Trent, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.
If he doesn't, we will have every stance we take on every social program racially demagogued-- and it will work (against us). It will drive up the black vote, and it will siphon off some percentage of the white vote.
Ignoring this and hoping it will go away and praying the damage won't be enough to cost us elections is simply foolhardy. It won't go away, and the damage will be more than enough.
Excellent point. MY fear is that he'll be so distraught over the harshness of the kerfluffle (Brit Hume's word) that he'll actually resign as a Senator; leaving the party in disarray AND neutralizing the wins of November 5. I think he should be encouraged in his request for redemption, but should also be kept within our fold for the sake of party unity. The Dems understand party unity, even if we don't.
Amen to 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.