Posted on 12/12/2002 10:26:02 AM PST by NewDestiny
“As the head of a nationally recognized nonprofit black organization BOND, the Brotherhood Organization of A New Destiny, my organization and I accept Senator Trent Lott’s apology regarding his remarks at Senator Strom Thurmond’s birthday celebration. I encourage the Senator to not give into the demands of racists who want to keep blacks on the Democratic plantation.
Sen. Lott has released a statement and appeared on national media to apologize for his statements. He has explained his statement and the context in which it was made—enough is enough!
Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, and the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) are hypocrites and they are the real racists.
Jackson has not apologized for his ‘Hymie’ town comments, nor for his forty years of immoral leadership; Sharpton has never apologized for his role in the Tawana Brawley disgrace; members of the Congressional Black Caucus have never asked fellow Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd to step down for using the word ‘nigger’ twice on national television.
Black and white Democrats alike who continue to demand that he [Lott] step down are doing so only for political reasons. And Republicans who fail to support him are displaying cowardice. Lott should not step down; he should not offer any more apologies—this matter is done! We should judge people based on their hearts and actions, and unlike many of his detractors, Trent Lott has no history of being a racist.”
###
Last seen in Philly condenming Lott's statements. Look around, there are fewer and fewer conservatives standing on your side here.
Thomas Sowell
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.
-----------
Still wish to claim that conservative voices condemning Lott are few and far between?
I heard Rev. Peterson yesterday on Hannity, and while I think his is a courageous and important voice, he is quite simply wrong!
I could hardly believe he was making the argument to Sean that if Lott were demoted from Senate Majority Leader for his comments, this would prove the GOP was racist! It would prove just the opposite!
All the citations of the hypocrisies and bigotries of the Jacksons and the Sharptons may have turned around the heads of fair-minded people before this past weekend, but what about now? If Lott is not dealt with, the GOP is just covering the butt of its own just like the Demos!
This is a bad situation regardless of what happens next, because either the GOP will have a Senate Majority Leader widely perceived as racist, or they will have to swallow hard and give in to the race hustlers. Think, people! Which is the less awful scenario? I vote for the latter. Giving the left their "pound of flesh" is really an "ounce of prevention" that will require many "pounds of cure" whenever racial issues arise in Congress -- and you can bet they will make sure they come up as frequently as possible with a wounded Lott leading the opposition!
There were very few detectable Lott fans here at FR, but now some of you want to save him to win a pyrrhic victory over people who are wrong most of the time, but have a legitimate point now? I can hardly believe it!
12/10/02
IN LIGHT of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's latest case of foot-in-mouth disease, it's hard to see how he can find a way to keep the moral authority needed to keep his leadership post.
For those who missed it, the senator from Mississippi said a truly dumb thing during his remarks at the 100th birthday party for Senate legend Strom Thurmond.
"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him," Mr. Lott said. "We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
The problem is that the Strom Thurmond who ran for president way back in 1948 was far from the same man who was the first Southern Republican to integrate his own staff in the 1960s. Instead, Mr. Thurmond ran on a radically segregationist platform. One of his typical campaign statements at the time went as follows: "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."
It's hard to see how, in retrospect, 54 years after that campaign, Mr. Lott could argue that such a platform would have solved whatever were "all these problems" to which he referred.
Praising Strom Thurmond for his longevity and his kindliness as an old gentleman is one thing; praising the harsh racism of his 1948 campaign is another thing entirely.
If Sen. Lott cannot find an unabiguous, clearly heartfelt and entirely rational explanation of and apology for his statement, he ought to let somebody else lead the Republican Party in the Senate. His record as a Senate party leader already was replete with other dumb statements (seeming to defend Air Force officer Kelly Flinn's voracious adultery with underlings, for example) and with questionable tactical decisions.
Perhaps Sen. Lott's remarks last week were a slip of the tongue in the course of a unique birthday celebration. Nevertheless, unless he finds a way to undo the damage, he leaves his party open to (unfair) charges that his slip was Freudian.
"In fact, I constitute one of his biggest defenders simply because I don't think he should be dumped from the GOP leadership because he's allegedly racist. I think he should be dumped because he's politically stupid."
I also called for Lott to step down last year, because he's politically stupid. I've said today, Lott's remarks were stupid.
So what's you point?
You want me to start posting articles and essays on this thread, from all the defenders of Trent Lott, saying he shouldn't step down? I think not. So stop polluting the thread. Condemnation for Lott have come from the leftwing and the rightwing. But only the liberal establishment, especially the liberal black minority, has overwhelmingly called for him to resign from the Senate. You're in bad comapany, bucko.
Btw, right now, I'm watching black conservative Niger Innis defend Trent Lott, on John Gibson's The Big Story.
I think that is what is motivating Rev. Peterson here - he has a strong, justifiable vendetta against Jackson and his ilk - but that is blinding him in this situation.
Why do republicans never learn. Why do they never protect their own. Why do they expect people can be 100% perfect 100% of the time.
Lott explained that he was just trying to make this very old man feel good. That he supported what this man had done over all after this defeat. He was only 7 in 1948. Lott supported Thurmons positions on national defense where he also differed from the other 1948 candidates.
Hey, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO LAID DOWN THE CHALLENGE. You claimed that almost NO conservatives were coming out against Lott. And now that I am proving that there are MANY conservatives who are speaking out against Lott and calling for him to step down as Majority Leader, you accuse me of polluting the thread. What a crock - but you know what? I figured you'd do just that.
I have not called upon Lott to step down from the Senate. I have said he should step down as Majority Leader - and even many of his liberal critics are saying he should not resign from the Senate. You're putting words in my mouth, another despicable debating technique. So, let's see - you claim that there are few conservatives adhering to my point of view, and when I prove otherwise, you say I am polluting the thread - and then you distort my position. Pathetic.
This isn't about condemnation of Trent Lott, this is about who on the rightwing, has called for Lott to resign his Senate seat. You're confused. Even Rush said Lott's remarks were stupid, but that the liberal establishment has blown this out of proportion and made it into a federal case. Get your facts straight.
And Bill Kristol isn't someone who I consider, a die in the wool conservative. He's a big mouth McCain supporter!
Because we're supposed to stand for something more than saving our own a$$e$ at any price.
Oh, that's really special. May I offer your comments from a thread on the subject I mentioned:
I heard the President's comments concerning Trent Lott's remarks. He did slam Lott.
You know EXACTLY what I am talking about here, and are unwilling to acknowledge it. You're doing WONDERS for your credibility on this thread.
My nomination for quote of the day...
well if he does leave the Senate -- he'd darn well better take Byrd and Hollings with him (can the better informed tell me what the Governor situation in their states ??)
Do you ever read what you write. Truth is, you're too busy trashing Trent Lott. You are polluting this thread.
I will repeat one more time, for your benefit alone.
This is not about condeming Lott for his remarks. Almost everyone has said Lott's remarks were stupid. This is about you naming legitimate conservatives, who have asked for Lott's resignation, on the basis of those remarks alone and not on their past dislike of Lott's leadership.
You're attempts to obfuscate the issue, have failed miserably. The basis for this thread, comes from the remarks of a strong black conservative, the Rev.Jesse Lee Peterson, who asked SenLott not to resign and not to give in to the racist blacks in the House.
You're wrong most of the time and this is a prime example of your inability to debate the issue at hand. You want Lott to resign and you want everyone to agree with you. That ain't ever gonna happen.
Just heard, Speaker of the House Dennis Haskert, has come out out in defense of Trent Lott.
This politically correct madness has to stop here and now.
Congratulations to BOND - may you and your organization live long and prosper to the benefit of the community of man.
You asked for conservatives who were condemning Lott. I provided a bunch. And then you say I'm polluting the thread.
I will repeat one more time, for your benefit alone. This is not about condeming Lott for his remarks. Almost everyone has said Lott's remarks were stupid. This is about you naming legitimate conservatives, who have asked for Lott's resignation, on the basis of those remarks alone and not on their past dislike of Lott's leadership.
Ah, now you qualify the statement. On the basis of those remarks ALONE. Gee, you're losing, so let's change the nature of the debate. That's four weasel tricks you've tried to pull on this thread. Guess what? Most of the conservatives who are calling for Lott to resign as majority leader see this as the final straw in Lott's continuing inability to act like a leader conscious of the importance of his position towards the party in general. You are trying to make this a PC issue. It is a judgement issue, and Lott has shown poor judgement one time too many.
You're attempts to obfuscate the issue, have failed miserably. The basis for this thread, comes from the remarks of a strong black conservative, the Rev.Jesse Lee Peterson, who asked SenLott not to resign and not to give in to the racist blacks in the House.
And I provided the remarks of TWO strong black conservatives who said Lott should resign as Majority Leader. And, since you claimed that most of the calls for Lott to resign as Majority Leader were coming from the left, I didn't have much choice but to include white conservatives to counter your argument.
You're wrong most of the time and this is a prime example of your inability to debate the issue at hand.
I'm not the one pulling weasel debate tricks.
You want Lott to resign and you want everyone to agree with you. That ain't ever gonna happen.
There you go again. Putting words in my mouth. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I am simply presenting my opinion. I don't expect to sway everyone. I hardly expect to sway the likes of you. But I will make my points in an honest fashion, back them up with hard information, and let others decide for themselves.
Just heard, Speaker of the House Dennis Haskert, has come out out in defense of Trent Lott.
Fine for him. Add him to your side.
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.