Trent who?
Posted on 12/12/2002 1:53:42 PM PST by VaBthang4
Hannity.com Frontpage:
"Saying he used "a poor choice of words," Trent Lott spoke with Sean on the newsmakers phoneline at length on December 11th in an exclusive interview. This follows a firestorm of criticism by Liberals and Conservatives alike in reaction to comments made by Lott at Sen Strom Thurman's 100th birthday party."
The two are not one.
You can have a discussion after you dump Lott.
If you try and defend Lott by pointing at them then you are simply as Liberal as they are. There is no moral equivalence.
Lott said what he said. It is wholy seperate to what anyone else has said. They are his remarks. He has apologized, fine now he alone should whether the storm...any conservative defending him is an idiot.
Now if a Conservative wants to simply point out the hypocracy..then fine. If we want to talk about it seperate from defending Lott then fine but trying to link the two is just plain foolish[IMHO]. :o)
"Senate Republican leader Trent Lott tried to help Bob Jones University keep its federal tax-exempt status despite the school's policy prohibiting interracial dating two decades before his recent comments stirred a race controversy.
"Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," Lott, then a congressman from Mississippi, wrote in a 1981 friend of the court brief that unsuccessfully urged the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Internal Revenue Service from stripping the university's tax exemption.
Trent who?
If someone told me that 2 + 2 equals 39.3, then I'm sure as hell not going to give a sh!t what he has to say about differential calculus.
You can say this after what you saw the press do to Newt and George Bush? If we let them "out" anyone they want, they win!
There is a silver lining in this storm cloud. This is an excellent opportunity for the republican party to show black folks what hypocrits the democrats are. So I would like to see Lott remain the leader in the senate for 2003.
December 13, 2002, 10:00 a.m.
Lott Should Go
A bad Majority Leader gets worse.
By NR Editors
enate Majority Leader Trent Lott "has proven himself better suited to the back bench, where he is at least a generally reliable conservative vote. And there is an alternative in Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles . . . Conservatives should encourage Nickles to make the — admittedly risky — challenge against Lott."
Thus wrote National Review in November 1998 after the GOP midterm disaster that year. We have long considered Lott a clumsy and ineffective Republican leader, and his controversial Strom Thurmond birthday remarks are a spectacular confirmation of that judgment. Is Lott a racist? We don't think so. Are many of the attacks on him dishonest and opportunistic? Yes. But he has been a poor leader of Senate Republicans, and the latest gaffe will only further erode his standing and his ability to lead.
Lott stands to become the most unpopular congressional Republican since Newt Gingrich. That alone shouldn't be disqualifying (and NR defended Gingrich from most of the charges hurled at him). Consider, however, the comparison: Gingrich became a reviled public figure who had won a historic victory in 1994 and possessed an active (sometimes overactive) political imagination. Lott will be a reviled public figure who is a sub-par Majority Leader, period.
NR tries to make its practical political judgments based on what is best for the conservative cause. The advantage of maintaining Lott as Majority Leader as opposed to any number of his colleagues — not just Nickles, but Jon Kyl, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum — is nil. He can only be a drag. Conservatives should be able to argue for constitutionalist judges, race-blind governmental policies, tighter immigration laws, welfare reform, and limited government generally without the dead weight of a Senate Majority Leader who has created a cloud over himself and his party through his own thoughtlessness.
It will no doubt be difficult for Lott's colleagues, who are his friends, to force him out of his job. That's why Lott should realize the damage he has done to his party, and step aside. Failing that, the White House, with a broader political perspective than that of the members of the Senate club, should urge him to relinquish his leadership position.
Minority leader Tom Daschle's initial reaction (prior to his mauling by the Congressional Black Caucus) to Lott's remarks was essentially sound — Lott misspoke. But Lott misspoke in a particular way, one freighted with symbolic significance. Many southern whites of a certain generation have a shameful past on civil-rights issues. This doesn't necessarily make them reprehensible people, or mean that they are racists today. But, when they are public figures, it is reasonable to expect from them an honest reckoning with their past, and, of course, an awareness that a reckoning is necessary.
Many conservatives will be tempted to defend Lott because of the nature of some of the attacks on him. It's an understandable impulse. But it is possible for someone simultaneously to suffer unfair attacks, handle himself and his predicament poorly, and be an underwhelming political figure. Trent Lott has managed a trifecta. For NR to rally to his side now would amount to defending him because he is being accused of racism.
We usually pride ourselves on being fair-weather critics of, and foul-weather friends to, conservative politicians. Lott is in for a long bout of foul weather. But we can't be loyal to a Majority Leader who we didn't support in the first place.
Since when can only Democrats be insulted by racism? I am a white Republican and Lott's comments offended me. I want less racism and stupidity in OUR leaders.
The Dems want a feeble Majority Leader. Wouldn't you want a feebled Daschle? Of course.
I wasn't even talking about the "hypocrisy" of the Democrats -- I am pointing out that their views on this issue (AND ANY OTHER ISSUE) are absolutely irrelevant because they clearly have no defined standard of behavior on which to base their views.
I don't care what the Dems have to say on this.
I can't imagine anything that doesn't involve Clintonesque word parsing that could satisfactorily explain away such a comment. It sounded so mealy-mouthed to hear Lott on Hannity claiming it was the Dixiecrat's positions on crime and defense that he was referring to. I am dying to hear what Lott's speechwriters could even come up with for tonight's press conference.
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.