Skip to comments.
The Lott Gaffe & DemoKKKratic Hypocrisy
Posted on 12/12/2002 6:35:24 PM PST by Republican_Strategist
Case #1 - Clinton Praised a Segregationist on his 88th birthday as a visionary and his mentor while in October of this year erected a statue of the man!
Selective Moral Outrage - Looking beyond Trent Lotts gaffe.
On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, Bill Clinton traveled to Fayetteville, Arkansas to honor the life of the late Arkansas senator, J. William Fulbright by dedicating a seven-foot-tall bronze statue of the man.
According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, "The $100,000 sculpture is the final [expenditure] of an $850,000 fundraising campaign for a project to honor Fulbright. The $750,000 fountain was dedicated October 24, 1998."
Among other things, Clinton said, "If [Fulbright] were here today, I'm sure he would caution us not to be too utopian in our expectations, but rather utopian in our values and vision."
And back on May 5, 1993, in what the Washington Post characterized as a "... moving 88th birthday ceremony for former senator William Fulbright, President Clinton last night bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on the man he described as a visionary humanitarian, a steadfast supporter of the values of education, and 'my mentor.'" Clinton added, "It doesn't take long to live a life. He made the best of his, and helped us to have a better chance to make the best of ours.
The American political system produced this remarkable man, and my state did, and I'm real proud of it."
Of course, the man Clinton was praising, who he called his "mentor," who supposedly embraced utopian values and made the world a better place for everyone, was also a rabid segregationist.
In 1956, Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement entitled the "Southern Manifesto." This document condemned the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Its signers stated, among other things, that "We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means." They stated further, "We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation."
Of course, in 1957, the first serious challenge to Brown occurred in Fulbright's backyard. Fulbright's Democrat colleague, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus (another early Clinton backer) ordered the National Guard to surround Central High School in Little Rock to prevent nine black students from attending the school. President Dwight Eisenhower dispatched the 101st Airborne Division to protect these teenagers and enforce the Supreme Court's decision.
Fulbright later voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And he did so because he believed in separating the races in schools and other public places. He was a segregationist, heart and soul.
Now, given the turmoil surrounding Trent Lott's foolish statement last week about Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, you'd think there would have been at least some outcry when Bill Clinton lionized Fulbright a mere six weeks ago, or when he awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1993. But there was nothing in the Washington Post admonishing Clinton, which today published a scathing editorial against Lott. There was no criticism in the New York Times, which today is running a vicious column by Paul Krugman implying that Lott is an overt racist.
And while I'm on the subject, I don't remember some of the conservatives now voicing outrage at Lott holding Clinton to the same standard either in 1993 or October of this year.
But I'm not making excuses for Trent Lott. He should have apologized for his insensitive comments, and he did. Nor am I making excuses for Strom Thurmond's past. I'm questioning the hypocrisy of selective moral outrage by the Left.
Case #2 - Democrat Senator Carl Levin on September 24th praised Thurmonds service and specifically praised his run in 1948 as a Democrat while saying it was the third best showing!
Selective Moral Outrage, Part II: Why only be outraged at Lotts remarks?
On September 24, 2002, the Senate Democrats set aside time during morning business to pay tribute to Strom Thurmond. What's remarkable about every one of these statements is that they were effusive in their praise of Thurmond, and none contained any negative reference to Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid as a Dixiecrat, let alone any reference to his segregationist past.
What are we to make of this? Are these senators sympathetic to segregation? Of course not. Clearly, it would have been inappropriate to use the occasion to disparage Thurmond. Their purpose that day was to honor him. And they did.
Some have argued that their grievance with Trent Lott is more particularized. During Thurmond's 100th-birthday celebration, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. 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."
Lott says he was not referring to Thurmond's segregationist views. Many Democrats aren't buying this explanation. While refusing to label Lott a racist who, in fact, is a cautious legislator who tends to seek comity rather than confrontation they apparently insist that his comment was intended to be racist.
Well, then, what are we to make of Democrat Senator Carl Levin's September 24th praise of Thurmond? Among other things, Levin said, " ... I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Strom Thurmond and honoring him for his unparalleled record of public service to this Nation." And then a few sentences later, Levin says, "In 1948, while he was still Governor, [Thurmond] ran for President as a State's Right Democrat and received 39 electoral votes, the third best showing by an independent candidate in U.S. history."
Are we to conclude that Levin was honoring Thurmond for, among other things, his historic showing as a segregationist candidate in 1948? If not, why else would Levin have mentioned it in the context of praising Thurmond's career?
Of course, Levin's not a racist, either. He made this statement in the same vein as Lott did. Yet, there's no condemnation of Levin either from Democrats or Republicans. And so goes the politics of selective moral outrage.
Case #3 - Liberals Dan Rather and Mike Wallace got off after making racially insensitive comments!
Why Gang Up on Lott When Rather and Wallace Get Off?
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 Lotts head over his remarks about Strom Thurmond.
While not saying anything directly racist, Lott implied he agreed with Thurmonds 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 doesnt 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 Lotts apology and explanation. End of story.
Instead, I was wondering when the major media would get around to reporting Dan Rathers 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 Rathers 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.
Case #4 - Gores maid of 30 years spoke out against his low Negro tolerance level during the 2000 Presidential Campaign!
'Low Negro Tolerance' Gore Demands Lott Apology
Judging from his demands Monday that Sen. Trent Lott apologize for praising one-time Dixiecrat Sen. Strom Thurmond at his 100th birthday party, you'd hardly know that just two years ago, Al Gore himself was accused of having a "low Negro tolerance level."
Then there's the Gore family's African-American former maid, who complained in the midst of the 2000 presidential campaign that young Al's mom and dad used to make her wait in their hot car during the 1950s while the family ate in "whites only" restaurants.
Still, none of that stopped Gore from joining the racial sensitivity police Monday afternoon, with a bizarre demand that Lott either apologize or suffer censure at the hands of his colleagues.
"Trent Lott made a statement that I think is a racist statement, yes," the former VP said. "That's why I think he should withdraw those comments or I think the United States Senate should undertake a censure of those comments."
Give the Gore Democrats credit for chutzpah. They know neither the press nor the GOP will ever call them on their own racial transgressions, just as they ignored the complaints of Mattie Lucy Payne, who told her story to a small-town Tennessee newspaper in September 2000.
"Our parents said to work for good white folks -- and that's what we did," Payne recalled to a local reporter, in comments that were picked up by the Drudge Report. For more than 30 years, she had cooked and kept house for the Gores at their Carthage, Tenn., farm. There Payne, now 91, even helped raise the future vice president.
When Al Gore Sr.'s senatorial duties required the family to travel to D.C., they'd sometimes stop for lunch along the way - often deep in the heart of the segregated South of the 1950s.
"On those rides, Payne recalls being kept in the backseat of the car -- as the Gore family dined in 'Whites Only' restaurants!" Drudge recounted. "Payne says she complained bitterly about the high temperatures in the car while she waited."
"Albert Jr. would bring out a sandwich to the car because I was not allowed in the restaurant," Gore's former maid recalled for the CURRENT LINES newspaper of Upper Cumberland. "We didn't know any better, that's the way we grew up."
A month before Ms. Payne went public with her tale of racial woe at the hands of the Gores, four African-American Secret Service agents assigned to the veep's security detail filed a lawsuit against him, claiming his campaign had passed them over for promotions because of their race. Gore, they said, had done nothing to remedy the situation.
The lawsuit prompted Georgia Democrat Cynthia McKinney to remark that Gore's "Negro tolerance level has never been too high."
"I've never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time," she added.
In a statement issued by her office, the black congresswoman complained: "That these black officers had no response from Gore's staff is symptomatic of a larger problem. Gore would like these problems to just go away, but they'll never go away if they're not addressed."
Under fire from the Democrat Party establishment, McKinney was forced to retract her comments.
Case #5 - Dick Gephardt spoke to a white supremacist group!
Gephardt Tied to White-Rights Group
House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt spoke before a prominent St. Louis white-rights organization during his first run for Congress and attended two of the group's picnics after his election, says Gordon Baum, head of the Council of Conservative Citizens. Interviewed Monday by NewsMax.com, Baum explained that Gephardt had come to a meeting of the Metro South Citizens Council to debate his primary-election opponent.
"The hall was adorned on one side of the speaker's platform with the Confederate flag, and on the other side was the American flag," said Baum. "And Dick Gephardt addressed the group and asked them openly for their endorsement."
"Gephardt is one of many local officials who dropped by the Metro South Citizens Council's gatherings in the early 1980s," according to a March 7, 1999, report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
Baum told NewsMax.com that the Metro South Citizens Council was a group concerned primarily with "states' rights" and forced busing. When it disbanded, many of the members joined his Council of Conservative Citizens, which, Baum says, addresses broader interests like taxes, gun control, and general moral decay.
But groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, and the National Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee contend that the CCC's conservative message is just camouflage for a hidden white supremacist agenda.
And many of Gephardt's House colleagues apparently agree, though they don't seem to know about the Missouri Democrat's past association with the group.
Last year, in the heat of the impeachment battle, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz defended the president by linking Republicans favoring Clinton's conviction to Baum's group. Rep. Bob Barr, Georgia Republican, and Sen. Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, were singled out by Dershowitz for having contact with the CCC in the recent past.
Both Barr and Lott distanced themselves immediately from the group's philosophy, but Democrats continue to criticize the pair for what Dershowitz calls their "racist" affiliations. The two Republicans were raked over the coals for months on the nation's op-ed pages and on political TV chat shows, with some pundits calling for their resignation.
But the press and Dershowitz have failed to note Gephardt's almost identical connection to the more extreme precursor to the CCC. NewsMax.com faxed the Post-Dispatch report to the Harvard law professor's office early Monday with a request for comment. As of press time, the usually vocal and combative champion of racial tolerance had declined to respond.
In 1988 then-presidential candidate Gephardt denounced the organization, the Post-Dispatch reported last week, noting that he couldn't recall his own visit to the Metro South Citizens Council.
But Baum says, "If he denounced us back then, he must have whispered it in somebody's ear, 'cause it was never covered down here."
The St. Louis paper reported that two weeks ago the Missouri Democrat issued a statement saying that any group "who practices a brand of racially motivated politics has no place in the country we live in today." But nothing in Gephardt's statement clarifies his own contacts with the St. Louis white-rights group.
One source familiar with the matter told NewsMax.com that Gephardt privately does not dispute the allegations but that his press office is very unhappy that the issue has been revived at this late date. A Monday call requesting comment from Gephardt spokesperson Laura Nichols went unreturned.
Last month, the House minority leader dropped his plans to seek the presidency in the year 2000, hoping instead that presumptive Democratic nominee Vice President Al Gore will help win back the House and make Gephardt speaker. On Monday, Gore welcomed Gephardt's formal endorsement, though it is not clear whether the vice president is aware of Gephardt's history with the white-rights group.
Prompted by media outrage targeting Barr and Lott, Rep. Robert Wexler, Florida Democrat, has introduced a House resolution condemning the Council of Conservative Citizens. Apparently unaware of Gephardt's onetime cultivation of a related group, Wexler's proposal attacks the CCC for providing "access to, and opportunities for the promotion of, extremist neo-Nazi ideology and propaganda that incites hate crimes and violence."
Baum told NewsMax.com that the rhetorical broadsides directed against his group are overblown and inaccurate. He insists, "We don't hate anybody." And he defended the Missouri Democrat's right to address the Metro South Citizens Council, explaining that "there was nothing wrong with Gephardt coming to speak to us. Politicians came to us because we represented a significant percentage of the voters."
But the CCC chief believes the press was wrong to single out conservative Republicans while giving Gephardt a pass, telling NewsMax.com that journalists used his group as a partisan billy club:
"The only reason they used us to beat up on guys like Barr and Lott is to save Clinton. It's just another case of liberal media hypocrisy," said Baum.
Case #6 - Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia was a former KKK member/recruiter, used the phrase white nigger on national television, and he never apologized!
Critics of Sen. Trent Lott have spent the last 24-hours parsing the words of the series of apologies he has offered for praising Sen. Strom Thurmond's 1948 Dixiecrat presidential candidacy last week. But, satisfactory or not, at least he did apologize, which is more than anyone can say about Senate Majority Whip Robert Byrd's comments regarding his Ku Klux Klan past.
"I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement," Sen. Lott said, using the "a" word explicitly.
While Byrd did issue an apology last year for invoking the phrase "white niggers" during a nationally televised TV interview, the top Democrat has never expressed much personal contrition for his role as Ku Klux Klan Grand Kleagle in the 1930s.
In fact, as recently as nine years ago, Byrd explained that he joined the group that specialized in lynching African-Americans because it "offered excitement."
Though the West Virginia Democrat went on to tell the Washington Post in June 1993 that his stint in the KKK was the mistake in his life that he most regrets, he never acknowledged that the group's Jim Crow agenda had anything to do with his decision to sign up.
Instead, Byrd explained that he decided to become a cross burning, night, riding, sheet wearing member of the Klan "because it was strongly opposed to communism."
Twelve years earlier, in another interview with the Post, the West Virginia Democrat sounded anything but contrite when asked about his days as a Klansman.
"Suddenly, Byrd's face freezes," wrote Post reporter Martin Schram in May 1981. "The muscles on either side of his jaw harden to what must be the consistency of golf balls. His eyes are lasers burning deeply into his questioner."
"I really do not want to answer that question," the former Grand Kleagle glowered. "It is something I have addressed time and time again."
"He is tired of hearing about it," Schram wrote. "Tired of having to answer for it. It was just a mistake of youth, he goes on."
Finally, Byrd explained in testy tones, "Just as a lot of young people these days join organizations they regret joining, I joined as a youth and regretted it later. I made a mistake."
In a comprehensive Lexis-Nexis search through thirty-two years of media reports on Sen. Byrd's Klan past, NewsMax.com was unable to unearth a single quote where the top Democrat used the word "apology" or "apologize" - or where he strongly condemned the violent hate group in any way.
Byrd's strongest statement on the Klan was apparently delivered during the same 1981 Washington Post interview.
"I abhor the Klan," the Senate Democrat said. "Every time I see on television men wearing robes, it turns me off. I look upon the Klan as a silly, asinine group that tries to act outside the law, and uses violence and intimidation as their currency."
But Byrd's references throughout the years to the murderous hate group seem peppered with adjectives like "silly" and "asinine" rather than the stronger language one might expect about a group he claims to "abhor." Nowhere among the top Democrat's Klan quotes could we find terms like "dangerous," "racist," or, for that matter, any reference whatsoever to the group's persecution of blacks.
Instead of words like "apology" and "apologize," Byrd's spokespeople have insisted that he has repeatedly made his "regrets" about his Klan days clear.
On several occasions the former Kleagle has talked about the "mistake" he made that will dog him for the rest of his days. Once he actually referred to joining the group of black-lynching racists as "a youthful mistake."
Still, as late as 1946, when Byrd was well into his adulthood at age 29, the politically ambitious West Virginian didn't seem particularly regretful about his "mistake."
"The Klan is needed today as never before . . . ," Byrd proclaimed in a letter to the KKK's Imperial Grand Wizard, the Post reported.
And if he truly "abhorred" his past "mistake," he didn't seem particularly eager to make amends when it came to the issue of integrating the armed forces under President Harry Truman.
In another letter written around the same time that was unearthed last year by columnist Michelle Malkin, Byrd vowed never to fight in the military "with a Negro by my side."
"I should rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again," the ex-Klansman pledged, "than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds."
As Malkin also noted, 20 years after Byrd described African-Americans as "race mongrels," he spent 14 hours filibustering against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He also voted against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, the only two blacks ever nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court.
And then, of course, there was last year's unfortunate "white nigger" reference.
Perhaps those complaining that Sen. Lott's explicit apology didn't quite meet their standards would do better to turn their attention to Sen. Byrd's lack of contrition for his enthusiastic membership in a group whose goal was the extermination of the black race.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Free Republic; News/Current Events
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Lordy be. Where is Jesse Jacka$$ when we need him.
EXCELLENT COMPLIATION....VERY IMPRESSIVE.
Now we need to send this off to the media.....fax this to Fox!
To be fair and balanced there should be some mention of the democrat bigots of color. We must not leave out Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown," Donna "we ain't gonna let the white boys win this one" Brazille's racie rants, the two Mckinneys' repeated verbal assaults on Jews and whites in general, Al "Diamond Merchant" Sharpton's attack on Jews, of course Louie "it's a gutter religion" Farrakan, and Charles "I wanna slap a white person for my mental health" Barron---the list of black democrat hate mongers is as long as the one of their white bigots.
posted on 12/12/2002 6:52:19 PM PST
Good...the Dems are the real racists.
Sean Hannity was right....let's really air this issue fully!
posted on 12/12/2002 6:54:38 PM PST
by what's up
Is there a double standard? Sure. What of it?
The fact is, the media feeding frenzy is keeping this issue in plain view. I'm curious how they will feel when they get McConnell or Nickles as the new majority leader.
posted on 12/12/2002 7:24:02 PM PST
I'm curious how they will feel when they get McConnell or Nickles as the new majority leader.
Lott won't step down. He will resign. Mississipi has a Democratic Governor. He will appoint a Democrat to replace Lott. When Chaffe or Snowe move over to the Democratic side the NEW MAJORITY leader in 2003 will be DASCHEL. McConnell or Nickles will be the new MINORITY leader.
To: Common Tator
Hug a RINO today. If they bolt, the true conservatives lose the power of the majority.
posted on 12/12/2002 7:55:44 PM PST
Great thread. Thanks for the effort.
To: Common Tator
They don't care, the important thing is Trent Lott's scalp, everything else is secondary.
posted on 12/12/2002 7:58:10 PM PST
Comment #13 Removed by Moderator
Yes, Clinton called Fulbright his mentor, but some how you feel that isnt praising Fulbrights past? You sound like some sort of Clinton apologist if you ask me. At least Lotts innocent gaffe was just an attempt to make an old man happy rather than erecting a statue of the segregationist he though of as a mentor and visionary.
To: NewDestiny; TLBSHOW; Rye; brickdds; clintonh8r; Political Numbers Guy; My2Cents; The Great Satan; ..
Is this not the largest example of hypocrisy, selective moral outrage, and demagoguery?
I agree we need to start a freeper campaign to get this out to as many voices as possible to counter the DNC-Liberal Media attack. Do I know you from the old days of Yahoo! Clubs? Same rwfromkansas?
It is a given that the democrats are hypocrites. So what. Does that mean that the republicans are going to get any mileage off that? No. Republicans can't afford to be hypocrites. That is Life. Get used to it. Democrats can be racists and there is not political fallout. Republicans are held to a higher standard. Frankly I'm glad we are.
That said, do you think there is any political gain for the republicans if they insist on throwing their unqualified support behind Lott? I am distancing myself from him. I don't need an idiot as the face of leadership in my party. Sorry.
Clinton is not quite as stupid as Lott. Notice that Clinton did not praise Fulbright for his segregatist past...and Lott never praised Thurmond for his segregationist past - he said only that had Strom been elected prez we wouldn't have the problems we have today - like maybe bloated government, weakened defense structure, out of control judiciary, misdirected budgets, government policies derived from political correctness, etc. etc.....
Allow me to give you a slap in the face for that condescending rant.
It isnt about me wanting the republicans to be held to a lower standard. It is about me wanting the democrats to be held to a higher standard, but for some reason you just felt youd go hurling accusations like some crazed Clinton War Room on a rampage. You want them to be allowed to attack republicans over things they do and worse. Some republican you are.
And for your information, I have long supported ousting Lott as a majority leader, but obviously you feel that you can interpret my motivations, which arent suggested in the post, as being some sort of effort to empower Lott and keep him as majority leader. You make about as much sense as the N.Y. Times editorial page. crazed Clinton War Room on a rampage. You seem quite content on the status quo of giving the democrats a free pass to bad
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson