Leftist attacks on Senator Trent Lott are no surprise, but now pundits on the Right are banging the drums to oust the Majority Leader. As has been widely reported, Lott stated that he was proud that the people of Mississippi supported J. Strom Thurmond’s 1948 states’ rights presidential campaign and that “if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years.” In response, the Family Research Council, National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg, radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, columnist Andrew Sullivan and others have joined Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in demanding Lott’s head on a platter.
Clearly, Lott was simply gushing over Thurmond’s impressive career when he made a little joke about how America would have been better if Mr. Dixiecrat had taken the White House in ‘48. Was it a politically incorrect joke? Definitely. Was it a stupid thing to say? Maybe. But I can’t help thinking that the joke ticked off exactly the right people—black liberals, hysterical Republican elites, and Mark Shields. The best part was that Lott did not even know what he was doing…his instinct just led him to say something that was horribly insensitive. Sometimes you just have to sit back and enjoy that sort of quality in a public figure.
So why are these “girly boys,” as Ann Coulter once called them, acting as if Trent Lott burned a cross on Colin Powell’s lawn? Most of them have ulterior motives. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, wants to prove his social liberalism to moderate readers. Opposing the right-winger from the Deep South is a natural way to achieve that goal. Plus, he is no doubt still harboring anger over Lott’s infamous comments from a few years back, when he compared homosexuality to kleptomania and alcoholism.
Jonah Goldberg, to his credit, is honest about his motivations. In a recent column in the Washington Times, Goldberg stated:
“One reason so many conservatives are denouncing Lott is that he's never given conservatives much reason to trust him or care about him. He's a deal-cutter who seems to stand for nothing except massive amounts of pork to his home state and, occasionally, sticking up for Jim Crow… Lott stands for little. And what he does stand for, we don't need. ”
Goldberg is certainly correct in his critique of Lott’s horrific tenure as Majority Leader. Lott has been ineffective and unconvincing in that role. He has betrayed conservative principles on many occasions so as to get along with the Democrats. Many conservatives, like myself, will never forgive him for the “power sharing agreement” he forged with Senator Tom Daschle during the 50-50 split of the Senate prior to Jim Jeffords famous stumble across the aisle.
But does any of this justify throwing Lott to the wolves on a false charge of racism? Going along with a Leftist lynch mob will only come back to haunt the Right. Senator Lott told an ill thought-out joke at a man’s 100th birthday party. It’s not like he put a Robert Byrd bumper sticker on his car or anything.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/805592/posts?page=62#62
I dont mean to pick on the elderly but beyond reaching the age of 100 with an ability to eye the women and serving 50 years in the Senate, what is so impressive about Thurmond's career. What is he known for other than the Dixie Crat rebellion and the longest filibuster in history (against civil rights)? Just curious as to what you see as so admirable about this guy other than for last 40 years or so he has had an R after his name.
So you say we cant know whats in Lott's heart when he spews ridiculous yearnings for the good old days of segregation but you are ready to psychoanalyze the motives of everyone who questions Lott's leadership. You know what I call that?
The charge that he is a racist is not the main criticism of Lott. What galls us is that he spews some nonsense and then doesnt have the common sense to quickly apologize and move on. If Lott had shown some ability to manage the situation and put it to rest we might have forgiven his ill conceived words. But no, he took four days to make a Clinton non-apology apology.