Replies

You DO understand that this campaign was waged in 1948, don't you? You are also aware, I assume that we are nearing the end of the year 2002. What is your obsession with this matter? If you ask me the violence and hatred exhibited in Boston because of bussing was much worse than anything I saw in the South. So what's your point?

I remember after we had integrated our schools with out violence, I see several years later in the land of Teddy Kennedy Irish youth are burning their buses, and killing blacks..... I tell you we laughed at the hypocracy we were seeing... In fact Martin Luther King said the racism he observed in Chicago was worse than any he had every seen in the south.
Would that these "good People" would admit that they have as many skeletons in there closets... Oh yes and lets not forget the race riots in New York City in 1863 after Gettsburg where blacks were lynched in NYC....
Give me a break!!!!!

The point is that Trent Lott probably still doesn't understand the gravity of what he said. Many here at FR don't. They say, "Oh Thurmond was for strong national defense, reducing wasteful government spending-- that's what Lott was talking about."

No, that's not what he was talking about and he knows it. Why does everyone think Lott is an ignoramus? He didn't just fall off the turnip truck. He got a juris doctorate. He knows what is in this platform. He knew what he was saying. He was only stupid to blurt it out.

"You DO understand that this campaign was waged in 1948, don't you? You are also aware, I assume that we are nearing the end of the year 2002. What is your obsession with this matter?"

I can't speak for Granite State, to whom the above comment is apparently addressed -- but I think most of us do understand that. That's why we can't figure out why Trent Lott thought fit, in 2002, to endorse the principles of 1948 -- or even to appear to endorse those principles. I don't think it's a slip of the tongue. I think it's what Lott reallly believes. It's not like Lott has not said similar things already. Back in 1980 he was claiming we'd be better off if the Dixiecrats had won in '48.

The excuse I've most often heard this time around is that he was simply honoring an old man who's nearing the end of a distinguished career. But he could easily have expressed appreciation for Thurmond (who's done many things since his Dixiecrat candidacy) without invoking the ghosts of segregationism past. So I must conclude he meant what he said. To say otherwise is to imply that he's a fool, which he is not.

And if anybody's "obsessing" about this issue, it's Lott and these Southern Partisan types, who simply can't get over their noble and beloved "Lost Cause." Really, it is past time for OUR party, the true Republican Party, the Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln, to give up its latter day Confederate wing.