Posted on 12/15/2002 6:32:09 AM PST by chiller
December 15, 2002
BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement
C'mon over, baby, a whole shakin' o' Lott goin' on. On the face of it, it seems incredible that a mere month after Bush's election triumph, the Beltway should be immersed in a discussion of where the 2002 Republican Party leadership stands on segregation. For this, we have Trent Lott to thank. The incoming Senate majority leader couldn't even wait till he'd come in to start screwing up. Insofar as he has any conservative defenders, the defense is this: Hey, relax, Trent isn't racist, just stupid.
You're telling me. If he were still majority leader in 2004, the NAACP would be running ads with video of Lott's remarks--we're proud of voting for Strom, and, if everybody else had followed our lead in 1948, ''we wouldn't have had all these problems''--followed by footage of black bodies hanging from trees, gallant Southern gentlemen standing around having a whale of a time, Billie Holiday's ''Strange Fruit'' on the soundtrack, etc: ''Trent Lott says, if we'd kept segregation and lynching, we wouldn't have all the uppity Negroes we have today.''
Now maybe that's not what he meant. He was speaking, after all, at some old coot's 100th birthday party. Most 100th birthday parties take place in nursing homes and, if you drop in, you generally find a lot of people standing around the old boy with inane grins, talking very loudly and very slowly and agreeing with everything he says. Maybe that's all Lott was doing, given the unique circumstances of a guy entering his second century as a sitting senator.
But there were cameras present; there was a microphone. Successful politicians are supposed to have a built-in blocking mechanism in such circumstances: The borderline racist gag about the Filipino poolboy rises in your gullet, is within sight of your tongue, but at the last nanosecond your political radar detector spots the C-SPAN crew and sends it back down deep into your bowels. Wild'n'crazy gonzo pols--like John McCain, who regaled a Washington fund-raiser with a Chelsea Clinton/Janet Reno gag dependent for its effect on implied lesbianism and transsexuality--lack these antennae, and that's why they're not ambassador to China.
If the Republicans are going to make a 51-49 Senate work for them, they'll need discipline. When the man who's supposed to enforce that discipline is so undisciplined himself, he needs to go.
Lott made a bad situation worse in his attempt at damage control. His immediate reaction was that he regretted giving the impression that he supported the ''discarded'' policies of the past--''discarded,'' as if racial segregation is like the gold standard or the 55 mph speed limit, one of those things that comes and goes in and out of fashion. He then said he'd meant that back in 1948 ol' Strom had a lot of other good policies: ''Defense was a big issue. We were coming out of the war'' This is the Mississippi version of ''Mussolini made the trains run on time.'' Even if he did, it doesn't make up for the central defining plank of the platform. And, in any case, don't tell me the Dixiecrats bailed because Harry Truman, the nuker of Japan, wasn't tough enough on defense.
Strom led the walkout from the '48 Democratic Convention because a presidential panel had proposed a federal anti-lynching law and the abolition of poll taxes designed to keep blacks from voting. That's it.
Even if he had the best policies ever on defense or NEA funding or federally mandated bicycling helmets, they're just a little sprig of garnish on the segregationist beef. And, as it happens, in those days Strom was a fairly conventional big-government Democrat. That, after all, is what a ''Dixiecrat'' is: a Southern racist Democrat. The GOP candidate that year was Thomas Dewey, a man who lives on only as a headline. If Trent Lott was eager to refight the 1948 election, that's the fellow he should have been talking up. If small government's the issue that wowed Mississippi, those guys should have voted for Dewey, and the headline would have come true. Instead, floundering through another stage of his apology tour the other night, the senator couldn't even remember the name of the Republican.
That's his gift to the Dems. For the best part of two centuries, the Democrats have been the party of race: In the 19th century, they were for slavery; in the 20th, for segregation; in the 21st, for the neo-segregation of ''affirmative action,'' ''hate crimes'' and all the other paraphernalia of the modish trickle-down apartheid determined to make racial categorization a permanent feature of the American landscape. In fairness to the Dems, this evolution represents a significant century-on-century improvement: There's no reason to believe that one day, come the 24th or 25th century, they won't have reached the position that American citizens should be treated as freeborn individuals, rather than as chorus members of their respective identity-group kicklines. That's what the Republican Party stands for: Condi Rice is an effective, black, female National Security Adviser but she holds that position not because of her blackness or her femaleness but her effectiveness; she's better than the white males who were up for the job.
It's pathetic that Jesse (''Hymietown'') Jackson should be huffing and puffing about Lott's outrageous behavior. It's ridiculous that RNC Chairman Marc Racicot has been bullied into a meeting with Al Sharpton: If Lott is unacceptable as Senate majority leader, the race-baiting Rev should be unacceptable anywhere. But that's why principled conservatives have a right to be furious with the senator.
When the NAACP do their ugly dragging ads about Republicans opposing ''hate crimes'' legislation, they're right to this extent: Most Republicans do oppose ''hate crimes'' legislation, and for very good reasons. And when Al Gore taunts George W. Bush about ''affirmative action,'' it's legitimate to this extent: Most Republicans regard racial quotas as an obnoxious and un-American concept. But, when Democrats start bashing the GOP as the party of segregation, that baggage is theirs.
For a century and a half, race is one issue the Republicans have been right on--or, at the very minimum, less wrong. We've grown used to the Democrats' strange black-is-white world, where Al Gore apparently genuinely believes his father was a civil rights crusader rather than a civil rights obstacle. Segregation is the Democrats' history, and for Trent Lott to give them an excuse to dump it on the GOP doorstep is all the reason Republicans needed to be done with him once and for all.
Filibustered, possibly. Successfully, that would remain to be seen.
I think a good, old-fashioned filibuster would do a lot of good to educate the public on the workings of government, they way that impeachment and Gore 2000 got the people focused on government for a while.
Too many times, recently, just the threat of filibuster was enough to cause compromise. After a while, the threat seems empty. I say that now is the time to force one and see how it actually goes. Let's see how sustainable it is, how the public would react, how the sides will form, how genuine or disengenous the positions and players are.
If Republicans win (with Bush's help), then we regain momentum as the filibuster weapon will have become disarmed.
-PJ
Bump
We got a taste of it in 1995, when the Dems provoked a train wreck.
It didn't go well for us.
If Republicans win (with Bush's help), then we regain momentum as the filibuster weapon will have become disarmed.
And the price tag for losing is much too high.
hchutch, need your ops order from 6/4/42...
Absolutely!
And as far as all this "pickin up his marbles and goin home" BS is concerned ... if I'm not mistaken he's up for election in 2004 and if this SOB is not man enough, patriot enough, and Republican enough to stick it our for a year, then f*** him and f*** his party!
If he's even a piece of a man he'll take a backseat role for a year a and then reevaluate.
Let's carry the idea behind post #73 to it's logical conclusion however:
If Lincoln Chaffee demands a 50% increase in income taxes in order to remain a Republican, should we accede to his demands?
What if John McCain demands a repeal of the 2nd Ammendment as the price of his continued allegiance?
Capitulation to blackmail is not a way to build a successful political party, and it's certainly not the way that a party should choose it's leadership, especially a party that purports to stand for certain principles.
I do not know Lott's heart, but I do know his record of (non)accomplishment and lack of political accumen. Even those who defend him seem to do so only because they don't want the Dems to "Win". Wake up People, Lott's stepping down will not be "loss". A change in leadership is what we need. Lott is NOT the general we need for the campaign ahead. He wasn't before and definitely isn't after all of those multiple, self-inflicted gun-shot wounds to his feet.
Think of this as a political Battle of the Bulge. When Lott steps down, the Dems will over-reach and try to ratchet up the pressure for censure or some such. At this point McConnell or Nickles (or whoever our new "General" is) can "channel" Patton and slash north to Bastogne (figuratively speaking), cutting the Dems supply lines as they go (ie -- pulling Byrd and Hollings into the mix).
OK, my metaphors are overstated. My point to the "Yes, Lott is an idiot, but..." crowd is simply that one should never become so involved in the BATTLE that they lose sight of the WAR. Pyrrhic victories are not really victories at all.
Keeping Lott in the Majority Leadership is like playing Russian Roulette with a fully loaded single-shot.
Maybe we could call it Russian Rou'Lott'...
Here is a little story from last night about the Republican senators conference call.
As the call began, McConnell—second in command and a Lott ally—delivered a history lesson. “Leaders who are ousted tend to leave altogether,” he said in his voice-of-doom baritone. “That is what Newt Gingrich did. That is what Jim Wright did. They don’t stick around.” If Lott left, he noted, the Democratic governor of Lott’s home state of Mississippi would name one of his own as a replacement. Republicans relishing the return of perks, power and committee chairmanships could forget it. Instead, they would face the kiss-your-sister chaos of a 50-50 Senate. “I was just explaining the history,” McConnell told them.
There is not much doubt that Snowe or Chaffee would switch isles in a 50-50 senate. Bush would have to buy a Democrat. But the history says bush screws up big time in holding the senate. Why would Rino's stay. If they make any mistake Bush will fire them. Democrats stand behind their people. Ask Bill Clinton or Bob Byrd how that works. People get nervous about leaders that slit their own peoples throats for a fumble. It will be easier for Democrats to pry a Snowe lose than it will a Jeffords. And if Snowe goes, then Jeffords looks great. He will have retained his chairmanship for 2 more years.
Your choice is Lott or Daschle. I take it you want Daschle.
Owww. Not the eye . . .
I got a question for you, WhiteMan.
racist
adj
1: based on racial intolerance; "racist remarks"
2: discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion.
n
: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.
No. Neither you nor I are racists yet we are apparently debating race. Veiled accusations of collusive behaviour with the poverty pimps aside, ours is not a racist conversation.
Nawww, you're right. Let's all just let the dust and the noise of our meaningless existence cover this one up; it'll go away. Keep our heads down, our backsides up and take one for the Gipper (note to self: make appt. w/proctologist). Yep, Lott's our guy. The graciously given live ammo being tossed back at us by the poverty pimps will eventually peter out . . .
See the Glory of the Royal Scam.
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.