Posted on 12/16/2002 9:55:09 AM PST by an amused spectator
When Trent Lott stuck his foot in his mouth at a birthday party for retiring Senator Strom Thurmond, the nation's mainstream press erupted in rage.
Dozens of newspaper and magazine articles and hours of television time have already been devoted to this non-story. The angst over Trent Lott's racist soul is palpable. "Dixiecrat" is becoming a household word.
Strangely, similar outbursts by prominent Democrats over the years have been for the most part ignored by the national media "information gatekeepers", and even the the sordid record of the Democrats during the battle over the Civil Rights Act of 19641 has been glossed over quite nicely by the liberal media.
Companies and people pay millions of dollars a year to advertise their products in print and television media. They do this for a reason: consumers remember when they see a product advertised.
We are going to remember that Trent Lott "said something bad" for long years after Senator Thurmond is dead and buried and I'm sure hundreds of thousands of other average Americans will too.
We on Free Republic remember that the Democrat Party is the party of Jim Crow who only moved their plantations from the South to the big cities, but I'm sure that just a handful of other average Americans are truly aware of the sordid race dealings of the Democrat plantation overseers. Why the disparity in coverage? Both American political parties have their share of skeletons from the race wars of the late 20th century. Many of the Democrat missteps on the racial front are even more sensational than the Lott tribute to Strom Thurmond.
Strangely, the former member of the Klan whose filibuster wrapped up the resistance to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 still sits in the Senate, and continues to spew racial epithets to this day. These facts don't rate a sentence on page 34 of The New York Times
I regretfully conclude that the reason most Americans are hearing about the "racial sins" of Trent Lott is because they are being used as a free political commercial by the Left, to advertise their views about this country and their political enemies under the guise of "breaking news".
As such, we should now examine all mainstream newscasts or news stories with this question in mind:
1At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. (June 10, 1964 - Civil Rights Filibuster Ended)
Oh pleeease, Sabertooth! Are you saying "Republicans can tolerate racists but they have to ride in the back of the bus."?
Does he have ANY control over his employees? Should he not have to take responsibility?
At least he is not pulling a shameful trick like Streisand and blaming the writer. I can give that to him.
I actualy feel sorry for him but that does not cut it in Realpolitik. Dont ANY of you understand what Sabretooth meant? This is not the destruction of the GOP, it will be for the better long-term and it will dilute the Dems poisonous demagougery.
Politics is idealogical warfare and Lott is just not up for the job. It is true that you have to be diplomatic but that is not the only requirement for a Senate Majority Leader.
I have heard of the status quo, but this is ludicrous. Like I said, I used to stick up for him. However, I cant let so many blatant examples of ineptitude slide.
My position is that this is bad timing. It is dancing to the dem's tune. He should have been canned before, he can be canned later...but not when the dem's are demagogueing it with the race card.
Senator Lott is a powerful figure in the GOP though and this might be the only time he is vulnerable to remove from the top post.
I know that Reagan has said that one should never speak ill of a fellow Republican, but this may be the only time to replace him.
I do share your concern that it might play into the Dems race-baiting BS but after weighing the option, I consider it sound in the long run.
I am a little bit worried though so I can see where you are coming from.
So he will be a self admitted racist, by perception at least, and will then have to go on as a racist Republican Senator. How does the Republican Party distance itself from that? Is getting a more competent ML now worth that? Has anyone even asked themselves what our chances of getting a more competent non-RINO ML are?
Yeah, yeah, I see this over and over again on these threads.
He's and idiot but he's OUR idiot. For heavens sake, he was grinning, pork barreling, room-temp-IQ jerk before he made the statement (BOTH times), is now, always will be. God willing this will be the end of his "leadership" role.
No, I don't see that as necessarily true at all.
It's funny, but it's Lott's defenders are the ones who are making the most noise around here, insisting that his detractors must view him as a racist. Do you folks all really think we've bought into some PC smoke and mirrors? Lott's problems are real, he has spectacularly self-destructed as ML, and it can't be undone.
However, I think the Democrats have way overplayed their hand. Lott is toast, but I believe there is a blessing in disguise here.
That is not my take on it. He's an idiot but we didn't lose him when we had the chance. If we do it now it is cow towwing to the left. That has bigger political consequences in the long run than his bungling. Not standing up to the politics of personal destruction is unprincipled and invites future attacks.
A lot of them have come right out and said it.
Do you folks all really think we've bought into some PC smoke and mirrors? Lott's problems are real, he has spectacularly self-destructed as ML, and it can't be undone.
If Lott's problems were real then Sen. Byrd would have even bigger problems. This was ALL a hype.
However, I think the Democrats have way overplayed their hand.
I hope you are right but IMO they haven't even finished bidding on it. Your editorial on the thread you linked to is very good. You are a very thoughtful and insightful person. I see a pretty good dose of idealism in what you say there though. Hopefully the dem's aren't as organized and focused as I fear that they are.
Lott may say he will stay no matter what but when those dark days come and he is The Former ML Racist Backbencher from Miss. he may find life as a Senator is more than he wants to do. And as everyone says "he is weak".
I hope you are right but IMO they haven't even finished bidding on it. Your editorial on the thread you linked to is very good. You are a very thoughtful and insightful person. I see a pretty good dose of idealism in what you say there though.No, Byrd got a pass from Lott and the GOP.
Both Lott and Byrd have real problems; Byrd's are worse, but we failed to capitalize, the Democrats didn't.
Lott may say he will stay no matter what but when those dark days come and he is The Former ML Racist Backbencher from Miss. he may find life as a Senator is more than he wants to do. And as everyone says "he is weak".Thanks.
I just don't believe we can simultaneously be the Party of Lincoln and the Party of Lott.
Under any circumstances, but especially now, I prefer the former.
Mississippi elects a new governor in 2003. If Haley Barbour can beat the Democrats' Musgrove, Lott can resign, if he chooses, before his term expires without sending the Senate to 50-50.
Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.
Surely I can. (Sorry I'm late.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D, NY): "We will not tolerate those kinds of thoughts." (FR link.)
Or was that "controversy" just "Sioux City Birch Beer" for you, newbie? ;-)
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.