You hang Lott out to dry and you're all but agreeing with 'em!By letting him stay.
No, they're solving a problem and thinking it's a victory for them.
Posted on 12/18/2002 3:51:50 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Democrats: A Lott of trouble
I'm just glad Strom Thurmond isn't around to see this.
Statisticians believe Trent Lott is now on track to break Bill Clinton's single-season record for public apologies. During his recent B.E.T. appearance, Lott said he supported affirmative action, regretted voting against the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, and that he'd give "The Bernie Mac Show" another try.
What the Lott incident shows is that Republicans have to be careful about letting Democrats into our party. Back when they supported segregation, Lott and Thurmond were Democrats. This is something the media are intentionally hiding to make it look like the Republican Party is the party of segregation and race discrimination, which it never has been.
In 1948, Thurmond did not run as a "Dixiecan," he ran as a "Dixiecrat" – his party was an offshoot of the Democratic Party. And when he lost, he went right back to being a Democrat. This whole brouhaha is about a former Democrat praising another former Democrat for what was once a Democrat policy.
Republicans made Southern Democrats drop the race nonsense when they entered the Republican Party. Democrats supported race discrimination, then for about three years they didn't, now they do again. They've just changed which race they think should be discriminated against. In the 1920s, the Democratic platforms didn't even call for anti-lynching legislation as the Republican platforms did.
Thurmond's Dixiecrat Party was not the only extremist spin-off from the Democratic Party in 1948. Henry Wallace, formerly FDR's vice president and agriculture secretary, left the Democratic Party that year to form the communist-dominated and Soviet-backed "Progressive Party." Much as Thurmond's Dixiecrat Party was expressly pro-segregation, Wallace's Progressive Party was expressly pro-Soviet.
Indeed, this was the apex of Moscow-directed subversion of U.S. politics. The Progressive Party platform excluded even the mildest criticism of Soviet aggression. It will come as no surprise that many American celebrities supported Wallace. The Progressives received 1 million votes nationwide, about the same as Thurmond's Dixiecrat Party.
Thurmond went on to reject segregation, become a Republican, and serve his country well as a U.S. senator. By contrast, running a communist-dominated presidential campaign was Wallace's last hurrah. Yet only an off-the-cuff remark at a birthday party praising Thurmond's presidential campaign is the career-destroyer. Not so fawning references to Wallace's Soviet-backed presidential campaign.
Just two years before Lott's remarks, a hagiographic book on Wallace's life was released, titled "American Dreamer." How about a book about a segregationist titled "American Dreamer"? Wallace's version of the American "dream" was communism every bit as much as Strom Thurmond's dream was segregation. Aren't dreams of murderous dictators, gulags and death camps at least comparable in evil to segregated lunch counters?
The dust jacket on "American Dreamer" featured a nauseating statement of praise by U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy. Kennedy said that the book deserved "to be read by all who care about the American dream." The American dream: communist totalitarianism. Why wasn't the lecherous liberal asked to retire for his flattering remarks about a proven Soviet fifth columnist?
In 1999, the Clinton administration dedicated a room at the Agriculture Department to Wallace. At the dedication, former Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern gave a speech explicitly praising Wallace's pro-Soviet positions, such as the idea that the Cold War was "overdone" and that "problems" between the nations "could not be resolved by military means."
McGovern fondly recalled that he himself had voted for Wallace. He chipperly reminded the audience that he had run for president in 1972 "on a similar platform" – with the help of a young Yale law school graduate named Bill Clinton. Inasmuch as Trent Lott was in kindergarten in 1948, he did not vote for Thurmond. He did not run on a "similar" platform to the Dixiecrats. He did not write a jacket-flap endorsement calling a segregationist an "American Dreamer."
The idea that Lott took the occasion of an old timer's birthday to introduce a new policy initiative to bring back segregation – a Democrat policy – is ludicrous. Lott is a fine fellow; he just has some sort of liberal-Tourette's syndrome that makes him spout Democrat ideas at random. A few years ago, Lott practically wanted to give the adulterous Air Force pilot Kelly Flinn a silver star for her service. Remember that?
Up until two weeks ago, conservatives were clamoring for Lott's removal precisely because of his annoying habit of saying dumb things. (Showing their inferior intellect, liberals have only recently figured that out.) Republicans should ask Lott to step down as leader, but only for all the nice things he's said about Teddy Kennedy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Offer!
Ann Coulter's newest blockbuster is here! "Slander" hammers liberals who use lies to vilify their opponents. Autographed copies now available through WorldNetDaily's online store!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Coulter, well-known for her television appearances as a political analyst, is an attorney and author. Dubbed "one of the 20 most fascinating women in politics" by George magazine, Coulter has appeared on ABC's "This Week," "Good Morning America," NBC's "Today," "Politically Incorrect with Bill Maher," CNN's "Larry King Live" and CNBC's "Rivera Live."
I just had misgivings about hanging one of our own (his ACU rating is actually pretty good) over a false charge of racism.
I thought it would be better to contrast it with the very real and overt racism that's become an integral part of the left's platform.. AND, why validate a ridiculous charge?
But that BET thing.. That can't be excused. I can't defend him anymore.
If he quits, he quits.. whatever..
We can't have him handing our domestic agenda to the rats to redeem himself or "buy forgivness"
He's just got to go, imho.
It's about way more than just an absent minded comment at an old man's birthday part at this point.
I dunno what to say to him without being abusive at this point.
Lott can only hurt the G.O.P. if the G.O.P. let's him.
Let me ask you something, a lot of folks here have been wishing for Lott's demise way before this incident, why hasn't it happened?
For Christ's sake, because of one innocuous statement, we've now got the Left accusing Ronald Reagan of being a racist!
You hang Lott out to dry and you're all but agreeing with 'em!
Mudboy: Take note of the exact reason I do not take a Hillary vs. W contest lightly. (And she'll fight bare knuckled.)
Luis, I can't make heads or tails out of your post. I am totally confused by your remarkably incoherent reply. Please help me out here ; just what were your trying to say ?
Perhaps one who wants to be liked by someone who does feel it?
And who, with any political savvy, runs up and grabs ahold of stupidity like that?
First things first. I think we'll deal with Lott in due course. I also think we can't let this Democrat aggression stand. I think we need to trust the voters to see through the noise and support us. Have you noticed how the media have NOT been flouting polls on the Lott issue? I wonder why that is? Could it be because the people are siding with Republicans on this? Gallup's poll on Lott says that people think that Lott is prejudiced, but that he should not resign.
-PJ
You hang Lott out to dry and you're all but agreeing with 'em!By letting him stay.
No, they're solving a problem and thinking it's a victory for them.
I think he's suggesting that the only explanation is if Lott conspired with Daschle and Democrats to do what he's doing, that he's some kind of mole or double-agent. That's what I get from the several "foil" references, meaning tin-foil hats that conspiracy theorists wear to keep the alien rays from penetrating my brain.
Read the post again.
-PJ
Dubya is the leader of the G.O.P., too bad he couldn't reign in Lott, (RR had no trouble with him), without using this as an excuse to suddenly get tough.
I agree.
We missed a big opportunity here. A nationwide forum on race and yet another chance to highlight their total and complete issue vacuum.
But, that was last week. This week we need a new SML.
They're not thinkin' it is...they're knowing.
You just watch now how some in the G.O.P. react everytime race issues are brought to the floor.
I read he may re-enact the Selma March with John "they're coming for the poor, they're coming for the children" Lewis.
I'm wondering if they're getting over this. I agree that early moves were tentative and gun-shy after years of getting bashed on anything the Democrats chose to be outraged about. But the public reaction has been tepid, and this is causing Democrats to backtrack a little, and Republicans to perhaps be a little more assertive.
-PJ
It'll be worse if Lott stays.
Ok, how about McConnell? Up to now he's been the only one stepping out front and showing a little brass.
And I damn well guarantee that if Mr. Helms was sticking around he wouldn't be sitting by waiting on poll results.
I thought he was going to change his mind and say he was Pro-Choice
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.