Democrats: A Lott of trouble (ANN COULTERS VIEWS ON TRENT LOTT ATTACK)

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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."

"The reason he wasn't challenged after Nov. 5 was because he *was* put on probation. Remember "we've circled the wagons around him"? That was the GOP Leadership talking about Lott then. This is where they show him the door, NOW!

I can agree with that. We just have to recast it as Lott being cast aside for our reasons, and make sure the public "gets it." They are already receptive, I think, based on some poll numbers.

*My friend, Lott will have to start immediately paying the checks his mouth wrote Monday night. IMMEDIATELY or the RATS obstruct and attack because he was *lying* otherwise. No matter *when* he steps down, it will be unequivocably tied to race, for which Trent has only himself to blame; he admitted his own racism and did so much more on Monday night. That sticks to him now, period.

Ineffectiveness or bad, liberal crap coming out of the Senate the first 6 months is death.

I agree here, too. Throwing Lott out as a racist is more liberal crap.

*Lott leaves because his ineptitude in leading was not conducive to the Majority party, the party held responsible, could do not the work that America needs in this critical time of war and a slumping economy.

I think Lott should be removed from leadership, too. He just can't be run out of town by Democrats. How do you think this would play out?

*It's not about *them*, this is about Lott losing the confidence of ALL conservatives, particularly his Senate compadres, and the GOP entrusted with America's condition; the middle class want action, not excuses. Excuses and ineffectiveness get accredited to the Majority party.

1. Lott doesn't step down immediately because that would be agreeing with the racism charges, and Lott would be shamed for the rest of his life.

*Lott has already ensured that and the RATS can accept his apologies all they want, they are perceived as trashing a man that was chastened by his own for utter stupidity. Lott's problems are cast in stone. They can not be our problems. He will have to rehabilitate by doing whatever he sees as his and Mississippians best course of action.

2. Republicans express their outrage at Lott in no uncertain terms (behind closed doors if necessary).

*I agree. Closed doors and secret ballot for the leadership of the Majority party that has been overwhelmingly (I feel 11/5 was a near mandate for an off year against RATS with a GOP POTUS) entrusted to get things done, and make it work. Liberal ideals are old, tired and proven not to work. The people want effective leadership.

3. Bush has a rousing State Of The Union Address, where he makes announcements of major initiatives.

*Definitely mandatory, but with a *FRESH START*...clear the darn decks first.

4. Republicans have another leadership vote, in the name of retooling themselves to fit Bush's agenda (or some such nonsense that is focus group tested), Lott is replaced and is given some kind of "special project" to keep him occupied.

*Too late. He chose his special project Monday night on BET. Liberal Civil Rights.

I understand that there is some significance to the Jan. 6 date, after which (I think) committee assignments are made and there would be no place for Lott to go. Otherwise, as long as it happens soon, what's the urgency?

*Every reason I've already noted.

How can Lott be ousted that is a win for everyone?

*I'm sorry, Lott did this to himself and his winning is not incumbent upon the GOP or conservatives now. He can have a chair and whatever aligns with his new quest for liberal civil rights. It can't be all about Trent anymore. He doesn't get to choose anymore.

*Harsh? What Trent has done in blundering, not recovering then looking like a liar, capitulating to the RAT civil right's wet dream and swiping all whites, southerners, Pickering, etc. was harsh. Whether you and blacks realize it or not, he endorsed a liberal civil rights agenda that sets blacks back bigtime and will cripple our country over race, yet again.

***I must retire for the night shortly, but I wish you God's speed and wisdom. You are astute and thinking very well in a critical, lucid and dynamic - historical period in history with higher stakes than at *any* other time.

We've been saying that Lott is a trainwreck waiting for an audience; it happened and it happened on BET Monday night.

I believe that there is an "inside the Beltway" effect that magnifies everything to gargantuan proportions. The Nielsen rating for BET that night show 830,000 people watched (80% boost for that slot). CNN and Fox News come in at the 700,000 to 800,000 mark, too, though normally. I don't think the mainstream audience is paying attention to this, and they're only absorbing what they're seeing on ABC, CBS, NBC, and newspapers. The networks reach millions of homes, but the news is squeezed into only a few scattered hours. Out of the 100 million who voted in 2000, the audience for the Lott show was less than 1% of voters.

Lott will be out, I don't doubt that. I think it will be in January.

-PJ

He's either an idiot, or he's working for them.

Trent Lott is supposed to be a politician of considerable gravitas, he is the leader of the majority party in the house of the people.

His careless quips have put the GOP's agenda in jeopardy, and the agenda is far more important than the man.

I am not willing to save Lott and lose Pickering, and it is evident that to save Lott from his lot, the GOP will have to ante up a little bit of its recently gained power and hand it over to the other side of the isle.

Lott is supposed to be better than this, he's not some freshman congressman from Yeehaw Junction, he is a major player in some rather serious games.

He should measure out every word he utters, and consider the ramnifications of careless quips before stepping up to the podium.

He didn't..so stick a fork in him, he's done.

He has become a liability to Bush.

"I believe that there is an "inside the Beltway" effect that magnifies everything to gargantuan proportions. The Nielsen rating for BET that night show 830,000 people watched (80% boost for that slot). CNN and Fox News come in at the 700,000 to 800,000 mark, too, though normally. I don't think the mainstream audience is paying attention to this, and they're only absorbing what they're seeing on ABC, CBS, NBC, and newspapers. The networks reach millions of homes, but the news is squeezed into only a few scattered hours. Out of the 100 million who voted in 2000, the audience for the Lott show was less than 1% of voters."

The soundbites heard by 10s of millions was a)Affirmative Action (yes), b)Trent admitted to the charges (sadly) and c)See, we told you they're leader is a sheet wearer.

Trent will step down when everybody gets their head on straight and realize the stakes. Jan. 6th will maybe be the formality, but IMHO, it's too long to fester - JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE BASE THAT IS UTTERLY DISGUSTED - and it's leaking over to Bush's equivocations and firm non-starters, but rather the leaks.

Also, there might have been a 'small' audience on BET, but the BET transcript has been picked apart by every conservative and conservative rag on the net and in print, plus the weeklies that will highlight this through Christmas. The play on the grassroots is critical and Lott pissed a *LOT* of people off. It's getting worse, and worse, and worse every day. Which is why I don't think Lott will make it to Christmas when people at the top level decide enough is enough. This is activism (the core electioneers of the party), fundraising and morale now. When JC Watts called him to step out of leadership, it was a real blow. The only ones now saying he should stay are RATS. It's over amigo. Trent stays on with dire consequences.

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.