Replies

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.

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.

Bump for the truth. (Love that Ann!)

bump!

Congrats.

What the Lott incident shows is that Republicans have to be careful about letting Democrats into our party....Republicans made Southern Democrats drop the race nonsense when they entered the Republican Party.

When I read this a few hours ago I was thinking like you that those lines needed reiterating.

When I came back to the thread it was already nearly 400 posts, and so hadda search for the phrase "Southern Democrats" to see if anyone else noticed that important observation. So far it appears to be only you and me. Here's hoping we can remedy that.

Both Ann today and Mark Steyn on Monday pointed out why it is not the rest of the GOP that is disloyal and outa step. It is not the rest of the GOP that is falling for the race baiting. It is Lott, and only Lott, who chummed for the race sharks to attack his party.

Coulter:

What the Lott incident shows is that Republicans have to be careful about letting Democrats into our party....

Republicans made Southern Democrats drop the race nonsense when they entered the Republican Party.

Steyn:

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.

Both of these excellent commentators make it quite clear that it is not the grassroot conservative GOP who has let down Lott. It is Lott who keeps giving a resoundingly traitorous gift to our adversaries. What is it? A longing to be reaccepted by the Democrats he abandoned in the '70s?

Because the Rats allow Byrd to remain not only without censure, but with honor (forgodsakes, he was President Protem for how long?), some of our fellow pubbies are letting the Rats set the standards for what constitutes loyalty. They think we should rally around a man who, at the very least, should cause any of us to not just question his intelligence but also his past promise to leave "the race nonsense" behind.

For what it's worth, I think these two conservative writers make it quite clear why some of our fellow FReepers have been misplacing their sense of loyalty. For the sake of simple honest decency, it's not the number of bodies our party needs to stand behind. That's for the Rats. What is at the very core of Republican principle that deserves our loyalty is that the GOP stands for freedom for all men, regardless of what group they're apt to be categorized by the true racists, to achieve what God has imbued in them the skill to achieve. Race is the history of Democrats, long earned by Democrats, and still being earned by Democrats.