Posted on 12/19/2002 5:33:48 AM PST by concerned about politics
Lani Guinier: Clinton Pandered to Segregationist Whites
After he was sued in the late 1980s by the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund for failing to enforce the Voting Rights Act in Arkansas, then-Gov. Bill Clinton suggested to a group of pro-segregation whites that they were being unfairly targeted by civil rights laws as a result of the South's loss in the Civil War, according to one-time Clinton administration Civil Rights Division nominee Lani Guinier.
"In the late 1980s, in a particularly tense meeting in southeastern Arkansas - a section of the Mississippi Delta region where antebellum social relations are still in many respects the order of the day - [Guinier's friend] Dayna [Cunningham] and a local LDF cooperating lawyer were part of a handful of black people there to discuss remedies for a highly contentious LDF voting rights suit," wrote Guinier in her 1998 memoir, "Lift Every Voice."
"The meeting turned sour when one of the local whites demanded to know why, in his view, the whites were always made to pay for others' problems. Other whites in the group began to echo his charge. ..."
Guinier continued:
"Bill Clinton, the lead defendant in the case, took to the podium to respond. In a tone of resignation, Clinton said, 'We have to pay because we lost.'" Guinier said Cunningham inferred that Clinton was referring to the South's Civil War loss as well as his loss in the court case.
"Clinton had so irresponsibly pandered to the backwards feeling of the white constituency" in his speech about the voting rights lawsuit, Cunningham told Guinier.
News of Clinton's attempt to pander to Arkansas whites who were angry that he'd lost a lawsuit for not enforcing the Voting Rights Act comes just hours after the ex-president accused Republicans of doing the same thing.
"They try to suppress black voting, they ran on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina, and from top to bottom the Republicans supported it," Clinton said of the GOP on Wednesday, when asked to comment on the continuing Trent Lott flap.
In fact, the Arkansas state flag added a single star above the state's name in 1923 to commemorate its membership in the Confederacy, a design that remained unaltered throughout Clinton's five terms as governor.
After tapping Guinier for the top Justice Department civil rights post in 1993, Clinton abruptly yanked her nomination after critics labeled her a "Quota Queen." Guinier said she felt betrayed by Clinton, whom she considered a friend since their days together at Yale Law School, and was angered when he called her "anti-democratic" in a nationally televised address announcing he was scuttling her nomination.
I mean, I keep hearing this, but I never see any examples.
I can think of hundreds on the Demcorat side, but I can't for the life of me think what you're talking about when you say "Republican legacy."
On the contrary, we should expose every left wing racist we can find.
It isn't about Lott anymore. The Left has gone beyond that.
So far, all Republicans are racist, the people in the south are racist, Reagan was a racist. I think they also said Frist voted like Lott, therefore, he's a racist too. How many others voted like Lott? That makes them racist, too!
According to the leader of NOW, Lott is also a sexist and homophobe for not passing gay marrage. So, using left wing propaganda mentality, all Republicans will also be sexists and homophobes soon.
If you're not liberal, you're not fit to be in a leadership position.(barf-o-rama)
Why not expose them? We've never been givin a better opportunity to expose them for what they really are. They brought it up!
Well you know, It's just something, that you know, is common knowledge, wink wink. Republicans became racists at the same time Democrats became freedom fighters, you know at the time the South stopped voting solid Democrat.
That's what they say.
I had never before heard about Al Gore and the Secret Service suit -- E.D. Hill mentioned it this morning on Fox & Friends -- she also mentioned Clinton being sued by a minority group, Sen. Byrd and the "N"-word and how the entire uproar over Lott is purley political -- I could have kissed the screen, it's a shame that we're not hearing these things from "serious" anchormen
That said -- Lott needs to step down as SML -- he's already mumbling about "compromise" and "new focus" and will be an albatross around the neck of the Republican party if he hangs on. It may not be "fair" but it's the only way to stop the bleeding.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
That's true, but it won't stop there. This is their "get out the black vote for 2004."
That's why the "history" of left wing racism needs to be exposed, as well as their current anti-black policies.
We need TV right wing talking heads of Biblical proportions!
It's not just "higher standards" anymore. It's "impossible standards".
No man or woman is perfect. People do have slips of the tongue. Bush's tongue slips on an almost daily basis, yet we forgive him for his misstatements and mispronunciations because we know his heart is in the right place.
We defend Bush when his opponents label him as stupid. I don't hear Republicans crying for Bush to step down for stupid misstatements that he should know better than to make. Yet the argument given why Lott should step down is that "he should know better" than to make such stupid statements.
I am way more angry at my fellow conservatives over this than I am at Lott.
Why must we always make the good the enemy of the perfect.
Agreed -- but who's going to do it ?? Not Dan Rather or Peter Jennings, that's fer sure -- and any "conservative" who brings it up will be called a "hater" and told to stop being so "negative" and "devisive" (people's FEELINGS might be hurt) -- if that doesn't work they'll just say the "right wingers" are "stupid"...and drag out 55 (lefty--but not mentioned as such) "pundits" who will tell us the "real" truth
That's how FOX got to be #1.
They at least get out both sides of the story, and the voter decides.
People hate bickering, and if the right keeps their heads and sticks to the facts, the liberals will get so peeved they'll self destruct. Name calling is childish, and people don't like hearing it. It's exactly what we need.
Maybe FReeping Fox might just help them get back to "fair and balanced reporting."
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.