2002 ends with comedy of the absurd

A few observations on the almost Senate majority leader, Trent Lott, and his travail. Kindly note that I’ve constrained myself from using any of those most popular rib tickling plays on the senator’s name, so if you’re looking for a Lotta trouble or any similar bon mots you can move on right now.

Lott’s biggest mistake was one of timing. His comment about the desirability of Strom Thurmond’s election more than half a century ago was clearly not malevolent. Initially, it only received the attention of the perpetually aggrieved Leftists who’ve accorded themselves permanent victim status. December, though, is traditionally a slow news month and the media, spurred on by the usual suspects, took Lott’s throwaway line and ran with it. Suddenly, it was all Trent, all the time.

Having said that Lott wasn’t malevolent doesn’t mean that he wasn’t stupid. He’s been around long enough to know that Republicans, particularly conservatives, have to be extraordinarily circumspect in talking about anything that even remotely has to do with racial matters. Democrats such as former Klansman Senator Robert "Sheets" Byrd can go on TV, say the n-word, and not worry about demands he resign. No Republican could ever get away with that.

Another error of judgment was Lott’s decision to move into fulltime apology mode. Former Democrat Senator Paul Simon pointed out that there had been "an excessive response for what was a jocular moment." Mr. Simon believed "the whole thing has been blown out of context." But by unremittingly begging for forgiveness, Lott validated the view he had indeed committed a grievous mistake.

Republicans showed how quickly they could turn on one another. Afraid of being tarred with the segregationist label themselves, they quickly tossed Trent over. This stood in stark contrast to how Democrats stood almost totally united to defend Clinton, who was fined $90,000 for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Forced to pay an $850,000 settlement in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Disbarred in Arkansas. Prohibited from practicing law before the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet Democrats to this day are loyal to him.

Mildly amusing was the role reversal that took place over the past few days. While Republicans shifted from defending Lott to wanting him to disappear, some Democrats were reevaluating their position. Representative John Lewis (D-GA), who at first insisted on Trent resigning his leadership post, later accepted Lott’s apology and invited him on a civil rights tour in March. Jesse Jackson said he might be willing to give the leader another chance: "Lott could use his sense of contrition and redeem himself politically ... He could make a great contribution to his nation and his party." Most likely, the Reverend’s perception of redemption would include Lott subscribing to much of the Jackson agenda, including reparations, but it doesn’t matter any more.

What does matter is that the Republicans who ditched Lott will never satisfy the demands of the opposition. If they thought they could buy some friends and some time by making nice, they’re sadly mistaken. With their appetite whetted by victory, the Loony Left has already unsheathed the long knives for Lott’s replacement, Senator Bill Frist. NOW president Kim Gandy days: "Few senators have a worse voting record on civil rights than Trent Lott - but Bill Frist is one of them. Frist has voted against sex education, international family planning, emergency contraception (the morning-after pill), affirmative action, hate crimes legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This is the man who is supposed to save face for the GOP in the Senate? Think again." The Center for Public Integrity reports: "Until the year he was elected to the Senate, Frist was a member of Nashville’s Belle Meade Country Club, which had excluded blacks."

There they go again. In the end, Trent Lott needed to leave because he was too broken to serve as his party’s leader. Republicans as well as Democrats inflicted the damage. It was a lousy way for them to end the year. For the sake of America, let’s hope they can get their act together in 2003.

While I wouldn't say Lott's faux pas was the best thing that could have happened, the results were in Republican's best interest. Bush has his man over the Senate, the right was seen to clean its own ranks, and we have a chance of firm leadership, at least in the Senate. Not bad.

Democrats stood almost totally united to defend Clinton, who was fined $90,000 for lying under oath and obstructing justice. Forced to pay an $850,000 settlement in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Disbarred in Arkansas. Prohibited from practicing law before the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet Democrats to this day are loyal to him.

And now they are out of power in every branch of government. Never believe that the public did not notice this, or didn't care.

This is not a strength of the Democrats, it is their weakness. In pursuit of power they are morally blind. This disgusts most people. It is not something we should emulate.

Bush has his man over the Senate, the right was seen to clean its own ranks. . .

A coupla quick points:

It really should be up to the legislative branch, not the executive, to pick its own leadership I think. On the second part, I believe the perception will not be, as you say, that the right cleaned its own ranks, but that Leftist pressure can toss Republicans onto a guilt trip that'll cause them to cave in.

Frist has voted against sex education, international family planning, emergency contraception (the morning-after pill), affirmative action, hate crimes legislation and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

Ah yes.
The pressing issues of our time.

Sounds like the perfect replacement to me.
It's remarkable that the one characteristic of all these issues that have never been on my radar screen is increased spending, increased wealth redistribution, and rewarding stupidity and ineptitude.

I fear for the republic unless we can ignore the shallow end of the gene pool.

An excellent find. Well written and to the point. Of course, I have been a Lott detractor since the "Impeachment Trial" and glad to see him gone but find the writers opinions to have merit. All until the last sentence.

"For the sake of America, let’s hope they can get their act together in 2003."

I have given up any hope that, in the main, the leaders of either party really have "America" first and foremost in their minds while "ruling". It seems, and sadly so, that most politicians at the national level these days make decisions based upon what is politically expedient towards the acquisition and maintenance of power first and if those decisions enhance the Republic ... well that is just a bonus.

We should all have "hope", especially during this season, but to be honest any hope I have for our Constitutional Republic, based upon the current crop of "leaders" is slim at best.

Merry Christmas!

It seems, and sadly so, that most politicians at the national level these days make decisions based upon what is politically expedient towards the acquisition and maintenance of power first and if those decisions enhance the Republic ... well that is just a bonus.

I agree, but hope springs eternal.

Thanks for the comment, and Merry Christmas to you and yours.

Tom Daschle was giving Lott a bye.

That was true, but only at first. As Pat Buchanan wrote: "When Democratic leader Tom Daschle suggested that Lott meant no harm, Black Caucus Rep. Maxine Waters landed on him with both feet. A scorched Daschle hurriedly saw the light."

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.