Posted on 01/01/2003 8:43:17 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Sorry, if you want a break then please don't post what people say in a prejudicial way, out of context.
The full context -- "Well thank you, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you my good friend and my predecessor, my hero, Bob Dole, for that introduction, that very brief introduction I might add [Laughter] But for Senator Strom Thurmond's family and friends and admirers all, it's a great pleasure for me to be here with you today, and I know that you're enjoying every minute of this. And I knew that the previous remarks would be just as they were. I mean, after all, Bob Dole received the Republican nomination and dang near was elected President of the United States telling Strom Thurmond jokes. [Laughter] If he'd just gotten himself some new material there toward the end he would have done it. [Laughter] I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for President we voted for him. [Laughter] We're proud of it. [More laughter] And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either. "
I will now proceed to break down each Lott comment and tell you what I think Lott's intention was based on the full context. I will then wait for you to do the same.....
Bear in mind, all the previous speakers to Lott, were trying to be self-effacing and funny. This includes the dead-pan speaking Dole.
First Lott roasts the long winded Dole -- "...that very brief introduction I might add" [Laughter]
Then Lott roasts the previous speakers and he roasts Dole and Thurmond -- "it's a great pleasure for me to be here with you today, and I know that you're enjoying every minute of this. And I knew that the previous remarks would be just as they were. I mean, after all, Bob Dole received the Republican nomination and dang near was elected President of the United States telling Strom Thurmond jokes." [Laughter]
Then he roasts Dole again -- "If he'd just gotten himself some new material there toward the end he would have done it." [Laughter]
Notice how he refers to the word "material" as in commedy material, which was the full context of what the speakers at this birthday roast were doing.
Then Lott roasts his home state of Mississippi and he roasts Thurmond, both twice -- "I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for President we voted for him." [Laughter] "We're proud of it". [More laughter]
And the final joke -- "And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
The full context of the remarks, was simply a light hearted roast at the 100th birthday party of Strom Thurmond. IMO, you PC reactionary types here at FR are dupes of the enemy.
Hey Torie -- you Lott/Dixiecrat apologist you!!
Hey TLB, "Concearned" has it right. It's time to move on.
SINKSPUR RESPONDED WITH: "Wrong. There are many voters warily eyeing the GOP for its next capitulation to the race pimps. They've seen how a man can be capriciously thrown overboard for misspeaking."
NO!...Lott was forced out because of REPEATED INCOMPETENCE and INEFFECTIVENESS!!!!! His "misspeaking" was just the straw that broke the camel's back.
ON A PREVIOUS POST, I WROTE: "Thinking that Lott was forced out of leadership because of RACISM is like thinking that Klinton was Impeached because of SEX...Lott was forced out because of REPEATED INCOMPETENCE and INEFFECTIVENESS LONG BEFORE the current issue. Klinton was Impeached because of PERJURY and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE in a CIVIL RIGHTS SEXUAL HARASSMENT case, among other things."
AMEN! You stated it EXACTLY RIGHT.
Kind of late for revelations about "Lott is not a racist"
It don't matter no more, no more.. It's done too late.
Cynicom, it is EXACTLY the OPPOSITE of what you fear. The Republicans FINALLY showed some SPINE and got RID of a STUPID, IDIOTIC, INCOMPETENT, INEFFECTIVE RINO PANSY! And the RATS are SORRY now that they LOST Lott.
Have you noticed how the story went on for OVER TWO WEEKS---UNTIL Lott was forced out? Now, Lott isn't even mentioned, much less discussed, in the media and/or talk shows.
Lott is ANCIENT HISTORY!! MOVE ON!
The realization I have finally come up with regarding your point of a "lessor of two evils" to vote for...
...is that if MY candidate fails to win in the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, it is because I FAILED to do MY job to WORK 200% to get MY CANDIDATE NOMINATED via the PRIMARY.
If I FAILED, and another candidate wins the PRIMARY, then it is MY responsibility to WORK FOR and SUPPORT MY PARTY's nominee.
Start looking at it being YOUR FAILURE to either get YOUR CHOICE NOMINATED via the PRIMARY, or YOUR FAILURE to RUN for the position if you think there aren't any satisfactory candidates to choose from in the PRIMARY, and then WORK FOR and SUPPORT THE WINNER of the PRIMARY!
If we ALL start taking THAT attitude, we might just find ourselves WORKING OUR REAR ENDS OFF to get OUR guy nominated via the PRIMARY.
No...what Frist said was NOT "saying in actuality the same thing [as Lott said.]" What Frist said was FACTS...NOT STUPID RACIST-SOUNDING remarks. Note, that I did NOT say RACIST remarks...I said RACIST-SOUNDING remarks.
They way that Frist stated HIS remarks was the way that Lott SHOULD have. But Lott is an INCOMPETENT and INEFFECTIVE RINO.
Do you not think that what Strom did was acting out of PRINCIPLE, CHARACTER and COURAGE?
Although you may not agree with Strom's position (I don't), I have NO doubt that he acted out of PRINCIPLE and CHARACTER (remember the climate in the deep south regarding race at the time).
And surely, you don't doubt that it took COURAGE to split away from (and dilute) his OWN Party, do you?
I see nothing but FACTS in Frist's comments about Strom.
EVERYTHING you wrote in post number 93 was EXACTLY 100% RIGHT ON THE MARK!!!!!
I understood your post to mean that this thread was 'flogging the dead horse' of the 'Lott saga' as you called it. It is my humble opinion that the 'flogging' of the 'dead horse' occurred while Sen. Lott was still in power as ML.
What the author of this article, and TLBSHOW by posting it, wish to discuss, is not the 'dead horse' (Lott) but those who 'flogged' him, and why they did so. I am of the opinion that it needs to be discussed, but you seem adamant in your attempts to sweep it under the rug - the old elephant in the livingroom trick.
MY OPINION is that this author, Barry Farber, is flogging a dead horse.
I know. You are incorrect. The author clearly stated, not only in his title, but in the body of his article, "In sticking to Trent Lott, let me quickly point out that I'm not talking about Trent Lott; rather, I'm talking about so much MORE than Trent Lott....The key question, rather, is, What does the Trent Lott affair now say about the Republican Party?"
If you don't want to discuss it, don't. What purpose do you serve by trying to stop others from doing so?
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.