Posted on 01/02/2003 6:12:39 AM PST by sheltonmac
Most Americans seem to believe that Trent Lott deserved to suffer for his "insensitive" comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration. Now that Lott has been forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader, neo-conservative Republicans are the ones cheering the loudest.
"We've wanted him gone for a long time," some have said. "We needed to get rid of him and move on with our agenda." The trouble is, no one in the party seems to know exactly what that agenda is.
Of course, that hasn't stopped neo-cons before. Pragmatism has always trumped principle, and as long as the polls reflect public approval for their actions, they really don't care about anything else. They must increase their majority in 2004 at any cost, and to do that they must first shake their xenophobic image.
As everyone knows, the GOP has long been branded as the party of racists. Such labels have been successfully utilized by the liberal left for years, and Republicans have tried everything to keep those labels from sticking. The end result is that in order to present the voting public with a kinder, gentler GOP, Republicans typically begin adopting Democratic positions.
It's the same three-step process every time: 1) liberals make the accusation of racism against a Republican, 2) the Republican denies the charge and 3) the Republican agrees to sign on to the liberal agenda, hoping that in doing so he might prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is not a racist. The entire fiasco surrounding Trent Lott is only the latest example of this kind of Republican cowardice.
Lott's comments sparked all the predictable reactions from all the usual suspects. Men like Al Sharpton and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume —both veteran champions of racial divisiveness —wasted no time in attacking the senator.
Sharpton, who had remained strangely silent in 2001 when Senate Democrat Robert Byrd let fly with his "white niggers" remark, said, "[Lott] should step aside. No one is saying that if the people of Mississippi want to elect him to the Senate that they don't have the right to do that. But to be the head of the party in the Senate, given the sensitivity of that position for the interest of the country and the party, Mr. Lott should step aside."
Mfume's response was a bit more harsh. He called Lott's little speech "hateful bigotry that has no place in the halls of the Congress," and dismissed Lott's subsequent apology as "too little, too late."
Reacting to the verbal barrage from the left, the neo-cons scattered. No one even bothered to mention the possibility that Lott was simply acknowledging the distinguished political career of his 100-year-old colleague. Nobody proposed that when the senator from Mississippi implied that we would be better off had Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948, he was referring to some of the more noble causes Thurmond stood for, like states' rights and a less-intrusive federal government.
No, the neo-cons were so desperate to prove that they could be just as racially sensitive as their slightly more liberal counterparts that Lott's political fate had already been sealed. He was the perfect fall guy, and his sacrifice was worth it if it meant keeping the GOP in power.
Republicans, listen up. Whether you agree that Trent Lott should have resigned as Majority Leader or not, his ousting is yet another sign that you just don't get it. No matter what you say or do, you will always be viewed by the left as a bunch of bigots and racists. Bending to political peer pressure doesn't help —in fact, it makes you look weak. The sooner you learn that, the sooner we can begin repairing the damage your party has done to the conservative cause.
But it's probably too late. The mob has spoken, and Trent Lott has been forced out of his leadership role. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah summed up what Republicans expect of Bill Frist, Lott's successor: "I think Bill has a kind of a more moderate record and a more moderate approach toward things, and I think that it's going to be very difficult to criticize him."
In other words, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." And that, my friends, has become the battle cry of the neo-conservatives in the GOP, Party of Cowards.
You are not debating, we all see that. You are insulting anyone that disagrees with you. That is far from debate. You still owe TLB an apology.
Hey dirt, what the heck is a neo con? I have no idea what that means. Anyway, did you see where the Demon rats are already trying to tar and feather Frist? It sure did not take them long. I knew Lott was not the first they did it to, and surely won't be the last. I hate those dang rats.
Lott had already shot that foot himself before he put it in his mouth. The damage was done and it wasn't a question of if, but when, he would have be benched. As Coach, it was up to Bush to bench him, but due to sep of powers he had to do it the proper way.
I've made plenty of points to many other posters, in case you can't be bothered to peruse the thread, so you, like TLBSHOW, can't even be honest on this thread. Oh, and I've been straight with people who are straight with me. I got a bit pissy with sheltonmac when he called me a neocon, but he stopped and the debate got back on track. You, however, STILL haven't said how Frist had ANYTHING to do with what I had said, so exactly WHO is the party not interested in debate?
Never in the history of this country has a sitting president overtly removed a senate majority leader. That applies also to "picking" who will run and be elected as the new leader. I find that offensive. Even Clinton never stooped that low.
I saw it that way, Fred, it isn't just this thread, TLBSHOW has tried to derail debates on the Lott matter since it started by spamming pointless posts from thread to thread and creating strawmen. I have said many times that only Lott knows if he is a racist, the issue is dead and gone, but TLBSHOW raised it again. I'll debate folks who are genuinely interested in debate. But I get weary of TLBSHOW and his antics. So the comment stands.
Bill Kristol
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
Ken Adelman
Your postings speak for themselves.
"Does it surprise you to observe that many of us refuse to go along with the method or the reason for his removal?"
So, you are arguing against PC speech, and for PC removals?
But, positions have hardened, and you will convince no one.
Should Lott have gone? Yes.
Should he have been forced out at this time to please the race pimps over misspeaking? Absolutely not.
The GOP continues to show cowardice when it matters most.
Again, however, you're wasting your time on this topic.
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.