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.
Yeah, they do. Ten posts debating the initial vanity prior to TLBSHOW trying to shift the debate. Whereas you made one to me and won't even follow up on my question as to why that post was relevant, but have made several subsequent posts saying, among other things, that I am not interested in debating **head scratch**. So, yes, I was trying to debate this prior , and you are trying to make an issue of me flaming TLBSHOW for spamming the thread and trying to shift the focus of the debate away from the initial subject.
I am a Conservative American, not a Conservative Republican. Perhaps not being partisan or an apologist for any party does allow one to be more objective. I voted and supported Bush to the hilt, however, that does not mean I will overlook his transgressions. He made a political blunder with the Lott affair and the democrats are still applauding. In 04, Bush and his partisans will be here on FR begging for "conservative" votes. Just perhaps that error will come back to haunt him.
Cynicom, however, is simply being absurd - saying I don't want to debate, when he has made one comment on this thread that passes for debate and instead is trying to score points by derailing the debate.
And, therefore, you should have been aghast at Lott's history, before and after his gaffe, of appeasing the Democrats in ways that Bush would never dare.
Remember his agreement to share power with Daschale when the Senate was 50/50? Remember his unwillingness to act in the 2002 lame duck session until Bush took him to the wood shed? Remember his going on BET and saying his supported affirmative action?
I'm sorry, but, Thurmond comments aside, Lott is NOT the man that conservatives want as their poster boy.
Once again your posts are very self descriptive. Your remaks were well off base, personal and rude. Now you compound it by not being gentleman enough to apologize.
Go find a different dead cat to run over and flatten further. The writer of this vanity set the tone of the thread by saying the GOP was the Party of Cowards. But I still debated him and others. I've tried to debate you, but you can't be bothered to answer how your response about Frist had ANYTHING to do with what I posted, yet you claim I am not interested in debate. So if you wish to continue staging this theater of the absurd, be my guest, I will just exit stage right at this time.
I have been calling for Lotts ouster on FR for two years or more. It was long overdue. That being said, one needs to look at the reason it was done and the method used. I object to both. Here is where not being a partisan republican brings one to a different view, other than the one proscribed by Bush.
So of course you will contact your rep about this obvious government coverup won't you? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/815421/posts
Wash Post -- "Citing a shortage of money, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will stop publishing information about factory closings across the country, a decision that some state officials and labor leaders are protesting."
Based on the amount of information that is supplied to me by your link -- Wash. Post -- the answer "of course" is no. I would need to see the full details instead of some one-liner that may appeal to reationaries.
And why can't I see the full details? Because, citing a loss of revenues, the Wash. Post unconstitutionally prevents us freepers from reading their entire articles online here at FR. Using your above logic, wouldn't you call this a coverup??
Sorry to see that you are unable to portend yourself properly in a civil discussion and debate.
There just aint a whole lot of difference between these two parties.....Getting harder and harder to tell them apart.....
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.