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.
By the way, was there anything technically wrong with what Lott said? Is it at all possible the we would be better off? Not on the issue of segregation--one man in the White House would not have been able to stop desegregation even if he wanted to--but on such issues as states' rights? In Lott's defense, Harry Truman wasn't exactly the best choice for this country.
Another whiny rant blaming the neocons. Quite frankly, Lott never gave conservatives any good reason to back him up, and then managed to careen madly across the political landscape, throwing supporters off his wagon as he backstabbed conservative values left and right in a futile effort to save his job at the expense of his party.
You sound like a liberal, blaming others instead of placing the blame firmly where it belongs - with Trent Lott himself.
The resident, sanctimonious, self righteous, socialist republican partisan apologists are going to have you for lunch.
Then why get rid of him now? The neo-cons could have rid themselves of Lott long ago for being a compromising liberal. But no. They have to wait until he says something that might be construed by someone on the left as potentially politically incorrect. Neo-cons simply fall down and curl up in the fetal position whenever someone plays the race card. They are cowards.
Freedom of speech does not grant one carte blanch freedom from responsibility for what someone says. The office of Senate Majority is not a right - it is a priviledge, and the ML serves at the will of the other GOP Senators. Trying to make this a freedom of speech issue is asinine.
So soon? They just finished gorging themselves on one of their own. How could they be hungry already? ;-)
Run the names by us that were running against Frist, when he was elected?????
Duh - because he did something damaging to the party - and his sandbagging of greater GOP interests was hardly an isolated incident. To me, it was always a mystery why the GOP Senators didn't demote Trent ages ago (probably because they were afraid of retribution if they failed), but his gaffe made it a no-brainer, especially when it subsequently became clear that Lott would backstab the interests of the party to save his perks and power.
What does that have to do with my statement? Nothing. Once again, freedom of speech does not grant freedom from responsibility from one's one statements, especially for a party leadership position.
He probably would have undercut welfare reform just for good measure.
Exactly. Lott should have been kicked out long ago for much worse things than this. He proved that he was not deserving of such a priviledge. But forcing him out for something he said plays right into the hands of the race-baiters. You're sending a dangerous message. You would have been in a much better position had you called for Lott's ousting because of something he did to damage the conservative cause. But maybe you neo-cons have a different agenda in mind.
Was it in display in his BET interview?
He needed to go, because he was willing to sell out the conservative cause to retain his seat. (BET interview - affirmative action)
Perhaps, without Lott, the spineless imbecile, as majority leader, the GOP will steer a course closer to conservatism. With him as leader there was no chance of forwarding conservative principles.
Lee, I rarely disagree with you, but on this one; I totally disagree.
Sometimes, the politically correct thing is, coincidentally, the right thing to do.
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.