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.
BTW, I'm still awaiting your analysis of the Dixiecrat platform.
What is the principle the GOP would have been sticking to by defending Lott? What principle was he enunciating when he made his remarks? Segregation? The only person I've seen suddenly coming out in favor of affirmative action is Lott. This is brainless.
Why is that necessary? Lott never mentioned segregation or the Dixiecrats in his comment. He was talking about Strom Thurmond, a man who obviously grew up and moved away from his segregationist views. To twist what Lott said to read, "If our nation had continued to support segregation, we would be much better off today," is a bit of a stretch.
No. I have always been one to point out that real change has to come from the grass roots level. Shuffling around political leaders won't make a bit of difference. Government will continue to grow and our freedoms will continue to shrink as long as we keep re-electing these people.
He was probably surprised by the GOP dumping him, since they usually roll over anytime the New York Times starts complaining. As Thomas Sowell once said, Republicans' favorite exercise is running for the hills.
235 posted on 01/02/2003 9:57 AM PST by Luis Gonzalez [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Bet that makes you feel right at home louie.
First you address me and talk behind my back without posting to me because you don't have the guts. And now you accuse me of playing the race card? Cute louie, after you pulled it out of every sleeve and cuff in your conservative disguise and played it against me and many others.
Or did you conveniently forget that you called me a nazi, KKK member, and other assorted vile accusations.
What? You think I forgot all that louie?
No, I wont forget you louie. Hard to forget someone that makes those types of unfounded accusations and lies, with nothing to back it up. Nothing.....
You are the one that should have been banned long ago, with your slander and lies. Not others that had the guts enough to speak out against this massive immigration crisis.
247 posted on 01/02/2003 10:13 AM PST by Joe Hadenuf [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]
Behind you back Joe? It's right there, for all to see.
hey Joe, look at the thread, you threw in the racist comment, in standard Liberal fashion.
Race card Joe...reporting for duty.
You are a liar louie.
Care to go down archive lane?
Did you think I would forget about what you have called me and others? All those vile names you accused me and others of? Don't your recall louie?? You have pulled the race card so many times you've got blisters on your hands. Remember louie?? Did you forget louie?
Did you really think I would forget what you said in the past louie?
And you talk about Lott? LOL! You are much worse than he ever was.
Took the words right outta my mouth. Can't wait to read cynicalcom's retort to "them fightin words".
Done, over.
My dictionary does not say republican is snyonymous with conservative. I call myself conservative and would resent being called a republican.
Huh? I never said that.
What I was saying is that for all we know, Lott could have been referring to some of the other principles Thurmond stood for, like states' rights.
Trent was the most powerful Republican in government, that he would make comments like that, more than once, is a sign of a person not cut out to be a leader.
The comment in no way endorsed segregation under its given circumstances. If it weren't for one reporters long memory or anal retentive research it wouldn't even have been realized in that context, hell if Thurmond was any older we'd be bitching about his vote on the possesion of fire or stone knapping tools. Also, Republicans need to get over this abject fear of their offhand comments being fodder for race baiting whiners, a slip of the tongue shouldn't be an opportunity for fawning submission, it should be an opportunity to point out that 'Rats are losers without an agenda worthy of consideration which is why they carp about this crap.
If you don't want to be called a whore, then don't get caught getting paid for sex.
I could maybe see the analogy if Lott was caught wearing bed linens and burning religeous icons but hardly in the case of a kudo to a 100 year old politician retiring...
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.