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 seem to have a problem. Take it up with Robinson, and stop whining.
Jump in with both feet, add something, dont be a sideline player.
So be it, man. I am so sick of these people who don't understand that there was nothing else the GOP could have done with Lott. Either it was get him off the stage or let him stay, making him the alleged bigoted standard-bearer for the party as long as he remained as Majority Leader.
The jerks who insisted that Lott remain to avoid the appearance of capitulating to the race hustlers are the probably same ones who were cheering on Pat Buchanan's prime time speech at the 1992 Republican convention. By being reckless with his words, he, to a lesser extent than Lott, gave the Demos high-caliber ammunition against President George H.W. Bush. Bush 41 lost that election. George W. Bush, when his turn came, made sure that there were no Buchanan bombshells on the agenda at the 2000 confab, resulting in criticism from the left that there weren't enough white people on stage!
Buchanan boosters have their nerve telling the GOP what they should be doing with their newly acquired clout, seeing that he was greatly responsible for them not gaining it sooner. I think these critics of "neo-cons" should shut their pie holes until one of them actually wins an election. Then they will at least have a shred of credibility.
I do not apologize & neither should any other Republicans apologize!
Yours is perhaps the most rational argument I have heard to justify the way the Republicans dealt with Lott. I still don't agree with the way they did it though.
OMG! ROTFL! That is a mental image I could have done without. Thanks a lot!
Huh? Buchanan?
The GOP did exactly what the extreme left wanted done. Not what Buchanan wanted.
And personally, I didn't care one way or the other if Lott stayed or went.
In the big picture, I doesn't matter anyway. It was just a sideshow under the bigtop tent in DC.
I beg to differ with you. It had to do with what some people THOUGHT he said, or how some people INTERPRETED what he said, or what some people assumed he was THINKING when he said it, or how some people wanted other people to interpret what they SAID he said. It had very little to do with what he actually said or indeed even with what he might have meant or not meant by it. Both sides saw it as a political opportunity. Nothing more.
That's hardly a fair approach. Even most Democrats are too embarassed to confess to being liberals.
"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theatres into our swimming pools into our homes and into our churches."---Strom Thurmond, presidential candidate, 1948 ...and...
"I wanna say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." Senator Trent Lott, Dec 2002
I think they pretty well speak for themselves and sum the whole issue up. Lott could NOT be left in as LEADER to FUMBLE, er...LEAD, the Republican Party.
Lott is NOT A LEADER!!!!!!! He is INCOMPETENT and INEFFECTIVE!
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.