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 EXACTLY RIGHT, Jimer.
Lott was the LEADER of the Republican Party. We CANNOT have such an INCOMPETENT, INEFFECTIVE person (who REPEATEDLY makes such INCREDIBLY STUPID remarks) as LEADER of OUR Party!!!!! He couldn't even APOLOGIZE competently---he took 5 or 6 times and he STILL BLEW it!
And before you go assuming that I am one of those people, let me assure you that I am not. I have friends and co-workers and even relatives who would be categorized as "other-than-white" and my own father would laugh at anybody calling ME a racist, given all the arguments I have had with him over the years, and against the popular opinion for many of them, since I grew up in pre-civil rights south and being a defender of equal rights was none too popular at that time. So it isn't at all about my personal beliefs, other than my personal beliefs about the sanctity of our freedoms. I don't smoke either, but I will be one of the first to defend the rights of smokers as just as valid as those of non-smokers.
The point is that we have to get away from the extremes in these issues and be willing to compromise. I see a great deal of willingness to compromise on the part of most conservatives and virtually none on the part of the liberals. I agree that Lott had to go and that his weak-kneed, butt-kissing apologies were the last straw, but the whole thing was a travesty and does not portray anybody involved in a flattering light.
Yeah, that's been my point all along. So why wait until this little breech of the PC speech code to call for his resignation? Where were all the "conservatives" calling for his ousting before now? If he was so INCOMPETENT and INEFFECTIVE, why was he even chosen as Majority Leader in the first place? The impression everyone has now is that he was booted because the GOP wants to avoid looking racist. And you know what? They're right. The left says, "Bend over," and Republicans say, "How far?"
LUIS GONZALEZ ADDED: "Was it in display in his BET interview?"
Lott's ONLY LEADERSHIP was when he stepped aside. And THAT was the honorable thing to do.
As a VERY CONSERVATIVE (socially and fiscally) FReeper with 40 YEARS of POLITICAL and MARKETING training and/or EXPERIENCE, I am confident that forcing Lott out was the RIGHT thing for the Party (and the country).
Although I would have PREFERRED for Lott to be voted out of LEADERSHIP long ago, Lott's REPEATED apology gaffes and eventual LIBERAL promises on BET were the straw that broke the camel's back.
Buchanan, if you weren't paying attention in 1992, gave a fiery speech that in itself wasn't extreme, but was written in a way so that it lent itself to gross misinterpretation. That's what I was talking about.
Precisely. And because he didn't step down immediately, now the lefties can say lie that he was forced out of leadership only because he apologized too much and promised changes the party didn't want to make. That's what makes this a disaster for the GOP any way you slice it.
I don't know what you mean about Rush, but this I know: Lott's big mouth just made it a heckuva lot harder to beat back Bush's caveman act on immigration, etc.
But I was referring to Lott when I stated "The GOP did exactly what the extreme left wanted done".
No one has suggested that Trent does not a right to his opinion. But Trent was the leader of the Majority Party in the Senate, and when the Leader of a Party speaks, he supposedly speaks for the Party. Lott was there in his role as Majority Leader, when he spoke, he spoke as the voice of the Senate GOP.
"...Then he suggests that if the country had followed Mississippi's lead, and voted for Trent Lott (the segregationist candidate)..."
Of course, that should have read Strom Thurmond.
Are you suggesting that people that stick by Lott has principles even after Lott dropped his drawers on BET. Give me a break. I, and many of my true conservative friends was glad that this weak kneeded apologist stepped on his penis once too often and gave us all a good excuse to have him demoted.
DIRTBOY RESPONDED WITH: "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."
DIRTBOY ADDED: "You sound like a liberal, blaming others instead of placing the blame firmly where it belongs - with Trent Lott himself."
You summed it all up pretty well, DirtBoy. REAL Conservatives were TIRED of putting up with Lott's REPEATED SCREW-UPS and CAPITULATIONS. Lott FINALLY did the HONORABLE thing and stepped aside from LEADERSHIP, yet staying in as ELECTED Mississippi Senator to continue to REPRESENT THEM.
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.