Trent Lott's words for Strom Thurman

[BigD]

I am just puzzled about why people are surprised by this.

Don't we already know that Mr. Lott is a bigot? His

earlier statements have shown him to be a homophobe.

This is your typical good 'ol boy turned country club

Republican that now dominates our political environment.

We need to be scared into helping initiate change -

by our votes, our time and through our monetary

support of the alternative voices.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

Speaking as a proud Republican, I've never really liked Trent. I've always felt there were plenty of people who should be doing his job. Do I think he's a bigot? No. What he is is not very bright. He was just saying one of those stupid things that people say at tributes to people who should have died long ago. However, he's been in politics long enough to know what to say and what not to say.

 

It's time for him to step down as Majority Leader and I predict he will.

 

Predictably yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

Speaking as a proud Republican, I've never really liked Trent. I've always felt there were plenty of people who should be doing his job. Do I think he's a bigot? No. What he is is not very bright. He was just saying one of those stupid things that people say at tributes to people who should have died long ago. However, he's been in politics long enough to know what to say and what not to say.

 

It's time for him to step down as Majority Leader and I predict he will.

 

Predictably yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Merlin]

Lott was not talking about segregation or the Civil Rights Acts, most of which came several years later and were only passed because they had Republican support. Without Republican support, they could not have been passed. When Thurmond ran against Truman, a lot more was involved than civil rights, and if more southerners had voted for Thurmond, then Dewey, not Truman or Thurmond would have been elected. And we probably would have avoided a lot of problems. Certainly the history of the Cold War would have been different. Truman's philosophy of fighting the Korean War but not fighting to win set the stage for Viet Nam. Perhaps Dewey would not have allowed the Communist take over of China and East Europe.

[Guest Merlin]

Lott was not talking about segregation or the Civil Rights Acts, most of which came several years later and were only passed because they had Republican support. Without Republican support, they could not have been passed. When Thurmond ran against Truman, a lot more was involved than civil rights, and if more southerners had voted for Thurmond, then Dewey, not Truman or Thurmond would have been elected. And we probably would have avoided a lot of problems. Certainly the history of the Cold War would have been different. Truman's philosophy of fighting the Korean War but not fighting to win set the stage for Viet Nam. Perhaps Dewey would not have allowed the Communist take over of China and East Europe.

[ad rian]

RE: Sorry Merlin, three strikes and he should be out!

 

>Lott was not talking about segregation or the Civil Rights

>Acts, most of which came several years later and were only

>passed because they had Republican support.

 

Lott Is Unfit To Run the Senate

by Joe Conason

 

 

 

If there’s an uplifting aspect to Trent Lott’s nostalgic endorsement of Dixiecrat barbarism, it isn’t his strange apology, in which he pretended not to have said what he plainly did say. What gave cause for hope was the response of conservatives, whose fury obviously shook the Republican leader. After years of coddling the bigots in their midst; after years of tolerating and encouraging racially divisive campaign tactics; after years of subsidizing and publicizing phony racist "scholarship"—at long last, the better minds and hearts on the right decided that the time had come for their movement to draw a bright line.

 

Conservative author Andrew Sullivan demanded on his Web log that the Republicans demote Mr. Lott or "come out formally as a party that regrets desegregation and civil rights for African-Americans." Former Bush speechwriter David Frum didn’t go that far in National Review Online, but he too expressed shock and anger at the Republican leader—as did Weekly Standard editors William Kristol and Fred Barnes, author David Horowitz and others on the right. (At the lower end of intellectual evolution, Sean Hannity tried to excuse Mr. Lott, as did Rush Limbaugh.)

 

Now the question is whether the outrage on the right over Mr. Lott’s remarks was real—or whether his fellow conservatives were merely upset that he had caused them such embarrassment.

 

For anyone who missed Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party on Dec. 5, a brief recapitulation of events will be helpful. Readers who depend on The New York Times to learn about current events might not have heard about the bizarre remarks Mr. Lott made on that occasion. Anyway, they need to be repeated until they sink in everywhere.

 

"I want to say this about my state," the Republican leader boasted. "When Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years."

 

The centenarian Senator from South Carolina broke from the Democratic Party in 1948 to run for President on the ticket of the National States’ Rights Party. Ol’ Strom and his Dixiecrat cohort violently opposed the Democrats’ early, halting steps against segregation and lynching. There can be no confusion about what an endorsement of their platform meant then, or what it means now.

 

Nor is there any doubt that Mr. Lott understands exactly what he was talking about. His first political sponsor, the late Representative William Colmer, ran for Congress on the Dixiecrat line in ’48. Mr. Lott eventually ran for Colmer’s seat—but by then, the Dixiecrats had become Republicans.

 

All of this sorry history is familiar to conservatives and liberals alike. At the beginning of the civil-rights movement, the great conservative thinkers like William F. Buckley Jr. and Patrick Buchanan were on the wrong side. They took up their pens on behalf of "Southern civilization," such as it was, against the civil rights of black Americans. Some have expressed regret since then; others haven’t. More recently, in reaction to affirmative action, conservatives have claimed to be "color-blind" disciples of Martin Luther King Jr. Rarely does the right offer any positive alternative to redress the legacy of racism.

 

No honest commentator or politician on the right could have had any doubts, even before this incident, about the true sentiments harbored by Mr. Lott. With his tongue loosened by drink and camaraderie at the Thurmond celebration, he said what was on his moldy mind. He betrayed the same feelings a few years ago at a meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an outfit descended from the White Citizens Councils of the 50’s that was expelled from the Conservative Political Action Committee for its blatant racism and neo-Nazism.

 

The C.C.C. has honored Mr. Lott on many occasions, although he only affected to repudiate them after their connection was exposed in 1998. Six years earlier, he had told the C.C.C.’s national conference in Greenwood, Miss.: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let’s take it in the right direction and our children will be the beneficiaries!"

 

So Mr. Lott is a liar as well as a racist. But again, that has been obvious for a long time. To quell the outrage over his remarks at the Thurmond event, his spokesman finally emitted a brief statement ludicrously claiming that the problem was "a poor choice of words." That wasn’t the problem. The problem was the meaning of the words spoken by the Republican leader.

 

Trent Lott is not fit to lead the United States Senate. His "apology" is unacceptable. The pusillanimous response to his latest misconduct of most Democrats—including their Senate leader, Tom Daschle, but with the admirable exception of former Vice President Al Gore—has been awful. But deposing Mr. Lott is a Republican responsibility. Republican Senators must either vote for him again in January or choose an untainted leader. We will then learn the content of their character.

 

You may reach Joe Conason via email at: jconason@observer.com.

[N.N.]

FFF: if Lott isn't a bigot, what about Ashcroft?

Remember his praise for Southern Partisan magazine

and for Bob Jones University? Does any of that trouble

you, or were those also just ill-considered words?

[Guest ncm2169]

Speaking as a proud non-Republican, of course I agree with your assessment of ole Trent. But, if not he then who? Don Nichols?? x( Now, THERE'S a real candidate for MENSA }( .

 

P.S. Just to show you it isn't only proud Republicans who can honestly assess their "stock", many of us have never been fans of Al Bore. :+

[bluenix]

Whenever I see Trent Lott's name, I think of the old Lawrence Welk Show, because Guy Hovis, of Guy & Ralna semi-fame, runs Lott's Mississippi offices (when he's not crooning in Branson).

 

Here's a suitably cheesy video of Guy and Ralna belting out Only You.

 

http://www.ralnaenglish.com/videoclip-onlyyou.html

 

And a pic. Is it just me or does he resemble Bart Simpson:

 

http://www.ralnaenglish.com/gandrfavorites.jpg

[BewareofNick]

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/opinion/luckovich/2002/images/12112002mike.gif

[Guest Willy]

Speaking as a proud Republican, I've never really liked Trent. I've always felt there were plenty of people who should be doing his job. Do I think he's a bigot? No. What he is is not very bright. He was just saying one of those stupid things that people say at tributes to people who should have died long ago. However, he's been in politics long enough to know what to say and what not to say.

 

--------

 

As a Democrat, I love Trent Lott. Every time the Republicans threaten to pull off a con job, one of them steps forward to show us the truth in an unguarded moment -- which, as I take it, is exactly your complaint.

[Guest Bitchboy]

Wow, those neato Republicans get all the nifty celebs! Do you think Reba's in their camp too??? }(

[Guest bollo]

This is blown way out of proportion simply because the media and race-baiters see a way for the Dems to stand up again.

 

Right or wrong, Lott has apologized. But Sen Byrd, to my knowledge, has never apologized for using the n word three times in the past year and for being a grand wizard in the KKK. The Dems should not complain about splinters in others eyes when they have a 2x4 in their own eye!

[Guest Bitchboy]

>This is blown way out of proportion simply because the media

>and race-baiters see a way for the Dems to stand up again.

>

>Right or wrong, Lott has apologized. But Sen Byrd, to my

>knowledge, has never apologized for using the n word three

>times in the past year and for being a grand wizard in the

>KKK. The Dems should not complain about splinters in others

>eyes when they have a 2x4 in their own eye!

 

 

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong! Byrd has apologized and admitted his mistake (of joining the KKK in 1942) on the floor of the Senate. It's recorded in the Congressional Record.

 

Lott is a buffoon, but then calling him a "splinter" gives some idea of the poster's mindset.

[Guest Les]

I see he's living up to his nickname "Vacant Lott".

What an idiot.

[Guest Merlin]

Ultimately, this will benefit the Republicans. The Democrats are forgetting that no Democrat (or Republican) can be elected president without carrying some southern states. By condemning Lott for his statement and blowing it out of proportion, they are inevitably alienating more southern voters. As a Republican I was pleased to see Kerry and Gore leap into the fray. To be sure, condemning Lott will help the Dems with the blacks and liberals, but they vote Democrat already.

[Guest Bitchboy]

That's twice now that someone has used the phrase "blowing it out of proportion." ... like there is anything at all acceptable about what he said. Laughable really. I'd rather be in the "out" party than ever pretend that those kinds of statements can be "blown out of proportion."

[taylorky]

ROTFLMFAO.......oh yea i bet vacant lott and his right wing pals love you, oh yea right wingers loveeeeeeeeee sex buying fruits.......taylorky@16:49=12/12/02

[Guest newawlens]

Lott's remarks have been blown out of proportion. He was doing what all politicians do, which is saying whatever he thinks his audience would like to hear. In this case he was speaking to a group assembled to celebrate the career of Thurmond, so he tailored his remarks to that audience. Had he been speaking to a different audience about the election of 1948, he would have said something quite different.

 

Something similar happened during the presidential campaign of 1976, when the media reported that Jimmy Carter was omitting certain remarks in praise of Dr. King from his stump speech whenever he gave it to a white southern audience, while including the remarks whenever he was speaking to other audiences. Carter apologized publicly. No one claimed it meant he was a racist.

[guyinsf]

Are you suggesting that the majority of southern voters support the views expressed by Lott?

[ad rian]

>Something similar happened during the presidential campaign

>of 1976, when the media reported that Jimmy Carter was

>omitting certain remarks in praise of Dr. King from his stump

>speech whenever he gave it to a white southern audience, while

>including the remarks whenever he was speaking to other

>audiences. Carter apologized publicly. No one claimed it

>meant he was a racist.

 

 

That makes no sense at all. Are you suggesting that Carter defended segregation in front of white audiences which is what Lott has done on several occasions? Also, I was impressed yet again with Carter who in collecting his Nobel Peace Pize this week payed tribute to MLK as the greatest leader his home state had ever produced and without whom he would not have been Governor, President or Nobel Peace Prize winner. The difference is very stark, indeed!

[BewareofNick]

Au contraire. This was not a gaffe on Lott's part, this was a moment of candor and hoensty, albeit and unintentional one. Consider Lott's track record: He had made nearly identical comments 30 years earlier at a rally in Mississippi with Thurmond.

 

Time magazine reported late Thursday afternoon that Lott, as president of the intra-fraternity council at the University of Mississippi, helped lead the Southern campaign to prevent his college fraternity from admitting blacks to any of its chapters. At the time, some chapters of Sigma Nu in the Northeast were considering allowing black members.

 

In 1979, during his fourth term in Congress, he received the Jefferson Davis Medal from the United Daughters of the Confederacy for his successful effort to have the Confederate president's citizenship restored.

 

In 1981, as a five-term member of Congress, he wrote a friend of the court brief to the Supreme Court supporting Bob Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian school that had lost its tax exempt status because of prejudicial policies. "Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," he wrote.

 

In 1983, he opposed making the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday. He said there were people "more deserving."

 

In 1984, he told a Sons of Confederate Veterans rally in Biloxi that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform."

 

In 1992, Lott told members of the the Council of Conservative Citizens , an organization directly descended from the infamous White Citizens' Councils and whose Website dons a confederate flag and a resolution commending Lott, "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries."

 

At least the man is consistent

[Guest newawlens]

I am saying that most politicians will tell a given audience what they think that audience wants to hear, whether or not it has anything to do with their real views. That politicians engage in such pandering is not news to most people who follow politics, nor do I think it is a concept that anyone of at least average intelligence would find it hard to understand.

 

When Jimmy Carter was running for president he was caught editing his stump speech so that it would be more acceptable to white southern audiences. Which version of the speech reflected his real views, the version in which he praised Dr. King or the version in which he didn't? Only he knows the answer. The same is true of Lott. On occasions when he has been in front of audiences that are unsympathetic to the civil rights movement he has made remarks that suit those audiences. On other occasions he has said something else. Which set of remarks represents his real beliefs? Only he knows. You certainly don't.

[ad rian]

>When Jimmy Carter was running for president he was caught

>editing his stump speech so that it would be more acceptable

>to white southern audiences. Which version of the speech

>reflected his real views, the version in which he praised Dr.

>King or the version in which he didn't? Only he knows the

>answer. The same is true of Lott.

 

Again that is simply nonsense. It is completely non-sequitur. If you have an example of Carter defending sefregation in front of one audeience as opposed to another then you would have an analogy but in your example you have yet to show such an example. If you can't understand that distinction, I guess you belong in the vacant Lott as well.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

Let me get this straight. Are you seriously comparing Jimmy Carter's omission of praise for Martin Luther King in speeches to white Southerners a mere eight years after he died to Trent Lott's positive statement in 2002 that the Dixiecrats should have carried the presidency? Carter was clearly pandering in the sense that the word is usually understood, but do you really think Lott was tapping into a deep hunger on the part of his audience to hear somebody bring up 1948?? I'd imagine most people at Strom's party wanted to hear bland toasts to his lengthy "service" to the Senate or wink-wink-nudge-nudge jokes about how he fathered a child while in his seventies, not homages to his pro-segregationist candidacy. Lott wasn't pandering. He was going off the deep end.

 

Not that Lott isn't well versed in the right words and deeds for winning over segregationists and white supremisists. From Andrew Sullivan's blog, here's a recap of Lott's record on these issues:

 

"He fought integration of his college fraternity; he has hobnobbed with white supremacists [the Council of Conservative Citizens]; he submitted an amicus brief defending Bob Jones University's right to prohibit inter-racial dating; he has twice regretted the fact that Strom Thurmond didn't win the 1948 presidential election on an explicitly segregationist platform; he voted against the Voting Rights Act extension in 1982; in 1983 he voted against the Martin Luther King Jr holiday; last year, he cast the only vote against the confirmation of Judge Roger Gregory, the first black judge ever seated on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In these last three instances, even Strom Thurmond voted the other way."

 

(For a more fleshed out version of many of these stories, check out Joshua Micah Marshall's site: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ )

 

What does Lott "really think?" With a record like that, does it really matter?