Trent Lott's words for Strom Thurman

[bluenix]

In her WSJ column today Peggy Noonan calls for Lott to step down. Heading toward Mr. Foom's prediction, it would appear.

 

[blockquote]Normally Republicans rally around when they think one of their own is being unfairly smeared. Mr. Bush was saying Mr. Lott isn't being unfairly smeared. This is big--presidents don't publicly knock their party's congressional leaders--and suggests the White House is pondering the GOP's deep Senate bench, and how Mitch McConnell, Bill Frist or anyone but John McCain might be an improvement.[/blockquote]

 

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002761

[Flower]

>Lott was not talking about segregation or the Civil Rights

>Acts, most of which came several years later ......

 

LOL -- Love either your fading memory or revisionist spin -- Strom Thurmam ran on a "ONE ISSUE TICKET" -- SEGREGATION. There is no other way for one to interpret Lott's remarks, your historical stroll down history lane aside--unless you're FFF

 

Why do you think there has been such an outcry where even GWB denounced the statement. This is not the only racially bigoted remarks Lott has made, so it is not just a fluke or unconsidered remark--well to say it, I guess was certainly unconsidered, but it was certainly heartfelt and probably helped along by a drink or two--just a guess:+

[Guest Bitchboy]

I'm so pleased this is not dying down. "Blowing it out of proportion" is such a ludicrous statement in light of the people it's coming from - the very same people who impeached a president for a blow job of a distinctly different type. Lying about sex, even under oath, is major stuff while praising a walking corpse for his stand against intergration is not??? It's good to know where the heads of these unpatriotic Americans are. I hope it doesn't die down until the idiot is unemployed.

[Guest newawlens]

>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.

 

I guess the above is an example of the kind of insults that have made a number of posters refer to you as 'hateful.' Well, they're right about you.

 

When Lott made his remarks praising Thurmond either this year or in the 80s, did he say anything about 'sefregation?' No. He neither defended it nor condemned it. Each of his political supporters and opponents has simply put whatever spin on those remarks best suits his own particular political interest, and you are doing exactly the same thing now.

[Guest newawlens]

Yes, I'm comparing speeches by Carter that used (or omitted) remarks about King, depending on his audience, to remarks by Lott about someone who was on the other side of the issue from King. Each man has used praise about a certain figure in the civil rights struggle to curry favor with a particular group of voters. I see no substantive difference.

 

To criticize Lott for his voting record on this or other issues is perfectly legitimate. To read into some casual remarks (he was not issuing a press release, reading from a prepared text or making any sort of formal policy statement) at a birthday party much more than was actually said is not.

[guyinsf]

My problem with this logic is this:

 

1. Jimmy Carter omitted something from his speech that he thought would upset the audience in question.

 

2. Trent Lott said something that clearly demonstrates his opinion regarding African-Americans.

 

3. There is a difference between not saying something that one believes because one is afraid of negative repurcussions (like acknowledging a crush on a straight man) and expressing one's true sentiment (like being gay is "wrong"). In the former one doesn't presume that the person is actually anti-gay, just that the person lacks the courage to be totally honest about his opinions at all times. Jimmy Carter did something analogous to the former; Trent Lott did the latter.

 

I cannot see how anyone could buy Lott's statement as either "accidental" or not reflective of his views. It's like saying that the ballplayer who calls people "faggot" and then apologizes doesn't harbor some homophobia. I don't buy that, either. Just because Lott didn't come out and say directly "If the segregationists had won, we wouldn't have had all of these problems" doesn't mean that the words he DID use mean the same thing. What other interpretation of his statement could there be?

[taylorky]

whoa.........i like your style..taylorky@18:20-12/13/02:+

[taylorky]

, and how Mitch

>McConnell, might be an

>improvement

 

aghhhhhhhhhhhhhh this howdy dowdy looking fool is from my state.this shithead is a real.....ummmmm..........well shithead....pffftttttt...........taylorky@18:28-12/13/02

[Flower]

>When Lott made his remarks praising Thurmond either this year

>or in the 80s, did he say anything about 'sefregation?' No.

>He neither defended it nor condemned it.

 

Obviously you didn't read the green above nor in anyway investigated Strom Thurman's candidacy (and obviously know nothing about it) before running off at the mouth -- guess the defense of YOUR man is more important--BUT if you care to investigate and do some simple research, you will find, as I stated above--Strom Thurman ran on a SINGLE ISSUE in 1948 -- that was SEGREGATION!!!! I'll repeat for your benefit--the ONLY issue he ran on was "KEEP THE NEGRO IN HIS PLACE", and this has to be offensive to any THINKING and / or PRINCIPLED person--and when LOTT supported his candidacy a few days ago and said we all should have voted for him and we'd be a LOTT better off, there was NO AMBIGUITY in his meaning. I can't understand why you would be trying to defend him, his consistently held position, and his statement. To do so is either ignorant or unprincipled or both.

[Guest Bitchboy]

>, and how Mitch

>>McConnell, might be an

>>improvement

>

>aghhhhhhhhhhhhhh this howdy dowdy looking fool is from my

>state.this shithead is a real.....ummmmm..........well

>shithead....pffftttttt...........taylorky@18:28-12/13/02

 

 

Yes, McConnell is a shithead too, but at least he married outside his race - which must have caused great consternation to the KKK. No one seriously thinks we'll be getting anything much better from the leaky-brained Bush, but the idea is to shake things up. Let them know they may have won in the recent elections, but there are still thinking people out there who know when an ass is an ass.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>To criticize Lott for his voting record on this or other

>issues is perfectly legitimate. To read into some casual

>remarks (he was not issuing a press release, reading from a

>prepared text or making any sort of formal policy statement)

>at a birthday party much more than was actually said is not.

 

But it was those "casual remarks," which, after stunning his audience into silence, prompted members of the press to look into his record on race, which -- surprise! -- dovetails quite nicely with his "casual remarks." Lott committed what Michael Kinsley calls the classic political gaffe -- a politician saying what he actually thinks.

 

At any rate, you seem comfortable enough reading into his casual remarks that they must have been designed "to curry favor with a particular group of voters." And one group of voters is certainly looking kindly on Lott's remarks, as they consistently have in the past. From the Council of Conservative Citizens' website:

 

"One imagines, tongue in cheek, that some of the aracial white drones in the GOP are considering asking Trent Lott to marry a black woman and have black children in order to receive absolution and prove that he's not a racist. And while we're imagining, what about the news report this week that mice and humans share about 90% of the same genes? Could this send the GOP big wigs into a vote seeking frenzy as they decide to widen the party's base to include mice? Does Lott have any history of speaking out against mice, or not allowing them in his college fraternity? Could Lott be a speciesist in his black heart--er, sorry, we're not allowed to use the term black in a negative sense--in his white heart? Would Lott let his sister date a mouse? Hey, we all bleed red blood.

 

There has also been news that fruit flies and humans share about 50% of the same genes. Are there any reports of Lott swatting flies? The GOP wants their votes. Maybe Lott should marry a fly to prove that he's not a speciesist. Hey, we all bleed blood of some color or other or have some sort of liquid in side of us that serves the purpose of blood. That just proves we're all the same.

 

Sad, sicko raciopaths rule the day, dear friends, and they roil about like maggots in a garbage can eating the flesh of aracial whites who are too stupid to even know they're being repressed and exterminated by those who hate all whites and who seek high profile examples such as Trent Lott to condemn any expressions of white identity. And, the whites who have been weakened by years of trying not to be white, lest any non-white people be offended by their whiteness and white ways, go happily to their genocide rather than standing up and demanding the right to their own self-determination and identity."

 

So let's go, for a moment, with your thesis that Lott was merely -- just like Jimmy Carter -- pandering to a particular group of voters. Do you really believe that, in 2002, a politician who panders to THIS particular group of voters deserves to hang on to what is, after all, one of the top five political offices in the country (a position of power and privilege, not something to which he is entitled, like the right to vote)? Do you seriously think that the Republicans should keep him as their leader, because he was "only" pandering to white supremacists and it got all "blown out of proportion?"

[ad rian]

>Yes, McConnell is a shithead too, but at least he married

>outside his race - which must have caused great consternation

>to the KKK.

 

It is more likely to be Don Nickles of Oklahoma, the current Minority Whip. Oh joy! Oh bliss!!

[handyandy]

>Yes, I'm comparing speeches by Carter that used (or omitted)

>remarks about King, depending on his audience, to remarks by

>Lott about someone who was on the other side of the issue from

>King. Each man has used praise about a certain figure in the

>civil rights struggle to curry favor with a particular group

>of voters. I see no substantive difference.

>

>To criticize Lott for his voting record on this or other

>issues is perfectly legitimate. To read into some casual

>remarks (he was not issuing a press release, reading from a

>prepared text or making any sort of formal policy statement)

>at a birthday party much more than was actually said is not.

 

It is well known that spontaneous, casual, off-the-cuff remarks are PRECISELY the places where one's true sentiments are likely to pop out, as opposed to edited, polished and sanitized remarks read from a prepared text. It is the uncensored self coming out.

 

And regarding the Carter example, OMISSION of a remark definitely does NOT fall into the same category. It reflects exactly the opposite -- editing, polishing and sanitizing. It is the result of self-censorship (or the censorship of one's advisors).

[handyandy]

RE: Trent Lott's words for Strom Thurmond

 

Well, now Lott is scheduled to go on BET.

I'm just waiting for him to make the "Some of my best Negroes are friends" speech.

[Guest newawlens]

>>When Lott made his remarks praising Thurmond either this

>year

>>or in the 80s, did he say anything about 'sefregation?' No.

>

>>He neither defended it nor condemned it.

>

> Obviously you didn't read the green

>above

 

You're right, I didn't read your previous post. I seldom read your posts, since there is rarely anything interesting or original in them. They're usually just as repetitive and insulting as the ones you've put in this thread, which makes them a waste of my time.

[Guest newawlens]

>My problem with this logic is this:

>

>1. Jimmy Carter omitted something from his speech that he

>thought would upset the audience in question.

 

Right. He was trying to get the support of people who would be upset by positive remarks about Dr. King. What other interpretation could there be?

 

>2. Trent Lott said something that clearly demonstrates his

>opinion regarding African-Americans.

 

I don't remember him saying anything positive or negative about African Americans on that occasion.

 

 

>In the

>former one doesn't presume that the person is actually

>anti-gay, just that the person lacks the courage to be totally

>honest about his opinions at all times.

 

I never heard of that rule. You're free to make up any rules you like about what you are going to presume from people's remarks, but you don't get to make up rules for the rest of us.

[Guest newawlens]

>At any rate, you seem comfortable enough reading into his

>casual remarks that they must have been designed "to curry

>favor with a particular group of voters."

 

Unlike you and the rest of the people who insist his remarks at the birthday party reveal something about his views on a subject he never even mentioned, I'm not reading anything into what Lott said. I'm characterizing his remarks in much the same way he characterized them in his press conference in Pascagoula last week.

 

 

>So let's go, for a moment, with your thesis that Lott was

>merely -- just like Jimmy Carter -- pandering to a particular

>group of voters. Do you really believe that, in 2002, a

>politician who panders to THIS particular group of voters

>deserves to hang on to what is, after all, one of the top five

>political offices in the country

 

Lott was pandering to the same group of voters Carter was pandering to when he edited out any praise of Dr. King from his stump speech in '76. If that didn't disqualify Carter from being president why should the same behavior disqualify Lott from holding a much less important office?

[ad rian]

>Lott was pandering to the same group of voters Carter was

>pandering to when he edited out any praise of Dr. King from

>his stump speech in '76. If that didn't disqualify Carter

>from being president why should the same behavior disqualify

>Lott from holding a much less important office?

 

Can you find a single example where Carter pandered to those voters by endorsing segregation or a segregationist? (Actually, your history is all wrong on this, by the way. The charge against Carter came from his first Gubernatorial campaign in Georgia, but in that case he told Black leaders privately what he was doing and why, and immediately upon his inaguration repudiated all of the segregation of the past to the chagrin of the mainly white crowd assembled on the lawns of the state house. Has Lott really done that? His apologies so far seem awfully hedged to me.)

[Flower]

>You're right, I didn't read your previous post. I seldom

>read your posts, since there is rarely anything interesting or

>original in them. They're usually just as repetitive and

>insulting as the ones you've put in this thread, which makes

>them a waste of my time.

 

LMAO That's 2 of us you've called " insulting" in the same thread (I guess cause we don't agree with your silly defense of a died-in-the-wool segregationist)

 

When you start calling too many people names, you lose all credibility pal.

 

What was original in my post which you didn't know nor pick up on was that since Strom Thurman's run for the Presidency was only a one issue (SEGREGATION) campaign, it would be hard for your hero Mr. Lott to support that presidency and say what he said without supporting segregation and that gave real and true meaning to his words at Thurman's party.

 

And as far as being repetitive, show me another thread that pointed that out }(

 

So tell me you knew that when you wrote your thread, or better yet you probably won't respond since there is very little you can say -- either you knew it and ignored it (unprincipled) or didn't know it (ignorant) or maybe both. :+

[Flower]

>I don't remember him saying anything positive or negative

>about African Americans on that occasion.

 

Ok--One more time--this is your brain .....and this is your brain on drugs :+

 

The reason you obviously "don't remember him saying anything positive or negative about African Americans on that occasion."

is that you knew NOTHING about the history concerning Strom Thurman's run for the Presidency nor did you bother to do a google search to educate yourself before jumping into the fray, and therefore still don't understand why everyone is upset. If we have no knowledge about a subject, then it has little impact on us -- no "positive or negative" meaning to us--duh! A good corollary to that is when you know not of what you speak, just listen :+

[Guest Bitchboy]

Very astute remarks, guyinsf. And pay no attention to the ramblings of newawlens nee regulation. No one else does!

[Guest newawlens]

>>I don't remember him saying anything positive or negative

>>about African Americans on that occasion.

>

> Ok--One more time--this is your brain

>.....and this is your brain on drugs :+

>

>The reason you obviously "don't

>remember him saying anything positive or negative about

>African Americans on that occasion."

 

 

The reason I don't remember him saying it is that he didn't say it. On Sunday's "Meet the Press" Tim Russert quoted recent remarks by Democrat Senator Carl Levin praising Thurmond's "lifetime of service" in terms even more fulsome than those used by Lott. Was he talking about the same "lifetime" that included Thurmond's support for segregation, or was he talking about some other "lifetime?" Is Levin a racist? Should he resign? Bullshit.

 

 

>is that you knew NOTHING about the

>history concerning Strom Thurman's run for the Presidency

 

 

The reason I seldom read your posts is that they almost always consist of the same knee-jerk liberal bullshit as those of many other posters here, of which your latest post is a good example. Why would I want to spend my time reading yet another expression of the exact same opinion expressed by five or six other people previously? If you don't have anything original to say why don't you just shut the fuck up?

[Guest 7Zach]

at the 48 democratic convention in philadelphia, the members on the platform committee had argued over what to do about civil rights. people wanted to keep it off the platform because the party and truman neeed the south to win. hubert humphreys was outraged and made a stirring speech that it was time to end segregation - what surprised everyone there was the tremendous applause the speech received. Ole Strom walked out of the convention with others and started his run as a Dixiecrat. And his platform was state's rights - which is and always has been a code word for segregation. Period. No one was for Strom who was not for segregation - i have never heard anyone say Strom was for lynching - that was mostly in the early 20th century up through the 30s, the best i know.

 

Lott should have said that he only threw a bone to an 100 year old geezer who didn't understand what was going on, but even that wouldn't have saved him on this - I don't know what he truly thinks - even Strom became fair on civil rights once he realized he had to get elected in a state with so many blacks voting. Same with Lott, but the comment in the fun of the moment makes me think he probably wished it all were true - meaning Stom had been elected.

[ad rian]

>The reason I don't remember him saying it is that he didn't

>say it. On Sunday's "Meet the Press" Tim Russert quoted

>recent remarks by Democrat Senator Carl Levin praising

>Thurmond's "lifetime of service" in terms even more fulsome

>than those used by Lott. Was he talking about the same

>"lifetime" that included Thurmond's support for segregation,

>or was he talking about some other "lifetime?" Is Levin a

>racist? Should he resign? Bullshit.

 

I saw the same interview, and I saw Levin's response too. Levin explained that he made no normative judgement about the record of service as Lott indeed did.

 

That said, from the moment I saw the birthday feed on C-span, I thought it was in bad tastes. Americans simply have to learn to condemn racists even when they are sorry old grandfathers. Nonetheless, I think if you want to condemn Levin for hypocrisy, I would agree. He introduced a motion to condemn a non-Senator, Farakhan acting in a private capacity, but refuses to do the same for one of his own colleagues acting in a public capacity.

 

So I agree there is an element of the Dems sucking and blowing on this one, just as I think the Republican opponents of Lott are using this issue to settle old scores.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Nonetheless, I think if you want to condemn

>Levin for hypocrisy, I would agree. He introduced a motion to

>condemn a non-Senator, Farakhan acting in a private capacity,

>but refuses to do the same for one of his own colleagues

>acting in a public capacity.

 

That's because if this colleague survives as majority leader he'll be the best thing that's happened to the Democrats since Newt Gingrich in his meltdown period. He was unpopular before. Now he's iconically unpopular; he's put himself into Jesse Helms territory for good. This is actually a tricky situation for Senate Democrats, because the principled thing to hope for (that the Republicans realize they can't let this man continue to represent them) is the opposite of what the most politically desirable outcome for Democrats would be. In another words, it's a recipe for hypocrisy.

 

The nature and power of Lott's position is another factor. If a first-term backbencher had said the same thing, Senate Democrats would have been lining up for his skull. With Lott, it's a little stickier, because if he survives and takes over as majority leader, and you've been calling for his resignation, then there may not be much pork to bring home for the next couple years.