Trent Lott's words for Strom Thurman

[Guest newawlens]

>But if the double standard you are referring to involves

>Republicans catching more heat than Democrats on this

>particular issue, perhaps it has something to do with the fact

>that people look at politicians' words in the context of their

>overall records. So when Democrats are caught making

>similarly offensive statements, they are in a better position

>to say that that's not what they meant.

 

It depends on which Democrat you mean. Both Robert Byrd and Zell Miller were segregationists at one time, for example.

 

>I don't think my analogy is false at all, since there's a

>long tradition of speaking of race using terms like

>"explosive" and "powder keg," and since fire has traditionally

>been a weapon used by racists.

 

Your analogy is false because it suggests that Carter did nothing while Lott did something. In fact, both men did something, and quite deliberately.

 

>You are the one obfuscating

>the issue by trying to change the subject into a discussion of

>who is more courageous, Lott in 2002 or Carter sometime in the

>seventies

 

Nonsense. I never said that either man was courageous, I merely turned aside your argument that Carter's actions somehow don't count because they happened less recently than Lott's. They count even more because they came at a time when the civil rights issue was far less settled than it is today.

 

 

>(I noticed you've ignored, for the second time, a

>challenge to the accuracy of your claims. Interesting.)

 

The best way to deal with bullshit is to ignore it. Would you care to explain what difference it makes to the morality of Carter's actions if, as ad rian suggested (inaccurately, by the way) he was runnning for governor rather than president at the time?

 

>I'll agree that there are people in both parties using this

>issue cynically, as politicians use all issues cynically.

>That doesn't and shouldn't stop people in both parties who are

>sincere from taking a stand against racism,

 

LOL! There is no one involved in this controversy who is "taking a stand against racism," since racism is not the issue here. No one can credibly claim that Lott, if he continues as majority leader, will try to pursue a racist agenda.

 

 

>>The fact that none of the people who are most vocal on

>this

>>issue is talking about that shows what their real motives

>>are.

>

>Now there's a classic political dodge -- when the politician

>you're defending is in trouble, point out your opponents'

>cynicism . . .

 

Which you just agreed with above, by the way.

 

 

>and urge everyone to "get back to talking about the

>real issues that effect this country." The Clintons and their

>cronies were rightly pilloried for this tactic, and so should

>be Lott's apologists.

 

The problem with your statement is that that is NOT what Lott's apologists are doing. I have yet to hear a single one of them propose a meaningful dialogue on the issue of race. I have heard that proposal from Rep. Lewis, one of the longtime leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. Would you call him one of Lott's apologists?

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>It depends on which Democrat you mean. Both Robert Byrd and

>Zell Miller were segregationists at one time, for example.

 

In the spirit of bipartisanship, let me say that I don't think the Democrats should have made Byrd their leader either -- and just over a decade after he filibustered the Civil Rights Act! And I wouldn't support either him or Miller for minority leader today either. This article makes a reasonable enough case that Byrd has gotten a pass because of his Democratic affiliation:

 

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030801.asp

 

I suspect the near-even divide in the Senate has something to do with why Byrd gets cut more slack on race than he deserves. When he made his "white nigger" remarks the Democrats were still clinging to a tiny majority. The day he retires that seat will most likely go Republican (Bush carried West Virginia in 2000), so civil rights groups probably figured it was worth letting the Democrats continue to carry a bad apple rather than let a whole Lott of them take over. By the way, I wouldn't be at all surprised if both Byrd and Miller in their current voting records are getting considerably better report cards from the civil rights groups than Lott, but I couldn't get the NAACP's to download, so somebody else is going to have to research that.

 

>Your analogy is false because it suggests that Carter did

>nothing while Lott did something. In fact, both men did

>something, and quite deliberately.

 

See what happens to Lott defenders? They melt down after awhile from the exhaustion that comes from defending the indefensible. My analogy didn't suggest Carter did nothing. It likened what he did to "backing away from a smoldering fire." Isn't "backing away" (as in backing away from mentions of a controversial, recently assassinated leader) a type of action, i.e., "doing something?" But it's good to see you've come around to the idea that Lott did what he did deliberately.

 

 

> Would you care to explain what difference it makes to the morality

>of Carter's actions if, as ad rian suggested (inaccurately, by

>the way) he was runnning for governor rather than president at

>the time?

 

I think it's helpful to know how close the editing was to MLK's death. Remember, MLK was accused of being a communist, among other things, and was still very much a controversial figure when he was killed. The audiences Carter was likely addressing -- people who had grown up under one system and were still getting used to another -- might have been uncomfortable hearing MLK praised, but that doesn't mean they were irredeemably racist the way the white supremacist groups Lott associates with are. Or are you saying Carter was speaking at Klan meetings and the like?

 

Also, the interesting part of ad rian's story -- and I wish I had time to look into which, if either, of your accounts, is accurate -- is that Carter informed black leaders and got their blessing for his strategy, then used his newfound bully pulpit to denounce segregation in no uncertain terms. Now maybe you'll say he should have just lost gloriously, but politicians, including some of our greatest leaders, often campaign cautiously and save the bold moves for when they have the power and prestige of office backing up their actions. Whereas Carter may not have been able to get elected praising MLK in front of white audiences in the seventies, Lott, on the other hand, could get elected today without the support of white supremacists, if he really wanted to. I just don't think he's ever felt it necessary to reach out to the African American voters in his state, whereas it's felt natural enough to him to keep reaching out to the good ol' boys.

 

> No one can credibly claim that Lott, if he continues as

>majority leader, will try to pursue a racist agenda.

 

Not after he's been weakened by having his praise for Strom in '48 "blown out of proportion." He might even have to reinvent himself as a pro-civil rights figure. He's already told BET he supports affirmative action. If he survives and belatedly discovers civil rights, then it will be well worth having blown his remarks out of proportion. Ditto if he doesn't survive and we get an added bonus to the retirements of Thurmond and Helms.

 

>The problem with your statement is that that is NOT what

>Lott's apologists are doing. I have yet to hear a single one

>of them propose a meaningful dialogue on the issue of race.

 

Fine, let's have a "meaningful dialogue" (what does that mean, another round of "town hall meetings?"). Be interesting to see who the Republicans send.

[ad rian]

>The best way to deal with bullshit is to ignore it. Would

>you care to explain what difference it makes to the morality

>of Carter's actions if, as ad rian suggested (inaccurately, by

>the way) he was runnning for governor rather than president at

>the time?

 

This was well developed in the recent PBS series on Carter after he won the Nobel prize. Sorry, you are just wrong. The charges gainst Carter had to do with the Gubernatorial campaign not the Presidential campaign. The point though is that he still did not defend segregation which Lott clearly did by embracing Turmond's single issue segreationist 1948 Presidential campaign. One is a sin of omision, the other is a sin of comision.

[Guest newawlens]

>See what happens to Lott defenders? They melt down after

>awhile from the exhaustion that comes from defending the

>indefensible.

 

Resorting to personal insults like the above just makes you look desperate. And petty. If you don't want to give support to the negative stereotypes of gay men you should try to avoid that sort of thing.

 

 

My analogy didn't suggest Carter did nothing.

>It likened what he did to "backing away from a smoldering

>fire." Isn't "backing away" (as in backing away from mentions

>of a controversial, recently assassinated leader) a type of

>action, i.e., "doing something?"

 

No, it isn't.

 

But it's good to see you've

>come around to the idea that Lott did what he did

>deliberately.

 

I never suggested that Lott was under hypnosis when he made his remarks. Of course he spoke deliberately, in an effort to please the people who were listening to him. This must be the fourth or fifth time I've said this. And every time I do, you try to put a different spin on it. It won't work.

 

>I think it's helpful to know how close the editing was to

>MLK's death. Remember, MLK was accused of being a communist,

>among other things, and was still very much a controversial

>figure when he was killed. The audiences Carter was likely

>addressing -- people who had grown up under one system and

>were still getting used to another -- might have been

>uncomfortable hearing MLK praised, but that doesn't mean they

>were irredeemably racist the way the white supremacist groups

>Lott associates with are. Or are you saying Carter was

>speaking at Klan meetings and the like?

 

 

The above is nothing but sheer speculation. You have no idea what was the attitude of the audiences to which Carter gave the edited version of his speech. We can only deduce, from Carter's actions, that he believed they were people who would not support him if he linked himself with King.

 

 

>Also, the interesting part of ad rian's story -- and I wish I

>had time to look into which, if either, of your accounts, is

>accurate

 

So far as I know you have the same number of hours in the day as everyone else does. Don't complain to us simply because you choose not to use your time to find out the truth of an allegation you keep bringing up over and over again. It's your choice.

 

 

-- is that Carter informed black leaders and got

>their blessing for his strategy, then used his newfound bully

>pulpit to denounce segregation in no uncertain terms. Now

>maybe you'll say he should have just lost gloriously,

 

I think that like many politicians, including both Bush and Clinton, he simply assumed that he was less likely to win if he told the voters what was really in his mind. And when a politician chooses to lie, we can never really know what the result would have been had he told the truth instead, can we? No, we can't.

 

 

>I just don't

>think he's ever felt it necessary to reach out to the African

>American voters in his state, whereas it's felt natural enough

>to him to keep reaching out to the good ol' boys.

 

Do you actually know for a fact that Lott has not reached out to African Americans in his state by, for example, supporting federal grants that benefited them, as Thurmond often did? I suspect you don't know that at all.

 

>>The problem with your statement is that that is NOT what

>>Lott's apologists are doing. I have yet to hear a single

>one

>>of them propose a meaningful dialogue on the issue of race.

>

>

>Fine, let's have a "meaningful dialogue" (what does that

>mean, another round of "town hall meetings?"). Be interesting

>to see who the Republicans send.

 

I guess you didn't read or hear about what Rep. Lewis said on this subject. He said that Lott is the one who should lead the dialogue.

[ad rian]

RE: Bubba Clinton on Lott and Republican Hypocrisy

 

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/18/clinton.lott/index.html

 

Clinton calls GOP 'hypocritical' on Lott

Former president lashes out at Republicans

 

NEW YORK (CNN) --Former President Clinton said Wednesday it is "pretty hypocritical" of Republicans to criticize incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for stating publicly what he said the GOP does "on the back roads every day."

 

"How do they think they got a majority in the South anyway?" Clinton told CNN outside a business luncheon he was attending. "I think what they are really upset about is that he made public their strategy."

 

He added: "They try to suppress black voting, they ran on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina, and from top to bottom the Republicans supported it."

 

Clinton's comments were strongly refuted by a Republican spokesman, who called on the former president to "check his facts."

 

Lott, a Mississippi Republican, has been fighting for his political life since he suggested that the United States would have been better off had it elected Strom Thurmond president on a segregationist ticket in 1948. Lott has since repeatedly apologized.

 

Many Republicans, including President Bush, have denounced Lott's comments, saying they don't reflect the party's spirit. Bush has called broadening the GOP's appeal to minorities one of his priorities.

 

Senate Republicans are to meet January 6 to discuss Lott's fate as the party's leader in the Senate.

 

Asked if Lott should be removed, Clinton said, "That's up to them, but I think they can't do it with a straight face."

 

The former president then said, "He just embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the back roads every day."

 

He accused Republicans of "trying to run black voters away from the polls" in states such as Arkansas, Louisiana and Florida. Clinton also cited recent gubernatorial elections in Georgia and South Carolina, won by Republicans.

 

GOP spokesman cites minority outreach

Jim Dyke, press secretary for the Republican National Committee, disputed Clinton's characterization of the party's election gains.

 

"We worked hard to make sure that more people were registered to vote, more people went to the polls and more people voted for Republicans on Election Day. President Clinton should check his facts."

 

In Georgia, Democratic incumbent Roy Barnes was defeated by the GOP's Sonny Perdue, who promised voters a referendum on whether to return the Confederate emblem to a position of prominence on the state flag. In South Carolina, some political analysts have said Republican Mark Sanford's defeat of Gov. Jim Hodges could be attributed in part to Hodges' decision to remove the Confederate flag from atop the state capitol.

 

"I think the way the Republicans have treated Senator Lott is pretty hypocritical since right now their policy is, in my view, inimical to everything that this country stands for," Clinton said.