So, what is the deal with Lott?

[luckydevil]

We are the party of Lincoln

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

I find it insane to call that a Republican circle when Clinton continues to prais e a former segregationist (name escapes me) and the Dems have the only former KKK member in the Senate. Add to that the southern Dems support for "southern heritage" and it's even more insane. The GOP was the FIRST administration to appoint a black man to a cabinet post. The first to promote a black women to a cabinet post. The only black man on the Supreme court was appointed by the GOP.

The Dems race bait and the black population buys it. I dont know why, but they do.

I think because while you are right with the people and new jobs they have. You can still count all of them on your fingers. I don't agree with the belief that things need to happen so so fast that heads are spinning. But this should include CEO's, NFL Owners, Governors, etc.

[JackC]

Originally posted by luckydevi

We are the party of Lincoln

So being the party of Lincoln gives you a free pass for 140 years? If you Republicans fool yourselves into thinking there isn't a pattern of these kind of remarks coming from some in your party than your doomed to live with the results forever.(results being 90% of blacks voting for the Democrats) Heck the pat answer from the GOP on this is pretty bad in itself.

Oh those poor blacks are being fooled by the democrats! It's almost like calling them stupid don't you think? Please leave Lott in there and keep saying things like "if the blacks(or poor for that matter) just understood better they would vote for us! If you do I predict you will lose all three branches in 2004!

Changing the subject to President Clinton probably won't work either although I must appreciate the effort!

[Kilmer17]

Jack the point is that the Dems cant call the GOP racists when they have the same history and the same misstatements.

Who was the GOV of SC that refused to take down the Confederate flag?

Who was the Gov of Alabama that called the National Guard in to prevent integration?

Who was the Gov of GA that refused to take the Conf symbol off the flag?

Who is the ONLY member of congress (either house) that was a member of the KKK?

Whose father cast votes against segregation (hint, he lost the last election)

Which President called J. William Fulbright ( an admitted segregationist) his "mentor" and gave him the Presidential medal of honor?

The answer to all of the above is a Democrat.

Now I agree with you (did I say that?) that Lott should step down from his leadership position, not because of his statement, but rather because of the affect it will have on the GOPs platform.

[JackC]

Kilmer17,

The democrats can call the republicans anything they like. Just as the reverse is true. It's politics. Believe me the GOP calls names too.

As for the black vote its more about listening and answering those voters concerns with something other than "if you were smarter you would know it's good for you." Putting black republicans in the cabinet don't do that either. It tells the other blacks, "oh see these two got smart and now they're republicans.

Now if W could have found a position for a black democrat in his cabinet, that would have been effective.

If the GOP really believes things like Welfare reform and not raising the min. wage are really good for the poor than they need to do a better job explaining the benefit instead of acting rightous and smug.

My advice to the GOP leave Lott in and don't change a thing. Anyone who isn't a conservative is either stupid or a sissy. That would surely work!

[Kilmer17]

It's impossible to get into a debate about those issues because the second they are brought up the Dems start the race baiting and name calling.

And yes they can say whatever they want, my point is it's hypocritical to do so.

The NAACp and race mongers like Jesse dont want blacks to succeed, they want Liberal blacks to succeed.

[luckydevil]

Art do you realize Strom Thurmond opposed voting rights for blacks and even went as far as opposing anti-lynching laws.

I thought this was a good article about this whole thing

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/jg20021211.shtml

December 11, 2002

A whole Lott of nothing

For several days now, I've been searching for a conservative to come to the defense of incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. I haven't found one. In fact, I constitute one of his biggest defenders simply because I don't think he should be dumped from the GOP leadership because he's allegedly racist. I think he should be dumped because he's politically stupid.

Let me bring you up to speed on the current brouhaha, in case you haven't been paying much attention. At retiring South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Trent Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: 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, either."

Now, people too young to remember or too uninterested to know might think this is just a nice thing to say to a guy who ran for president over 50 years ago, when Lott was 7 years old by the way. And, to be fair to Lott, that is almost certainly what he intended -- to be nice to an old warhorse of the Senate.

The problem is that Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrat" 1948 presidential candidacy was based pretty much entirely on opposing any push for civil rights for black Americans. We're not even talking about opposing, say, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which would be hard enough to defend. We're talking 1948. Strom Thurmond didn't just oppose voting rights for blacks -- he opposed anti-lynching laws.

Here's what the 1948 sample ballot put out by the Mississippi Democratic Party had to say about the race between Thurmond and Truman: "A vote for Truman electors is a direct order to our Congressmen and Senators from Mississippi to vote for passage of Truman's so-called civil rights program in the next Congress. This means the vicious . anti-poll tax, anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever."

Trent Lott boasted about his state supporting this junk. After all, it's not like Thurmond's platform was full of planks about tax cuts or environmental protection.

Lott's "defenders" say Lott was simply trying to make ol' Strom -- who has apologized for his past positions -- feel good on his 100th birthday. And there's no doubt in my mind that this was Lott's primary, if not sole, motivation. Indeed, I bet Lott's (tardy) apology is sincere. In a statement issued Monday night, Lott said, "A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

Unfortunately, the damage has been done. Republicans and conservatives have been treading uphill for years trying to prove that we're not racist. And Lott tripped us all, costing us hard-earned ground.

Lott's liberal critics rightly claim that this is hardly a one-time gaffe. For example, Lott has a long record of being too close to the Council of Concerned Citizens, a white supremacist group based in Mississippi. Lott has claimed that, even though he wrote a column for their newsletter, he never really knew what the CCC was up to. He claimed that liberals were unfairly trying to smear him with guilt by association.

And that's precisely why I can't forgive the guy. One has only two choices here: Either, you take Lott at his word or you don't. If you don't believe him, then, well, he's a racist and a foolish one for being so obvious about it. But if you take him at his word, that he made a mistake, that's even worse. I mean, he's been smeared with the racist label enough times to have learned his lesson, especially considering the fact he's supposed to lead the Republican Party.

Regardless, Trent Lott only does two things well, freeze-dry his hair and say stupid things. He mishandled impeachment, mishandled the 1998 elections, mishandled power-sharing with the Democrats after the 2000 election and mishandled Jim Jeffords straight into the Democratic Party.

One reason so many conservatives are denouncing Lott is that he's never given conservatives much reason to trust him or care about him. He's a deal-cutter who seems to stand for nothing except massive amounts of pork to his home state and, occasionally, sticking up for Jim Crow.

Already, many conservatives assume that Tom Daschle's muted support for Lott was paid for with some political concession. If incoming House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (or other Southerners like Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey et al) made a similar gaffe, conservatives would have bled in defense of the guy -- not only because he isn't racist, but because Delay stands for more than process and pork. But while DeLay stands for principle, Lott stands for little. And what he does stand for, we don't need.

[@DCGoldPants]

I don't think he should be dumped from the GOP leadership because he's allegedly racist. I think he should be dumped because he's politically stupid.

amen

[Art]

LD,

I realize Strom Thurmond was for the separation of the races. And I realize he was for other things as well. The Dixiecrat party ran on a single issue platform but that is not all Thurmond believed in. Many of his beliefs remain excellent ideas for the nation. A smaller federal government. Lower taxes. Greater rights and responsibilities given the states.

Jack,

I have no doubt Thurmond was a states rights guy because he wanted to keep blacks from his schools. I'm a states rights guy too, though for different reasons, and to be honest, the Federal Government should step in and legislate equal rights as it did. But, again, the context in which Lott was speaking was not about segregation. He was speaking about some of the principle beliefs of a smaller government and lower taxes that are sound principles to guide us.

Thurmond himself hasn't been a segregationist for 40 years. So, again, as is typical with the liberal, if a person once said something or believed something that while perfectly acceptable and normal at the time but is now viewed as disgusting, we must always remember that he once believed it and never take into account that he's had 40 years against his previous stance and has other ideas and has all along.

There are a lot of things people believe today, every one of us, that when looked back upon in 50 years may seem ignorant and harsh to the society of the future. And certainly his views on blacks and whites in the south were such views for Thurmond. But, very few of us actually have ideas and beliefs now that in 50 years can be looked on and STILL seem like very good ideas. Thurmond's belief in lower taxes and a smaller Federal government are such views.

And when the man's turning 100, it's probably ok to say, "Atta boy." I do think Lott should make such comments about a person with a history of questionable views by phrasing his statements better. But, let's not forget that it wasn't until Thurmond became a Republican that he backed off his views. He was a Democrat and a breakaway Dixiecrat when he held those views.

So, if the Dems are so upset, they should ask themselves why the Democratic party in the south represented states rights due to a desire to keep the races from mixing at one point in its history.

[@DCGoldPants]

Art, the main problem with that is Lott could of been more specific in what beliefs of Stroms he was talking about. When you generalize about we wouldn't be in this mess.....most people look at the major issue behind his campaign 50 years ago.

[Kilmer17]

This is such crap.

He said it. It doesnt matter what he meant. The Dixiecrats stood for one thing. That's how it will get spun in the media and by the Dems and by the racemongers.

Everytime he brings a bill to the floor that could be construed as racist (abolishing race as admisssions, no quotas, etc) they will point to Lott and scream "SEE, here's the racist again."

He needs to go away now. Take a spot on some small committee and be happy you still have a Senate seat.

It's disgusting watching the GOP and it's pundits try to defend him in a manner fit for the Clinton Clones.

[@DCGoldPants]

you're right. Stop the bleeding.

[Art]

Bufford,

I said the same thing. Lott could have been more cautious with how he phrased his support of Thurmond. He's been more cautious in the past and has in interviews outlined the types of views he agrees with and that would have benefitted our country.

I strongly disagree with the thought that he should step down as leader. Kilmer, you don't believe the Redskins should change their name because someone says they are bothered by the usage of the word right? Then, why do you want to change leadership because the Dems are pretending some moral outrage at very innocuous statements?

Again, you see this is a political move when Daschle suddenly appears and pretends he's upset. Let's not reward the mewling masses here. Lott is probably not a great leader anyway and we may want to get rid of him in a couple of years. But, this isn't the first time he's said what he's said about Thurmond. And it's not going to be the last. On this issue losing one's position is a reaction to fiction and that's not something we should be endorcing.

[fansince62]

this is all just a nice, timely pretext to do what needs to be done....I thought Lott should step down BEFORE this because he was/is a weak leader. The DC rumor mongering has it that he is not well supported by many of his republican colleagues. He also was not a Bush supporter at the outset. The republicans need a telegenic, smart leader to move to the fore.

[Kilmer17]

Art, apples and oranges.

Whether you think he meant what the racemongers claim or not, the fact remains that this will dominate every bill he brings forth that even slightly can be construed as racist.

This is a fight he cannot win, and will bring the GOP down with him. Not all the way, but it could affect legislation and thats just as bad.

I want school vouchers, but I bet my bottom dollar this becomes a "race issue" and the Dems will say something like "Lott's history of racial insensitivy and his belief in segregating schools is now proven by his support for rich white kids getting public money to attend haughty private schools"

The name Redskins and my defense of it doesnt affect the inactment and inforcement of laws.

Dont you also think that the GOP should rise above the disgusting displays by the Dems in their defense of Clinton, Kennedy, et al?

[luckydevil]

Art I wish this would just go away. I hate how the media has made a big deal out of this. This hurts and is a big blow to the party. Like I said before I truly believe he is not a racist, but needs to step down for the sake of the party. Congressman Livingston had some personal problems and stepped down for the sake of the party, Lott needs to do the same

[Henry]

Well, it seems President Bush has finally wieghed in on this matter:

---------

Bush Says Lott Was Right to Apologize

Calls Remarks 'Offensive' and 'Wrong'

By Jennifer Loven

The Associated Press

Thursday, December 12, 2002; 2:26 PM

PHILADELPHIA ?? President Bush raised his voice in a political controversy enveloping Trent Lott, saying the Senate Republican leader's comments about the segregated past were "offensive" and required the apology he gave.

"Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive and it is wrong," Bush said Thursday to a multiracial audience here, drawing long applause.

Lott's office immediately issued a statement embracing the president's comments.

"Senator Lott agrees with President Bush that his words were wrong and he is sorry. He repudiates segregation because it is immoral," Lott spokesman Ron Bonjean said.

Weighing into the controversy for the first time, the president said the recent comments by Lott "do not reflect the spirit of our country."

"He has apologized and rightly so," Bush said. "Every day our nation was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our founding ideals."

After Bush's speech, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said the president does not think Lott needs to resign as majority leader.

Fleischer said that Bush decided to make the comments to "show what was in his heart".

Lott said neither the administration nor any Republican colleagues have asked him to resign as the Senate GOP leader, as some top Democrats have suggested.

Lott ignited a controversy with remarks last week at an event marking Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday. Lott said Mississippians were proud to have voted for Thurmond in 1948. "And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Thurmond in 1948 ran for president on a segregationist platform.

Lott apologized Wednesday, saying his words were "terrible" and "insensitive."

Bush was animated as he condemned Lott's original remarks. Audience members, many of them minorities who work in religious groups and charities in inner-city communities across the mid-Atlantic, repeatedly cheered approval of Bush's words.

"Uh-huh ... Amen," came the reply at several points, accompanied by hearty applause.

Philadelphia Mayor John Street, a Democrat, joined the chorus of those criticizing Lott.

"Whether or not he should be serving as majority leader is a matter for his caucus," Street said at the Bush event. "But the remarks are more than just regrettable. Apparently he has said them on a number of occasions. ... I am not certain a simple apology is good enough. It's inappropriate, something like this coming from someone in a leadership position."

© 2002 The Associated Press

[Kilmer17]

A man we can be proud of. Way to go Mr. President.

[Art]

Classic left wing journalism in that piece.

The President said, "Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive and it is wrong."

He didn't say that Lott's words were "offensive" as the lead suggests and he didn't say Lott said anything positive about a segregated past. This is media creation and more fiction.

The media has decided that that's what Lott said and no matter how frequently Lott indicates what his meaning was, they simply are focusing the debate.

Kilmer, this is not an apples or oranges thing. I don't think anything about Lott's comments being racially motivated or being for the segregation of races. The reason I don't think anything about it is because Lott said that wasn't what he was talking about.

He was pretty foolish not to better outline his words, and that's something he'll have to improve on. But, you are absolutely wrong that any bill he brings up will have a racial tint to it. That's ludicrous, unless you think any bill brought up by Kennedy has a murderer's bent to it.

Further, nothing Lott meant to say was racist. You can call a watermelon a cherry, but, it's still a watermelon and not a cherry. You can only brand a person a racist when he is and when he is there is no doubt about it. With Lott, there's plenty of doubt and therefore this is not even an issue worth writing about.

[Kilmer17]

Art, if Kennedy was a Republican (shudder to think) you can be sure that the Dems would bring up Chappiquiddock (sp?) every time he spoke. IT doesnt matter what I think, it matters what the Dems spin in the media.

Regardless of what he meant, the spin has begun. I think what he said was horrible. BUt even that doesnt matter anymore. The Dem spinsters have set the debate on this. The GOP will be playing defense for a long time.

[Tarhog]

I've never been very impressed with Lott as I think his 'old country boy' demeanor and overall leadership style are not very effective in terms of communicating the Republicans message. His comments were pretty stupid, but I think Lott clearly was just clearly trying to make an old guy feel good, rather than stating his genuine beliefs. Last time I checked Lott hadn't tried to introduce any "bring back segregation' legislation, so whatever uproar there is is just political payback. Although I don't like Lott, to resign because somebody found a few remarksoffensive would be ridiculous. I can't see how any Democrat can balance calling for Lott's resignation and at the same time defend Robert Byrd's previous KKK membership. That makes no sense.

[JackC]

Of course the democrats are using this to their political advantage. It's part of the game. If anyone doesn't think the republicans would and have done the same kind of thing than they are lying to themselves.

[Riggo-toni]

Originally posted by luckydevi

Congressman Livingston had some personal problems and stepped down for the sake of the party, Lott needs to do the same

And Livingston was a terrific legislator - far far better than the abysmal Dennis Hastert who became House leader instead.

[Yomar]

The Republicans have no one but themselves to blame for Livingston

[JackC]

And before the dirt got out on Livingston he was playing the political game of pretending to be so upset about Clinton's affair. He was being a hypocrite.

By all means republicans please keep Trent Lott in the job, that would be a good tactical move for my party! If Chaney doesn't run next time feel free to put him on the ticket next time too! LOL!

I will tell you what I did learn by this whole Lott thing. I learned Kilmer(although often wrong on things) is a better man than me. Art on the other hand will defend anyone of anything as long as they have that "R" as a political.

After thinking about his remarks and hearing what he said 20 years ago I think there is a good chance that deep down in his heart Trent Lott really does believe we would be better off under if things stayed they way they were in the 50's but knows he can't be honest. Argue all you want but that is my opinion of what's in his heart based on what I've heard and seen from him.