Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To All Those Waiting to Crucify Lott
NY Post, NY Times, Washington Post, Washington Times, LA Times, AJC, JWR, Boston Globe, EIB | 12/14/02 | TC

Posted on 12/14/2002 9:14:34 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection

1. 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed with Republican support, almost filibustered by Leftists. Gore’s father was one of those who was vehemently against it yet they escape judgment on their actions. It was passed against their vote.

2. If the same type of things were said/written about Byrd... how would the Leftists react? Why are you... selectively choosing our "candidate"?

3. Congress has worked with Lott for decades, why haven't they been exposed to consistent racial characteristics by Lott in the past?

4. Why has Thurmond remained silent?

5. What effects do Welfare and education have on segregation and racism? Until recent years which party has implemented reform on each? How did Lott vote?

6. Anyone recall Kennedy's one way conversations with ML King? When does it come time to "cleanse" for that?

7. Which party is being "cleansed"? How many of you... truly don't believe Lexus searches were run throughout last week? How far back was too far back during the Clinton administration? As many in our who were victims, what did the Leftists gain? What does it say to you... about today?

8. If you... are going to allow the Leftists (who assert they are free of segregation and racism) to publicly assault our party without demanding they look in their own mirror, what have you... accomplished?


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: civilrightsact; cleansing; clinton; kennedy; liberals; lott; mlking; racism; thurmond
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

1 posted on 12/14/2002 9:14:34 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
good post.I want Lott to stay, and tell his detractors where to shove it.
2 posted on 12/14/2002 9:17:34 AM PST by retiredtexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Why has Thurmond remained silent?

What could a 100 year old man (and target of Lott's remarks) possibly say to make the situation better? In the video clips from the celebration, he appeared barely viable.

3 posted on 12/14/2002 9:18:04 AM PST by NautiNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
BREAKING NEWS: TRENT LOTT APOLOGIZES FOR OWNING STOCK IN THE MANUFACTURER OF THE PICKUP TRUCK THAT DRUG JAMES BYRD TO HIS DEATH.
4 posted on 12/14/2002 9:20:31 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"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."

Tell me how I defend this statement to friends I have that are black that I want to become Republicans?

5 posted on 12/14/2002 9:24:16 AM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Excellent points. To the left who claim, but many of the racists in their own party aren't in the position of power that Lott is in, I had this to say in today's Washington Times editorial:

While not a fan of Trent Lott, I feel compelled to respond to the selective outrage regarding his comments at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday. On May 5, 1993, the Washington Post quoted former President Clinton’s comments at an 88th birthday ceremony for former Arkansas Senator William Fulbright where Clinton bestowed the Presidential Medal of Freedom on the man he described as a “visionary humanitarian, a steadfast supporter of the values of education, and my mentor."

Of course, the man Clinton was praising was a rabid segregationist. In 1956, Fulbright was one of 19 senators who issued a statement entitled the "Southern Manifesto." This document condemned the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Its signers stated, among other things, that "We commend the motives of those States which have declared the intention to resist forced integration by any lawful means."

Fulbright later voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. And he did so because he was a segregationist and believed in separating the races — in schools and other public places.

More recently, in October 2002, Clinton traveled to Arkansas to dedicate a 7 foot bronze statute to Fulbright, and still nothing from the press admonishing Clinton for honoring a racist.

I'm not making excuses for Trent Lott. He should have apologized for his insensitive comments, and he did. Nor am I making excuses for Strom Thurmond's past. I'm questioning the hypocrisy of selective moral outrage by the Left.

6 posted on 12/14/2002 9:25:38 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Yep. All true. But what has any of this got to do with why WE need to get rid of Trottsky? This 'Rat Railroading is a fortuitously timed train, and I would like the Traitor to be Outed on it, or under it.
7 posted on 12/14/2002 9:27:32 AM PST by guitfiddlist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitfiddlist
BUMP

Why has Billy Bubba been sooooo quiet on this??? He's not afraid to speak up on this issue, is he???
8 posted on 12/14/2002 9:29:43 AM PST by Gillmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
For similar reasons, why should they remains Democrates?
9 posted on 12/14/2002 9:34:59 AM PST by RAY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
For similar reasons, why should they remains Democrates?
10 posted on 12/14/2002 9:35:00 AM PST by RAY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
You can remind them that Lott was 7 years old at the time Thurmond ran for president, that he wasn't referring to the segregationist policies of the Dixicrat platform (read Democrat platform) but rather to Thurmond's strong policies of defense and immigration - both of which are affecting us today and are problems probably the problems that Lott was referring to. You can remind them that their own party has a former KKK member - Byrd. That Jesse Jackson is an anti semite who constantly urges African Americans to vote Democrat. You can remind them that Clinton gave the Presidential Medal of Honor to Sen. Fulbright - a segregationist and racist - and called Fulbright his "mentor". See my editorial below to the Washington Times regarding that little matter. There's more you could remind your friends of, I'm sure.
11 posted on 12/14/2002 9:35:42 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
How do any of these facts change the reality that Lott will hurt the entire GOP as Senate Majority Leader?

1. In return for Jeffords' endorsement, Jumpin' Jim will probably receive a cushy committee seat.

2. In order to "prove" he's not racist, Lott will back every act sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. I expect him to praise affirmative action on this hour-long mea culpa on BET.

3. How will the GOP get any conservative judges approved without now-believable allegations of racism? How many Senate battles will we lose completely due to Lott's gaffe?

4. As a Maj. Leader with strong support, Lott scuttled impeachment, agreed to power sharing with Daschle, lost the Senate majority to the Democrats, tried to delay the Homeland Security Act and has proven to be the ultimate waffler. How many more compromises will he make as a weak leader who dearly owes so many senators for their support?

5. Because of one bizarre comment, Lott has plunged a soaring party into disarray. What exactly has Lott ever done to deserve our loyalty? If Bush or Cheney or McConnell or Frist were under attack, our party to fight to the death for them. Does Lott -- Lott of all people--deserve any support from conservatives?

6. Since Lott has never done anything for conservatism, is this toupeed mediocrity's career path and selfish ambition worth losing the senate and the House in 2004?

12 posted on 12/14/2002 9:37:47 AM PST by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Tell me how I defend this statement to friends I have that are black that I want to become Republicans?

Don't. Of course you believe they are so dumb as to still fall for democrat race-baiting gag, in that case, why even bother with the conversion?

13 posted on 12/14/2002 9:37:47 AM PST by Rightwing Conspiratr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
As irrelevant as your post is it does bring to mind a good point; Who has apologized for the campaign commercials which depicted Bush supporting the "death drag"?
14 posted on 12/14/2002 9:37:53 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
If Mississippi had a Republican Governor, this issue would have lasted one day, if at all.
15 posted on 12/14/2002 9:37:59 AM PST by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
It seems ridiculous to believe that he was referring to segregation, even subconciously.

Besides, who says you have to defend him? I, personally, am in the camp that would have wanted him out of the leadership a week ago, but today can't stand the thought of a bunch of race-baiters pushing him out for trying to be nice to a 100 year old man.

16 posted on 12/14/2002 9:37:59 AM PST by KayEyeDoubleDee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
And if Lott were a dimocrat all would have been forgiven and forgotten by now.
17 posted on 12/14/2002 9:39:11 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Peach
he wasn't referring to the segregationist policies of the Dixicrat platform (read Democrat platform) but rather to Thurmond's strong policies of defense and immigration -

Please. All the Dixiecrats stood for was segregation. On every other issue the were the mirror of the extremely liberal, "New Deal" Democratic party. Why a guy who claims to be a conservative would support a anachronistic, liberal monstrosity like the Dixiecrat party is beyond me.

18 posted on 12/14/2002 9:40:20 AM PST by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
**Tell me how I defend this statement to friends I have that are black that I want to become Republicans?**

Ask them if Lott were a dimocrat what would be said about him? Like Byrd using the "n" word.........nothing happened to him.

Or Hillary kissing Arafat's wife...........nothing happened to her.

Hypocrisy reigns in Washington D. C.
19 posted on 12/14/2002 9:41:22 AM PST by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The issue that won't die!

You make some good points, the same ones a few of us have been making all week long. First the liberal establishment got the attack ball rolling against Sen.Lott. Then so-called conservatives, along with hyterical Republicans picked the ball up and having been running with it ever since. The condemnation of Lott has been quite excessive and has only played into the hands of the leftwing. Those on the left have been loving the trashing that Lott's been getting and the topper came in Philidelphia, when PresBush slammed Lott, labeling him a closet segregationist.

What a week!

Lott should not be forced to resign by spineless Republicans and some weak kneed cosnervatives. Period!

But if Lott is forced to step down from his leadership position and then decides to resign his Senate seat, the odds of the GOP losing control of the Senate will rise significantly. If that happens, there will be hell to pay. Many Conservatives and Republicans just fought hard to retake the Senate. Handing back to Daschle and CO isn't my idea of victory.

20 posted on 12/14/2002 9:42:16 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inkling
How do any of these facts change the reality that Lott will hurt the entire GOP as Senate Majority Leader?

7. Which party is being "cleansed"? How many of you... truly don't believe Lexus searches were run throughout last week? How far back was too far back during the Clinton administration? As many in our who were victims, what did the Leftists gain? What does it say to you... about today?

8. If you... are going to allow the Leftists (who assert they are free of segregation and racism) to publicly assault our party without demanding they look in their own mirror, what have you... accomplished?

21 posted on 12/14/2002 9:43:37 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
One thing that has been left out of this equation is Strom Thurmond himself. I'm sure not a fan of his, but many people in his homestate are (I know this from one of my daughters, who lives in SC), and he's been consistently reelected for many a long year. I doubt that he could be elected only by white votes, because SC has a large black population. But Strom, even though he is known for being a Bill Clinton level letch and sounds personally odious, knew how to bring home the bacon and get pork and jobs for his state. That's what you elect a senator for, folks, and when they stop getting you stuff, you stop voting for them. He got stuff for the state of SC, and that's why they voted for him.

I have no knowledge of Strom Thurmond's current personal views on race, but he does have black staffers and certainly has not said anything to make it seem that he still subscribes to Dixiecrat aims. And in any case, it's pretty obvious that Lott was praising Strom Thurmond as an effective Senator and polititian, and not a racist wannabe. Remember also that Lott was 7 years old at the time of Thurmond's Dixiecrat campaign, and what Lott remembers is the "new reformed Strom Thurmond," and not the old racist one.

I think Strom should have said something, but the fact remains that he's 100 years old. My daughter told me that at the dedication of a Habitat house that she arranged, they had to make sure to get a shovel light enough for him to hold, and take the picture so that it only looked as if he was doing the groundbreaking. And this was before the last time he was reelected. Towards the end of his last term, in fact, folks in SC weren't even entirely sure that he was going to make it through. So I can understand that he may not be up to personal involvement in this fray.

I still think that Lott should have stepped down as majority leader, but that's partly because I don't think he was effective in any case. But in terms of his words about Strom Thurmond, maybe everybody should give another glance to Thurmond's post-Dixiecrat record. There were a lot of people, mostly Dems, with really ugly baggage to shed (look at Byrd). And remember that Republicans voted for the initial Civil Rights Act by 81-86% ( I've forgotten which), while Dems voted for it by just over 60%.
22 posted on 12/14/2002 9:45:40 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
How many here "converted" to conservatism?

How many voted for Reagan... on the Leftist platform?

23 posted on 12/14/2002 9:47:17 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
But if Lott is forced to step down from his leadership position and then decides to resign his Senate seat, the odds of the GOP losing control of the Senate will rise significantly. If that happens, there will be hell to pay.

So you, a Lott defender, believe that he would put his personal pride above the needs of his nation -- in a time of war no less -- and resign his Senate seat. Right when his party and nation need him, he is willing to quit because he has hurt feelings. Only a disgusting, evil putz would be that type of traitor. And apparently, that's what even his supporters think he is.

24 posted on 12/14/2002 9:47:20 AM PST by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: inkling
>>>... Lott has plunged a soaring party into disarray.

You're the one in disarray. The GOP is doing fine. If you wild-eyed nincompoops would just cool you rhetorical jets, things would begin to die down. Instead, of dredging up everything you can find to slam Lott with, show some support and fight the liberal esatblishment. The leftwing is loving every minute of this.

25 posted on 12/14/2002 9:49:29 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The crucification of Sen. Lott has nothing to do with civil rights as anyone with any brain knows. It is purely a political manuver that the democrats call the politics of personal destruction. The democrats are experts on this because they lack any positive agenda, and they use it to cover their failures. Having said that, I'm very disppointed
with Senator Lott for throwing such a juicy red meat to the demons. It's just unbeleiveable that a man of his political experience, and stature that he said what he said.
It was purely idiotic! All the work the Republicans have done to reach out to the minorities was blown sky high in one stupid comment. The demons will make this "RED MEAT" very fresh come 2004, and the demagogery on this will be so laud(with the help of the liberal media of course), that any positive agenda by the Republicans will be completely buried in the noise. Lott has to face the reality of this. Lott has to think about this, what ever he is going to do to repair this damage.
26 posted on 12/14/2002 9:49:51 AM PST by desertcry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: inkling
From a Human Events article posted on FR today, Lott had this to say: "Lott said what many conservatives had thought: that in praising Strom Thurmond he was not thinking of the segregationist views that Thurmond has long since repudiated but of Thurmond’s support for "a strong national defense and economic development and balanced budgets and opportunity".

We'd have to do a little research to see if your claim is true, that the Dixiecrats and Thurmond in particular had only one platform upon which they ran.

27 posted on 12/14/2002 9:49:57 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
" If you... are going to allow the Leftists (who assert they are free of segregation and racism) to publicly assault our party without demanding they look in their own mirror, what have you... accomplished?"

The most convincing arguments I've heard to remove Lott have come from the right, not the left. Again, I cannot fathom how any real conservative could support Trent Lott. What has he EVER done for conservatism? (I've asked this question several times this week and have never received an answer.)

28 posted on 12/14/2002 9:50:07 AM PST by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
How would the Leftists feel about it if Lott went Independent?
29 posted on 12/14/2002 9:50:39 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Do you notice that the Demoncraps can't go after anything substantial, only symbolic references that are not real? You have this Lott gaffe and the Confederate flag controversy. These fights are nothing more than a smoke and mirror defense because of what somebody thought they saw as a reflection in one of those mirrors. And for the lamestream media to be running full boar to cover this actually shows how vacant their reporting really is.
30 posted on 12/14/2002 9:53:45 AM PST by Slyfox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
If you... are going to allow the Leftists (who assert they are free of segregation and racism) to publicly assault our party without demanding they look in their own mirror, what have you... accomplished?

Integrity, that’s what. And that is enough in my book. If Lexus searches turn up racist comments by others then that I the breaks. If they are thrown out like Lott will be (just wait) then it’s our fault for electing them in the first place.

31 posted on 12/14/2002 9:55:24 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
"Tell me how I defend this statement to friends I have that are black that I want to become Republicans?"

You could read about the "Dixiecrat" Party and ALL it stood for, and against, in 1948. (don't hurt yourself!)

Tell them to talk with blacks that are conservative. (un-hyphenated Americans)

32 posted on 12/14/2002 9:56:50 AM PST by G.Mason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: inkling
You won’t get an answer, because Lott has done nothing for Conservatives, except to increase spending on his own state. Like Byrd of West Virginia, Lott has bought his Senate seat with your money.
33 posted on 12/14/2002 9:57:16 AM PST by BuddhaBoy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Peach
What you said is not a defense of that statement. The statement is outrageous and cannot be defended. The Strom Thurmond who ran for President in 1948 was a racist and the platform he ran on was a segregationist platform that was despicable. Are you familiar with what the South was like in 1948. People were being lynched because of their skin color. Simply put, anyone who would contend that he was proud of what Thurmond did in 1948 is not someone that I want as Senate Majority leader.

Moving on to defending what Lott said, in order to defend the statement you have to say that he didn't really mean what he said. You have to say that Lott just got caught up in the moment when he was saying how proud he was of Thurmond's run for the presidency in 1948. Such a defense seems ridiculous to me and more fitting of the people I saw defending Clinton during the 1990s.

34 posted on 12/14/2002 9:57:56 AM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: desertcry
The crucification of Sen. Lott has nothing to do with civil rights...

No one I know wants to crucify Lott. No Republican wants him to leave the Senate. We just want him to place the good of the party and the nation above his personal career path. The fact that Lott doesn't seem willing to do that -- in time of war no less -- says much about his character.

Keeping Lott as one of our party's leaders will damage us. Placing McConnell or Frist or Nickles into leadership will help us. My first concern is getting this nation on the right track, not soothing the fragile ego of a spoiled, old aristrocrat who has never done ANYTHING for conservatism except damage it.

I'm sorry to see several Freepers place a higher priority on "sticking it to Sharpton" than they do to winning the War on Terror, electing conservative judges and creating a better America. The GOP will stick it to Sharpton alright, and lose the Senate and the House in 2004. But I guess that's okay, since Lott said he likes being Minority Leader better than being Majority Leader (immediately after pathetically losing the Senate to Daschle).

35 posted on 12/14/2002 9:58:58 AM PST by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

That was in hymie town, wasn't it?

36 posted on 12/14/2002 10:03:33 AM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Oh, dear, it seems you just want to be argumentative. #1: It's entirely possible Lott meant what I said he may have meant (re defense, etc.). #2: If he mis-spoke, as he claims, he has apologized repeatedly. #3: You have yet to address the matter of Clinton giving a Presidential Medal of Honor to a segregationist and racist. Had the media or the Black Caucus made a big deal of it, he could have said he didn't mean it, forgot about Fulbright's past, etc. It was a mistake to bestow such an honor on a man with Fulbright's past. But I don't see any Democrats or media making a big deal of that little faux paus. But, argue away all you like. I said in my editorial an apology was required, and it has been given. But the left still cannot claim moral superiority. What about Byrd being a former KKK member? You and your friends in the other party have a few things to "apologize" for and a few things that are indefensible as well. Without the help of the press, remaining silent on the DNC's own racist past, it should be much more difficult for the left to throw stones at the GOP and Lott. But we all know what the press is all about, or most of us do, anyway. I guess fairplay isn't in their playbook.
37 posted on 12/14/2002 10:04:33 AM PST by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: inkling
"There's something liberating about being in the minority. You're freer to advocate positions and amendments you really think should be adopted."
--Trent Lott, June 2001. The Republicans' self-saboteur speaks.
38 posted on 12/14/2002 10:06:11 AM PST by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: inkling
You people just don't get it. This is not simple about defending Lott on this specific issue. For the record, I called for him to step down last yaer after the Jeffords fiasco and the GOP losing the Senate. I thought his remarks last week were stupid, but he has apologized numerous times.

This is about a trumped up charge of racism, being made, once again I might add, by the liberal establishment against a conservative and its working one more time. This tactic employed by the left, will continue to work, so long as conservatives and Republicans act like cowards. The time has come to say, enough is enough.

I have been ashamed of my fellow conservatives this past week and for so many on this forum to be applauding such obvious and blatant attempts by the liberal establishment to dictate the terms of any agreement on this subject.

Wake up people!

39 posted on 12/14/2002 10:06:14 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Lott's problem is really a case of Daschle's media echo chamber effect. I believe that Trent made his goofy statements last Friday; however, last weekend most talk venue just mentioned it in passing. But this weekend, they are all outraged, OUTRAGED! by Senator Lott. Interesting turn of events.
40 posted on 12/14/2002 10:08:38 AM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
I don't care what liberals think about Lott's comments. I care what I as a conservative think about Lott's comments. Throughout his career, Trent Lott has not been representative of me, my party or conservatism. Therefore, he should not be our leader.

Like you, I also wanted Lott out in the past. But I will not change my mind just because a liberal finally agrees with me. A strong majority leader is the Democrats' worst nightmare. That's why the vast majority of Dem Senators want Lott to stay.

41 posted on 12/14/2002 10:11:52 AM PST by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: desertcry
The crucification of Sen. Lott has nothing to do with civil rights as anyone with any brain knows. It is purely a political manuver...

"Anyone with any brain knows" that we are responsible for judgment on our actions. Repeating, the Civil Rights Act was almost denied to America because the Leftists.

You insist on the cleansing of our politicals and providing the other side with a free pass. What would it say about the Leftists if Lott were still in charge in January?

43 posted on 12/14/2002 10:12:31 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: KayEyeDoubleDee
Besides, who says you have to defend him? I, personally, am in the camp that would have wanted him out of the leadership a week ago, but today can't stand the thought of a bunch of race-baiters pushing him out for trying to be nice to a 100 year old man.

I don't understand that remark. Of course I don't have to defend him. I don't have to vote either or wake up in the morning and go to work. But I do those things because I want to. In the case of the Republican party, I defend it because I want to see more people become Republicans. And the reason I want to see more people become Republicans is because I believe the Republican party can do alot of good for this country if it is given the chance.

What I am guessing is that some people who are defending Lott's statement simply don't have too much of a grounding in the history of our country. Simply put, many blacks are very suspicious of voting Republican because they suspect rightly or wrongly that the Republican party is filled with people who view what was going on in the South up until the 1960s as not being such a bad thing. Some people say that the appropriate response to such an attitude is that if people can't figure out for themselves why the Republican party is good for the country then those people should be ignored. I say that such an attitude is stupidity personified. Convincing people to vote for conservative values is a constant battle that requires constant education because voting conservative typically does not result in an immediate payoff or in a tangible upfront benefit, as would be the case if you voted Democrat and got a new governmental entitlement. In any event, if Lott is going to remain as the third highest ranking Republican in the country, I am going to have to defend him and his stupid statements. Any help you could give me in explaining how I can defend what he said about Thurmond's run for the presidency in 1948 without looking like a lying Democrat would be appreciated.

44 posted on 12/14/2002 10:12:31 AM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
And if Lott were a dimocrat all would have been forgiven and forgotten by now.

If Lott were a Demon Cat, it would have never been brought up, so he would never have anything to be forgiven for.

45 posted on 12/14/2002 10:14:31 AM PST by Mark17
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I just want to know if its true that Lott said he'd resign from the Senate if he was forced out of the leadership position. To me, this statement, if true, totally changes things. On the other hand there's no way we should turn over the Senate to the dems even partially via sharing. So I'm stuck on the precise tactic to take. I'm not one for emotional overreaction. But if this extortion statement is true, then eventually the Republicans must find a way to get rid of him as ML. This particular statement is more troubling to me than the whole matter to me.
46 posted on 12/14/2002 10:14:59 AM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
A little off-topic but, IMHO, it would do black Americans a world of good to stop acting like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the democrat party at election time.
47 posted on 12/14/2002 10:17:12 AM PST by Chi-townChief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: inkling
>>>I don't care what liberals think about Lott's comments.

Then the tactics employed by liberals in the last week have worked on you. You're a prime example of that. This is politics in its simplest form and you've been duped into falling for the lefts race bait. You're not thinking at all.

48 posted on 12/14/2002 10:17:18 AM PST by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Then the tactics employed by liberals in the last week have worked on you. You're a prime example of that. This is politics in its simplest form and you've been duped into falling for the lefts race bait. You're not thinking at all.

Before any liberals took a position on Lott, I wanted him gone. Despite all of their silly rhetoric, I haven't changed my position one iota. You, on the other hand, reversed your position. Who has been influenced?

49 posted on 12/14/2002 10:19:34 AM PST by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I want to see Lott go because he is a coward, e.g. senate impeachment trial, but not because of this. If he were to leave now, it would only endorse all the things that are being said now.
50 posted on 12/14/2002 10:19:47 AM PST by ampat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson