Selective Moral Outrage, Part II: Why only be outraged at Lott’s remarks?

National Review Online ^ | 12/11/02 | Mark R. Levin

[FreeTheHostages]

True. The 2004 election has begun. But what does that mean, in terms of what's the best tactical move here?

[Defiant]

Here's a site that has a copy of the Mississippi Dixiecrat's "Sample" ballot from 1948, that explains who to vote for and why. It's pretty ugly. This could be incorporated into the attack ad in 2004:

Sample Ballot

[YaYa123]

Trent Lott could cut out his tongue with a rusty razor blade, take a public flogging, butt nekkid on the Capital steps, and it wouldn't satisfy the democrats, led like sheep, by the black caucus. Maxine Waters has wet dreams about missteps like this!

But this isn't Trent Lott's first blunder. He made one right after the election, announcing he wouldn't try to get anything done during senate's lame duck session. President Bush straightened him out on that one, and the next day Lott changed his tune.

I remember back before the election, Don Nickles announced he would challenge Lott for Leadership...and many of us were real glad to hear it... but for some reason, Nickles changed his mind. Let's hope Nickles, or even better, Bill Frist, decide to challenge Lott.

But the best thing that could happen, is for Trent Lott to realize what a weapon he has handed the DNC, and for the good of the Republicans, decide that he must step aside and let someone else lead senate republicans.

Ask yourself....what has Trent Lott accomplished... As either majority or minority leader? I can't think of a thing.

and he's blowing this interview with Sean....big time!!! The man should say, "I AM NOT A RACIST. I AM NOT A BIGOT.!"

[what's up]

"ran for President as a State's Right Democrat"

Good point....Thurmond was a DEMOCRAT at the time.

[Diverdogz]

The quicker Lott is dealt with, the better. Quicker means that we get rid of him because his statement offend our principles and sensibilities. Dragging it out means we are only dumping him based on political calculation.

[FreeTheHostages]

oh my gosh!! owwww

I just made up my mind on this issue.

Sen. Lott is a huge election liability. "the way of the life of the South" associated with fighting "anti-lynching and anti-segregation" proposals? BLECH!!

Democrats defended errant idiots like Clinton no matter what they did. That's one of the reasons they lost in 2000.

We have to be loyal to the party, not to people. No one, not even the majority leader, is sacred if they become a liability.

[anoldafvet]

Sounds like a lot of people think they are qualified to be thought police or can interpret hate crimes. Lott never mentioned blacks, race, segregation or anything that might be considered racist. For all we know, he may have been referring to States Rights and that thing called the 10th Ammendment, you know, the one that says the Federal Government should stick to only those things strictly enumerated in the Constitution. The point is we can't know what he was thinking and based on the evidence presented, there isn't a court in the land that would convict him.

I am one of those who would like to see him go for his "no evidence" impeachment rules and his "power sharing" but this isn't the time for that. We're violating Reagan's 11th commandment and no good can come of it

[Defiant]

Did you notice this, on the same page, from the Dixiecrat Platform, regarding their opposition to the repeal of the poll tax:

The negro is a native of tropical climate where fruits and nuts are plentiful and where clothing is not required for protection against the weather ... The essentials of society in the jungle are few and do not include the production, transportation and marketing of goods. [Thus] his racial constitution has been fashioned to exclude any idea of voluntary cooperation on his part.

We need to focus on that this was the DEMOCRAT party, and one branch of it. The GOP was more supportive of civil rights laws than the Democrats were, but the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, and when it was passed in 1965, the Democrats got most of the credit.

[dfwgator]

I am sure Lott did not mean to say that he supported segregation, but the point is that like it or not the Democrats can spin this in their favor, and Lott should have been more cognizant of that fact. It showed a lack of judgement, and we cannot have that in our majority leader. Politics is not a fair game.

[dfwgator]

Everything you said is correct, but let's face it. 95% of our population pays absolutely no attention to politics save for a few 10-second sound-bites on the evening news. As Republicans we have to understand that the majority of people are political rubes who don't understand the inner workings of the beltway.

[Diverdogz]

If only you understood Strom Thurmond's dixicrat platform. Preserving segregation, lynching and poll taxes were the ONLY thing he ran on.

[FreeTheHostages]

Agreed. We're the party of Lincoln. We're the party of meritocracy.

[CyberCowboy777]

Exactly what "problems" does Lott think we would have avoided if Strom, running on the Dixiecrat platform, had won the presidency.

It seemed pretty clear to me that he was referring to the issues we would not be dealing with had a real States Rights President ever been elected. He was stupid not to make it very clear as soooo many people like to take a mans words and use them against him.

I mean come on here, we all know that Lott is not a racist. That assumed, what was the platform of the Dixiecrate outside segregation. Pretty simple, but people just have to get themselves riled up.

[Diverdogz]

Agreed. We're the party of Lincoln. We're the party of meritocracy.

...and we have no place for a Leader of the Party of Lincoln who thinks we would have avoided "all these problems over the years" if a segregationist DEMOCRAT had been elected. Lott must go.

[ex-Texan]

Has Lott seen this video ad the Dims just produced?:

Look at Anti-Bush Ad Featuring Trent Lott

[Mr. Bird]

What I want to know is why Lott would want to remain an embattled Majority Leader anyway. The guy can't love power, he doesn't exercise it. He's really just a back- slappin' buffoon who backed into the job when the nation reared up and surprised everyone with the '94 revolt.

He couldn't keep Jeffords on the reservation, he ran from impeachment like a frightened schoolgirl, and now he's got diarrhea of the mouth at a time when it's crucial for the visible members of the party to watch their friggin' step. I don't need to see him leave the Senate, but it would be real nice to see him serve his term as simply the senior senator from Mississippi.

[stands2reason]

Absolutely. Whining about the double standard of the media and referring to Sen. Byrd won't change what Lott said and the resulting fallout.The man is a fool, and, as everyone knows, is no kind of leader. But The Stupid Party ^TM will now embrace Lott like never before because "we don't want anyone telling us who will be our leader." Well, keep it up, and enjoy the next two years, fellas. 'Cause then your ride will be over.

[stylin19a]

This whole subject gives me the buckwheats.

[FreeTheHostages]

"He was stupid not to make it very clear"

Perhaps it's just that. Like I said, I'm not 100 percent certain of my position here. But it sure sounded pretty clear to me.