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

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

[wcdukenfield]

On September 24, 2002, the Senate Democrats set aside time during morning business to pay tribute to Strom Thurmond. What's remarkable about every one of these statements is that they were effusive in their praise of Thurmond, and none contained any negative reference to Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid as a Dixiecrat, let alone any reference to his segregationist past.

What are we to make of this? Are these senators sympathetic to segregation? Of course not. Clearly, it would have been inappropriate to use the occasion to disparage Thurmond. Their purpose that day was to honor him. And they did.

Some have argued that their grievance with Trent Lott is more particularized. During Thurmond's 100th-birthday celebration, 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."

Lott says he was not referring to Thurmond's segregationist views. Many Democrats aren't buying this explanation. While refusing to label Lott a racist — who, in fact, is a cautious legislator who tends to seek comity rather than confrontation — they apparently insist that his comment was intended to be racist.

Well, then, what are we to make of Democrat Senator Carl Levin's September 24th praise of Thurmond? Among other things, Levin said, " ... I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Strom Thurmond and honoring him for his unparalleled record of public service to this Nation." And then a few sentences later, Levin says, "In 1948, while he was still Governor, [Thurmond] ran for President as a State's Right Democrat and received 39 electoral votes, the third best showing by an independent candidate in U.S. history."

Are we to conclude that Levin was honoring Thurmond for, among other things, his historic showing as a segregationist candidate in 1948? If not, why else would Levin have mentioned it in the context of praising Thurmond's career?

Of course, Levin's not a racist, either. He made this statement in the same vein as Lott did. Yet, there's no condemnation of Levin — either from Democrats or Republicans. And so goes the politics of selective moral outrage.

[SerpentDove]

REPUBLICAN SENATE MAJORITY LEADER:
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IS OK
----------
Has Party Backing

I hope everybody likes that soundbite. Because we can "explain" till we're blue in the face, but if we keep defending Lott, we're gonna be hearing it for a lonnnnnnnnnng time.

I say it's not worth losing the whole Republican agenda over him, no matter what other high-minded motives we might have.

Lott expresses regret for remarks; court filing from 1981 surfaces

[holdonnow]

Ok, then let's surrender. Let's just cower in the corner whenever these race-baiters roll out their usual tactics. AP reports tonight about the Bob Jones case, in which Lott filed an amicus brief in support of Jones. Well, so too did Ronald Reagan. Bob Herbert just happens to write in his column that Reagan was a "state's rightest" too. We're all racists in the GOP. Let's just piss in our pants and cut our losses. ... It's time to stand up and take this on. Lott's not the issue. If he leaves, it will be some other issue involving some other Republican. It's time to pin the segregation tag on the party that practiced it. Don't let your anger at Lott cloud your thinking.

[holdonnow]

What did Bob Dole accomplish? What did Howard Baker accomplish (I recall he gave away the Panama Canal)? What did Hugh Scott accomplish? It's the Senate Majority Leader's job to help the president get his agenda enacted (when the president is of the same party). He's not an independent actor. George Bush is the head of the GOP, not Trent Lott.

[The Great Satan]

Who's Carl Levin? Is he the public face of the GOP in Congress? Should I care if Carl Levin made a non-judgmental reference to Strom Thurmond's run as an explicitly segregationist, anti-Negro candidate for President and never said that the country would have been better off if he had won? This is a crock, I'm afraid.

[jwalsh07]

Hey moron.

Justice Rehnquist wrote a dissent that was in agreement with Lott's brief.

Should we get Rehnquist in the on deck circle for the plank?

[holdonnow]

Well, at least Lott didn't award Thurmond with the Medal of Freedom. Imagine the liberal howels then! But Clinton awarded it to Fulbright. Who cares, right? Certainly not the Democrats. Certainly not several conservative pundits. Speaking of which ... I hear repeatedly about how the Senate Republicans are so weak and lack toughness. Interesting, isn't it, that all those tough conservative pundits are the first to jump ship; so far, even Arlen Specter has come to Lott's defense. For once, the man understands what's going on. Too bad so many here don't.

[jwalsh07]

Free Republic has been kidnapped by Rod Serling. Do not adjust your dial! dodododo

[holdonnow]

No -- why should you or anyone else care if the liberals are deceitful, why should anyone point that out. Let's just join with the liberal mob, hang Lott, and fight them another day. That's the ticket -- NOT!

[holdonnow]

The liberals tried to take down Rennquist, too, when Reagan nominated him for chief justice. They just happened to come across a deed to one of his properties than contained an ancient racial restriction. But since Rehnquist didn't object to the deed, and didn't undertake the process to change it, he was a racist too. Let's throw all our conservative judges off the bridge too. They've written opinions and taken positions that are clearly adverse to minorities. The Democrats call them "insensitive" to civil rights. Why defend them?

[jwalsh07]

Why indeed? An ideological cleansing is well past due. I await my orders to report to the camps for re-education and/or discorporation.

I'll tell you, the past couple of days on this board have come as a bit of a schock to me.

[The Great Satan]

Nobody's calling to hang Lott, so that's a red herring. In fact, I don't think I've even seen a single post calling for him to resign as Senator. Obviously, there are people with a wide variety of wacky views in Congress on both sides of the aisles, usually reflective of the wacky views of the constituencies which elected them. The issue is: is Lott fit to be the leader of the GOP in Congress? And, frankly, if Lott had an outstanding track record of leadership, I'd be tempted to say, well, it's just a Southern thing, "States rights" and all that, Lotty boy seems like a nice enough cove, sure he doesn't mean any harm, won't hold it against him. But he doesn't have an outstanding track record of leadership, and I for one don't believe he deserves a break on this. As Clinton would say, you got to look at the box score. Chester's batting .000, as far as I'm concerned.

[AGreatPer]

Your making a valid point in your #63 and making me think. I hate when that happens. Take care, my friend.

[AGreatPer]

Give us all a break, holdonnow. Lott has been a pain the butt for years and you know it. No spine, etc. And, for a man of his age to make a stupid statement like he did????? Enough already.

Look, I love Lott, he has been great over the years. The miles on his tires have just run out with stupid stuff like this. Time we put Rick Santorum in there.

[SerpentDove]

REPUBLICAN SENATE MAJORITY LEADER:
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IS OK
----------
Has Party Backing

I hope everybody likes that soundbite. Because we can "explain" till we're blue in the face, but if we keep defending Lott, we're gonna be hearing it for a lonnnnnnnnnng time.

I say it's not worth losing the whole Republican agenda over him, no matter what other high-minded motives we might have.

Lott expresses regret for remarks; court filing from 1981 surfaces

Can any politician survive this?

From Associated Press (EXCERPT):

"Senate Republican leader Trent Lott tried to help Bob Jones University keep its federal tax-exempt status despite the school's policy prohibiting interracial dating two decades before his recent comments stirred a race controversy.

"Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," Lott, then a congressman from Mississippi, wrote in a 1981 friend of the court brief that unsuccessfully urged the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the Internal Revenue Service from stripping the university's tax exemption.

IMHO, SD

[goldstategop]

The cardinal offense is its racist to be a Republican. If you want to be racist you gotta be a Democrat. After all they're the party of Jim Crow and segregation. I find it infuriating and amusing at the same time to witness them in an orgy of manufactured outrage for purely partisan reasons when they've never been apologetic about their past. Sure there's been a lovefest over Thurmound and truth be told, its been bipartisan.

[AGreatPer]

"It's the Senate Majority Leader's job to help the president get his agenda enacted (when the president is of the same party). He's not an independent actor. "

And he has done that, beautifully.

There is something that I am not getting here.

Lieberman backed off immediately and was almost appoligetic to Lott. One day later, the hard core liberals, Waters, etc., attacked and Lieberman got back in line. The pressure from the hard liners must have been too much.

I guess my point is, I don't get how they can have so much pressure when they are now in the minority. Beyone me already.

[shuckmaster]

How very typical that the same Republicans who perpetuate the ruse that Republicans are the conservative party should duck for cover when a real conservative emerges from their ranks!

Click Here!

[FreeTheHostages]

I think I might be persuaded.