Skip to comments.Trent Lott Should Resign - David Horowitz
Posted on 12/11/2002 3:03:47 PM PST by Ragtime Cowgirl
Trent Lott Should Resign
The revelation that Trent Lott made a similar remark about Thurmond's segregationist presidential campaign twenty years ago comes as no surprise. Desegregation was the most important domestic event in Lott's lifetime, especially because of his role as a leading politician in what was once the most segregated racist state in the union. If he was oblivious to the implications of his outrageous remarks at Thurmond's party, that is reason enough for him to step down as Republican leader in the Senate. The stakes are simply too high to allow this kind of political stupidity (which is to put the best spin on it) to pass without consequence. It is bad for the Republican Party and for the country.
That said, one should not let the hypocrisy of some members of the Black Caucus go unnoticed. California congresswoman Diane Watson, former State Senator and former ambassador to Micronesia is one of those calling for Lott's head as though he were a dedicated racist. Watson is infamous for attacking Ward Connerly's interracial marriage on racial grounds. This would be hypocrisy enough. But she is also indebted to Trent Lott for making her ambassadorship -- which was blocked by the opposition of her hated (or should I say hateful) colleage Maxine Waters (the antagonism is personal not political). With Watson's appointment in limbo because of Waters' opposition, Lott intervened on Watson's behalf to make her appointment possible. This episode makes Watson a prime candidate for the Jean Carnahan award for graceless ingratitude. Here's a comment from a Republican reader: Senator Lott's apology was disingenuous. He talked about "discarded policies" of the past--not wrong policies. He speaks in code; he antagonizes blacks with his transparent longing for the ante-bellum South. I don't think Senator Lott is a racist, and I do think the Black Caucus is vicious and hypocritical. But Trent Lott as majority leader spells disaster for the politcal future of the Republican Party. Kathleen
Here's a comment from a Republican reader:
Senator Lott's apology was disingenuous. He talked about "discarded policies" of the past--not wrong policies. He speaks in code; he antagonizes blacks with his transparent longing for the ante-bellum South. I don't think Senator Lott is a racist, and I do think the Black Caucus is vicious and hypocritical. But Trent Lott as majority leader spells disaster for the politcal future of the Republican Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
The rest of the country thinks he's a dingbat, at best.
In effect, his point was "Do you want Lott to quit because of a concocted racial attack?" IOW, if you disagree with his leadership, fine, but if he quits now, it will only give validity to the charges, and will embolden the left to character assissinate more Republicans.
Lott should stand up like a man and say "I made a mistake by saying something insensitive, now get over it."
My contempt at the speech police hystericals is beyond words. This is what they look like - watch the stoninc scene in "Life of Brian"
No, it's not offensive to the South--Trent Lott's stupidity is far more offensive to them than anything the NYT editorial board might say--and his stupidity is also offensive to the rest of the nation.
Let's get this straight: most of the conservative Republicans I know out here in California are making jokes about why Trent Lott is living proof that cousins should not marry.
Lott's courageous and intelligent critics
I agree. I hope Bush gets an opening to say that the politics of racial division should stop. I don't know how he could say it and appear concerned, yet outraged at the same time. If anyone can do it, Bush can.
This type of racially concocted "gotcha" has got to stop between the parties. For conservative apologists (and even Rush is guilty) to play moral equivalency does not help.
IMO, the best and most effective approach would be to attack the race baiting process and call for an end to it--from both sides of the aisle.
I'm so sick of it I could scream.
Not necessarily. But if you leave him as Majority Leader, he will eventually resign, probably when it will do the most damage to the Republicans in 2004.
He doesn't appear to be listening.
Retreat (full) , bugle call.
And those Southern Republican Conservatives are loudly thanking God that Strom wasn't born in late October or in the first couple days of November.
Lott is unfit to hold a national leadership post. Period.
So your willing to loose our majority in the senate because your too much of a coward to stand up to the rampant PC in our culture? Lott's replacement would be appointed by Mississippi's democrat governor. This would then give Chaffee the perfect excuse to leave the "racist" republican party. We have two choices, stand up to ridiculous political correctness or say hello to majority leader Daschle.
john kerry, the wanna-be POTUS, is calling for Lott's resignation tonight in the news - politics, politics, politics!
but you know what - the dems have been playing this card for years and they are now in the minority...
they are really hurting themselves with this...
He's a Witch!!!!!
does anyone remember that?
By the way, wasn't Lott just referring to Thurmond's emphasis on States' rights when he said he admired him?
I apologise the exact quote that I am thinking about is attributed to kerry but it was, "...the Secret Service is under orders that if George Bush is shot, to shoot Quayle."
But what other way could it have happened? When he was in college, he was a chearleader for the Ole Miss Rebels. This incident makes him a Rebel without a clue.
Your sarcasm is well placed. It is absurd to even suggest dropping Lott at this moment in time. Frankly, I agree with those who point out that he has been wishy-washy and often ineffective. But in the face of this vicious attack on Lott because he dared to praise the most consistently Conservative Senator in recent decades is patently outrageous. People need to stop and catch their breaths, and look at what is being done here:
The Left has launched one of their typical, apparently hysterical, but actually carefully calculated efforts to push America to the Left, without ever even debating the issue on the table. We are being treated to the typical ex cathedra pronouncements. We are seeing the typical raised eyebrow, the supercilious disdain, the sanctimonious pretense of the moral high ground. But no where do they dare to debate the actual issues before the American people, when Strom Thurmond ran for President in 1948. We are just supposed to kneejerkedly assume--because they belligerently demand that we assume--that Strom Thurmond was wrong, and that anyone who suggests that he was right, must be driven from American politics.
Well, Strom is now over 100, and is retiring from the fray. But those Conservatives, who think that Strom was wrong--so very wrong that it is an unforgiveable sin for anyone to even suggest that he was right--need to at least acquaint themselves with the issues. Because it was Thurmond--and not Truman or Dewey (and certainly not Henry Wallace, who ran on the far Left)--who took the stands that were by far the most consistent with the overall Conservative philosophy. And the Left is making fools out of Conservatives, who will jump through hoops to distance themselves from values they actually hold sacred.
The principal reason that Thurmond led a revolt from the Democratic Party in 1948 was about freedom and the preservation of a predictable Constitutional heritage that put freedom first. It was the same reason he again revolted in 1964, to lead many Conservative Democrats into the Republican Party, in support of Barry Goldwater. It was the same reason he insisted ever since, that Republican Presidents appoint more Conservatives to the Federal Judiciary. (It was Thurmond, more than any other man in Washington, who has responsible for the gradual improvement on the Federal Bench, since 1969.)
The major "Civil Rights" issue in 1948, was whether Washington should be allowed to dictate employment practices to private employers across America (F.E.P.C.). How can anyone suggest that Lott needs to apologize for supporting Thurmond in opposing such Federal dictation? 16 years later, when Lyndon Johnson finally rammed the proposal through, the Conservative Republican candidate for President--Strom Thurmond's good friend, Barry Goldwater--also opposed the Socialistic measure--as do I. (For more on the specific issue, see "Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society.)
But no one is actually debating the underlying issues. They are simply buying the Leftist smear of Thurmond--when we should all be honoring him--on the pretense that Lott has done something terrible in praising his lifetime of dedication to Conservative and Constitutional values. It does not take a lot of analysis to understand the corner that those Conservatives, who are in a panic over this, are painting themselves into.
For the love of common sense, we need to say to those who are parrotting the enemy, "Snap out of it!"
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
That is a great point and I totally agree. I think the quicker Lott gets the hell out of there, the sooner the Left is out of the headlines for this sort of crap. I think Lott has been extremely weak as Leader, and remember, he over compromised with Daschole last year when Bush took office. I think PR wise, the best move is for Lott to be out.
He also has the responsibility to deal with the opprobrium that his stupid, ill-thought speech has earned him.
Oh, absolutely...the Dems. want him out, of course. It's only slightly about race. Like most everything re. the left - this is mostly about politics.
The south kicked the Dems. where it counts on Nov. 5th and black conservatives - and even Dems - are seeing the sleazy con artists behind the Hollywood make-up and divisive (..fearmongering, hypocritical) talking points.
they are really hurting themselves with this...
You are right. And the proper response for the GOP is not to cite past examples of Byrd's or Hollings' or Al Gore, Sr.'s missteps and whine, "hypocrisy, hypocrisy".
The proper way to handle this is to stand up, say "we've apologized and that's all we have to say about it--there will be no resignation--we're moving on".
To continue to apologize or draw moral equivalencies is a waste of breath.
Remember how Bush dispelled the DUI story. He admitted it, acknowledged it as a mistake and said I'm not going to play the politics of "gotcha". And that was the end of it.