Posted on 12/12/2002 4:48:37 PM PST by TLBSHOW
Leftist attacks on Senator Trent Lott are no surprise, but now pundits on the Right are banging the drums to oust the Majority Leader. As has been widely reported, Lott stated that he was proud that the people of Mississippi supported J. Strom Thurmond’s 1948 states’ rights presidential campaign and that “if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years.” In response, the Family Research Council, National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg, radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, columnist Andrew Sullivan and others have joined Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in demanding Lott’s head on a platter.
Clearly, Lott was simply gushing over Thurmond’s impressive career when he made a little joke about how America would have been better if Mr. Dixiecrat had taken the White House in ‘48. Was it a politically incorrect joke? Definitely. Was it a stupid thing to say? Maybe. But I can’t help thinking that the joke ticked off exactly the right people—black liberals, hysterical Republican elites, and Mark Shields. The best part was that Lott did not even know what he was doing…his instinct just led him to say something that was horribly insensitive. Sometimes you just have to sit back and enjoy that sort of quality in a public figure.
So why are these “girly boys,” as Ann Coulter once called them, acting as if Trent Lott burned a cross on Colin Powell’s lawn? Most of them have ulterior motives. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, wants to prove his social liberalism to moderate readers. Opposing the right-winger from the Deep South is a natural way to achieve that goal. Plus, he is no doubt still harboring anger over Lott’s infamous comments from a few years back, when he compared homosexuality to kleptomania and alcoholism.
Jonah Goldberg, to his credit, is honest about his motivations. In a recent column in the Washington Times, Goldberg stated:
“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… Lott stands for little. And what he does stand for, we don't need. ”
Goldberg is certainly correct in his critique of Lott’s horrific tenure as Majority Leader. Lott has been ineffective and unconvincing in that role. He has betrayed conservative principles on many occasions so as to get along with the Democrats. Many conservatives, like myself, will never forgive him for the “power sharing agreement” he forged with Senator Tom Daschle during the 50-50 split of the Senate prior to Jim Jeffords famous stumble across the aisle.
But does any of this justify throwing Lott to the wolves on a false charge of racism? Going along with a Leftist lynch mob will only come back to haunt the Right. Senator Lott told an ill thought-out joke at a man’s 100th birthday party. It’s not like he put a Robert Byrd bumper sticker on his car or anything.
Ken Connor, President of the Family Research Council, issued a statement yesterday that stated:
“But Republican leaders either have gone into hiding or limited their reactions to sheepish acceptance of Sen. Lott's apologies. What is needed is a forthright repudiation of the substance of Sen. Lott's comments, namely, his suggestion that the country would have been better off had a champion of segregation and racial discrimination been elected president in 1948… The question the party faces now is whether Sen. Lott has so damaged himself that he can no longer effectively lead the Senate Republicans as their public spokesman.”
The Family Research Council (FRC) also holds a grudge against Senator Lott because of his dismal record on advancing the Christian conservative agenda of more restrictions on abortion, faith-based initiatives, pro-marriage welfare reform, and abolition of federal funding for contraceptive-based sex education. All of the FRC’s concerns are well founded and many conservatives share their positions. But again: Is this just cause to join the crusade to destroy a man’s reputation by suggesting that he is a racist? Does the Family Research Council really believe that Lott supports resegregation of the South? For any reasonable person, such an assertion does not pass the laugh test.
Laura Ingraham appeared on Don Imus’ morning radio show and also attacked Lott, saying that the Republicans “don’t need this.” We all agree that life would be a great deal simpler if Trent Lott had not made the remarks. But do we throw our Leader overboard because it is too difficult to stand up against a bunch of race-baiting Leftists?
Playing the victim and feigning moral outrage are the centerpieces of modern American politics. In the Lott fiasco, the Left sees an opportunity to exploit a stupid remark with selective moral outrage. The Democratic Party pimps out NAACP leaders when the party thinks that it can create wedge issues that will convince blacks that Republicans want to enslave them. Recent examples include the Confederate flag issue, the James Byrd murder case, and, now, Lott’s remarks. The Left employs these tactics to distract American blacks from its own dismal race record (see Senator Robert Byrd, the Gore family, Sam Irvin, William Fulbright, etc.). The Right sees an opportunity to symbolically show the world that they are not the evil racists that the Left publicly insists they are. Hence, they are willing to sacrifice a fairly unlikable, ineffective politician on the altar of racial politics.
Whatever one thinks of Trent Lott’s stint as Republican Leader, he does not deserve the treatment he is getting from right-wing journalists and pundits. Lott apologized for his comments approximately 1500 times in an interview with Sean Hannity yesterday. Do these pundits really believe that Republicans are going to get more than 10% of the black vote in 2004 if they dump Trent Lott? Reaching out to minority voters is fine, but you don’t abandon loyal allies when they’re facing hard times. As Morton Blackwell once said, “In politics you have two things—your friends and your word. Go back on either and you’re dead.”
Oh, I think you've summed it up nicely.
Lott leaned back in his chair with a power lean that said, "I'm in charge". I'll never forget the very first words out of his mouth: "Henry, you're not going to dump this garbage on us."
"Huh?" came the bewildered reply from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois."You're not going to dump this garbage on us."
I immediately thought of Jay McMullen, who once covered City Hall for the Chicago Sun-Times. When McMullen saw a do-gooder get upset, he'd point at the guy, laugh, and say: "Look at him, he thinks it's all on the legit!"
Stupid me, I guess I thought everything was on the legit, too. But no, it was clear right off the bat that things were not at all legit. Rather, the Senate Republican leadership wanted to sink us.
"You know," Lott said, "we've been discussing this with the Democrats and everybody wants a fair hearing, but we don't want to spend weeks on this. We can't just shut down the Senate. We have important matters to address."
"Important?" I thought, "Like the impeachment of a president isn't important?"
Lott mentioned the importance of "bipartisanship". He had an idea he thought "could fly". We'd be given one day to present our case, the President would get one day to present his case, and then the Senate would vote.
I didn't always think this way, but I learned that aevery time I heard the word "bipartisan" on Capitol Hill, we were about to be sold out, because bipartisan meant doing the will of the Democrats. Bipartisan meant two articles of impeachment instead of four. It meant emasculating the inquiry by limiting the witnesses. It meant limiting the impeachment inquiry to Monica Lewinsky. When Lott talked about bipartisanship, we knew he was waving the white flag.
From "Sell Out" by David Schippers
Go on, tell me why the bloody hell Lott should be saved. He's scum - if an opportunity comes to remove him, take it.
Regards, Ivan
You are left with two options:
You can either save Lott, which will require an expenditure of political capital on the Republicans' part. The Democrats will use Lott's remark, if he remains, as proof positive to their base that the Republicans are racist, and I suggest they will do it in the crudest possible way. In any event, even if Lott remains where he is, his position is far more weak and vulnerable - his tendency to "power share" with the Democrats will be far more pronounced.
The other option is to push him out as quickly as possible and limit the damage he's done. Push him out on the grounds of stupidity rather than being a racist. Then get a good Majority Leader like Don Nickles in there.
And these are the only options you have.
Regards, Ivan
Thanks for providing yet another example of why Lott is unfit to lead the majority.
He is obviously a product of and identifies with a bygone era. And while he is entitled to his opinion(s), he is not entitled to stand as a leader in the republican party.
This writer is a moron, and may as well be fitted for a pointy hood and given a cross and a match if he thinks this is cute. How old is he? 12?
Lott admitted last night that he has a problem.
Why don't you make the same admission, TLB?
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.