Posted on 12/12/2002 9:30:18 PM PST by Republican_Strategist
Id like to make my position clear that I believe Lott should have resigned a long time ago rather than this latest gaffe, which exposes that Democrats are an ideologically twisted bunch that rely on propagandizing & fear mongering because their political agenda is repulsive. Lott is too conciliatory and he isnt conservative to my liking.
Rush Limbaugh laid out precisely what Lotts weak-kneed approach got him, go here.
In Lott Case, Networks Find Conservative Scolding Newsworthy
With conservatives scolding Trent Lott for his suggestion that the country wouldnt have had all these problems over all these years if Strom Thurmond had won his 1948 segregationist presidential bid, the networks decided that what conservatives think was worthy of showcasing. ABC and NBC reporters failed to label the NAACP as liberal in highlighting its demand that Lott step down, but tagged the conservatives. CBSs Dan Rather imputed great respectability to the NAACP by describing it as the oldest civil rights group in the United States.
Media Hypocrisy: Skip Clinton Praising a Segregationist
The medias hypocrisy. Theyve pounced on Trent Lott, but on National Review Online Mark Levin noted how they didnt care when just six weeks ago Bill Clinton praised J. William Fulbright, a racist, segregationist Senator, for urging Americans to be utopian in our values and vision." In 1993, Clinton awarded Fulbright a Presidential Medal of Freedom and gushed: The American political system produced this remarkable man, and my state did, and I'm real proud of it."
Networks Focus on Trent Lott for Second Day
The networks focused on the Trent Lott story for a second straight day on Wednesday night and continued to treat as wise sages conservatives who criticized Lott. While ABCs Peter Jennings cited only how Ted Kennedy called his remarks an irresponsible salute to bigotry, CBSs Bob Schieffer managed to use the term conservative three times in his story without once uttering the word liberal even as he cited Kennedy and John Kerry. CNN earned kudos as Aaron Brown balanced his interview with a Lott critic with a segment featuring a Lott defender and Jonathan Karl recalled Robert Byrds remarks from last year.
How can anyone continue to deny the Liberal Media is beyond reproach.
I musta missed it.
What nagging accusation did I make and how did you respond?
And if Lott is forced out the price for one of those you listed will be the Majority Leadership. Snowe is already campaigning for it.
It is a given that the democrats are hypocrites. So what. Does that mean that the republicans are going to get any mileage off that? No. Republicans can't afford to be hypocrites. That is Life. Get used to it. Democrats can be racists and there is not political fallout. Republicans are held to a higher standard. Frankly I'm glad we are.
That said, do you think there is any political gain for the republicans if they insist on throwing their unqualified support behind Lott? I am distancing myself from him. I don't need an idiot as the face of leadership in my party. Sorry.
18 posted on 12/13/2002 0:03 AM EST by P-Marlowe
Here was my reply:
To: P-Marlowe
Allow me to give you a slap in the face for that condescending rant.
It isnt about me wanting the republicans to be held to a lower standard. It is about me wanting the democrats to be held to a higher standard, but for some reason you just felt youd go hurling accusations like some crazed Clinton War Room on a rampage. You want them to be allowed to attack republicans over things they do and worse. Some republican you are.
And for your information, I have long supported ousting Lott as a majority leader, but obviously you feel that you can interpret my motivations, which arent suggested in the post, as being some sort of effort to empower Lott and keep him as majority leader. You make about as much sense as the N.Y. Times editorial page. Crazed Clinton War Room on a rampage. You seem quite content on the status quo of giving the democrats a free pass to bad
20 posted on 12/13/2002 0:44 AM EST by Republican_Strategist
I hope you at least remember this one..
Trent Lott can keep his seat as Senator for all I care.
But he should step down as Majority Leader.
What is my rational?
Fact. Trent Lott said nothing offensive, yet, he and all republicans are apologizing for his lack of offense.
Even the President has chastized Sen. Lott for his lack of offensive remark.
Trent Lott simply said that Strom Thurmond as President might not have been that bad.
Who is to say old Strom wouldn't have sent troops into Little Rock?
He was ( and is ) a politician, who knows which side the bread is buttered on, and can turn his opinion on a dime and give You change.
Strom's foreign policy might have been different than Ike Eisenhower's, and likewise, he may have had a different stand on Labor relations.
Trent Lott stated Defense policy as the basis of his remark.
I don't know, and neither does anyone else.
Eisenhower won the election and became president. Strom stayed in the Senate.
Fact is, Trent Lott didn't say " we wouldn't have all those "Racist" problems, or "Integration" problems, or any other kind of problems.
But Opponents and detractors wailed and gnashed their teeth, threw on their hair shirts, and began whipping and flailing at their own backs, crying out loudly, "He IMPLIED it!"
And HERE IS THE POINT of my argument.
When Liberal Race Baiters Put Words In Your Mouth, WHY, Why, Why, I ask You, would ANYONE be STUPID enough to APOLOGIZE for something You probably didn't "imply", and sure as Hell never Said?
But that is exactly what Trent Lott did.
He apologized for what he didn't say that wasn't offensive enough.
Then his fellow Republicans began to apologize and chastize Senator Lott for what he may possibly have implied, even though it is unclear how he implied it, other than to say he thought Strom Thurmond might have made a good president.
Then Lott went national and bared his soul, to apologize for the Implied Words put into his mouth by his Liberal enemies.
Do Republicans have BRAINS attached to their spines? Do they HAVE SPINES?
WHY HAS NO ONE ATTACKED THE RACE BAITING IMPLICATIONS OF THE LIBERAL LEFT?
If the Republicans lose control of the Senate while holding a Majority position, then Libertarians will become a major party in 2004.
Because no self-respecting conservative will ever be able to hold his head up and admit to being a Republican again.
I have to agree here .. he is a failure as a leader, which is what this argument/discussion/debate/whatever is should really be about
I don't get it. If you don't want Lott as Majority Leader, then why are you condemning those who point out that he is a political liability to the entire Republican Party right now?
What is YOUR solution? Just wait until it blows over, and then boot him? It ain't gonna blow over unless Lott sells out to the dems or the Republicans force him out of his post. Which one do you prefer?
The party of Milton Friedman, opportunity and freedom for EVERYONE doesn't need historically or socially ignorant, leaders at its helm, or who are serious closet racists.
The first gaffe: his initial remarks.
His second gaffe: not promptly coming out and saying "I was wrong to say that, and I'm sorry."
His third gaffe: trotting out the standard "I was taken out of context."
His fourth gaffe: The "f*** 'em if they can't take a joke" non-apology.
His fifth gaffe: forcing GWB to spank him.
His sixth gaffe: going through two more tepid apologies before FINALLY coming out and properly apologizing--a week late.
Their editorials are here:
Two Southern Senators and Mr. Lott's Party
-------------------
Dear Sirs/Madames,
We all agree that Senator Lotts comments regarding Senator Thurman were wrong. Yet the Post editorial, Two Southern Senators has all the backbone, and nearly the same taste, as Lotts poor joke. As with Lotts vague endorsement of Thurmans racist past, the Post doesnt give us to know whether or not Lott really meant what he said and if he actually said what the Post insinuates he said. You do a mighty fine job of hinting at it, but you leave us at the edge. Did Lott mean it? Or does the Post suffer an absence of conviction?
Is he, or isnt he? Is Lott a racist or not? Is segregation his platform? Somehow, the Post ties this unanswered question to the Louisiana Senate race, hinting at Republican tricks to suppress black turnout. Well, did they, or didnt they? The interested reader demands to know.
Youd do better to speak your mind. All we get from the editorial is a suggestion ending with the wonder should the Republican Party follow Lotts lead. To what, or to where, we arent told. To bad jokes? Or to the New Segregationist Party? The Post doesnt say.
Time for a little clarification, Washington Post. Are Republicans racists? If so, dont be so shy. Say it, for if it is true, the public needs to know. If not, then say so. The public deserves honesty in your service, and Senator Lott deserves clarity in your charge. Instead we get dangling insinuation, and bait.
--------------------
To Whom It May Concern:
The Posts lead editorial today recites its Tuesday demand to know if the Republican Party shall follow Senator Trent Lott into the New Segregationist Party. As with the Tuesday piece that hinted, winked, and stuttered about dirty Republican tricks to suppress black votes, and other sly tactics to re-elect James Buchanan, today's homage to the Party of Lincoln suggests -- but does not go so far as to say -- that Republicans are racists. The Post points to "coded" language used by the Party as a siren to "white voters" who "oppose civil rights."
Once again, the interested reader demands to know. Would that the post unravel and reveal these secret codes? Is it that Republican welfare reform when unencrypted reads like a Strom Thurman platform of 1948? Is school vouchers legislation a Trojan Horse, that once past the Capitol doors will reverse the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Would that the Washington Post please explain! I voted for the Republican Ehrlich for Governor of Maryland. Will his Inter-County Connector project pave over the Bill of Rights?
Clearly, the Washington Post has decided that "States Rights" is segregation is racism is un-American. Too bad, though, that the Washington Post won't say it right out. Please try. "Trent Lott is a racist." "Republicans are racists." "States Rights is the Confederacy." Can you do it? You'll feel better, and we'll all know, finally, exactly what you've been trying -- and would seem afraid -- to plainly say.
And if you can't say it outright, then retract it. Tuesday's and today's editorials intimate that Lott and the Republican party are racists. Be honest with us, Washington Post. Are they, or arent they? All these hints and innuendo are not befitting a principal voice in American journalism. You owe the accused clarity, and the public candor.
This matter would be cleared more quickly, with less anger, and to a far greater benefit to all parties if we can understand exactly what is being said -- by everyone, including and especially the Washington Post.
--------------------
It goes in their trash can, but at least one idiot over there had to read 'em.
I don't think we should give in to blackmail either. Dumplott.com
"
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.