The Lott Gaffe & A Whole Lot Liberal Media Bias

Media Research Ceneter ^ | 12-13-02 | Republican_Strategist

[Republican_Strategist]

You know, I just responded quite promptly to your nagging accusation. You need to quit running around Free Republic like a liberal with his head cut off. I made it clear to you on another thread and at the beginning of this thread that I’ve never supported Lott as majority leader yet I find my self being berated by you once again. You need to grow up and quit trying to divide us when we should be concentrated on going after the Left.

[billhilly]

You are absolutely right. My line of questions went looking for those kinds of insights.

[P-Marlowe]

I just responded quite promptly to your nagging accusation.

I musta missed it.

What nagging accusation did I make and how did you respond?

[Texasforever]

If Daschle can get Chaffee or Snow or McCain to jump ship, then by golly Daschle deserves to be Senate Majority leader.

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.

[Drammach]

I posted this reply on another thread as well but wanted to "share" it with more than one person.
Hope You don't mind if I duplicate my rant here. 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.

[Republican_Strategist]

Let me see if I can remind you. It was on this thread.

Here was your post:

To: Republican_Strategist

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 isn’t 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 you’d 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 aren’t 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..

[P-Marlowe]

I still fail to see where I made a nagging accusation. I made a statement of fact; that democrats can get away with being racists, but that republicans must avoid even the slightest hint of racism. That's a fact, it is not a nagging accusation.

Did I miss something?

[Drammach]

OOPS! Thought it was formatted. Preview looked fine.

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.

[Mo1]

Trent Lott is unfit to lead the Senate since he evidently lacks the qualities of a great leader.

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

[Republican_Strategist]

Yes you did. You TWICE accused me of trying to keep Lott as majority leader just because I’ve highlighted the fact that Democrats are hypocrites, they have extremely selective moral outrage, and they are playing the race card. I just love how you continue call on us to do nothing and just sit back and give the Democrats a free ride on all of this.

[patj]

How can you guys say he shouldn't be the leader? How did he get to be the leader? The senators voted for him. Why? Unless you assume that all Republican senators are stupid, (which I am not inclined to do) then they must have voted for him for a good reason. They must think he is a leader.

[Mo1]

You are right they did vote for him and no I don't think they are all stupid ..

How did Lott get to where he is .. I have no idea

But I do know one thing .. Lott is a Complete Idiot who IMO has shown not an once of leadership .. he has no spine and one to many times has bend over to the democrats ..

I may not have a say in the matter .. but I don't have to agree with it

[FreedomPoster]

>>CBS’s Dan Rather imputed great respectability to the NAACP by describing it as “the oldest civil rights group in the United States.”

That's funny, I'm pretty sure the NRA has been around a lot longer than the NAACP. More reportorial inaccuracy from "Dan the Man". What's the frequency?

[P-Marlowe]

You TWICE accused me of trying to keep Lott as majority leader

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?

[motife]

Lott is an idiot. Only a moron would have said what he said. He's a disgrace to the party now. At best a laughingstock to the nation and at worst, a symbol of bigotry. From Lott's past, the benefit of the doubt is towards Lott's judging people by their skin color.

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.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Instead of focusing on something important like the recent release of information regarding al Qaeda having gotten VX gas from Iraq, we see the media talking about a NON subject. Though I'm not a huge fan of Trent Lott as Senate leader.. this thing is being taken totally out of context. Give me a break!!

What about this article!!!

Al Qaeda leadership reported disrupted
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


U.S. military and intelligence forces have killed or captured a major portion of the al Qaeda leadership and several key successes were won in the past few months, according to CIA Director George J. Tenet. Top Stories
• Bush rolls back 'secular' rules
• Bush scolds Lott for remarks
• Faith-based funding a top Ehrlich goal
• N. Korea to restart nuke reactor
• Smallpox vaccinations pit safety against risks
• Cameras mulled for neighborhood watch
• PBS show to 'counter' perceptions of Islam


"More than one-third of the top leadership identified before the war has been killed or captured," Mr. Tenet said in a speech Wednesday. "Almost half our successes against senior al Qaeda members has come in recent months."

A transcript of his remarks at the Nixon Center was made public yesterday.

"We are still in the 'hunt phase' of this war — the painstaking pursuit of individual al Qaeda members and their cells," Mr. Tenet said. "This phase is paying off, but is manpower intensive and will take a long time. There are no set battles against units of any size. We are tracking our enemies down, one by one."

The comments were the first substantive remarks by the CIA director in months. They followed the release Wednesday of a congressional report that criticized U.S. intelligence failures related to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Among the CIA's recent successes, Mr. Tenet said the CIA has "netted":
•Al Qaeda's operations chief in the Persian Gulf, who helped plan the 1998 bombings in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.
•A key al Qaeda planner who was a conspirator in the September 11 attacks.
•Numerous operations officers and facilitators.
•A large amount of information now being used to hunt for additional terrorists.

Mr. Tenet did not mention the names of two key al Qaeda terrorists who were killed and captured. They include Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, who was among six terrorists killed last month in a daring CIA-directed missile attack from a drone aircraft in Yemen.

The key al Qaeda planner is Ramzi Binalshibh, an al Qaeda paymaster arrested in Karachi, Pakistan, in September.

Several top al Qaeda leaders, however, remain at large, including Osama bin Laden, Ayman al Zawahiri and Khalid Sheik Mohammad.

Overall, some 3,000 al Qaeda members have been detained in over 100 nations, he said, noting that the arrests have disrupted but not stopped al Qaeda operations.

Additionally, efforts against al Qaeda have led to the seizure of some $121 million in terrorist-related financial assets around the world, Mr. Tenet said.

The CIA director said the war against terrorism is not a war with the Muslim world. "But we are at war with extremists," he said. "We are at war with terrorists. We are at war with fanatics. But we are not at war with Islam — even though the terrorists want to portray it that way."

The terrorists are among the "fringe of the fringe" of radical Muslims who are violent and murderous, he said.

Mr. Tenet said al Qaeda and bin Laden are "formidable" enemies and before September 11 the CIA had a "stable of assets and a body of information that pinpointed al Qaeda's Afghanistan infrastructure."

The data helped in the "rapid destruction" of that infrastructure when the war began Oct. 7, 2001.

Mr. Tenet said the al Qaeda leadership has been "rattled" by recent losses and is more cautious. "But let's be very clear: There is no letup in the threat at the moment."

Al Qaeda is preparing more terrorist attacks and every captured al Qaeda member has indicated more strikes are planned, he said. "Recent tapes by al Qaeda leaders threatening the U.S. economy and our coalition allies, were unprecedented in their bluntness and urgency," Mr. Tenet said.

[Poohbah]

Which gaffe are you talking about?

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.

[nicollo]

FYI, I wrote the Washington (com)Post the following letters this week in reply to their two lead editorials of this week. Won't make print

Their editorials are here:

Two Southern Senators and Mr. Lott's Party

-------------------

Dear Sirs/Madames,

We all agree that Senator Lott’s comments regarding Senator Thurman were wrong. Yet the Post editorial, “Two Southern Senators” has all the backbone, and nearly the same taste, as Lott’s poor joke. As with Lott’s vague endorsement of Thurman’s racist past, the Post doesn’t 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 isn’t 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 didn’t they? The interested reader demands to know.

You’d do better to speak your mind. All we get from the editorial is a suggestion ending with the wonder should the Republican Party follow Lott’s “lead.” To what, or to where, we aren’t told. To bad jokes? Or to the New Segregationist Party? The Post doesn’t say.

Time for a little clarification, Washington Post. Are Republicans racists? If so, don’t 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 Post’s 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 aren’t 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.

[StopThePress]

"Yes and when they fire Lott he will retire.

I don't think we should give in to blackmail either. Dumplott.com

"