Posted on 12/13/2002 7:40:55 AM PST by ewing
That would be tame under any other circumstance. But when that campaign was based upon the continuation of forced segration, it becomes a loaded statement.
"He should stick it to the Dems on the way out by proposing a change to Senate Rules that no Klansman or Former Klansman (aka Robert Byrd) can Serve as a Committee Chair or Ranking Member. Let's see how the Hypocrite Rats try to weasel out of that vote to punish one of their racist collegues.
That reminds me... Right after Lott said this on TV, some FReeper started an actual thread to call everyone's attention to it, stating he feared it would become a big deal. Who was that? I can't find the original thread using the FR search engine. And what actual day did Lott say it?
The past was sound asleep. But Lott woke it up - HE SAID that some "problems" would have been avoided had Thurmond been elected.
I second you on that. As someone once said, one of the disadvantages of being a noble is that you're occasionally obliged to act like one.
You'll probably get some grief for saying so, though. There are a fair number of people at FR who don't think any principle is more important than getting more power for the GOP.
For me, I just don't want somebody this dumb in an important position. I believed that before this current silly controversy came up. It reminds me of the check-kiting scandal in the House years ago; the apologists for the Reps who bounced checks said that gee, no taxpayer dollars were lost, so why should we care? My reply was that we shouldn't entrust billions of taxpayer dollars to somebody too stupid to balance his own checkbook.
Once again, Lott spoke FAVORABLY of Thurmond winning the Mississippi electoral votes - and said the nation might have been better off had Thurmond won the presidency. If you have someone in your group who was pro-abort, now claims to be pro-life, but then speaks favorably of pro-abort positions, wouldn't you question their integrity towards the pro-life cause? Of course you would. This is not about the dead past, but the attitudes here and now about the problems of the past.
This Political Correctness has to be stopped or it will destroy us as a nation. For God's sake, give it a rest.
Sorry, but being strongly opposed to even the whiff of official, government segregation is hardly P.C. - this country was founded on the notion that all men are created equal, and upon the concept of equal protection under the law. Forced segregation is toxic to those hallowed notions, and resoundingly opposed by all who cherish what this country is about.
But please stop hounding him for saying a few nice words about an elderly man who hasn't been a segregationist for decades.
Once again, Lott resurrect the dead past, and now he's paying for it. Quit blaming us the way Hillary blamed the VRWC for Bill's predicament, and put the blame exactly where it belongs - on Trent Lott's shoulders.
I think Lott should continue to represent the State of Mississippi in the Senate. He may have damaged his ability to effectively serve as head of the Republican Party in the Senate as Majority Leader, however. The request for resignation by some, myself included, is to resign as Majority Leader and let someone else who is not tainted by stupid remarks take over.
In politics everything is speculation and or opinions, it is not a science. All I know is that I and many others gave time and money in the effort to regain control of the senate. I would hate to see that achievement squandered. If righteous indignation over something that transpired forty years ago, is to be more important than control of the senate, then so be it. Tom Daschle would be only to happy to maintain his position, meanwhile he tolerates Robert Byrd with no problem, a man that is third in line for the presidency.
There seems to be no indignation on anyones part about that, why, because the democrats understand that sanctimonious, self righteous indignation has no place in hardball politics. Power, you either have it or you do not, Bush and Lott through thru combined incompetence may very well be handing it back to the democrats.
We may however stand tall, in the minority again, being the moral party. So be it.
Amen. The problem with Conservatives is that we're TOO principled.
We know Lott is bad so we're willing to use this to get rid of him.
We should stand behind him against the Demonrats then when this all blows over call on him to step down as ML.
The Dems, through their blind support of Clinton, lost the House, Sentate, governorships, state houses and, eventually, the Presidency. Maintaining integrity is essential in the long run for power politics - it is what got the GOP where it is today.
We may however stand tall, in the minority again, being the moral party. So be it.
First of all, we are not saying Lott should resign as Senator, just majority leader - so that will NOT change the Senate. And even if it were to change, we still control the House, the White House and SCOTUS. So that is hardly being in the minority, and I do not wish to act more like Dems to protect someone who isn't worthy of protection.
Wasn't Slick Willie a protege of Orville Faubus?
Byrd was Senate Dem leader for 12 years back in the 70's and 80's. I didn't hear a peep out of anybody then.
He is currently chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee (a position he preferred to being party leader) and president pro tem of the Senate, fourth in the line of presidential succession. If the Dems succeed in retaining a Senate majority out of this, he'll retain both positions. Even if they don't, he'll still be ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, no weak position.
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.