Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lott's sin is giving Dems ammo--so he must go
Chicago Sun Times ^ | 12/15/02 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 12/15/2002 6:32:09 AM PST by chiller

December 15, 2002

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST Advertisement

C'mon over, baby, a whole shakin' o' Lott goin' on. On the face of it, it seems incredible that a mere month after Bush's election triumph, the Beltway should be immersed in a discussion of where the 2002 Republican Party leadership stands on segregation. For this, we have Trent Lott to thank. The incoming Senate majority leader couldn't even wait till he'd come in to start screwing up. Insofar as he has any conservative defenders, the defense is this: Hey, relax, Trent isn't racist, just stupid.

You're telling me. If he were still majority leader in 2004, the NAACP would be running ads with video of Lott's remarks--we're proud of voting for Strom, and, if everybody else had followed our lead in 1948, ''we wouldn't have had all these problems''--followed by footage of black bodies hanging from trees, gallant Southern gentlemen standing around having a whale of a time, Billie Holiday's ''Strange Fruit'' on the soundtrack, etc: ''Trent Lott says, if we'd kept segregation and lynching, we wouldn't have all the uppity Negroes we have today.''

Now maybe that's not what he meant. He was speaking, after all, at some old coot's 100th birthday party. Most 100th birthday parties take place in nursing homes and, if you drop in, you generally find a lot of people standing around the old boy with inane grins, talking very loudly and very slowly and agreeing with everything he says. Maybe that's all Lott was doing, given the unique circumstances of a guy entering his second century as a sitting senator.

But there were cameras present; there was a microphone. Successful politicians are supposed to have a built-in blocking mechanism in such circumstances: The borderline racist gag about the Filipino poolboy rises in your gullet, is within sight of your tongue, but at the last nanosecond your political radar detector spots the C-SPAN crew and sends it back down deep into your bowels. Wild'n'crazy gonzo pols--like John McCain, who regaled a Washington fund-raiser with a Chelsea Clinton/Janet Reno gag dependent for its effect on implied lesbianism and transsexuality--lack these antennae, and that's why they're not ambassador to China.

If the Republicans are going to make a 51-49 Senate work for them, they'll need discipline. When the man who's supposed to enforce that discipline is so undisciplined himself, he needs to go.

Lott made a bad situation worse in his attempt at damage control. His immediate reaction was that he regretted giving the impression that he supported the ''discarded'' policies of the past--''discarded,'' as if racial segregation is like the gold standard or the 55 mph speed limit, one of those things that comes and goes in and out of fashion. He then said he'd meant that back in 1948 ol' Strom had a lot of other good policies: ''Defense was a big issue. We were coming out of the war'' This is the Mississippi version of ''Mussolini made the trains run on time.'' Even if he did, it doesn't make up for the central defining plank of the platform. And, in any case, don't tell me the Dixiecrats bailed because Harry Truman, the nuker of Japan, wasn't tough enough on defense.

Strom led the walkout from the '48 Democratic Convention because a presidential panel had proposed a federal anti-lynching law and the abolition of poll taxes designed to keep blacks from voting. That's it.

Even if he had the best policies ever on defense or NEA funding or federally mandated bicycling helmets, they're just a little sprig of garnish on the segregationist beef. And, as it happens, in those days Strom was a fairly conventional big-government Democrat. That, after all, is what a ''Dixiecrat'' is: a Southern racist Democrat. The GOP candidate that year was Thomas Dewey, a man who lives on only as a headline. If Trent Lott was eager to refight the 1948 election, that's the fellow he should have been talking up. If small government's the issue that wowed Mississippi, those guys should have voted for Dewey, and the headline would have come true. Instead, floundering through another stage of his apology tour the other night, the senator couldn't even remember the name of the Republican.

That's his gift to the Dems. For the best part of two centuries, the Democrats have been the party of race: In the 19th century, they were for slavery; in the 20th, for segregation; in the 21st, for the neo-segregation of ''affirmative action,'' ''hate crimes'' and all the other paraphernalia of the modish trickle-down apartheid determined to make racial categorization a permanent feature of the American landscape. In fairness to the Dems, this evolution represents a significant century-on-century improvement: There's no reason to believe that one day, come the 24th or 25th century, they won't have reached the position that American citizens should be treated as freeborn individuals, rather than as chorus members of their respective identity-group kicklines. That's what the Republican Party stands for: Condi Rice is an effective, black, female National Security Adviser but she holds that position not because of her blackness or her femaleness but her effectiveness; she's better than the white males who were up for the job.

It's pathetic that Jesse (''Hymietown'') Jackson should be huffing and puffing about Lott's outrageous behavior. It's ridiculous that RNC Chairman Marc Racicot has been bullied into a meeting with Al Sharpton: If Lott is unacceptable as Senate majority leader, the race-baiting Rev should be unacceptable anywhere. But that's why principled conservatives have a right to be furious with the senator.

When the NAACP do their ugly dragging ads about Republicans opposing ''hate crimes'' legislation, they're right to this extent: Most Republicans do oppose ''hate crimes'' legislation, and for very good reasons. And when Al Gore taunts George W. Bush about ''affirmative action,'' it's legitimate to this extent: Most Republicans regard racial quotas as an obnoxious and un-American concept. But, when Democrats start bashing the GOP as the party of segregation, that baggage is theirs.

For a century and a half, race is one issue the Republicans have been right on--or, at the very minimum, less wrong. We've grown used to the Democrats' strange black-is-white world, where Al Gore apparently genuinely believes his father was a civil rights crusader rather than a civil rights obstacle. Segregation is the Democrats' history, and for Trent Lott to give them an excuse to dump it on the GOP doorstep is all the reason Republicans needed to be done with him once and for all.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: lott; marksteynlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 last
To: Political Junkie Too
PJ2:

Claude Pepper was never a Senator. Jesse Helms is retiring, just as Thurmond. That leaves Byrd and Hollings on your list.

And since they are both Democrats, they can spout all the racist venom they want and the media won't say a peep about it.

You have to understand the media's template. Democrats are never racists, even when they are. Republicans are always racist, even when they're not. Once you have this down, much of Washington politics will become clearer to you.

121 posted on 12/15/2002 9:14:05 PM PST by Tall_Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
Are you kidding Lott is going to single handed well along with the help of FReepers turn the racist card around and end this as an issue and in so doing will win the blacks to the party that voted for civil rights with truth. With the help of all FReepers of which there are black ones and white ones will tell the racist democrats that we know their lie and their game and its over.

1) The day Trent Lott plays out a successful, brilliant political strategy of that magnitude is the day Wake Forest wins the Sears Trophy for the National Championship.

2) What hallucinogens are you on?

122 posted on 12/15/2002 9:30:48 PM PST by Tall_Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
You sound like the type of person a boss could kick the crap out of, and you would still suck up and beg. You must be a real candy butt.

I'm sorry, I couldn't understand what you were saying...perhaps, Lett's butt cheeks were muffling your words.

123 posted on 12/15/2002 9:47:27 PM PST by Nephi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
You have to understand the media's template. Democrats are never racists, even when they are. Republicans are always racist, even when they're not. Once you have this down, much of Washington politics will become clearer to you.

That's because republicans are gutless. Like now.

124 posted on 12/15/2002 9:52:31 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
...perhaps, Lett's butt cheeks were muffling your words.

Or it could be where your head is. Why don't you try to act like a human being.

125 posted on 12/15/2002 9:57:24 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Mind your own business cowgirl.
126 posted on 12/15/2002 9:59:19 PM PST by Nephi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Mind your own business cowgirl.

I am minding my own business, I am outing a bunch of racists.

127 posted on 12/15/2002 10:01:52 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
I agree Nick...He's bluffing with the blackmail strategy. Besides politicians are obsessed with their "legacy". If he left the senate, his legacy is in the toilet.
128 posted on 12/15/2002 10:02:50 PM PST by lainde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance
Cowards succumb to petty bitterness

Given who you shill for that is ironic.

129 posted on 12/15/2002 10:05:11 PM PST by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: chiller
The denizens of DU aren't spending a tenth of the energy on the Lott fiasco that FReepers are. I am beginning to think there is less to this than most Freepers (and conservatives) apparently believe there is.
130 posted on 12/15/2002 10:12:17 PM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Claude Pepper was never a Senator.

Yes, he was.

-PJ

131 posted on 12/15/2002 11:20:57 PM PST by Political Junkie Too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too
Okay, I stand corrected. He was a U.S. Senator from 1936-1951. But I wasn't born until 1957 so the only thing I recall of Claude Pepper were his years in the U.S. House.

Now, getting back to your original point, what interest would the GOP have in bringing up Pepper's term in the Senate if he had not been a member for over 50 years?

If he was a segregationist then, is it in any way relevant to what he is today (which is maggot food - he's been dead since 1989)? Surely there's a more comtemporary example you could find.
132 posted on 12/15/2002 11:52:07 PM PST by Tall_Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
I was thinking of Senators who were as old as Thurmond and still in the Senate. Pepper was what came to mind.

My point wasn't about Pepper, it was about tainting the memories of all elderly Senators of that era. Lott was trying to be kind to an old man. What will happen at the Senate tribute to Robert Byrd when he retires? How does one show tribute to Byrd without getting tangled in the racial overtones?

Will the way that Lott was treated change the way that future testimonials and tributes for retiring Southern Senators happen? Or will Democrats just get a pass?

-PJ

133 posted on 12/15/2002 11:58:24 PM PST by Political Junkie Too
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Mixer
I loved what they said on FoxNews this morning about this skit......

"A man who was planning to run for President would never do this, but a man with no job would".

Amazing insight. Carnac would be proud of that newscaster !



134 posted on 12/16/2002 1:18:19 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW; EternalVigilance
Great men. So we agree Lott should stay and stand tall and help end the race issue that rats love to make of the republicans. The race and racist words from democrats means nothing

I'm sorry, but the race was already played and it worked here.

Not only did Lott say something which many people, including Republicans, find insensitive, but to the casual observer the comment looks like he has failed to throw off his own segregationalist past.

This issue has moved from the Sunday News shows to the Late Night Talk Show monologues, a clear sign he has been tarred in the public mind. It's time for him to be a man, step down as majority leader, and serve out his term as a committee chair.

135 posted on 12/16/2002 4:11:24 AM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan; Political Junkie Too
Actually, Pepper was in the Senate for a while. After he lost his Senate seat (if memory serves, George Smathers beat him in a primary around 1950,) he became a member of the House, and served there for a long time.
136 posted on 12/16/2002 4:38:43 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: chiller
for Trent Lott to give them an excuse to dump it on the GOP doorstep is all the reason Republicans needed to be done with him once and for all.

The conservative movement needs to disavow the neoconfederate ideologues who currently squat within its ranks--lewrockwell.com comes to mind. The neo-confeds, as well as the extreme libertarians, are completely at home with the vision of Jeff Davis. It isn't JUST Trent Lott.

137 posted on 12/16/2002 7:06:35 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
"The attempts by Bush and Rove to remove Lott is the single dumbest political act I have ever seen."

I would agree if I thought Bush was really gunning for Lott. Why are you so convinced that he is? So far I haven't seen any indication of this other that some unsourced comment on Drudge's headline page.

Have I missed something, or do you have inside info, or is this an educated guess?
138 posted on 12/16/2002 7:30:02 AM PST by SBprone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: scholar; Bullish
Ping
139 posted on 12/16/2002 12:37:02 PM PST by knighthawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson