Lott's sin is giving Dems ammo--so he must go

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.

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

Right. Much smarter for the GOP to support Lott's embrace of the 1948 Dixiecrats. Senator Lott, if joining the Democrats is your way out of this, then by all means go. You can't hurt us any more as a Dem than you do as a Republican. At least if you're a Democrat, it'll be the Republicans who can use the Dixiecrat footage in their 2004 campaign ads.

It's about time somebody said it, and we should all be shouting this from the rooftops NOW!

You (or is it Thomas Jackson?) are correct. But to argue to the posessed that they are posessed is a lost cause - note no responses to your post. The obsession with race and something called "racism", which is in fact ethnocentrism, present and unovoidable in all cultures, is an American disease, infecting all on both ends of the political spectrum. I've tried to argue here that "racism" is a clever invention of the Left that doesn't exist as Dr Mengele practised it, but that only provokes hateful responses from the defenders of conservative politically correct thinking. Belief in "racism" is like a belief in a religious dogma in this country!

I hate the way that Lott has managed to let the Dems dump their 20th century sins (the party of segregation and quotas on the GOP.

Lott cannot remain as Majority Leader -- not because he is a racist, but because he is a moron.

Quick -- show of hands.

1. All the Freepers that think Lott is a brilliant Majority Leader.

(Gee -- talk about an underwhelming response!)

2. All the Freepers that posted comments hoping that Lott would be replaced -- or simply hoped that someone else would be Majority Leader in the week following the November elections.

(Hmmmm. . . . quite a few. . . )

3. All the Freepers that think agree with Lott's comment (that if a segregationist big-government Democrat -- that is what the Dixicrats were) won in 1948 would have avoided the problems we had in the late 20th century).

(Don't overwhelm me folks. Do I need to wait longer to see a hand up?)

4. All the Freepers that moaned about Lott getting named ML, that think he is at best a mediocre ML, that were appalled by his comment at Thurmond's birthday party, but now feel he should continue as ML because the Dems want him out?

(Wow! And I use to wonder why they called the GOP the Stupid Party.)

Folks, the straw that breaks the camel's back ain't necessarily the heaviest one. The party that reflexively opposes a position taken by the other party -- even if that position can help their own party -- is supposed to be the Dems, not the GOP. The back bench is a fine place for Trent.

Re your # 1

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.

Couldn't disagree with you more!

The Democrats will continue to dump on the GOP with or without Senator Lot ....as they have always done!

Black people are simply puppets for the limousine liberals in support of their quest for handouts which the Demos repay for votes. Recall 93+ % of Blacks vote democratic decade after decade....no matter who is running or what issue is at stake.....and the white liberal masters love it.....Blacks and their Demo puppeteers simply need to be ignored.

"You're right. You've convinced me. Let's give leadership of the Senate back to the dem's so they won't call all of us racists anymore."

Unless Trent Lott is an unmitigated and unprincipled scoundrel, having him step down as Majority Leader does not affect the balance in the Senate. He remains a Senator.

On the other hand, if he would rather quit -- and give the seat to the Democrats -- rather than remain in the Senate (the only scenario likely to give the Dems control of the Senate) -- he has, in my opinion demonstrated that he is unfit to continue as Majority Leader. Senators are elected to represent their states. Lott can represent his state without being either Majority or Minority Leader, and the Republicans would have been better off with him in neither position. For any Senator resign his seat because he was deprived of a leadership position is to demonstrate that Senator puts his own prestige above the interests of either his party or his constituents.

Is that the type of person *you* want running the Republicans in the Senate? If so, what is the difference between you and all of those Democrats that backed Clinton, knowing what type of a weasel he was, because it was important that he remain as President.

Again, the difference between Dems and Reps is that to Democrats, the cult of personality is all. To Republicans, values matter, competence matters, and there are no irreplaceable office holders.

Thanks a whole bunch, BraveMan.

But seriously, now.
I really don't need to read what the gutless trained seals & sycophants have to say on this; &, certainly not a Limey's POV, at any rate.

Hell's bells, nearly all of 'em have been bleeting & bawling all week long 27&7 as they always do.
Just so desperate to sell their worthless rags, y'know?
Big mystery huh, BraveMan? { >doink< }

Besides all that, though?
I've got you, BraveMan!
Yea-yea.
The ol' There Before The Grace of God Go I - Voted for the Sink Emporer twice, "Kid."
It's simply a case of, "Ya wouldn't know a diamond if ya held one in your hand...the things that pass for knowledge I can't understand." ~eh? LOL!

You're a mensch, BraveMan; &, loyal too.

Now all you need to do is just make damned sure when Jessie Jackson, "Fat Al" Sharpton (~or really, any of the other racist poverty pimps) snap their fingers?
That you -- *WhiteMan* -- "Sit Pretty" now, y'hear! :o)

Sayyyy, wait a doggone minute, here!
I got a question for you, WhiteMan.
Is it, "racist" if/when two people mix it up debating race; if, the two holding the debate are both white guys?

Be real careful how you answer that, now.

...tar buckets have been heated & rails poised at the ready. LOL! ;^)

How can the Democrats take him now? They've just spent the last week demonizing him. Jesse Jackson wants his head on a plate; the Congressional Black Caucus wants him censured. Kerry called for him to step down. As Steyn points out, thanks to Lott they finally dumped the segregationist stink on the GOP. Why take it back?

If you thought he wouldn't stay in the Senate if he couldn't be Majority Leader, why do you think he would stay as a Democrat? What, is Daschle going to step aside for him? Not a chance. In fact he'd go straight to the back benches, lest they be seen coddling the "segregationist."

As others have mentioned, any back-stabbing move at this point is going to end Lott's post-Senate career as a highly-paid lobbyist before it even starts. As you say, he is at high risk of losing his seat next time around, and that is by far his most lucrative next option. He would be giving away literally millions of dollars if he louses that up. I think he's too smart -- and too self-centered -- for that.

As an aside, I don't think the public will look kindly on another palace coup in the Senate. People understand that things are the way they are because of elections; they might not agree with how it turned out, but that is how it turned out and we all have a silent agreement in this country that elections is how we settle these things.

It's probably OK if a Jeffords pulls a switcheroo like that once in a blue Moon, but if it looks like this kind of party-switching is going to become a habit, such that the public can vote one way and the politicians make it the other way after the fact, I think people will go nuts... and I think they will take it out on the Democrats in spades come 2004.

Somebody like Snowe or Chafee also has to worry about a Zell Miller. By now they've all seen what Jeffords' life is like as the Odd Man Out, and nobody wants to be him. Before jumping (with or without Lott), they have to be damned sure they won't get over to the new "majority" only to find out they're hosed, because somebody else flipped the other way. In any case, looking down the calendar, they have got to see that the math lines up against the Democrats in 2004. They'd likely be trading a career for two years as Daschle's pet.

Good News For The Day

‘To him who loves us, and has freed us from our sins by his blood’ (Revelation 1:5)

"Relief and exultation are some of the emotions signified by John's statement. His language alludes to that with which we are all familiar-the uniquely human experience which self-consciousness permits."

"The everlasting... civil war---within."

"He assumes his readers will easily make sense of the phrase 'freed us from our sins.' To quest instinctively and hopefully for levels of being which we feel belong to us, and which we are sure would better us-and yet remain frustrated in the attempt by a pernicious spoiling influence, is very much our lot. This is true not only for active religious people, but also for others who would not think of themselves as religious."

"For John, the Achilles heel is sin. He asserts triumphantly, that Christ has broken the impasse. Using the language of a slave culture, he claims that Jesus has brought liberation. It is as if John says: "I always had intuitions of a freedom from shame and disappointment that had always clouded me over. I had hoped to be somehow unleashed from my past; severed from my cargo of mistakes, and my fear of personal failure. My dream has met fulfillment in Jesus. I have been loosed from my bonds by one who loves me, and showed how much by dying for me."

Unless Trent Lott is an unmitigated and unprincipled scoundrel, having him step down as Majority Leader does not affect the balance in the Senate. He remains a Senator.

It has nothing to do with him being a scoundrel or not. If he is forced to step down he has as much as admitted guilt 'as charged'. Why would he want to continue on in the Senate as a self branded racist and bigot and put his family through that? He would be worse than a scoundrel he would be an idiot to do that.

But that is just the short of it. Why has the left made an issue of this in the first place? To have him replaced as ML by a more conservative Republican? Bwa! They only really benefit if he relinquishes his Senate seat and that is their goal.

Since Nov. 6th they have been wracking their brains and licking their lips for the opportunity to regain their senate majority. They have no reason to be appeased by his stepping down, falling short of their goal. The dem's have never been appeased about anything before, why now?

They have played the race-guilt card masterfully. They have gotten all the Republican pundits to feel so squeamish about being branded Racist Republicans that they are doing the dem's dirty work.

We seem to have short memories here. What did Torricelli say it was about? What did Lautenberg say it was all about? What did the dem's scream it was about at Wellstone's funeral?

THE PARTY!!!

If Lott steps down as leader he will hand them the lever they need to pry him out of his seat. If Lott goes that way that will be the enduring memory of his whole career which the dem's will use as a stamp to brand the Republican party with for a long time.

To Republicans, values matter, competence matters, and there are no irreplaceable office holders.

Baloney! If that were the criteria being used Lott would have been gone a long time ago. It's a little late and a lot stupid to get religion about Lott now.

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.