Posted on 12/16/2002 9:55:09 AM PST by an amused spectator
When Trent Lott stuck his foot in his mouth at a birthday party for retiring Senator Strom Thurmond, the nation's mainstream press erupted in rage.
Dozens of newspaper and magazine articles and hours of television time have already been devoted to this non-story. The angst over Trent Lott's racist soul is palpable. "Dixiecrat" is becoming a household word.
Strangely, similar outbursts by prominent Democrats over the years have been for the most part ignored by the national media "information gatekeepers", and even the the sordid record of the Democrats during the battle over the Civil Rights Act of 19641 has been glossed over quite nicely by the liberal media.
Companies and people pay millions of dollars a year to advertise their products in print and television media. They do this for a reason: consumers remember when they see a product advertised.
We are going to remember that Trent Lott "said something bad" for long years after Senator Thurmond is dead and buried and I'm sure hundreds of thousands of other average Americans will too.
We on Free Republic remember that the Democrat Party is the party of Jim Crow who only moved their plantations from the South to the big cities, but I'm sure that just a handful of other average Americans are truly aware of the sordid race dealings of the Democrat plantation overseers. Why the disparity in coverage? Both American political parties have their share of skeletons from the race wars of the late 20th century. Many of the Democrat missteps on the racial front are even more sensational than the Lott tribute to Strom Thurmond.
Strangely, the former member of the Klan whose filibuster wrapped up the resistance to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 still sits in the Senate, and continues to spew racial epithets to this day. These facts don't rate a sentence on page 34 of The New York Times
I regretfully conclude that the reason most Americans are hearing about the "racial sins" of Trent Lott is because they are being used as a free political commercial by the Left, to advertise their views about this country and their political enemies under the guise of "breaking news".
As such, we should now examine all mainstream newscasts or news stories with this question in mind:
1At 9:51 on the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert C. Byrd completed an address that he had begun fourteen hours and thirteen minutes earlier. The subject was the pending Civil Rights Act of 1964, a measure that occupied the Senate for fifty-seven working days, including six Saturdays. (June 10, 1964 - Civil Rights Filibuster Ended)
I'm going to keep beating Freepers over the head with this notion. The Left is renting free space in your head with crap like this, and they're not going to quit anytime soon.
This is the equivalent of a Pepsi commercial, except that Katie Couric is dancing around topless with an ice-cold can of Racism, and we can't wait to drink it.
Dismiss this for what it is - free advertising given to the Democrats by their political comrades-in-arms in the media.
I really, really, REALLY don't care what the left is doing or saying here. I have my own, independent opinion of the matter, and that in turn is in line with quite a few conservative commentators on the subject - whether or not Lott is a racist, and only he knows for sure, he has time and time again shown poor judgement, and this occurrence is only the most obnoxious. And since he cannot learn when to shut up and not damage his party, he should go as majority leader.
Your attempts to portray this as a liberal matter are not supported by the facts.
This is my only point - the reason we're even talking about this is because of all the free advertising running on teevee, on the Internet and in the papers. ;-)
Lott is [quote]being used as a free political commercial by the Left, to advertise their views about this country and their political enemies under the guise of "breaking news".[unquote]
It appears as though their free advertising is working, n'est-ce pas?
I believe the lib/dems have determined that this is an issue they can use to divide the country in half again - against this President. It matters not now what Lott or anyone else has to say. I believe that this president doesn't see race as a partisan issue, but is going to be forced to 'take the issue away' from the lib/dems now.
It won't be enough to hope folks are 'distracted' with the war and terrorism. The lib/dems will soon be calling R's the terrorists and saying they are 'at war' against racism.
The universe of politics seems to have spun out of control on this one. It would take quite a significant event (in our own backyard) to get the press and libs to can the harping on racism. I expect to hear about it throughout the next congressional session and well into the fall elections.
An interesting observation, and food for thought.
Bet you're right about that. He'll bend over backwards to show that he's sorry and he didn't mean any harm. He'll support legislation which can only cause mischief and discord just to show that he's not who they thought he was. And the guaranteed result of all this penance? He'll be the posterboy for democrat class warfare during the next election. This is why it's called the Stupid Party.
We must still attack the free advertising, and point out to people what is happening.
Trent will be lucky to stay in the Senate, no more.
Absolutely correct! A thousand worse things have been said somewhere by some politicians since Lott's inconsequential remarks. This called leading the public by the nose, invading our minds and creating an agenda of opinions and priorities for us. And most fall for it and would never admit that they are being manipulated! I'm glad I'm not the only one who's seen it from the beginning for what it is.
Nevertheless, it's hard telling people that they are pawns in somebody else's game.
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.