While the above statement is true, perhaps what is left out is perception.
Which of these will kill you?
This one"
Or this one?
Posted on 12/20/2002 5:49:37 AM PST by GoldenEagles
|
Face of the Victorious and Self Congratulating Republican Party
Many Republicans are sincerely wondering why Senator Trent Lott is getting all of this attention, especially because this isn't the first time he's stroked Senator Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential ambitions in public.
The reason the Republicans aren't seeing the answer to this, is obviously traced to a vision problem, a problem however, which I would point out, is not exclusive to Republicans. This vision problem has plagued the human race from the very beginning of time. We've heard it said, many times, and in many ways, of this person, or that person, or of this group or that group, that they "couldn't see the forest through the trees." And vanity, which is a word used to describe arrogant self-absorption, is always a significant contributing factor. And in this case, the political vanity, which is always associated within political partisanship, makes the problem much worse, putting the mind into a free fall, dropping in elevation so fast, and in such an accelerated manner, that it can be rightly said of them that, "they can't even see the trees, not the forest, but the trees through the clutter of leaves on the forest floor." I mean, that's where the bugs live. That's not where eagles soar.
Let's look at the forest. Let's look at the shape of the forest. Let's look at the breadth and the depth of the forest.
We have just passed through a national midterm election. The judgment of history says that the Democrat Party should have gained many seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and should have picked up seats in the U.S. Senate. Ok. Not only did they not gain seats, they lost seats. And more than that, because they lost seats, the Republicans gained control of both Houses of Congress. Most notably, the control that the Democrats had in the U.S. Senate, was lost. The control they had, they will now hand over to the Republicans in the next Congress. This means that when the U.S. Congress reconvenes, that the Republicans will control both the Legislative and the Executive Branches.
This was a huge historical loss for the Democrat Party. And that's the way the writers of history will see it. Not that it's obviously good or bad for the country one way or the other. A lot of time will have to go by the boards, before history can make a judgment on that. But one thing is clear. As far as political power goes, the Democrat Party was a big loser, and the Republican Party was a big winner.
Now, the whole collective political EYE of the nation was on this election result. Probably a little bit narrow range of focus, but that is reality. The whole nation, as far as its political awareness goes, is caught up in this new Republican vision of the future. The future is not Democrat, the future is Republican. Now, within this collective national EYE, we see the Republican Party as sort of this victorious greek god standing high, noble, and bright in the morning sunshine, with his heel upon the vanquished Democrat armies. This striding greek god has a huge smile on his face. And at every opportunity, he his flexing his political muscles for the adoring masses.
And all of a sudden this huge mud pie gets thrown into his face, and all of a sudden, the national story, because all of the cameras are focused on him anyway, is that this victorious greek god has had a mud pie thrown in his face. Look at all that mud, the whole nations says, and yep, there sure is a lot of that.
But this is no ordinary mud pie. It is a racist mud pie. It is the worst thing, and the most feared kind of mud pie that anyone can throw, because there is nothing you can do to wash off the mud, at least not immediately. The judgment of racism is insidiously destructive. And the only way you can instantly disprove the allegation, is to open up your heart, and expose it to the nation, and say, see, I am not a racist. But, it is impossible to open one's heart like that and expose it to the nation. Only God can see into our hearts.
So, there is no way to instantly disprove such an allegation, especially in the eyes of those who want to believe it. And this has certainly proved true. Trent Lott has made numerous sincere apologies for being insensitive to the feelings of his fellow countrymen, and explained his stand on race, and segregation, none of which exhibit a smidgen of racism, but to no avail. The mud pie has been thrown, and there are people who refuse to let go of the image of that mud splattered Senator, who has become the surrogate for the larger greek god of the victorious Republican Party. Some people truly believe that this greek god looks a whole lot better with mud splattered all over its face. Of course, Republicans do not feel this way. No Republican feels that way.
And that begs the question. Why aren't all Republicans absolutely incensed about this innocent man having his character tarred in such a manner? This is why. It is because, for some, their sense of political identity is founded not on what is right or what is truth, but on who has won the last election, and who will win the next election. They too have their eye on this victorious greek god. But they do not disdain that image, they worship it. That's their image. They are, I mean their party is, this victorious greek god, lifted up by the American people into this great victorious political champion, at least that's how they see it, and they are absolute livid that Senator Trent Lott gave their enemies an opening to throw such a mud pie at such an opportune time. I mean right at the apex of their moment of glory, here comes this mud pie! Splat! That's the beef they have against him. They aren't livid because a fellow Republican has had is character thoroughly trashed, and for no good reason. No they are livid because they have lost some of what they thought they had gained on election day. That's their beef, and that is a petty petty petty beef. In other words, when you stand that beef up against principle, that is a petty beef.
The fact of the matter is, that these livid Republicans, who are livid over the supposed dirtying of the party image by Senator Trent Lott, do not understand that this image of a victorious Republican Party exists only in the minds of partisan politicians, i.e. the activist core of each political party. In other words, partisans on the left think, by throwing this mud pie, that they have set back the Republican Party. But they are wrong. Partisans on the Right think, by getting this pie in the face, that their Party has been set back. But they too are wrong. This image of either victory or defeat is not something that exists in the minds of the majority of Americans. Moreover, in the mind of a partisan, whether on the left or right, the image of victory or defeat does not exist as a monument to any eternal reality, but rather, it is no more than a temporal mirage built on the flimsiest of coincidental circumstances. For example, if Osama Bin Laden had decided not to attack the World Trade Center, the Republican Party would have lost big in these midterm elections. There would have been no war on terror, and no massively respected Republican President. All of the swing voters would have swung away from the Republican Party, instead of to the Republican Party, based solely on the issue of the faltering economy. So the partisans on the left are attacking an image of victory that is altogether hollow in terms of moral substance, and partisans on the right are defending an image of victory that is altogether hollow in terms of moral substance.
What is important, and here is the overarching blue sky that encompasses the forest, is the fact that Senator Trent Lott has had is character trashed with a false allegation. The allegation is that he is a racist. But that is a lie. That is an absolute lie. It is no sign of honor or integrity on the part of any Republican to let someone fall as the result of a mud pie in the face, which is actually a poison arrow in the back.
There is only one issue at stake here. Was Trent Lott's statement concerning the presidential ambitions of Senator Strom Thurmond, an indicator that Trent Lott is a racist? And that reduces to the more fundamental question, is Trent Lott a racist? All evidence points to the conclusion that Trent Lott is not a racist.
A racist believes that the color of somebody's skin is an indicator of the quality of their character. A racist believes that the color of somebody's skin is an indicator of their value as a human being. If you are of the right color, then you have a good character, and you have value as a human being. If you are the wrong color, then you have a flawed character, and you have less value as a human being. How could anyone in their right mind believe such a thing about another human being? Racism is all about hatred. But not small amounts of hatred. We are talking about very large amounts of hatred. People whose identities are based on large amounts of hatred use the color of somebody's skin to justify their hatred. A little bit of hatred is not enough to cover an entire race of people. You need a lot of hatred for that. Racist ideologies provide a person with a large amount of hatred a target for that hatred, a target that gives that hatred a sufficient reason for being.
An identity based on that level of hatred is very hard to conceal. This is because the person will take pride in their hatred. They will think that this hatred is a good thing, and they will continually look around themselves for signs of support and affirmation. They will always be making little remarks that will communicate to you clearly the content of their heart. It will be an easily discernable pattern. If such a pattern was discernable in the life of Senator Lott, he would have never been elected Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate. The truth is, that this man is 61 years old, and has had a very long career in public service. And no one has come forward with evidence of Trent Lott ever communicating such sentiments. Ask the people who have spent hundreds of hours in conversation with this man over the years. All of them will tell you that he has never hinted at, or communicated such sentiments.
We have a really good example before us, that validates the basic principle elucidated here. The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, is the most visible example of a public individual that exhibits a clearly racist character streak. But I will not paste a label of "racist" onto his forehead, and assert that such a label defines the totality of his character. That's not even fair to a person who has very profound racist tendencies. People are always more than a particular character trait, however repugnant a certain character trait might be. Minister Louis Farrakhan for example has some admirable qualities. And any review of the information available on him (lots of information is available on the Internet) shows he is a very complex character indeed.
But he has a streak of racism that he cannot hide, no matter how hard he tries. He has that huge inner furnace of anger and hatred that is associated with racism. And he has the track record of saying cruel things about whole racial groups. Listen to the speeches that he gives to his followers. Sometimes you can catch them on C- Span. He starts out well. He is a smart man. An intelligent man, and intelligent enough, you would think, to keep his racist sentiments to himself. But that goes to show you, that when a person harbors hatred, the hatred has a mind of its own. Hatred is a beast that has enslaved the soul. The soul might think that it is in control, but common sense, and Louis Farrakhan proves different. The beast of hatred wants to be recognized as a valid resident in the temple, it wants to have center stage, and it will always show up somewhere in his speeches. His followers over the years have certainly told him to put a lid on it. It's not good for his image, or their image, let alone the theological consequences associated with keeping such a pet. And you can see the lid that he tries to put on it. It's a very sweet surface patina. He talks really nice, real reasonable, and he can go on like that for a long time. But the human will is never strong enough to contain the beast. After speaking for a couple of hours, he will get fatigued, and his guard will drop, and all of a sudden, when you would least expect it, he launches into this tirade on this subject or another with a great angry passion, and most of the time he will make it clear to his audience that blacks are better than whites. For example, he was quoted in the Philadelphia Inquirer, March 2000, saying, "White people are potential humans - they haven't evolved yet." That sounds a lot like what some people say about fetuses, and you know what is happening to them every day. And he has repeatedly made the most cruel statements about Jews. He has used the word "bloodsuckers" to describe them. After he makes these points, he puts the beast back into the cage, and he returns to his sweetest delivery style, which is really quite an interesting contrast, leaving the listener to wonder whether the former tirade was just a bad dream. If you have a lot of anger and hatred inside of you, so large that its takes an entire racial group to absorb it, you can't hide it. It's impossible.
It should be noted that the same partisan Democrats who are crying for the fall of Senator Trent Lott, are proud to be seen in the company of Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson for example, who would never think of calling for his resignation from the Nation of Islam leadership post.
Senator Trent Lott is not a study in the art of self-control, unlike Louis Farrakhan who is one of the best studies in (flawed) self-control that we have. When Trent Lott speaks, there is no sense that he is consciously forcing and willing his sentiments into an appropriate range of sweetness and light. When Trent Lott speaks, he speaks naturally. He is not holding anything in, or anything back, unless it has to do with information related to national security, or confidences that are associated with his leadership position. He is just being himself. He has no need to hide who he really is. He's just a good guy, someone that anyone would be honored to have as a friend.
To tar this man with the allegation of racism, is to tar him with an absolute falsehood. One of the Ten Commandments deals with this issue I believe. It goes, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." May God have mercy on the souls of those who are throwing these destructive allegations.
Therefore, if Trent Lott is not a racist, then what crime did Trent Lott commit? Trent Lott did not commit any crime. None whatsoever. He made a mistake, rooted in a condition of insensitivity, that he has apologized for.
But let's be clear. There has been a crime committed here. But that crime has been committed by those who jumped to judge his character on the basis of that statement. When you destroy a person's character with a false allegation, that's a crime. The crime in this case has been committed by those who have hurled the false allegations of racism at Trent Lott. The crime in this case has been committed by those who even now continue to hurl the false allegation of racism at Trent Lott.
Senator Trent Lott is an innocent man. There is absolutely no principled reason to require Trent Lott to step down from his position as Majority Leader. The ongoing pressure to force the resignation of Trent Lott, is the pressure of the devil himself to get people to kneel down, and bow low, before the altar of falsehood. Once you start doing that, its hard to straighten up.
Perhaps some Republicans may not be happy with Senator Trent Lott in the Majority Leader position for some other reason. But make no mistake about it. By using this situation to gain some internal political advantage over an internal political foe, this is the lowest kind of behavior imaginable. In fact, it stinks to high heaven, and if Trent Lott were to fall, that stink would be far more real and pervasive than any of this trumped up stink that has been fomented over the issue of racism.
And I suppose that there might be other Republicans who will continue to seek his resignation, simply because of their own lack of vision, concerning how this mess will get cleaned up. They look at that great greek god shining in the morning sun of victory, with mud splattered all over its face, and they say, woe is me, whatever shall we do. Let me try to reassure these Republicans, that standing up for the truth, is the only thing that will wash away a lie, and that standing up for the truth in this case, is the same thing as standing up for Trent Lott. This is an important opportunity for them to exercise some spine in this regard.
Therefore, let us all rally to the truth. Let us put up a shield of truth around this honorable man, as we would likewise expect others to raise the shield of truth around us. And let us defend the truth.
Let the total shame fall only those who would continue to hurl false allegations, and especially upon those, of either party, who would seek some political advantage over an opponent weakened, perhaps even stumbling, from the poisoned arrows of character assassination.
|
False. It is the operatives themselves who have made the big deal so they could get rid of Lott and replace him with a Dubya Yes-Man.
I despise Lott, but this trumped-up RACIST RACIST RACIST slander campaign by "conservatives" is despicable.
A Tale of Two Bubbas (Lott & Clinton) ~ John Fund Opinion Journal ~ John Fund's Political Diary ^ | December 19, 2002 | John Fund Posted on 12/19/2002 4:09 AM PST by Elle Bee JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY A Tale of Two Bubbas What do Trent Lott and Bill Clinton have in common? Not enough for Lott to survive. Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST Trent Lott and Bill Clinton were both born poor in the Deep South of the 1940s. Both crawled their way to the top of the national political heap with enormous grit and drive. Both are extremely stubborn men who instinctively refuse to bow to pressure and quit when controversy envelopes them. The difference is that Bill Clinton could be removed as president only by a two-thirds vote of the Senate--something his party's loyal support precluded. But Trent Lott's support within his party is melting away, and right now he is nowhere near the 26 votes from GOP Senate colleagues he needs to retain his job. "I am the son of a shipyard worker," Mr. Lott told ABC News this week. "I have had to fight all of my life. And I am not stopping now." But by digging in he only continues to alienate conservatives whose support he needs but has never really enjoyed. "Trent Lott isn't a conservative," says Paul Rodriguez, editor of Insight magazine. "He is seen as a slippery legislative mechanic who appeases friend and foe alike to advance the political agenda of the moment--and his own advancement." That deal-making, pork-barreling side of Trent Lott was on vivid display during apology No. 5--a Monday night interview on Black Entertainment Television. Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, watched the performance and was appalled to see Mr. Lott play to his audience and suddenly embrace "across the board" affirmative action. She wrote in the New York Times that Mr. Lott had become the new "groveler-in-chief of the Republican Party. At a time when fighting racial inequality requires a willingness to challenge the mainstream civil rights establishment, Mr. Lott's party will no longer be able to stand tall." Republicans who have stood with Mr. Lott until now are starting to peel away. Sid Pierce, a Mississippi businessman, is fed up with what he sees as Mr. Lott's "increasingly frantic efforts to make amends for his remarks." He notes that Mr. Lott is now so politically compromised that on BET the senator said he would rethink his support for Judge Charles Pickering, a lifelong family friend. Rep. J.C. Watts, the only black Republican in Congress, has defended the majority leader, but on Wednesday he said that if he were Mr. Lott he would step aside. "I would not put my family, my kids, my friends, my party through what I think the senator is going to have to go through," Mr. Watts told CNN. Bill Clinton angered many Democrats when in 1998 he was found to have lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but almost every congressional Democrat decided that having a president forced out of office would reduce the party's chances of holding on to the White House. As it turns out, the Democrats might have prevailed in 2000, if Mr. Clinton had resigned and handed the keys to the White House to Al Gore. Instead, Mr. Clinton stayed as a visible reminder of the many scandals surrounding his presidency, and left Mr. Gore with conflicted feelings about defending the Clinton record. No doubt Mr. Lott looks to Bill Clinton for inspiration in outlasting his critics. The two men have even sought advice from the same political consultant--Dick Morris. Now a commentator for the New York Post and Fox News Channel, Mr. Morris worked for both men in the 1980s and 1990s, often at the same time. He is now estranged from and a bitter critic of Mr. Clinton. But he still speaks with Mr. Lott and has become a vocal defender. "I got to know him better than any American politician other than Bill Clinton," Mr. Morris says. "I probably had 150 meetings with Trent Lott. He has said exactly as many racist things to me as Bill Clinton has, which is to say zero." This connection to Mr. Morris hasn't helped Mr. Lott shore up support with other GOP senators. "When I saw the Svengali Dick Morris tell Fox News he had had 150 meetings with Trent, I just blew a gasket," one GOP senator says. "It may help explain a lot of strange decisions that Trent has made, including why we had such a shortened and meaningless impeachment trial of Bill Clinton." In the past, Mr. Lott has acknowledged to me that he frequently consulted with Mr. Morris, but also said, "I seek advice from a variety of sources." People who have worked for Mr. Lott say it is indeed the kind of people he routinely consults that troubles them. One former aide notes that while Mr. Lott has voted for many curbs on litigation, his many connections with trial lawyers made him an unenthusiastic promoter of tort reform. Another former aide, Walter Olson, worked for Mr. Lott when he chaired the House Republican Conference in 1988. He believes that Mr. Lott's connections with the trial bar made Republican senators hesitant "to go to the mat" against outrageous legal fees granted to trial lawyers who worked in the 1998 class-action lawsuits brought by state attorneys general against the tobacco industry. Mr. Olson, now a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, notes in his new book, "The Rule of Lawyers," that trial lawyers often exploited their connections with Mr. Lott. He publishes a transcript from a 2001 Michigan arbitration hearing setting the fees that would go to trial lawyers who worked for the state in its suit against the tobacco industry. Mississippi's Attorney General Mike Moore, the driving force behind the nationwide effort against the tobacco industry, appeared before the arbitration hearing as a witness to argue for much larger than customary fees for the lawyers involved. He said the lawyers should be compensated generously because they had employed a three-prong strategy, of which only one part involved legal work. The other prongs involved political influence and public relations. When asked to assess the "impact" of the political influence wielded by the lawyers, the attorney general noted the fact that he had retained Richard Scruggs as lead lawyer in the tobacco case, and Mr. Scruggs had gold-plated political connections: "Trent Lott is Dickey Scruggs' brother-in-law. You don't think that this had anything to do with it? . . . Our team had the Senate majority leader as a brother-in-law of the lead lawyer, and it had an impact on this. And every AG and every other person recognized the power of that. Again, political one-third, PR one-third, and legal one-third." In the end, the tobacco settlement handed a select few trial lawyers $600 million a year for the next quarter century. If trial lawyers tithe only a tenth of that to political campaigns, Democrats will likely snag upward of 90% of an annual political bonanza that will amount to $120 million per two-year election cycle. Mr. Olson notes that while Mr. Lott recused himself from the Senate's debate over legal fees in the tobacco cases, he also "stood by while trial lawyers exploited their relationship with him and declined to chastise them." When I asked him about his trial lawyer connections in 1998, Mr. Lott joked that he "wasn't about to disown my brother-in-law." It is Mr. Lott's failure to be more than a deal-making legislative tactician that has ensured conservatives have few qualms about abandoning him in the wake of his racial remarks. They sense the deal-maker in Mr. Lott has now taken over completely. "His redemption [from his remarks] will be purchased through support for racialist social reforms that make a virtue of the same segregationist spirit that has now brought him low," writes conservative scholar Shelby Steele. Liberals wound up forgiving Bill Clinton for accepting Dick Morris's advice and signing welfare reform in 1996. They stuck with him through impeachment. But Trent Lott lacks that deep reservoir of support within his party. Conservatives are outraged at the damage Mr. Lott has caused to their efforts to reach out to minority communities and advocate principled race-neutral policies. Mr. Lott's outrageous pandering to his critics has only stoked the anger and disappointment. Bill Clinton survived, but Trent Lott is no Bill Clinton. . A Tale of Two Bubbas (Lott & Clinton) ~ John Fund Opinion Journal ~ John Fund's Political Diary ^ | December 19, 2002 | John Fund Posted on 12/19/2002 4:09 AM PST by Elle Bee JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY A Tale of Two Bubbas What do Trent Lott and Bill Clinton have in common? Not enough for Lott to survive. Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST Trent Lott and Bill Clinton were both born poor in the Deep South of the 1940s. Both crawled their way to the top of the national political heap with enormous grit and drive. Both are extremely stubborn men who instinctively refuse to bow to pressure and quit when controversy envelopes them. The difference is that Bill Clinton could be removed as president only by a two-thirds vote of the Senate--something his party's loyal support precluded. But Trent Lott's support within his party is melting away, and right now he is nowhere near the 26 votes from GOP Senate colleagues he needs to retain his job. "I am the son of a shipyard worker," Mr. Lott told ABC News this week. "I have had to fight all of my life. And I am not stopping now." But by digging in he only continues to alienate conservatives whose support he needs but has never really enjoyed. "Trent Lott isn't a conservative," says Paul Rodriguez, editor of Insight magazine. "He is seen as a slippery legislative mechanic who appeases friend and foe alike to advance the political agenda of the moment--and his own advancement." That deal-making, pork-barreling side of Trent Lott was on vivid display during apology No. 5--a Monday night interview on Black Entertainment Television. Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, watched the performance and was appalled to see Mr. Lott play to his audience and suddenly embrace "across the board" affirmative action. She wrote in the New York Times that Mr. Lott had become the new "groveler-in-chief of the Republican Party. At a time when fighting racial inequality requires a willingness to challenge the mainstream civil rights establishment, Mr. Lott's party will no longer be able to stand tall." Republicans who have stood with Mr. Lott until now are starting to peel away. Sid Pierce, a Mississippi businessman, is fed up with what he sees as Mr. Lott's "increasingly frantic efforts to make amends for his remarks." He notes that Mr. Lott is now so politically compromised that on BET the senator said he would rethink his support for Judge Charles Pickering, a lifelong family friend. Rep. J.C. Watts, the only black Republican in Congress, has defended the majority leader, but on Wednesday he said that if he were Mr. Lott he would step aside. "I would not put my family, my kids, my friends, my party through what I think the senator is going to have to go through," Mr. Watts told CNN. Bill Clinton angered many Democrats when in 1998 he was found to have lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but almost every congressional Democrat decided that having a president forced out of office would reduce the party's chances of holding on to the White House. As it turns out, the Democrats might have prevailed in 2000, if Mr. Clinton had resigned and handed the keys to the White House to Al Gore. Instead, Mr. Clinton stayed as a visible reminder of the many scandals surrounding his presidency, and left Mr. Gore with conflicted feelings about defending the Clinton record. No doubt Mr. Lott looks to Bill Clinton for inspiration in outlasting his critics. The two men have even sought advice from the same political consultant--Dick Morris. Now a commentator for the New York Post and Fox News Channel, Mr. Morris worked for both men in the 1980s and 1990s, often at the same time. He is now estranged from and a bitter critic of Mr. Clinton. But he still speaks with Mr. Lott and has become a vocal defender. "I got to know him better than any American politician other than Bill Clinton," Mr. Morris says. "I probably had 150 meetings with Trent Lott. He has said exactly as many racist things to me as Bill Clinton has, which is to say zero." This connection to Mr. Morris hasn't helped Mr. Lott shore up support with other GOP senators. "When I saw the Svengali Dick Morris tell Fox News he had had 150 meetings with Trent, I just blew a gasket," one GOP senator says. "It may help explain a lot of strange decisions that Trent has made, including why we had such a shortened and meaningless impeachment trial of Bill Clinton." In the past, Mr. Lott has acknowledged to me that he frequently consulted with Mr. Morris, but also said, "I seek advice from a variety of sources." People who have worked for Mr. Lott say it is indeed the kind of people he routinely consults that troubles them. One former aide notes that while Mr. Lott has voted for many curbs on litigation, his many connections with trial lawyers made him an unenthusiastic promoter of tort reform. Another former aide, Walter Olson, worked for Mr. Lott when he chaired the House Republican Conference in 1988. He believes that Mr. Lott's connections with the trial bar made Republican senators hesitant "to go to the mat" against outrageous legal fees granted to trial lawyers who worked in the 1998 class-action lawsuits brought by state attorneys general against the tobacco industry. Mr. Olson, now a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, notes in his new book, "The Rule of Lawyers," that trial lawyers often exploited their connections with Mr. Lott. He publishes a transcript from a 2001 Michigan arbitration hearing setting the fees that would go to trial lawyers who worked for the state in its suit against the tobacco industry. Mississippi's Attorney General Mike Moore, the driving force behind the nationwide effort against the tobacco industry, appeared before the arbitration hearing as a witness to argue for much larger than customary fees for the lawyers involved. He said the lawyers should be compensated generously because they had employed a three-prong strategy, of which only one part involved legal work. The other prongs involved political influence and public relations. When asked to assess the "impact" of the political influence wielded by the lawyers, the attorney general noted the fact that he had retained Richard Scruggs as lead lawyer in the tobacco case, and Mr. Scruggs had gold-plated political connections: "Trent Lott is Dickey Scruggs' brother-in-law. You don't think that this had anything to do with it? . . . Our team had the Senate majority leader as a brother-in-law of the lead lawyer, and it had an impact on this. And every AG and every other person recognized the power of that. Again, political one-third, PR one-third, and legal one-third." In the end, the tobacco settlement handed a select few trial lawyers $600 million a year for the next quarter century. If trial lawyers tithe only a tenth of that to political campaigns, Democrats will likely snag upward of 90% of an annual political bonanza that will amount to $120 million per two-year election cycle. Mr. Olson notes that while Mr. Lott recused himself from the Senate's debate over legal fees in the tobacco cases, he also "stood by while trial lawyers exploited their relationship with him and declined to chastise them." When I asked him about his trial lawyer connections in 1998, Mr. Lott joked that he "wasn't about to disown my brother-in-law." It is Mr. Lott's failure to be more than a deal-making legislative tactician that has ensured conservatives have few qualms about abandoning him in the wake of his racial remarks. They sense the deal-maker in Mr. Lott has now taken over completely. "His redemption [from his remarks] will be purchased through support for racialist social reforms that make a virtue of the same segregationist spirit that has now brought him low," writes conservative scholar Shelby Steele. Liberals wound up forgiving Bill Clinton for accepting Dick Morris's advice and signing welfare reform in 1996. They stuck with him through impeachment. But Trent Lott lacks that deep reservoir of support within his party. Conservatives are outraged at the damage Mr. Lott has caused to their efforts to reach out to minority communities and advocate principled race-neutral policies. Mr. Lott's outrageous pandering to his critics has only stoked the anger and disappointment. Bill Clinton survived, but Trent Lott is no Bill Clinton. .
An unintended consequence of their character assassination campaign will be just what Nietsche predicted: if Lott survives, he will be much stronger and a much more troublesome obstacle.
I don't find him to be honorable as claimed in the article. This would mean he showed traits of character that were worthy of special praise. Not Trent. Fund's article reveal him to be a legislator who is himself oportunistic and seems actuated by the agenda of the moment --ultimately loyal to himself and his interest. I think if he had any greater interest, say like his party, the president or the country, he would recognize that he had made himself a liability as the public face of the GOP. Frankly, he is not that smart to pull off a Clintonian ruse, but Lott seems to strive to doing just that. He is failing that as we speak, and only making himself appear ridiculous. This is not honor.
George Will recently called him "an ineffective mediocrity". I would settle on that as an apt characterization. But no, not an honorable man. I do not have to prove he is dishonorable or worse [I do not want to argue that] to object to him being called "an honorable man."
Sorry, I posted it twice, BTW. In fact I did remove what I guess now was a third copy of hte article. Oh well.
While the above statement is true, perhaps what is left out is perception.
Which of these will kill you?
This one"
Or this one?
If he had been, then the President would not have undermined Lott by letting it be known that he "would not stand in the way of having him replaced."
Bush's Homeland Penitentiary Act has nothing to do with preventing terrorism and everything to do with creating a a zero-privacy police state where everything you do and own is recorded in a nice little file at the FBI/CIA/NSA.
"Red on yellow, kill a fellow."
Right..............but you get my point?
Yes. Your point was very clear and well illustrated.
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.