Posted on 01/02/2003 6:12:39 AM PST by sheltonmac
Most Americans seem to believe that Trent Lott deserved to suffer for his "insensitive" comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration. Now that Lott has been forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader, neo-conservative Republicans are the ones cheering the loudest.
"We've wanted him gone for a long time," some have said. "We needed to get rid of him and move on with our agenda." The trouble is, no one in the party seems to know exactly what that agenda is.
Of course, that hasn't stopped neo-cons before. Pragmatism has always trumped principle, and as long as the polls reflect public approval for their actions, they really don't care about anything else. They must increase their majority in 2004 at any cost, and to do that they must first shake their xenophobic image.
As everyone knows, the GOP has long been branded as the party of racists. Such labels have been successfully utilized by the liberal left for years, and Republicans have tried everything to keep those labels from sticking. The end result is that in order to present the voting public with a kinder, gentler GOP, Republicans typically begin adopting Democratic positions.
It's the same three-step process every time: 1) liberals make the accusation of racism against a Republican, 2) the Republican denies the charge and 3) the Republican agrees to sign on to the liberal agenda, hoping that in doing so he might prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is not a racist. The entire fiasco surrounding Trent Lott is only the latest example of this kind of Republican cowardice.
Lott's comments sparked all the predictable reactions from all the usual suspects. Men like Al Sharpton and NAACP president Kweisi Mfume —both veteran champions of racial divisiveness —wasted no time in attacking the senator.
Sharpton, who had remained strangely silent in 2001 when Senate Democrat Robert Byrd let fly with his "white niggers" remark, said, "[Lott] should step aside. No one is saying that if the people of Mississippi want to elect him to the Senate that they don't have the right to do that. But to be the head of the party in the Senate, given the sensitivity of that position for the interest of the country and the party, Mr. Lott should step aside."
Mfume's response was a bit more harsh. He called Lott's little speech "hateful bigotry that has no place in the halls of the Congress," and dismissed Lott's subsequent apology as "too little, too late."
Reacting to the verbal barrage from the left, the neo-cons scattered. No one even bothered to mention the possibility that Lott was simply acknowledging the distinguished political career of his 100-year-old colleague. Nobody proposed that when the senator from Mississippi implied that we would be better off had Strom Thurmond been elected president in 1948, he was referring to some of the more noble causes Thurmond stood for, like states' rights and a less-intrusive federal government.
No, the neo-cons were so desperate to prove that they could be just as racially sensitive as their slightly more liberal counterparts that Lott's political fate had already been sealed. He was the perfect fall guy, and his sacrifice was worth it if it meant keeping the GOP in power.
Republicans, listen up. Whether you agree that Trent Lott should have resigned as Majority Leader or not, his ousting is yet another sign that you just don't get it. No matter what you say or do, you will always be viewed by the left as a bunch of bigots and racists. Bending to political peer pressure doesn't help —in fact, it makes you look weak. The sooner you learn that, the sooner we can begin repairing the damage your party has done to the conservative cause.
But it's probably too late. The mob has spoken, and Trent Lott has been forced out of his leadership role. Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah summed up what Republicans expect of Bill Frist, Lott's successor: "I think Bill has a kind of a more moderate record and a more moderate approach toward things, and I think that it's going to be very difficult to criticize him."
In other words, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." And that, my friends, has become the battle cry of the neo-conservatives in the GOP, Party of Cowards.
He was next in line in SENIORITY after Dole.
Be nice now. You got caught with your socialism showing and you know it.
Trent Lott was a crappy Senate leader...thats why he is gone...though I totally agree with the author on the rest of his premise...by and large...that the road paved with apeasment is stupid...
The war never ends...might as well fight "our" war...
Lott was the next in line in SENIORITY in the Republican ranks after Dole left to run his sorry campaign for President.
L. N. SMITHEE RESPONDED WITH: "Precisely. And because he didn't step down immediately, now the lefties can say lie that he was forced out of leadership only because he apologized too much and promised changes the party didn't want to make. That's what makes this a disaster for the GOP any way you slice it."
We'll have to agree to disagree. Other than on FR, Lott is ANCIENT HISTORY.
Lott is NOT the LEADER---he is "just" a Senator who was REPEATEDLY VOTED IN by HIS MISSISSIPPI CONSTITUENTS who have decided that he REPRESENTS THEM (and VOTED OUT by Republican Senators who have decided that he does NOT REPRESENT THEM!).
You're singing to the choir now. I agree with you.
I RESPONDED TO HIM WITH: "We'll have to agree to disagree. Other than on FR, Lott is ANCIENT HISTORY."
OOPS! I disagree with the idea that it is a disaster for the GOP. I agree that the RATS will try to portray it that way. I do not believe that they will get any traction because of the realization that FOX News' audience is INCREASING and CNN, MSNBC, CNBC audiences are DECREASING---for a REASON.
The VOTERS of MISSISSIPPI CHOSE HIM to REPRESENT THEM, but that DOESN'T mean that HE is FIT to REPRESENT THEM!!!
That is not correct. Lott was first elected to the Senate in 1988, and I can think of several other Senators who had seniority. Lott did have experience as Whip in both the House and Senate.
SHELTONMAC RESPONDED WITH: "The VOTERS of MISSISSIPPI CHOSE HIM to REPRESENT THEM, but that DOESN'T mean that HE is FIT to REPRESENT THEM!!!"
So WHO do YOU think should decide who is "FIT" and would BEST REPRESENT THEM???...YOU?
Sorry, Sheltonmac, but THAT is why we have ELECTIONS...so the VOTERS (preferably LIVE ones) CHOOSE who THEY want to REPRESENT THEM.
The Republicans will have a chance to prove whether or not they are really republicans in less than two years, when the so-called 'assault weapons' ban is scheduled to expire. Anyone care to predict what our Republican President and our Republican Congress will do to the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution, given that 2004 is an election year?
I suspect it won't be pretty...
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.