Selective Moral Outrage - Looking beyond Trent Lott’s gaffe.

National Review Online ^ | 12/10/02 | Mark R. Levin

[TakeitBack]

Good Point, Brother. All the reigning Libs have the same mentality - its all about them. There is no "us". Being in power (Control, more accurately) is what's important to them - and has NOTHING to do with what is good for our Nation. The Libs work to compartmentalize everyone, to label every group and segregate them. They hurt, not help. "Party of the People" my eyeball! We gotta Take it Back!

[Brian Allen]

Mark Levin!

One of a rare breed: An American Lawyer of the pre-sixties variety, whose Character and Moral Integrity were formed in the days when the pursuit of a career at Law led to Nobility.

[goldstategop]

The point is we can't be perceived as the lily white party of Southern Purity.

[RWCon]

As far as I'm concerned, Lott was RIGHT! Anyone who thinks
the country if better of for integration has his head up
his ass. Crap like this is why I no longer take NR.

[MissAmericanPie]

Lott should be replaced, the sooner the better.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"When one of ours misbehaves, we usually take him to task, eg Richard Nixon and now Trent Lott."

You have chosen a strange analogy, Mr ModelBreaker - the actions of Nixon that led to his resignation and the comments made by Lott relative to Strom Thurmond's presidential run in 1948 are not analogous. Senator Lott apologized for his inappropriate remarks. We should let it drop there.

If you want to draw an analogy to Nixon, you need go no further than Ex-42 - but then listing all of Bill Clinton's illegalities, lies, traitorous acts and inappropriate behaviour so as to compare with Richard Nixon's one lie/coverup, in balance makes Richard Nixon's "offense" look like a rather mild misdemeanor. Bill Clinton is still reverenced by those on the Left.

[jwalsh07]

Don't waste your time, the unholy marriage of the race-baiters and anti-Lott conservatives has already been consumated. They both smell blood and won't be satisfied until they they turn Trent Lott's stupid comments into cause for hangin' him high.

[aristeides]

I wonder when it's going to sink into the heads of the anti-Lott conservatives that they're putting at risk the Republican majority in the Senate. I wonder if they really want Tom Daschle to run the Senate for two more years.

[LibWhacker]

I dislike Lott as much as the next RINO-hater. He should resign. But not over this.

[jwalsh07]

Not any time soon. I'm starting to think they may get their wish and Ronnie Musgrove can appoint a nice southern democrat so that Lincoln Chafee won't feel lonely when they arrive at the DNC for training.

[Ohioan]

It is very difficult to find anything conservative in this posting. I have been busy with my practice, and have not seen what Senator Lott said at the party for Strom Thurmond. But from the comments on this thread, it appears that he lamented the fact that Thurmond only carried four States in his 1948 run for President. From a Conservative standpoint, that is in fact lamentable. Thurmond was the only Conservative running in 1948. Both Truman and Dewey were basically Liberals.

While Harry Truman had many admirable traits, his pushing of Federal intervention in Southern affairs, which triggered the split in his party, that brought about the Thurmond candidacy in 1948, was simply wrong--simply contrary to the whole spirit of the Founding Fathers, who respected the very considerable cultural differences in the different States. That respect is what Federalism was all about. Thurmond understood the point, and rallied Southern Conservatives against something that was wrong--demonstrably wrong--interference with local society. Those who happen to agree with the social values that Truman was promoting, seem to be missing the whole point.

As for Fulbright? He was rather a "Liberal." That he did seek to defend Arkansas' racial traditions, however, is not to his discredit. Rather, it is to Clinton's discredit, that he did not.

Having said all of that, however, I do not think that you will find that either Senator and former Governor Thurmond, or his close associates, ever said anything mean spirited about any member of any race. His stands were based upon principle, never the sort of racial antagonism, that Bill Clinton tried to foment, while pretending to be doing just the opposite.

While on the subject, one can only wonder at what is happening to National Review. Buckley was not particularly close to the former Southern leadership. But he was very closely associated with Barry Goldwater, who most certainly was closely associated with that leadership. The present Republican base is because of Thurmond's joining the Republican party, and bringing with him a lot of former Democratic Conservatives, when Goldwater won the nomination in 1964. This article makes one wonder if Buckley has turned his back on Buckley! (His former publisher, Bill Rusher, even wrote a very lucid book on the subject of the realignment that would thereafter make the Reagan election possible, in the 1970s.)

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Brian Allen]

<< The point is we can't be perceived as the lily white party of Southern Purity. >>

No.

The point is that we cannot allow ourselves to be represented by a man who opens us to such perceptions.

The point is that whether the man who let the criminal KKKli'toons walk free and who, more recently, tried to slide the President's Homeland Security Legislation into next year is just a bloody idiot -- or is a traitor to our cause and to our party -- or both of these -- Lott has to go!

[LiteKeeper]

bump

[Sweet Hour of Prayer]

Ya know, this just supports my theory... if in doubt ALWAYS vote Republican because we can count on the media to do their job... when it's a Republican. It seems the liberal media goes to republican events looking for something to be offended and outraged about. Unfortunately, they construed Lott's comment to be an endorsement of racism. I'm more ashamed of the "Black Leaders" who are blowing this way out of porportion. Clinton's endorsement of Fulbright was not seen as an endorsement of his earlier segragationist policies, because the media was not LOOKING for a reason to be offended by Clinton or portray him as a racist. Vote Republican. Keep Lott where he is and note the media bias.

[GOPcapitalist]

The problem is that he wished for a revised history that would have strengthened segregation.

Nonsense. The context of the speech indicates indisputably that Lott was making light-hearted praise of Thurmond's long career of fighting big government. Thurmond was a segregationist in 1948, but Thurmond has also been a staunch conservative opponent of big government for entire gubernatorial and senate career. It would have been wrong for Lott to say that Thurmond was good for supporting segregation in 1948. But Lott did not do that. When considered in its context, Lott praised Thurmond for fighting big government, and no true conservative should have any problem with that.

[roses of sharon]

The irony is that the Anti-Lott conservatives' DRAMATICS, have made them into Libs! (on this subject)

Just think, now they can show they have "feelings", and they are "morally superior", and don't forget their claim of being ashamed to be in a "lily white" party.

If the party is "lily white", it is because most Black Americans don't want to be Republicans, right now in their history they still want big government, affirmative action, and are caught up in group think, not individualism.

They will become more conservative when they mature as a people, and feel comfortable without government protection.
And when the old racists and old civil rights leaders die.

Also when city leaders decide to give their populations a decent education, and let them out of the inner city schools.

Common sense should tell all Anti-Lott conservatives that Lott did not SUDDENLY DECIDE TO TELL THE WORLD THAT HE WANTS TO GO BACK TO SEGREGATION.

The GOP was called racist before Lott's gaffe, and it will continue to be called racist whether he steps aside or not.

If he does not get elected to the leadership again. Fine. It is the Senate's decision.