Trent Lott's Comeback

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not even sure how Democrats could say something similar, but if Democrats say something like "Robert Byrd should have never left the KKK and run for President -- if he had done that, we'd have proudly voted for him, and we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" at Robert Byrd's farewell party, then you may have a point. If they do that, I'll gladly condemn the Democrats with you.



[/ QUOTE ]

A few years ago Democratic Senator Chris Dodd said the following about a Robert Byrd, who, of course, was a KKK member and oppossed many civil rights bills:

"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation."

Dodd thought that a former KKK member would have been a good leader during the Civil War. You can make a good case that those comments were just as bad as anything Lott said about Strom. If not, why not?

There is a reason why Dodd's remarks did not generate much outrage: the media virtually ignored it. Compare that to the attention they gave Lott's remarks.

[andyfox]

What was to spin? Here is what he said:

"I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either."

Comebacks are only fun is the person coming back is a worthy person. Are we going to cheer for the comeback of O.J. Simpson?

Here are some other things Lott has said and done:

"Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference? They all look the same to me."

When asked to explain this comment, Lott said, "Iraqis look like Iraqis and Americans look like Americans. . . Methodist, Baptists, and Catholics live in my hometown. They all look the same to me, they all look like Americans."

"How dare Senator Daschle criticize President Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field?"

Lott on how to deal with gay people: "You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcoholism or sex addiction or kleptomania."

In 1981, when he was lending his prestige as a member of the US Congress to an effort to preserve the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University, the South Carolina college that was under fire for prohibiting interracial dating -- Lott said that, "Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy."

Despite the fact that he represents the state with the largest percentage of African-American citizens in the US, Lott has throughout his career been an active supporter of the Sons of the Confederacy, a group that celebrates the soldiers who fought to defend the "right" of Mississippians to own African-Americans as slaves. Lott appeared in recruitment videos for the group.

Lott gave the keynote address at a 1992 national executive board meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens, a successor organization to the old white Citizens Councils, segregation-era groups the Southern Poverty Law Center refers to as "the white-collar Ku Klux Klan." The C of CC may have changed its name, but it remains a passionate "white racialist" group that condemns intermarriage, integration, and immigration by non-whites. Said Boston Globe columnist Derrick Z. Jackson, who has researched the group: "There is no question of the resegregationist agenda of the Council of Conservative Citizens when four of the seven links listed on the home page for former Klan leader David Duke link back to the Council of Conservative Citizens." Other links, Jackson has noted, "deny the Holocaust and sell T-shirts with swastikas and Nazi stormtrooper symbols." When Lott appeared at that Greenwood, Mississippi meeting of C of CC leaders, he discussed his concerns about "the dark forces" that he said were overwhelming America and said, "We need more meetings like this across the nation... The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction and our children will be the beneficiaries."

A column written by Lott appeared on a regular basis in the Citizens Informer, the group's publication, alongside articles with statements like: "Western civilization, with all its might and glory, would never have achieved its greatness without the directing hand of God and the creative genius of the white race. Any effort to destroy the race by a mixture of black blood is an effort to destroy Western civilization itself."

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation."

Dodd thought that a former KKK member would have been a good leader during the Civil War. You can make a good case that those comments were just as bad as anything Lott said about Strom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It's my understanding that, in addition to being in the Klan, Byrd fervently opposed integration of the military during the very early phases of the civil rights movement and attempted to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is a disgraceful stain on Byrd's legacy, and his peers shouldn't praise him in the way Dodd did -- particularly the line about the Civil War.

I mean, I understand we want to be nice to old men or whatever, but it seems prudent to stay away from anything that looks like exhorting these particular old guys' despicable pasts. I'm not suggesting we subject either to harsh moral standards outside of the appropriate historical context, but even so, both men's pasts seem contemptible even in context.

I understand both Thurmond and Byrd had varying degrees of "changes of heart", so to speak -- which I think is commendable and praiseworthy. Politicians who feel the need to commentate on their legacies should focus their kind words on those changes. Why they choose to do otherwise is inexplicable.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand both Thurmond and Byrd had varying degrees of "changes of heart", so to speak -- which I think is commendable and praiseworthy. Politicians who feel the need to commentate on their legacies should focus their kind words on those changes. Why they choose to do otherwise is inexplicable.


[/ QUOTE ]

If nothing else, they need to acknlowedge the past mistakes of those they are praising. To not do so is editing out a significant part of the career they are respecting.

I think it also is a reflection on certain people being politically tone-deaf. I am always amazed when people say something stupid, yet have no idea. I chalk this up to being surrounded by "yes men" for much of the day.

[adios]

This is a step backward probably IMO. The Republican leadership in Congress has been horrid.

[4 High]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a step backward probably IMO. The Republican leadership in Congress has been horrid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. I am glad they put him back in the somewhat limelight. Not due to his comments, but rather because it shows they have learned nothing from this past election. They think the same old folks can get it done.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But, I've read that President Bush and Karl Rove really manipulated the situation behind the scenese

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

I'm pretty sure Inside-the-Beltway buzz was that the 2002 supplanting of Lott with Frist was a Rove-engineered coup. Having said that, Rove didn't put Lott's foot in his mouth.

And I think it's pretty darn clear what Lott meant at Strom Thurmond's birthday. Certainly, I can't be inside Lott's head, but what I do know is that the administration and other GOP leaders saw Lott as a political liability circa 2002, for the reason that his comments weren't all that veiled, nor subtle. To claim that Jesse Jackson "spun" Lott's words totally ignores the fact that even President Bush conceded the obvious:

"Any suggestion that the segregated past was acceptable or positive is offensive, and it is wrong. Recent comments by Senator Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country. He has apologized and rightly so. Every day that our nation was segregated was a day our nation was unfaithful to our founding ideals." - President Bush, December 2002

Frankly, to the GOP's credit, they've tried really hard to shed the image Lott/Tancredo/et al have projected, hence why Rove and other forward-thinkers in the party have no use for these guys.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. It was Bush/Rove that drove Lott out but it was because Lott was not on board for the Bush agenda. He wanted an agenda that was for the average American no different from classical liberals. He just had different theories on how to get it done. He is the second most libertarian member of Congress according to the RLC. Thurmond had a black girlfriend at the time those comments were made...it was hardly racist. I'm originally from Mississippi, too, and it's extremely unfair that people just wait to jump on you all the time for being racist. It's an easy sell for people to make though. I'm sick of it...I've never been a racist at all. I think Lott's comments could've been taken in a number of ways but Lott is for a smaller federal government and I don't think it's fair to say that those comments were racist.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've never gotten any impression other than Lott was trying to be nice to an old friend who was retiring after long service in the Senate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, then your impression is seemingly different than everyone else's, save a few right-wingers. Like I said, even President Bush (who you'd expect should support his partisan ally) condemned Trent Lott's comment -- probably not something he'd do if Lott's comments were all that innocuous.

[ QUOTE ]
I have no doubt Democrats will say very nice things about Robert Byrd when he retires depite his former membership in the KKK.

[/ QUOTE ]

Had Lott merely been "nice" to Thurmond, no one would have batted an eye.

It's the "when Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either" comment that is clearly quesitonable, if not a barely coded endorsement of segregation.

I'm not even sure how Democrats could say something similar, but if Democrats say something like "Robert Byrd should have never left the KKK and run for President -- if he had done that, we'd have proudly voted for him, and we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" at Robert Byrd's farewell party, then you may have a point. If they do that, I'll gladly condemn the Democrats with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read the Time magazine piece (the issue with the elephant on the front) about the Bush family omerta. Lott and Gingrich were both left to hang in the wind (and Lott was even condemned) because Lott/Gingrich tried to keep Bush I from passing the tax increases. Also, Lott and Gingrich were not in agreement with Bush on many issues at all and viewed Bush and his father as neocons long before the term was part of the popular vernacular. From two comments I heard Lott make years ago, I don't think he even voted for Bush. There is hatred there. Gingrich doesn't like Bush either, but, in front of the media, they both posture.

I was told by the son of a high Republican official (after a few drinks) about all of the hatred between Bush and the "Republican Revolution" group leaders. They couldn't exactly jump on Bush while he was popular or they risked being "out" forever. Now, look at Lott again. He voluntarily went on CNN's "Broken Government", a series he knew would paint the Republicans in a bad light. Think about why he would do such a thing when no other Republican, save Joel Hefley (conservative Ethics Committee Chairman that rebuked Delay 3x), would do it.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a step backward probably IMO. The Republican leadership in Congress has been horrid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. I am glad they put him back in the somewhat limelight. Not due to his comments, but rather because it shows they have learned nothing from this past election. They think the same old folks can get it done.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about this as a Freudian slip supporting your point, McConnell introduced him as the assistant majority leader.

OT: What did you do about your dog?

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a step backward probably IMO. The Republican leadership in Congress has been horrid.

[/ QUOTE ]

As opposed to Alexander, the neocon? You guys are looking at the spin...look at this, a libertarian appraisal of his voting record:

http://www.republicanliberty.org/lib....asp?key=lot01

Here's his overall ranking in all of Congress:

http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/li2005_over.htm

George Bush doesn't like him and that's why he was out. If he opposes George Bush (even if only by votes and in private and not publicly), then I like him.