Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by rsr, Dec 11, 2002.
One accepts the Nobel Prize for peace.
The other endorses segregation.
First one is Jimmy Carter.
Trent Lott, majority leader of the Senate of the United States.
And this link is from the Family Research Council, hardly a left-wing organization.
Do you seriously think he was referring to segregation or endorsing it?
I heard about Lott's remark, so I watched the speech he made at Thurmond's BD party on C-SPAN over the weekend. It's impossible to say what he meant by what he said. Was he endorsing Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, etc? I hardly think so. While I wish Lott had not made the statement, I detest the political correctness that takes the most innocuous comment and magnifies it into a scandal. I also think there is a double standard in these matters. Recently the black mayor of Philadelphia (John Street) spoke at a rally (I think an NAACP rally) and said (and I quote) "...the brothers are running the city, the brothers are in charge of the city!" While the mayor was criticized for the comments and apoligized later "if they offended anyone", even conservative commentators in the city laughed it off and no one tried to force the mayor from office. I suspect that liberals will not be so forgiving of Lott and that they will see if they can escalate this incident to the point that they force him from his position as majority leader if not from the Senate altogether.
It's not just liberals, as evidenced by the Family Research Foundation's outrage.
"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."
What was he thinking? What else could he have been talking about? Ole Miss football?
"A poor choice of words [that] conveyed to some the impression that I embrace the discarded policies of the past."
That's an apology? "Poor choice of words" doesn't even begin to cover it.
[ December 11, 2002, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]
He could be talking about the extreme social conservativism (of which segregation was a manifestation) that Thurmond supported. Lots of people wistfully look back at the 1950s as some sort of golden age while conveniently forgetting the racism/segregation and the terrors of the Cold War. This comment may be a similar kind of foolishness. Moreover, the address by Lott was described as full of quips, so this statement was probably not intended to be taken seriously.
I find it interesting that Tom Daschle doesn't think that Lott intended any affirmation of segregation and has only issued a stronger statement against Lott within the last day or so.
It is political correctness run amok.
Yes,Trent Lott put his foot in his mouth but have you ever wondered why the media has never made an issue of the fact that a well known Democrat was a member of the KKK? I'm sure all of you are aware that Sen.Robert Byrd was in fact a full fledged member of the KKK.
Oh, how right you are, Brutus. Here's more:
How convenient for Democrats to forget their own past (making a mountain out of a mole hill) for their own possible political gain. I hope it backfires on them. Liberals have many people deceived into thinking that Democrats have always been the "party" for equal rights and for the underdog. A scrutiny of past events reflects the real truth of the current lie / propaganda.
Its funny how we let a liberal run amuk in the Oval Office--God help us as to what exactly went on there---and we let him get away with it--but somebody goes to a dad-blame birthday party and pops off--personally--thinking about it--not only did Mississippi vote for Thurman--but lets go back and count the rest of the vote in the other 47 states--I betcha he got votes in all 48--so would it be safe to say that Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, etc., etc. also casted votes in Thurman's favor?? I ain't a racist and if I were alive then and knew then what I know now--I would not have voted for Thurman--but some folks did---and about the Honorable Trent Lott--whatever happened to free speech?? Louis Farrakan can get up and say he hates "Whitey!!"--and death to the Jew--and we just laugh and laugh--Freedom!! Mohammed Ali burns his draft card and refuses to tour Vietnam the nasty way--freedom!! Trent Lott gets up and says that Mississippi voted for Thurman--well, lets get a rope!! Make him applogize until he's blue in the face. I'm sorry it happened but lets go on--there ain't a doubt in my mind that Senator Lott has a mind that can run congress--fair enough for every white, black, red, and yellow---he knows how to ring the Liberty Bell for US citizens--I still trust him for Majority Leader---
I'm your friend,
I listened to the entire speech of apology. It was for real and did not gloss over a thing. It was honest, and that is rare in politicians. Even the liberal news media seemed to accept it. Why is it being re-hashed here?
I am with Aaron on this one, why not?
Helen;if as you say that the liberal news media has accepted Lott's apology then why is it still the #1 topic on all news programs? Brutus
I am from a liberal/moderate state in the north, raised to be socially. ethnically conscious. BUT we were also rasied to be polite to our elders. Trent Lott seemed like he was being nice to an old man. Everyone seems to wish he'd said, "You know Strom someone should have stomped your sorry self years ago." BTW anyone remember when Sen Byrd of WVa used the N word a year or wo ago? He said, "Oops, I wish I'd not said that, sorry." End of story, end of coverage, but then he was a right-thinking Democrat. There is good news though, Al Gore will not be running for President in 2004.
One receives an award that was given to send a political message to a sitting President.
The other is castigated by a group with fading political power in an attempt to send a message to their own constituents.
Here's the problem that I see:
1) First, I don't think Lott's comment was racist, it appears to me to just be a general compliment to Thurmond.
2) But, Lott has apologized about 87 times, asked forgiveness, promised to change etc. etc.
Those two things don't go together. So, it has to be either:
he DID intend racism in his comments
his apology in insincere and a cheap attempt at saving his political job.
Can't be both, and has to be one or the other.
There's another issue there that I've not heard discussed concerning the racism of Lott (or, by implication) the GOP.
The day after Lott appeared in BET, one "big three" morning news programs interviewed some black men who were watching the BET/Lott interview. Two questions caught my attention: 1) Given his apology, are you prepared to forgive Lott? Answer: No. 2) What would Lott need to do to be forgiven? Answer: Resign from the Senate.
The GOP, in a good year, gets less than 10% (the numbers that I see range from 2% to 8%) of the black vote...despite no clear evidence that voting for Democrats is helping blacks...and despite the fact that some core Republican programs (tax cuts, welfare reform, etc...) do more to assist the progress of African-Americans than any of the "nanny-state" concepts that seem to be the core of the national Democratic party.
Also, it appears that African-Americans will soon be only the 2nd or 3rd largest U.S. racial/ethnic group. As such, from a pragmatic perspective, the type of clout that this community (or more accurately, the race baiters and civil rights careerist types within this community) will become less and less powerful.
The folks in the GOP know this. So why should Lott even apologize twice? Because he generally wants to avoid the impression of racism. Not for political reasons but because he is authentically not a racist.
It might also be that Lott's Christian views override any residual segregationist views from his Mississippi childhood and, as such, it was important for him to consistently declare himself.
It's being re-hashed here because at times Christians are slow to forgive. IMO a mountain has been made out of a mole hill. What does the Bible say about someone failing to forgive men their trespasses and consequently not being forgiven?