True colors? _____________ Lott Decried For Part Of Salute to Thurmond GOP Senate Leader Hails Colleague's Run As Segregationist By Thomas B. Edsall Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, December 7, 2002; Page A06 Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked criticism by saying the United States would have been better off if then-segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948. Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration for Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott 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." Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was the presidential nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948. He carried Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and his home state. He declared during his campaign against Democrat Harry S. Truman, who supported civil rights legislation, and Republican Thomas Dewey: "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." On July 17, 1948, delegates from 13 southern states gathered in Birmingham to nominate Thurmond and adopt a platform that said in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race." Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, said yesterday he was stunned by Lott's comments, which were broadcast live by C-SPAN. "I could not believe he was saying what he said," Lewis said. In 1948, he said, Thurmond "was one of the best-known segregationists. Is Lott saying the country should have voted to continue segregation, for segregated schools, 'white' and 'colored' restrooms? . . . That is what Strom Thurmond stood for in 1948." William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said "Oh, God," when he learned of Lott's comments. "It's ludicrous. He should remember it's the party of Lincoln," referring to Lott's role as Republican leader of the Senate, which the GOP will control when the new Congress convenes next month. Lott's office played down the significance of the senator's remarks. Spokesman Ron Bonjean issued a two-sentence statement: "Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong." Bonjean declined to explain what Lott meant when he said the country would not have had "all these problems" if the rest of the nation had followed Mississippi's lead and elected Thurmond in 1948. Lott's comments came in the middle of Thursday's celebration for Thurmond, Congress's oldest and longest-serving member. Lott followed at the lectern former Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan). Initially Lott made jokes about Dole and then became serious when discussing how Mississippi voted in 1948. The gathering, which included many Thurmond family members and past and present staffers, applauded Lott when he said "we're proud" of the 1948 vote. But when he said "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if Thurmond had won, there was an audible gasp and general silence. In 1998 and 1999, Lott was criticized after disclosures that he had been a speaker at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization formed to succeed the segregationist white Citizens' Councils of the 1960s. In a 1992 speech in Greenwood, Miss., Lott told CCC members: "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." Asked to comment on Lott's remarks at the Thurmond celebration, Gordon Baum, CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens, said "God bless Trent Lott."
Apparently, he said it 22 years ago too. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/11/lott.comment/index.html
Trent Lott apologized, and admitted he made a mistake, but the hypocritical left needs an issue to latch onto in desperation. Robert Byrd used the term "white ni##er" while on Fox News two years ago. Considering that Byrd once wore a white hood, I was sure that an incredible backlash would ensue. I was wrong, because Byrd apologized, and all was forgiven. Senator Carnahan of Missouri, before his death, enjoyed dressing up in "black face". The press gave the Democratic Senator a free ride. Jesse Jackson referred to New York as "hymie town", but his stature as a leader was never questioned. Al Sharpton has also used anti-Semitic language. Look, Malcolm X was a miserable punk as a youth, an incredible bigot as a young adult, but transformed himself before his death. It was Malcolm's transformation that earned him so much respect. Trent Lott claims to have changed too, and I believe him.
"A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement." - Trent Lott Remember when Democrats were preaching about the power of forgiveness during the last few years of Clinton's presidency?
Turns out it wasn't a one-time thing. 1980: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37288-2002Dec10.html Snippet: <I>Twenty-two years ago, Trent Lott, then a House member from Mississippi, told a home state political gathering that if the country had elected segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond to the presidency "30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." The phrasing is very similar to incoming Senate Majority Leader Lott's controversial remarks at a 100th birthday party for Thurmond last week. </I>
Just forget it. I don't want to get into a debate about whether Lott is a racist or or just someone who uses nearly the same exact poor choice of words 22 years apart. FWIW, I find what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton (and they're just loved by everyone, right? ), Robert Byrd, and any other liberal who may have used racist or bigoted language to be extremely deplorable.
Fine, since neither of us know Lott, or his state of mind, I agree this is kind of a silly thing to debate. btw, I know that nobody who frequents this board would defend Byrd or Jesse Jackson when they use this kind of language. I only used those examples as an illustration of the Democrat's selective outrage when politicians make mistakes.
More from www.andrewsullivan.com : as a conservative I for one am extremely glad there are others on the right of the political spectrum who refuse to gloss this over: THOSE DISCARDED POLICIES: So now we have Gore, Sharpton and Jesse Jackson piling on. For once, I think they're right. Meanwhile, Lott gives a weird non-apology apology: "A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embrace the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement." Let's unpack this. Everyone deserves a break for a "poor choice of words" but it wasn't the words that really offended. It was the plain meaning of the words. What other words would have sufficed? Notice also the adjective Lott now uses to refer to segregation: "discarded policies." Not immoral. Not wrong. Not abhorrent. Merely "discarded." And notice too the weasel politician way of not apologizing: only "some" were offended; and it's only those to whom Lott feels obliged to apologize. And of course, his position as the Republican spokesman in the Senate remains unchallenged by his fellow partisans. It's at times like this that I realize why I'm not a Republican. I could never be in a party that included someone like Trent Lott. 12/10/02 TRENT LOTT MUST GO: Sorry to those who think I'm making too much of this. But it seems to me that the G.O.P. has zero credibility on racial matters until they get rid of this man as Senate Majority Leader. When I'm in agreement with the Family Research Council, a virulently anti-gay group, you know something's got to give. Last night's revelation - that Lott had said almost identical things over twenty years ago - clinches in my mind that this was not a poor choice of words. It was a classic political gaffe - where the politician in question accidentally says what he truly believes. And no, I don't think bringing up Robert Byrd, another old bigot, is a satisfactory response. It's a sign that you cannot defend someone when you respond by attacking someone else. Lott had a chance to repudiate his words and he chose to side-step the issue. He's flirted with racists before. He's said the same things before. It seems to me that president Bush now has his Sister Souljah opportunity. Just as Clinton secured centrist backing when he repudiated the anti-white racism of Sister Souljah, so Bush needs to repudiate the anti-black racism of Lott publicly, clearly and irrevocably. If he doesn't, then I'm afraid he will lose any black support indefinitely and the respect of many decent voters who aren't black as well. Lott's remarks are, in fact, a direct insult to black members of the administration and the Republican Party. Mr. President, we're waiting for you to say something. 12/11/02
The consensus seems to be that at worst his statements were blatantly racist and at best they were highly inappropriate. Either way, if he's sincere about an apology he needs to act like a man and call a press conference to read his statement instead of releasing it to the press like a coward. I personally feel he needs to step down as Senate Majority Leader. You can't have a man in that position of power from the state of Mississippi saying things like that. It's not acceptable behavior.
