Lott to Resign

wait a second...weren't you the one talking about how republicans wouldn't be outraged over this...and i said i would be, and you asked me to what extent..i ultimately said the guy should lose his position as senate majority leader...now the republicans have forced that, and it's nothing by cynicism from you??? even in the face of losing the alleged "racist" vote you claim the republicans get?? didn't they do the right thing here?? aren't you big enough to stand up and say when someone on the other side of the political aisle does the right thing??

 

I'm big enough to do that, Max. They did the right thing.

I wish they'd done it the first twenty times Lott proved himself a racist, but better late than never. I also wish the White House had been more plain about their wishes for him to resign. They were wishy washy on it, to the chagrin of Republicans in the Senate, but better that than supporting Lott.

Bottom line is it's not okay to be openly racist anymore, even in the Republican party. That's a good thing. And again, better late than never.

 

Then why did the Republican party run on the Confederate flag in Georgia this past election? What got Lott kicked out was Karl Rove and the next election, not some notion of accountability. Hell, this is the party of Willie Horton, intimidating blacks to keep them from voting in Florida and Nixon's Southern Strategy. When Ronald Regan had a campaign stop in Phildadelphia, Mississippi in 1980 and said "I believe in States Rights" what message do you think he was really saying? This was the place were three civil rights workers were murdered...it's not like the place is significant *for any other reason.* Trent Lott got bounced because he was inconvenient, not because Republicans give a rat's ass about civil rights.

 

"There's nothing worse than a politically correct racist." -- Some dude last night on Tough Crowd w/ Colin Quinn

 

Useless, but not inaccurate.

 

The Republican Party ran on the issue of the Confederate flag in two states during this last election. That's a fact and it is relevant to how the Republican Party chooses to inflame racial division *right now* when it is convenient. Trent Lott needs to go, but it's not like the Republicans are taking the high road in regards to race otherwise. Trent Lott sealed his fate with the Republicans when he came out in favor of affirmative action in the last week. They knew he was a barely repentant (if at all) segregationist from the start.

While Robert Byrd, Fulbright and Gore, Sr. were just as bad in their day, we are talking about attitudes they had nearly 50 years ago. Where is your outrage when Republicans race-baited with the Willie Horton ad in 1988? Where you personally offended when Republican officials and party groups tried to intimidate black citizens from voting in Florida in 2000? A lot of key conservatives pundits like Andrew Sullivan and the editorial staff of the Wall Street Journal came out against Lott and they should be comended, but they can't have it both ways. If one week it is wrong to play the race-card, then why wasn't it wrong for the Republican party to use that same strategy for the last 30 years?

 

Willie Horton was introduced to the general public by Al Gore, during the Democrat Presidential Primary debate against Michael Dukakis.

Republicans did not indimidate blacks to keep them from voting in Florida- that is a flat out lie.

I believe in State's Rights deeply, yet I am not a racist. For you to equate the two philosophies is intellectually weak and illogical.

Person X believes in State's Rights.
Most racists believe in State's Rights.
Is person X automatically a racist?

Person X is an Athiest.
All Communists are athiests.
Is person X automatically a communist?

Think man!

 

Person X is not automatically a racist, but it is very likely. State rights is the code words politicians use to let everybody know with a wink that they are racists.

It is you who needs to think.

 

Dude, you are being deliberately obtuse. Bringing up Willie Horton's warly release from prison leading to a murder in a campaign and how Lee Atwatter used him in that general election are two different things. It's the difference between being against affirmative action and being a segregationsit, if you need me to spell it out for you.
As far as the question of the intimidation of black voters in 2000 in Florida, how can you say so unequivacably that this is "a flat out lie?" Here's a report from ABCNews.com
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/ELECTION_WatchdogPart5001108.html.html

<<Poe, the chairman of the Florida Democratic Party, told ABCNEWS.com Democrats had received reports of intimidation of voters in the largely African-American precincts of Wakulla County on the Florida panhandle.
Reports suggest “highway patrol troopers were stationed outside of those precincts with lights flashing and ticketing people,” he said. “It was bizarre, it was like going back into the early 1900s,” he said.
“Even in a tiny town like Wakulla and those African-American precincts, that could account for the 2,000 [Gore votes] right there,” he said>>

Are these the states rights you are talking about (and I suppose you weren't so keen on states' rights in the Supreme Court decision to supercede Florida's Supreme Court ruling to have a full recount, but I digress)? (If you like I can find a thousand more links about some shady dealings going on down there...do you really want to get into this?) How is inflaming not-so-dormant passions about the Confederate Flag an expression of States Rights? Didn't people *within* those very same states want to have it removed?

The point I am making, and have yet to be refuted, is that why is it ok for the Republicans to race-bait on issues like the Confederate Flag (again, what segment of the population are they appealing to?) in this last election, but they are *just outraged* about Trent Lott's views all of a sudden? Republican candidates have kowtowed to Bob Jones University, a school that banned interracial dating, to this day, but where was the principled conservative opposition to that? There was none. Is Trent Lott's ouster a principle of States Rights, too? Care to put everything under that banner? I say it's under a more basic one: Political Convenience.

And by the way, save your simplisitic syllogisms. Physician, heal thyself.

 

Unfortunately he wasn't bounced hard enough. He's still in a position to impose his ignorance on us.

 

Dude, Al Gore was the first to attack Michael Dukasis about the Willie Horton fiasco. Lee Atwater saw how Gore's attack worked with focus groups, and recycled it for the Presidential election.

I guess when a Democrat mentions Willie Horton, that is just tough politics. When Republicans use Willie Horton, that is racist?

Your logic deserves three confused smilie guys, but I will save the bandwidth.

Yes, I am saying that Poe is a liar. I can't believe that you have a quote from the chairman of the Florida Democratic Party to back up your claim. LMAO.

In your mind, "state rights" and the Historical flags of States automatically equate to racism, but that just isn't so. These issues are far more complex, and our culture can evolve to include people of all races, while maintaining some accessories from the past.

Your problem is that my "simplistic syllogism" perfectly describes your simplistic thinking. You are perfectly comfortable insulting large groups of people with your generalizations if they don't agree with your ideology.

Your claim that "state's rights" is some kind of code for racism is just plain silly.

 

You guys need to start a thread codemning that horrible racist Malcolm X.

We don't care that he changed his outlook on life, and grew to love all men before his untimely death. Guys like me, JohnnyBlaze, and Elvis Costello are only concerned what kind of man Malcolm Little was in his youth.

Apologies and personal growth mean NOTHING to us.

 

Ok, you win..the "historical" meaning of the Confederate Flag has *nothing* to do racism.

Swastikas are really just an ancient Indian symbol, too, right?

Glad you brought up Malcom X, though. Great, uh, point.

 

the guy fought integration of his frat. Not of lil ole' Mississippi, but nation wide integration of his frat.

the guy worked for a segregationist (democrat) in Washington.

the guy voted against MLK day (hell even Strom supported MLK day) and voted against expansion of the voting rights act.

the guy praised 1984's budget as capable of making Jefferson Davis proud.

the guy was such a weirdo that he got Jefferson Davis' citizenship of the US reinstated.

the guy routinely met with the CCC (weird we have a ccc moniker here, ), which some conservatives label as a bunch of klansmen in suits. he is on record as supporting their ideology.

the guy praised, this month, a campaign in 1948 that was based solely on segregation.

"personal growth"? I'm dubious. When you're on record as being a segregationist/racist for over 30 years, and you suddenly seek contrition when you're about to lose your job (a pretty powerful job one might note), then I must apologize in advance for my cynicism that you have undergone"personal growth".

as an aside, you must be of the ilk that is suspicious of deed-based salvation. Hell, live a life of sins and apologize when it's convenient (death bed or about to lose your job). Why not? Those Catholics and Mormons are buffoons. Don't they see the easy path?

"personal growth". indeed.

 

Nah. They had 300+ applications. They narrowed it down to eleven interviewees. Then they narrowed it to a short shortlist of four. Then they appointed two positions instead of four, as they had originally planned. Guess who was number three?

Sigh. Although it was probably the nicest rejection phone call I've ever had. 'Please apply for the two new positions next financial year! Your writing was excellent!' So yay. I suppose.

Note: even *I* know what the Confederate flag is code for. Get your heads out of your asses, boys.