Dick Armey Offers Advice to Republicans Upon his Departure.

The comment wasn't that he didn't condem Strom's actions, it was that he didn't condem a group like the Council of Conservative Citizens, who are a racist group. And it wasn't just that he didn't condem the group, it's the fact that this man has given speeches to this group on more than one occasion. Not only that, it's not guilt by association if you openly condone what they are doing.

How can he say they stand for the right principles and philosophy if their principles and philosophy are based in racism? I admit some guys went overboard in accusing the whole party of being racist, but to say that Lott isn't is more about trying not to emberass the party than defending the guy and saying he is wrongfully accused.

Wouldn't it also be reasonable to believe that if Lott wasn't a racist, the CCC wouldn't think so highly of him and support him? He's on their website's front page and basically called a hero. Also, the CEO of the CCC said this:

 

OK, maybe I went a little overboard. And I was thinking of the comments some of my Mom's friends have made rather than anyone on this board, though it was spurred by Ref's comment about Colin and Condi.

The point I was trying to make is that many people, when confronted with policies and actions endorsed by a group they like (such as the Republican party) that could legitimately lead some to charge racism respond with anecdotal comments instead of addressing the core issues or criticizing the actions.

Often this happens with Dems as well. One of the people in my life who made me seriously think about race was a boss I had after grad school. She was an ultra-liberal, pro civil rights, and racist to the hilt. When she would gather all her underlings to tell us what to do next, she would make her speech to the group and then single out the one black guy and ask him if he understood. She would sometimes go over the same material with him using more elementary language than with the group. She had no idea what she was doing and if we had pointed it out to her, she would have been crushed. Maybe we should have, but we were all young.

Fact is, I have yet to meet a white person who is not racist to some degree, including myself. I will admit that with each succeeding generation, it becomes less evident, but it is still with us. Smart politicians of both parties know this and seek to exploit it in ways both subtle and overt. I will also admit that some things I would consider a subtle appeal can appear to be legitimate to others, but I think we should all be able to say that Trent Lott was wrong to say "...if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." What he's saying is we should all still be separate but "equal." If we get so blinded by party and ideology that we can't even condemn the overt, then we truly are in decline.

Lott has not come forward with even a disingenuous apology or statement of support for civil rights. Similarly, there has not been one Republican supporter in this whole thread to come out and say flatly: "Lott was wrong and it was stupid of him to say that. It's bad for the country and for the Republican Party." To criticize a fellow Republican when they are clearly wrong is not bad and doesn't make you any less of a Republican. It's not giving comfort and aid to the enemy... it reaffirms your patriotism and shows you value country over party.

 

Here's a couple of paragraphs from the Washington Post's analysis of the Louisiana Senate race. I would consider this overt and would hope that some Republicans would join me in saying this kind of heavy-handed and cynical voter manipulation has no place in America.

In addition, workers in the Landrieu campaign cited what appeared to be unusually aggressive Republican efforts to dampen black turnout. They produced a flyer they said had been distributed in black public housing complexes in New Orleans, apparently designed to mislead black voters.

The flyer reads, in part: "Vote!!! Bad Weather? No problem!!! If the weather is uncomfortable on election day (Saturday December 7th) Remember you can wait and cast your ballot on Tuesday December 10th."

 

Just found this. I guess a lot of folks hope racism just goes away on its own and when it does appear, they try to sweep it under the carpet. It's sad when Republicans don't condemn this sort of thing, but it's tragic when Dems don't.
___________________
Joe Conason's Journal
The Senate majority leader is nostalgic for segregation and no one seems to care -- including the New York Times, NPR and the Democratic Party.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Dec. 9, 2002 | A national disgrace
It's strange and disturbing when Andrew Sullivan is angrier about Trent Lott's "unreconstructed" racism than the editors of the New York Times, the Washington Post, National Public Radio and the rest of the so-called liberal media establishment. John Kerry's haircut and Howell Raines' obsession with a golf club are topics of giggling comment in every TV studio -- but the incoming Senate majority leader's public expression of nostalgia for the era of Jim Crow and lynching passes virtually without comment. If only Drudge had given the Lott story bigger play, maybe Judy Woodruff and the Times editorial board would consider it important.

As a frequent NPR listener, I was particularly disappointed by the network's failure to cover the Lott story. Sunday's "Weekend Edition," the morning news broadcast, carried an innocuous quote from Lott on his colleague's 100th birthday: "Somebody once said, and I'm not quite sure where I got this, but I heard it, and I loved it, and it applies to Strom Thurmond: 'Youth is a gift of nature. Age is a work of art.' This, ladies and gentlemen, is a work of art." It's hard to see why such sentimental pap deserved a second of airtime when Lott had just endorsed the racism of 1948 as a solution to America's "problems" that same day. But despite the high quality of NPR's news coverage, its producers and hosts rarely stray from the Beltway consensus.

The complete silence of the New York Times is even more appalling. Howell Raines promotes himself as a progressive Southerner. He worries about discrimination against women at the Augusta golf club. So why hasn't his newspaper printed a word about Lott's remarks? The Times hasn't even reported what Lott said, let alone commented on his comments.

The attitude that ignores or downplays Lott's remarks is what used to be called "institutional racism," my fellow Americans.

Sullivan commendably demands that Lott be ousted by his fellow Republicans and scolded by the compassionate-in-chief. I hope he won't be too disappointed when that doesn't happen. It doesn't bother Bob Novak or Bill Safire, so why should this president care? Some young conservatives have been more outspoken, but they seem more embarrassed than truly outraged. (Tucker Carlson uttered the most fatuous response on "Crossfire," when he told Carville: "I must say, James, as you know, segregation was created and maintained by Democrats, by your heroes in your state." He said that Carville ought to feel "guilty" about growing up in segregated Louisiana, a stupid, sophomoric thing to say to a Southerner who has devoted his life to fighting discrimination.)

Well, they all know the truth about Trent Lott. They just wish he would keep his mouth shut. In fact, this doesn't surprise anyone familiar with Lott's views and background, except that he normally obliges us by concealing his bigotry. He prefers to be regarded as a sleazy hustler, and who can blame him? That's by far the more attractive side of his character.

On the issue of overt racism, Lott is a two-time loser. In late 1998, Salon and other publications exposed the Mississippi Republican's close political and familial ties with the Council of Conservative Citizens. Guess who is featured on the current cover of Citizens Informer, the racist group's publication? The CCC leaders have passed a resolution commending Lott for his imbecilic call to post troops around the nation's borders (uttered on the O'Reilly show, of course). The last time around, Lott's spokesman gave a desultory and probably dishonest denial of the senator's links to this unsavory group -- as if he had no idea what they stand for. Now we know that he knew, and that he agreed, and that he still holds to the Dixiecrat platform of 1948. (A convenient link to one of the "colorful" Thurmond's presidential campaign speeches is provided by NPR here.) The congressman who brought the former Ole Miss cheerleader to Washington, Dixiecrat William Colmer, was listed on the 1948 ballot with Thurmond.

No appropriate response to Lott's outrage will be coming from Republican leaders who exploit the Confederate flag, from the president and his political guru down to the lowliest local officeholders in Georgia and South Carolina. Nixon's Southern strategy lives on. But where are the Democrats, aside from Jesse Jackson? When will America hear that this is unacceptable from one of those ambitious Democrats trying to figure out who they are and what their party is? Their shameful silence is only highlighted by the fact that black voters prevented another Democratic humiliation on Saturday, when they turned out to save Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. This is a moment for aggressive action.

But Lott's conduct is a moral offense as well as a political issue. Which Democrat believes in the party's professed principles of equality? Which Democrat has an iota of the courage demonstrated by Harry Truman and Hubert Humphrey in 1948? Which Democrat will be the first to demand an apology from Trent Lott on the floor of the Senate -- and if he declines, as he will, which Democrat will dare to propose a resolution of censure?

That's the Democrat who should be running for president. The others should hide their faces because they're cowards.
[9:21 a.m. PST, Dec. 9, 2002]

 

From andrewsullivan.com:

TRENT LOTT MUST GO: After his disgusting remarks at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, it seems to me that the Republican Party has a simple choice. Either they get rid of Lott as majority leader; or they should come out formally as a party that regrets desegregation and civil rights for African-Americans. Why are the Republican commentators so silent about this? And the liberals? (Josh Marshall, to his credit, states the obvious. And Bill Kristol, to his great credit, expressed disbelief.) And where's the New York Times? Howell Raines is so intent on finding Bull Connor in a tony golf club that when Bull Connor emerges as the soul of the Republican Senate Majority Leader, he doesn't notice it. And where's the president? It seems to me an explicit repudiation of Lott's bigotry is a no-brainer for a "compassionate conservative." Or simply a decent person, for that matter. This isn't the first piece of evidence that Lott is an unreconstructed racist. He has spoken before gussied-up white supremacist groups before. So here's a simple test for Republicans and conservative pundits. Will they call Lott on this excrescence? Or are they exactly what some on the Left accuse them of?

 

Now this is gonna get fuuuuuuuuuuuun.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/lott.comment/index.html




WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Republican leader Trent Lott said Monday he meant no harm by a recent statement that the country would have avoided "all these problems" if voters had, in 1948, elected Strom Thurmond president -- who at that time favored segregation.

"This was a lighthearted celebration of the 100th birthday of legendary Sen. Strom Thurmond. My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life," Lott said in a statement.

But some Democrats were angry. Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson called for Lott to resign, and former Vice President Al Gore told CNN that the comment was "racist."

Issuing one of the harshest rebukes Lott has received to date, even from Democrats, Gore said Monday in an interview on CNN's "Inside Politics with Judy Woodruff" that Lott should apologize for his comments or face censure by the Senate.

Lott, R-Mississippi, made the comment Thursday on Capitol Hill during a 100th birthday celebration for Thurmond, who is retiring next month after nearly 48 years in the Senate. The comment was broadcast live on C-SPAN.

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."


In the 1948 presidential race, during which he ran as the nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party, Thurmond carried Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and his home state of South Carolina. During the campaign, he said, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

Thurmond's party ran under a platform that declared in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Lott, who will resume his duties as Senate majority leader when the 108th Congress convenes next month, issued a two-sentence statement Monday defending the remark. But that statement did not explain what he meant when he said "all these problems."

Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, said Monday that he believes Lott did not intend for his comments to be interpreted as racist.

"There are a lot of times when he and I go to the mike and would like to say things we meant to say differently, and I'm sure this is one of those cases for him as well," Daschle said.

Gore offered no criticism of Thurmond, saying the retiring senator has since "repudiated" those views. But he said Lott's remarks are "divisive" and fit the "definition of a racist comment."

"To say that the problems that we have in America today, some of them, stem from not electing a segregationist candidate for president ... is fundamentally racist," Gore said.

Asked if he believes Lott is a racist, Gore said, "Trent Lott made a statement that I think is a racist statement, yes. That's why I think he should withdraw those comments or I think the United States Senate should undertake a censure of those comments.

"It is not a small thing, Judy, for one of the half dozen most prominent political leaders in America to say that our problems are caused by integration and that we should have had a segregationist candidate. That is divisive and it is divisive along racial lines. That's the definition of a racist comment," Gore said.

During the CNN interview, Gore also said he will decide later this month whether to run for president in 2004 and will announce his decision early next year.

 

This topic is indeed a joke. When I replied it was meant to highlight the hipocrisy that I see many here participating in. It looks like just another blowhard liberal feeding frenzy. I didn't make the case that Lott was a racist because I didn't take the issue seriously although some considered it irrelevant because I didn't agree with their point. It is a ridiculous issue. I find it beyond comprehension that we have a man who HAS worn the KKK pajamas and he gets none of the same scorn that many here give to Trent Lott who has never worn them. This is why I consider this a non-issue. Trent Lott didn't endorse Thurmon's stance on segregation. If this were the case I would definately digress comment supporting Lott. When people like Jesse Jackson(Self appointed leader of african americans and liberal chearleader.) don't stand up to people like this it just goes to show how irrelevant the democratic party really is. While many here can jump to conclusions as it comes to racism they quickly(With little to no grounds.) digress when it comes to issues of Saddam Hussein(With much evidence proving guilt in endangering millions with WMD.) and jump quickly to play apologist. A man I think both parties could respect in John Macain on Larry King Tonight believed he was taken out of context and as a friend wouldn't believe Lott meant in terms of the segregation issue. I believe that its pointless to dignify something like this with as much emotion as it has gotten.

I was using an anology that you clearly missed. I have known gay people and I have had friends who were gay. But I meant I can hang out with gay people. Personally I have no problem with them. But because I know gay people I'm not going to practice homosexuality. This is what I meant. I don't agree with it as in I'm not going to practice it, but I will be there if they need anything just like anyone else. I'm not going to abandon anyone who might need help just because we don't agree on everything. Who said I would turn a blind eye to them if they were immoral? I don't recall saying this. Racism is one of the more ugly qualities that any person could possess and I'm not downplaying it as you seem to be portraying me as doing. I was showing you the inconsistencies of your statement.

 

When people like Jesse Jackson(Self appointed leader of african americans and liberal chearleader.) don't stand up to people like this it just goes to show how irrelevant the democratic party really is.

What about when he DOES stand up on this issue? As posted earlier:

<I>But some Democrats were angry. Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson called for Lott to resign, and former Vice President Al Gore told CNN that the comment was "racist."
</I>

I was using an anology that you clearly missed. I have known gay people and I have had friends who were gay. But I meant I can hang out with gay people. Personally I have no problem with them. But because I know gay people I'm not going to practice homosexuality. This is what I meant.

What does any of this have to do with Trent Lott stating that if we had elected a segregationist as President then we wouldn't have had any of the problems we have now? Or what does it have to do with Lott making speeches to pro-white groups?

 

More from Trent:

'Poor Choice of Words,' Lott Says
Senator Apologizes for Recent Remarks About Thurmond

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 10, 2002; Page A13


Senate Republican leader Trent Lott (Miss.) last night apologized for suggesting that the country would have been better off if segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.

"A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past," Lott said in a statement. "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

Earlier in the day, former vice president Al Gore said the Senate should censure Lott unless he withdrew the controversial statement. Gore described Lott's remarks as "fundamentally racist."

Ron Bonjean, Lott's spokesman, said the statement was not issued in response to Gore appearance on CNN's "Inside Politics."

Gore, the 2000 Democratic presidential nominee and a possible candidate in 2004, said: "Trent Lott made a statement that I think is a racist statement, yes. That's why I think he should withdraw those comments or I think the United States Senate should undertake a censure of those comments."

"It is not a small thing," Gore said, "for one of the half-dozen most prominent political leaders in America to say that our problems are caused by integration and that we should have had a segregationist candidate. That is divisive and it is divisive along racial lines. That's the definition of a racist comment."

Lott, who will become Senate majority leader when Congress convenes next month, at first sought to play down his comments. In a statement issued hours before the apology, he said: "This was a lighthearted celebration of the 100th birthday of legendary Senator Strom Thurmond. My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life."

The controversy began at a televised celebration Thursday of the retirement and 100th birthday of Thurmond (R-S.C.). Lott told the gathering, "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."

Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, ran as the nominee of the States' Rights, or Dixiecrat, Party in 1948 with an avowed goal of preserving racial segregation.

He said at the time, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negroes into our homes, our schools, our churches." The Dixiecrat Party's platform stated: "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Last week, Bonjean declined to explain what Lott meant when he said the country "wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if Thurmond had won.

Thurmond carried four states -- Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and South Carolina -- in the election, in which Democrat Harry S. Truman narrowly defeated Republican Thomas Dewey.

Lott yesterday discussed the controversial remarks in a private meeting with Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.). Daschle told reporters: "Senator Lott, in my conversation with him this morning, explained that that wasn't how he meant them to be interpreted. I accept that. There are a lot of times when he and I go to the microphone, would like to say things we meant to say differently, and I'm sure this is one of those cases for him, as well."

 

Senator Lott, in my conversation with him this morning, explained that that wasn't how he meant them to be interpreted.

No ****. I thought he wanted people to infer that he was a racist.

 

December 10, 2002
'All These Problems'
By PAUL KRUGMAN

A man from Mars — or from Europe — might expect Mississippi voters to favor progressive taxation and generous social programs. After all, the state benefits immensely from the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson: it doesn't pay a lot of federal taxes because it has the lowest per-capita income in the nation, and it does receive a lot of aid. Unlike, say, New Jersey, which pays far more into the U.S. Treasury than it gets in return, Mississippi is a major net recipient of federal funds.

But Mississippi is, in fact, the home of Trent Lott — a leader of a party determined to roll back as much as it can of the Great Society, perhaps even the New Deal. Why do Mississippi and its neighbors support politicians whose economic policies seemingly run counter to their interests?

Do I really need to answer that?

Fifty years ago the politics of race in America weren't at all disguised. Jim Crow laws both impoverished and disenfranchised Southern blacks; Southern whites voted for politicians who promised to keep things that way. The Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act ended overt discrimination. Yet race remains a major factor in our politics.

Indeed, this year efforts to suppress nonwhite votes were remarkably blatant. There were those leaflets distributed in black areas of Maryland, telling people they couldn't vote unless they paid back rent; there was the fuss over alleged ballot fraud in South Dakota, clearly aimed at suppressing Native American votes. Topping it off was last Saturday's election in Louisiana, in which the Republican Party hired black youths to hold signs urging their neighbors not to vote for Mary Landrieu.

Still, nobody now misses the days of overt racial discrimination. Or do they?

Last week, at Strom Thurmond's 100th-birthday party, Mr. Lott recalled Mr. Thurmond's 1948 race for the presidency. "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, exactly, did Mr. Lott mean by "all these problems"? Mr. Thurmond ran a one-issue campaign: "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race," declared his platform.

Is it possible that a major modern political figure has sympathy for such views? After all, the Bush administration includes figures like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice; some of Mr. Lott's best friends . . . Yet during the 1990's he was extensively involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens — a descendant of the White Citizens Council — telling them at one point that they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy." When this came to light in 1998, Mr. Lott declared himself ignorant of the group's aims. Was he also ignorant of the aims of the 1948 Thurmond campaign? Or was he just, in the excitement of the moment, blurting out his real views?

At first the "liberal media," which went into a frenzy over political statements at Paul Wellstone's funeral, largely ignored this story. To take the most spectacular demonstration of priorities, last week CNN's "Inside Politics" found time to cover Matt Drudge's unconfirmed (and untrue) allegations about the price of John Kerry's haircuts. "Just two days after moving closer to a presidential race, John Kerry already is in denial mode," intoned the host. But when the program interviewed Mr. Lott the day after the Thurmond event, his apparent nostalgia for segregation never came up.

Now Mr. Lott has apologized for a "poor choice of words." But choice of words had nothing to do with it. What he did, quite clearly, was offer a retroactive endorsement of a frankly racist campaign.

And yes, there are political implications. In the midterm elections, Democratic candidates carefully avoided doing anything to mobilize the black vote, fearing that this would just encourage turnout by rural whites. But the rural whites turned out anyway, while blacks didn't. In Louisiana, black turnout — the result of a determined get-out-the-vote operation, perhaps helped by Mr. Lott's remarks — was the key to Ms. Landrieu's unexpected victory. Might I suggest that this tells us something?

 

I guess we shouldn't have come to expect any more from Gore than to sit on the sidelines and take potshots.

Gore apparently now takes his cues on how to behave from the Republicans 1992-2000.

 

I'm sure that somebody who is trying to build momentum for the 2004 campaign is sitting on the sidelines and doesn't have to watch his words.

 

Make no mistake. Gore has taken his cues from Bill Clinton...the purveyor of the politics of personal destruction.

Seriously? The Republicans demonized Clinton from the day he took office, and HE's the master of the politics of personal destruction?

 

This is so absurd it's beneath you Ref.

 

And Daschle got his clock cleaned during the last election. I'd rather swing for the fences than hope for a walk. Go Gore. Still, I'm glad you're speaking up for civility in politics, but where were you when Rush was literally demonizing Daschle?

Also, Daschle and Lott have to work together. Gore is not so burdened.