It seems Trent Lott will be a committee chair afterall. So much for the Republican furor. Apparently conviction in Washington lasts as long as the public's ADHD permits or requires. Soooo be it.
I was hoping it was a thread on the economy. Answer 'What is the price of a Senate Majority?' (regardless of what Lott says).
Achebe, give it a rest- the hypocritical stand against Lott is getting tiresome. Democrats have already driven Lott out of office and disgraced him for all eternity. Even though a majority of Lott's black constituants in Mississippi accept his apology and resignation, you GRACELESS folks need to stomp him into the ground. Max, you should know all about grace. What is more important, being politically correct or following the instructions of your Good Book?
bbs.setRandomBolding( true ); I find your asinine stand disconcerting t*. You get the prize when you properly label me a hypocrite on this subject. Quotes, links, etc. go to the winner. ps, way to think outside of the box. Call a spade a spade. The guy praised segregation for 40 some odd years. The fact that you can't accept that makes me think that you are covering up for something. Maybe, you're sensitive to the racism in the south... because... hmmm... j/k. But honestly, quit being a partisan dumbass. Label them all, and burn it all down I say. ps2, why are you alone in protecting Lott (aside from his Senate colleagues, lol). MadMax, etc. seem much more anxious to clean the slate and start anew.
you GRACELESS folks need to stomp him into the ground. Actually, Trent Lott is doing that to himself: A FEW WEEKS AGO: <I>After giving up the majority leader's job, Lott had indicated that he would not seek a committee chairmanship, saying he was "not looking for any kind of soft landing." </I> ... NOW: <I>Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, the incoming chairman of the Rules and Administration Committee, offered to step aside and Lott accepted</I> He sure does change his mind a lot. First, it was a sudden reversal on segregation. Then he suddenly became a supporter of affirmative action. Now this. Perhaps if he'd be consistent, he wouldn't get criticized for constantly changing his mind. What a novel concept.
The hypocrisy of the Republican Party, it's Senate leadership and the White House apparently knows no bounds. They have all shown what they're made of with their treatment of Lott. Where's the indignation of the administration of the gifting of Lott with a Senate Chairmanship? One that Lott "didn't want"? This has Rove written all over it. Play up to Lott's constituency right after he's "slapped down". Show their "displeasure" to the general public with Lott's actions and then tell the minority Lott tries to please that they're not THAT mad at him. I wonder what Santorum will get for his "gesture" after the dust settles?
PUT DOWN THE CRACK PIPE! Who are the hypcrites here? Let's compare Trent Lott vs. Bill Clinton. Lott- I don't need to repeat his sins, the national media has beaten this self destructive fool to death. Clinton- Call Senator Fulbright, who was EVERY BIT as much of a segregationist as Thurmond, his MENTOR. In fact, when Clinton was an intern for Fulbright, the Arkansas Senator WAS STILL A SEGREGATIONIST! Clinton called his Uncle Ray, who as a KKK member, his most important role model as a child. (source- biographer Roger Morris.) In April 1985, Governor Bill Clinton signed Act 985 into law, making the birthdates of Martin Luther King Jr. (the preeminent leader of the civil-rights movement) and Robert E. Lee (the general who led the Confederate army) state holidays on the same day. Of course, the word "segregation" never passed Clinton's considerable lips, but the (uncoded) message he was sending to certain of his white constituents could not have be clearer. His support for the Lee day seems as bad — if not worse — than a gaffe at an old man's birthday party and Lott's opposition to an MLK day. (Mark Levin- National Review) During Clinton's entire service as Arkansas governer, the state had an official Confederate Flag Day. Too, it was illegal to display the Confederate Flag in any manner except "to honor the Confederate States of America." Clinton never did anything to change this law.(Arkansas Code Annotated, Section 1-5-107) Conclusion- Clinton's record in the 60s and 70s is every bit as bad as Lott's record. Clinton's comments about Fulbright are even more damning than Lott's comments about Thurmond, because Fulbright was designated as a "mentor" and given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Democrats have demonstrated historical ignorance, selective outrage, moral relativism, and HYPOCRISY once again. PAR FOR THE FREAKIN' COURSE!! TJ, enter this fray and close this case. Thanks in advance.
Clinton's record in the 60s and 70s is every bit as bad as Lott's record. Of course, Lott's record in the 60s and 70s wasn't a concern until he duplicated those attitudes in 2002.
Democrats have demonstrated historical ignorance, selective outrage, moral relativism, and HYPOCRISY once again. I guess since Republicans actually came out and criticized Lott before Democrats even joined in, Republicans are even more hypocritical, since they never attacked Clinton for that either? Before talking about historical ignorance, you should correct your December ignorance.
That is BS and you know it. If he were truly "duplicating those attitudes" then he would not have felt the need to apologize. Instead, Lott got on his metaphorical hands and knees, kissing every metaphorical ass he could find, begging for forgiveness. Carl Levin, a Democrat, said this of Thurmond right before Lott spoke- I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Strom Thurmond and honoring him for his unparalleled record of public service to this Nation. In 1948, while he was still Governor, [Thurmond] ran for President as a State's Right Democrat and received 39 electoral votes, the third best showing by an independent candidate in U.S. history. Where is the moral outrage over Levin's comments about Thurmond's "unparalleled record"? Oh, I forgot- Democrats can say whatever suits them, and the press leaves them alone. Senator "Grand Kleagle" Byrd proved that. (you sanctamonious lefties are so full of **** on this issue. I sometimes wonder how your brains come up with these hypocritical stances, but then I remind myself that your emotions rule you in these instances, not your intellect.)
Great post as usual, t4651965. My new strategy in dealing with the liberal yellow journalists is to not feed their propaganda campaign by prolonging their threads. Rimrocker, No Worries, and recently Achebe would love to highlight their half-truths and slander with a 100 reply thread. I found nothing wrong with Lott's comments. Had the liberal media not jumped all over it, while simultaneously suppressing similar incidents by Democrats, Lott would still be the majority leader. His comments were a complete non-event, but the media circus, coupled with white guilt, forced the issue on all of us. At the end of the day, I think we're better off with Frist in the leadership position, as he can address some of the prescription drug issues that concern a large portion of our voting base, as well as the centrists. We made out pretty good in that trade. My new strategy is to provide one post, close the case, and move on. t4651965, you have done this in this thread. CASE CLOSED
What outrages me most about thx1138's post are words 4-10 in the next-to-last paragraph! Attitudes like this are not what won Abraham Lincoln five terms for your party, sir! Though I must fully accept and sanctify your every belief and judgment, as all belief systems are equal, I have to tell you your beliefs and utterances anger me! I, as a poster who has NEVER, EVER, offended another poster, am very offended!
That is BS and you know it. If he were truly "duplicating those attitudes" then he would not have felt the need to apologize. If we cared about Lott's attitude in the 60s and 70s, then he would have been criticized well before Decembe 2002. Since he wasn't, that probably indicates no one gave a ****. As far as the "need" to apologize. He didn't, in case you didn't notice. He apologized only after all the crap he took, and he progressively tried to apologize "more" simply to save his career. His apologies (especially the first ones) were not sincere by any stretch of the imagination. Keep believing that it's all the media's fault. Keeps you from actually having to accept reality, I guess. Just blame everyone else.
Wrong. The news drove this story, and the Republicans went into damage control mode immediately. If you are saying that the Democrats would have ignored this, you are being disingenuous.
Wrong. The news drove this story, and the Republicans went into damage control mode immediately. The first articles written about the incident included quotes from Republican individuals and groups saying how embarrassed they were. Republicans at the Thurmond party are the ones that went strangely silent after his comments. None of the initial sources included anything from Democrats. If the search function were working, I could point out the article on this very BBs.
Major, who do you think reporters will run to first to get responses? Their job is to create scandal. Also, why didn't anybody question Carl Levin about his assertions about Thurmond. Levin praised Thurmond's segregationist record too. Finally, Clinton awarded Fulbright the Medal of Freedom in 1993, and no Democrat or the media said a damn thing. PURE HYPOCRISY.
