Post #68,625
12/13/02 10:42:04 AM
|
Nice background piece - from the Washington Times no less
(Goldberg's piece)
The problem is that Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrat" 1948 presidential candidacy was based pretty much entirely on opposing any push for civil rights for black Americans. We're not even talking about opposing, say, the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which would be hard enough to defend. We're talking 1948. Strom Thurmond didn't just oppose voting rights for blacks -- he opposed anti-lynching laws.
Here's what the 1948 sample ballot put out by the Mississippi Democratic Party had to say about the race between Thurmond and Truman: "A vote for Truman electors is a direct order to our Congressmen and Senators from Mississippi to vote for passage of Truman's so-called civil rights program in the next Congress. This means the vicious, anti-poll tax, anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever."
Trent Lott boasted about his state supporting this junk. After all, it's not like Thurmond's platform was full of planks about tax cuts or environmental protection.
[link|http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/commentary-20021211125238.htm| A whole Lott of Nothing ]
|
Post #68,651
12/13/02 12:02:48 PM
|
He says it right in the piece....
Now, people too young to remember or too uninterested to know might think this is just a nice thing to say to a guy who ran for president over 50 years ago, when Lott was 7 years old by the way. And, to be fair to Lott, that is almost certainly what he intended -- to be nice to an old warhorse of the Senate. When >this< should be the reason he's not even there as leader in the first place... Regardless, Trent Lott only does two things well, freeze-dry his hair and say stupid things. He mishandled impeachment, mishandled the 1998 elections, mishandled power-sharing with the Democrats after the 2000 election and mishandled Jim Jeffords straight into the Democratic Party. So...if you want him out of the leadership...great...there are plenty of reasons without "inventing" his racism out of a friendly statement made at a birthday party for a 100 year old man. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! Laurie Anderson
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #68,690
12/13/02 2:00:11 PM
|
I don't believe I said he was a racist.
in fact, most people aren't saying he's racist.
They're claiming that "saying America would be better off now had Thurmond won back then (under a racist platform)" is STUPID.
It's EVEN worse that he didn't backpedal hard enough when (he should have) realized what he had said.
Now, they're looking at his past deeds and actions (because he didn't backpedal). Now, they're looking at his involvement with the CCC (which some consider racist) and briefs to the court.
But even granted this stuff, I still don't think he's a racist.
I do think he's stupid though.
Sidenote: note that the left IGNORED this issue until hardliners on the right (Sullivan, et al.) brought it up. (Exception - Marshall nailed it from early on, but he's the only one.) Furthermore, the left has mentioned, more than once, that they DON'T want Lott out.
(Hell, why would they? He's a great source of amusement.)
|
Post #68,704
12/13/02 3:31:16 PM
|
Okay, if you don't like racist, how about bigot? ;-)
|
Post #68,723
12/13/02 3:56:17 PM
|
Chuckle.
Again, I think he's more stupid than anything else.
The "left-wing" papers picked up on the John Kerry haircut and ignored Lott's statement. And if Lott had stopped at mere praise for Thurmond, there wouldn't be anything to this at all. But, I suspect (still) that Lott went off the cuff and made the statement.
But even then he was given a pass. No one wanted to be accused of playing the race card. The left (with the exception of Marshall) ignored the event. The right, on the other hand (Sullivan et al.) began calling for the apology. (I suspect they knew what was in the cards.)
Go Lott apologizes with a wimpish, "I'm sorry if you took offense" comment. (Stupid II).
Now the issue is getting attention. (Hell, look at how BP when someone accused him of ol' "Separate but equal" .. immediate and total denial. - Why couldn't Lott decry segregation?) So people start reviewing his past. Some of the people he's hung out with aren't totally convinced that segregation was a bad idea (CCC and others).
Now the talking begins in earnest.
Frankly, I still don't think he's a racist - even given his court brief or talks in front of the CCC. I think he has associates that are racist and that he's made some dumb political moves so far.
But then again, I could be wrong by giving him the benefit of the doubt.
|
Post #68,748
12/13/02 4:22:54 PM
|
He couldn't decry segregation.
Because he believes "we'd be better of if we'd continued it." That's what he said. More than once.
If you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, go ahead. But understand that at his best, he was at least appealing to racists in his own constituency.
|
Post #68,758
12/13/02 4:36:26 PM
|
Actually, I haven't seen that.
Don't get me wrong, he's praising some people who DO (and DID) say that, but I haven't seen him anywhere say that we'd be better off with segregation. (Which is why I was surprised by his wimpish apology.)
He's written briefs to the Courts supporting school discriminatory policies. (While I disagree with his conclusion, he had valid arguments.)
He's also written one (iirc) on the burning of crosses. (Which, strickly speaking, I also agree with him, it should be covered as a free speech - provided it's done on my own property and it's my own cross. :-)
There is even an argument that he's a member of the cofcc...but that he didn't pay the dues (and may not have known about the membership) - as it was done through an uncle of his.
Frankly, I have no ax to grind with Lott. I think he's statement of Thurmond were over the top and I think he should've apologized better. (Bush's statement should've been the one he made).
But I do have doubts that he's really a racist. (But I could be wrong.)
|
