Okay, if you don't like racist, how about bigot? ;-)

Post #68,704 by mmoffitt 12/13/02 3:31:16 PM Reply	Okay, if you don't like racist, how about bigot? ;-)
Post #68,723 by Simon_Jester 12/13/02 3:56:17 PM Reply	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 by mmoffitt 12/13/02 4:22:54 PM Reply	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 by Simon_Jester 12/13/02 4:36:26 PM Reply	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.)

Welcome to IWETHEY!