People aren’t allowed to grow? I had some views as a younger man that I’m not proud of. Should I be condemned to suffer for them although I no longer hold these views? He apologized. He works to help minorities. That’s enough.
So I take we will not here about Bush’s coke and alcohol past either, then.
And that might have been it, if he hadn’t had some other skeletons falling out of his closet. It didn’t get bruited about, certainly not on Free Republic or American Spectator, but Lott’s close connection with the “Council of Conservative Citizens” (basically the Klan without the robes) was an open secret already.
But, the tame mass media that hadn’t probed into that before didn’t dare embarrass themselves by bringing it up later - news isn’t news unless it’s new, ya know? - so another incident that was new gave them “permission” to go after him. If what Lott was “gotten” for wasn’t the thing he really should have been gotten for much earlier, well, ISTM justice can be rough and still be justice.
Sorry, don’t quite get it. Is this about Byrd, or Mrs. Clinton? Are we suppose to infer that Mrs. Clinton secretly hates black folks, or simply doesn’t care about them?
Maybe someone who actually has a dog in this hunt could tell me whether this is really the unforgiveable outrage that Ms. Pirro and the OP seem to think it is.
If he makes a speech to the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, then the OP would have to condemn him for it to be consistent.
What does Kanye West say on the matter?
Another data point for you all: Byrd apparently steered $10 million in Federal funds to build a Martin Luther King Memorial. No, not in West Virginia, on the National Mall.
Clinton was co-chair for the party.
Did Lott ever acknowledge and apologize for his racist comments?
Daniel
stpauler and a few other revenge-obsessed dopes are apparently hoping they’ve found a counterpart to the Trent Lott thing. If it didn’t fail so miserably, it’d be great.
If this wasn’t so crass on Pirro’s part, I’d feel bad for her. I have rarely seen such an obvious statement of “I can’t win.” The election is a year away, and she’s already resorting to this? WOW. Perhaps she’s just hoping to trash Hillary with 2008 in mind.
That’s not racist. It’s dumb, but there’s nothing overtly racist about it. I wish people would keep in mind that “nigger” is a word, not necessarily a declaration of principles.
Now, as to the issue of Douglass’s house: I don’t know why they did that. With Byrd’s background - far in the past as it is - they were asking for trouble.
Hmm. I’ve sen that before, but that seems to me like a non-apology. I don’t see another plausible interpretation of his remarks, so his apology, inasmuch as it’s implausible, is meaningless.
A real apology would have looked like Byrd’s: it would have said something like, “I am aware that my previous racist tendencies reflect some of the worst aspects of our history, and I repudiate them and am ashamed that I held them.” Not, “Y’all are idiots if you think I’m a racist.”
Daniel
They have.
Lott also explictly renounced and disavowed any racist intent. I think criticism of him on that score is misplaced.
O RLY? Is that what I’m doing? Nice strawman Marley23. Unfortunately, it’s bullshit when it comes to me (I won’t speak for others here.)
Welcome to the point of the thread.
No. Lott said, I never said anything racist! Byrd said, I was a racist, and that was wrong!
" didn’t do it, and I’m sorry if you thought I did" is a shitty apology.
Daniel
But then again, Lott was found to have some more recent involvement with an organization calling itself the Council of Conservative Citizens (a racist organization). I think the two cases can be distinguished.
It’s not a strawman. It’s a statement of my opinion about why this bothered you so much, and of what Pirro and her people had in mind when they grasped at this particular straw. So I suppose it does involve straw…
Unfortunately for you, nobody else seems to agree that it’s the point. Perhaps if you hadn’t called Byrd an “asshole” for views he renounced around the time you were born, people would have focused on “the point.” Instead, everyone is left with the impression that the real point is “ooh, an excuse to bash Hillary and Byrd at the same time!” And you know what? It’s asking for trouble politically, but maybe it’s not terribly inappropriate to use Douglass’s house as the spot to honor a former Klansman who now enjoys a 100% rating from the NAACP. Douglass fought bigotry, and Byrd overcame his own.
I think Lott’s apology was fundamentally sincere in that I really don’t believe he meant to endorse segregation. I think part of his problem was that once he was stuck on the record as having said Strom Thurmond would have made a great president, he felt he had to find some way to qualify it and bullshit his way out of it (“I supported OTHER stuff, not the racist stuff”), rather than doing what he should have done which was to just cop to the fact that he was engaging in a bit of empty flattery and backslapping. I think that, in the moment, he just pretty much forgot what Thurmond’s platform was because he didn’t really care because he didn’t really mean what he was saying anyway. He was just blowing smoke up the old fart’s ass and didn’t expect to be taken literally. He should have just admitted that. Anyone who’s ever given an insincere toast at a party would have totally understood.
What, precisely, was Lott’s “involvement?” Was he a member? A contributer? Or did he merely speak at an event?
A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.
Parse it yourself. Does he embrace the discarded policies of the past? What are the “discarded policies of the past?” In this context, clearly, they are racist policies and views. Does he embrace them? No - “Nothing could be further from the truth.”
He’s clearly saying he does not support racism. He acknowledges that his poor choice of words sounded racist, but then clarifies that this is not, in fact, the position he holds.
Why should we not take him at face value?