Trent Lott says it was “political enemies” who have it in for “conservative(s)” and “Christian(s)” who did him in:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/845511.asp?vts=122220021620
Who exactly “trapp(ed)” Senator Lott? President Bush? Don Nickles? Condoleezza Rice?
Does the conspiracy know any bounds?!
Speaking on behalf of the Conservative Wing of the Extreme Left, I would love to take credit. Ain’t so.
Trent was done in by Karl Rove and Co. It was time to abandon the “Southern strategy”. Buzzflash the favorite new site of us loonies outlined the pattern and the result (Mr. Frist, or Dr. FeelBad) more than a week ago, and hit the nail right on the head. They predicted that the White House would kill Trent with lukewarm support, so as not to piss off the extreme right, and yet retain the right to dress up in full sanctimonious regalia. And so it was.
If the WH wanted to save Trent, they could have ridden to the rescue with a full court press/cavalry charge. They didn’t. No way they spend Gee Dubya’s political capital on Trent. They gave him just enough air to keep him from resigning altogether, but not enough to keep his gig. They gave him a jolly good rogering, no two ways about it.
I would love to think this represents a moral awakening in the Pubbies. I don’t. They had someone they liked better, so AMF Trent Lott. Truth be known, couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
Wonder if Tom DeLay is nervous.
Interesting…blaming anyone and everyone except himself.
Check my first cite – he blamed himself.
Sort of like your mother really meant ‘I beg your pardon’ when somebody’d done something rude.
Don Rickles?
Sister Mary Christmas! Next you’ll be blaming Shecky Green. Oy.
That’s not really true. Let’s keep it real, folks. In the piece I read, he blamed himself repeatedly, and simply made a passing reference to the fact that he’s a persecuted Christian that was hounded out of his leadership position by unnamed mississippi-conservative-Christian haters. (Does that mean Lieberman did him in?)
That would be december?
He was done in by his political friends, not his enemies. And while he does blame himself, he still doesn’t seem to understand that being Christian, from Mississippi, or Republican has nothing to do with it, he was being racist, and repeating a remark he frequently made, topping off a long career of hidden racism. Racism is not okay as long as you don’t say anything out loud. Its the voting record that counts. There are Republicans who are not racist. Don Nickles is not one of them, and neither is Orrin Hatch. Both have long racist records.
Let’s also be clear that it wasn’t just the White House. In fact, the conservative press went after Lott long before the mainstream press realized it had a story. The National Review called for Lott’s resignation before the public were really even aware of what was going on.
And of course the White House dumped him. George Bush is not a racist. I know people like elucidator find it impossible to see anything but Machiavellian scheming by Bush, but the fact is his color-blindness goes to the core of his being. His father was a pioneer in civil rights, and supported it heavily in the 60’s.
For example, Bush picked Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice not because he was trying to ‘win the black vote’, or meet some affirmative action guideline. He picked them because he felt they were the best people for the job. The color of their skin was irrelevant. In that regard, I think this is the first truly ‘color blind’ White House. Not that Clinton was a racist or anything, but it was more likely that when a black person was nominated to a position that it was a political calculation.
Bush dislikes Lott, because Lott believes in some unsavory things. So when Lott showed himself for what he was, Bush took the opportunity to get rid of him. And of course, Bush is trying to make the Republican party more inclusive to blacks, and Lott wasn’t helping. To that extent, it was also a political calculation. But a good, moral one.
Actually, this was payback to Trent from the ultra-right for not delivering a conviction of Clinton in the Senate. It took a while, but a convenient excuse for dumpage was finally found.
Sam, I am not trying to pick a fight – and I have no quarrel with the rest of your post – but could you provide some cite on the second sentence I’ve snipped below?
My most prominent memory on this subject is the slam by Ted Kennedy during the 1988 Democratic convention in which he chanted, w.r.t. George Bush’s record on civil rights 'Where was George?.." (To which I remember the reply “Dry, sober and home with his wife”)… 
Kennedy is not someone I trust. But I am ready to stand corrected on the civil rights record of George H. W. Bush
As always, I appreciate the personal touch, but I must demur. I dont think any such thing, I don’t think GeeDubya could spell Machiavellian, given three tries and a freebie. Karl Rove, the Eminence Greasy, however, can spell Machiavellian like my kid can spell “bong”.
No doubt it escaped your notice, but when two action are identical, between Clinton and Bush, you attribute the first to political scheming, and the second to superior moral fiber. Well, ok, fine, hell, its Christmas. I withdraw my suggestion that we raise Canada’s rent. No, don’t thank me. Least I could do.
Karl Rove wanted Trent out because Mr. Frist looks better on TV and doesn’t have the Trentster’s political baggage. Lott didn’t say anything of any real significance, racist or otherwise. I’m not sure whether they manufactured the crisis or simply seized the opportunity, but they stuck it to him, but good. Ride 'em and spank 'em, Hoosier daddy, Trent.
Excellent point! And don’t forget he picked Dick Cheney , well, er, um, at least he picked Powell and Rice. Stay healthy W!
Given Clinton’s popularity in the black community, I wonder why he had to play political. He could very well have picked (black) people he liked and trusted. Is that so hard to believe?
elucidator, Are you Maureen Dowd?
(not to insult you, but sometimes you write like her)
even as a left winger i feel this was unfair, all the other points can be debated as if he meant segragation, but hte sticking point that really irked me was the irony of the fact the ‘Congressional Black Caucus’ was demanding an apology for his possibly segregationist remarks
lets take a look at the CBC’s members for a second…black…black…black…black…black…
yup, no segregation going on here
The first George Bush was opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and in his Senate campaign against Yarborough played the race card due to Yarborough’s civil rights votes.
But give Mr. Bush credit. He learned from the experience and realized he needed a visual aid, which he found in Willie Horton in 1988.
I think, Sam you oughta make a distinction between “color blindness,” and the civil rights traditions of the '60s which were not in the least color blind (how could they be given what they were contesting?).
Putting aside entirely the complicated question of what is/isn’t “racist,” George W. Bush is indeed a strong advocate of color blindness; while Trent Lott’s fondness for segregation is, shall we say, way color-sensitive. I don’t want to speak for elucidator, but my guess is that he knows very well that Bush’s rap is color-blindness. Problem for some of us lefties is that color-blindness is, quite obviously, a terrifically effective and fair-seeming way of vindicating the status quo.
It’s fine to say that color shouldn’t matter b/c all people, regardless of race, are entitled to equal rights and equal opportunities. The problem is that, as things stand now, opportunities do differ in discernible, stastically significant ways along lines of color, and often enough effective rights differ as well. So to be genuinely progressive about equality across races you can’t be color blind–however much your ultimate goal may be a society that is color-blind in a genuine way.
It doesn’t surprise me in the least that Republicans of Bush’s stripe talk the talk of color blindness. And, when it comes to their policies, they generally walk the walk as well. But then when it comes to their conventions they have to do something about the fact that their constituency seriously underrepresents minority populations. So then you get the kind of anything-but-color-blind, photo-op tokenism that we saw at the Republican convention a few years back.
I’d say that George Bush’s color-blindness goes right to the core of his political instincts ;).
From the Grolier entry for George Bush Senior:
Cite: http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/bios/41pbush.html
<< Trent Lott says it was “political enemies” who have it in for “conservative(s)” and “Christian(s)” who did him in >>
Actually, he said his enemies have it in for southerners, conservatives, and Christians.
Now, lessee, lemme think… who has it in for southerners? well, mostly blacks and northern liberals. Who has it in for conservatives? northern liberals. And who has it in for Christians? Well, mostly non-Christians like Jews.
So, he’s saying in not-so-disguised words that he was done in by blacks, northern liberals, and Jews. Interesting.
Of course, the joke is that, given Lott’s brand of fundamentalist Christianity, probably the Methodists and Lutherans and Catholics et al are against him, too.
Mandy, I am perfectly willing to believe that GeeDubya is not a racist, or, at the very least, does not believe himself to be a racist. Its sneaky.
I have a relative who always notices when a black driver does something dumb, and never fails to say something like “thats the way they drive”. Yet, if you asked, he would tell you in complete sincerity that he is not a racist. He believes in equal rights for “them”. The next step of enlightenment is to realize there is no 'they".
The parallel in politics is the increasing Republican number amongst blacks. This has to be, and we lefties should accept the fact with a chagrin: it costs us political power, yes, but it proves we were right all along: there is no “they” unless that is enforced. Some people are bound to be attracted to a conservative agenda, white, black or otherwise. There should be no racial aspect to that decision, otherwise, what the hell were we fighting for?