Dole seems to be well respected among liberals. Or is that just my perception?
I’d agree, Libertarian - or at least Dole is respected by this liberal. I don’t agree with his policies, but I think he is sincere, oozes integrity…
and has a truly vicious sense of humor. 
Sua
Lott’s statement was a very specific statement from which a very specific meaning could be drawn. It’s one thing to say that “Strom Thurmond is a respected public servant who has dedicated himself to the welfare of the people of his state.” That’s respectful praise on the occasion of Thurmond’s retirement. Saying that “if we had elected Strom Thurmond in 1948, we wouldn’t have all of the problems that we have today” is quite another, given that Strom Thurmond’s 1948 platform and candidacy arose from and was dedicated to the defense of the Jim Crow system in the South.
So, december, why do you call Lott’s statement “idiotic” instead of “vile”? To you, was the “idiocy” in what he said and clearly meant, or in the decision to say it and undermine the GOP’s attempt to fool blacks into believing it has left racism in the past when he could have kept quiet instead?
As the Daily Howler has pointed out, this statement has yet to be flogged and repeated all throughout the media and punditry, both left and right, in the way that similar supposedly damning statements from people like, for instance Clinton (his supposed “we deserved it” remarks) and NEA (supposed Al Queda didn’t do it, don’t blame anyone, web page) have (both of which have been discussed on these boards, and both of which turned out to be gross misrepresentations to begin with). So far we’ve had one Washington Post article commenting on this aspect of the speech. No mainstream pundit or editorialist I know of has mentioned it. NPR played a clip of Lott’s speech… but a bland feel-good one, not the one in question, and hasn’t mentioned the other remarks. And don’t expect to hear it on Fox unless there is more widespread criticism of it, giving them an angle to bash liberals with. Where’s that hungry liberal spin machine that fast tracks anti-Republican talking points?
—or in the decision to say it and undermine the GOP’s attempt to fool blacks into believing it has left racism in the past when he could have kept quiet instead?—
Nice loaded question.
If there is anything wrong in december’s choice of words, it isn’t about the GOP per se (whom we have no right to conclude anything about from the views of one or two members who happen to come from historically segregationist states, not unlike some Democrats from those same states who didn’t manage to move on past segregation, and lost their seats long ago), but rather a very common phenomenon in political commentary. i.e. if “our” side does something tha we clearly agree is wrong, it’s just a foolish mistake, if “their” side does something wrong, it’s due to determined moral turpitude.
I agree that the statement was vile. As jeevmon pointed out, Lott’s words sound like a defense of the Jim Crow system in the South. I don’t think Lott meant to say that. In fact, I wonder if Lott even knows what he meant.
Lott was an idiot to make a vile statement, which I don’t think he really meant. Furthermore, Lott has alway struck me as rather limited. I wish the Republicans had a stronger Senate leader.
Lott’s associations with racist groups like the Council of Conservative Citizens (successor to the pro-segregation White Citizen’s Councils of the 1960s) is well-documented:
http://www.adl.org/learn/Ext_US/CCCitizens.asp?xpicked=3&item=12
http://www.ferris.edu/isar/Institut/CCC/CQ.htm
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20021207Baker.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/jan99/south13.htm
He meant what he said about Strom Thurmond and said what he meant. He’s playing to his audience back home (and therefore not an idiot), but the veil over his bigotry is pretty thin.
The flogging commences . . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20730-2002Dec6.html
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/4697608.htm
I hate when I agree with Jesse and/or Al. Stupid Trent Lott.
Not just “one or two members”, as you know. This is the GOP leader in the Senate, repeatedly re-elected by the other GOP Senators, referring to the President Pro Tem of the Senate, neither of whom have any record of disavowing racism, and a real record of continuing to support it. Yes, it does reflect on the party and its supporters.
december, your claim that he didn’t really mean it is touching, but doesn’t seem supportable, given Lott’s record with the Council of Conservative Citizens (the Klan without the robes, in effect). Ooops, looks like jeevmon beat me with the cites - nice work.
Your turns, both of you.
Lott never made a record with the Council of Conservative Citizens. You may be thinking of his recording he made with Duran Duran. 
Seriously, I get upset at the McCarthyite type smear of alluding to his “record with X organization.” In fact, he gave one or more speeches to that group. Politicians running for office give speeches to all the groups they can, since they’re composed of voting citizens. Various Democrats have given speeches at Bob Jones University. You can make a case that Lott ought to have skipped the CCR, but still his speaking to them doesn’t mean that he shares all their views.
The point is, if Lott really wanted to praise Jim Crow, he has had innumerable opportunities to do so in his lifetime, in non-ambiguous ways. Strom Thurmond did that in 1948. Lott has not.
The world has changed a lot between 1948 and 2002. One of those ways is that overt displays of racism and bigotry are political dynamite and no one who is seeking political office will make them. Even Thurmond had to recognize that on some level and play by the new rules. So Lott is never going to come out and say “Wasn’t it great when the Negroes had their own bathrooms and drinking fountains separate and apart from those used by decent white Americans?” The Strom Thurmond thing is the closest he’s come, and by going as far as he did with the Strom Thurmond thing, he’s probably ensured that he will never, not ever, achieve any higher office than the one he is about to resume as Senate Majority Leader.
And Lott’s connection with the CCC is more than just “making speeches.” He also penned columns for their newsletter. And, in at least one of his speeches, he said that the CCC stands for the right principles and the right philosophy. He has also held private meetings with CCC members in his Senate office. The CCC has referred to him as an “honorary member.” It’s not a casual relationship. And it would be a critical failing to ignore it when putting Lott’s praise of Strom Thurmond in context.
You seem to be implying that Thurmond’s acceptance of racial tolerance and his renunciation of his past was insincere. Got any evidence?
True, but this was apparently a single unscripted comment he made. I see no reason to assume that this one comment reflects his innermost beliefs. At most, it may tend to show insensitivity to the horror that was Jim Crow.
That’s for sure. In fact, I’m not alone in wishing that this comment led to his resignation as Majority Leader.
This is typical, disgusting Lott. I would bet that he says that about every organization whose support he’s seeking.
Lott also disassociated himself from CCC views.
I have worked with some people who just didn’t control what they said. I consider Lott to be that type of person. Almost anything might come out of his mouth. Generally it’s something that kisses the ass of whoever he happens to be talking to or writing to.
Senate Leader Lott Apologizes for Remark
I still think Lott is an idiot.
—Not just “one or two members”, as you know. This is the GOP leader in the Senate, repeatedly re-elected by the other GOP Senators, referring to the President Pro Tem of the Senate, neither of whom have any record of disavowing racism, and a real record of continuing to support it. Yes, it does reflect on the party and its supporters.—
No, it doesn’t, anymore than leadership positions to Democrats mean that the party as a whole gives a rat’s ass about the home-state issues of those people either (I’m sure those with more of a beef against Democrat leaders than I do could supply some examples). Lott happens to have a political base that includes some marginal, and some outright, racists, a carryover from the old days. That may reflect poorly on Lott, but most Republicans aren’t serving that sort constitency, and don’t hold those values. Lott has had to do a lot of spin control over the years on his racist stance, and the sincere pressure hasn’t been only from Democrats. To generalize Lott’s racial views to all Republicans
Looks like I spoke too soon about the flogging: Gore had to go and open his pie-hole. Jesse Jackson. But hey: at least I said “highly coodinated” and “pundits,” not “a bunch of losers looking for press.”
What “acceptance and renunciation”? Got any evidence that his views really changed? Why should anyone believe so? It is no secret how desperately you want your party and its leaders to be considered morally advanced without having to face the reasons others have for skepticism of that, you know.
It is more likely to represent his views precisely because it was unscripted. Lott’s a pol.
Apos: "That may reflect poorly on Lott, but most Republicans aren’t serving that sort constitency, and don’t hold those values. "
“Most Republicans” in the Senate have voted repeatedly for Lott as their leader, and they’re fully aware as politicians that what a leader stands for is what the party will be taken to stand for. A claim that a party’s choice of leaders does not reflect on the members who do the choosing is just a bit silly. I’ll raise you Bush’s campaign in the South Carolina Primary, by the way.
If the Republican Senators re-elect Lott as majority leader, it will say something about them. It will say that they are willing to turn a blind eye to his retroactive endorsement of a racist campaign and candidate. If Lott were just one senator, then yes, his views would not be reflective of the GOP as a whole, or even of those of the GOP Senators. But he is not just one senator. He is the putative leader of the GOP in the Senate. If he is elected to the majority leader position, then it shows that the GOP Senators are, at the very least, willing to ignore Lott’s implied endorsement of segregation.
And I don’t buy the “well, it was unscripted and off-the-cuff, so we should just excuse it” line. Even assuming that it was unscripted and off-the-cuff, what someone says in an unscripted comment is often more revealing than what they say in scripted comments. Gore is quite right, it was a racist statement. Thurmond’s 1948 candidacy was a racist campaign, and Lott’s statement was an endorsement of that campaign. How he can try to spin it otherwise is completely beyond me. He said that if Thurmond had been elected in 1948, we wouldn’t have all “these problems” today. What were all “these problems”? Thurmond’s candidacy had only one purpose - the preservation of legalized segregation. That was the issue that drove the formation of the Dixiecrat party. So “these problems”, the ones that could have been prevented (in Lott’s mind) by a Thurmond presidency had to have been “problems” that arose from dismantling legalized segregation.
Other speakers at the birthday celebration had the good sense to stay away from Thurmond’s presidential campaign in honoring the man. Lott chose to go another way and endorse Thurmond’s 1948 pro-segregation campaign. Whether he did it to play to the Stars-and-Bars-Never-Surrender-Keep-The-Darkies-Down crowd in Mississippi or not is irrelevant to the racist character of his remarks. And if the GOP Senators decide to keep this man as their legislative leader, it will say a lot about them. Wouldn’t make them racist themselves, but it would show that they are willing to ignore racism in their leaders.
I agree with you jeevman – it will reflect on the Republican Party. I even agree with you, rather than Apos, that it ought to reflect on the Party.
But, whether it ought to or not, I think this statement will do some harm to the Republican Party’s efforts to attract Black voters as well as others who put a high value on civil rights attitude. I was underwhelmed by Lott’s “apology.” It didn’t do anything to dissipate the impression that he is cavalier about the need to protect for civil rights of minorities.
The bigotry of Trent Lott is reflected in the House with the GOP’s election of [url=“http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=144306”]Tom Delay** as Majority Leader there.
Did I miss a cite on that?
Hey, a friend of mine chased her down the street once…not a ouji board in sight.