The “damnable proposals” were a law that would make lynching a federal crime, (generally, local prosecutors wouldn’t prosecute lynchers), the abolition of the poll tax (some states used to require that people pay a fee to vote, which could be waived at the discretion of the polling official. It was mainly used to prevent poor blacks from voting), and the Fair Employment Practices Act, which would have outlawed religious and racial discrimination in hiring (one had been passed during the war, but it had expired).
Is it possible for the media to make a bigger deal out of nothing. I think not.
BIG DADDY
Enough already.
No problem 
—Concerning zigaretten’s list of strange things politicans have done, I wish to add Carter claiming that a swimming rabbit attacked him.—
Strange but true: the event actually did happen. Of course, the incident was at first a minor anecdote and joke among staff that was quickly made into a symbol that a new class of media pundits found delicious.
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_019.html
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/WolfFiles/wolffiles82.html
Curiously, the famous photo of the event, which the Reagan administration leaked from the archives for some reason, seems to be missing from every source I check: broken links and broken images.
[sarcasm] Right, it’s “nothing” when the leader of the majority party in the Senate, one of the most prominent political figures in the country, waxes nostalgic about the days of segregation and institutionalized racism and says that we’d have all been better off if we had just kept all of that around. [/sarcasm]
There is a reason this has caught fire. If Lott were just another Senator, he probably wouldn’t be catching this kind of flak. But he’s not just another Senator. He’s the incoming majority leader in the Senate. It’s not unreasonable to think of him as the #3 GOP politician in the country (after Bush and Cheney). And he has made statements that suggest very strongly that he is an unreconstructed bigot.
One of the problems that the GOP has always had in expanding its appeal among African-Americans, minority groups, and libertarian-leaning people is the perception that the Republican party is, at its core, a rich straight white Christian man’s party dedicated to preserving and expanding the dominion and control of rich straight white Christian men over those who are less rich, straight, white, Christian and male than they are. This is a perception that Bush, with varying degrees of success, has been trying to change. By saluting the bygone days of segregation and expressing regret that we did not elect a President fifty years ago whose candidacy was defined by a belief that segregation and institutionalized racism were Good Things, Lott has undermined the efforts of the GOP to be more inclusive. This is why pragmatic conservatives are calling on him to step down.
Now Lott is saying he meant that Thurman was the best choice for president in '48 because he was stong on defense. Which is a ridiculous thing to say, considering Harry Truman wasn’t exactly what you’d call a pacifist, and especially considering Thurman didn’t campaign on defense- his sole issue was “preserving the southern way of life”- segregation and lynching. Yes, Thurman was against the anti lynching laws because they would destroy this way of life he wanted to preserve. These were the only issues he ran on.
Lott’s “apology” and subsequent explanations have made it clear that he meant exactly what everyone thinks he meant. If he had just said, “I wasn’t thinking, I didn’t realize what I was saying, I was just trying to be nice to the old guy, of couse I think everything Thurman ran on in '48 was wrong, segregation was wrong, the civil rights movement was a wonderful thing…”, etc and so forth- if he had really apologized, then I think you could honestly say that maybe the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. But as it stands, and in light of Lott’s past association with white supremecist organizations, I think the picture everyone’s getting of Lott is accurrate.
that’s “Thurmond”. gotta learn how to use that fancy “preview” thingamobobbie.
www.dailyhowler.com is speculating that Lott isn’t saying that because racists are one of his constituencies. I don’t know if they’re right, but this idea makes sense to me. Of course, this would be another reason to replace him as majority leader.
jeevmon,
He never said any of that your just buying into the medias speculation. He said he voted for him and we would have been better off if he had been elected at that time. He is the local guy and all he was doing was stroking him a bit all the rest of this is nothing more than speculation as to what he meant. Pretty weak for the media to really run with like they have IMO. BTW I am not a big Trent Lott guy by any stretch of the imagination. There are many things to beat up the republicans for but this is nothing more than some really weak media hype.
A few years ago, prominent Mississippian A. G. Brown offered this advice to his fellow politicians:
Today’s republicans might be well served by taking these words to heart.
Oh, spare me. To blow it off as you just did requires ignoring what Strom Thurmond stood for in 1948. What Strom Thurmond stood for in 1948 is not speculation. He was quite explicit about it. He stood for opposition to civil rights, opposition to anti-lynching legislation, opposition to efforts to abolish the poll tax, opposition to desegregation and opposition to any efforts to alter the racial status quo in the South. More to the point, it was those positions that distinguished him from the Democratic and Republican candidate in that election. It was Thurmond’s adherence to that position and the Democratic party’s rejection of it that led to Thurmond’s candidacy in the first place. That is not a matter of speculation.
The words that came out of Trent Lott’s mouth were that we would have been better off and not had “these problems” had we elected Thurmond, a man who was pro-segregation, whose candidacy arose out of a desire to defend segregation, and whose desire to defend segregation led him to start a third party candidacy. It is not “speculation” to connect the dots between the comment and the verifiable history.
So what if Lott meant something different? It wasn’t what he said. And what he said was appalling. At the most charitable, he’s got a serious case of foot-in-mouth disease and the Republicans should seriously consider whether someone like him is the ideal person to lead them in the Senate. At the least charitable, he’s an unreconstructed bigot who years for the days when the darkies were kept in their “proper place.” And Lott’s past history really entitles him to minimal benefit of the doubt.
This is vomit inducing:
Well, Jesse Helms says that Lott didn’t mean what it seems like he meant. That makes me feel much better.
http://newsobserver.com/nc24hour/ncnews/story/2014977p-1949521c.html
Then I guess that Dubya isn’t any better at blowing it off than the folks in this thread.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/12/lott.comment/index.html
McCain isn’t just “blowing it off”, either.
The writing’s on the wall, Trent. Find a way to talk yourself out of this or kiss the Majority Leader’s office goodbye. What you’ve got so far–
–ain’t working, dude.
—Instead, Lott said, he meant to praise Thurmond’s stance on defense, law enforcement and economic development.—
Whatever is “working” or not, whether people are responding to media hype or not, I still find this far more plausible than that Lott would bemoan the failure of segregation at a big media event. “All these problems” just seems far more plausible as a reference to the last few years, Clinton, and other conventional Repub saws. I can see how the comment could have worked in Lott’s mind, and I can see how people would have assumed he meant something else, and of course never deviate from their initial anchored interpretation.
At least I was right about Fox All Stars and other such pundits: they only started talking about the issue once they worked out how they were going to blame Bill Clinton for it, with a few helpings of blaming Al Gore and… Harry Truman. As usual, violently loose with the facts, with Colmes snoring in the background, so you can, you know, decide for yourself.
I think Leonard Pitts has the right take on this:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/leonard_pitts/4727836.htm
Is Bush saying the same things now that he said in his campaign appearance at Bob Jones University in 2000? I somehow doubt it.
If Lott’s heart is really in the right place, it shouldn’t be so hard for him to explain so.
But at least we may not see any more GD threads for a while from the usual suspect pouting about blacks’ refusal to embrace the Republicans. I hope.
You’re right about that, ElvisL1ves 
—If Lott’s heart is really in the right place, it shouldn’t be so hard for him to explain so.—
I should note, though I hate offering a defense of Lott here, that he’s been on numerous talk shows saying that segregation is bad, he never meant to offend anyone, etc. So it’s just not true that he didn’t explain so. But for some reason the only event that matters to anyone is his original less than prostrate apology.
It took him a lot of tries to get to that point. And Lott’s record on race-related issues does not give him much benefit of the doubt. The more that comes out, the more it appears that Lott’s statement was a gaffe in the classic sense: a politician telling you what he/she really thinks or believes. As Pitts said, either he’s appallingly ignorant and insensitive, or he’s an unreconstructed racist. The latter deserves no position of public trust. The former may be allowed a position of public trust, but probably shouldn’t be in a leadership role. Certainly, if it is fair to measure a group of people in a democratic society by the leaders they select, keeping Trent Lott in his majority leader position would send a fairly clear signal about what is important to Senate Republicans and what they are willing to ignore