Why did Trent Lott get into so much trouble? I admit that his choice of words and the situation could be construed as racist, but could’ve “problems” mean other things such as the national debt, teen pregnancy, the economy, etc?
He got into trouble for exposing the big Republican leadership “secret”. Though they woo minorities, they are at heart segregationists and bigots.
Thats a little harsh. Dont you think? After all Lincoln was a Republican.
Since the only real issue Strom Thurmond ran on was preserving segregation, I find it difficult to view the comment as anything but racist.
Well, Jesus was a Jew, but so what. 
Things have changed a lot in 150 years.
He got into trouble because he was too stupid to see that the “white males who aren’t Alan Alda are evil” hypersensitive media was going to have a field day with a comment that could, in their defense, fairly easily be interpreted as a support of racism. I honestly don’t think that he meant it as an “integration was bad” comment, though I can understand why some feathers were ruffled, but I also can’t imagine anybody really crying themselves to sleep over the comment. It’s not like he dangled a baby over a German balcony or anything.
I was actually more offended by the fact that Thurmond was being so lauded just for not having had the common decency to die yet. “Well yeh, I did say coloreds shouldn’t be allowed to vote or come into neighborhoods, but times was differn’t and I wern’t but in my late fifties, I didn’t know no bettah…”
Just as an aside, I don’t think Lincoln is part of the Republican leadership.
But, yeah, what Mentalguy said. Thurmond was really a single issue candidate for president, and I think his position on the other issues of the race were similar to Truman’s
I loved Lott’s lauding of Thurmond as a “champion” of “traditional family values” on the C-SPAN coverage btw.
Let’s see, he married his second beauty queen wife when he was 66 and she was 21, had his first baby at 68 and his last at 75, and then divorced. Yep, that sounds pretty traditional (especially if you threw in some goats, a concubine housemaid, and a tent).
Do you guys really think that Trent Lott, being a politician and all, would have said something that alienates a large portion of his constituents on purpose? He may have meant his comment to be racist, I don’t know, but I think that it could’ve meant a whole passle of other stuff too. “problems” is a pretty ambiguous term. I don’t think that this guy would say something racist on purpose at a public event. That would be political suicide, in my mind.
And as far as calling Republicans racists/bigots etc. I would think that the majority of racists/bigots in the South would be Democrats. Northerners may not think much of the Civil War, but they didn’t get beat either. It still plays a role in Southern politics “gran pappy was a democrat and so am I” kinda deal.
Anyway, I didn’t mean to upset anyone. I just was wondering what other folks thought. Heck if Strom is such a bad guy why is the old codger still in office? And why would all of these politicians even be seen with him?
Even after he appologized for his “poor choice of words” and clarified his statement?
http://tampatrib.com/News/MGARQLLEJ9D.html
It would be difficult only to those who wish to view them other than how he explained them.
I mean, if he really meant it that way why whould he deny it?
why whould I not hit preview after debasing myself in another thread kus i kant spel … 
LOL!
The whole get-together was a political blooper waiting to happen. Someone was bound to drink a little bit too much wine and forget the tacit agreement to never ever ever speak (especially in praising terms) of the good ole days when Strommy used to go out with the guys to flame crosses and put those uppity darkies in their proper place (like up in a tree, hanging in the wind).
So let this be a lesson learned for all of us:
(alcohol) + (Strom Thurman celebrations) + (microphones) + (chronic foot-in-mouth disease) = People saying things they wouldn’t say if they were sober and in full self-censoring control of the words coming out of their mouth.
Um, not really. The names may be the same but the ideologies of the Dem’s and Rep’s a hundred years ago don’t look like they do today.
Trent Lott did a lousy job of explaining his comments. Offhand, I have trouble trying to come up with any inoffensive meanings for his boneheaded comments myself. I have no idea if he is a racist, but he quacks like one.
I wouldn’t put it past the Stromster.
Now, one for the Ds, Strom Thurmond was a Democrat when he made the run for the presidency in question. So, basically, Lott was wrong to say that the Democrats were once right?
Lott will have to explain this to the voters of Mississippi. Have fun, Trent. This may be a two year stay in power for the Republican congressional majority if they don’t disclaim the garbage Lott spews out.
Trent Lott wasn’t saying that he thinks the country would have been better off without forced integration of the South. What he was doing was stupidly saying (as he has previously, it turns out) that he thinks Strom Thurmond should have been President. Presumably he is saying this merely to stroke Strom Thurmond’s enormous ego, and to make Strom’s supporters happy; possibly he also means that he thinks Strom would have made a better President for the South than Truman did in 1948.
However, he was really saying something stupid. To assert that election of Thurmond would have meant the country “wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years either,” is hard to see as anything but an indication Mr. Lott believes that the civil rights legislation of the early '50s created problems greater than would have occurred had Thurmond successfully managed to keep integration alive. Unless, of course, Mr. Lott thinks Mr. Thurmond would have done better with the Korean War, or the strikes of the late 40’s, or some other important aspect of American domestic or foreign policy. Mr. Thurmond’s primary position at the time was that the individual states should have control over social policies; the most important such policies were attempts to integrate the United States in a meaningful fashion.
Of course, Mr. Lott apologized. Who wouldn’t, under the circumstances. But given that this is not his first such public gaffe regarding Mr. Thurmond, perhaps it speaks to a still difficult to overcome feeling on his part that the South got the shaft when it was forced to integrate public institutions.
There something cooking in the background, you can smell it but you can’t see it. The remarks in question were ill considered, no doubt. But even as lefty as I am, I can’t see it as that big a deal. Stuff Trent Lott actually does eclipses anything he might have said.
But I hear that some Republicans are on his case about this, and I don’t hear a lot of self-righteous pontificating against those race-baiting Democrats yadda blah yadda blah. So some people on the Right want to screw Mr. Lott. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy but…why?
While Strom Thurmond ran on a platform of segregation, and was quite the bigot, he also did so on the basis of strict federalism - that Uncle Sam was infringing a bit too much on states’ rights.
Consider, also, that Lott applauded Thurmond back in 1980, as well. He did so based on Thurmond’s strong support of Reagan’s federalism and limited-government platform. Given that precedent, I would wager that Lott’s comments were based on two factors:
First of all, I think he was stating that had Thurmond’s federalist stance received more support, states’ rights would be stronger than they are today (and he may be right, though I disagree that electing a blatant opponent of integration policies as President would have been a very wise idea).
Secondly, he was kissing ass like nobody’s business.
Throw a little alcohol into the mix, and it’s not hard to see how Lott’s brown-nosing could result in one of the stupidest comments ever uttered by a prominent politician. Is Lott a racist? I doubt it. Is he a moron? Likely. Has he done a large deal of damage to the GOP? Possibly, though I think the GOP has done a good job of handling it. I’ve seen little in the way of apologizing for Lott’s comment - general consensus seems to be that he made a grossly offensive statement, and that he was right to apologize, and that perhaps the fool should resign.
If I had to play Nostradamus, I would predict the following:
The general public will see the GOP lynching one of its own high-ranking members, and will get the message that Republicans do not tolerate racism. This perception will stick more than the offending comments themselves. Meanwhile, the CBC will poke and prod this for all it’s worth, demanding Lott’s head, demanding Daschle’s head for accepting Lott’s apology, and so on. The democrats will grow more rabid, out of a desire to appease the CBC, and will refuse to let the situation lie. The public will grow weary of this, and fail to see why one little comment warrants such a circus, and will become more disillusioned with the Democratic party.
Just a hunch.
Jeff
His apology would be more convincing if he actually explained what he meant, as opposed to what he wants us to think it didn’t mean. If he says exactly what problems he was referring to, then I’ll consider the possibility it was not the most likely explanation, that he’s a bigot.
You’re forgetting that most bigots think they have more in common with the rich capitalists in the Big House than they actually do.
I’m just stunned at Lott’s miscalculation at how this will play in his home state, regardless of past tradition.
I lived in Mississippi for 13 years, and have seen immense change there, including the increasing savvy of black politicians in an increasing voter base. It’s a Good Ole Boy system, but Lott’s comments are sure to galvanize a lot more votes against him. Can’t say I’m sorry. Four cans of White Rain hairspray ain’t gonna protect ya from sheer stupidity.
