Trent Lott

[hansel]

Lott’s deputy urges new election for majority leader

[elucidator]

Baking cookies? Singing “Stand by Your Man” in the shower? Fellatio?

[minty_green]

Damn, if NOW is oppposed to blowjobs, I’m gonna have to rethink my support of the feminist cause.

[grendel72]

*Originally posted by december *
**having committed an act that they previousy had totally opposed. **

You mean kind of like how the Republican party was founded as the party of racial equality but turned their back on that ideal?

[december]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Damn, if NOW is oppposed to blowjobs, I’m gonna have to rethink my support of the feminist cause. **

Good one, minty.

Of course, you are aware that NOW used to consider any sex between superior and subordinate to be sexual harassment. In their view it could never be fully consenual, given the power differential. No doubt you are also aware that this POV was part of federal regulations.

grendel72
You mean kind of like how the Republican party was founded as the party of racial equality but turned their back on that ideal?

You got that one right, my friend. Last night I sent an e-mail to president.whitehouse.gov saying that Lott’s press conference made me embarassed to be a Republican.

[grendel72]

Good for you, december, you always seem like a genuinely nice guy no matter how much I may disagree with what you say sometimes. I have a feeling that there are a lot more Republicans like you out there.

[elucidator]

Well, Grendel, not exactly. Actual racial equality was far too radical an idea for just about anybody in those dark days. Being opposed to slavery is a far cry from regarding African-Americans as being full and equal citizens. Likely the first really significant political movement to embrace the ideal of total racial equality was the Communists. Lincoln himself was at best ambivalent on the issue of race. I hasten to point out that this in no way lowers my respect for the man, he was a man of his times, not ours. The chance that anyone could be elected President in 1860 on a platform endorsing complete racial equality were zero, zip, zilch. The radical Republicans of the reconstruction era did insist on voting rights for blacks, but this was when most Southern whites had not regained full enfranchisement, so their stand was tainted by obvious political advantage.

Also, december is a bit confused on Federal regulations as regards to gobbling Mr. Happy. An Affidavit (I-260-334-B(j)) of Intent to Committ Fellatio is all that is required, if no actual threat to an endangered species is likely.

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by grendel72 *
**Good for you, december, you always seem like a genuinely nice guy no matter how much I may disagree with what you say sometimes. I have a feeling that there are a lot more Republicans like you out there. **

Nope. He’s the only one. We’ll have him pretty soon.

[Liberal]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**You’ve taken an instance to generalize in derogatory fashion about the larger group.

That’s bigoted.
Saying “Republicans are bigoted,” or “Republican leadership is bigoted” is a derogatory generalization.

If that’s your stance, you’re a bigot. **

If that’s your stance, you’re ignorant.

[hazel-rah]

Libertarian, give it up. The comment you made in the second post in this thread was stupid. You cannot see into the hearts of all Republicans. Are you seriously suggesting that Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice are at heart segregationists and bigots?

-fh

[Tejota]

*Originally posted by december *
**The two underlined phrases are contradictory. Assigning a “primary reason” IS asserting motivation

E.g., an alternative guess at motivation could be the opposite of Krugman – that the primary reason for abandoning the Southern strategy was moral, and that politics was secondary. See what I mean? **

No, it would be moral if it was abandoned before it had outlived it’s usefulness. Abandoning it after cannot be a moral decision.

[grendel72]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Nope. He’s the only one. We’ll have him pretty soon. **

Actually, I know a lot of Republicans who are disgusted by the party’s accomidation of the far right wing but stay with the party for other reasons. It sounds to me like they may finally be retaking the party, which is good for everyone.

[Larry_Mudd]

Trent Lott’s daughter, Tyler Lott-Armstrong, apparently attended a press conference in Mississippi on Friday, which was organized by White Supremacist Richard Barrett, the point of which was to rally support for re-segregation.

What the hell did she think she was doing? Judging by her words alone, she seemed to be trying to distance her father from accusations of racism.

My father is a wonderful man, who has always stood tall. The news-media has twisted his words. He has good character, he’s a Christian man and a good man and has been a wonderful family man, with his children and all.

Okay, so why is he sharing a microphone with a guy who looks naked without his bedsheets on? Does she think this is good publicity?

Richard Barrett: I have asked Tyler, Trent Lott’s daughter, here, to remind her father, once again, “Stand Fast, Mississippians.” Galileo was forced to recant, but the earth still orbits the sun. Trent Lott was forced to recant, but blue birds still keep out of red birds’ nests. It seems that a bird has more sense than a Bush.

[Larry_Mudd]

…why is she sharing…

Sorry.

[Larry_Mudd]

Please disregard that. Someone with a keener eye for detail has pointed out that what appears to have happened is that Mr. Barrett started spouting off at a press conference held by Lott’s office, and, despite his thanking Ms. Lott Armstrong for being there, he had nothing to do with the conference and was almost certainly as welcome as a fart at a banquet.

Carry on.

[Northern_Piper]

According to a story on Worldnet, Ms. Lott Armstrong is now suing Barrett for defamation, claiming he released a doctored transcript that insinuated she participated in his press conference, when actually she made the statements to a reporter a block away. They say that once the issue blew up, Barrett released a new, differently doctored transcript.

According a reply from Barrett on nationalist.org, she was at his press conference and he extended her the natural courtesy a “Southern gentleman” owes to a “Southern Belle.”

I appreciate that neither of these sites is a particularly objective source of info, but I’ve not been able to find anything elsewhere.

[elucidator]

Pat Buchanan, on MSNBC, as quoted by Tom Tomorrow on his blog site (May the Good Lord bless him and keep him and people send him money…)

"Trent Lott did not do anything wrong, he did not say anything wrong,his heart was not full of malice when he got up there and made that honorable statement, or rather that benign statement for Strom Thurmond. The President of the United States stood up and stuck a knife in his chest… "

Bush/Rove have severely pissed off the X-treme right. It would take a better man than myself not to chortle gleefully. Happily, I am not such.

[Neurotik]

I skimmed your post at first, 'lucy, and thought that quote was from Tom. And then my head almost exploded.

[Sam_Stone]

No they haven’t. They’ve pissed off one old extremist who no longer has a position in the Republican party.

Conservatives are ecstatic over Lott’s resignation. If you don’t believe me, wander over to www.nationalreview.com and see what they are saying. Or read editorials by George Will (“Lott is Intolerable”), or others. Like:

William F. Buckley:

whatever else is to be said about the Old South, segregation was an ugly feature of it, and that to think back poignantly about how it was in those golden days requires, if you are a public figure doing the nostalgia, the reiterated expulsion of features of that life. Not the kind of thing that goes well with birthday-cake festivities, but Lott got into this mess, and has now to get out of it.

Jonah Goldberg:

Lott stands for little. And what he does stand for, we don’t need.

Charles Krauthammer:

What is so appalling about Lott’s remarks is not the bigotry but the blindness. One should be very hesitant about ascribing bigotry. It is hard to discern what someone feels in his heart of hearts. It is less hard to discern what someone sees, particularly if he tells you. Lott sees the civil rights movement and ``all these problems over all these years." He missed the whole story.

Backbenchers might be permitted such a lack of vision. Leaders are not. Lott must step down.

Thomas Sowell:

Lott is too much

Anybody can put his foot in his mouth but making it a habit is too much, especially when you are in a position where your ill-considered words can become a permanent albatross around the necks of other people whom you are leading.

That is the situation now, in the wake of Senator Trent Lott’s latest gaffe, his widely publicized statement that we would have been better off if Senator Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948. Senator Thurmond ran on a platform of continued racial segregation.

Does Senator Lott have any idea what racial segregation meant to black Americans – and, indeed, to many white Americans, whose support was essential to passing the landmark civil rights legislation of the 1960s that did away with Jim Crow in the South?

Mona Charon:

Sens. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Don Nickles, R-Okla., and Rick Santorum, R-Penn., would all make excellent leaders. There are other fine candidates, as well. But at this point, the Republican motto should be “Anyone but Lott.”

In fact, Buchanan’s column was the ONLY one I could find that attempted to defend Lott. It says a lot about your shoddy debating tactics that you would hold this one column up as an example of what the ‘extreme right’ thinks. The only person who thinks this way is apparently Pat Buchanan. And if you’ve note, he was essentially kicked out of the Republican party for being extreme.

[elucidator]

Hey, just a second now, Sam! What is this “shoddy debating tactics” crapola?

…up as an example of what the ‘extreme right’ thinks…

and

…essentially kicked out of the Republican party for being extreme…

Contrast and compare.

I am always happy to have the Loyal Obfuscation behave in a more civil and public spirited manner. If the Pubbies shall repudiate the “southern strategy” that is all to the good. If it is to be trumpeted as a moral awakening, rather than a strategic ploy as orchestrated by Mr. Rove, I remain skeptical, but as a pessimist, I am seldom happier than when proved wrong.

I would like nothing better than a Congress made up of Paul Wellstones and John McCains, and the passing of such political pustules as Jesse Helms, Trent Lott, and Phil Gramm is all to the good.

I suggest that Pat Buchanan is extreme right. You say, No, you’re full of it, Pat Buchanan is extreme right. Further, you take a quick sneer at my debating tactics based, essentially, on my agreement with you.

As Voltaire once remarked “Mange mon shorts, mon petit”