elucidator I’ll assume that what you say is true — Lott writes an “occasional column” for this group, the Conservative Citizens Council. So what. What do the “occasional columns” say? Isn’t that the REAL question. Geees. Isn’t this criticism just more of the same thing? Look **elucidator[B/]- Lott is a card carrying member of the Conservative Citizens Council. So what. Tell us what Lott has said. Not whether he is a member of or might be a member of an organization.
Tiger, no attempt is being made to show Mr. Lott is a blatant, out and out racist. As I’ve noted before, in this day and age, no such stance is tenable. Years ago, in the dark days of the dreaded Nixon, the “Southern strategy” was useful and very productive for the Pubbies. Note that implied racism was not even the cornerstone of this strategy: conservative appeals on other themes…states rights, strong military stance, a distrust of “liberal” acceptance of social change…were equally, if not more, important.
But the hint of implied racism remained, even if its actual effect is difficult to measure and quantify. No doubt, any number of Republicans found this distasteful, if not repugnant. But an effective vote-getting strategy is too dear to the heart of a political animal.
It has been claimed that there is some parity, that Dems “exploit” the race issue to thier advantage. The crucial, overlooked distinction is that the Dems “exploit” thier opposition to racism.
I think Mr. Krugman’s analysis of the situation is substantially correct: the strategic leadership of the Republican party is seeking to distance themselves from the previous “Southern strategy” not for reasons of principle but simply because it has outlived its usefulness. They are, no doubt, also concerned with having thier leadership in Congress in the hands of two of the most disagreeable men in Congress: DeLay and Lott. The ghost of Newt Gangrene still stalks the halls.
Mr. Lott is in trouble for no more material reason than political expedience. And, in all probability, he isn’t in that much trouble. The Pubbies will make a great show of thier repudiation of the “Southern strategy” without actually paying any real price. Mr. Lott may lose his position as Majority leader, perhaps. I think it unlikely, theres plenty of time for this to blow over. And there is no chance, none, that he will resign his seat and allow his successor to be chosen by a Dem governor.
Not that I wouldn’t roll about on the floor in giggling fits. But it won’t happen.
I agree with you. In fact, I’m one of them.
Even when Republicans are criticizing racism and racial insensitivity, Krugman decides that they’re not really opposed to racism. This is just one of his typical unsourced smears. You and Krugman don’t know what’s motivating Republican leadership, but he propounds a nasty explanation, and you accept it.
In fact, the “strategic leadership of the Republican Party” is really George Bush and Karl Rove, who have years of effort with the black community. Obviously, their efforts to broaden the party are political (as are the Democrats’ efforts), but I’ll eat my hat if you can find any evidence that Bush and Rove are acting only out of political calculation.
december, have you read the column by Mr. Krugman to which I refer? He, in fact, makes much the same points I do, that sincere and principled Republicans found the “Southern strategy” repugnant. He further avers that the strategy has outlived its usefullness, and that is the primary reason it is being abandoned. He makes no assertion beyond practicality, and does not claim to peer into the soul of the Republican Party, and nowhere states or implies “they’re not really opposed to racism” “…[H]e propounds a nasty explanation, and you accept it.” The unfounded slur is yours, sir.
Clearly, your hat is quite safe, as I am not about to pretend that such evidence is going to be left lying about. The “Southern strategy” did exist, it was politicly useful, and is now to be abandoned, and that is all to the good. You may, if you wish, attribute this to a moral awakening and a convenient rebirth of civitas.
The good news is that is a battle won, led by the liberals against conservative resistance. I can well understand how the Pubbies would love to pretend it never happened, or that their impassioned championship of “state’s rights” was a result of thier deep concern for Constitutional principles. After all, hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue.
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?
So, you believe that it is a bigoted statement to say that bigots are bigoted?
I’m going to go way out on a limb here, and posit an utterly startling and radical notion: that the primary motivation of a political animal is, by and large, political. Further, I aver that a bear, given a clear woods/no woods choice, will perform excretory functions in the woods, and that the religious preference of the Pope is Catholic.
Just a wild and crazy guy, I guess.
Sen. Don Nickles (Okla.), the second-ranking Senate Republican, said on ABC’s “This Week,” that Republicans should consider ousting Sen. Trent Lott as their party leader.
My disgust with Lott continues to grow. His request to Rice and Powell amounted to asking them to be Uncle Toms for his personal benefit. :wally
Nonsense. That’s only true of Republicans. Democratic support of African Americans is based on true tolerance, moral beliefs, and innate goodness. 
Excellent, Grasshopper! We look forward to your continuing enlightenment and advancement along the True Path with sublime pleasure.
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.
Mitch McConnell, as well as Mr. Nickles, has apparently jumped on the cart trundling Mr. Lott to the gallows.
Oh, my! A nasty internecine battle on the extreme right! How exactly does one register ones shock and dismay! I’m so upset, I simpy can’t continue right now…
Actually McConnell is supporting Lott
If conservatives take the high road and dump Lott (and I’m now optimistic), they may wind up looking better than those liberals who took the low road backing you-know-who.
That rejection by Rice and Powell has gotta hurt! I well understand, even to this day my heart is sore wroth…
Ah, Connie, Connie! Have you forgotten that warm summer night in Berkeley, '67. You in your cunning Black Panther beret, a couple hits of window pane, the scent of tear gas drifting over Telegraph Avenue…
Somehow, I found the strength to go on, and yet…I still keep a tiny hope burning in my broken heart. Its hard to explain to others, when I burst into tears at the sight of your gapped smile, but what do they know of love?
Yeah, thats some support all right, Mr. McConnell. “If we screw with Trent, he’ll bring the whole thing down around our ears!” Kind of reminds me of “Blazing Saddles” when the Sheriff took himself hostage.
december “…you know who…” Uh, no, actually, I don’t. Who? President Elect Gore?
Here’s a hint: the National Organization for Women has never recovered their moral standing.
I agree with you, there, luce. You know Lott’s in deep doo doo when this is what his biggest supporter is saying. :eek:
Betty Freidan? Jane Fonda? Mary Matalin? Isadora Duncan? That New York woman with the hats? Ru Paul?
Bella Abzug http://www.wedo.org/bella/bio.htm
I thought he was referring to Byrd. But now I’m just confused.
Let it be a challenge to you.
BTW elucidator, I wasn’t referring to the leaders of NOW so much as the organization itself. It actively supported a Democratic leader who was caught, having committed an act that they previousy had totally opposed.