Here’s a better cite for you:
So, uh, not really anything like Harry Reid. There’s a reason the Republicans didn’t fight for Lott to keep his position.
The only spot is where Reid pee’d on the rug. The leader of the Senate should be racially paper trained by now. It’s nice that the President has given him absolution so that he can run for re-election with a cleansed heart. As spiritual leader of the party that’s his job and besides that he needs Harry to keep his health care bill alive.
The reality of all this is that Harry Reid went on a party-approved apology tour which is an acknowledgment that he stepped in it. The fact that he isn’t expected to live by the same code of conduct he bestowed on Trent Lott (and followed by the Republican party) speaks volumes for both parties.
Harry Reid is a man of words but not of his word.
He didn’t say anything close to what Lott said. If you don’t understand that I’d suggest you reread both quotes until you comprehend them.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Could you please explain specifically what Reid said that offended you? What “code of conduct” do you believe is being violated?
That’s correct, Lott never said anything racially insensitive.
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Can you please explain why Reid apologized for his remarks?
You are wrong and still appear to not have read what Lott said.
It’s not that hard to understand.
Because he’s a gutless politician. Politicians apologize for trivial bullshit all the time. Hell, most everybody apologizes for shit that doesn’t really merit an apology sometimes. It’s a bullshit social and political nicety. It means nothing. It certainly doesn’t mean there was anything to apologize for.
What did he say that offends you?
What Lott was pummeled for was based on assumptions. There were no mention or intimation of race in what he said.
then the President is a gutless person for accepting an unnecessary apology.
Other than the fact that he said electing a segregationist President would have spared us “all these problems.”
I think Lott was talking out of his ass, trying to say something nice to an old man on his birthday, and didn’t really think about the literal implications of his words, but that doesn’t change the literal implications of his words.
Reid’s words contained no offensive implications, intended or otherwise.
What did Reid say that offended YOU?
Rejecting it would imply that there was anything to be offended about in the first place. There wasn’t. Accepting the apology and moving on is the only sensible, reasonable, intelligent and politic thing to do. Rejecting it would be asinine, and actually offensive.
Do you believe Obama should have rejected the apology? Did Reid offend you that much?
That’s just crazy. You only refuse to accept an apology if you want to pick a fight. At most you accept and add something like, “No apologies are necessary.” But you absolutely don’t refuse to accept it.
??? If there wasn’t a reason to be offended then rejecting an apology would be the correct thing to do.
No, that would be an asine thing to do, for reasons that are alreadsy stated.
Why won’t you answer my question about what Reid said that offended you?
Er, wah? He’s from Nevada, not Utah. And he went to law school in Washington DC. And he’s been a politico throughout most of his adult life, implying that he would brush against a variety of people. (That doesn’t imply that he can’t be a bigot though: I’m merely puzzled at the allegation that he’s sheltered.)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but I recall John Mace saying ~2 years ago that Obama wouldn’t be anywhere near as acclaimed if he wasn’t black, a position I found dubious. Now JM maintains that he isn’t offended by what Reid said in private, but he could understand how others would be. But I find it odd that JM’s social tuning has appeared to sharpen so much in the intervening time period.
More generally, Reid said in private that he thought that Obama had an excellent chance of becoming the first African American President, albeit in an awkwardly phrased manner. Lott said in public that it would of been better if an explicitly segregationist party had won in ~1950: then we wouldn’t have “All these troubles”. Many modern conservatives seem to think that the 2 incidents are equivalent, which says more about them than it does about any US politician. Weird.
Except that he never said that.
Would you mind telling us what he DID say, then?
your internet provider only connects to The Straight Dope?
I can see a reasonable complaint for Obama, but its not so much a racial slur as a political one. That part about not speaking like a Negro “except when he wants to”. Suggesting that Obama panders to black people by “passing” for black when the need arises. Kind of the flip side of praising Colin Powell for being “articulate and well-spoken”. Now, unless memory fails again, when he made these remarks he was still leaning Clintonish, so that little barb would be expected, not enough to actually disparage, but enough to take some of the shine off.
And I bet that is what he was apologizing for, one politician to another.