Poor Trent Lott. I guess some believe that he had no idea that Thurmond’s Dixiecrat policy had anything to do with it’s slogan “Segregation Forever!” (Exclamation point, theirs.) And Lott’s contacts with the white supremicist group the Council of Conservative Citizens is entirely innocent, by this way of thinking. Doe-eyed conservatives seem to believe that it’s impossible that any of their number would ever practice dog-whistle politics, or that they would actually sympathize with those opposing the Civil Rights Act.
Oh please, another lecture from someone with selective history disorder. While you’re tripping down memory lane you hand wave Senator Byrd’s past away with one hand and point at Thurmond with the other. He was right there with Thurmond filibustering civil rights laws. Democrats have given absolution to an actual Klan member but Thurmond remains Satan’s little helper.
Er - I was contesting your characterization of the 1980 remarks by Strom - when he affirmed his support for <wink> states rights. And Lott was the guy who brought up the Dixiecrat party in 1980 and 2002, not I.
Strom was actually a canny politician: immediately after losing to the forces of progress in 1965, he hired African American staff members. He always knew what he was doing.
So do I take it we agree that Lott cavorting with white supremacists and expressing nostalgia for the Dixiecrat party reflected a twisted mindset? Because I can’t see any response to my central point.
But we can discuss Byrd too, if you want. Has he said anything in the past 30 years that gives you pause?
Lott didn’t just praise Strom Thurmond, he specifically singled out his 1948 Presidential campaign as a good thing. I’m not exactly well-versed in Thurmond’s life, but it’s my understanding that he has repudiated his segregationist views. When Democrats praise Byrd, it is in spite of his past, not because of it. Both men have vile beliefs in their pasts, that they later rose above, and have long careers with many items to cite for praise. Lott decided, for some reason, to praise the vile actions, not the virtuous ones in Thurmond’s past.
If you want to believe Lott supported segregation with what he said then that’s your prerogative. He stood down because of the inference of what he said, not what he said.
Is there any other inference that can be drawn from what he said? If you take the Diogenes the Cynic position - Lott was just flattering an old man, so it’s no big deal - I wouldn’t agree but I at least understand the viewpoint. But you keep talking about the “inference” of what Lott said as if he might have meant something else and didn’t really say it would have been a good thing if Thurmond had won in 1948. I can’t think of what else he might have meant.
FTR I tend to agree with this. I don’t think that Lotts comments are quite as innocuous as Reids, but the reaction to them was over the top. At the time though, the left was really looking for a win. The reality is that Lotts stepping down made little difference.
An everyday citizen takes a trip to visit the Capitol, then hears of a Senator commenting on the smell of the visitors, and you don’t see any offense, or an elitist tone at that?
It was not a public forum, it was the Senator’s 100th birthday celebration. At such an event, speakers usually give praise to the one whose is being celebrated. Senator Lott should have been given a pass, just as Harry Reid should be given a pass. But, since Harry Reid didn’t give Senator Lott a pass, (and neither did then Senator Obama) don’t you think it’s just deserts that Reid is facing the same degree of criticism?
Lott’s comments were made in 2002. Obama was an Illinois state senator at the time and I don’t remember any public statements from him about what Lott said, now or then. EDIT: Okay, here’s one. If this was posted upthread I didn’t see it. Moving on: you seem to be assuming Reid’s statement is as deserving of criticism as Lott’s. They both touch on the issue of race but I don’t see how they’re equal. And that’s really the whole issue here, so you can’t just assume this conclusion. Reid said something a politician surely would not want repeated in public and his word choice was both indelicate and anachronistic but it was not prejudiced on its face. I can’t say that about Lott’s remarks.
That again? Please explain to us your understanding of the Southern Strategy. Preferably after you take a look at electoral maps of that period and today. Did you think the Civil Rights Act was a Republican initiative?
Here’s the short version for ya: Then, the Democrats were the home of racist southern whites, as they had been ever since Reconstruction. But there had been two different general factions of Democrats ever since the Compromise of 1850, if not earlier. The northern Democrats, and the smaller faction of Southern progressives that included Johnson, pushed through a package of civil rights legislation in the full knowledge that the southern faction would later go over to the Republicans, but that the national interest superseded their party’s.
The people who opposed the Civil Rights Act are now Republicans. That includes both Lott and Thurmond. Deal with it.
Only if taken in isolation. If the racist history of the GOP leader, as demonstrated in the links I already quoted, but which had been overlooked by the lazy Beltway media is taken into account, the reaction looks more like a sports referee’s make-up call.
The Democrats were the conservative party at the time. conservatives opposed the Civil Rights Act, then switched over to the Republican Party afterwards. The “left” and “right” parties reversed themselves after the civil rights act.
It was said in public, and it was the Republicans who forced out Lott, not the Democrats. It’s also not comparable to Reid because Reid didn’t say anything offensive. If you disagree, please explain exactly what Reid said that offends you.
When such an event has the nation’s press in attendance, you probably shouldn’t give praise for offensive positions people have taken and since themselves recanted.
I don’t consider television to be a good way to get news, so I need someone to help me out: Where can I find something to read about how this whole episode got started?