Okay, cheesy but I just wanted to make a "Lott" pun like the reporters do. :cheesy:

Ken, it's not about whether Lott has the right to his opinion or not - it's about whether we (meaning Republicans) want to be represented by a man who holds those views. I vote No.

If the Democrats want to be defined by Bill Clinton, that's their bag. But Republicans already have a stereotype associated with them - racist, want to kill Granny, religious fundamentalists, etc. When a seasoned "leader" goes public and reiterates that stereotype, the rest of us have an obligation to speak out.

I don't think he should be removed from the Senate - the voters in Mississippi will let him know if that's what they want. But I do think he should resign as Majority Leader.

And one more thing:

Lott and his supporters have been saying repeatedly, "He's not a racist and he just misspoke - he didn't mean it like it sounded." Yadda yadda. I would like whoever's interviewing him on BET tonight to play the clip, then simply ask him, "Senator Lott, what exactly DID you mean by that comment?" And not let him off with some politician-style evasion, either. Make him answer the question.

Ken,

Points well taken. He can say what he wants. He can believe what he wants.

However, I do not think he should be rewarded for it with a leadership position. In that capacity he represents the entire party and especially, ME!

It seems to me you are arguing that we have reached a state where we connect the right of free speech with some sort of notion that we cannot use what a person says and/or does to make a judgment about that persons suitability for advancement and reward.

If Lott stays as majority leader we say, loud and clear, that the real racists (based on policies) on the left have successfully shifted the blame on the GOP for real reasons (even if "just" based on words).

One thing that seems to be glossed over is the fact that the republicans themselves are the ones upset (sure, they want him out so they can take his position, but still..). They saw what the dems did with Clinton and they don't want to sit here 2 or 6 years from now trying to justify what they did, just like the dems have been doing (and what they have been harping on)..

thinking something and saying/doing it are completely different.. I'm sure there are others in the senate who are racial bigots, but they (for the most part) have been able to keep it quiet.. I'm sure we have all been on the interstate in the middle of the night with no traffic.. You want to kick up the speed to get to your destination faster.. You have a choice.. Either you do what you think, or you don't.. If you do it and get caught, no need to argue. Take your lumps and move on.

Vraiblonde,

Couple of things, at least from my perspective.

Lott doesn’t represent me, I’m not a Republican, and he doesn’t even really represent you. He is who the folk in Mississippi want representing them, nothing more. You share the same party and within that party you have your own spectrum of people. From those that see how damaging racism is and those who at times slip back to their politically incorrect mentality. If you want your party to have him stand down as Majority Leader write a letter or send an email to him and the rest in your party.

How did it happen that he said these remarks. Having spent time in the south and being alive before the Civil Rights Act, I have seen what life used to be like. He is a relic of that time, just as is Thurmond. It’s in these guys backgrounds so deep that they can’t help it. They try to keep control of it but it jumps up and bites them as bad as when Teddy Kennedy says anything about anyone.

These guys are those nasty arrogant mean white some b1tches that we all know are still out there. Some are racists and some are a variety of other things, all equally bad. I’m surprised people still expect more from them. I sure don’t any more.

But it is up to Lott’s people to remove him. Anybody up to speed on Senate procedures?

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Ken,

Points well taken. He can say what he wants. He can believe what he wants.

However, I do not think he should be rewarded for it with a leadership position. In that capacity he represents the entire party and especially, ME!

Damn glad to see you posting again Big Guy.

Rewarded? He didn’t get the position because he made these comments, didn’t he have it before old Jim Jeffords jumped boat? He got it because he best expressed the movement of the political agenda of his party. If you see this as enough to abandon him, go for it, jump boat (or in this case throw him off of it). I see it as just another man the media caught with his foot in his mouth.

It seems to me you are arguing that we have reached a state where we connect the right of free speech with some sort of notion that we cannot use what a person says and/or does to make a judgment about that persons suitability for advancement and reward.

No, go ahead and judge away. Make sure that you judge it specifically to the very moment that Lott said the words and say, beyond reasonable doubt, that they were meant to be harmful to those that felt the harm from them. If you see that as his intent then he does deserve it. I think his intent was no such thing and those words (not the meaning so many have given to them) harmed no one and aren’t really in need of an apology. But he went ahead and did it, has been chastised by GW and just about anyone who can get to a microphone. Seems enough.

If Lott stays as majority leader we say, loud and clear, that the real racists (based on policies) on the left have successfully shifted the blame on the GOP for real reasons (even if "just" based on words).

If that’s how you feel fine, but I don’t think he represents the type of person that you are anymore then he represents anyone else other then Mississippians.

I wasn't specific enough.

Majority leader is not "majority leader of Mississippi", it's majority leader of the Senate and one of the most powerful political positions in the country. You have a huge amount of say in dispensing goodies (and the chits that are then owed you in return) like pork and chairmanships and other sought after positions. You are huge in setting the agenda for the Senate and hence, all the legislation that goes or doesn't go through congress.

Stay as a Senator, by all means, but not majority leader.

He was rewarded with the position before all of this by convincing his colleagues he was the person for the job. The members vote the position. He is now in the process of un-convincing. Staying in the position is a reward for poor behavior. No, no, says I.

As far as judging goes, on BET last night he was asked, point blank, "what did you mean when you said what you said"?

Vrai was all over this, saying she hoped they would and should ask that one, BTW.

He evaded. The reporter dude came back to it, (like a good pro).

This time Lott weaseled along "well, what I meant in terms of 'all theses problems' was Thurmond’s strength against communism and such..." and then he went on to sincerely apologizing for THAT! "Oh, I'm sorry I wish we had less problems with them there commies..."

Yeahright.

This is a common theme with Lott not a one or even two time faux pax. He said the exact same thing, verbatim, 20 years ago, never mind excluding blacks from his fraternity and his other fights, certainly all in the name of "fightin them there commies"?

Then he goes on to audition for Senate Majority Leader...for the democrats. "Oh, I'm all for affirmative action...I'd vote for the King Holiday now, knowing what I know now..."

Lott is the worst kind of politician, in my view; He'll say whatever it is he thinks his audience wants to hear, without blushing. That's what Clinton was so good at. Chameleon. Lott sucks at it if nothing else.

Why couldn't he say "Affirmative action is, in my view a softer, subversive kind of racism...I'm for freeing all people from all shackles, governmental or otherwise..."

Not only is he a bonehead but also now he's a democrat.

Best line? "Oh, I have a few blacks on my staff..."

I was waiting to hear him say "We even let 'em in at nights...if it's real cold..."

I'm not considered black by most people so, this is just one white boys view: I was insulted even further by Lotts latest "apology".

Quicksand?

I don't care at all if he is the First Black Majority Leader (a la Clinton) to people in private. What he said demanded a sincere comeuppance. It was up to him to either talk his way out if it or pay a greater price. In his case, he passed up any chance at dignity by exposing himself to the nation (gasp!) as probably having an even tougher record to defend than previously thought. And he failed, miserably.

How would you feel if he said "Well, Senator Thurmond was right in trying to keep them dang Bucksnorts away from decent folk..."

Hmmmm?????

Ken, of course Lott has the right to express his beliefs. And yes, it should be up to the voters in Mississippi to determine if he stays as their Senator. That isn't the issue.

The issue is that Lott and many others like him subscribe to a whitewashed (pun intended) view of Southern history. They believe things were better under Jim Crow, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and despite all decency and common sense. They insist that the South's opposition to desegregation was simply a matter of protecting state's rights. What baloney.

For that, I believe Lott should be punished, not by impeachment in Congress but by shame in the court in public opinion. That's happening right now. It's extremely important to make sure the historical record of the civil rights movement is accurate. A century ago, the South convinced the rest of America that the Civil War was about state's rights, not about whether slavery should be allowed in the territories. We should never let that happen again.

A side note: Notice how Lott insisted he was praising Thurmond's record of anti-communism. I don't believe he was simply buttering up the old man. A feature of Thurmond's 1948 campaign was racist red-baiting, claiming that desegregation was the first step toward communism. Later, people like Jesse Helms falsely accused Martin Luther King of being in league with Moscow.

I think this has simply gotten out of hand. A person was giving an impromptu speech at a birthday party to honor a man and goes back over events from that persons past. He talks about an event that took place when the speaker was a child (Lott should have been 7 years old around 1948). In the spirit of honoring the man he made a comment about what if, the hush over the audience probably made him crap himself as he retraced what it was he had just said. It wasn’t until that point that he knew what harm those words could have. It wasn’t intended or planned, it just happened. The fact that he would say it to begin with has many labeling him as a racist. I simply say, who didn’t know that already?

We have racists out there everywhere, and not all of them are southern white men. There is nothing new here and it probably won’t change much in the near future. Many of us have been able to minimize the biases of the times we were raised and it is getting better. However, there are many that won't change and all you can do is wait them out.

What I hear mostly from this call for him to step down is nothing more then trying to make it criminal for how you think (aka hate crimes). Do we really want that? I don’t, and while we are talking about race. I ask, couldn’t the Congressional Black Caucus be considered equally as racist and should it exist?

Personally, I think it is in poor taste for the Democrats and for that matter republicans to use such an incident to promote their own political gains.

Basically i see it like this. If you say something that offends somebody you should appologize. You don't continue to say how sorry you are that some one is fat or ugly, because each time you say it , it pours salt in the wound. You now have people with hurt feelings questioning everbodies lines of racism because of the length of this controversy.

The more we do this, the less chance of hurt feelings being repaired.

As far as Mississippi goes, They know what this guy is. Everybody is counting on him not getting re-elected but what happens if he does get re-elected. Does that mean you have an entire state full of racist. Or do they just hate the other guy More...

Either way, Most will not be happy!

Any Republican with an ounce of intelligence, would re-coil at Lott's statement's!

Wrong is always Wrong be it on the Democrat or Repubican side!

I know what your doing Biscuit! It won't work....

Gosh. I'm somewhat flabbergasted by your arguments, Ken. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck were basically saying the same thing today and it stunned me hearing it from them, too.

It's not about how Trent Lott feels or what he thinks - it's about whether he's fit to lead the Senate or not.

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Gosh. I'm somewhat flabbergasted by your arguments, Ken. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck were basically saying the same thing today and it stunned me hearing it from them, too.
I don't listen to or read these guys so I don't know what to think about being in agreement with them. I just don't see this as a very big deal.

It's not about how Trent Lott feels or what he thinks - it's about whether he's fit to lead the Senate or not.
So since he was selected before Jeffords jumped boat he was fit to lead, now after making an ambiguous comment he is no longer fit. He is the same man that he was before, why isn't he good enough now?

Originally posted by vraiblonde
It's not about how Trent Lott feels or what he thinks - it's about whether he's fit to lead the Senate or not.

I would agree with that. Based on his record, I believe nonwhite Americans cannot trust him to safeguard their constitutional rights.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/848560.asp?cp1=1

I thought this was more offensive than even Lott's statement. I had never heard of Frank Luntz, and now I wish I hadn't.

MATTHEWS:...What do you believe (Trent Lott) thinks those problems are that we’ve avoided or that we’ve incurred because we didn’t vote racist back in ’48?
LUNTZ: It has to do with problems that we’ve had over the last eight or nine years. I don’t want to speak...
MATTHEWS: He said we wouldn’t have these problems if we had voted for Strom Thurmond in ’48 for president, a segregationist who ran against Harry Truman. What is he talking about there?
LUNTZ: I think that some of the issues that he’s talking about, quite frankly, and I don’t know if he would agree or disagree, but I think some of it has to do with Bill Clinton and the things that happened in the 1990s, the moral decay of the country. The acceptance of certain types of behavior...

Just what does segregation have to do with preserving morality, Mr. Luntz?

My how quickly people forget.

"F'ing Jew B@$tards" - Hillary Clinton

Originally posted by Sharon
My how quickly people forget.

"F'ing Jew B@$tards" - Hillary Clinton

She was actually talking to slick willie. :wink:

Well, I think that the GOP has an oligation to drop Lott from their leadership post. But I want him to stay, especially if they vote him back in. That will be great...I can see it now in my mind...Lott saying his quote with Thurmond in the backrgound saying we will keep the Negro out of our schools, pools, and others. And then a flattering picture of Bush, Thurmond, and Lott all sharing a laugh. We can run it in the inner cities and bam, we win next time. If you guys have any guts or political intellligence, you would dump him so quick.

OMG! DEMS! WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! Quick - where's SmallTown's "Hell" sign? :lmao:

Cause lemme tell ya - if I were a Democrat campaign manager, that's exactly the TV spot I'd run.

Hey, we agree on gun control. It's a start. HAHA

Originally posted by Sharon
My how quickly people forget.

"F'ing Jew B@$tards" - Hillary Clinton

The only way I would compare Hillary to Trent Lott is if she claimed that the Holocaust never happened.

But at this point, I wouldn't put anything past Hillary, the poster child for self-centeredness. What color is the sky in her world? :lol:

Originally posted by vraiblonde
OMG! DEMS! WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! Quick - where's SmallTown's "Hell" sign? :lmao:

Cause lemme tell ya - if I were a Democrat campaign manager, that's exactly the TV spot I'd run.

We're allowed to say hell on here??

Ken, I've been reading this thread, and although I am reluctant to bring up Bubba, I have a question about equal standards. Below are quotes from this thread. I have substituted certain words (in capitals) for obvious reasons. I'm curious about your perception of the differences between the two situations.


... doesn’t represent me, I’m not a DEMOCRAT, {I know you are a dem, Ken, just making a point here.} and he doesn’t even really represent you. He is who the folk in THE UNITED STATES want representing them, nothing more.

He is a relic of that time, just as is HUGH HEFNER. It’s in these guys backgrounds so deep that they can’t help it

But it is up to CLINTON'S people to remove him. Anybody up to speed on ? procedures?

I see it as just another man the LAWYERS caught with his foot in his mouth.

No, go ahead and judge away. Make sure that you judge it specifically to the very moment that CLINTON said the words and say, beyond reasonable doubt, that they were meant to be DISHONEST to those that TRUSTED HIM.

But he went ahead and did it, has been chastised by THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, and just about anyone who can get to a microphone. Seems enough.

...the hush over the audience probably made him crap himself as he retraced what it was he had just said.

What I hear mostly from this call for him to step down is nothing more then trying to make it criminal for how you think (aka PERSONAL MORALITY). Do we really want that?

So since he was selected before MONICA he was fit to lead, now after making an ambiguous comment he is no longer fit. He is the same man.

Originally posted by MGKrebs
Ken, I've been reading this thread, and although I am reluctant to bring up Bubba, I have a question about equal standards. Below are quotes from this thread. I have substituted certain words (in capitals) for obvious reasons. I'm curious about your perception of the differences between the two situations.


... doesn’t represent me, I’m not a DEMOCRAT, {I know you are a dem, Ken, just making a point here.} and he doesn’t even really represent you. He is who the folk in THE UNITED STATES want representing them, nothing more.

He is a relic of that time, just as is HUGH HEFNER. It’s in these guys backgrounds so deep that they can’t help it

But it is up to CLINTON'S people to remove him. Anybody up to speed on ? procedures?

I see it as just another man the LAWYERS caught with his foot in his mouth.

No, go ahead and judge away. Make sure that you judge it specifically to the very moment that CLINTON said the words and say, beyond reasonable doubt, that they were meant to be DISHONEST to those that TRUSTED HIM.

But he went ahead and did it, has been chastised by THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, and just about anyone who can get to a microphone. Seems enough.

...the hush over the audience probably made him crap himself as he retraced what it was he had just said.

What I hear mostly from this call for him to step down is nothing more then trying to make it criminal for how you think (aka PERSONAL MORALITY). Do we really want that?

So since he was selected before MONICA he was fit to lead, now after making an ambiguous comment he is no longer fit. He is the same man.
I’ll try to play your game, though you probably won’t like it. Democrat, registered yes, but would you say that I am one in my heart? The only point of any significance is that, without my judging Clinton because I didn’t, he finally came clean and admitted to not answering the questions posed to him in a forthright and honest manner. He admitted that he had perjured himself, nothing amniguous here. Enough said.

Even so, isn't admitting it worth something? I've seen and heard comments, even on this board, that conservatives at least are more honorable somehow by admitting their mistakes . Clinton admitted his mistake and apologized for it. Isn't that the same thing you are saying we should give Lott a break for?

And why did he admit it? Not out of a personal desire to right a wrong, but as part of covering his @ss, hoping he could save his license to practice law.

Originally posted by MGKrebs
Even so, isn't admitting it worth something? I've seen and heard comments, even on this board, that conservatives at least are more honorable somehow by admitting their mistakes . Clinton admitted his mistake and apologized for it. Isn't that the same thing you are saying we should give Lott a break for?

When someone commits a *crime*, apologetic or not, they should be willing or be forced to pay the consequences. Let's not euphemize the situation by calling it "a mistake".

When someone commits a gross error in judgment - such as occurred at Ruby Ridge or Waco - an apology is insufficient. Whomever is responsible should be more than apologetic - they should accept the consequences.

When someone at a private function makes a remark that could be construed as possibly insulting or racist, but might have been simply innocuous and meaningless praise - sure, they should pay the consequences politically - that IS how politics works. Lott has paid the consequences, but you can bet that those who dislike him will make a lot more of it than you can guess. Clinton was caught saying a LOT of unpleasant things - his comments off-camera about Jesse Jackson, years ago, come to mind - but he long ceased paid the price.

Originally posted by Frank
When someone commits a *crime*, apologetic or not, they should be willing or be forced to pay the consequences. Let's not euphemize the situation by calling it "a mistake".

When someone commits a gross error in judgment - such as occurred at Ruby Ridge or Waco - an apology is insufficient. Whomever is responsible should be more than apologetic - they should accept the consequences.

When someone at a private function makes a remark that could be construed as possibly insulting or racist, but might have been simply innocuous and meaningless praise - sure, they should pay the consequences politically - that IS how politics works. Lott has paid the consequences, but you can bet that those who dislike him will make a lot more of it than you can guess. Clinton was caught saying a LOT of unpleasant things - his comments off-camera about Jesse Jackson, years ago, come to mind - but he long ceased paid the price.

Good points, Frank.

I didn't really know much about Lott before all this happened. My objection was not with Lott himself but with what his comment represented--a whitewashing of recent Southern history. "All these problems" sounded like racial code to me. It's sad that Lott and others seem to believe that things were really better under Jim Crow. And how about Frank Luntz's comments on the show Hardball, which I posted above? (I had never even heard of Luntz.)

As I said before, a good comparison to Lott would be if Clinton said the Holocaust never happened, or he started quoting from Protocols From the Elders of Zion.

Frank, I can't recall exactly what Clinton said about Jackson. Could you provide some details?