More Trent Lott stuff

[MGKrebs]

Ya' see...

I think that is exactly WHY this is a story. I'm not familiar with the Gore story you are referring to, but I assume that nobody could believe that the comment reflected his true feelings. It would be like Lieberman saying something that could be construed as anti-Semitic. It's just not believable.

Lott, on the otherhand, evidently has been borderline for a long time. His comment is perfect ammunition; the press doesn't have to do any work besides a google search; the dems get to bash away for free; other repubs either need to distance themselves and/or smell blood and want the job.

he's screwed.

 

[Frank]

Re: Ya' see...

Originally posted by MGKrebs
I think that is exactly WHY this is a story. I'm not familiar with the Gore story you are referring to, but I assume that nobody could believe that the comment reflected his true feelings.

You don't? I do - I remember hearing it on the air during the 2000 campaign, to a crowd of laughing supporters. It's not "believability" that doesn't give it legs - it's the lack of a big voice for the organizations for the retarded, because they DID take offense.

 

[Frank]

Ok, Frank, I can understand if Lott had only said this at ONE birthday party, but Lott has said this several times about Thurmond.

-- That he would make a good president? That the country would have been better, had that happened? To my knowledge, he's on record for saying that one time, about twenty years ago. On that occasion, he said nothing about segregation. You have to put words in his mouth for that. Remember, at the time Thurmond was running, the nation also faced a lot of other concerns, not the least of which was Communism and nuclear proliferation.

He has gone in front of a white supremicist group and told them that their principles were right.

-- Say what? Do you mean, the CCC? I don't knw why on earth ANY politician would have any connection with them - but I know of no such statement by Lott.

He opposed extending the Voting Rights Act and the Martin Luther King Holiday. He opposed the integration of his fraternity. Thurmond, seeing that his positions were wrong, voted to extend the Voting Rights Act and for the Martin Luther King holiday.

-- You know? I don't know WHY people do, or do not vote for things, because their reasons aren't included in the record, but it is mind-reading to claim racism without proof. Lieberman opposed affirmative action before 2000, but no one called HIM a racist. If they vote to add another federal holiday in memoriam of 9/11 - there will be a LOT of votes against it, because they can't just give out another holiday without axing another - but voting against it won't make someone LESS patriotic, will it?. Voting against a new federal holiday which falls two weeks after two others might not be a racist view. I don't know that voting for or against it is a "wrong" view or a "correct" view - I don't see it that way. You could just as well say that not voting for Bush's education bill means you're against education, but it might be for other reasons.

There's little question in my mind that Lott has a questionable connection to a lot of groups I wouldn't have a connection with. But until a couple weeks ago, this wasn't a national obsession. Suddenly, Lott's past has come under scrutiny. What the entire thing appears to be is a mountain of political opportunism. I think Lott is screwed, but mainly because there's nothing he can do about it at this point. A half-dozen apologies won't change anyone's mind at this point.

 

[Frank]

Re: Ya' see...

Originally posted by MGKrebs
It would be like Lieberman saying something that could be construed as anti-Semitic.

I just thought about this -

Lieberman - not believable saying something anti-Semitic (because he is Jewish himself)
Gore - not believable saying something insulting to retarded persons (because....)

 

[Larry Gude]

And the Chairman of the board...

...shoots....aaannnddd ....sccooorreess!!!!!!!!!

Great one, Frank!

Old Prince Albert gets a free pass from his supporters (as usual) while we are having an honest debate about our own problems.

Wille Horton? Al Gore used him first in adds featuring ONLY a black male figure, democratic primary aimed at The Duk.

Tobacco farmer? Al, "I planted it, I reaped it, I...." running for the Senate. Some years later at the convention mourning his sisters lung cancer death and connections to the evil weed...Maybe the Great Mind learned after the fact that it's bad for you!?

Gore on faith: "Fundamentalist Christians are missing a chromosome..."

Funny how some of these supporters have such strong opinions and then the ever inconvenient facts pop up..."Gee, I'd never heard that..."

 

[vraiblonde]

Wille Horton? Al Gore used him first in adds featuring ONLY a black male figure, democratic primary aimed at The Duk.

Then Gore didn't even take the heat for that - Lee Atwater did, and it wasn't even his idea in the first place.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by Hessian
Granted: the Party of Lincoln has distinct differences from today's republicans-
Just like the Party of Kennedy is not the Democratic party of today.

Ok, I do not understand the logic here...there are still several Kennedys in elected office, including his brother that all of you hate. Why are we no longer the party of Kennedy? I am a Kennedy Democrat, most of my friends are. So how are we not the party of Kennedy? Are we more liberal or something? You know, whether you want to say it or not, Kennedy was quite liberal.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by demsformd
Ok, I do not understand the logic here...there are still several Kennedys in elected office,

One less in Maryland.

including his brother that all of you hate. Why are we no longer the party of Kennedy?

Too afraid of having to swim home or drown.

 

[demsformd]

Originally posted by Ken King
One less in Maryland.

Oh, damn that's so funny!!! I love it so much!! HAHAHAHA
Damn, show some maturity and answer the damn question.

 

[Hessian]

Hey...Dems...watch your language...Ken already reminded me of that once

Party of Kennedy:
"Ask not what your country can do for you:..." OH? Ask the millions of loyal Democratic welfare recipients to go get a job and see what happens!!!

Kennedy CUT taxes...when was the last Dem that tried that? Clinton: Opposite...Carter: Through the roof...LBJ? NOPE.

Kennedy started beefing up the military...did any of his Dem successors do that? NOPE

Kennedy moved reform along without pandering....with his finger in the wind and defied his party to get it done...that's right: Dems voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Need anymore distinctions to say the Dem party has left Kennedy behind?
Ted is an alcoholic womanizing, amoral flabby enigma....a real good image.

 

[MGKrebs]

Originally posted by Ken King
One less in Maryland.

Too afraid of having to swim home or drown.

Funny. Hehe. Reminds me of "Yellow River", by I.P. Daily.
or maybe " 50 Yards to The Outhouse", by Willie Makit, illustrated by Betty Wont.

-----> Insert Ronald Reagan trying to remember his own name joke here<----

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by demsformd
Oh, damn that's so funny!!! I love it so much!! HAHAHAHA
Damn, show some maturity and answer the damn question.

What question, you asked several, or does everyone have to answer your questions while you rearely if ever answer one posed to you. Maybe you are a Kennedy Democrat - 100% pure hypocrit. I guess you have an actress as a mistress too.

BTW why not show some maturity yourself and quit hiding behind an alias.

 

[Bruzilla]

Just a couple of things...

First, both Thurmond and Lott used to be Democrats, and were Democrats that fully supported segregation up until they joined the Republican Party and were told that segregation was not acceptable.

Second, I'm getting pretty tired of hearing crap like "We have to hold Lott to higher standard because he's the leader of the Senate." Folks like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Spike Lee, Cynthia McKinney, etc., may be frauds, liars, creeps... whatever. But they all carry far more power in the African-American community than Trent Lott could ever hope to. Yet it's wholly acceptable for these people to make offensive, racist, remarks at will without anyone batting an eye about it.

This whole Lott thing has nothing to do with race or segregation. It all has to do with some Republicans wanting to see Lott replaced as the leader and Nichols and company couldn't do that with a stand-up vote. So now they're turning the party upside-down to get their way. Talk about making Republicans look bad! I would bet that 99% of African-Americans couldn't give a rat's butt about what Lott said, and it's probably a big joke over at the DNC. They know African-Americans aren't going to rush to change their voter registrations because the Republicans are acting all noble and calling for Lott's head. Only Republican seem to gullible enough to believe that!

If the far Right of the Party wants Lott gone, but can't get enough votes to do it, then they should realize that their views aren't the majority view of the Party. They should sit down, shut up, and quit acting like AL Gore.

 

[Tonio]

I remember a huge outcry when Jesse Jackson made his "Hymietown" remark. Anyone remember the SNL skit where Eddie Murphy played Jackson-turned-soul-singer, belting out "Don't Let Me Down, Hymietown"?

 

[Larry Gude]

Bruz...

Read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15308-2002Dec19.html

I really can't say it any better.

Call me "neo" I guess.

 

[Tonio]

Re: Bruz...

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Read this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15308-2002Dec19.html

I really can't say it any better.

Call me "neo" I guess.

A decent column. My only quibble with Krauthammer is his claim that all modern liberals favor racial preferences. That would be like saying that all modern conservatives want to return to the days of Jim Crow, which is patently untrue.

 

[MGKrebs]

Breaking news

from cnn:

"Sen. Trent Lott said today he won't try to remain as majority leader, "in the interest of pursuing the best possible agenda for the future of our country." Lott, whose repeated apologies failed to stem criticism over remarks seen by many as racist, says he will "continue to serve the people of Mississippi" in the Senate. "

On edit; sorry sxy, didn't see your other thread.

 

[Larry Gude]

Tonio...

...just so we have something to quibble over, where are the liberals who don't favor racial preferences?

If true, Lott is not going to be our majority leader because we raised a firestorm of protest about our own party. Not even a policy, but a mind set we consider abhorrent.

Who, exactly, is publicly mad about (against) racial preferences on the left side?

By definition, quotas and race based policies are racist. I think the PC word is "racialist" here of late. It is not the same as physically putting people into bondage but the principle is the same, discrimination based on race.

Anyone?

 

[Tonio]

Re: Tonio...

Quibble over? Heaven forbid that people in the Forums agree on anything...

I'm not MGKrebs or Demsformd or Jimmy (who's been MIA for a while). I don't have a Rolodex of liberals at my fingertips for ask about racial preferences. I learned in English class not to generalize--a lesson that too many of today's pundits seem to have missed.

Now, I agree with you that MANY liberals favor racial preferences in the form of affirmative action. Perhaps the ones who don't get drowned out by the ones who do. But I put most of the blame on racial ambulance chasers like Al Sharptons, who accuse all affirmative action opponents of favoring the return of Jim Crow. (See? He's generalizing.) I've said before that affirmative action is Quotas Lite in practice.

To make the Sharptons of the world shut up, both parties should aggressively promote alternatives based on the principle of equal opportunity. Look up Texas' Top 10 Percent law. It's a shame that more states don't adopt something like this.

 

[demsformd]

I applaud Trent Lott for resigning his position as Republican leader. You guys made it clear that racisim has no part in your party, which it does only in the fringes. I'm sure that the next majority leader will be much more suited for the leadership position than Lott. So, I congratulate the Repubs on avoiding an even murkier press situation.