Senate Majority Leader: I wish the segregationist had won!

[Caligastia]

I don't care if he's racist or not, as long as he's republican.

[Jac de Molay]

Dont worry, the Republicans are distancing themselves just as quickly as everyone else, and some have begun calling for his resignation, it seems.

[Ramo]

Damn 10th Amendment!

Desegregation is legally justified through the 14th Amendment, and consequent court decisions. Opposing desegregation was not only supremely immoral (which really should override any legality itself), but supremely illegal.

Segregation was the mantra of the Dixiecrats; the "state rights" they championed were not only examples of legalism taken to the point of total idiocy in order to justify an extremely oppressive society, but they were based on faulty legal premises.

[GePap]

What Lott said was highly stupid. there are many ways of praising a man, and what Lott said was not one of them, specially the "problems we have today" part. Again, he could simply have said "and he would have been a great president!" After all, that speaks to the abilities of the man he is supposed to be praising. BU the "problems" comment invariuably brings up the question: "which problems", and then you think , how would a Thurdmund presidency have avoided anything? which then brings you to the policies for which he ran: ie. segregation of the races.

As for Dems. getting free ride. Sure they do, just look at the free ride Republicans are giving Lott here in this board. But at the same time, saying ****** or ******dly, while many find it offensive, for good reason, is not of the same scale. After all, even saying ****** does not mean you question the correctness fo desegragation. That is a polcy prescription, not a personal bias.

As for Lott resigning, thats going too far. BUt the Republicans don't have to vote him Majority leader when the new Congress come up. They can always chose another senator. There are plenty of very conservative senators to choose from who have not put their foot in their mouths.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Dont worry, the Republicans are distancing themselves just as quickly as everyone else, and some have begun calling for his resignation, it seems.

Yes, but why haven't the Democrats been after him on this?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But Lott won some measured support from senators, including Democrat Bob Graham of Florida. Graham called Lott's comments "wrong, unfortunate, insensitive," but added, "I personally do not think Trent Lott is a racist."

"I think he went too far, as he said to me today," said Watts of Oklahoma. "I think that if he had to do it over again he would say them differently. But, no, I don't see them as racially motivated."

Like some have said, it's 'foot in mouth' disease. I mean do you REALLY think that the NAACP leader meant to call Bill Clinton the first BLACK President? NO! It was a slip-up, something that happens when you are in the moment.

Oh big deal, he said Thurmond should have won the Presidency. People praising Barry Goldwater said the same thing about him at events (even though he was somewhat wacko). It's just a nice thing you say when someone who's lost the presidency speaks.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh big deal, he said Thurmond should have won the Presidency. People praising Barry Goldwater said the same thing about him at events (even though he was somewhat wacko). It's just a nice thing you say when someone who's lost the presidency speaks.

I amsorry Imran, but thats a poor excuse, form day one: if all he was doing wa ryin to be nice to the man, why didn't he say:

(paraphrasing the first part) "and in 1948 our state was proud to vote for him, because we know he would have made a great President!" Or "because a man of his integrety woul have made a fine leader" OR "because Strum has always been a great leader and a principled man!" OR countless other favorable things to say about THE MAN HIMSELF, as opposed to a comment that brings into question whether Lott supported not the man, but THE MAN'S POLICIES?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's totally ridiculous. By saying 'we wouldn't have these problems today' IS ABOUT THE MAN HIMSELF! Lott is saying that Thurmond would have been a great President and would have prevented the problems that we are faced with today. That's saying he would have been a good President.

[Chris 62]

No fan of Lott, but didn't he say:

"The problems" in his little butt kiss?

Unless your a mind reader, you certainly can't say this is racist, even though it's most likely 99.9% that's EXACTLY what he meant.

Just a bit to much rightous indignation in this thread, when he says
"Too bad you didn't win, cause then we wouldn't have those ******s causing problems", THEN you can call for his head.

Not before.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's totally ridiculous. By saying 'we wouldn't have these problems today' IS ABOUT THE MAN HIMSELF! Lott is saying that Thurmond would have been a great President and would have prevented the problems that we are faced with today. That's saying he would have been a good President.

And what problems do we have today that a strum presidency would have prevented? That is the $64K dolar question Imran. Want to take a crack at it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The size of government today, useless Democrat welfare programs. The high level of taxes, etc.

[GePap]

The end of any of those simply were not part of Strum's 1948 campaign agenda. So how would his 4 years in office lead to any of those things? (Given that so much fo what you conservatives worry about came from the 60's and 70's, its hard to see how 4 years fo strum, and not truman, would have mattered)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seeing that Lott has worked with Thurmond for the past 20+ years, that's probably what he was thinking about. Truman's 'fair deal' was very pro-government.

I don't think he was exactly thinking about the world in 1948. He was thinking of what the man he knew, Strom Thurmond, thought about the size of government.

[GePap]

Ohh please!

Everyone else in the room knew exactly what Strum thurdmund stood for in 1948, yet all of a sudden the Senior senator from Mississippi, who knows enough to know what his state voted for him in 1948 won't happen to know what his stated voted for!?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bring out the conspiracy theorists .

Lott was obviously looking at his work with Thurmond in the US Senate. What is he 50? In 1948, he was probably no older than 5. You think he thought about segregation at the time he made that remark? You must be daft! He thought about working in the Senate, side by side with Strom. It wasn't in a speech, he just said it.

To say Lott supports segregation is ludicrous. I guess the blacks on his staff are there because he didn't hire them?