Lott Resigns as Majority Leader

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

And, while it's good he stepped down, and Bill Frist will be Majority Leader (a MUCH more likeable person), I still think the whole contraversy was BS, and I don't think the comments were racist at all. But, believe what you want.

So in other words, if a politician expressed his opinion that Europe would have been better off had Hitler lived and succeeded, that politician is not necessarily anti-semitic?
Yeah, yeah -- Hitler was tens times more evil than Thurmond, but still . . . . . . . .

[Imran Siddiqui]

So in other words, if a politician expressed his opinion that Europe would have been better off had Hitler lived and succeeded, that politician is not necessarily anti-semitic?

Totally different comparason and a false analogy. A better one is at the 100th birthday of Joerg Haider (I assume you know who that is), some Austrian politician said "I wish you became Chancellor, then we wouldn't have these problems anymore". Would you say the speaker was anti-immigrant? Or would you rather use your head and realise the speaker was talking about Haider's ideas of smaller government?

Unfortunetly, I assume you'd pick the former.

[Sava]

MrFUn, I think Hitler was just more honest and open about his feelings than Thurmond and Lott.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So in other words, if a politician expressed his opinion that Europe would have been better off had Hitler lived and succeeded, that politician is not necessarily anti-semitic?

Totally different comparason and a false analogy. A better one is at the 100th birthday of Joerg Haider (I assume you know who that is), some Austrian politician said "I wish you became Chancellor, then we wouldn't have these problems anymore". Would you say the speaker was anti-immigrant? Or would you rather use your head and realise the speaker was talking about Haider's ideas of smaller government?

Unfortunetly, I assume you'd pick the former.

Then African-Americans were insulted by Lott's comment because . . . . .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because (and you'll looove to hear this) they just get offending when their 'leaders' tell them to. There was no reason to go hog wild on this, but Jesse and Al wanted to circle the wagons. And I bet the DNC was over this as well to take Republican momentum away.

Representative John Lewis (D-Ga), who is known as a Civil Rights leader, said he did not think Lott was racist and he just made a mistake and should accept the apology.

But, with Jesse was in full force and black caucus just had to follow along.

[rant]

Frankly (and unrelated), I think it is sick that anything that even touches on race becomes a source for outcry by the black community. I remember in college, this comic was making fun of racists, but that set the Black groups in a tizzy, and they made the paper apologize for putting such racist comics in the paper. IT WAS MAKING FUN OF RACISTS! Sometimes I just wonder if black groups even have any idea about the world around them or believe it is entitled to it all.

[/rant]

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by GePap
Thank God for Trent Lott!

All the post election self-congratulation from republicans melted away in scandal and internal infighting His leaving the senate majority spot will not improve the Republican's image among Blacks, since the whole thing took so long. Don't expect Bush to get more than 20% of the Black vote come 2004, and even that might be high.

As for you Jimmy: of course the race issue has not gone: the best example of how it continues to poison the south: Trent Lott and his message.

And spraybear: Mississippi is backward: bottom of the bottom in all measures of wealth and socio-economic advancement in the US (but it has Arkansas to contend with). Its a fact, and we ivory tower northeners already send far too much of our wealth down south thanks to the federal government.

Not only that, but you got the first of our reverse carpetbaggers. We would have let y'all go peacefully, but you people wouldn't have it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because (and you'll looove to hear this) they just get offending when their 'leaders' tell them to. There was no reason to go hog wild on this, but Jesse and Al wanted to circle the wagons. And I bet the DNC was over this as well to take Republican momentum away.

With such a fine opportunity handed you out of the clear blue sky (or at least out of the whatever color is the cavern of ol' Trent's mouth), who wouldn't run with it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Running with it, and it being true are two different things . Though I guess that is usual for politics.

[Ned]

I'm generally of the Republican persuasion. But I feel very uncomfortable with the likes of Lott, who appears to be an Southern ex-Democrat, calling himself a Republican. I prefer to believe our party champions the cause of liberty and justice for all. We are, after all, the party of Lincoln.

President Bush showed real leadership in condemning Lott's statement and essentially forcing him out of the leadership position.

[SnowFire]

Or would you rather use your head and realise the speaker was talking about Haider's ideas of smaller government?

Unfortunetly, I assume you'd pick the former.

Yeah, but that wasn't the entire focus of Haider though, was it? Thurmond functionally run on segregation as his sole issue back then. Haider has some breadth to him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thurmond functionally run on segregation as his sole issue back then. Haider has some breadth to him.

When we look back 50 years from now, we will say Haider, too, only ran on one issue: anti-immigration.

[SnowFire]

Maybe, but that doesn't mean that it isn't actually true in the Thurmond case. Not that I'm saying it is- neither of us were alive then- but my inclination is to believe the current accepted version.

Anybody know if Thurmond campaigned on something other than giving government programs to the South and Segregation?

[mindseye]

Uh, Imran, you're way too clever to have overlooked the following:

- Thurmond's run for the presidency was based almost exclusively on segregation,so it's hard to discern any other possible meaning from Lott's comments
- Lott has a long, long history of open racist affirmations, from supporting Bob Jones University to penning a column for the CCC's magazine
- he made almost identical remarks in 1980, in a context in which the meaning was more clear.

Granted on the face of the comments, isolated from all else, it is not clear what he meant. But to ignore all the other contextual factors requires an absolute act of self-delusion!

The man is simply a racist of the worst kind: a racist with an especially bad hair piece.

Having said that, I think it's really a pity he has stepped down. The Democrats cannot hope for a better punching bag for Majority Leader than a nasty, unapologetic, racist, homophobic arch-conservative.

[Dr Strangelove]

If you're talking about the 1960 election I remember that one, and yes segregation was virtually his entire platform, along with a little anti-catholicism aimed at John Kennedy, and a promise to eliminate the Cuban threat.

[Zkribbler]

It's interesting watching the spinmeisters spinning the Lott resignation.

Lott resigned because he didn't have the Republican votes to survive a challenge. His votes disappeared when the White House abandoned him.

Now, the spinmeister Republicans are all congratulating Lott for being so noble in resigning from the leadership to aid the party, and they're cursing the evil Democrats for causing the resignation.

Meanwhile, the spinmeister Dems are trying to richocett the mud off Lott and land it on Frist. Some have already suggested Frist was being intimination of African-American voters during the last election. One has even written to the AG suggesting an investigation.

Our Founding Fathers certainly knew what they were doing when they chose muck-filled swampland at the place to build this nation's capital.