The Republicans again getting unfairly portrayed as Racists...

[wonderfly]

Have you heard about what Sen. Lott, the new Republican Majority Leader said at Strom Thurmond's birthday party this last weekend? Thurmond just turned 100 years old, is the oldest Senator to ever serve in the Senate, and it was his party. Lott was basically there giving a speech toasting all his hard work over the years. And he said that the country would be better off if America had elected Thurmond for President when he ran for the office back in 1948. Thurmond ran as a Segregationist that year mind you, and he opposed the Civil Rights movement in the 50's.

So now some people are interpreting Lott's statement as racist. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are calling for Lott to step down. Frankly, I think Lott was just sucking up to Thurmond at the guys birthday party. But there's going to be groups of people that will say "Look, this just points out that the Republicans are racist.

Me, I'm a registered Democrat, but I'm not buying this stereotyping. It's a stereotype of Southern Republicans, and I'm sick of it.

If they really want someone to resign, they should be demanding Thurmond! He's the one who ran on those horrible policies.

Here's the latest article from the Associated Press on the subject.



“A POOR choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past,” Lott, R-Miss., said in a statement. “Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement.”
Lott spokesman Ron Bonjean said the senator issued the statement “out of personal concern for the misunderstanding.”

‘LIGHTHEARTED CELEBRATION’
Former Vice President Al Gore said earlier Monday that Lott should be censured for his “racist statement.”
Lott made his comments last Thursday at a party celebrating the 100th birthday of Thurmond, who is retiring as South Carolina’s senator after a record 48 years of service.
Lott, who will become Senate majority leader when the next Congress convenes in January, had issued an earlier statement denying support for Thurmond’s past positions
“This was a lighthearted celebration of the 100th birthday of legendary Senator Strom Thurmond,” Lott said then. “My comments were not an endorsement of his positions of over 50 years ago, but of the man and his life.”
Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina in 1948, ran for president as a states’ rights and anti-integration Dixiecrat, opposing the civil rights policies of President Truman. He captured 39 southern electoral votes, including those of Lott’s state, Mississippi.
Thurmond entered the Senate in 1954 and became one of the South’s most vocal opponents of integration, opposing the 1954 Supreme Court school desegregation decision and filibustering against civil rights legislation. He changed positions later in his career, hiring black staffers and helping promote blacks to federal judgeships.
“I want to say this about my state,” Lott said last Thursday. “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it,” he said to applause. “And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years either.”
Kevin L. Martin, government and political affairs director of the African American Republican Leadership Council, said people were overreacting to the remarks. “By no means was he endorsing segregation or anything like that. It was lighthearted, it was humorous.” Martin said Lott captures 25 percent of the black vote in Mississippi, which he said couldn’t happen if Lott were a racist.

‘DIVISIVE ALONG RACIAL LINES’
But Gore, speaking on CNN’s “Inside Politics,” said the Senate should censure Lott. “It is not a small thing for one of the half-dozen most prominent political leaders in America to say that our problems are caused by integration and that we should have had a segregationist candidate. That is divisive and it is divisive along racial lines.”
The Rev. Jesse Jackson had said Sunday that Lott should step down. “Shame on the Republican Party if it does not demote him for promoting this mean-spirited and immoral propaganda.
“The civil rights movement was one of America’s finest hours. Strom Thurmond’s massive resistance to that movement, and his support in states like Mississippi, was one of history’s low points. Trent Lott must not be allowed to tarnish that truth.”
One Democrat, Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, defended Lott on Monday, saying he had spoken with Lott and had accepted Lott’s explanation that he hadn’t meant for the remarks to be interpreted as they were.
“There are a lot of times when he and I go to the microphone and would like to say things we meant to say differently, and I’m sure this was one of those cases for him, as well,” Daschle said.

© 2002 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[Joe Wagner]

Anyone else find it interesting that Al Gore is willing to jump out a statement by Lott that was intended as a joke and not racist in any way but is not willing to answer questions about the fact his dad voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Personally I think this is a way of once again scapegoating one party for being racist when the truth is that the civil rights movements of 1964 and 1968 would not have passed had it not been for Republican support. Also, Tom Daschle (South Dakota, D. - a man who always gives a liberal viewpoint, regardless of the situation) has even said that he doesn't support the view that Lott was making a racist remark. This will probably mark the only time that Tom and I ever agree.

-Joe!

[Joe Tully]

I lost the will to care about this kind of thing a long time ago, coming from either side. It's all part of the game, I guess. *shrug*

[ccffan01]

Lott should step down......what a biggot.....

[Outlander00]

Here's a thought... Lott IS racist! He is one of the old Southern Democrats who jumped ship in the 60's because of Kennedy's stance on segregation (and intergration of Southern schools). And I dont buy this argument that it was misrepresented and that it was taken out of context because why and where he was (had a little too much to drink at Strom Thurmans going away party). People SHOULD be jumping down his throat for what he said because he is a public servant and a high profile one too.

[Krayenhoff]

There can be no defense for Lott. He is a fool who has cost the Conservative movement in this country before. He shouldn't step down, but he definitely should be put on a short leash.

Most of the people jumping down his throat are calling him racists. If they're Jesse Jackson and "New York is himey-town" Al Sharpton, they should take a look in the mirror. They're far worse bigots than Lott could ever hope to be.

[gtracer72]

Geez, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson running their big mouths again. :rolleyes: What a surprise. Look, the statement was not meant to be rascist.

Lott was giving a toast for Thurmand at Thurmand's party. You don't bash somebody while giving a toast, you flatter them. I'm not saying that their beliefs were right, but this happened in the PAST. You don't start bashing a guy on his 100th birthday.

[Outlander00]

When its Strom Thurman, you sure as hell do too! :p

[Daniel P]

Lott is a racist anyway.

[ccffan01]

I thought Strom was dead.....

[Chris Sanders MSX]

Anyone else find it interesting that Al Gore is willing to jump out a statement by Lott that was intended as a joke and not racist in any way but is not willing to answer questions about the fact his dad voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

No because his fathers vote isn't even relevant to anything. It has nothing to do with him or his party.

[Brainatra]

>>If they really want someone to resign, they should be demanding Thurmond! He's the one who ran on those horrible policies.

Um, actually, Thurmond's retiring as of this January...

I'd have to side with the "insensitive comment" side (esp. given Lott's remark involving that the country "wouldn't have so many problems today" if we had elected Thurmond president.. uh-huh)... though never particularly liked Thurmond at all (he seems sort of reminiscient of Mr. Burns, for whatever reason :-) ).

-B.

[Weatherman]

If it was a joke, it's in incedibly poor taste and bad judgement. If he was serious, then we indeed have a problem....



Either way, it was an extremely dumb statement by MR. LOTT, who happens to be a republican. I don't take it to be in anyway representative of the whole Republican party, and I'm a hardcore Democrat. As I've heard, the entire gathering was stunned into scilence by the remark.

[HarleyFan#1]

I cant believe there are people here actually defending this
scumbag.
The man said if Thurmond was voted for president back in 1948 (at the time he was a well-known segregationalist) we wouldnt have all these problems today. What else could he be talking about?!? I highly doubt someone with that kind of comment would say that in jest.
Im for democrats, but Even though he is republican, I dont label all the others as racists. But the fact of the matter is that someone who is in a position of power like that who just so happens to come out to being a racist, shouldnt be helping run this country. And now that the republican party is for abolishing affirmative action it just seems the country is moving backwards instead of forward.

I dont care if Thurmond is a billion years old. Racism is wrong and some of "those" people in congress are the real ones who need to get over it.

[Meson]

THe Republicans aren't racist. They are classist. THey discriminate against the poor. The Democrats are that way too. Both are for big business, and that it.

[ccffan01]

Is that why the Democrats are for a raise in the minimum wage and the Republicans aren't. The Republicans refuse to support a raise because it would hurt big business.

[Jade_GL]

I think it was just a dumb comment.

As a Dem, I could jump on him, but I think it was just dumb, and then exploded by the media. That doesn't mean he should step down, but his retraction/apology, whatever, was appropriate.

We can never know what he was thinking when he said it. I would like to go with the "dumb" explanatian, because I can't believe that anyone would say this and mean it, especially in politics as they are today. You have to be very careful, even in a laid back situation, to say things that cannot be construed as racist, classist, elitist, whatever. You could seem to be something you're not. Or, you could admit what you are and show the world your true face, whatever you chose to believe about politicians, I suppose.

I just think it was blown out of proportion, but you have to expect that with the media today. Any comment by any politician will be looked at very carefully.

So, Trent, if you're out there listening, think before you speak. :) You could get into another situation like this.

If they really want someone to resign, they should be demanding Thurmond! He's the one who ran on those horrible policies.

Good comment.

[Meson]

There are Democrats, and there are Republicans that use the Democrat name. Also, some labor unions are big corporations themselves.

[ZorBrak]

I no longer claim affiliation to either side, it's all too socialist for me as is :rolleyes:. So I'm like uh I don't like giving all my money to the gov (why should they be able to decide what is best for my money....I thought this was the land of the FREE... but it seems more like land of the FEE) so I guess I'm not interested in American politics anymore because either way taxes go up.

[Lucky Bob]

Here's another scenario:

Lott: "This Strom Thurmond was a womanizing, racist, greedy pig! He ran on the segregation ticket, brought shame to our party, and was generally a boil on our sides for all these years.

But upside Tom Daschle, he's a saint! :p "

Come on, it was at the guy's birthday party. Besides, I thought we just had a thread in which people said we should stop correlating everything to race.

[Trent Lane]

Yeah......... it's a good thing there aren't any other problems in our nation right now so we can focus all our time and attention to something so minute... I guess we need to take everything literally now. That means Al Gore really DID invent the Internet!!!:rolleyes:

[Lucky Bob]

Quiet, you fool! You'll ruin his "reinvention" campaign strategy!

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by Meson
THe Republicans aren't racist. They are classist.


Thats more of the truth than anything... However he and the others from the South are both classists and racists. I agree it was a stupid comment foremost, but it was a comment that also showed his true colors (like I've said before he was one of the old gaurd of the Democrats from the 60's that jumped ship) and people should be jumping down his throat because of it. A public servant, no matter how incoherent he is at the time (from alcohol or whatever) should not put themselves in a situation where they would make a comment like that unless they meant the comments said. Lets face it, he is either a racist (which, I'll reiterate, is probably the case) or he was pandering to racists and in either case is, in minimum, bad tact or at worse bad policy of the Republicans. His apology means very little at this point in time because of who he is.

And as far as those commenting on Gore, Jackson, and Sharpton making comments, I agree that these should not be the individuals to make the first reply. Both Jackson and Gore were pandering to their constituents as well while Sharpton was being in character, as a con-man (while drumming up support for his own presidential aspects). Daschle had an opportunity to call Lott on what he said, but chickened out... AGAIN.

[Krayenhoff]

The big difference between Lott and his holier-than-thou moral-minority attackers, being Jackson, Sharpton, and the Democratic Black Caucus, is that Lott has not acted upon his apparent racism (he's said this exact same thing before in 1980). Whereas he only mentions the benefits of segregation, Jackson, Sharpton, Waters, et al are actually working to resegregate the population and are actively turning minorities against whites and even other minorities.

I have far more contempt for Jackson than for Lott. Lott's a moron, Jackson is a cretin.

Oh, and if you think Republicans are "classists," then the Democrats are not? If so, then how come the Democrats favor raising everyone's taxes again while Republicans are in favor of lowering everyone's? Methinks someone's regurgitating from the Communist playbook.

[JohnCrichton]

Originally posted by Joe Tully
I lost the will to care about this kind of thing a long time ago, coming from either side. It's all part of the game, I guess. *shrug*

Tell it, Joe.

Until the sun rises on a just third party..... :(

[gtracer72]

Originally posted by JohnCrichton

Until the sun rises on a just third party..... :(

You're going to be in the dark for a long time.

:moon2:

[JohnCrichton]

I know... :(

[Krayenhoff]

And thank God for that. The last country we want to emulate is the 50-million party systems, such as in Italy, where nothing ever gets done.

And if you say "Well, both parties are the same!" then that simply means you do not pay attention to politics. If you don't pay attention to politics, then I do not want to hear what you have to think about the subject.

Oh, one last thing about the vaunted third-party system. You know how many so-called third parties in other countries sell out to one of the two main ideological parties? Ever hear of "coalition governments?" Ever hear of cabals? The endless backstabbing and deceit they have to throw at each other just to get anything done, and there's never a clear policy on anything and the leaders are changed every week? The idea that throwing in a third party is going to magically erase partisanship in this country is ludicrious.

But now I've taken the thread to an entirely different matter. Sorry.

[Joe Tully]

I don't want a third party, I just want the current two to grow up and stop squabbling like babies. It's not like either one of them care about making the world a better place, it's all about the power and who has more of it, and how to discredit one another for the sake of it. I think a third party would be just as crappy as the current two. The main thrust of Nader's platform was, "Hey, these other two guys really, really suck. But I don't. Because I say so. Oh, and voting for me will get a really nifty third party going and will save the country from eternal hell, and you should trust me on that because I'm a really spiffy guy." That's just as shallow as the stuff that the 2 parties pull, in my eyes.

Not that I expect things to change, mind you. There's a way that I'd like things to go ideally, but I don't realistically expect that to ever come about. Too many people buy into the lines that either side feeds them for it to stop.

[Krayenhoff]

I don't want a third party, I just want the current two to grow up and stop squabbling like babies.

I don't understand this. You want them to just go, "Okay, let's all get together?" I want them squabbling. I want them at odds. I want them going at it tooth and nail. They're not supposed to be complacent with each other. If they don't compete, then we've got a nice little communist situation to replace them with, since they'd be so identical anyway.

It's not like either one of them care about making the world a better place,

Which is good, since the Constitution prohibits them from doing that. The only place they're supposed to make better (or allow for the betterment of) is the USA. They have no obligation to the rest of the world. They have their own governments for that.

it's all about the power and who has more of it, and how to discredit one another for the sake of it.

Well, I figured it's been like this since the dawn of time. My suggestion is to get used to it, because even if you have a better idea for government, good luck getting it to work.

It's easy to see a few bad politicians like Clinton and think, "All politicians are lying, corrupt jerks." Well, all of them lie and are corrupt to a certain degree. That is an absolute given. The question is: are they so dishonest that they cannot be believed at all? Are they so corrupt that they will not be able to fulfill their promises? If the answer is "no" to either, then at the end of the day, they are worthy of votes (assuming you agree with them) and the system works. So far, you have got to go a farther way to prove that the system is so corrupt that nothing ever changes, because things are changing all the time nowadays.

[Joe Tully]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
I don't understand this. You want them to just go, "Okay, let's all get together?"

There's a difference between arguing maturely and acting childish and stupid. Many of the accusations that are tossed about fall into the latter category.

Well, I figured it's been like this since the dawn of time. My suggestion is to get used to it, because even if you have a better idea for government, good luck getting it to work

Please read my second paragraph above.

[Krayenhoff]

Well, I see a lot of demogauges (sic?) doing that, but actual politicians don't really do that sort of thing.

I wish they did, though. It'd go a long way to establish them as more down-to-earth, plus it'd be a lot more entertaining.

As long as the accusations/insults are not false/baseless, by all means, they should go for it.

it's all about the power and who has more of it, and how to discredit one another for the sake of it.

Well you sound as if this is necessarily a bad thing. First of all, I don't think that most politicians are so shallow that ALL they think about is getting and maintaining power. I think most of them actually want to do something they think of being good with it.

Second of all, what else is a politician supposed to do? Being a politician implies that they want to have power, and I don't want a government official who doesn't want to be in the government at all.

And as far as discreditting goes, if a politico can be truthfully and significantly discredited, then it should be done.

EDIT: forgot to address the second point

[Matt Hazuda]

OK I'm getting isck of politics(Just make me Dictator-for-Life already! :D ), but isn't it funny how the GOP has to bring out Token.... I mean JC Watts(The only black republican in Congress) to say how Lott was just joking? Really makes you wanna think.

That being said, my Dictator-for-Life campaign begins now. All people and classes shall be treated equally, expect the stupid people who will be publically stoned! I'll force major companies to stop being evil(Disney, AOL/TW, Paramount, etc. You know who you are :D ). We'll take back Canada as our own personal resource mine, and make Quebecers stop being so snotty and use english like the rest of the people on the continent. Chips and salsa will be given out on demand at any restaurant just because I like them, and I personally will deal with any evil-doers with my Mallet of Justice©

Vote for me for Dictator-for-Life or else!

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by MDawg957
OK I'm getting isck of politics(Just make me Dictator-for-Life already! :D ), but isn't it funny how the GOP has to bring out Token.... I mean JC Watts(The only black republican in Congress) to say how Lott was just joking? Really makes you wanna think.

That being said, my Dictator-for-Life campaign begins now. All people and classes shall be treated equally, expect the stupid people who will be publically stoned! I'll force major companies to stop being evil(Disney, AOL/TW, Paramount, etc. You know who you are :D ). We'll take back Canada as our own personal resource mine, and make Quebecers stop being so snotty and use english like the rest of the people on the continent. Chips and salsa will be given out on demand at any restaurant just because I like them, and I personally will deal with any evil-doers with my Mallet of Justice©

Vote for me for Dictator-for-Life or else!

LOL!! I'll volunteer as your intelligence/police/military advisor (hey, If I am going to take power over from you its the best place to start :p )

But you better get on the ball, because he's already got a head start:
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2030481021210.gif

Seriously, the comment with J.C. Watts is dead on... He IS the token black guy of Republican Congress and he is proud of that fact, unfortunately.

[Krayenhoff]

Seriously, the comment with J.C. Watts is dead on... He IS the token black guy of Republican party and he is proud of that fact, unfortunately.

...

Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, do either of those names mean anything to you?

It's also a bit hard to find black Republican candidates when A) 9 out of 10 blacks are Democrats and B) Democrats especially do not vote for black Republicans.

Of course, the Democratic party isn't very friendly to blacks as their abandonment of Carl McCall in New York and the evisceration of Harry Ford Jr. display.

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by Krayenhoff
...

Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, do either of those names mean anything to you?


Condy Rice is an opportunist, nothing more. Colin Powell is a loyal soldier of the Bush family.

[Matt Hazuda]

Originally posted by Outlander00
Condy Rice is an opportunist, nothing more. Colin Powell is a loyal soldier of the Bush family. Gonna have to agree with you there. also not, I didn't say black republican, I said the only black republican in Congress. If the statement had come from the Bush camp it would have made it look even worse IMO.

GOP Back Room

GOP1: Quick! We've got to find someone to quiet down the whole Trent Lott thing.

GOP2: Well, we've got JC Watts.

GOP1: Who?

GOP2: You know, the black guy.

GOP1: Oh yeah, good plan. Send him to the media!

[Krayenhoff]

Condy Rice is an opportunist, nothing more. Colin Powell is a loyal soldier of the Bush family.

Condy is an opportunist. Proof?

Powell is a loyal soldier to Bush. Who's the guy who's been obstructing Bush about Iraq?

[Krayenhoff]

Originally posted by MDawg957
Gonna have to agree with you there. also not, I didn't say black republican, I said the only black republican in Congress. If the statement had come from the Bush camp it would have made it look even worse IMO.

GOP Back Room

GOP1: Quick! We've got to find someone to quiet down the whole Trent Lott thing.

GOP2: Well, we've got JC Watts.

GOP1: Who?

GOP2: You know, the black guy.

GOP1: Oh yeah, good plan. Send him to the media!

If he's the Token Black Guy for the GOP, then it doesn't matter if he's in Congress or not. Watts has only been called in to defend Lott because it is relevant to him being black. This is the only time he's been called in to defend someone over racial matters, though, so implying that he exists solely to make the GOP look not-racist is ridiculous.

If the Democrats had been in the same spot, though, there wouldn't have been any deliberation as to who to send out. They'd crack the whip once and send out whichever rent-a-demogauge to denounce everyone on the right as racists. There's no question as to who controls who in that party. That is exactly what Democrats do when they are called on their duplicity about racism.

[wonderfly]

Man, and all's I wanted to point out was that I didn't believe the media's campaign to once again portray all Republicans as racists....

Well, Rush Limbaugh basically called Lott's comment deplorable yesterday on his radio program...and Bill O'Reilly said something similar on his Monday program. Bill said he didn't think Lott was being a racist, he thought he was just butt kissing Thurmond's crowd. He did call the comment "insensitive", but in my opinion, people in this country need to stop being so freakin sensitive.

Neither one called for Lott's resignation. Again, I say that if they really want to persecute someone, they should go after Thurmond. I don't care if he's leaving Congress in January, if he believes all the stuff they say he believes, they should ride his ass for a few years. He comes from one of the Carolina's, right? I for one can't see why they've elected him over and over and over...

On the other hand, I can't see what Massachuses sees in Ted Kennedy... :rolleyes: And yeah, I probably spelled Massachuses wrong, so sue me.

[Outlander00]

Originally posted by MDawg957
Gonna have to agree with you there. also not, I didn't say black republican, I said the only black republican in Congress. If the statement had come from the Bush camp it would have made it look even worse IMO.

GOP Back Room

GOP1: Quick! We've got to find someone to quiet down the whole Trent Lott thing.

GOP2: Well, we've got JC Watts.

GOP1: Who?

GOP2: You know, the black guy.

GOP1: Oh yeah, good plan. Send him to the media!

I hate writing replys at work because I put things in that get me into trouble :p. I corrected myself dawg.... sorry. :D

[Anubis C. Soundwave]

The simple fact is, Strom was elected because he's simply been senator of SC for so long that other people stopped trying....

But the old consorter with HIM shall soon leave Congress, allowing new blood to serve South Carolina.... [unless the state reelects him AGAIN through a write-in ballot....]

[being South Carolinian has its privileges. :p ]

Why did old Strom support those policies? Because he wanted to be president VERY BADLY--enough to piss off all the angry young black(afrimerican) men in America back then. [thankfully, back then the REAL(should have been) candidate for president, Dr. King, reminded most afrimericans to focus their anger constructively.]

==

As for Mr. Lott? He is an IDIOT. How exactly would the world have turned out better, Senator?

However, assuming Lott = moron, I suppose he meant that Strom would have been an outstanding president.
:confused:

Anyhoo, it was probably stupid old man chatter, as opposed to Neo-KKK chatter. (Again, the real racists don't have to work at being racist anymore. Afrimericans and possibly other minorities do a great job on their own....)

[Brainatra]

>>Anyhoo, it was probably stupid old man chatter, as opposed to Neo-KKK chatter. (Again, the real racists don't have to work at being racist anymore. Afrimericans and possibly other minorities do a great job on their own....)
<<

Um... how so, if I may ask?

-B.

[G. Wen]

Sounds more like a brown nose than a racist to me.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Chris Sanders MSX
No because his fathers vote isn't even relevant to anything. It has nothing to do with him or his party.

I've gotta disagree with you on this CS - primarily because this type of voting was in line with a lot of his party during the time. While I completely agree with everyone that Lott's choice of words was unbelievably stupid you really need to look at the video to see that he was joking about how Thurmond would have made a great president. This matter is quickly becoming far to politicized though while we ignore matters of true racism that has occurred.

Once again the Republican party is being accussed of being racist much like they were during the 1998 campaign in Missouri where a Democratic ad said that another black church would burn if a Republican was elected. However, the facts dictate otherwise. In the Civil Rights Act of 1964 LBJ thanked the Republicans for their overwhelming support of the act and for pushing it through Congress with their support - the same could not be said for the Democratic party of that time. Republican President Ronald Reagan was the one that made Martin Luther King Day a National Holiday after many Deomocratic presidents had the opportunity to do the same and choose to ignore it. Even Tom Daschle who accepted Sen. Lott's apology has changed his mind after receiving criticism from people within his party. I do find it amazing that Lott, who recieved 25% of the African-American vote in his last election, is being scapegoated as a racist while people like former Senate Majority Leader Byrd have been given a free pass and their statements largely ignored. Former President Bill Clinton has even publicly stated that a former Segregationist was his "mentor". I firmly believe that it was a poor choice of words but that if this issue is to become politicized as it has been people need to see all the facts and see where each party stands.

-Joe!

[Krayenhoff]

It's easy to brand Republicans as racist when you have a highly complacent media. That's how KKK Byrd got away with using the "N" word in a TV interview but Lott gets tarred and feathered for implying that segregation would have been better.

[wonderfly]

Check out this link to see yesterday's cartoon from my local newspaper's cartoonist. It'll make your blood boil, or laugh, or both.


http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/opinion/4723455.htm

Instead of this story dying, it's getting more steam. If the storm doesn't quiet down soon, I bet you that Lott resigns as Majority Leader. That might be a shame, depending on how you look at it.

This is what the South gets for lingering to it's subtle racism. I still don't think it means the entire Republican party is racist. And no, I don't even think everyone in the South is a racist as well, but the South does have a bleak history. Thurmond represents that history, and Lott was on the tail end of it.

[Outlander00]

LOL.. That is just WRONG!! Good, but WRONG!! :p

[Matt Hazuda]

LOL that is so funny and so true :D :p

[Trent Lane]

Again, I reitterate- it's a good thing there aren't real problems currently in our society. Even my friend, a hardcore Democrat, says that this is way out of hand and blown out of proportion, as I'm sure a large chunk of the nation will also agree. Get off it and deal with something worthwhile... and the media needs to find something REAL to report about as well. I don't watch anything anymore, except for FOX News...

[Weatherman]

Article to consider about all this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47935-2002Dec12.html)


This is why Senator Lott's comment is such a big issue. It's reflective of his views form a long time ago that haven't changed.

[Lucky Bob]

You know, this whole argument seems to take from the Leonard Nemoy Should Eat More Salsa Foundation logic.

"We believe that Republicans are racist, and that Southerners are racist. Therefore, if any Republicans come from the South, they will become an unstoppable force of racism!"

I thought we just had a whole thread that talked about the ridiculousness of pinning everything to racism.

[Daniel P]

Lott is a biggot and should resign. I am a Democrat, but that is not my reason. It wasn't a simple "misunderstanding," it was a true RACISM. I can't believe that the Republicans would even LET him have a leadership position in our country.

[John Miles]

As a Mississippian myself, I though I would weigh in on this matter.

I think this thing has been blown way out of proportion. On Bill O’Reilly’s program last night, Bill compared Trent Lott’s actions to those of Cardinal Law and Bill Clinton, and bashed people who still support him. Now, while there certainly seems to be a double standard between Republicans and Democrats (If Clinton can get away with lying under oath, than this should be no problem for Trent Lott), I won’t get into that. The fact of the matter is, Trent Lott did not deliberately deceive the American public, nor was he involved in the sexual abuse of young children. He simply made a comment that, I believe, was mistakenly made and doesn’t reflect his true nature. His apology seemed to be genuine, and, as others have said, he has done nothing to act out these alleged racist beliefs.

It was a stupid thing to say, yes, but I don’t think it’s as big of a deal as people have made it out to be.

[Daniel P]

Originally posted by John Miles
He simply made a comment that, I believe, was mistakenly made and doesn’t reflect his true nature. His apology seemed to be genuine, and, as others have said, he has done nothing to act out these alleged racist beliefs.He only apologized because it caused such an uproar.

[John Miles]

Originally posted by dacp3
He only apologized because it caused such an uproar.

And what would you have suggested he had done, not apologize at all?

Of course people are gonna accuse him of only apologizing to try to cover his butt, but I believe he is genuinely sorry for what he said.

[Weatherman]

The problem is this does seem to reflect his true nature, as represented by an entire career of legislative service. He even voted against the Civil Rights Act and still doesn't support Martin Luther King Jr. day. As for the Clinton comment, that's a silly comparison. Trent never lied about his views.

[Daniel P]

Originally posted by Weatherman
The problem is this does seem to reflect his true nature, as represented by an entire career of legislative service. He even voted against the Civil Rights Act and still doesn't support Martin Luther King Jr. day. As for the Clinton comment, that's a illy comparison. Trent never lied about his views. I agree.

[JetMaster5]

I cant believe there are people here actually defending this
scumbag. [/B]

The reason why there are people, over here, defending that guy is because, in America, there's freedom of speech. If there's no such thing as freedom of speech, then this country would still be segregated, all ethnicities will still be racist (yes, you've heard me, all ethnicities), human rights laws would've been abolished, all genders would be sexist, and America would still be living in a monarchy.

So, really, people should stop looking at the negative and start looking at the positive. People should just be grateful of people's rights to defend others. Without that rights, America would've still been living in a backwards country.

As for my opinion on this comment, I don't care about politics, I don't care about what the hell the politicians or media are getting themselves into, as long as they don't attack the Human Rights Laws and the Constitution, or whatever this country's laws have, I'm fine with. I could just go ahead and ignore that guy.

[EinBebop]

I think it's a tragedy that Lott had to apologize for something he didn't say. Some are saying it was a poor choice of words. I wouldn't even go that far. A comment he made was taken (scratch taken... TWISTED) out of context, and the media jumped at the chance to slap him down for it.

[Brainatra]

To throw in my two cents, I think Lott's comment was racist, but doesn't mean his entire party's racist (speaking as a devout left-winger). Still, it doesn't cast a positive image on a party trying to recruit Hispanics (and already is rather anemic at best toward getting African-Americans' vote) to deal with a Senate majority leader under the spotlight like this.

Also noticed the lack of/low amount of commentary of any sort from the non-Black Democrats, which rather annoys me... and also seems to perpetuate the notion that the Democrats really do seem spineless/disorganized/apathetic/what-have-you...

As for other news stories, I suppose the media could also focus on the economy (as the Boondocks said, "stop spending all your money on Christmas, people! There's a recession!" :-) ), or Bush allowing religious groups to compete for federally-tax-funded government contracts, or the perpetually "coming soon" Persian Gulf War II, though I have seen today mostly news about the Catholic Church's sex-abuse scandals...

-B.

[Joe Wagner]

Originally posted by Weatherman
The problem is this does seem to reflect his true nature, as represented by an entire career of legislative service. He even voted against the Civil Rights Act and still doesn't support Martin Luther King Jr. day. As for the Clinton comment, that's a silly comparison. Trent never lied about his views.

Perhaps you could clear something up for me then - a) when did Sen. Lott state that he did not support Martin Luther King Jr. Day? and b) how could Sen. Lott have voted against the Civil Rights Act (of 1964 or 1968, take your pick) when he wasn't even a Representative in the House until 1972? It really would be interesting to see how he could have voted against the act considering he wasn't even a member of Congress at the time.

-Joe!

[Weatherman]

The 1990 Civil Rights Act. Sorry, should have have mentioned which one I was refering to. As for King day, he has consistantly fought against efforts to have it enstated, including stymying efforts to set up a Congressional committee on the subject. It's in the article.

[Krayenhoff]

What is the big deal about him not voting for Martin Luther King day, if that is true? Are you honestly afraid that if he stays in senate that segregation will come back? Segregation is more likely to come back under a Democratic congress than anything, so I'd just quit worrying about that boogeyman if I were you.

[Joe Wagner]

Over the weekend Jesse Jackson made a statement that compared Sen. Lott to former President Bill Clinton. In his speech he said that Lott's statements were far worse than the perjury and adultery Clinton committed because it didn't reflect his parties perspective, yet Lott's statements clearly reflected the beliefs of the Republican Party. As a Republican I find it disgusting that once again the Republican Party is being attacked as being racist when the facts dictate that the opposite is true of the party.

-Joe!

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by Weatherman
The 1990 Civil Rights Act. Sorry, should have have mentioned which one I was refering to. As for King day, he has consistantly fought against efforts to have it enstated, including stymying efforts to set up a Congressional committee on the subject. It's in the article. While I don't disagree that a good case could be made that Lott is racist... The Civil Rights Act of 1990? Isn't that the one that makes businesses "guilty until proven innocent" when they're accused of racism?

As for the holiday... Lott said that a) there were more deserving people who had not been honored, and b) he's opposed to ANY new national holidays being added, because of the amount of money it costs the country.

[EinBebop]

Originally posted by Joe Wagner
Over the weekend Jesse Jackson made a statement that compared Sen. Lott to former President Bill Clinton. In his speech he said that Lott's statements were far worse than the perjury and adultery Clinton committed because it didn't reflect his parties perspective, yet Lott's statements clearly reflected the beliefs of the Republican Party. As a Republican I find it disgusting that once again the Republican Party is being attacked as being racist when the facts dictate that the opposite is true of the party. I don't even know where to begin. Devil's advocate question: What if a Segregationist Party started up? Which is more un-American? Racism or denying freedom of speech? Kind of hard to pick for me, but probably not for Reverend Jackson. Ignorant racist jerks have a right to be ignorant racist jerks, as long as they don't break any laws in the process. Unless, of course, Big Brother Jesse deems it illegal to have an opinion.

Second... Trent Lott has made a statement that THEY INTERPRET as being racist. So, hell, we've already made a ridiculous statement and the sheep have bought it; let's see if we can blame the whole Republican party now!