I hope no one has already posted about this and I get yelled at again ..
Anyway, I want to know what people think of Trent Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, in regard to Thurmond's segregationist run for the Presidency in 1948. Lott said: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." Some people have called him racist and called for his resignation. In response he issed an apology, but many people don't think that was sufficient. I want to know what everyone thinks: was it a slip of the tongue, or is Lott a racist who has no place in the govornment?
And if someone has already posted about this, I give up, cause I searched every forum for Trent Lott ...
Fine, disregard reason. Heck, disregard most of the post...
The "liberal" media dropped the ball on the story and it was essentially a non-issue until Bush condemned it.
The democrats, for their own reasons, would have preferred he stay.
Again, if any expression of opinon over another's viewpoints is PC (which is your definition) then I don't understand how that is not the end of free thought, if we're living under your rules. According to what you say we can't oppose racist remarks, we have to accept tehm and not criticize for fear of being called PC or "liberal".
How is that not exactly what you say you hate in teh first place?
You'd rather he gain support for what he said? Or are you just angry that it's a victory for liberals? Methinks the latter.
I stated very clearly that if he wants to be a racist at least he should have balls about it and stick to his convictions. But if he incurrs wrath for what he says, that's how the game is played. That's politics, that's simple difference of opinon.
He made the comments in front of a CSPAN camera. That was pure stupidity, but at least we know where he stands.
Your hatred clouds your good judgement on this one. Cut through the liberal bull-****. You're like Johnny Cochran playing the race card wherever he can. Except your buzz words are "liberal" and "PC".
Dante, you really just don't seem to get it - but that's okay, for someone who says some socialist countries actually work, nothing really surprises me anymore.
You stated:
"He had free speech, but he said something people didn't agree with. This si teh hallmark of US free speech. You are being dramatic."
Yes, he had the right to say what he did, but BECAUSE it was a racially "sensitive" remark, he lost all support.
You're completely ridiculous if you don't think that this wasn't political correctness.
"This is facist. I'd rather have the rigth to disagre than have to abide by Joey Rules that we can't hate ignorant people and remove them from positions of control over our lives."
No, you hate the fact that someone has politically incorrect viewpoints such as myself. You only accept what they say if it it's "insensitive."
Give it up, Dante. You're trying to preach PC and fortunately, I'm not going to abide by it.
Lott is gone, but it was the LIBERAL, PC media that caused much of this to begin with.
Funny thing about this "Bias" book I'm reading; in the book, even liberal network executives say that liberals deny being liberal and PC supporters deny being PC supporters.
quote: You people play this race/gender card way too much. It's getting old. Trent Lott is ignorant, yes, but like I said before, this just goes to show you that you have no free speech whatsoever.
He had free speech, but he said something people didn't agree with. This si teh hallmark of US free speech. You are being dramatic.
You instead are saying people must accept whatever anyone else says, even when they are beholden to the public. This is more PC than what you accuse liberals of. This is facist. I'd rather have the rigth to disagre than have to abide by Joey Rules that we can't hate ignorant people and remove them from positions of control over our lives.
quote: This "political/social" backlash is the liberal, PC-controlled media - Lott resigned under pressure from liberal, PC-controlled media.
Lott resigned because he had little support and Bush didn't want him back.
quote: Bob Jones U. doesn't allow inter-racial dating, which to me, is stupid, but if it doesn't accept annual taxpayer money, then you should pipe down - you don't go there, you probably won't go there and if you write things with all the spelling errors like you do in some of the posts, then you won't last long there either.
Classic, when you can't think of a real response, resort to being a grammar-nazi.
It does accept public funds, and thus it can no longer be discriminatory. They no longer have this policy
quote: Seriously, this is the politically correct battle of them all and it's getting ridiculous.
No, this is simply the case of how the public responds to racist remarks.
quote: Frist is just another RINO (Republican In Name Only) who supports big government and compromises the Constitution he swore to uphold.
Suddenly you're dictating the Rpublican platform. Frist is a Republican according to his parties ideals, this includes "pork-barrel" spending. What you're trying to convey is that he doesn't agree with you. He's not a libertarian.
Frist is only judged on the factual aspects of his voting record, not the organizations personal bias against him. He decided how well to fit the criteria.
The essential point stands: there are few people with a record worse than Lott's, Frist is one of them.
Dante, you cite liberal newspaper articles and liberal organizations' voting records.
Of course Frist is scoring low on those surveys and vote records - the organizations behind them are LIBERAL.
Then again, so was Lott. And Frist is connected with some pro-abortion organization anyway.
Not many people read between the lines on things like that, but citing the New York Times is like subscribing to China's state-controlled papers.
Who the hell cares if he's a member of an all-white golf club?
It's a private club. Businesses are private - most of them.
You people play this race/gender card way too much. It's getting old. Trent Lott is ignorant, yes, but like I said before, this just goes to show you that you have no free speech whatsoever.
This "political/social" backlash is the liberal, PC-controlled media - Lott resigned under pressure from liberal, PC-controlled media.
Bob Jones U. doesn't allow inter-racial dating, which to me, is stupid, but if it doesn't accept annual taxpayer money, then you should pipe down - you don't go there, you probably won't go there and if you write things with all the spelling errors like you do in some of the posts, then you won't last long there either.
Seriously, this is the politically correct battle of them all and it's getting ridiculous.
Frist is just another RINO (Republican In Name Only) who supports big government and compromises the Constitution he swore to uphold.
Now that we know Lott's Senate majority leader job will go to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee (NYT, 12.21.02) and now that we know that Bush orchestrated it (NYT, 12.21.02), let's remove the GOP spin before it gets started. Based on Frist's Senate voting record, the main difference between Lott and Frist on civil rights and minorities in general is that Lott talks about his negative views in public and Frist does not.
As political observer Nathan Newman has expressed it, "Frist is a hard-line rightwinger, voting against labor rights, civil rights, women's rights and the environment at almost every opportunity." The NAACP gave Frist a rating of 15% out of %100 in 2002, the National Hispanic Leadership Conference gave him an 18%, and the Leadership Conference On Civil Rights gave him a big fat zero for his votes on a wide range of relevant cival rights issues. Frist was no better on other issues: 3% lifetime on labor and two more big fat goose eggs on protecting the environment and supporting abortion rights. On the other hand, Frist ranks at or near the top in getting campaign money from health insurance companies, drug companies, health professionals, hospitals, and medical suppliers. To that record, the NYT adds that Frist had been a long-time member of an all-white golf club, had never voted prior to his active involvement in politics, and had played the race card and had apologized to African-Americans for questionable remarks in his first Senate campaign in 1994. Frist, one of the wealthiest members of Congress with a blind-trust fortune of $20 million, retains close ties with his family's hospital chain, which "has agreed to pay cumulative fines or penalties totaling $1.7 billion to settle accusations of health care fraud that included overbilling Medicare and kickbacks to physicians."
Most folks probably have seen Frist in action as the TV networks' favorite Republican Senator to come before the cameras and talk about Anthrax, Smallpox, or AIDS. As such, he was calm, reasonable, and professional. However, given his voting record, it appears that Frist is only a more polished, more circumspect representative of that side of Republicanism that sunk Trent Lott and got Bush in trouble during his presidential campaign when he discussed with his aides, then agreed to speak at Bob Jones University, and said zip about its well-known, decades-long racist policies, explicitly identifying his brand of conservatism as being theirs. --Jerry Politex, 12.21.02
you're being melodramatic joey. nowhere was anyone's freedom of speech taken away. politics is all about pandering to the voter block; if lott is dumb enough not to play by the rules then he'll suffer the backlash. people aren't angry that he expressed being rascist, they're angry because he is rascist.
the vast majority of americans are not demanding that he resign from the senate; however, i - and many other americans - wouldn't mind him vacating his senate seat.
He doesn't have to resign. Personally, I think it's a travesty to have such a radical depature from the norm weild os much power. But it's his - and his party's possibly - choice what to do. Doing the right thing is one option, being a politician is another.
Right - I just want to see what he thinks is necessary to do. I doubt he's ready to resign. I'll be interested to see if enough pressure will build so that he doesn't have much of a choice ... or if it will just blow over the way previous comments of his have.
He's obviously free to say what he will, but he must also understand the social or poltical consequences.
Sure, I mean, isn't it a politician's job to represent the people who elected him? He can't present themselves one way to voters and then expect to get away with actions and comments no one supports ... right?
He doesn't have to resign. Personally, I think it's a travesty to have such a radical depature from the norm weild os much power. But it's his - and his party's possibly - choice what to do. Doing the right thing is one option, being a politician is another. He's obviously free to say what he will, but he must also understand the social or poltical consequences.
trent lott has always been a throwback to the pre-civil rights era. i'm just surprised that he was stupid enough to let his true feelings be recorded in a public setting like that. of course, as dante said, he'd pretty much said the same thing 20 years ago. he also likened homosexuality to kelptomania a few years ago (a "mental disease"). because i can't stand his views, i'd be really happy to see his stature diminished or even lost. good riddance indeed.
Nope, i was waiting for someone to bring this up. Hoping someone actually watches the news... Your effort to not repeat post is much appreciated. Thank you.
Now for the issue at hand: He's made this comment before. He supported Strom when he was running on the segregationist political ticket. Thurmond hold the record for teh longest perosnal filibuster of a law. He spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes to quash the Civil Rights Act. When campaigning he often reffered to blacks as the "nig*er race" and didn't want them 'mixing' or 'polluting' the whites. There has been no apology for his racism and certianly no reason to believe he has changed. That a man like that could continue to get elected shows botht he strength of democracy, and the very evils of it. That an unrepentant champion of Jim Crow could be accepted or even honored shows how far we still have yet to go. Trent Lott ceratinly has repeatedly shown his endorsement for Strom Thurmond not only as a person, but for his views. Even the president called his statements "stupid" and "wrong". I think it also shows something of Tom Daschle that he was so quick to accept Lott's apology and not speak out. Too weak in the knees to stand up to implicit racism. That is not progress. I don't know what would be the correct solution. There is almost no punishment to realy change a person. Things like calling for his resignation as Senate leader would simply make him less likely to slip up again, and not affect any real change. I would hope the voters would take it into their own hands. A censure or condemnation of racism would be appropriate, but wouldn't truly help so much. It would be embarassing and I think shame is about the only tool to use, to show we as a people frown on this. But again, the best possible outsome is for voters not to elect someone who approves of racism at all or even approves of the practitioners of it. There's little hope though for an apologist to be removed, when a majority of people in a state can still support someone like Strom Thurmond...
