I just heard on the news that Trent Lott SUPPORTS Affirmative Action.

NOW he supports Affrimative Action.

I predicted on (another thread) after the election that the Republicans would be brought down by their own arrogance, but I didn't expect it so soon.

Madtown

A centaurian is a centaurian, regardless of their politics.

So your saying that if he were not a racist, his bday would have been more important?

He's 100. Most people who turn 100 have big parties, and make the headlines (at least locally) But to diminish his age because he is a racist is wrong.

--cheers

Did anyone catch Lott on BET last night? I only saw the previews that were shown on Hardball. But you could see the guy was desperate to save his job.

I still have that tiny bit of pity for him. Just not enough.

For once or may be twice, a politician spoke his mind. What's the fuzz?

Welcome to the forum, Arden. I assume you mean by, "what's the fuzz?" you are asking what the big deal is over Lott's statements.

I would suggest reading through some of the thoughts of the members who have posted here. Many have articulated why they feel Lott's statements were/are important.

I'm still trying to understand the furor over Trent lott's remarks. It appears to me to be another case of Democrats so desperate for any scrap of possible scandal against Republicans that a scandal is invented as appears in Lott's case. Lott said that we would all be better off if THurmond had been elected. Where in any way shape or form did he say segragation was right. He didn't, it was assumed by liberals and gleefully so I may add. When a politician who loses an election as Thurmond did in 1948 his friends will soothe him with remarks just like Lott said. "You should have won, we'd be better off", or "We are worse for the fact that you didn't win". So on and so forth. This scandal is a complete fabrication of words that Lott never said. I challenge anyone in this forum to show me statements that Lott clamied segregation was right.

Saying Thurmond should have won is similar (morally) to saying Nixon should have been re-elected after Watergate. Thurmond stood for segragation more than anyone (with the possible exception of Wallace) That's why Lott's remark pertains to segragation. That was the defining issue of Thurmond '48 platform.

Strom Thurmond ran in 1948 as the States' Rights Party candidate. This was a single-issue party - and that issue was segregation. Saying that the country would've been better off with a Segregationist President doesn't require anything more specific - and certainly needs no "fabrication" - to correctly read the remark as racist. And his remarks at the Thurmond gala were hardly out of character for Mr. Lott. He has made his position quite plain regarding such racially charged issues as a national Martin Luther King Day and the right of Bob Jones University to keep its tax-exempt status even while banning interracial dating - to say nothing of his association with the racist Council of Conservative Citizens, his comments in Southern Partisan magazine, etc., etc., etc. Trent Lott is undeniably a racist. That is why he is the leader of the Senate.

Your ludicrous act of denial is the same as saying "Just because someone supports the Green Party doesn't mean they support environmental issues". Well, not quite the same: the Green Party actually has a fairly broad platform at this stage; the States' Rights Party did not. I hope that helps you "understand the furor".

It seems to me that Republicans are pushing this along. None seem to want to rally to his side which is probably all that it would have taken.

They seem to be using this to their advantage. He must not have many collegues he can consider friends. As a matter of fact I noticed a black Democratic senator come to his defense this morning and say he forgave the remarks.

Maybe you should look a little harder at the conservatives and what they can gain from Lott being kicked aside. They say that his likely replacement would be Nickels who is said to be even more conservative than Lott. The Dem's would not be able to do this alone...they aren't powerful enough at the moment.

Huh?? That is quite a leap in logic there, Wertz.

It is undeniable what Lott said was stupid, Thrumond's Dixiecrats were a one issue party. However, I don't see a connection between Lott's being racist and his being elected Minority Leader (funny title in light of the circumstances, don't you think?).

I think Lott was chosen as Minority Leader for the reason most are - being on powerful committees, knowing important people and being a good fundraiser and/or cheerleader for the party.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens in the Senate come January and the new term begins. If Lott gets mad at the Republicans who seem to be abandoning him, he may step down altogether. If that happens, Mississippi could seat a democrat in his place, which would make the already tentative hold the GOP has on the Senate even more shaky.

Umm...no. Lott is Senate Majority leader, because he was the minority leader when the Rebublicans took control. He was going to be Majority leader before he made his comment.

Got any proof that he is where he is BECAUSE he is racist? Or is that just an emotional outburst?

******************

Secondly, if I had a dollar everytime someone said to me "charactor doesn't matter" when talking about the Clinton affairs, I'd be a rich man. But now that its a Rebublican, their out to hang him.

Makes sense though, the Repubs were out to hang Clinton. I just find the predictable politics of the whole thing amusing.

Either:
"It's ok to use the oval office as a whore house, but no to be racist"
or
"its ok to be racist, but not use the oval office as a whore house"

--cheers

This was what someone from another site thought would happen:

Bill Frist would end up as leader....if Lott is forced to leave the leadership there is a good chance he will resign outright. If he leaves the Senate then a Democrat will be appointed to his seat making the Senate 50/50 again. There have been speculations that if this does happen then Lincoln Chaffee may do a Jeffords and switch parties to give the Dems the majority.

I don't know who Chaffee or Frist are..anyone more knowlegable think this could happen?

From the Lurker, please link me to the Dixiecrat platform of 1948 so that we may see if this was a one issue party. On a lighter note the Green party is about as whacked out as one can get without being on the funny farm. Personal attack removed
Darcaine

Lurking away.

I would not say I am in denial about Lott's remarks. Trent Lott is what, 55, 56 years old. So In 1948 when Thurmond ran for President he would have been 5 or 6, heck I'll even say 10 years old. So he obviously never voted for Thurmond for President. I doubt he even knows what the Dixiecrat party was. Yes, it was a one issue party. And thank god Thurmond was not elected. But Lott stepped into a trap after his remarks by backing up and giving all these lame apologies. Now he supports affirmative action. I am a little sick to see him grasp at anything to maintain his position. As a republican I think his lack of political skills precludes him from regaining his post. Not his remarks about Thurmond, of which Shakespeare said so correctly; "Much Ado About Nothing".

Ah yes, he may have been 10 yrs. old when Thurmond ran for pres, but he was somewhat older when he made that same remark (or close to it ) in 1980 during a campaign rally for Ronald Reagan in Mississippi.

Dec. 18, The Chicago Trubune:

"Outside the Capitol on a sunny day in October 2000, Lott stood as House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill) and Thurmond signed the Defense Authorization Act to increase military pay. Lott can be heard telling an onlooker: "Now this is a famous signature, right here. He should have been president in 1947."

Lott spokesman Ron Bonjean declined to comment.

According to this same article the 4 possible candidates to replace Lott are Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa) who heads the Senate Repub. Conf., Sen. Don Nickles of Oklahoma, the first Rep. senator to publicly suggest Lott should be replaced, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, now second in the Senate GOP leadership, and Sen. Bill Frist of Tenn. , a physician whose stature rose during the Capitol's anthrax scare.

But, it's not clear how the Republicans can turn him out of office since there is no rule that would permit a new leadership election in January unless all 51 GOP senators asked for one.

"We stand for the segregation of the races. . . . We oppose the elimination of segregation employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. . . . We condemn the action of the Democratic convention in sponsoring a civil rights program."
-- from the States Rights Democratic Party platform of 1948

"Ladies and gentlemen. . . there's not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches."
-- Strom Thurmond, at the States Rights Democratic Party convention in

"A vote for Truman electors is a direct order to our congressmen and senators to vote for passage of Truman's so-called civil rights program in the next Congress. This means the vicious . . . anti-poll tax, anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever."
-- from a flyer distributed in Mississippi during the campaign

This sort of thing doesn't strike you as "whacked out" in the least, Darcaine? A bit more about their platform can be found at the National Review and in this article in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Or, like me, you can try using a search engine...

I wonder how those poor ol' Southerners are doing without their lynching. Guess people can adapt to anything, huh?

Danya, many of us in the South want NOTHING to do with the Lotts, Thurmonds and Helmses in the world (or lynchings!). Just as people on the west coast hate being associated with being liberal whackos or people in the midwest hate to be considered boring

I have to say this is an issue I'm ready to see fade away. I'm looking forward to the January term and getting on with other news and scandals

I really don't see Lott saying on as Leader. In another thread, I think someone referred to "the old guard" as being what keeps minorities away from the GOP (forgive me for not giving credit where it is due). I agree with this thought. Real conservatives (not party lackeys) are good, caring people whose voices are being drown out by the special interest groups who have the ear and pocketbooks of the old guard. I'll be glad see these men go and give way for young, more open minded conservatives.

Sorry Jaime,
I do have quite a few online friends from the South and I know there are good people there. But I guess Hollywood has made me bias towards them as a group. I need to work on that.

"Poor ole Southerners" I wonder Danya if you are aware of the fact that the KKK was headquartered out of Indiana. Seem like Lynchings were not only happening in the south. Seeing as how Indiana is not even in the south. I am sure they were hanging people in their "Good ole Hometown" in Indiana too.

See above...and I said 'Southerners' in response to the post from Wertz that said in part:



Hopefully, this puts it in context for you.
P.S. What was a poll tax?

It's true that Indiana is not in the south, but they sure act southern. Their accent is stronger than some real Southerners. I think if we delved into the history of that state we might find some interesting data.

I hope that there were never lynchings here in the Midwest, but I have to admit we had our own form of racism, not so obvious, but racism all the same. I think we came to terms with it better than the south, but it still exists somewhat in the whole country.

MT

I mentioned Rosewood in another post. The surprising thing is that happened in Florida. The entire country has it's share of racism in their past. Some states just refused to let go of their bigotry for as long as possible.

Personally I'm not sure what the hell Lott was thinking or what he meant. I could see how he might have been simply giving high praise -- albeit light-heartedly -- to the decrepit senator's leadership. But given that he's said the same things before ... I truly have doubts.

What I find interesting is that no one has seemed to ask Thurmond for his response to the whole deal. Of course, since he's a flagrant racist... so whatever.

My uncle says this about his mother-in-law, who is 96 and generally racist: "The good thing about those people (who are longtime racists) is, they die."

Even when I try to give him the benefit of a doubt, it doesn't make sense. Even if he didn't mean anything racial by his remarks, he certainly is no dummy...he must have known how people would interpret what he said. It's not like he's some guy without speaking experience. I think it was in his head and it came out his mouth.

Madtown

From Kathleen Parker...Orlando Sentinel

If the GOP isn't the party of white men, then what is it and why does it look so white? If Lott isn't a racist, then what is he and why does he seem like one?

Inadvertently, Lott has done a great deed by blasting the race issue wide open. There's no more tiptoeing around it, no more pretending it isn't really there. Lott's legacy, should he ascend to the higher plane illuminated by Law's graceful exit and abandon his post, may yet be one to applaud. It is this: Single-handedly Trent Lott advanced the cause of racial harmony by reminding us of what we once were and what we wish never to be again.

Madtown



©2002 Tribune Media Services

Mr Wertz,

I HAVE used the search engine. I cannot find a list of topics the Dixiecrats ran on. They did NOT run on a single issue...although you would want that to be believed because it furthers your little adgenda so perfectly. What you have failed to prove sir, is ANYTHING that proves Trent Lott is a racist. So, when are you going to show some action Trent Lott has taken as a racist? Did he not apologize for sounding racist? I think this is much to do about nothing...and here's something that will eat your craw...so do most Americans...or at least those with any common sense left after out multiculturist crappy educational system.

The Green Party IS whacked. If you believe in the crap they spout then we ALL on this board need to know this so we know how lightly to dismiss your opinions. If you REALLY want to learn something about global warming I suggest http://www.globalwarming.org/ for a more fact based reality.

Get out of the hype and get educated people. Trent Lott hasn't done ANYTHING racist what so ever. Off the top of my head I can think of ONE thing Thurmond would have been better for and that is Korea. Truman cost the lives of MANY men because of his micro-management of the war and caused the enigma we have to deal with today.

In conclusion from someone that doesn't sling racism around like manure. The quotes Wertz gave did not address what I was asking for, nor were they unusual in that era. As far as I know or heard of Trent Lott he is NOT a racist and if he has DONE something please post it. Eager OPEN minds want to know.

Lurking from left right field,

Darcaine

Darcaine, you asked for the platform of the Dixiecrats because you didnt know what issues it supported. Then Trent Lott said he supported Thurmond when he ran as a Dixiecrat in 1948. Wertz provided the platform of the Dixiecrats from that particular race. So when Trent Lott says that if Thurmond had "won the presidency we wouldnt be in the mess we are in today", how else can you construe it?

There are other things that Lott has done. He is well known by his old fraternity for opposing integration of his alma mater. And what about the CCC?\

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1218-09.htm

Did I miss one of the Received Opinion Memos which suddenly made the mention of "multiculturalism" at the drop of a hat de rigeur? Anyway, my apologies: I should have said "use a search engine and read some of the results". Well, of course you can't find a list of topics the Dixiecrats ran on. One item does not make much of a "list". The States Rights Jeffersonian Democratic Party was formed for one reason and one reason only: to express the dissatisfaction of certain southern Democrats with the DNC's position on civil rights. Period, Darcaine: period. That FACT is documented in almost every link I've explored relating to the party and its history. They may have added a few issues to their platform just by way of fleshing out their agenda, though I rather doubt they would've wanted to dilute their message too much. What the Dixiecrats wanted to do was send a message to the Democrats: support civil rights and you'll lose a lot of voters. If they had also embraced foreign policies or economic policies or any other policies, it would have taken away from their whole raison d'être.

I don't know why you're harping on about the Green Party so much. All I did was (unfairly) compare them to the Dixiecrats as a more or less single-issue party. I have said nothing here or elsewhere in support of the Greens, nor have I defended them against any of your spurious attacks on them. If you have issues with the Greens, take them up with the Greens. Don't try to mount some distracting hobbyhorse in a thread about Trent Lott, please - even if you wrongfully hoped it was a good way to disrespect me. And, thanks all the same, but I'd rather depend on actual facts than what you believe are "more fact-based realities", whatever the hell that means.

The problem with the Korean War wasn't Harry S Truman, it was Douglas MacArthur. "Get out of the hype and get educated" as some people might advise. While your wild speculation about Thurmond is amusing, it is - and never can be - any more than, well, wild speculation. Thanks for the fun hypothetical, though, even if it was yet another diversion from the thread.

My apologies again if my direct answer to your question was not the answer you wanted to hear. You asked about the States Rights Party's platform. If you wanted further evidence of Trent Lott's racism, you should have asked for it.

Thanks, Kim, for easily answering the question which Darcaine had not previously asked. I hope his mind is OPEN enough to finally confront the TRUTH of TRENT LOTT'S UNQUESTIONABLE RACISM.

You claim, Darcaine, that the quotes I cited were not unusual for that era, Darcaine. Maybe not among certain sectors of the population - like those that the States Rights Party was hoping to attract. But, please, would you cite another political party which included such racism in their platform or another candidate who made such racist statements "in that era" for us? The overt, blatant racism, of which the Dixiecrats were so proud that they made it the only issue of their campaign, is what distinguished them from the Republicans and the Democrats (at least "in that era") - as much as you'd apparently like to believe otherwise.

While you're busy using that search engine of yours, maybe you should look into the meaning of "lurking" as it is used in online bulletin boards - and either start doing it or stop claiming you're doing it.

LOL Wertz! You can't handle the truth. This is too damn funny. Everyone I have hit PAY DIRT! The truth shall ALWAYS overcom a non truth no matter how many words you spread like manure trying to find something to hold you argument together. But, like a thimble your facts hold about as much water as it can hold. Thank you!

Lurking from right field,

Darcaine

PS Please, a more fact base reality is what I live in and you claim to live in. I was simply trying to be helpful in getting you the actual data and actual scientists working on global warming.

And this differs from a Conservative point of view in which way? Please make a point. I fail to see a racist here what so ever. I for one don't like affirmative action and if you owned a company that had to bid against a so-called minority company you would have a better understanding of what it's really all about.


Lurking from right field,

Darcaine

PS I've had my say, going to actually take Wertz's advice and go back to just lurking. Everyone have a Merry Christmas and New Year.

OK, let me point out some of things that I percieve as racist and not just conservative.

Early 1960s: Fought to keep his Sigma Nu fraternity all white not only at the University of Mississippi but across the nation.

1981: Instrumental in President Reagan's attempt to give Bob Jones University, which then banned interracial dating, tax exemptions.

1983: Opposed Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, citing its cost and ''the fact that we have not done it for a lot of other people that were more deserving.'' In 1998, Lott said, ''Sometimes, I feel closer to Jefferson Davis than any other man in America.''

1992: Told the Council of Conservative Citizens, which has ties back to the white citizens councils of segregation (known by African-Americans as the ''downtown Klan''): ''The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction and our children will be the beneficiaries.''

1994: Voted against the use of racial statistics in death penalty appeals.

2001: Was the only senator in a 93-1 vote to oppose the appointment of Roger Gregory, a black judge, to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va

Are you denying the fact that there's a disproportionate amount of minorities in prison, and should we just ignore it, instead of trying to equalize the justice system? Or that Trott being the ONLY DISSENTING vote for a black judge might mean he's racist? (in and of itself, it might not be contrued as racism, but along with the list of other things, if 93 people thought a black man can preside over court,what is Lotts reason?) Or the fact he wanted to keep his fraternity ALL WHITE? How is that merely a conservative view? Wanting to give tax exemptions to a school that BANNED interracial dating? How is that just a conservative ideal? And still I have heard NO mention of his statements and affiliation with the CCC (notoriously white supremecist).

Your staggeringly incisive rebuttal has left me bleeding from every orifice, Darcaine. Can't argue with such a compelling argument as "LOL" or the unfounded claim that the acknowledged facts I cited hold as much water as a thimble. "PAY DIRT", indeed. Small wonder you've decided to return to lurking rather than confronting or further defending the facts about your beloved Dixiecrats.

For the record, my "advice" was an either/or. I've actually kinda missed your contributions.

my two cents..

Its obvious lott said something that many other republicans couldnt tolerate. The democrats would have been quite happy for lott to stick around as a target. Republicans themselves did him in.

Hard to blame the "libs" and dems for it.

And here are the scraps he is offered for stepping down without too much fight:

WP

I would amend that slightly: Its obvious lott said something out loud that many other republicans couldnt be seen to tolerate.

Obviously you don't remember the all colorful Senator Byrd:

He said the "N" word TWICE on NATIONAL TV!!

Tony Snow's(foxnews guy) eyes went WIDE OPEN when he heard Byrd say it.

Plus, Byrd is an Ex-KKK member

Then he is also a rascist.

I don't think what Lott said was bad...so i wouldn't label him "racist"

What Byrd said was REALLY RACIST

Byrd's language may have been stronger, but a rose by any other name is still a rose. Trent Lott's overt supporting of a platform that was based upon the ideas of segregation is every bit as bad as Byrd. Byrd was simply more vulgar in stating it. Obviously, racism is something that crosses partisan lines. It doesn't have to be (nor is it) either/or. They're both scumbags as far as I can see.

Oh, and welcome to the forum, goamerica!