Schadenfreude Wrote:Lott's comment at Strom's birthday still bugs me most of all, though.

It isn't even that I think he's still racist really.

It was just that that over-the-top praise for Strom's presidential campaign was so revealing about the way he has gone about courting racists all these years.

That, to me, is really, really ugly.

Explain to me how you can find "redemption" for someone who drops the N bomb and call them a legend and principled, yet a guy offering some praise for an old man who was retiring, never once dropping the N bomb, is a racist.

And you say it's not that you think Lott is still a racist. On what basis do you use to call him a former racist?

Seems to me Byrd's comment is far more telling than Lotts. You don't just drop an N bomb in a conversation inadvertanly. A word like that isn't dropped unless it's a routine part of your venacular.

DrTorch Wrote:

Schadenfreude Wrote:And the sort of northern liberal Republicans who helped put the Civil Rights Bill over the top are a vanishing breed.

That's complete and utter nonsense. Maybe that's true if you live in Doonesbury's world, but I've got news for you: Doonesbury is fiction.

Perhaps I could have been clearer.

This is my point: The Republican Party long had a strong, influental liberal wing epitimized by people like former New York governor, senator and vice president Nelson Rockefeller (hence the term "Rockefeller Republicans.").

Over the past forty years, as the GOP has gradually come to dominate the South, the center of gravity in the party has shifted dramatically to the right. People who shared the values of people like Nelson Rockefeller were once a major force in the party. Now they increasingly become oddities.

I'm talking about folks like Congressmen Sherwood Boehlert and Amo Houghton of upstate New York or Congresswoman Olympia Snowe of Maine. I'm talking about the late Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania.

Or -- if you want to reach back into history a bit -- look at the La Follettes from Wisconsin or President Theodore Roosevelt and the history of the Progressive Party.

As governor of Wisconsin, Robert La Follette Sr. started the nation's first workers' compensation system, railroad rate reform, direct election of U.S. Senators and a new system of progressive taxation. As a Senator, La Follette opposed U.S. entry into World War I and opposed the prosecution of Eugene v. Debs

La Follette did most of that running under the Republican banner (although he did occasionally run as a Progressive. The modern magazine of that name started out as La Follette's political newsletter.)

Anyway.

There is a reason Christine Todd Whitman left the EPA so early. There is a reason Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party after more than 30 years running for election under that banner. There is a reason rumors occasional percolate about Northeast Republicans possibly switching parties, such as Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

These people haven't changed. The Republican Party has.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:And you say it's not that you think Lott is still a racist. On what basis do you use to call him a former racist?

.

<a href='http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,399310,00.html</a>

So just so we're clear.

40 years ago Lott was of the same mindset that the vast majority of southerners were in, a mindset he now repudiates. And this, combined with some meaningless praise he offered a retiring old man bugs you and you find really, really ugly.

Yet, you can find "redemption" for someone who drops the N bomb, IN 2001, and call them a legend and principled. You can also make a claim that you always assumed that he his "white ******" remark was well-intentioned. However I can gurantee you that had those exact words come out of Lott's mouth, you'd find that really, really ugly as well. :rolleyes:

So just to wrap up, you have no problem with Byrd being an ex klansman, have no problem with him dropping the N bomb in 2001 (and even consider it well-intentioned), and you have no problem with the term house negro.

But let Trent Lott 40 years ago oppose integration and then heap some meaningless praise on a retiring old man, and it really, really bugs you.

Amazing.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:So just so we're clear.

40 years ago Lott was of the same mindset that the vast majority of southerners were in, a mindset he now repudiates. And this, combined with some meaningless praise he offered a retiring old man bugs you and you find really, really ugly.

It is not meaningless to suggest that America would have been better off under a Strom Thurmond segregationist presidency and that we wouldn't have had "all these problems" under such a presidency.

No sir.

Quote:Yet, you can find "redemption" for someone who drops the N bomb, IN 2001, and call them a legend and principled.

You are twisting my words around.

My point was that I've always been open to the idea that men can evolve. We shouldn't forget who people like Trent Lott, Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms were before the civil rights movement, but we should be open to the idea that they have changed.

And I stand my description of Byrd as a legend and principled. He is that, absolutely.

Quote: You can also make a claim that you always assumed that he his "white ******" remark was well-intentioned.&nbsp;

I did say that. This was my original point of view.

I also went on to say that after studying the comment in its full context recently, I am now much more open to the idea that Byrd probably did deserve some of the criticism he got for that comment.

I'd love to delve more deeply into what that interview suggests about where Byrd's head is at. It's complicated. I don't have the time.

The Readers Digest version is this: It wasn't a very modern thing to say, but it does represent a great deal of evolution from a robe-wearing member of the KKK.

This is the contrast: I see no evolution at all in a comment like the one Lott made at Thurmond's birthday party. Word for word, it could have been said about him in 1949.

Quote:However I can gurantee you that had those exact words come out of Lott's mouth, you'd find that really, really ugly as well. :rolleyes:

You have a curious habit of setting up a hypothetical scenario, predicting what I would say, and then attacking what you predict I would say -- rather than just attacking what I did say.

Quote:So just to wrap up, you have no problem with Byrd being an ex klansman,

Never said that.

Quote:have no problem with him dropping the N bomb in 2001 (and even consider it well-intentioned),

You should read my post over more carefully. This is a distortion.

Quote:and you have no problem with the term house negro.

I composed another post on this subject. I would direct you there.

To restate and sum: I wouldn't use the term, but I accept the fact that African-Americans do use the term and would not condem it.

Further, if you search Google News for the term "house Negro," you will see that the only person who seems to be pissed off about the fact that it was applied to Larry Elder is... Larry Elder.

Can't blame him. But let's not make a mountain out of that ant hill.

Quote:But let Trent Lott 40 years ago oppose integration and then heap some meaningless praise on a retiring old man, and it really, really bugs you.

Wasn't your previous contention that Lott wasn't, back in the day, a racist?

Quote:It is not meaningless to suggest that America would have been better off under a Strom Thurmond segregationist presidency and that we wouldn't have had "all these problems" under such a presidency.

No sir.

He didn't suggest that. In fact, it takes a great deal of speculation and assigning of motivation to come to that conclusion. He gave an old man some simple praise. He didn't praise segregation or support it. He was speaking off the cuff.

Quote:This is the contrast: I see no evolution at all in a comment like the one Lott made at Thurmond's birthday party. Word for word, it could have been said about him in 1949.

Let's see, Byrd's quote was

Quote:"There are white *******. I've seen a lot of white ******* in my time.

We can learn one big lesson from that quote, Byrd thinks there are "black *******" as well.

So you see evolution in a man who can drop that word without thinking twice about it, yet none in the comments of Lott, comments that you have assign a great deal of meaning to independent of what he said as well as assign motive to him that you have no way of knowing.

You truly have a warped sense of "evolving".

Quote:I also went on to say that after studying the comment in its full context recently, I am now much more open to the idea that Byrd probably did deserve some of the criticism he got for that comment.

Probably? So you're leaving open the possibility that he deserves no criticism for using such a foul and disgusting word.

Quote:You have a curious habit of setting up a hypothetical scenario, predicting what I would say, and then attacking what you predict I would say -- rather than just attacking what I did say.

Let's see you see evolution when a former KKK man uses the N bomb, yet see ugliness when someone makes a statement you have to do a crap load of conjecture about to derive a bad meaning. I'd say my hypothetical is a pretty safe bet.

Quote:To restate and sum: I wouldn't use the term, but I accept the fact that African-Americans do use the term and would not condem it.

Yes, but you refused to condemn it when I white woman said it. Actually let me rephrase, you refused to condemn it when a white LIBERAL woman said it.

Quote:Further, if you search Google News for the term "house Negro," you will see that the only person who seems to be pissed off about the fact that it was applied to Larry Elder is... Larry Elder.

Can't blame him. But let's not make a mountain out of that ant hill.

I see, so if I called you an ignorant, racists scum bag, and only YOU got upset about it, but others on this board tried to defend you, they'd be making a mountain out of an ant hill? Interesting.

Quote:Wasn't your previous contention that Lott wasn't, back in the day, a racist?

No, I never made an assertion, I asked a question. And the fact that you'll give Byrd a pass on using the N word in 2001 and condemn Lott for what his position was 40 years ago shows that you have absolutley no shred of intellectual honesty or moral clarity.

It amazes me how you can rationalize anything someone says or does, as long as they're a liberal.

It's actually pretty sick as well.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:And you say it's not that you think Lott is still a racist.&nbsp; On what basis do you use to call him a former racist?

.

<a href='http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,...,399310,00.html</a>

Here is Trent Lott's stance on segregation, which is quoted from the Time Magazine article you linked.

Quote:Asked about the fraternity vote, Lott responded through a spokesman, who said: "Those were different times in a different era. Senator Lott believes that segregation is immoral and repudiates it."

You condemn Trent Lott for one act, in a fraternity not the US Senate, over 40 years ago and one statement two years ago that is wide open to interpretation. Yet, you praise Byrd who was a a member of the KKK, who filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act and still uses an overtly racist vernacular.

How do we know what Trent Lott's real role in that Sigma Nu vote was? Oh, because we have the ex-President of CNN to tell us what happened. Nevermind that he voted the exact same way that Trent Lott did. No, no, he swears he wasn't a racist.

Ex-CNN President Tom Johnson gets a pass (Yet he voted for segregation, but now says he is against it). Sen Byrd gets a pass (Yet he actively opposed a major Civil Rights Act, was a member of the KKK and talks like he's still a member). Trent Lott is condemned. For what? For doing what Tom Johnson did which is a helluva lot less than what Robert Byrd did and still does.

Your stance on this issue is quite hypocritical.

Quote:(There are many reasons for this, but I'll try to boil it down: Yours is still the party of people like Trent Lott. And when African-Americans hear people like him speak, they see what lies underneath his words. They hear him in an different way than many white Mississippians do.)

Who the hell do you think you are to tell anyone what African-Americans or white Mississippians think? You are way too full of yourself.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:It is not meaningless to suggest that America would have been better off under a Strom Thurmond segregationist presidency and that we wouldn't have had "all these problems" under such a presidency.

No sir.

He didn't suggest that. In fact, it takes a great deal of speculation and assigning of motivation to come to that conclusion. He gave an old man some simple praise. He didn't praise segregation or support it. He was speaking off the cuff.

This is what he said:

""I want to say this about my state: 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 all these years, either."

Are you suggesting Lott was praising Thurmond for his position on regulatory reform?

:rolleyes:

Quote:We can learn one big lesson from that quote, Byrd thinks there are "black *******" as well.

That's put very well, actually. Pithier than whatever I was going to come up with.

Quote:So you see evolution in a man who can drop that word without thinking twice about it,

I do think he thought twice.

And I do think it represents evolution.

Is it modern? No. It shows Byrd probably has quite a ways to go in unmuddling his thinking on race.

As the NAACP's Kweisi Mfume put it at the time: "The fact that Byrd felt free enough to make that kind of statement about any group suggests that any progress he has made on race is relative."

I agree.

Quote:yet none in the comments of Lott, comments that you have assign a great deal of meaning to independent of what he said

The meaning is damned clear.

Quote:

Quote:To restate and sum: I wouldn't use the term, but I accept the fact that African-Americans do use the term and would not condem it.

Yes, but you refused to condemn it when I white woman said it.

Is Garofalo white?

Quote:And the fact that you'll give Byrd a pass on using the N word in 2001

I'm not giving a pass.

Quote:and condemn Lott for what his position was 40 years ago

It seems to me you are the one who brought up Lott's position 40 years ago, not me.

Quote:shows that you have absolutley no shred of intellectual honesty or moral clarity.

I think this is an interesting read:

<a href='http://www.bet.com/articles/0,1048,c1gb4899-5619-1,00.html#boardsAnchor' target='_blank'>http://www.bet.com/articles/0,1048,c1gb489...ml#boardsAnchor</a>

The point is, Lott has a long, long history of making similar statements and his voting record has consistently antagonized the NAACP -- and, by extension, African-Americans. Quoting:

Lott has voted against making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday, and was the only negative vote against the nomination of Judge Roger Gregory as the first Black judge ever seated on the United States Court of Appeals. He also voted against the extension of the Voting Rights Act in 1982. On the flip side, Thurmond supported all three issues...

Black legislative leaders point out that Lott's most recent remark is not an isolated incident. In a statement from the Congressional Black Caucus, the lawmakers said Lott's recent comments represent "a longstanding pattern of behavior that can no longer be ignored or tolerated" and have called for the Senate to censure him, one of the strongest rebukes that the body can take against a sitting member.

In contrast, Byrd tends to vote the NAACP's way. He supported the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights Act and he voted in favor of making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday.

If you compare Byrd and Lott's NAACP scorecards over the years, there isn't even a comparison.

I think that explains why the reaction was more muted toward Byrd.

It isn't just that Lott said what he said at Thurmond's birthday party and the fact that he -- like many of his time and place -- was a segregationist 40 years ago.

It's all the stuff that has happened in between.

I don't know if Lott is still a racist. But it seems clear to me that he has consistently courted the racist vote.

-- In 1978, Lott led the Congressional effort to restore Jefferson Davis' citizenship. (This alone isn't an indictment of the man, but it is worth mentioning along with everything else).
-- In 1980, at a Reagan rally, he made a virtually pro-Thurmond virtually identically to the one he let loose a Thurmond's 100th birthday.
-- In 1981 Lott filed a legal brief arguing that South Carolina's Bob Jones University should maintain its tax-exempt status despite its ban on interracial dating.
-- In 1998, at the dedication of the "Jefferson Davis presidential library," Lott said Davis was a guiding light for him intellectually. He said he felt closer to Davis "than any other man in America."
-- In October, 2000, he made another pro-Thurmond comment off camera during a bill signing. A mic caught him saying Thurmond "should have been president in 1947, I think it was."
-- He has long played footsie with the Council of Conservative Citizens, whose racism is barely veiled.

There is a world of difference between Byrd and Lott.

When the hell does the NAACP speak in total favor of blacks? They are a political organization- and nothing more.

After Bill Cosby took the stand and gave a TRUTHFUL speech about the black community in America, Jesse Jackson could only say "It was a good speech, but the American government owes blacks more".

That is the sentiment of the NAACP- Give us what we want because we are black and we'll play the race card on you if you don't. Most of them spoke out AGAINST Cosby, who was preaching self impowerment and taking responsibility for your actions.

Please. Voting in favor of NAACP actions does not get you off the hook for calling someone a "******".

Quote:Are you suggesting Lott was praising Thurmond for his position on regulatory reform?

No, I'm stating that Thurmonds positions back when he ran for president weren't necessarily first and foremost on Lott's mind. What I do believe was on his mind was making a general statement of praise about an old man who was retiring.

Quote:That's put very well, actually. Pithier than whatever I was going to come up with.

And clearly you don't have a problem with Byrd thinking that way.

Quote:The meaning is damned clear.

Oh yes, I forgot, you can read minds. :rolleyes: The fact is you want to see a racist meaning in Lotts comments because he's a republican and you want to see evolution and principles in Byrd because he's a democrat. In short, you're a hypocrit. And a damn good one I must say.

Quote:Is Garofalo white?

You know, I think you know good and well who she is, and I think you also know good and well she's white. You just want to be able to argue her side while faining ignorance about who she is because you know what arguing for her makes you look like.

Quote:It seems to me you are the one who brought up Lott's position 40 years ago, not me.

A lot of things "seem" to you apparently SF, none of them true by the way. Since clearly you have memory problems I'll remind you that YOU brought up his record 40 years ago when you posted that article.

Are you on any medication we should be aware of? It would explain a lot if you were.

Quote:If you compare Byrd and Lott's NAACP scorecards over the years, there isn't even a comparison.

I think that explains why the reaction was more muted toward Byrd.

Yep. It explains perfectly how you liberals think. Vote with us and you can do anything you want and we won't say a word. Want to cheat on your wife with an intern? No problem, you have a (D) next to your name. Want to use your position as governor to put your unqualified gay lover in a homeland security job, good for you, we'll turn a blind eye as long as you keep towing the party line. Want to drop a N bomb when ever you want, go for it!!

Quote:There is a world of difference between Byrd and Lott.

Yeah, one uses the word n*****, the other doesn't. Of course you admire that. Only more admirable is if he'd say house negro. That would get you to contribute to his campaign.

You and your hypocricy are disgusting.

Hey Schad, how many Black Republicans have the NAACP thrown their support behind? Answer---NONE.

Thanks CCS, good to have another Mississippian on board to defend Lott against the IGNORANT!!!!!. Hey Schad, did you know that Jackson State, a black college, has a building named after Lott? Why? Because he worked HARD and received federal funding for it. Yep, some racist.

Lott isn't a racist. Byrd,.....and you Schad sicken me that you are this partisan about it, IS! So was Gore's father. You bring up Helms, etc., but protect Byrd. YOU are not principled.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:Are you suggesting Lott was praising Thurmond for his position on regulatory reform?

No, I'm stating that Thurmonds positions back when he ran for president weren't necessarily first and foremost on Lott's mind. What I do believe was on his mind was making a general statement of praise about an old man who was retiring.
.

Of course, this is a statement he appears to have made again and again -- sometimes when Thurmond was watching and -- at least in one case -- when he wasn't within earshot.

And let's be clear: Lott wasn't praising Thurmond's long life. He was praising his 1948 presidential campaign, which can be summed up by these words Thurmond delivered on the campaign trail (to enormous cheers):

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."

Harmless praise?

Quote:

Quote:That's put very well, actually. Pithier than whatever I was going to come up with.

And clearly you don't have a problem with Byrd thinking that way.

Some excerpts from what I have said in this thread:

Is it modern? No. It shows Byrd probably has quite a ways to go in unmuddling his thinking on race.

As the NAACP's Kweisi Mfume put it at the time: "The fact that Byrd felt free enough to make that kind of statement about any group suggests that any progress he has made on race is relative."

I agree.

------

...after studying the comment in its full context recently, I am now much more open to the idea that Byrd probably did deserve some of the criticism he got for that comment.



I don't know how you are coming to the conclusion that I "don't have a problem with it."

I have a problem with anyone thinking that way.

Quote:

Quote:It seems to me you are the one who brought up Lott's position 40 years ago, not me.

A lot of things "seem" to you apparently SF, none of them true by the way. Since clearly you have memory problems I'll remind you that YOU brought up his record 40 years ago when you posted that article.

Are you on any medication we should be aware of? It would explain a lot if you were.

I was responding to this question from you:

And you say it's not that you think Lott is still a racist. On what basis do you use to call him a former racist?

What was that about medication?

Quote:

Quote:If you compare Byrd and Lott's NAACP scorecards over the years, there isn't even a comparison.

I think that explains why the reaction was more muted toward Byrd.

Yep. It explains perfectly how you liberals think. Vote with us and you can do anything you want and we won't say a word.

I knew you guys were going to seize on the NAACP scorecard comment. The Republican machine has put a great deal of effort into discrediting the NAACP.

(I mean, we're only talking about the nation's leading civil rights organization, a 95-year-old institution that reflects the broad mainstream of African-American political thinking. But, whatever).

That still leaves out some of the specific votes underneath the NAACP scorecard, such as the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday and the 1982 extension of the Voting Rights Act.

We're talking about measures that even Strom Thurmond (as well as Robert Byrd) voted for. But Trent Lott didn't.

You also fail to address:

-- Lott's apparent longstanding obsession with Jefferson Davis as a political role model.
-- The fact that Lott has uttered similar praise of Thurmond's 1948 presidential candidacy on at least *two* other occasions.
-- The fact that Lott actively fought to allow Bob Jones University to keep its tax-exempt status despite its ban on interracial dating.
-- The fact that Lott has long played footsie with the racist Council of Conservative Citizens.

Those are real differences between Lott and Byrd.

Is there some muddled thinking going on in Byrd's head? Absolutely, it sure looks that way.

But, as a member of the Senate, I would suggest Byrd's actions are more important than whatever it is that's going on in his head.

That's a difference between Lott and Byrd.

Quote:

Quote:There is a world of difference between Byrd and Lott.

Yeah, one uses the word n*****, the other doesn't. Of course you admire that.

I don't admire Byrd's use of the N-bomb, and I resent you suggesting otherwise.

Stuff like this:

<a href='http://www.senate.gov/~byrd/byrd_newsroom/byrd_news_feb/news_2003_february/news_2003_february_9.html' target='_blank'>http://www.senate.gov/~byrd/byrd_newsroom/...february_9.html</a>

I admire that about Byrd.

This thread might have died except for the fact that I suggested it was no surprise that a openly racist citizen would choose to run as a Republican.

Lott's career is a testament to why that is the case. Lott has clearly courted racist votes throughout his career.

In contrast, Byrd has strongly and repeatedly repudiated his actions a long time ago. He has described his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as the vote he regrets most and his membership in the Klan as the worst mistake of his life.

These are differences.

Quote:-- Lott's apparent longstanding obsession with Jefferson Davis as a political role model.

so what there are those of us in mississippi that are proud of our southern heritage, and Jefferson Davis is part of that heritage. He was not the instigator of the seccesion, in fact he argued against it before the southern state left the union. He was not a racist either for at that time many of the wealthy owned slaves, it doesnt make it right, but it was a way of life. In fact if you read a correct history instead of a Yankee history you will find out that his former slaves lived & took care of him at Beauvoir after his release

Quote:-- In 1978, Lott led the Congressional effort to restore Jefferson Davis' citizenship. (This alone isn't an indictment of the man, but it is worth mentioning along with everything else).

and schad your hero Jimmy Carter was in favor of it and signed the bill, so i take it that the peanut farmer is a racist too

Quote:Thanks CCS, good to have another Mississippian on board to defend Lott against the IGNORANT!!!!!.

rebkev you beat me too it


oh & by the way the reason southern law makers voted against MLK Jr day was coz they were going to put it on R. E. Lee Day a holiday recognized throught the south at the time. btw Clinton made it a joint holiday in Arkansas while govenor(clinton is a raciat to i guess)