 Wednesday, 11 December 2002
 Sullivan on Lott
I normally never bother visiting (let alone linking to) Andrew Sullivan (who apparently does finally have something like permalinks [edited]), but he's got some righteous outrage going on re: Lott and I can't help but salute it:
...it seems to me that the G.O.P. has zero credibility on racial matters until they get rid of this man as Senate Majority Leader. When I'm in agreement with the Family Research Council, a virulently anti-gay group, you know something's got to give. ... And no, I don't think bringing up Robert Byrd, another old bigot, is a satisfactory response. It's a sign that you cannot defend someone when you respond by attacking someone else.
It seems to me that president Bush now has his Sister Souljah opportunity. Just as Clinton secured centrist backing when he repudiated the anti-white racism of Sister Souljah, so Bush needs to repudiate the anti-black racism of Lott publicly, clearly and irrevocably. If he doesn't, then I'm afraid he will lose any black support indefinitely and the respect of many decent voters who aren't black as well...
1 comment(s)
With the stark exception of virtually every single memeber of the United States Senate, Lott has been soundly criticized by just about everyone - most notably, those on the right, who chimed in soonest and loudest.Even President Bush went "off script" this week to firmly criticize Lott for his remarks. No one really knows how Lott won the position in the first place, and I can't find anyone who understands how he hasn't lost it yet. "Out, out, damned Lott..."
Add a comment...
Lotta Stupidity Ah yes, leader of the Senate Republicans Trent Lott. What a guy. Has anyone asked him how much his hair maintenance costs? Just curious.
Even the normally cheerleading conservative media outlets are rolling their eyes and speaking out against him after his blurting of what he really thinks (and after it's been confirmed that he's said it publicly more than once [NY Times], its being 'just a slip' is just not credible). It warms the heart to see some people valuing principle above party (even if some of it is only concern for the tactics of it all).
Trent Lott's Blunder [Jonah Goldberg] [The Corner, National Review Online]
His remarks -- saying that we'd be better off if Strom Thurmond had won the 1948 election as a Dixiecrat -- ...were incandescently idiotic according to any criteria ... On the facts, Lott's comments were dumb. Morally, they were indefensible. Politically, they served to confirm the suspicions of millions of blacks and liberal whites about what is in the hearts of conservatives and Republicans while earning him nothing but a smile from a 100 year-old man.
Vacant Lott: The GOP and the Ghosts of Mississippi [National Review]
Most people don't expect a 100-year old Thurmond or an 85-year-old Robert Byrd (D., W.V.) to completely escape their racist pasts. But Trent Lott is an adult baby boomer, of the same generation as the current and previous presidents. The leaders of this generation supposedly went through the '60s and supposedly learned a few things about race. That seems true of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. But Trent Lott is waxing nostalgic about the Confederacy and Dixiecrats.
[Bush and Rove] have to ask if this is a man who should have a prominent position in the "new" Republican party. It's not as if there aren't more interesting alternatives. And these aren't even his natural enemies.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
1 comment(s)
My favorite bit from the National Review article was: Perhaps Sen. Lott should ask Alabama-born Condoleezza Rice -- whose childhood friends were killed in a church bombing -- if she believes her life would have been better if Strom Thurmond had become president.
Add a comment...
| 
