Asymmetrical Information

C'mon, Jane, the "Trent Lott DEBACLE"? You remind me of the little girls in grade school whose sharp intake of breath signalled societal disaproval of some boy's antics (more often than not, my own).

Can't be that bad if the NYT didn't pick it up. Of course the dems might not want to delve into the distant past of their senior senators either (does Robert Byrd REALLY have "KKK forever" tatooted on his arm?)

Distant past is a hell of a difference from comments made in the past week.

Of course I refer to the antediluvian antics of Senators Thurmond and Byrd.

Norman,

Sorry, you're just wrong. What Lott said isn't about who Thurmond is right now, it's about who he was in 1948, when they thought blacks should be kept away from whites at all costs.

Why couldn't Lott have simply lauded some of Thurmond's other accomplishments? Like when he was in his 70s he was accused of being too old to run for Senate. So he knocked up a young lass to prove the critics wrong. Hey, you gotta do what you gotta do to keep that government gravy train rolling.

One would hope that Lott was, in some wierd kind of way, trying to congratulate and insult Thurmond at the same time by reminding voters that Thurmond was a racist. Frankly, I think the press isn't touching this because they know stacking Lott's record against Thurmond's is a game they'll lose.

Regardless, the attempt clearly backfired. At this point, I think the Republicans can't afford anything less than a zero tolerance policy -- there's just simply too much at stake. If the majority leader can't think before speaking, what other basic tasks is he incapable of successfully completing?

Strom Thurmond did change over the years, including his party affiliation. So did the late George Wallace. And who was President when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed? - a Southerner, Lyndon Baines Johnson.

And who did Thurmond lose to? Harry Truman, who for practical purposes was a Southerner.

It has been said that only Nixon could have gone to China. Perhaps a Thurmond could have led us to civil rights less painfully.

Speculative? Certainly. But no more so than saying that if he had been elected, we would have had "larger, more difficult, more appalling problems, to be sure".

To be fair, the remarks were in the middle of an exuberant birthday speech, during which Lott seems to have simply piled on the outsized comments a little too high. I think we'd all like to think that if we should live to 100, our friends and colleagues would say nice things, instead of "And he's an irresponsible screw up whos father had take a second job to cover his legal bills for the stupid car crash he was in. . . then when he was 29 his first marriage failed because of his selfishness, irresponsibility and excessive drinking. . . moving on, he directly contributed to the outster of the head of his department by failing to complete a mission-critical project on time . . . his children might have turned out better if he had had the spine, or the fortitude, to provide them more love and discipline. . . he acted like a total jerk when his mother died and his siblings are still nursing the wounds. . . frankly, he's a fairweather friend, his hygiene leaves something to be desired, and he's under the misimpression that his jokes are funny"

When the blogosphere convenes, as it eventually must, its first Robert Fisk Memorial Blogger Roast, I think we've found our Mistress of Ceremonies.

I agree that people might be jumping to conclusions a wee bit. Nevertheless, there is simply no place for comments defending traditions of lynching, black voter intimidation, anti-miscegenation laws, and racial segregation, least of all from a senator. When confronted with allegations that his statements were interpreted to mean just that Senator Lott should have denounced such sentiments and said he meant nothing of the sort, but he failed to do so. Utterly disgraceful in my opinion.

I think the racist Dixiecrats were wrong and morally repugnant. But of course Stalin and Mao were far more repugnant and mangaged to murder close to 100 million more people than Strom Thurmond. As aging communists and fellow travelers die, it is amazing how often the NYTimes and other such worthy journals give us glowing descriptions of their careers and glorify them for their principles without a mention of their vile repugnance.

By comparison, Lott's comments hardly measure up.

C'mon Jane, things like "failing to complete a mission-critical project" or "providing more love" to his children aren't exactly in the same league as running for President of the United States on a PRO-LYNCHING ticket.
Now I agree with you that I don't think Lott intended to endorse the Dixiecrat platform, but Jeebus was his statement stupid. Why the hell did he even bring it up?

First off, shameless plug: http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Initium/12-06-02.htm

Second, the issue isn't Thurmond. Thurmond doesn't still defend his 1948 positions. Thurmond has courted black votes, appointed black staffers, etc. etc. etc. The issue is Lott. He wasn't praising the Thurmond of the last twenty or thirty years, he was openly praising Thurmond's 1948 campaign.

Jane, taking your example, I think that at the 100th birthday party, those things would be passed over in silence, rather than being the subject of praise.

Oh, I agree. I'm not defending what Lott said. I'm just noting that he was speaking off the cuff, and if you've ever done so yourself to a large group, you know that it's easy to say some horrifying things by accident. That doesn't mean I condone the implication or think Lott should get a pass on it.

Who should the Republicans replaceme Lott with? My favorite Republicans were Phil Gramm and Fred Thompson. They're both gone now. Who should it be? (And please don't anyone say John McCain.)

Hiatusblogger wrote: "Norman, Sorry, you're just wrong. What Lott said isn't about who Thurmond is right now, it's about who he was in 1948, when they thought blacks should be kept away from whites at all costs."

and to all who think the dems and/or the liberal media (like there's a differentiation) ought to make a big stink about Trent Lott's remarks...

I wrote previously, "the dems might not want to delve into the distant past of their senior senators either". Let me explain. Robert Byrd was an active member of the Ku Klux Klan. The liberal press doesn't like to go anywhere near this -- it's ancient history as far as they're concerned. The quid quo pro is that nobody much speaks about Strom Thurmond's politics of the same era. (Or his reputation as a cocksman).
Jane's idea (as echoed by others) that someone should take Lott to task for praising Thurmond ain't gonna happen -- there's an old social custom, "Never speak ill of the (near) dead." Lott gets a pass, as well he should

HHHHHHHMMMMMMM
Just like his off the cuff remarks equating homosexuality to kleptomania and alcoholism?

I think the off the cuff Sen Lott speaks as Trent Lott believes and I hope the Republicans send him to the back of the class.

Of course they won't.

Come on, people. Lott didn't just say that Thurmond made a dumb comment half a century ago but has now changed and should be forgiven for it -- he said Thurmond was RIGHT to back segregation, and that we should start backing it again now. Christ, that's more than Thurmond himself has ever said (by 1984 he was voting to make Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday; like George Wallace and Robert Byrd, he finally did change to a considerable degree). It's much more of an indication that Lott (like Jesse Helms) still actually believes in this racist garbage.

Even without that, Bruce, I've been aching to send Lott packing. Unfortunately the wonderful state of Mississippi keeps reelecting him. You do your part; we'll do ours. No guarantees though.

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much." - Robert Byrd, from the "distant past" of 2001

I've wanted Byrd, Thurmond and Lott out for a long, long time. Fritz Hollings too for good measure. Unfortunately certain people (*cough*americanprospect*cough*) are perfectly happy with Byrd staying in (he knows the rules of the Senate! he's a "traditionalist!" he speaks his mind on the war!) while they wail about Thurmond, etc.

As for Lott's replacement, Frist is pretty obvious.

Bruce Moomaw: "Lott didn't just say that Thurmond made a dumb comment half a century ago but has now changed and should be forgiven for it -- he said Thurmond was RIGHT to back segregation, and that we should start backing it again now."

That wasn't on any account I've seen of this. Do you have a link?

Actually, I kind of like Richard Lugar. He actually seems to have a bit of a clue regarding trivial things like foreign policy. Possibly this is an illusion because I don't, myself.

Byrd made that "white nigger" comment, and it was shocking, wrong, and has no place in discussion. But he did apologize. Lott, as others have pointed out, hasn't made the tiniest effort to apologize.

What else could Trent Lott meant besides what he said? I've made off the cuff remarks before, but I've never, say, wished that we could have had our own little Holocaust over here, or that we had elected a president who advocated stuffing women in burquas and killing those who resist.

And this isn't the first time Lott has publicly longed for racial inequality. He used to write a regular column for the racist Council for Concerned Citizens, and in a 1992 speech to the group, he famously told its members that they stand "for the right principles and the right philosophy." So this latest statement looks less like a slip-up and more like an inadvertent statement of Lott's true feelings.

And to think, some of the same people who are willing to give Lott a free pass squawk with outrage everytime Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton say something about race. What's the difference, except that Lott's will be Senate Majority Leader, and thus will have much more of an opportunity to inflict his racist views upon the rest of us? Or is it that some conservatives don't think racist comments against blacks are such a big deal?

Another argument, OBE.

Jon - Byrd's apology was a joke. He said people "may be offended" by his use of the term. Coming from a former Klansman, it's unacceptable.

P.S. At the time you wrote that he had indeed made two "tiny efforts" to apologize... they weren't a lot better than Byrd's however.

Still, I have to weigh deeds more heavily than words. So, given a choice between not reelecting Byrd and not reelecting Lott, I'd have to lean toward the one that was a kleagle of the Klan rather than the one who made some stupid remark that could be interpreted as pining for the good old days of segregation. But if I had my choice, they'd both lose.

To me the issue isn't so much what he said, or thinks he said, or thought he meant something else. The bigger issue is that he was STUPID enough to say it at all. Lack of self control is enough in my book to be booted from office. We should hold these guys up to a higher standard. God knows they won't do this for themselves...

Comments are Closed.