People change...but
 

True, people change. But the NYTimes article gave me the impression that we aren't just talking about choices Lott made when he was a kid in college. It's the things he said and did as an adult -- like make a near-identical statement in 1980, like hire ONE black staffer out of 65 in a city that's two-thirds black to minister to a state that's one-third black, like tie himself to segregationist candidates well into his career -- that make me wonder what was really behind his statement about Thurmond.

We all stick our feet in our mouths sometimes. Lord knows I've made a habit of it in my life! But taking this statement in the context of an entire career, it's hard for me to feel confident that it does not reflect a very serious historical blind spot on Lott's part.

A lot of conservatives have mentioned the general acceptance of Senator Byrd, a "reformed" member of the Ku Klux Klan and Democratic senator. I'm a Democrat, and I think it was an embarrassment to the nation to have someone like that in the Senate. If I lived in West Virginia, I'd have voted for almost any Republican rather than for him.

I think of it this way. If you commit a felony after the age of 18, you are not allowed to vote in national elections -- you are not allowed to become a lawyer -- you are not allowed to adopt children -- EVER. You steal a TV or pass a bad check at 18, and you are branded with a scarlet F for the rest of your life. You know Trent Lott, a born law'n'order man, would never try to change that law. Why then should promoting white supremacy well into your career as a public official be forgiven? At what point do we say, you were an adult, and you're accountable for the choices you made? I'd be a hundred times happier to have a reformed burglar creating national policy than a reformed KKK member (or White Citizens' Council supporter, in this case).

As for whether he should step down -- it's up to the Republicans to decide whether they want him to be their figurehead. If he were a Democrat (as he easily could be), I'd be calling for his figurehead on a platter.

Ivy

I would never hold against someone something they did years ago without further info. People change, people can admit mistakes, people learn, people can move on. I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, especially if more recent actions/statements indicate a change of heart. But...

Sorry, but the statement reeked of segregationism. The only, repeat only, repeat only reason that Strom Thurmond broke with the Democrats and ran as a Dixiecrat was segregation. Thurmond was crystal clear about this. His campaign had a one-note campaign message: he ran for president vowing to maintain the "segregation and integrity" of the races. This was well understood at the time -- Democratic candidate Truman literally turned his back on Thurmond because of this very position.

Lott's comment was "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." This can only have one meaning: He was proud that Mississippi had voted for someone whose sole campaign message was to keep the races segregated, and the US would not have had "all these problems over all these years" if we had remained a segregated country. Period. There is no other plausible interpretation.

If Lott did not understand the implications of what he was saying, then he has an appalling understanding of American history for a leader of the United States Senate. If he was trying to say something nice (take a look at Bob Dole's remarks at the same party -- nice compliment tempered with historical and political understanding) and this is what he came up with, then he shows appalling judgment for a leader of the United States Senate. Either way, I think that Republicans in Congress are rightly questioning whether he can be an effective leader now.

Lott's comment was "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."

The more I read it, the worse it sounds...

I guess I can only HOPE he didn't mean it the way so many have taken it... Everyone can speculate, but few will ever know the unadulterated truth.

It will be interesting to see him on BET. I didn't miss it did I? I just can't recall what time.

8:00 PM EST
 

BET.com says that the interview will air at 8:00 pm EST tonight (Monday).

all i know is . . .
trent lott got on BET and apologized for what he said
and he tried to clear it up
to me, that's more embarassing than saying


personally, i don't care. . .
he's not my senator
let his state deal with him



THANK GOD FOR TEXANS!!!!!!!

Quote:

"I wanna say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of him. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either." - Trent Lott, 2002.

Excuse me, but if Trent Lott wasn't referring to Strom's segregation, what exactly WAS he referring to? None of his defenders have been able to answer this question.

Think about the quote below. If you defend Trent Lott, then you defend the following idea:

The following quote has some striking similarities to Strom's:

I would like to ask everyone to rethink certain things before they post. If you'd like to discuss Trent Lott on the basis of what he said, then you are more than welcome to without making comparisons to other groups.

-Rudey
--I think the segregation and disgusting racism shown to black people is qualified to be criticized independently of that shown to other groups.

From what I've heard, I think Mr. Lott was referring to Mr. Thurmond's conservative values and how they would have been better for the country than liberal ones.

Oh my gosh...open your eyes!
 

Okay..."conservative values" meaning what? In 1948, "liberal values" included INTEGRATIONISM, EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN, and VOTING RIGHTS FOR ALL. "Conservative values" were the opposite. I know it sounds simplistic, but it's true. Let's not try to sugar-coat this.

I think that everyone who's trying to make this into "Oh, Lott was just trying to be funny. He didn't mean that Strom was a segregationist" is in denial and should read a history of Southern politics, especially the Dixiecrats.

Whomever said that Lott's appearance on BET is embarassing is right. That just makes it look worse.

I do care, and I'm not from Mississippi. Basically, he represents the majority of the Senate--he represents our representatives. I hope this isn't the way my senator feels!

What Munchkin said.

Re: Oh my gosh...open your eyes!
 

I said before that I think Lott should resign. I think so now more than before.

I don't disagree with what Munchkin said, except that Trent Lott does not "represent" the Republican Senators. While he may be the majority leader, his beliefs are not necessarily the beliefs of all Republicans or Republican senators. Some may even agree with him, but certainly not all.

You can't paint them all with the same brush.

It may be semantics, but it's important to understand.

I saw the repeat of Bet's show last night with trent lott. It was sad:( Ed Gordon, Moderator for the show, Looks like His time was wasted for doing this:rolleyes: thank god for "PTI" on ESPN2. that show was more lively.:p

Rudey --

Are you telling me that I can't post what I believe on this board? Although Strom Thurmond may not have commited a mass genocide of 9 million people, I believe he shares many of the same values of white supremacists.

Don't you dare tell me what I can and cannot say!

"Conservative values" as in believing that the American people are resourceful, independent, proud, and want to succeed without government help. With all their talk of wanting to help the "little people," it seems that the liberals don't trust the American people to make their own decisions; therefore, they keep them in their role as dependents on the government.

My eyes are open, thank you very much. We just are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Just because I have a different view than you, Munchkin03, does not mean I am wrong.

"Conservative values" as in believing that the American people are resourceful, independent, proud, and want to succeed without government help. With all their talk of wanting to help the "little people," it seems that the liberals don't trust the American people to make their own decisions; therefore, they keep them in their role as dependents on the government.

My eyes are open, thank you very much. We just are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Just because I have a different view than you, Munchkin03, does not mean I am wrong.