[MysticCat]

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...

Originally posted by ktsnake
As for Lott's comments at Mr. Thurmond's birthday party.. Well I'm a realist. I didn't hear anything about segregation... I didn't hear any pro-segregationist speal. What I did hear was Mr. Lott being very complimentary of his friend and colleague. Perhaps he did not take the time to think how his words might be (badly) taken out of context.

Originally posted by KSig RC(in part)
OK - here's the problem:

Lott's statement wasn't "We're glad we voted for Strom Thurmond, because he was Segregationalist" - it also wasn't "We wouldn't be in all this mess we have with the Negros" . . .

These are all added by the reader - now, from his past record, it is very easy to see how these assumptions could be added, and they may actually be valid. But realistically, they're still assumptions - it seems well within the realm of possibility that Lott was simply making empty statements to build up his associate, without thinking of how they'd apply to a certain segment of his past.

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.