What do u guys think?

[lovelyivy84]

Thanks for pointing this out.

Trent Lott's comments surprise no one who has any information on the man. We all know what he is (that is RACIST to put it reaaaaally bluntly for you guys).

It is just a convenient excuse being used by republicans who don't like him to get him out of office. All that righteous indignation is complete garbage. I would be surprised (not shocked) if the man was replaced as majority leader.

Originally posted by Greekgeezer
People need to realize that Trent's actions speak just as loud as his words:


-At University of Mississippi and on a national level he fought against the integration of Sigma Nu

-Lott said "Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," in reference to Bob Jones University's policy on interracial dating.

-1983, Lott was one of 90 House members who voted against creating a national holiday to honor Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

-1989, Lott was one of seven senators who voted to abolish the King holiday commission, and in 1994, he was one of 28 who favored scrapping its federal funding.

- He voted against the Voting Rights Act in the early '90s

- In 1995, Lott criticized Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., for intervening with 39 other lawmakers to get the FBI to release documents in the 1966 death of civil rights activist Vernon Dahmer to county prosecutors.

- He was the lone vote against President Bush's nomination of a black judge last year

- He has only one black employee, a mail clerk, out of a staff of 65. Half of Lott's constituents are black.

This isn't a liberal/conservative, Republican/Democrat issue, either. It's a respect issue. This man obviously doesn't respect blacks.

If you don't like a poster's comments -- then notify a moderator. Asking people if they have vitamin deficiencies because they defend their posting rights is a lame come back.

[33girl]

Ivy,

Perhaps "bound" wasn't the right word. Of course they can't vote against the constitution etc. An example would be better. Say I'm a representative and for personal reasons, I am in favor of Prohibition. My constituency from what I see, hear and read is completely against it. There's nothing in studies to show that prohibition would be a good idea for my district or the country. I have to put my own views in my pocket and vote the way my constituency wants, because I am their representative, not voicing what I think.

Which, of course, puts a whole new scary spin on all this if Trent Lott thinks that's what he's doing.

[IvySpice]

>I have to put my own views in my pocket and vote the way my constituency wants

No, you really don't have to.

If you're a senator, the vote on a question belongs to you, not to New Mexico or Maine. Even on a question, like prohibition, that's just a judgment call, where both action and inaction are unquestionably constitutional...it's up to the senator.

If this weren't the case, what would be the use of platforms and parties? Why would it matter who you voted for? Let's say Candidate Smith runs on a conservative platform and wins in a squeaker to become senator from North Carolina. During his term, lots of liberals move to Durham, and now the state is 51% pro-choice. Should Senator Smith now vote for federal abortion funding? Wouldn't you condemn him for flip-flopping? (I would.)

If you're arguing that Smith SHOULD always vote along with his constituents, as long as their goals are constitutional, that's a totally reasonable argument. But as of right now, there's neither any law nor any tradition that says he must, or even that he ought to.

Ivy

[moe.ron]

Lott's long history of support for racist and neo-Confederate causes is generally missing from coverage of the Thurmond controversy. On December 11, the New York Times and Washington Post did report that in 1980, then-congressmember Lott told a crowd at a Reagan rally, “You know, if we had elected [Strom Thurmond] 30 years ago, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.” But with few other exceptions, coverage of Lott’s record seldom goes beyond the current scandal and 1998 revelations of Lott’s links to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens.

As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978, Lott was behind a successful effort to re-instate the citizenship of Confederate President Jefferson Davis (Associated Press, 6/2/78). In 1981, the year he became house minority whip, Lott prodded the Reagan administration into taking the side of Bob Jones University and other segregated private schools that were suing the Internal Revenue Service to restore tax exemptions withdrawn a decade earlier because of the schools’ discriminatory racial policies (Washington Post, 1/18/82).

In 1982 and 1990, Lott voted against extending the Voting Rights Act, the law passed to insure that minorities-- especially Southern blacks-- had access to the voting booth. In 1990, he voted against continuation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the crown jewel of civil-rights legislation that desegregated education and public accommodations. In 1983 Lott voted against a national holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr., and in 1994 he voted to de-fund the MLK Jr. Holiday commission.

Lott’s appointment to chair the 1984 Republican Platform committee occasioned a soft New York Times article (8/14/84) describing Lott as “a legislator who displays political shrewdness while avoiding making waves.” That was the same year Lott boasted in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, “The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform” (Southern Partisan, 4th quarter, 1984).

A few months later, in an interview with the neo-Confederate magazine Southern Partisan (4th quarter, 1984), Lott-- himself a member and promoter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans-- repeated Jefferson Davis’ posthumous endorsement of the GOP platform, throwing in a reference to the Civil War as “the War of Northern Aggression.” No one asked Lott then if the original "party of Lincoln" was becoming the party of Lincoln's chief nemesis.

It wasn’t until 1998 that national press scrutiny (with help from FAIR) focused on one neo-Confederate group-- the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). The CCC is the successor to the notorious white Citizens Councils, whose history dates back half a century to the 1950s when the groups were referred to as the "uptown Klan." Today’s CCC rails against "race-mixing" and immigrants, and proudly associates with extreme rightists, from white supremacist David Duke to French racist and anti-Semite Jean-Marie LePen.

In December 1998, Lott denied any personal knowledge of the CCC, falsely claiming through a spokesperson that his links to the group amounted to a single speech made over a decade before he’d entered the Senate. In 1992, Sen. Lott praised the CCC as keynote speaker at its national convention; in 1997, he met with top CCC leaders in his Senate office; his column appeared throughout the 1990s in the group’s newsletter, which once published a cheerful photo of Lott and CCC members who were also his close relatives. Lott was also the guest of honor at a 1982 banquet hosted by a Mississippi chapter of the old white Citizens Councils (Extra!, 3-4/99).

In his defense of Lott (Meet the Press, 12/8/02), Bob Novak said, "Trent Lott got out there and he winged it. That's one of the dangers of not having a text. He thought it was a social occasion. He's thinking what comes to his mind." That sounds like a perfect reason to continue investigating Lott's racist connections.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/lott-advisory.html

[AlphaXiDiva]

aren't the facts clear? Lott's political and legislative actions have indubitably show that Lott is indeed against integration therefore equality. This is hands down no-brainer. I am just finding out more and more about the matters at hand with Lott ( I am out of the political loop in Redlands, CA) but as stated and quoted throughout the thread, his intentions and plans (via actions) are blatant.
It's interesting to see those GCers who are struggling to support/justify the man... you really never know who you are dealing with
I might add that with the repeated quote of a statement made by Lott and/or Thurman I have been terribly offended, actually, alot of it is painful (quote about niggers). The man is utilizing his political position to further his motives, destroying what sacrifice brilliant men of our past have made ie his disgrace and extreme disrespect to the honor and work of Rev Martin Luther King Jr.
I don't know, this thread is pretty depressing...I see so much support of this man, and I think he is the devil (no pun intended). This is not my most intellectual post (as it should be with my passion for civil rights law) but when you look at the support here of Lott, along with the reasons why the civil rights act was passed (interstate commerce) by congress and held it's constitutionality through many Supreme Court attacks, you can really see how fickle the image of equality and justice truly are.

[justamom]

Well, we had a "healthy" debate last night on this topic. I was very impressed that BOTH kids knew a little about this issue.
I'm rather lazy, so I admit I haven't done any other research on Lott's background than what has been presented here.

So many points made that are valid on BOTH sides of this topic.
I still hold that we can't know forcertain what he meant by his comment, but personally I now think the man made a gaffe that shows he is NOT the leader I want to represent ME as a republican. As Delt Alum said, you can't paint all with the same brush, so please don't lump all conservatives together.
His history as a leader is what alarms me. If his philosophy had shown some greater degree of change or his voting record been different, I might continue to believe it was nothing more than a poorly crafted toast. BTW-I think MLK was a good man and a great leader, but he wasn't a saint. One of the reasons many conservatives were against MLK Day had nothing to do with the man-it was more about another paid holiday and loss of production.

SO, damned if we do get rid of him, damned if we don't because there will STILL be people who refuse to believe it isn't solely a political Band-Aid for a very "messy" situation. That kind of thinking too is damaging.

I really do appreciate the information that has been presented and it HAS made an impression.

A very good point made in last night's discussion. When someone verbally or physically attacks your friend, you may rise to defend or you can empathize with them, but NEVER could you know how deep the hurt is or how it really feels to BE them.

[AlphaGamDiva]

reading through some old threads....trying to see what old drama i can start up again , and i came across this one.....so now i'm curious to know how many ppl thought that daschel (SP?????) should have stepped down after making his comments about president bush being a "failure" at diplomacy, etc, contradicting other things he had said previously about military action.....did he ever even apologize about that or anything?? just curious to know your thoughts........and maybe stepping down is a bit severe, but at least apologize/correct himself?

and if this has already been addressed....sorry! overlook me.....and if you don't mind, direct me to that thread........