 |
|
|
 |
 |
 November 15, 2006
NOTHING TO SEE HERE... There's a weird (though also, of course, familiar) refusal to make judgments in John Dickerson's Slate piece about the return of Trent Lott. I know we're all supposed to forget about the Strom Thurmond thing now, but isn't there something at least noteworthy about the fact that Senate Republicans are willing to rehabilitate a guy who said, essentially, that he'd rather be living in a segregated country? Would it be out of line to suggest that Lott's return to leadership tells us something about the priorities of Senate Republicans, and about the party more generally? This is a line of inquiry that doesn't seem to interest Dickerson, who describes Lott's sin as a "bone-headed statement" comparable to John Kerry's recent botched joke. Instead, he spends a while relating a story about Lott and Teddy Kennedy making nice during the Clinton impeachment hearings, in the service of making the plausible case that Lott's record as a "dealmaker" could mean that he'll work productively with Democrats when it suits him. There are also the obligatory jokes about Lott's hair. I thought the whole thing with writing for Slate, as opposed to say, Time, is that you get to express an opinion. So either Dickerson just can't bring himself to do that, or he really believes there isn't anything of interest in the return to leadership of a man who said he wished a segregationist had been elected president. Hard to say which would be worse. —Zachary Roth 6:52 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (14)Comments
Trent Lott said a stupid thing and the GOP definitely has a problem with race, but I agree with John Dickerson that it is on a par with Kerry's botched joke. He was just trying to be nice to a 100 year old man on his birthday and he f'ed it up. Lott is not the bastard that so many other GOP Senators can be and we need to work with somebody on that side of the aisle. It might as well be Lott. He paid a price for his stupid comment and now its time to move on. Posted by: nonplussed on November 15, 2006 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINKIf Lott's a dealmaker and Murtha's a dealmaker then why isn't the MSM exuberent about the potential for them to hook up for some sweet sweet dealmaking? Posted by: adam on November 15, 2006 at 8:25 PM | PERMALINKExplain why what Lott said was such an outrage again? And how can you say Dickerson won't make a judgement and then wuss out massively by only asking this rhetorical question: "Would it be out of line to suggest that Lott's return to leadership tells us something about the priorities of Senate Republicans, and about the party more generally?" The priorities of Senate Republicans seem to be that they want a guy who knows what he's doing instead of Bill Frist. Seems pretty obvious. Posted by: zimmerman on November 15, 2006 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINKI get the feeling that the Senate Republicans feel a sense of relief that they can stop pretending. A silver lining to the election disaster for them. I am sort of relieved they quit pretending as well. But sad that it was only pretending. Posted by: EmmaAnne on November 16, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK"Explain why what Lott said was such an outrage again?" If Strom Thurmond had been elected President, "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years"? Exactly how else is one supposed to take that statement? He didn't botch a line, or simply say that he supported Strom and Strom would have been a good President. He explicitly endorsed the idea that a Presidency whose signature issue was the preservation of racial segregation would have avoided the problems our country has experienced since. The Republicans wisely threw him out like spoiled milk. I'll grant you this much-- The Thurmond comments, in a vacuum, should not have disqualified Lott from leadership. He has a long history of association with racist organizations and this was merely the straw that broke the camel's back. Read up on his pals at the Council of Conservative Citizens if you don't believe me. I don't necessarily blame the GOP for bringing back their last politically effective Senate leader. But it's definitely an interesting change of pace from all that Michael Steele hype a few weeks ago. Posted by: ajl on November 16, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINKqod1xjd-z2vvaob-tw6qd573 free game online casino http://congressfriends.ytmnd.com/ Republicans to blacks: we love you, we just don't want to BE you. Posted by: plunge on November 17, 2006 at 2:22 AM | PERMALINKPosted by: ajl on November 16, 2006 at 8:12 PM I have to agree with the above referenced post and what it says. Lott tipped his hand yet again with the "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" element of his comment. There is simply no other way to read that than he is saying that if the Segregationist ticket had won then there would not have been all those racially divisive issues to deal with since then, which just happens to include the entire civil rights movement of the 1950s/1960s. While I'll give Lott full credit as an effective GOP Senate leader in knowing the rules of the institution, I also would not want forgotten his history of less than sensitive comments on racial/minority issues in America and what it says about a party that places a person with such views in the second highest position within their Senate Caucus. Posted by: Scotian on November 17, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINKVisit my webpage!! Posted by: flavor fragrance pharmaca pheromone terpenes on November 17, 2006 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINKVisit my webpage!! Posted by: crestor drug effects more side on November 19, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK |
|
|
    |
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
||||||
------ ADVERTISERS ------
 
|
||||||
