Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

All about race?

The left, from Howell Raines' New York Times to Bill Clinton, has argued that the modern Republican Party wins elections by playing to race because the modern Republican Party has racism at its core, starting with the civil rights movement. The standard Republican rebuttal is to point out that the segregationist south was primarily Democratic. The people filibustering the Civil Rights Act were Democrats. The people standing in schoolhouse doors were Democrats. The people passing Jim Crow laws and turning firehoses on voting rights marchers were Democrats. And this is completely true.

But as Partha points out (though erroneously including Ronald Reagan), that's not an entirely satisfactory answer:

Have they ever thought about why, during the Civil Rights movement, so many, including Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond, even Ronald Reagan for that matter, switched their party identifications from the Democratic Party to the Republican?

It's true that some of the former Dixiecrats switched parties -- though many (e.g. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings) did not -- during the civil rights era. But the argument that this proves the racism of the G.O.P. is overly simplistic. It would be foolish to deny that race played a role in their decisions to switch parties. But if that were the sole reason, if there were that many single-issue voters on the issue of race, then Trent Lott would have gotten his wish and Strom Thurmond would have been elected president. Or his spiritual successor, George Wallace. Needless to say, neither one was.

There's another answer. The pattern of switching can also be explained by the understanding that the switchers felt that the national Democratic Party had ceased to represent the views of these switchers on most key issues, from crime to foreign policy. Segregation was the last issue tying these people to the Democratic party. Once the national Democratic Party abandoned them on race, cutting this last tie, they saw no reason to remain in the party. In other words, in the complete absence of civil rights as an issue, the likelihood is that these politicians would also have joined the Republican Party, and in fact would have done so sooner. There's no way to prove this hypothetical, of course, but it does explain why non-Dixiecrats like Ronald Reagan were also switching parties at the time. And it fits the pattern of Nixon's success: Nixon was winning in much of the country, not just the South. In short, Dixiecrats were becoming Republicans for the same reason that so many other people were, not because the Republican Party ideology was based on racism.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/21/2002 06:30:00 AM |

 

Dog bites man: The New York Times criticizes Republicans

Here's a shocker: the New York Times approves of Trent Lott's demotion, but still isn't satisfied with the Republican Party. To the Times, Republicans are still tainted by racial politics from 30 years ago, and are guilty of "talk[ing] nobly about civil rights in the North while playing to racial division in the South to lure white voters from the Democratic Party." There's some truth to that -- but what exactly does the Times expect? George W. Bush ran as a "compassionate conservative" and "a uniter, not a divider" in his campaign, and for his troubles was accused of supporting the murder of James Byrd, and received a grand total of 10% of the black vote, nationwide.

Who exactly is creating the "racial division" for the Republicans to "play to"? The Republicans who endorse racially neutral policies, or the NAACP/Democrats, who demand race-based preferences in schools and jobs and government benefits? Where was the New York Times when the NAACP accused Bush of endorsing lynching? When can we expect the editorial from the Times denouncing the NAACP and the Democratic Party for "talking nobly about civil rights in white communities while playing to racial division in black communities?"


(In case you were wondering, by the way, the Times disapproves of Lott's presumptive heir apparent, Bill Frist:

Mr. Frist's supporters include many moderate Republicans. His voting record, however, is reliably conservative, and he rarely deviates from the party line. For instance, despite his enthusiasm for advanced medical technologies, he has sided with Mr. Bush in opposing cloning of human tissues for therapeutic purposes, which is anathema to the anti-abortion forces. From Mr. Bush's point of view, Senator Frist is trouble-free.

Which of course means that from the New York Times' point of view, he might as well be Saddam Hussein. He's "reliably conservative?" Kiss of death.)
posted by David Nieporent at 12/21/2002 05:40:00 AM |

 

WWTD: What Would Trent Do?

Given all the talk of segregation lately, an interesting story: the California Supreme Court (which regulates judicial conduct in the state) is deciding whether to forbid judges from joining the Boy Scouts, because of the Boy Scouts' anti-gay policies. This poses a clash of principles. On the one hand, the Boy Scouts have the constitutional right to discriminate. (I should clarify that: if there were a constitutional right to discriminate, then many civil rights laws, such as ones that bar job discrimination, would be unconstitutional. The Boy Scouts' right falls under the First Amendment right of expressive association. That is, if you're associating with other people for the purpose of making a political statement, then your association is protected. The government cannot force the KKK to admit blacks, because that would destroy the entire purpose of the KKK. The reason job discrimination isn't protected in the same way is because employment is considered economic, not a political statement. You're not hiring a janitor to send the message that only people of a certain race can use Windex; you're hiring a janitor to keep your building clean.)

So if the Boy Scouts have a constitutional right to exclude gays, if they're just expressing their views, shouldn't judges have that same right? Well, if we were talking about bankers, or actors, or doctors, or athletes, the answer would be an unqualified yes. If we were talking about politicians, the same -- at least until the voters had their say. But judges are different. A judge, by virtue of his position, is limited in his acceptable behavior by a Code of Judicial Ethics. He must avoid not only impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety, and must not act in a way that casts "reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially." So we circumscribe the ways in which a judge can conduct himself. For obvious reasons, a black party or attorney might not feel he could get a fair hearing before a white supremacist judge. But does the same apply to the Boy Scouts and gays? The Scouts do claim to stand, in part, for the message that homosexuality is unclean. But that's a minor part of their message, and I assume most members of the Scouts don't spend a lot of time pondering the issue. Should a judge not be allowed to be associated with an organization that's primarily about camping (I guess)? How closely do a judge's associations need to be scrutinized?

[Full disclosure: I spent a couple of years in the Cub Scouts. Other than the Pinewood Derby races, I didn't think much of it.]
posted by David Nieporent at 12/21/2002 05:07:00 AM |

 

Case in point

Krauthammer's point about the moral high ground, and Lott's decision to not only abandon that ground, but tear down all the trees and strip mine it bare is illustrated perfectly by this Op/Ed in the LA Times. All Republicans are racist, because they don't support "civil rights" -- as defined by the left to mean "racially biased laws":

Nickles at times has even exceeded Lott in his zeal to torpedo civil rights protections.

Lott and Nickles opposed the creation of a federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. and voted to abolish affirmative action in federal hiring.

But on the King holiday, Nickles went further and insultingly suggested that the holiday should be an unpaid holiday, celebrated on a Sunday.

Though Lott has publicly recanted his opposition to the King holiday and affirmative action, Nickles has not.

But Nickles is not the only top Republican -- and possible successor to Lott if he steps down as majority leader -- to wallow near the bottom on the Senate civil rights scorecard.

Tennessee Sen. Bill Frist and Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell opposed expanded hate-crime protections, greater funding for minority-owned businesses, efforts to end job discrimination by sexual orientation and affirmative action in federal hiring.

For far too long, conservatives let liberals define what constituted civil rights. Mandatory discrimination, racial preferences, quotas, special treatment. Opposition to those was branded as not merely wrong, but "racist." And as long as people like Trent Lott are given positions of authority, conservatives can't credibly argue otherwise. That's why Lott needed to be demoted.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/20/2002 06:26:00 PM |

 

Bye Bye

So Trent Lott is stepping down as majority leader. Finally. There are beached whales that make more graceful exits than Lott did, but he's out.

And why is this important? Charles Krauthammer explained it brilliantly this morning, while pointing out why so many conservatives were so eager to see him go. Some, certainly, simply felt that he was an inauthentic conservative who was hurting the party. Krauthammer agrees with these arguments, but then clarifies:

These arguments are fine. They are also inadequate. Even if none of these claims were true -- even if Lott were not a clumsy and ineffective leader, even if this did not affect Republican chances for winning future elections -- Lott would have to go. It is not a matter of politics. It is a matter of principle.

The principle is colorblindness, the bedrock idea enshrined in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that guides the thinking of the third strain of conservatism, neoconservatism. Neocons have been the most passionate about the Lott affair and the most disturbed by its meaning.

Why? Because many neoconservatives are former liberals. They supported civil rights when it meant equality between the races, and they turned against the civil rights establishment when it began insisting that some races should be more equal than others. Neoconservatives oppose affirmative action on grounds of colorblindness and in defense of the original vision of the civil rights movement: judging people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin.

Having thus staked their ground for decades on colorblindness and a reverence for the civil rights movement as originally defined, neoconservatives were particularly appalled by Lott's endorsement of its antithesis, Thurmond segregationism. Not to denounce it -- on grounds not of politics but of principle -- would be to lose all moral standing on matters of race. Lott has subsequently provided even more evidence of his moral unfitness for leadership. In desperation to save himself, the clueless Lott has now groveled his way to supporting affirmative action. Two weeks ago he was pining for 1948 segregation; now, on Black Entertainment Television, he embraces 2002 racial preferences -- without even a pit stop at 1964 colorblindness! It's an amazing trajectory, and a disgraceful one. It can only happen to a man without a principled bone in his body on the issue of race.

In his multiple confessions, Lott has practically pledged himself to enacting the modern liberal agenda of racial preferences. It is an ironic recapitulation of what happened in the late '60s. Out of shame and atonement for the racist past, liberals abandoned racial blindness and became apologists for racial preferences. Lott's newfound shame and atonement are as phony as it gets, but the result is the same: He, too, has ricocheted from one kind of racialism to another. Except that he did it in one week.

A man who has no use -- let alone no feel -- for colorblindness has no business being a leader of the conservative party. True, if Lott is ousted, he might resign from the Senate and allow his seat to go Democratic, thus jeopardizing Republican control of the Senate and undoing the great Republican electoral triumph of 2002.

So be it. There is a principle at stake here. Better to lose the Senate than to lose your soul. New elections come around every two years. Souls are scarcer.

You can say that again.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/20/2002 05:55:00 PM |

 

Guns don't kill people, houses kill people

In the Wizard of Oz, a house came out of nowhere and killed the Wicked Witch of the East. Apparently, truth is stranger than fiction, because houses in Israel are now killing people all over the place. See, the "underlying cause" of all the deaths in Israel, according to terrorist spokespersonPalestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, is Israeli settlements. One might think the cause of violence is people who commit violence. But those wacky Palestinians know better.

There are currently two opportunities to save prospects for a two-state solution. First, the quartet must make a full and internationally monitored settlement freeze the top priority. Without such a freeze, ongoing settlement construction will only provoke more hostility and undermine any attempts to stop violence.

Get that? First Israel should stop building those evil killing machine-houses. Then we can have attempts to stop violence. No guarantees on whether those "attempts" will succeed, of course, as we can see...

Second, elections next month give Israelis the opportunity to send a message to Palestinians. By electing a leadership committed to evacuating settlements rather than building them, to ending the occupation rather than intensifying it, Israelis can undermine the Palestinian extremists and help bring an end to the horrors of the past two years.

So it's up to the Israelis to pacify -- to "undermine" -- Palestinian extremists. (Note that he doesn't bother to talk about Palestinian elections, presumably because he knows how silly that concept is.) He doesn't suggest that Palestinians "undermine" Israeli extremists by ceasing to blow up buses and supermarkets and the like. Israel apparently has to handle all sides of the peace "process," while Palestinians can just sit around twiddling their thumbs.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/20/2002 08:00:00 AM |

 

Apples and not-apples

With all due respect to my colleague Partha, the assertion that "These Middle Easterners are being treated like they are for no other reason than where they're from. That's how it's like Japanese-American internment" is completely wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Had what happened today actually been what happened sixty years ago, the internment of Japanese would have been reasonable. There is nothing wrong with interning enemy aliens during a war. It happened with Japanese, with Italians, and with Germans. What made the World War II internments of Japanese problematic, what made their situation different than Germans and Italians, was that the Nisei and Sansei were interned, as well as the Issei. The relevant orders applied to "all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien."

That's not a semantic difference; that's a real, significant difference. A citizen of a foreign country during wartime should expect to be singled out. Discrimination on the basis of citizenship -- i.e. "where they're from" -- is rational and reasonable (although this particular policy may or may not be). But the World War II internments were not based on "where they're from," but on ancestry. The World War II internments were done by people who insisted on viewing internees as "Japanese-Americans" instead of as "Americans."

That's not what's happening now. Only foreigners, non-citizens, on temporary visas are being required to register. And only those who broke the law, such as by overstaying their visas, are being detained. It's unclear to me how this is "unfair" or "not the American way."

[Update: I see that Eugene Volokh had a similar take on this brouhaha, and on the distinction between this and Japanese internment.]
posted by David Nieporent at 12/20/2002 07:06:00 AM |

 

Like predicting the Emmy winners by looking at UPN's schedule

Everyone links to this column, by political analyst John Ellis, who has begun handicapping the new, post-Gore Democratic presidential field for 2004. He suggests that South Carolina will be pivotal, winnowing the field of candidates down to two, and that those two are likely to be Dick Gephardt and John Kerry, with Joe Lieberman probably dropping out at that point. (He doesn't even mention John Edwards, which is interesting in itself.) And he's completely dismissive of Howard Dean and Wesley Clark.

But what he fails to address -- what so many analysts fail to address -- is the history of presidential elections. I fully recognize that John Ellis knows many more insiders than I do. If he tells us what these people are saying and thinking and planning, I'll buy it. But I can read history as well as anybody, and what I read is this: members of Congress don't win. Oh, sometimes they get nominated, though even that's pretty rare. But they don't get elected. Isn't that an important piece of information?

Since 1900, there have been 26 presidential elections. Unless I've missed someone, exactly two of those were won by someone coming directly from Congress. The most recent one was John Kennedy in 1960, forty years ago. (The other was Warren Harding, in 1920.) Indeed, if you expand the field to look at the losers of these elections, you only add three more: Barry Goldwater in 1964, George McGovern in 1972, and Bob Dole in 1996. (I only consider the major party nominees, for simplicity's sake.) So out of 52 election slots, we see just 5 sitting senators, of whom only two won.

Now, there's nothing deterministic about these statistics; there's no scientific law which prevents congressmen from becoming president. But doesn't the fact that nobody has been elected to the presidency from the House of Representatives since James Garfield in 1880 suggest something about Dick Gephardt's chances? (Indeed, barring an error on my part, I believe that was the last time a congressman even won his party's nomination.) Doesn't the fact that four decades have passed since a senator got elected tell us that John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and John Edwards might not be in as strong a position as people think?

Yes, I concede that it seems pretty absurd right now to suggest that Howard Dean could actually win the nomination, much less the presidency. But on the other hand, who would have guessed in 1990 that Bill Clinton would have been nominated? Did Mike Dukakis really look like the strongest Democratic candidate in 1986? Of course not. But governors are far more likely to be nominated, and win election, than senators are. So why is this factor always ignored? If I had to guess, I'd say that most pundits live in Washington and get their information from Washington sources. And who do Washington sources know? Washington politicians. I doubt they spend much time in Little Rock, or Montpelier, or Albany. So they're not really in a position to assess the governors' strengths and weaknesses, and the governors don't have people dropping their names every day around journalists and pundits. Maybe that's too simplistic -- but regardless, I'm not going to bet the mortgage money against Howard Dean.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/19/2002 06:04:00 AM |

 

We're a full-service blog

From my referral log: Yahoo! Search Results for busty arabs. Yep, you'll find them here.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/19/2002 02:39:00 AM |

 

The empire strikes back?

I'm sick of Trent Lott, but like a horrible traffic accident you can't avoid looking at, I seem to keep talking about him. I said that Lott was probably gone, and I think he is, but I did see this story earlier today in the New York Times about a conservative backlash to the Lott controversy. Now, you can't trust the New York Times to report accurately on conservatives, but if we assume they're accurate for once, some conservatives are still circling the wagons around Lott.

"I think he's been treated badly by the White House, I think he's been treated badly by his colleagues, for what was certainly, in my opinion, not a hanging offense," said Robert Novak, the television host and syndicated columnist.

"The Democrats wouldn't have kept it alive if conservatives had said let's not keep it alive," Mr. Novak said. "The conservatives all piled on, and when the president in his speech last Thursday said what he did, that opened the door wider."

Novak, though, is one of the only people -- Pat Buchanan is the other one I've heard -- who doesn't think that Lott said anything wrong in the first place. He didn't think any apology was required because it was a joke. He's so into partisan politics, though, that he can't even understand why conservatives are criticizing Lott. Let me rephrase: he's so into partisan politics that he doesn't even try to understand why conservatives are criticizing Lott. But that's understandable; Novak is into partisan politics as a spectator sport. His interest is ratings, not governing. For conservatives who actually care about the principles, who aren't just trying to raise money or put on a good show on television, the problem is Lott, not whether Democrats "win" a round.

My favorite quote in the article, though, is from South Carolina political operative Richard Quinn:

"Part of the Democrats' agenda," Mr. Quinn said, "is to confuse conservatism with racism."

Richard Quinn, of course, is the founder of Southern Partisan magazine, the one that tries to pretend that the Confederacy was about something other than slavery. Richard Quinn, as much as any liberal, has tried to confuse conservatism with racism. The only difference is that the liberal tries to confuse the two in order to discredit conservatism, while Quinn tries to confuse the two in order to legitimize racism.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/19/2002 12:53:00 AM |

 

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy

David Duke has pleaded guilty to wire fraud and tax evasion. He could be sentenced to up to 15 months in prison and $10,000 in fines. (No, this isn't part of the Trent Lott theme of the week. Except maybe karmically.)
posted by David Nieporent at 12/18/2002 10:54:00 PM |

 

Of course, I've been wrong before

Andrew Sullivan proclaimed that Lott was done as soon as Don Nickles called for a leadership vote. I wasn't quite as convinced. But now I am. Another Republican senator has publicly come out against him, this time explicitly.

"It's time for a change," said Chafee, a moderate Republican from Rhode Island. "I think the biggest problem has been that his apologies haven't connected," he told WPRO-AM radio.

Yes, Lincoln Chaffee is a liberal Republican who may not -- almost certainly doesn't -- reflect the sentiment of the core of the Republican party. But that actually works in his favor, I think; with a near evenly divided Senate, the party can't afford to alienate Chaffee, who may be one Klan rally away from switching to the Democratic Party.

And as further evidence, Colin Powell came out and, while giving the obligatory I-don't-think-he's-a-racist, said, "I deplored the sentiments behind the statement. There was nothing about the 1948 election or the Dixiecrat agenda that should have been acceptable in any way, to any American, at that time or any American now." Does Powell say these things if the White House is standing by Lott? I don't think so. But the real kicker is Jeb Bush:

But his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, said Lott's since recanted endorsement of South Carolina Sen. Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist presidential campaign was "damaging" Republicans.

"It doesn't help to have this swirling controversy that Sen. Lott, in spite of his enormous political skills, doesn't seem to be able to handle well," Gov. Bush told The Miami Herald. "Something's going to have to change. This can't be the topic of conversation over the next week."

No way does Jeb inject himself into this controversy without his brother's permission and approval.

Lott's toast. The only question is how selfish he is, and how much damage he's willing to do to the party before admitting it.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/18/2002 05:38:00 PM |

 

Some dogs bite men.

Some companies will provide information about their customers to law enforcement agencies, even without a court order. Some companies won't. This startling news, coming from that magic news source -- a new study -- is made slightly more banal when one reads the caveat that, "The survey questions do not give a sense of what information might be shared or under what circumstances." So, in other words, the survey makes no distinction between a bank giving out personal account information for a guy arrested for littering, or a credit card company revealing a mailing address of a suspected terrorist.

The article does make one good point:

But growing concerns about government encroachments on privacy and civil liberties have not taken into account the degree to which people hand over information willingly, said Mark Rasch, a former federal prosecutor who now works for Solutionary, a computer security company.

"We've been so worried about giving them extra power and authority without worrying about what they can do with no extra power and no extra authority, just by asking," Mr. Rasch said.

When one has ideological blinders on, one can get so worked up about a particular issue -- the expansion of law enforcement authority, in this case -- that one misses the forest for the trees.


Here's an interesting aside, unrelated to the substantive point:

Nearly a quarter of the corporate security officers in a survey to be released today said they would supply information about customers to law enforcement officials and government agencies without a court order.

...and later...

Legal experts were divided on the implications of the survey. "

The survey hasn't been officially released yet, but we have a New York Times story on it, and quotes from several people about its "implications." Shouldn't a reporter wait until people actually read a survey before asking them about it? Or is this just another example of what CalPundit described last week: the formulaic approach to journalism, in which the reporter determines the topic of the story and then calls the usual suspects from the Rolodex, regardless of whether they have anything specific to contribute?
posted by David Nieporent at 12/18/2002 08:19:00 AM |

 

Brother, can you spare a dime?

Clearly, the Bush economic plan isn't working for ordinary folk:

Nicholas E. Calio, the White House liaison to Congress, announced today that he was leaving his $145,000-a-year position, for a job he did not disclose.

Whatever the new post, it is certain to come with a higher salary than his current government pay. Mr. Calio, who has a daughter in college, a son on the way to college, another daughter in private school and a wife who does not work outside the home, said he needed to make more money.

"I can't pay my bills," he said. "It comes down to the two F's: family and finances."

What's this world coming to when a man can't make even $150,000 a year in government? How can he expect to raise a family on that kind of money?
posted by David Nieporent at 12/18/2002 07:11:00 AM |

 

Woohoo!

I've been waiting a year, and The Lord of the Rings : The Two Towers opens today. I'll be going Saturday.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/18/2002 12:03:00 AM |

 

Maybe he should join the Council of Concerned Citizens

No wonder Canada took so long to put Hezbollah on their list of terrorist groups. One of my readers alerts me to this story (and now I see that Damien Penny links to it also), in which a "respected Saskatchewan Indian leader" praises Hitler.

In comments one local Jewish leader described as unfortunate, David Ahenakew, a senator with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), a former chief of the organization and a former chief of the Assembly of First Nations (AFN), said the Nazi leader was trying to clean up the world during the war.

"The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war," Ahenakew said in an interview.

"That's how Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany or Europe.

"That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing. They're killing people in Arab countries."

I wonder if he'd apply the same logic to the treatment of Indians in the Americas. Were they a "disease" to be gotten "rid of?" Somehow I suspect he might not. Of course, in Canada, such speech might well constitute a crime (i.e., hate speech) -- thank god for the first amendment, since I hate lots of people -- but that's somewhat beside the point. Let's see whether he gets the Trent Lott treatment, or whether only speech against the right kind of minorities receives condemnation.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/17/2002 04:41:00 AM |

 

Is Univision next?

Unfortunately, I was eating at 8 PM. Then I decided to watch Trent Lott on BET. I need to clean up the floor, now; I couldn't keep dinner down. The two lowlights I remember:

• "I am for affirmative action, and I practice it. I hired black people for my staff." The only thing he left out was "Some of my best friends are black people."
  
• "My actions don't reflect my voting record." Huh? If anybody knows what that means, please let me know. It's either a repudiation of his voting record, or it's simply incoherent.
  

I think that about sums it up. Reading body language is always tricky, but I've seen burn victims who looked more comfortable than Lott did tonight. His explanations don't pass the laugh test. He didn't know who Martin Luther King Jr. was? He announced his retroactive support for Strom Thurmond's presidential campaign because Thurmond stood for anti-communism? As opposed to the pro-Soviet Harry Truman?

The questions about Charles Pickering showed the real problem with Lott remaining in power, though. Bill Clinton had no shame, and apparently neither does Trent Lott. But Bill Clinton was term limited, and his sins were personal, not ideological, so they couldn't seriously taint his agenda. Nobody was going to think that support for public health care, or taxes, was an endorsement of adultery. But with Lott, it's different. Everything and everyone he supports is going to be tainted with racism from now on. If he's majority leader, every bit of the Republican agenda, regardless of how active he is in promoting it, will be seen as racist by some. I've seen some conservatives saying that Lott should be removed as majority leader, but because he's not a good conservative rather than because of these comments. That's wrong. He should be removed for these comments. The fact is, we don't know whether Trent Lott is racist -- and the mere fact that we need to debate it is the problem.

And the mere fact that Lott won't step down is evidence of his lack of concern for the Republican party, and thus a reason to remove him.
posted by David Nieporent at 12/16/2002 09:38:00 PM |

 

Lotts more to come

The New York Times is reporting that Republicans are going to put on the full court press to support Trent Lott this weekend. They're going to send people out on the Sunday morning talk shows -- including supposed "maverick" John McCain -- to explain to us how Lott's really a wonderful guy, and how he was just funning us when he expressed his longing for segregation.

Still, Senate Republicans, in a conference call put together by Mr. Lott's supporters after Mr. Lott's news conference on Friday night, had decided to began a campaign on his behalf.

Several Senate officials said that was intended as much to help Mr. Lott as to protect Republicans from political damage.

The senators, in their meeting, discussed arguments that Mr. Lott's allies would use in their appearance on the Sunday morning talk shows to defend the senator and his party. According to participants, Mr. Lott's surrogates would say they accept Mr. Lott's apology and believe that he sincerely changed his ways over the years.

You mean, from 1980, when he wished a segregationist had been elected, to 2002, when he wished a segregationist had been elected? Joshua Micah Marshall, as everyone knows, has been all over this story, compiling a list of the dozens of red flags throughout Lott's career. Go look at the dates of the various little "incidents," and please pinpoint for me exactly when he "changed his ways."

They also intended to portray Republicans as a moderates who embraced civil rights.

Yes. Embrace civil rights. And white supremacists. It's a big tent, you know.

And the really bad news?

At the same time, Republicans said they would be planning to expedite consideration next year of legislation that Republicans said was intended to rebut the perception of the party as hostile to civil rights.

So Republicans won't do something that might actually show they repudiate Lott's views, by repudiating Trent Lott as leader. Instead, they'll either (a) push some watered-down policy proposals that will convince absolutely nobody of anything, or (b) they'll repudiate their own principles (HAHAHA) to push some big government, high-spending/affirmative action program. Which, of course, still won't convince anybody of anything.

I just don't get it. It's not like Trent Lott has actually accomplished much in his tenure as majority leader, or for that matter in the rest of his career. What exactly is the incentive to keep him on here? I know nobody wants to be seen bowing to pressure, but in this case, the pressure is coming from conservatives as much as, if not more than, from liberals. I'm sure Lott has built up some political capital over the years, but come on. Or is this just Republican stubbornness over the fact that the Democrats never abandoned Bill Clinton? Or is the blackmail theory true? Whatever the explanation, the Republican party is making a huge mistake here. They must see this. The only question is how gutless they really are.

posted by David Nieporent at 12/15/2002 07:18:00 AM |