Is Trent Lott an unreconstructed racist?

“www.washingtonpost.com/

Lott Decried For Part Of Salute to Thurmond
GOP Senate Leader Hails Colleague's Run As Segregationist

By Thomas B. Edsall
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 7, 2002; Page A06


Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has provoked criticism by saying the United States would have been better off if then-segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948.

Speaking Thursday at a 100th birthday party and retirement celebration for Sen. Thurmond (R-S.C.) in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Lott said, "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."

Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was the presidential nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948. He carried Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and his home state. He declared during his campaign against Democrat Harry S. Truman, who supported civil rights legislation, and Republican Thomas Dewey: "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

On July 17, 1948, delegates from 13 southern states gathered in Birmingham to nominate Thurmond and adopt a platform that said in part, "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), a leader of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, said yesterday he was stunned by Lott's comments, which were broadcast live by C-SPAN. "I could not believe he was saying what he said," Lewis said. In 1948, he said, Thurmond "was one of the best-known segregationists. Is Lott saying the country should have voted to continue segregation, for segregated schools, 'white' and 'colored' restrooms? . . . That is what Strom Thurmond stood for in 1948."

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said "Oh, God," when he learned of Lott's comments. "It's ludicrous. He should remember it's the party of Lincoln," referring to Lott's role as Republican leader of the Senate, which the GOP will control when the new Congress convenes next month.

Lott's office played down the significance of the senator's remarks. Spokesman Ron Bonjean issued a two-sentence statement: "Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong."

Bonjean declined to explain what Lott meant when he said the country would not have had "all these problems" if the rest of the nation had followed Mississippi's lead and elected Thurmond in 1948.

Lott's comments came in the middle of Thursday's celebration for Thurmond, Congress's oldest and longest-serving member. Lott followed at the lectern former Senate majority leader Robert J. Dole (R-Kan). Initially Lott made jokes about Dole and then became serious when discussing how Mississippi voted in 1948.

The gathering, which included many Thurmond family members and past and present staffers, applauded Lott when he said "we're proud" of the 1948 vote. But when he said "we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years" if Thurmond had won, there was an audible gasp and general silence.

In 1998 and 1999, Lott was criticized after disclosures that he had been a speaker at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization formed to succeed the segregationist white Citizens' Councils of the 1960s. In a 1992 speech in Greenwood, Miss., Lott told CCC members: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries."

Asked to comment on Lott's remarks at the Thurmond celebration, Gordon Baum, CEO of the Council of Conservative Citizens, said "God bless Trent Lott."


© 2002 The Washington Post Company”

“Yeah, but he was a Democrat then. He became enlightened when he changed party affiliation. Now, Senator Robert Bryd (D-WV) is a real racist and a former member of the KKK.

Try stiring a different pot V-Man.”

“Yeah, but does the guy backpack? That's what I really want to know.


Well, not really, I could care less.”

“All racists are morons.”

“Yep, he was a Democrat at a time when the Democratic party in the south was in bed with the KKK.

Now it is the other way around.

Those guys are all dinosaurs......including Bobby Byrd.”

“Bobby Byrd is an enigma.”

“The only thing I find surprising about this is that he said it out loud. That he would say something like that to a national audience is truly astounding.”

“Byrd however was instrumental in having wilderness areas of the Monongehela National Forest officially designated.

Otter Creek
Cranberry Wilderness
Dolly Sods
Laurel Fork

On the other hand, Byrd has helped the out-of-state coal interests in their evil "mountain top removal" efforts.”

“Trent Lott=Spawn Of Satan”

“Because he is in Washington, you think Lott should tell PC lies like the rest of those liberal wussies.”

“Byrd was also instrumental in getting funding for the Canaan Valley NWR expansion, which was one large chunk of land squirrelled away.

He can talk to the holler folk or quote the classics in the Senate.

He's a liberal one minute and an arch conservative the next.

It has been quite some time since his alleged KKK affiliation. He's apparently been annointed back into the ranks of the party.”

“William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said "Oh, God," when he learned of Lott's comments. "It's ludicrous. He should remember it's the party of Lincoln," referring to Lott's role as Republican leader of the Senate, which the GOP will control when the new Congress convenes next month.


lincoln was a segregationist. DOI!



ya'll should find people a reason to vote FOR your guy, not a reason to vote AGAINST the other guy. that's why you lost the elections. you have no issues. you have been exposed as a mere shell of a party. there's still alot of people who believe the scare tactics and racial division(this article is a perfect illustration of these tactics), but they are waking up. the american people don't need you to run their lives for them. they don't need you to divide them, and make them dependant on the government so they will keep voting for the real racist, the democrats. the democrats are the modern day masters on the wellfare plantation. they created and propagated racism so they could rush in and save minorities, in order to earn their votes. it's raw blackmail and nobody even sees it. i don't say this about the common peope who are democrats(mostly cause their dad was democrat), but its very true of the leadership of the party. 86% of blacks voted democrat, there's something wrong with that. quit deviding your nation and bring us together, like you say you wanna do. disharmony sucks.”

“agreed dewd...I imagine that Lott's comments had nothing to do with segregation...He was just paying tribute, and pointing out that most of Stroms values would have been better for the US...Seems like all the Dem. party can do these days is make accusations and try and point out the evil in the Rep. party...You truly have no solid ground to stand on...and in terms of whos evil..you pro-choice baby killers fit the description perfectly”

“As much as I hate the pro-business side of the GOP, I have to agree with dewdtarts and wsdavies. Those "critics" have nothing in their heads except empty "politically corrected" scripts that play before their minds engage.

More to the point, why always condemn segregation? Segregation is good, at least the voluntary kind. As an example, here in Louisiana we had a duel univeristy system for years, and whites and blacks were both happy as clams with it. LSU for whites, Southern for blacks. Then about 10 years ago some freaks from out of state filed a civil rights suit and forced LSU to bus blacks to Southern and vice versa. Almost nobody liked the changes except for the radicals who pushed the lawsuit.

Turning to Lott's remarks about Thurmond, his election would have been too little too late. We should have nipped it in the bud. If the Africans had never been brought over here, we wouldn't have had all these problems. Since they were, if Lincoln's idea to send them back to Africa after the war had been followed up on, we would have avoided these problems. By 1948 it was almost too late, and the integrationists took it way too far.

The radical integrationists had been waiting in the wings for 100 years and got their chance in the mid-20th century. Now they've got whites so whipped that most of us deny our own racial identity and play dead every time someone has a kind word for voluntary segregation or the NAACP hollers.”

“Typo above:

Should have been "forced LSU to bus WHITES" to Southern and vice versa.”

“Ban Violin!”

“I really don’t see it as a Republican/Democrat thing. Neither does the voice of conservatism, The National Review. If you want to cast it that way, you may as well attend the next rally with steve.


MOMENTS OF TRUTH

Speak Up, Trent: Trent Lott did himself and the Republican party serious damage with an ill-judged remark at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party on Thursday – and the damage is only growing.
Lott said:

“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.”

According to Tom Edsall of the Washington Post, “The gathering, which included many Thurmond family members and past and present staffers, applauded Lott when he said ‘we’re proud’ of the 1948 vote. But when he said ‘we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years’ if Thurmond had won, there was an audible gasp and general silence.”

Edsall explained the reason for the gasp thus: “Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was the presidential nominee of the breakaway Dixiecrat Party in 1948. He carried Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and his home state. He declared during his campaign against Democrat Harry S. Truman, who supported civil rights legislation, and Republican Thomas Dewey [who it should be said supported civil rights rather more firmly than Harry Truman did]: ‘All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches.’

“On July 17, 1948, delegates from 13 southern states gathered in Birmingham to nominate Thurmond and adopt a platform that said in part, ‘We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race.’”

Lott’s birthday remark drew scant attention at first. It was broadcast live on C-Span, but the only media source to take note of it on Friday morning was ABC.com’s “The Note.” On another day, the Note’s report might have triggered a media stampede, but the announcement of the firing of Paul O’Neill and Larry Lindsey at 10:05 am on Friday obliterated all other Washington news.

Edsall’s story appeared on Saturday morning, as did a more matter-of-fact one in South Carolina’s The State. A spokesman issued a perfunctory “clarification”: “Senator Lott’s remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong.” And that would seem to be that.

Saturday’s news was dominated by Iraq’s “nobody here but us chickens” reply to Security Council Resolution 1441. On Saturday night Mary Landrieu pulled off her down-to-the-wire victory in the Louisiana Senate race.

The Lott story seems to have been left behind in the dust. And yet I cannot help thinking that this story is not over – that Republicans will hear Lott’s words quoted at them again and again in the months to come.
I for one do not believe Trent Lott is a racist or a segregationist. My guess is that his speechwriter gave him note cards with a few jokes, and that when Lott finished reading them, he launched himself into what he probably intended to be nothing more than a big squirt of greasy flattery.

But that’s not what came out of Lott’s mouth. What came out of his mouth was the most emphatic repudiation of desegregation to be heard from a national political figure since George Wallace’s first presidential campaign. Lott’s words suggest that one of the three most powerful and visible Republicans in the nation privately thinks that desegregation, civil rights, and equal voting rights were all a big mistake.

These would be disgraceful thoughts to think, if Lott thought them. If Lott thought them, any Republican who accepted his leadership would share in the disgrace. So Lott needs to make it clear that he does not in fact think them. He owes his party, his state, his country, and his conscience something more – something much more – than a curt “I am sorry if you were offended.” If he can’t do that, Republicans need to make it clear that Lott no longer speaks for us.”

“Bill Buckley's magazine does show some integrity around issues of out and out bigotry. 3 cheers for the National Review. Agree with them or not, they do put loyalty to truth (as they see it) over loyalty to a political party.

Not only was Dewey better on civil rights than Turman, in many ways Ike was more decisive than JFK. JFK was pretty worried for a while about what the southern Democrats would think, until events forced him off the fence.”

“This story is blown way out of porportion.”

“jfk would be considered conservative in today's political climate.


like i said violin; you're living in the past. if you wanna go back lets look at the civil war and what party fought to keep slavery alive.”

“dewd, you need to go back and brush up on your civil war history”

“Ewker, are you a dumb ass. Did you fail US History 1. The Democracts faught like hell to keep slavery. It was republicans from the north that killed slavery. BTW, Lincoln was a Republican”

“At least the writers of the National Review are conservatives who think for themselves. They wouldn't write in those terms if they thought it was blown out of proportion.

The problem is so many people identify with one political party and spin things for themselves in way that serves their party.

Some Democrats still can't admit Clinton was a lying slut, and plenty of Republicans can see it when their boys get themselves dirty.”

“Ice Tea, I am shaking in my boots. You calling someone a dumb ass is a joke esp. when you can't even spell. Have you got out of elementary school yet.”

“YEP! Ol' Trent's out of the closet... and you guys jump to his defense? LOLOLOLOL

No Second Thoughts About your Boy At All??? I guess that shouldn't surprise me either.”

“Lott is now being quoted as saying "I misspoke."

Should he have backtracked? Are you disappointed in him now??”

“Thanks, Violin (I can't believe I said that). I didn't know about Thurmond's bid for the presidency. I am just old enough to remember Eisenhower's election ("I Like Ike! is my earliest bumpersticker). And, I vaguely rember the erroneus picture in the school history books, where a newspaper (New York Times?, Washington Post?) that ran the headline "DEWEY WINS!). However, this has made for an interesting read. It seems to me, that attempting to attach meaning to Lott's comment would be highly conceited. Surely there was more than one plank in the political platform of the day, and to say that the phrase "all these problems", which cover the last 54 yrs., only refer to race-related issues is ludicrous to me. Only Lott or his speechwriter is qualified to make this sort of interpretation, and for anyone else to do so is presumptive, in the extreem. While the general media may do so in order to create news and enhance sales/viewer market share, it is still the duty of the general populace to form their own opinion of what they hear. I will believe that Trent Lott's comments were meant as a tribute to an obviously dedicated man. I do not apologize for NOT looking for a race-related motive for everything said or done in this country, seating arrangements on the Short Yellow Bus notwithstanding. JMHO.”

“I think Lott's comments were perfectly in keeping with the occasion. You see, Strom Thurmond is from just across the river here, and we know him very well. His views on race have been known to all since radio was a new thing. A tribute to Strom is synonymous with a tribute to "The Good Old Days" and all the slime that went with them.

I want to make it clear that I do not say that all Conservatives are racist... But I do wonder about SOME of them... and Lott's comments do not serve to dissuade me; they only reinforce the perception (check that link to the Council of Conservative Citizens).

It's pretty much open and shut, as far as he is concerned. Isn't that obvious from his own words?


(and of course all Liberals are baby-killers... it's in the handbook)”

“the insect speaks well. i think this is silly. if lott we're a stupid racist, i would denounce him, rebutt him, disown him...heck i'd call for his resignation....but he's not. he said nothing about "black" people. this is just silly, you people have too much time on your hands.


euker...what did i say wrong?”

“Its curious to see dew(d)hick(y), the arch-conservative, write that liberals are living in the past.

I see many conservatives stuck in the "nostalgia trap".....it was always better way back when(ever) and they seem to want to go back to the "traditional values".

And there goes Trent Lott saying it.

Just how far back should we turn back the clock?

Lott seems to think 1948 would be just fine.”

“Maybe he misspoke. However, this is not the first racial controversy Lott has been involved in. Like Tilt suggested, check out the link to the CCC or ‘uptown Klan’. I’ve reproduced it below for convenience.

In 1998 and 1999, Lott was criticized after disclosures that he had been a speaker at meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization formed to succeed the segregationist white Citizens' Councils of the 1960s. In a 1992 speech in Greenwood, Miss., Lott told CCC members: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries."



In The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn tells of a Party official who attended one of the endless memorial get-togethers. Someone mentions the name of Stalin (not present), thus prompting everyone in the audience to "spontaneously" stand and applaud, for fear of appearing to be less enthusiastic in their support of the dictator than their fellows.

The applause goes on and on. Old men sweat and grow pale as the minutes drag on. Yet no one dares be the first to stop applauding and sit down, for they will immediately be marked as being less supportive of the regime. It becomes a tragic comedy---one wonders who will be the first to collapse from sheer exhaustion. Yet the applause continues in the sweaty, gasping throng.
Finally, one brave soul ceases to applaud and sit down, giving the audience implicit permission to do the same. The relief is palpable as everyone sits and the business of the gathering resumes.
This tale was told to Solzhenitsyn by the man who first sat down, who was arrested this very night and thrown in the gulag for this "crime."

This is the ugly truth of totalitarianism: one must ever appear to be more lunatic in their support for the madmen at the head of the regime to stave off the knock on the door in the middle of the night.


In the US, it’s all right to criticize party officials. IN FACT, many would argue that it’s a moral imperative.”

“wha? look, if lott was to say......"SCREW BLACK PEOPLE! WHITE POWER! I HATE MEXICANS!" , then you might have a case. i heard jessie jackson last night on fox and he and al shapten said this was "blatant racism" , and it's nothing of the kind, in any way blatant. he made no racist remark whatsoever, in either example you produced violin. it's a total inference on their part and your part & it's absurd. quit wasting our time with this nonsence. it's kinda sad really....must be a drag to support a party that has nothing better to offer than this buschleage drivel.”

“Only blatant racists like Jesse (Hi)Jackson and Al Sharpton would see blatant racism in the remark.

Then again, without race baiting, those two might actually have to get jobs.”

“You have no idea what Strom Thurmond stood for, so I guess you can claim ignorance of what Trent Lott was praising...

is That it?”

“Well... there you go again...

Just poke around the CCC site a bit and tell me if you find no racism.”

“Sorry, Dewd. But I have to disagree with you. Why, when asked a simple question like 'what did he mean by the remarks', do his spin people dodge the question? They don't even have the balls to back up a statement and explain it when asked. Why is that? Is it an elitist (I don't owe you an explanation) thing, or what?”

“Wrong.....Repubs don't do spin!

They are as pure as the driven snow!”

“Spoken like a true Republican”

“Tom is a true Republican?”

“guess he was sarcastic...”

“sorry”

“Man! That is about the worst thing anyone has ever called Tom T! I bet he's still in apoplectic shock.”

“Hey. What can I say. Don't know him and just misread him. Hope I didn't cause a hemorrhage (lol)”

“Of course you know.....this means WAR!!!

I'm in electric shock!!

Shut up, you guys!!

They'll kick me out of the union hall!!”

“Don't worry TB, Tommy was just doing his Republican impression. It's a complimnent that he fooled you.”

“Hi, my name is Trent Lott. I have no idea what I am talking about.”

“If only Strom Thurmond would have been elected in 1948, (he ran on a strict segregationist platform) we wouldn't have all these problems we have today.
What does that mean?
Harry Truman, who was elected, helped enact civil rights legislation.
What problems would we have avoided?
C'mon, Trent, step up to the plate. It's not like a (supposed) straight-shooting conservative to hide in the shadows.”

“They were showing a short piece about the Pentagon on C-SPAN not long ago, mainly about the rebuilt areas from September 11.

They mentioned in passing that there are LOTS of restrooms in the place. In fact, the soldier giving the tour said there are Twice as many restrooms as they really need because they were still segregated when the Pentagon was built.

I know... more Mindless Trivia, <G>”

“As cosmopolitan as our society has become since then, how many bathrooms would they need to include in the reconstructed Pentagon if Thurmond had won?”

“There would have just been one outhouse for the "servants".”