Archive through December 19, 2002
MoveCloseDeleteAdmin

TV ClubHouse: Archives: Trent Lott (ARCHIVE): Archive through December 19, 2002

Maris

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 11:00 am EditMoveDeleteIP
It was a speech , made in Missippi on December 13th in the Jackson City hall in Jackson City Missippi. Richard Barrett is a leading segregationist in Missippi and he gave this speech as Trent Lotts press secretary was speaking to reporters.

The distance of time may dull what Strom Thurmond represented and saying that you just wanted to make a 100 year old man happy on his birthday is not acceptable. The Fact is when Strom Thurmond ran for president it was a nasty and vicious position he took.

Maris

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 11:13 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Lets see if I can make the picture smaller.

didnt work, but if you read the political posters that Strom Thurmond had during his campaigin, you would find it hard to pass off Trent Lott's comments .

Squaredsc

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 11:33 am EditMoveDeleteIP
thanks for the info maris. car, i didn't see it, but will try to see if they have something on their site.

Twiggyish

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:45 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Bastable, I have that google news page as my home page. It's always informative. It changes every 5 minutes, so you always have the latest info.

Maris

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 03:25 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
To quote from the Thurmond campaign literature:

"A vote for Truman electors is a direct order to our Congressmen and Senators from Mississippi to vote for passage of Truman's so called civil-rights program in the next Congress. This means the vicious FEPC - anti-poll tax - anti-lynching and anti-segregation proposals will become the law of the land and our way of life in the South will be gone forever.

If you FAIL to vote you will be casting a vote for Truman and his vicious anti-Southern program"

Lott's explanation of wanting to make a 100 year old man feel better doesnt wash with me. I watched his interview on BET and the transcript can be found on the Washinton Posts site and the interview was laughable. People need to remember what that campaign of was about and then need to decide if you want someone who applauded what it represents as the leader of their party in the senate.

Zachsmom

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 03:33 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Okay..pissed at my work because they have "THE WASHINGTON POST" filtered out..I mean really..I can come to TVCH but NOT a newspaper?

I'm going to the site tonight Maris..I want to read the transcript from the BET interview..(didn't watch it)

Hummingbird

Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 09:47 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I am a Republican but I don't care for Trent Lott. I have had little respect for him since his gutless handling of IMPEACHMENT. Having said that, I have to remark that the Democrats take the cake for blatant hypocracy. The degree to which they are offended on any given subject seems to depend solely on who it is making the offensive remarks. There are plenty of racists among the Democrats who have made far more offensive remarks in the past and have been given a pass. Lott will probably go because members of his own party will demand it, unlike the Dems who stand by slime like Clinton, and former Klux members like Byrd, no matter how shameful their behavior. Oh yes, and the last straw for me was hearing Lott say that he was for affimative action yesterday. We all know better. Few Republicans are for that because discrimination in any form is wrong. He will say anything to save his backside. The Republican party can do much better in chosing a majority leader.

Weenerlobo

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 05:57 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Well done, Hummingbird

Squaredsc

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 06:59 am EditMoveDeleteIP
yep, well said hummingbird. i don't care for racism in any party and yes the dems have plenty of them as do the republicans. the "good ole boy" network is alive and well. but i don't expect anyone who replaces Lott to be any better or worse.

the only thing is that we know what Lott is about, the next person may be more under-cover.

Maris

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 08:39 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Offering up an excuse that its a case of the pot calling the kettle black is not an adequate excuse to minimize Lott's actions just as his explanation of why he led the fight to keep his national fraternity white is not enough. The issue is not which Democrats are racists, the issue is about one man, the leader of his party and the comments he made. Throwing up smokescreens of Robert Byrd and Bill Clinton does not negate the fact that Lott made the comments and got caught making them. I am quite sure that Trent Lott is not the only bigot in the senate or the congress. He is a bigot who got caught on tape and that is the only difference. Any reasonable and decent person would be offended by Lott's comments regardless of their party afffiliation.

I am also not sure that a reason to keep Lott around is better the devil you know than the one you dont.

Ladytex

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:29 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Wow, sounds like I missed a great discussion over here ...

Hummingbird

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:37 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Wait a minute here. I did not in any way attempt to excuse Lott. Go back and read. I said he should go. The "pot calling the kettle black" was Clinton's main defense. My comment is that the Republican party can clean it's own house when necessary and that the Democrats could take a lesson from them. Nixon finally stepped down because members of his own party went to him and and told him it had to be done. There are fine men in the Republican party who could replace Lott. Let's not all become so jaded that we think there is no hope for the future.

Zachsmom

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 10:50 am EditMoveDeleteIP
This has nothing to do with Party affliation..this has to do with there are still people in power who are ignorant and filled with intolerance and hate.

Whit4you

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:03 am EditMoveDeleteIP
So here's the plan - lets remove from office any politician who's ever said anything that can be taken as sexist or racist or bigoted. We've yet to have a women, black, hispanic - you name it... as president or vice president. So what does this say? I suppose this is Lott's fault? Oh no it's probably Clinton's fault - that's right - blame it on Clinton. LOL.

I don't agree with Lott's statement - nor am I suprised that he's not perfect - unlike all those who now wish to lynch the man.

With all the problems we faced at the time I was appalled that we spent so much collective energy trying to castrate a man for lying about an affair. And the same hold true now. Removing Lott from office will not help us as a society - it'll just help some with a political agenda. In a society that promotes free speech it's amazing to me the hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to sexism and racism. A black DJ can diss on whites all day long, but a white DJ will lose his job over one uncoth comment. The same holds true with comedians and so on. This is either a country that believes in free speech or does not - and if it does he was exercising his right to free speech at a birthday party no less.

I'm most definately NOT a republican - but I think it's insane to support free speech yet expect this man's career to be ruined because he exersized that right.

If he IS a racist - then he would certainly be in good company with the many black and white racists in politics - then should we set a new standard that anyone that can possibly be construed as racist or sexist or bigotted in any way based on any comment they ever make or any vote they ever give - should be removed from office?

This would mean that those who we vote in to help keep free speech alive and well in America can not exersize free speech themselves.

The most hilarious msg boards I've ever been a part of was the "Bi Polar hosts of ACLU" - a group of people who demanded that the moderators of the ACLU free speech board moderate their OWN speech. Was the funniest thing I've ever seen - ever. The mods were so good though - that it was at times like watching a group of pro linebackers playing against a group of bluebirds.

We expect and demand free speech in this country - except when it comes to anything percieved to be a white person making a racist statement. Imagine for a moment anyone suggesting a "White Miss America contest" or a "White Grammy's" or a "White Policemans association" - career over. Yet almost daily someone suggests this for other sexes or races or ethinic groups... and it's perfectly ok.

To me he's no different today then he was last month... if he was good enough to be in office then he's good enough to be in office now.

I just have to wonder how many who are now indignant about this have put any time or effort into efforts to unite the races / sexes and ethic groups in the past few years ya know?

Bottom line - do we need to reword the consitution?

If we are not going to reword the consitution then we need to back off - he has just as much right to free speech as the rest of us.

Bastable

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:10 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Republicans, Democrats, blah blah blah. It's all a smokescreen.

No politician ever made it to office in America without the support of some powerful, rich people.

The real issue: We have a power base in this country that is made up of racists. Lott, Byrd, Duke, Thurmond... they are all the representatives of this group of powerful people, with lots of money, who control the debate.

So let's not go into party politics. It's not the issue. The issue is getting these scoundrels out of power by getting their benefactors out of power.

We've been fighting the North/South battle since before the Civil War, and this is just another round.

Squaredsc

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:13 am EditMoveDeleteIP
interesting whit. im not going to say that i agree. but interesting to say the least. personally i do think the constitution should be re-written. but mainly 'cause of the 3/4 person issues, etc. freedom of speech is not free. never has been. may not be depending on who it affects. freedom is a state of mind as there are all different kinds of oppression.

Weenerlobo

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:16 am EditMoveDeleteIP
12-19-02

Fluff

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:37 am EditMoveDeleteIP
Yes Square!

Yes Bastable!

Yes Zachsmom!

I understand everyone's point. BUT, it does seem like it is becoming a blame game. HE DID IT! SHE DID IT TOO! Yaddahyaddahyaddah. The point is, when people do stuff that is WRONG, they should SUFFER the consequences, not GET AWAY with it, because SOMEONE ELSE did it too. If EVERYONE is PUNISHED when they FIRST commit the OFFENSIVE act, then there would be no need for petty BLAME GAMES!!!!!

running away now....

Squaredsc

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 11:41 am EditMoveDeleteIP
well said fluff, that was off the chain. lol.

Karuuna

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:20 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Being a bit of a cynic about politics, I doubt that the Republican call for Lott's dismissal (and the behind-the-scenes White House call for the same) has anything to do with moral outrage over his comments. I think they know the reality of the situation - and that is if he's left in office, that will hurt the Republicans in the next election. Much like the association with Clinton hurt Gore in his bid for president.

I think folks do have a limited right to free speech. Some free speech is clearly against the law - when it is a public safety issue. But with the right to free speech also comes the responsibility to be accountable for what you say. No one ever said free speech comes with a free pass, you can say anything you want without suffering the natural consequences of your beliefs.

If an elected official is a racist, they are "free" to proclaim that. No one will arrest them. But that doesn't mean the voting public has to support their racist views by allowing them to stay in office.

In fact, you're free to call your boss an idiot. No one will arrest you either. That doesn't mean he or she can't fire your silly little butt.

Maris

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:43 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
I agree with you 100% Karuuna. I think you are right regarding the Republican call for his dismissal just as you arent hearing too much from Democrats. They dont want to see Lott gone. They already are getting their slogans ready for the next election. There is nothing the Democrats would like more than to play and replay Trent Lotts speeech.

Where I might disagree with you is I think that Gore distancing himself from Clinton is what hurt him. Clinton was and still is popular in places other than the beltway. If Gore allowed Clinton to campaign for him Gore might have won the electoral votes and not just the popular vote.

Rabbit

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Karuuna, how about, "pointy ear fuzzy tailed rodent •••••••". Can I fire my employees for calling me that?

Whit4you

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:49 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
Karunna good post and I agree.


Since this topic is touching on racism and racial issues...

I'd just like to say - I am thankful for how far we as a society have come in the past 30 years. Yes, we have a long way to go but we have made incredible leeps in the past 30 years compared to say the previous 3,000 years. It's something our kids and their kids will benefit from.

We tend to focus on the negative but we all really do have a lot to be thankful for from those who laid the groundwork in the 40's and 50's for those who took action in the 60's.

Squaredsc

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:54 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
lol rabbit.

Ladytex

Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:19 pm EditMoveDeleteIP
shoot ... I was gonna say that I agreed with someone, but with all the newer messages, I've forgotten who it was .... I would call it a senior moment, but I don't want to offend the seniors, or a blonde moment, so ...

But I do agree that the reason he may lose his leadership position is not that the Senators are so outraged by his remark (and like Whit said, he has the right to say what he believes), but they are outraged that their moments of glory (power in both houses of congress and the white house) will be overshadowed by Sen. Lott if he doesn't go. He will hurt the party, regardless of anything else. And no, I don't agree with what he said, but he had the right to say it, just like his detractors have the right to disagree with him and work to have him removed.