Trent Lott [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

wdlove

Dec 10, 2002, 03:33 PM

President Bush needs to get out in front of this by calling for Trent Lott's resignation. Its a big political story. Reason, he's the President & its the right thing to do. I'm ashamed of what Lott said, there is no excuse.

Democrats probably won't bring up their issues. Because Democrats are given the benefit of the doubt. Sen. Robert Byrd, D VA a former member of the Klu Klux Klan. Former Sen, Albert Gore, Sr., D, TN voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1963. Sen. Fulbright, D who is idolized by former President Clinton, was an open Segregationist. I think its sad that they get by with their own indiscretion! Sen. Byrd, "I have seen plenty of white ******s." His statement was over in 48 hours.

But to the point Lott as the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate should resign. He should renounce what he said, because it was a racist remark. Do what is right to save President Bush from a political nightmare, the South.

You should fall on your sword for the good of the party!

alex_ant

Dec 10, 2002, 03:56 PM

I don't think that Lott should be forced to resign. I think everyone should be entitled to their views, whatever they happen to be. Trent Lott may be a racist idiot, and the rest of his party or the Democratic Party or whatever party has every right to ask him to resign, but he shouldn't be forced to oblige. Hopefully Mississippians will simply elect someone a little less racist and backwards next time.

BenderBot1138

Dec 10, 2002, 04:24 PM

Wow.

:cool:

wwworry

Dec 10, 2002, 05:22 PM

I always knew he was a racist. What I want to know is if his hair is real or not. If it is then what sort of glue does he use.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/07/test.ban.treaty/link.trent.lott.jpg

wdlove

Dec 10, 2002, 07:30 PM

I believe his hair is real, alot of comments r/t how he fixes his hair are negative, his personal taste.

He's not a racist according to the definition, he dosesn't believe in policies based on race, preferences, or superiority of race.

He definitely needs to make a sincere apology, its important that we can move on quickly. We have important issues ahead of us as Americans!

mkubal

Dec 10, 2002, 08:26 PM

I knew this would make it to the boards sooner or later. So here we go:

For all the slow people on the boards let's stop and think about this in a logical and rational manner. I know it might be tough to do, but please try to keep up with me here.

Senator Trent Lott is the current minority leader and soon to be majority leader of the Senate. This means he is a very powerful and influential man and has a responsibility to represent the Republican party. He knows this and he knows that everyone else knows this too. So I'm very sure that he is very careful to watch his every word so as not to make unbecoming comments.

What we have here is a simple misunderstanding. His words were meant to be in praise of Strom Thurmond's service in government. Lott would in no way make a purposeful comment that favored segregation because he knows that would ruin his career. Not to mention that the speech he gave was televised.

So obviously he did not mean to make this statement sound as if he was a racist and he certainly didn't want to offend anyone. However, people took his comments to have a different meaning. A meaning which he in no way meant to convey. Senator Lott realized that his statement was questionable and apologized twice for having mistakenly offended someone.

Bottom line:
It was a misunderstanding, which Lott apologized for. If you think a simple misunderstanding warrants someone's resignation then you are a fool.

Yes, I said it. If you think Trent Lott should resign over something so petty then you are an idiot.

(On a side note, It wouldn't surprise me if the people who call for Lott's resignation are those very same people who thought Clinton lying about an affair under oath was no big deal. To those people: don't be a hypocrite.)

Matt

P.S. I know I'm new to posting on the boards and the political threads, but I think I've managed to piss a few people off so far. This is because, unlike others on the board, if you say something really ignorant (especially intentional ignorance in the case of a partisan) I'm gonna call you on it.

kylos

Dec 10, 2002, 11:46 PM

Nice job, mkubal. I thought I had clarified it at the beginning, but nobody caught on. Lott's only mistake was saying something that could be taken so out of context. Good grief, he just wanted to praise Strom Thurmond on his 100th, but now he's a terrible racist who must resign or else.

springscansing

Dec 11, 2002, 12:20 AM

This is stupid. Ol' Ironsides is like 100 years old, and Lott was just trying to pay him a compliment. It was his damn birthday people.

3rdpath

Dec 11, 2002, 12:58 AM

as much as i'm not a fan of lott, i too believe it was just a comment meant to praise strom...not dredge up old segregation issues. let it go people.

i will add that i don't think strom has known he was in public office for quite a few years...;)

but trent, WTF with that hair.:eek:

Coca-Cola

Dec 11, 2002, 01:02 AM

I don't know why anyone would even say that they would have voted for Mr. Thurmond back then. What a horrible thing to say. Yucky. Mr. Lott.

wwworry

Dec 11, 2002, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by mkubal
I know it might be tough to do, but please try to keep up with me here.

Senator Trent Lott is the current minority leader and soon to be majority leader of the Senate. This means he is a very powerful and influential man and has a responsibility to represent the Republican party. He knows this and he knows that everyone else knows this too. So I'm very sure that he is very careful to watch his every word so as not to make unbecoming comments.

Your argument that he would not openly support segregation because he is the senate majority leader is weak. I could just as easliy say that he would obviously, because he is the senate majority leader, support stricter environmental legislation; who in their right mind would not?
(to be clear, this would be a false assumption)

You can not make an assumption of one thing based apon an unrelated second thing. Maybe he was remembering his own youthful support for Thurmond. Maybe it was something else. We can't really know.

We have to give weight to his apology as well. But by apologizing we can only say that he has issued conflicting statements on racial equality and then look at his actions.

Here is part of his voting record:
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
* Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
* Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
* Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)

It's not like he is taking the lead on this issue either.

here is a good site for checking out the voting records http://www.issues2002.org/Senate/Trent_Lott.htm

jelloshotsrule

Dec 11, 2002, 08:19 AM

just because someone doesn't believe in affirmative action as being the solution to things doesn't make him/her a racist.

i don't know much about the guy, and he may be a racist. but that comment, come on, you really have to read into it to get fired up about it.

mkubal

Dec 11, 2002, 05:13 PM

wwworry:
My assumption was based on the fact that no one in government, in their right mind would, would openly support segregation. His status as majority leader just adds to that. I would assume that about anyone. No representative or senator would vote in favor of a law supporting segregation (assuming a vote somehow made it to the floor, which would be impossible) because the courts have already deemed segregation as unlawful. To openly support such and idea would mean one's political death. Therefore, based on the fact that Senator Lott would not want his political career to come to an end, I CAN make the assumption that he would not openly support segregation.

BTW, the issue of segregation is on a completely different level then environmental issue. To take my assumptions about human rights and apply them to the environment would be ridiculous. Basic human rights, drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve...completely different issues. If you can't see that, let me know and I'll expand upon the differences.

Matt

mkubal

Dec 11, 2002, 05:21 PM

wwworry:
And I forgot. About the voting records. They aren't a very good measure of someone stance on issues and here's why: if you follow politics you realize that every bill has things that are tacked on to the end as favors to various peoples constituents. The fact that someone votes against an environemental bill doesn't automatically mean that they are against preserving the environment. You have to look at all the things that were tacked on to that bill because they could all have weighed equally in a person's vote.

Here's a better example. The Democrats for a while refused to pass the Homeland Security bill. This wasn't because they didnb't believe that we needed to protect America, it was because they disagreed with some of the specifics on how things would be implemented.

One little thing can make someone vote no on a bill.

Matt

wdlove

Dec 11, 2002, 07:51 PM

Sen. Lott made a sincere apology today, we should accept & move on.

wwworry

Dec 13, 2002, 06:40 AM

mkubal:
as for the environment I said "(to be clear, this would be a false assumption)". We are in agreement that they are two completely different issues.

As for voting records again we agree. In fact it was the Democrats, Joe Liberman, who came up with the idea for the Homeland security bill in the first place. Bush rejected that idea for 8 months before deciding to claim it as his own.

But certainly Lott and the republican party has had great success in the south courting racist attitudes. True they would never come right out and say that they are racists and, in fact, I believe most of them including Bush, are not racists. That does not stop them from going to Bob Jones University every 4 years (where inter-racial dating was banned) to get votes. Playing the race card with ads like the Willie Horton ad, paying people in black neighborhoods to hold up signs encouraging people NOT to vote, etc. Here is another quote form the Times:

"But it was the Democrats who paid the price for the law that banned discrimination in public accommodations and employment, allowing the federal government to stop aid to programs that discriminated and giving Washington the power to sue to desegregate schools.

As President Lyndon B. Johnson predicted to Bill Moyers on the evening he signed the bill, "Bill, I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come.""

LBJ was correct.
In short, you probably can't say who is and who is not a racist at heart but you can see where people use segregationist attitudes to gain votes. They'll do anything to get votes, everyone will.

Backtothemac

Dec 13, 2002, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by wwworry
I always knew he was a racist. What I want to know is if his hair is real or not. If it is then what sort of glue does he use.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/10/07/test.ban.treaty/link.trent.lott.jpg

Statements like " I always knew he was a racist", unless you personally know the man, are just as ignorant as the statement that he made.

Sure, it was really, really, bad, and should he resign the majority leader position, sure, but resign completely? No, let the people of the state of Mississippi, where he got 25% of the black vote in the last election, remove him from office in a few years.

Backtothemac

Dec 13, 2002, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by wwworry

Here is part of his voting record:
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
* Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
* Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
* Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)

Wow, he votes like I would.
Nice to see someone with the values that I have supporting what I believe in the government.

drastik

Dec 13, 2002, 09:54 AM

Let me give you all a southern perspective on this. I'm fairly active in local politics down here and I have some idea of the way these things work.

Lott made a mistake in his words. This was a biggy, as far as mistakes go, so it will cost him something. B2TM's idea that he should resign the leader seat is probably the most logical. I do not think Mr. Lott is a racist, but someone with that kind of power should be better at choosing words or some one else should have that power. Otherwise, let the voters decide, that's what elections are for.

Lott is a kind of new-South old boy, if that makes any since at all to people from other parts of the country. They are everywhere down here. They are not really racist, and the certainly don't see themselves that way. What they are is culturally insensistive. Not with any malice mind you, they just don't have an understanding of how cultures live together. For these people, other races are not bad, they are simply the working class. Mr. Lott belongs to a generation of men who grew up with a certain since of entitlement, not only to money but to politics and power as well. They consider their black housekeeper a member of the family, but one who could be fired or replaced, used as needed.

As I said before, these men aren't really racists, they just don't have a real grip on the world. I will say, however, that they are very homophobic, as they consider that against nature.

The homophobia draws a strange Paralell with the black community, which in the South also happens to be very homophobic. There are not big name, openly gay MCs, and I've yet to hear about a gay Wide Reciever in the NFL (though rumors fly about our own Eddie George, I have personaly seen him in the company of strikingly beautiful women)

This strange dicotomy of no real racist malice, but no clear idea of other races as equal, is something we are going to have to deal with for the next fifteen years or so, untill all these old men start dying off and people who grew up in a post civil-rights world get a chance.

Stelliform

Dec 13, 2002, 10:21 AM

....

MacBandit

Dec 13, 2002, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Wow, he votes like I would.
Nice to see someone with the values that I have supporting what I believe in the government.

Absolutely. He obviously supports equal rights to everyone. Not to just a select few.

Backtothemac

Dec 13, 2002, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Stelliform

I disagree. I think that this is being blown way out of proportion so that the Dems can take a shot at the Republicans. Clinton lied under oath, commited a crime that would have sent you or I to jail, yet he didn't resign. And on the same vein it was the Dems who were saying that the Republicans were blowing it out or proportion.

Well, I can see you point, and I agree with you 100% with Clinton, but the reason he should resign the position of majority leader is for his failure to forsee what his comments would cause. The party doesn't need this type of press, because it isn't true. The republican party wants to empower minorities, not hold them down. Thus, he should have used better judgement. Had you or I used that comment at work, I doubt that we would still have the positions that we hold.

Backtothemac

Dec 13, 2002, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by MacBandit

Absolutely. He obviously supports equal rights to everyone. Not to just a select few.

hehe. You are on a roll with the sarcasim lately ;)

I support the votes with only one exception.

MacBandit

Dec 13, 2002, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

hehe. You are on a roll with the sarcasim lately ;)

I support the votes with only one exception.

Not sarcasm. I am serious.

Backtothemac

Dec 13, 2002, 10:57 AM

Well, I am a republican, but I don't think he is for equal rights for all. He doesn't think that everyone should be afforded the same rights. For example Gay Marriage.

Still, he does represent most of my views.

wdlove

Dec 13, 2002, 03:10 PM

Its unlikely that a person would agree with a politician 100% of the time.

wwworry

Dec 13, 2002, 04:21 PM

You know republicans are worried when they start talking about Clinton. Really, like clockwork.

Clinton was two years ago. Do you want to start talking about Nixon?

Anyway, he was at the head of the pack keeping his national college fraternity segregated. He made the same comment in 1980 and got grief for it then. He loved Bob Jones University when it banned inter-racial dating. Then there was something about THE COUNCIL OF CONSERVATIVE CITIZENS (or something), a group that even BTM wouldn't join (not general conservatisim but something worse)

quote:
"The litmus test is where do the politicians stand on
immigration and race. If we lose and we cease to exist, the
new Mexican majority will not preserve our Confederate flag
or our Confederate monuments because our people will be
gone. I'm a true reactionary Tory. We must preserve our
people first and foremost. The most critical thing to
preserve is the genetic basis of our race." -- Atlanta
attorney Sam Dickson addressing the June 1998 meeting of the
Council of Conservative Citizens

"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!" -- Senate
Majority Leader Trent Lott addressing the Council of
Conservative Citizens, 1992

supports confederate flag etc.

What more do you want? The question should be "What besides his apology makes him a non-racist?"

wwworry

Dec 13, 2002, 07:37 PM

here's another one:

http://www.nationalist.org/alt/2002/dec/lott.html

and another

In 1982, Lott voted against the Voting Rights Act extension

MacBandit

Dec 13, 2002, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, I am a republican, but I don't think he is for equal rights for all. He doesn't think that everyone should be afforded the same rights. For example Gay Marriage.

Still, he does represent most of my views.

You are right. Also wdlove has a point.

Coca-Cola

Dec 13, 2002, 09:03 PM

yes they are.

dreamlance

Dec 13, 2002, 11:44 PM

Just curious to see who's read "Slander" by Ann Coultier. It's interesting to see how much mud-slinging Dems do at Reps to demagogue the people. Stallion, your views seem to parallel that book so I was curious to know if you had read it or anyone else has?

Les Kern

Dec 14, 2002, 12:13 AM

Originally posted by alex_ant
Everybody knows the negroes have done nothing but cause problems and should have been sent back to Africa while their numbers were still small.

"Negroes"?? "Back to Africa"? Though not an intelligent enough reply to take my precious time to answer, I was compelled by unknown forces. Could it be that you are completely familiar with the term "Trailer-Trash"? No? Look it up in a dictionary (if you even know what THAT is) and you'll see your name. The "ant". Does that denote the size of your brain?
How sad I am for you.:(

vniow

Dec 14, 2002, 12:20 AM

Les, I'm pretty much sure alex_ant's post was meant to be sarcastic.

Most of his little one-liners are.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/ppphhht.gif

MacBandit

Dec 14, 2002, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by edvniow
Les, I'm pretty much sure alex_ant's post was meant to be sarcastic.

Most of his little one-liners are.http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/veronica/ppphhht.gif

I agree. Some people don't know sarcasm or a joke when the see it. So to Les. Get a since of humor. You might look up humor and joke in the dictionary. If you know what that is.;)

Choppaface

Dec 14, 2002, 12:54 AM

Originally posted by Les Kern

"Negroes"?? "Back to Africa"? Though not an intelligent enough reply to take my precious time to answer, I was compelled by unknown forces. Could it be that you are completely familiar with the term "Trailer-Trash"? No? Look it up in a dictionary (if you even know what THAT is) and you'll see your name. The "ant". Does that denote the size of your brain?
How sad I am for you.:(

d00d like toahtally omg that was SOOOO j/k

(now try to look those words up in a dictionary, he he :D)

kylos

Dec 14, 2002, 01:04 AM

RC Rules!

And so do Republicans.

krossfyter

Dec 14, 2002, 01:34 AM

this thread has become hijacked by some wise crackahs.

lol

Judo

Dec 14, 2002, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by dreamlance
Just curious to see who's read "Slander" by Ann Coultier. It's interesting to see how much mud-slinging Dems do at Reps to demagogue the people. Stallion, your views seem to parallel that book so I was curious to know if you had read it or anyone else has?

Here's a review of that book from a liberal site. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14000
It maybe from an opposing point of view, but the quotes tell me that this book isn't, even in the slightist, an astute, honest commentry on the left/liberal side of the political spectrum. Enough for me to stayaway from it in the mean time.

Maybe Democratic leaders are demagogic for a reason. The more right the republicans come the more they will create an extreme left.
Which goes both ways.
Just an idea. !?!!@%%$#

I've seen mud slinging from all sides of the political spectrum. To denounce just one side for it is hypocritical.

krossfyter

Dec 14, 2002, 02:17 AM

Originally posted by Judo

Here's a review of that book from a liberal site. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14000
It maybe from an opposing point of view, but the quotes tell me that this book isn't, even in the slightist, an astute, honest commentry on the left/liberal side of the political spectrum.

come on... its a biased review. is there any un biased review links of it?

the book spins and so does the review

kylos

Dec 14, 2002, 08:39 AM

Sorry, I just couldn't pass that up.:)

Backtothemac

Dec 14, 2002, 08:43 AM

wwworry, I think there is nothing wrong with the confederate battle flag. Personally, I think anyone offended by it needs to get over it. It is part of history, and part of the history of the south. It should not be forgotten, because it is what we were, and we should never forget that.

Besides where in the Constitution does it say that one has a freedom of speech until you hurt someones feeling by being insensitive.

kylos

Dec 14, 2002, 09:40 AM

So wwworry thinks first amendment rights are being trampled when legislators try to ban U.S. Flag burning, but tries to trample others first amendment rights by wanting to ban the confederate flag. Hmmm.

wwworry

Dec 14, 2002, 01:52 PM

So when did I say I wanted to ban the confederate flag? Can't you read? I am in favor of any idiot displaying proudly the flag of a loser. Especially those people in the north waving the loser flag for a confederacy they were never part of. Talk about heritage!

In fact, I think cross burning is a method of free speech just like flag burning that should be legal. Clarence Thomas is a dope.

State sponsered Confederate flags on public property are a bad idea. Not only because we are in the UNITED STATES but because flags are supposed to represent the state to all people. The confederate flag is the emblem of a state that denied humanity to a whole section of people. You may not feel that way but you can not deny the truth of those feelings in others. Why pick a fight? South Carolinas flag is of the Palmetto tree. It is a very nice, even beautiful flag that everyone likes. It completely and easily eliminates the whole issue. Everyone likes and no one cares about the SC state flag. To say "get over it" puts the burden on others. Why should they "get over it"? So you can fly your stupid flag? Would you say to a holocaust survivor "get over it". or a vietnam vet with PTS "get over it"? Only a stupid idiot would fly next to the state flag something that a third of the state population finds deeply offensive. Only a jerk would resurect in 1959, during a time of deep racial tension, the symbol of white supreamacy. But that's just what I think.

Just to repeat, flying a confederate flag on your own property is fine with me. Burn all the crosses you want on your front yard. Wear a swastica to work if you want. It makes it very easy to identify the a$$holes.

My original point is that Trent Lott has a long history of supporting racist organizations (Bob Jones U, The Council of Conservative Citizens, etc.), and causes (such as the long dead loser confederate flag) that racist organizations support. But then again you have to remember where he is from.

http://img.infoplease.com/images/ms_fl_t.gif
Mississippi State Flag

Learn to read Kyle

PS: Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, South Carolina, and Wyoming have my favorite state flags. see them here http://www.factmonster.com/spot/stateflags1.html
and Alaska

bostonjordan

Dec 14, 2002, 03:05 PM

Ugh. I think this is an appropriate topic for my first post.

First, I should say that I'm a staunch gay-agenda-pushing liberal.

Second, I should also say that I don't believe Lott should resign. Even though he stands against everything I believe in, I don't see his comments as true bigotry (unfortunately, I can't say the same for his voting record).

The first ammendment gives us freedom of speech, but it does NOT protect against CONSEQUENCES for what we say. Basically, we can say whatever the hell we want (so long as it doesn't include foul language), but that also means we much be prepared for the consequences that lie within what we say.

Here's what I can't figure out. The person about which Lott was speaking, Stom Thurmond, remained in the senate for almost seven decades. How can we punnish someone for praising a monster when the monster is hardly gone himself? And, in fact, when that monster remained in power until very recently? Did we not see that the segregationist bigot was sitting right next to Lott when he made that comment? There are severe problems in this country if someone like Thurmond can be reelected so many times -- problems bigger than Lott's words in support of him.

To the person who said that Lott's voting record gave equal rights to all people -- not just small groups -- please think before you type. Gay people and other minorities aren't looking for SPECIAL priviledges, they're looking for an EQUAL opportunity to thrive in a country built on foundations of equality. Lott has effectively voted AGAINST giving equal rights to minority groups.

Doesn't it seem weird that it's nearly 2003 and there is STILL a group of people who is discriminated against? Legally?! Our government denies thousands of gay people every year the right to marry, the right to equal opportunity in the workplace, the right to adopt, the right to have sex, the right to civil union financial bennefits.

I would like nothing more than to see Lott step down -- this country would be a better place if he would. But in order for democracy to thrive, there has to be some fairness: I can't, for the life of me, see his comments as something more than praise for an evil man, not the evil man's ideologies.

All right?

wwworry

Dec 14, 2002, 03:18 PM

I also never said he should step down. Let him dig his own hole. He is more useful exposed where he is.

Coca-Cola

Dec 14, 2002, 07:08 PM

Ah, I would it if Mr. Lot did not step down. It would really expose the terrible agenda of the Conservative right wing of the Republican Party. They are destroying our country.

Pepzhez

Dec 14, 2002, 08:24 PM

I think there is nothing wrong with the confederate battle flag. Personally, I think anyone offended by it needs to get over it. It is part of history, and part of the history of the south.

Then I surmise that you would use the same argument in defense of, oh, let's say swastikas displayed throughout Germany. Or how about a swastika flag displayed on someone's yard in Tel Aviv? Would you defend that as well? There is a good reason why all Nazi symbols are legally banned in Germany. Sorry but "it's part of the history" and "get over it" are the very (illogical) "arguments" made by the likes of the Ku Klux Klan and racists like Trent Lott.

As for Lott, I say leave the man where he is. Now that the Republicans control all branches of the US federal government, they can't possibly blame the nightmare they are creating on the Democrats. Lott is one of the most notorious proverbial ropes that the Republicans posess in which to hang themselves.

And sorry, right wingers, your favorite boogie man Clinton is long gone - and his alleged minions no longer have any control in Congress. Beginning in January, you have nowhere to hide. The full accountability will be yours and yours entirely; there will no longer be any excuse for the blame game. It's time to see who's who, and I can't think of a better figurehead than the racist, Klan-sympathizing, crypto-Nazi Trent Lott as the living symbol of all that, as far as the public will be concerned, will be detested about the Republican Party.

Yes, Lott is free to say what he wants. Let him say it then. And let the right wingers then have to deal with the consequences and fallout.

It's your funeral, and I'm more than happy to witness Lott and Bush dig their own graves. (And you certainly won't be able to blame it all on Clinton and the Democrats.)

kylos

Dec 14, 2002, 10:15 PM

Sorry, wwworry, I was half-baiting you, half-sounding you out. Maybe you could tell by my previous posts in this thread that I like to have fun with my politics. Anyhow, no hard feelings?

Les Kern

Dec 16, 2002, 03:11 PM

http://dubyadubyadubya.com/

jelloshotsrule

Dec 16, 2002, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Les Kern
http://dubyadubyadubya.com/

outstanding...

i love how the little icon in the browser text field is a monkey... ha

Backtothemac

Dec 16, 2002, 04:24 PM

jello, clean out your PM box.

DakotaGuy

Dec 16, 2002, 04:37 PM

All I can say is....Thank God for our country that Harry Truman won in '48 and not Thurmond.

bostonjordan

Dec 16, 2002, 05:01 PM

Remember when George Bush Sr. vomited on the Japanese prime minister? Yeah. That was funny.

GeeYouEye

Dec 16, 2002, 05:14 PM

The hypocrisy of the Democrats here is astounding. While they can give a dozen definitions of what "is" is, there is no possible way that Trent Lott just worded a toast AT A FRIGGIN' BIRTHDAY PARTY(!!!), badly. Good God! Lott never needed to offer any apology whatsoever. The fact that this is even an issue proves that the Democrats are merely looking for someone that they can use as a scapegoat. SOmething along the lines of " Well we oppose closing the borders, and we prefer dumb people, and we do it all in a way that gets us the most votes, BUT LOOKIE THERE, TRENT LOTT'S a RACIST!!"
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Rower_CPU

Dec 16, 2002, 05:17 PM

Backtothemac

Dec 16, 2002, 05:21 PM

There were not 6 million whiped off the face of the earth by people wearing confederate battle flags on their arms. Big difference.

Secondly, he is not a racist! He has done a lot for the African American community. You don't hear that though because the liberal media doesn't want you to hear it. Was he wrong. Yes, a racist. That is just stupid to label a person over a stupid comment that was made at a birthday party!

jelloshotsrule

Dec 16, 2002, 05:23 PM

i agree that it's all blown out of proportion. and the fact that him resigning is coming up is astonishing....

i also think the republicans would do the same thing had it been roles reversed.

why?

because the parties are the same. corrupt foolios so it's pretty predictable how they will react to anything the other does.

GeeYouEye

Dec 16, 2002, 05:23 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

Then why is the GOP running around frantic about it? ;)

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/16/lott.controversy/index.html

The GOP is just as vote-motivated as the DNC. That's why, at least in part, when I can vote, I won't be voting for either unless they have a great candidate.

bostonjordan

Dec 16, 2002, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
The hypocrisy of the Democrats here is astounding. While they can give a dozen definitions of what "is" is, there is no possible way that Trent Lott just worded a toast AT A FRIGGIN' BIRTHDAY PARTY(!!!), badly. Good God! Lott never needed to offer any apology whatsoever. The fact that this is even an issue proves that the Democrats are merely looking for someone that they can use as a scapegoat. SOmething along the lines of " Well we oppose closing the borders, and we prefer dumb people, and we do it all in a way that gets us the most votes, BUT LOOKIE THERE, TRENT LOTT'S a RACIST!!"
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Please pick up a newspaper before you go spouting off things that aren't true. It is not just DEMOCRATS who are upset by Lott's words. In fact, I quote today's New York Times: "Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma, the second-ranking Republican in the Senate, today became the first Republican senator to call for his colleagues to consider replacing Trent Lott as the party's leader..."

Now, I quote CNN.com: "Senate Republicans plan to hold a conference of their members on January 6 to decide whether they want Trent Lott to serve as majority leader in the new year. "

And by the by, it is not simply a case of ill-chosen WORDS that has gotten Lott into trouble -- I've already said I felt that the words in question were not enough to get him fired -- people are actually more upset by Lott's TRUE feelings towards segregation, as demonstrated by his past voting record, past comments, and past ATTEMPTS to initialize segregation in his own (non-public-serving) life, including attempts to ban people of color from his own college frat!

The words spoken at Thurmonds (hopefully last) birthday did nothing more than help to uncover Lott's true bigotry.

If it were simply a case of democrats making a mountain out of a mole-hill, I hardly see reason for the PRESIDENT to speak against his own highest-ranking aly in congress.

You seem to think that democrats are the only ones guilty of blowing small issues out of proportion. Did you happen to see what the republicans did to the Minnesota democratic senatorial campaign after the Paul Wellstone memorial service took on a political rally tone? The republicans bitched until it cost Mondale the election! No one disputes that.

So before you go pointing the finger at 'them hypocritical democrates,' please take the time to inform yourself so you have a clue as to what is really going on.

Thank you.

BenderBot1138

Dec 16, 2002, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by GeeYouEye

The GOP is just as vote-motivated as the DNC. That's why, at least in part, when I can vote, I won't be voting for either unless they have a great candidate.

While I may totally agree with you... the GOP isn't going to have the right to an Avatar after their next post... What's it going to be???

:cool:
________________
GeeYouEye Watch... 499 and counting down!!!

kylos

Dec 16, 2002, 05:51 PM

Senator Nickles is being a typical politician. He stans to gain a whole lot if Lott resigns his leadership post. Thats just caniballization. If I were in Oklahoma I would be sure not to vote for Nickles next time he was up for election. And Bush is being a coward, hoping to distance himself from something that has been blown out of proportion. That's how politics works, you never target real issues but make examples of non-issues.

As I've pointed out before, support for segregation was very common in the South up until probably the 80's, so yes Lott would have liked his frat to be segregated. It's not right, but I'm sure everyone has held wrong beliefs at some time. It's not about Lott being a racist in 1948, but whether he is racist now, and his remarks seem to be only a poor choice of praise.

The words spoken at Thurmonds (hopefully last) birthday did nothing more than help to uncover Lott's true bigotry.

Wow, that's pretty sad. Wishing death on anyone is harsh, but this is just sick. When will you people realize that that was 50 years ago. He gave it up a long time ago.

Rower_CPU

Dec 16, 2002, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by Kyle?
<snip>
Wow, that's pretty sad. Wishing death on anyone is harsh, but this is just sick. When will you people realize that that was 50 years ago. He gave it up a long time ago.

For good reason:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
He supported racial segregation with the longest filibuster ever on the Senate floor, speaking for 24 hours and 18 minutes in an unsuccessful attempt to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1957. He began by reading the entire text of each state's election laws.

Being pragmatic and wishing to save his political career, Thurmond switched over to endorsing integration earlier than most other Southerners.

Here's a good quote from Senator Thurmond himself:
I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches.

I'm sorry, but if you believe in something strongly enough to make it the sole focus of your presidential campaign, you don't simply stop believing it. You just become less vocal about it because it will keep you out of office.

wdlove

Dec 16, 2002, 07:01 PM

"If Tom Daschle or another Democratic leaders were to have made similar statements, the reaction would have been very swift," said Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd. "I don't think several hours would have gone by without there being an almost unaminous call for the leader to step aside."

The Truth: Oh right--just like the Democrats did when Bill Clinton disgraced the Oval Office and sent his Cabinet out to lie for him.

Laura Ingraham

Laura & Jay Severin "Trent Lott should resign, get out, at least Al Gore knew when to get out!

Lott is on BET at 8pm doing alot of kissing. His threat to Bush shows his true color's. "If you don't keep me as Majority Leader I'll quit the Senate. The governor of Mississippi is a democrat, will appoint a democrat" According to reports to show that he's not a racist is willing to vote for the Black Agenda.

The Republicans did well in November, now in one speech Lott has damaged all that gain. :(

Rower_CPU

Dec 16, 2002, 07:13 PM

How do a President's personal foibles "disgrace the Oval Office"? It's his execution of his duty that reflects upon the presidency, not his personal life.

How about a homosexual president? Those who feel that homosexualism is wrong or a sin would say that a gay president would be a disgrace as well. They would be wrong.

I'm much more disgusted and disappointed by a presidency marred by war-mongering and legislation repealing civil rights than one marred by a dirty blue dress.

wdlove

Dec 16, 2002, 07:22 PM

Laura's Weekly E-Blast!
http://www.LauraIngraham.com

THE LESSONS OF TRENT LOTT, PARTY POOPER

Even if he lied about his reason for not running for president in '04
("it's for the good of the country" rather than "no Democrat breathing
wanted me to"), Al Gore at least knew when to step aside. Not so with
Trent Lott, who continues to confirm his own tin-ear approach to politics,
by not relinquishing his Senate Majority Leader's perch after a disastrous
week.

Lott's days are surely numbered, but will the GOP learn the lessons he
leaves in his wake?

When Republicans were celebrating the day after their mid-term election
stunner, I urged Republicans to replace Trent Lott as Senate Majority
Leader. "You don't fire the coach in the middle of a winning season!" a
high-placed Republican operative sniffed. But the response from my
listeners--who usually have more political common sense Washington
insiders-told me something different. Republicans didn't care much for
Lott. Complaints ranged from "he's a squish" to "he's terrible on
television." The sentiment favored giving someone new a chance to lead the
Senate-like Senators Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, or Don Nickles.

Lesson: Clear away the underbrush before a political fire begins.

My view then and now is that Lott, while a committed Republican, is simply
a lousy communicator of the conservative message. It's not because, as
comedian Darrell Hammond points out, he sounds shockingly like Foghorn
Leghorn. It's not because his hair doesn't move. And it's certainly not
because he's anti-black. It's because he doesn't have two things key for
credible leadership-good instincts and sound judgment. This most recent
blow-up is just one more example of Lott's stumbling.

When the story broke, it was painfully obvious that it had legs, but Lott
ducked the press and hoped it would blow over. He released a short written
statement of apology. His reason for not appearing at a full-blown press
conference before Friday was that he was in a "remote location" most of
the week-but of course he wasn't hiking the Himalayas, he was hiding out
in Mississippi.

Lesson: When you make big political misstep, face the music early.

In the fourth episode of his Apology mini-series, Lott attempted to prove
his sensitivity and empathy toward blacks by reminding the country that he
is "the son of a sharecropper." He pledged continued "outreach" to the
minority community. He scheduled an hour on BET. Radio talk-show host Tom
Joyner on NBC's Today Show on Monday wasn't impressed, saying "I don't
believe him" - that the real Trent Lott was the one who spoke at the
Thurmond celebration.

When the Administration wants to focus on tax cuts and Iraq, the country
is being bombarded by the Lott leadership challenge. Lott dominated the
Sunday shows this week. The New York Times is keeping the racial fires
stoked with front-page headlines like these: "In Lott's Life, A Long
Shadow of Segregation." Newsweek gave it the cover "Race and the Life of
Trent Lott." This won't end any time soon. The Left will continue to hit
the Lott piñata during debates about affirmative action, crime, and
judicial nominations.

Some conservatives thought Lott wasn't aggressive enough in opposing
affirmative action (a.k.a. racial quotas) before this controversy. How
tough will he be now?

Republicans certainly are right to worry that tossing Lott to the race
sharks will merely make them hungrier and nastier. Lott isn't a racist and
most Democrats know he isn't. They are using Lott's lot as part of their
battle plan against George Bush, who was looking politically invulnerable
until the GOP's "race problem" began to dominate the headlines. Democrats
have yet to announce an agenda on the economy or health care so why not a
race scare? They are already on the verge of over-playing this hand. How
many swing voters really believe that racism is one of the biggest
problems facing the country today?

Lesson: Do the right thing, even if the other party is playing dirty.

The American Left has been frustrated and angry for two years now. The
public has rallied to support President Bush on the war and still doesn't
blame him for the economy. Even Bob Woodward thinks George Bush is smart!
But Trent Lott has given the Left an early Christmas present. Instead of
focusing their energy and resources crafting an ambitious legislative
agenda, Republicans will kick off the New Year still cleaning up a problem
that was entirely avoidable.

GeeYouEye

Dec 16, 2002, 10:50 PM

In the fourth episode of his Apology mini-series, Lott attempted to prove
his sensitivity and empathy toward blacks by reminding the country that he
is "the son of a sharecropper." He pledged continued "outreach" to the
minority community. He scheduled an hour on BET. Radio talk-show host Tom
Joyner on NBC's Today Show on Monday wasn't impressed, saying "I don't
believe him" - that the real Trent Lott was the one who spoke at the
Thurmond celebration.

This I find far more disturbing than a simple misspeaking, either that or Lott is far stupider than many believe Bush to be. What kind of idiot goes on a completely racist network (oh wait, I forgot, it's okay for blacks and other minorities to be racist, just not whites) to apologize for what might have been a racist remark?

With this horrible PR move, not to mention the original incident, I think that, if the GOP wants to survive another round of elections, they will have to force Lott to resign his position (not his seat, no Democrat fantasy is happening there).

EDIT: Woohoo! 500 posts 366 days after #1.

wwworry

Dec 16, 2002, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
Well we oppose closing the borders, and we prefer dumb people, and we do it all in a way that gets us the most votes,

People who cross the borders are dumb???

You insist on saying that Trent Lott is not a racist. What is your proof?

We know he wanted to keep his fraternity segregated.

We know he voted against the Voting Rights Act extension.

We know he praised the candidacy of a racist party. (twice!!)

We know he praised The Council of Conservative citizens (who supports racial purity).

We know he rallied at Bob Jones University, which banned inter-racial dating.

What we don't know is in what way is he not a racist? If you walk like a duck, talk like a duck and act like a duck one would think you are a duck, right?

wwworry

Dec 16, 2002, 11:29 PM

And the other thing you never here about is that at that same birthday party for Thurmond, Bob Dole spoke before Trent Lott. Dole praised Thurmond for changing his stance on issues like segregation and growing with the times.

That's why Sen. Thurmond is not getting any flack for being the person who actually ran for president as a segregationist/racist. There is evidence that he repudiated his past views.

After Dole praised growth Lott then praised his past segregationist policies. What a dope.

kylos

Dec 16, 2002, 11:48 PM

You don't seem to be getting the point, yes Lott's remark was not well thought out and a poor display of judgment, but it was in no way racist. He was honoring Strom Thurmond and what better way than to say that he should have been president. It just so happens that when he ran for president, he was a segregationist. Oops, how could he have said something so dumb.

Yeah, his lack of forethought makes him a poor choice for GOP leadership, but that doesn't make him a racist. Really, how can you condemn a man based on actions from his past (especially since many in America who mirrored such behavior now feel they were wrong) and a few poorly chosen words. You are being extremely judgmental.

krossfyter

Dec 16, 2002, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by wwworry

People who cross the borders are dumb???

err

este vato!

Rower_CPU

Dec 17, 2002, 01:28 AM

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
<snip>
What kind of idiot goes on a completely racist network (oh wait, I forgot, it's okay for blacks and other minorities to be racist, just not whites) to apologize for what might have been a racist remark?
<snip>

Just curious as to how you substantiate the claim that BET is a "completely racist network"...

Targetting an ethnic group for your programming is hardly racist. Somewhat exclusionary? Yes. Racist? No.

wwworry

Dec 17, 2002, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Kyle?
You don't seem to be getting the point, yes Lott's remark was not well thought out and a poor display of judgment, but it was in no way racist. He was honoring Strom Thurmond and what better way than to say that he should have been president. It just so happens that when he ran for president, he was a segregationist. Oops, how could he have said something so dumb.

Yeah, his lack of forethought makes him a poor choice for GOP leadership, but that doesn't make him a racist. ...

Maybe your argument is that segregationism is not racism. There is a long history of the "seperate but equal" argument. You could bring that one up...

At this point I think the burden of proof is on Lott. His history is full of segregationist comments and support for segregationist organizations. I don't understand why you assume he is not. All the evidence points to racist/segregationist views except for an apology issued when he is about to lose his leadership post.

As we all know, there are plenty of racist people in the US. We have all met more than a few. Why is it so hard to believe that a guy who grew up in the heart of the Jim Crow south, mentored with a proud segregationist is not a racist? It is certainly possible that he could be a racist and also be a senator.

THere seems to be this idea that a racist has to be a toothless guy in a trailer home yelling "N***er" all the time. That is not the only case. You can be a racist that seems very nice most of the time. You can be a bank officer that "red-lines" certain areas based on criteria that is not economic. You can be a real-estate broker that sends out flyers alerting white people that a person of color has just moved in the neighborhood (making a profit from other peoples fear). You can be head of a large corporation (like Dennys) in which black people never seem to be "management material". You can even be a regular Joe out in the Suburbs who doesn't like to go in the city because he is nervous about "those people" and would not want your sister to marry one.

What is a segregationist? What is a racist? I'll ask for the 5th time: Why is Trent Lott not one?

Perhaps Trent Lott is just courting the white segregationist vote in his home state. He does not believe in segregationist policies but voting against the Voting Rights Act extention will play well back in MS. Plus it's bound to pass anyway so why not vote against it? Why not hit up The Council of Conservative Citizens for a few bucks? no one will notice?

Representing segregationist voters is just as bad as being one.

Chomolungma

Dec 17, 2002, 11:56 AM

Chomolungma

Dec 17, 2002, 12:23 PM

One of the most underrepresented group in America now has to be the Northern Republicans. It cracks me up to hear Bill Crystal defending Lott through various media outlets. Fundamentally, Crystal is far from Lott's view socially and even some government spending issue among others. The Republican party is now essentially a white southern political party. I don't think I'll ever have a chance to ask Bill this question, but I do have a chance to ask all those who are here that belongs to the northern Republican party (e.g. George Pataki), how does it feels to be someone Bitch? BTW...Bush wants a southern Republican to head the Senate..NYTIMES... What a surprise!

Like I said before, it was no coincident that McCain lost to Bush in 2000. It will be unfortunate that our former mayor (of NYC) will face the same problem should he decide to mount a campaign...and you know which one i'm talking about.

jelloshotsrule

Dec 17, 2002, 12:25 PM

is "giuliani" some sort of taboo?

just curious why you wouldn't say his name....

Chomolungma

Dec 17, 2002, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
is "giuliani" some sort of taboo?

just curious why you wouldn't say his name....

to a southern segregationist Republican, he may very well be

for me, why I didn't mention Rudy Giuliani's name? no motivation what-so-ever to write one or the other

jelloshotsrule

Dec 17, 2002, 12:44 PM

it takes more effort to write "and you know which one i'm talking about..."

but aiight. to each his/her own.

giuliani did some good things for nyc.... not all good, but who does all good...

wdlove

Dec 17, 2002, 06:32 PM

Sen. Lott needs to resign as leader, as soon as possible, and before he destroys the Republican Party. After his BET interview its even more critical.

jefhatfield

Dec 17, 2002, 07:35 PM

i have come to the conclusion that all people are racist to some extent...sometimes without knowing it

when the esteemed senate minority leader trent lott made the somewhat possibly racist comment at strom thurmond's 100th birthday party, i was willing to accept his comment as a one time faux pas

then i heard he tried to ban african americans from his fraternity, and even then i realize the somewhat republican and exclusive nature of fraternities...but it still left a bad taste in my mouth

but in a tribute speech to reagan, trent lott brought out another possibly racist statement

i say let him be banned from being the majority leader of the senate this january coming up, but let him keep his senate seat in the mood of forgiveness and then both sides can be happy

i did not become a christian missionary in belfast to have my cohort have his brains blown out on the street by religious hatred to let someone like trent lott spout right wing extremist views and let him get away with it

trent lott is the perfect example of the type of thinking that has true chirstian missionaries be persecuted because his type of extremist (right wing or left wing) equates chistianity with ultra right wing views, worship of money, and the use, or oversue, of police and military force

keep god out of politics...you either follow him or follow the secular world as your master...that is, you can't serve two masters...if you want to serve politics, then don't use god as your posterboy

my two cents

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 01:52 AM

Oh, I fully admire Billy Graham, Dem or not.
But you really have to be careful claiming that Christian right will burn in hell. You can't speak for God, missionary or not.
You can't say Republicans are all rich, white, and evil. Most Republicans I know are lower to middle class. They expend great effort caring for the less fortunate; they don't feel this is the governments jurisdiction. The only Republican I know who is rich and arrogant certainly doesn't care about God. I know many African-American Republicans.
And sure, everyone has some form of racism, or more accurately, groupism. After all, there's power and safety in numbers. So to some extent or another, they put others down to make themselves more secure.
In fact jef, you become guilty - by your own condemnation of conservative Christians - of the very thing you accuse them of, proclaiming your way to be the way of God.

SPG

Dec 18, 2002, 04:08 AM

Whoa Jef! That's the harshest language I've heard from you ever I think! Something in this thread must have really gotten under your skin. Buuuut, I think you may be right on this one.
It's becoming obvious that Trent Lott is not only a racist but a liar too. If he believes that Blacks are the problem, then he should say so. Get it out in the open and let him be debated for what he believes, not what he has to hide, and say, and use code to say, to get his message across to his like minded friends.
Kyle? I would really like to see you show some, well I was going to ask for proof, but I'll settle for a simple indication that Lott is not a racist. His voting record? Nope. The company he keeps? Nope. His past? Nope. What is there that doesn't say racist? His personal comments off the record? I would think those would be worse. Give up the point that Lott is not a racist. Let's argue the grander implication instead...Should an admitted racist be the leader of the Senate? Should a proven racist be the poster boy for the Republican party?

It's funny to read this thread from the beginning in one shot and see how many people who jump in with a knee jerk defense slowly disappear, except Kyle?

alex_ant

Dec 18, 2002, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
my humble 2 cents

God damn Jef, I think you're better at these flame wars than you think you are! :D

Unrelated to your comment, from what I've observed so far in this formerly unexciting thread, the lack of logic displayed here by all sides has been astounding. I guess that's why this place is called MacRumors and not IntelligentPoliticalDebate.

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by alex_ant

God damn Jef, I think you're better at these flame wars than you think you are! :D

Unrelated to your comment, from what I've observed so far in this formerly unexciting thread, the lack of logic displayed here by all sides has been astounding. I guess that's why this place is called MacRumors and not IntelligentPoliticalDebate.

usually i try to make my point thru careful intelligent debate

but on the spiritual level, it is hard to see a religious right which is becoming incresingly racist and outright worshippers of money

the only recorded time jesus lost his temper is when he went into the religious place only to find an open air market going on in the name of commerce...he went in and turned over the tables

there should be a separation between church and commerce

and there should be a separation between church and state

but for "some" right wingers to spout the kkk, nazi, and christian identity propoganda in order to get gop votes and to prey on many less educated working class whites who would otherwise be democrats, is a political and moral sin

in the bible, it talks about counterfeits...and in jesus' day, they were the rich, powerful saducees and phirisees pretending to be religious and spiritual...but today in america, it's the so called born again, evangelical, fundamentalist, conservative right

whether man or satan authored this religious counterfeit is not really the issue

a person is a christian by accepting christ, not by being born white, racist, worshipping money, and telling people that god hates fags and liberals

if hitler were alive, he would be proud of the religious right

btw...anybody can be a christian or any religion on earth...and vote any way they want...god accepts the rich and poor alike...and yes, only god decides who goes to heaven, not jefhatfield;)

heck, i am not even a demi-god:p

Backtothemac

Dec 18, 2002, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

heck, i am not even a demi-god:p

Yea, about that. Don't you think it is time to change that?

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac

Yea, about that. Don't you think it is time to change that?

actually, if i give to macrumors, i will do it anonymously ;)

on a political note, if there was no god or sense of right and wrong, using religion would be a perfect way to gain votes

in the civil war, the republicans were the progressives and the liberals and convinced they were on a mission from god and that the other side were the bad guys

and the republicans, the liberals of the time, used religion quite effectively for their causes

at the highest levels of the liberal or conservative establishment, depending on the current events and history at the time, both conservative causes and liberal causes have used religion to further their voting base

but because there is a sense of right and wrong, and there are a lot of people who sincerely believe in a god or higher power, it's so wrong, liberal or conservative, to use the name of god/higher power to gain a few (or many) votes

i guess i am a dreamer, but i love politics to stay clean of religion and religion to stay clean of politics and for the climate to produce a level playing field at all times...first in america, then hopefully in other countries where democracy will work

i am not naive to think that democracy can work everywhere right this instant...as in china which is communist and have for quite a while kept around a billion people fed which i don't know america could do if that were the case

and in the case of iraq, on another thread(s), i see that there are other options to taking saddam or at least disarming him instead of a full on attack on the capital

having had friends in special forces, intelligence in and out of the military, and knowing or corresponding with educated people on the military and politcal fronts like you...i know that attacking the capital of iraq with major force is not the "only" option out there

Chomolungma

Dec 18, 2002, 12:23 PM

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Chomolungma

I think this criticism is at best ignorant, and worse a flat statement. Back up your vile criticism with a quote and briefly points to others if you must. I think it is sophmoric to destructively criticize.

different subject:
"worshipers of money"..I think this was mentioned by jef and a few others. I got the impression that this is wrong according to the jef, but more importantly this is inferior to the "worshiper of God". If your idea is true (worship God above all else), I think the idea can stand on its own. Must you step on others to further you ideology?

you cannot serve two masters

one being god, the other being money

the bible has a lot of grey areas in it, but this is one of the most uncontested concepts of christianity

if it offends you, then good, that is what it was designed to do...basically, to pierce your heart and make you choose

god does not want anyone on the fence and over time, everybody makes the choice..money or god, money or time with family, money or time off, money or "fill in the blank"

heck, some even have to make the choice, "money or a new mac";)

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Chomolungma

Like I said before, it was no coincident that McCain lost to Bush in 2000. It will be unfortunate that our former mayor (of NYC) will face the same problem should he decide to mount a campaign...and you know which one i'm talking about.

i was so impressed with mayor giuliani's leadership during the dark days of 9/11

my wife was born and raised in manhattan and even though she is a democrat, she likes him as do many liberals

if i was a registered republican and giuliani mounted a race in 2004 against the president, i would put my vote in for the former mayor

and if giuliani got to the top of the gop and ran against a democrat in the general election in 2004, i would consider voting for him over some democrats

the only other republicans that have that type of support with me are elizabeth dole and colin powell...i believe either one can be more popular than bush in 2004

i was sad that elizabeth dole didn't make the gop ticket in 2000...but i still had hopes for a bradley vs mccain race...wow, how about that...two honest chumps:p

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 12:53 PM

Let me try to clarify my position once again. Trent Lott's comments concerning Strom Thurmond are not racist; since supporting segregation in this era is tantamount to political suicide (and no politician wants to kill his career), the only explanation for Lott's comment's is that he did a poor job of expressing his praise for Thurmond. Stupid, yes, a liability to Republicans, yes, but why would a politician ever knowingly say anything so racist?

About Lott's past and his voting record and so on. In the past decade alone we have seen much change in people's view on many issues popular as far into the 70's and 80's. AFAIK Bob Jone's University no longer upholds the ban on interracial dating. Remember the Titans? That story occurred in the 70's. Most of Lott's controversial past occurred from the 80's back. That seems reasonable considering the gradual acceptance of African-Americans in the south. He supported segregation in his frat? What else would you expect of a white southerner in the ?1950's? I am in no way claiming that his racist past was or is right, I'm just saying that you can't judge him by his past, especially since it is a past that so many white southerners share but no longer hold to. At this time he seems to have given up his racist views, and yet you still sit there judging him by a measure that seems unlikely for many southerners.

Don't get me wrong, Trent Lott could very easily still be a racist, but from the situation at hand and considering what we know about the past of the south in general, I am not prepared to make such a bold and judgmental statement.

jef, how did this suddenly become an issue of religion and party? You seem to miss your own hypocrisy here, you drag religion into politics when no one had even mentioned it and at the same time damn conservative christians for your own offense. You condemn their politics as evil, when by your very condemnation you commit the same sin - judgmentalism, speaking for God, declaring your rightness and their wrongness as though God has just spoken to you. I laud your work as a missionary, but using it again and again to claim endorsement from God turns me (and likely many others) off. Please consider this before you go off on conservatives again. Thanks.

Chomolungma

Dec 18, 2002, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

if it offends you, then good, that is what it was designed to do...basically, to pierce your heart and make you choose

heck, some even have to make the choice, "money or a new mac";)

I'm not offended. However, I think it is fundamentally flaw to "make" someone choose. If an idea fail to inspire people, there is something wrong with it. When you make/or force someone to choose(we are talking about aduts here), your're infact taking away there free will (this should only be taken in context of this debate). If you fail to impress your idealogy through your "nobel" life by your action, preaching to them is a long step backward.

got to go soon....

SPG

Dec 18, 2002, 01:35 PM

Does Trent Lott have to show up in a KKK hood and admit to having "just lynched a n------" to get you to admit that he is in fact a racist?
What is the threshold for recognizing racism? To me his actions and his words have been evidence enough to satisfy my suspicions. To you Kyle, apparently only the latter would suffice, and even then I think you might have some other half assed excuse such as "it would be political suicide" to do that, so therefore he didn't do that.
Once again I raise the real qestion we should be talking about: What to do now? Is it grounds for losing the leadership role in the Senate? Should he resign altogether?

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 01:54 PM

Do you really think a racist in an era when being a racist is definitely uncool would say, "Hey everybody, I'm a racist!", especially if he was a politician? Really, I'm sick of pointing this out all the time. Maybe when you finally take a break from passing judgment on others long distance, you'll finally notice your own faults. You can hide all your faults very nicely when there's someone just waiting to be pointed out as evil. Maybe that's where all this righteous indignation is coming from.

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 02:03 PM

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 02:03 PM

My point all along has been this: yes, Trent Lott said something certifiably dumb, yes, he has had a racist past, but I am not willing to point and say "Oh my, can you believe it? Trent Lott is a racist! How could anyone be so evil?" because I don't want to be judged in turn when I say something stupid. We all make mistakes, maybe Trent Lott didn't just make a mistake and actually believes in segregation, but if that's all it was then we're in pretty bad shape if everyone points fingers at every possible thing.

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 02:05 PM

Look, Hitler killed millions!! Lott made a few statements in the present and had a past that while wrong only reflects his upbringing. Lott is not Hitler.

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by Kyle?
Look, Hitler killed millions!! Lott made a few statements in the present and had a past that while wrong only reflects his upbringing. Lott is not Hitler.

agreed...i just wanted to make sure you were not in the christian idnetity movement which is really into revisionist history and think that hitler got a raw deal

being a christian, i have met many christians who either think that hitler was right, that jews are evil, that liberals are evil, or some ultra reactionary point of view..i know no christian is perfect, we are simply forgiven so there will continue to be many racist christians as well as non-christians in america

we are definitely products of our upbringing and i once had an employee from a remote midwestern town that only had the kkk rallies as something to do at night...but as i got to know the man, he was not racist in his statements of beliefs and came to realize how evil that organization was

i was born a minority so that definitely puts me in a group that has traditionally voted liberal or moderate

at the same time, i went to bible college and got my beliefs through independent christian churches so my beliefs are evangelism centered and side with helping the poor and the lost

i have a strict belief in the separation of church and state but it is my fear the the gop has overstepped the line and mixed christianity with right wing politics...both by themselves have merit, but mixing the two can turn off left wingers to hearing the message of jesus christ...that is why i think religion and christianity should remain neutral

i have seen your website so i assume you also believe that there is a devil as well as a god, and that the devil will attack christianity by trying to attach negavtive associations to it turning people off to the church

the crusades in the past was certainly not a good witness for christ and in these days, making christianity into the face of the gop leaves out a lot of people that would benefit from the message of christ

i live in a very strongly democratic state and the very name of the religious right turns people off and a negative association with christ is reinforced

christ was not a conservative or a liberal, but a man who happened to be god and had a message for all mankind, not just one political party

among my partners at navigators, campus crusade, and inter-varsity christian fellowship in college in the early 80s, we made it a point to spread the gospel and not fall into ronald reagan's gop christian right movement

when asked what made a christian, both reagan and bush sr mentioned it was by being good and doing more good than bad...theologically, that is not the answer christ is looking for

the judegement for our souls will not be a scale weighing in good and bad deeds, it will not be a measurement of what party one belonged to, it will be if you accepted christ as the messiah who died for the world's sins

this is the important issue and politics should not be mixed with religion and i bring it up now because the christian conservative right should only be concerned about the "christian" part

but if they want to preach the gop, keep that separate because otherwise the message if christ will not be given correctly to people who may happen to be liberals

alex_ant

Dec 18, 2002, 02:30 PM

I think it's clear that Lott is by most definitions a racist. What is up for debate (and what I think Kyle might be trying to get at?) is that racism was a fundamental part of American (especially southern American) culture not too long ago, much more than it is today, and that Lott should be criticized within this context.

With regard to pointing fingers, I don't understand how labeling Lott racist ---> revealing my own faults. I hope Kyle will explain that.

Backtothemac

Dec 18, 2002, 02:42 PM

I love how people from the North associate the south with racism. Racism in not geographic, nor isolated from any region. In fact, in my travels, I have found Northern states to be far more racist than the states in the south. At the very least down here if someone is stupid enough to be racist. They let you know. It isn't hidden, and thus not as dangerous.

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 02:48 PM

alex_ant

Dec 18, 2002, 02:52 PM

You're right that it's not isolated from any region. There is racism everywhere. How it differs is in its distribution. Of course the south is generally more racist. I'm not saying the south is completely racist and the north is not racist at all. But if you take slavery, widespread resistance to civil rights, etc., and look at where it most slowly tapered off (or is tapering off), you have to say the south. You can't say the Pacific Northwest or some nonsense.

krossfyter

Dec 18, 2002, 02:53 PM

i lived both in the north (washington d.c.) and the south (now texas)... im hispanic and from my encounters i find that i have had more racist situations directed toward me in the north as oppose to the south. but thats just my expierence... it could be an isolated case. im not too sure... thats just what i have encountered.. take it for what its worth.

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

and today, reading newsweek, i found the definiton of the"south" to include kentucky and west virginia and exclude texas and the first two states fought for the north...so "south" may have a different political meaning than geographical meaning

but from my experiences, most people i have known from texas really really resented being called southerners...they were texans and by god, the let you know it...he he

it would be the same thing as calling the british europeans...but i did once read an interview of john lennon where he referred to the beatles as a european rock band...somehow that did not stick in my head as the more common term...british invasion band

watching some old newsclip, the announcer says, "it took america and george washington to defeat the british, but with four lads from liverpool, the english have taken america back!";)

alex_ant

Dec 18, 2002, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
i sometimes wonder if the "south" is more racist than the "north"

i have heard it said that the most racially integrated and cooperative city is atlanta

cnn is there and very liberal

atlanta has had more than one african american mayor

and today, reading newsweek, i found the definiton of the"south" to include kentucky and west virginia and exclude texas and the first two states fought for the north...so "south" may have a different political meaning than geographical meaning
I think Atlanta is one exception because of its status as a major national hub of technology and commerce etc. I guess when I think of the south, I rarely think of Atlanta because that city doesn't seem as culturally representative of the rest of the south to me as other cities & regions do. So I think you're right about the "south" having more than one meaning.

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 03:01 PM

What I am saying is that up to only a decade ago segregation and other forms of racism were common in the south. At this point I feel it is likely that Lott no longer holds those views and his statement about Thurmond was not meant in a racist context. All I am saying is that I don't feel comfortable judging someone when it is likely that he just made a mistake (racism, although common in the south, has lost a lot of support in the past few years and why shouldn't lott be judged according to this standard). Lott may be a racist, but I feel he should be given a chance.

What I meant by saying that those condemning Lott are covering their faults is that people will condemn others to hide their badness or to feel good about themselves. Try it sometime, when you get upset with someone else's faults, people forget your faults and you feel like "I'm one of the good guys and aren't those others scumbags" and you forget that you have a lot of faults yourself. I didn't mean to target anyone specifically, but it seemed like everyone was declaring Lott ultimate evil and not accepting that he might not be racist (not that he is or isn't, just that his situation does not make him an automatic racist). It seems that saying Lott is not necessarily a racist makes one a racist as well. The easiest explanation is that people want to stay so far away from being called racist that they will be one of the good guys by condemning anyone who gets anywhere near to actually or apparently supporting racism.

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 03:08 PM

i have been fascinated by certain southern things...austin and the guitar scene there, gibson musical instruments in nashville, the atlanta braves, the high tech sector in texas with amd and dell, the great scientific region in the research triangle in north carolina, miami the city, new orleans and the music and food, and many other things

i still feel an apprehension to living in the south because i am an asian american but my beliefs and fears could be of an image i have of the south portrayed by the media and the california based tv and movie industry

i have met europeans who thought that california was all beaches and guns because of their exposure to the westerns of old

maybe california has more handguns than any other state, but we are not by all means beaches and guns:p

alex_ant

Dec 18, 2002, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
maybe california has more handguns than any other state, but we are not by all means beaches and guns:p
Damn! So much for my grand California vacation plans... wait... you meant to say that California was all beaches and babes, right? That must be it. :)

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Kyle?
What I am saying is that up to only a decade ago segregation and other forms of racism were common in the south. At this point I feel it is likely that Lott no longer holds those views and his statement about Thurmond was not meant in a racist context. All I am saying is that I don't feel comfortable judging someone when it is likely that he just made a mistake (racism, although common in the south, has lost a lot of support in the past few years and why shouldn't lott be judged according to this standard). Lott may be a racist, but I feel he should be given a chance.

What I meant by saying that those condemning Lott are covering their faults is that people will condemn others to hide their badness or to feel good about themselves. Try it sometime, when you get upset with someone else's faults, people forget your faults and you feel like "I'm one of the good guys and aren't those others scumbags" and you forget that you have a lot of faults yourself. I didn't mean to target anyone specifically, but it seemed like everyone was declaring Lott ultimate evil and not accepting that he might not be racist (not that he is or isn't, just that his situation does not make him an automatic racist). It seems that saying Lott is not necessarily a racist makes one a racist as well. The easiest explanation is that people want to stay so far away from being called racist that they will be one of the good guys by condemning anyone who gets anywhere near to actually or apparently supporting racism.

newsweek, time, usnwr, and others have closely documented lott's unbroken racist record

it was not just a single statement made that people are screaming about now...it's lott's consistent history with racism..the media has brough it out in print en masse starting this morning...there will definitely be a bigger reaction yet to come

being human, is it possible that he can change his views and i have not asked that he get docked in pay, or get booted from the senate, but only that he step down as the gop leader in the senate come january

there must be far more qualified gop senators to take his place in january

if lott stays, it will only hurt the republicans and could eventually help them lose the white house in 2004

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant

Damn! So much for my grand California vacation plans... wait... you meant to say that California was all beaches and babes, right? That must be it. :)

that was another assumption of california:D

diorio

Dec 18, 2002, 03:25 PM

What I think, is that everyone is blowing this out of the water. Sure, Lott shouldn't have said that, but if the democratic party wasn't in such shambles right now, would it be as big of a deal? Lott apologized, what more does everyone want? He didn't even have to apologize, and if he truly meant what he said, probably wouldn't have.

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 03:54 PM

Wow, this thread has unbelievably increased my post count.:)

Jef, I agree that Lott has a history of racism. My view on this is that it just was not uncommon in the south up until even the 80's to be relatively racist. I'm not saying this to justify racism, in fact I think racism is very wrong, I am only trying to say that his history is not uncommon for his background and that he likely has recanted these racist views. Lott could very well be a racist. My point only is that it is not unreasonable that he has changed and should not automatically be condemned. Look, racism is a serious charge and in America, if there is a reasonable doubt of innocence, then you're innocent. Again, Lott could very well be racist, I don't personally know him so I really can't say.

And I do feel that Lott's comment, racist or not has left the Republican party in a bad position, and that the Republicans will probably have to remove him from leadership.

SPG

Dec 18, 2002, 05:10 PM

Whether or not the "South" is or was racist has little to do with the situation. They used to burn witches in Salem and it was accepted for a while at the time, but it was not right. Racism is not right. Being surrounded by racists does not give you a free pass to be one too. It's simply not an excuse. Martin Luther King grew up in the South too.
Lott has consistently voted like a racist, supported segregationist causes, supported racist groups, and said racist things. Now that he f---ed up and said it in front of a camera when he has a higher profile is not a simple slip of the tongue but an insight into his character. Do you want a racist as Senate majority leader?
You said: " Look, racism is a serious charge and in America, if there is a reasonable doubt of innocence, then you're innocent. "
Hardly. Nobody is automatically innocent if they say they are. They are presented the facts of the case and given an opportunity to porve their innocence or guilt. The facts here prove easilly that Lott is not innocent. Do I really have to ask again and again what it will take for you to see that he is a racist?

wwworry

Dec 18, 2002, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Kyle?
Do you really think a racist in an era when being a racist is definitely uncool would say, "Hey everybody, I'm a racist!", especially if he was a politician? Really, I'm sick of pointing this out all the time. Maybe when you finally take a break from passing judgment on others long distance, you'll finally notice your own faults. You can hide all your faults very nicely when there's someone just waiting to be pointed out as evil. Maybe that's where all this righteous indignation is coming from.

Kyle?, basically your arguement is that no Senator can make a racist comment (or be a racist) because he would get in so much trouble if he did make a racist comment.

Well, isn't this proving your point? He is getting in a lot of trouble.

You are saying that he can make a mistake in being perceived as a racist but he can not make the mistake of revealing his racism. You are dismissing even the possibility of one kind mistake while admitting he made another kind of mistake. That seems like faulty reasoning to me.

Or, maybe you think it is impossible for a US Senator to be racist. We have seen Presidents break plenty of laws (the last one that did not break a law was Carter, I think), have affairs, etc. Other representatives from congress Judges, police, FBI, CIA do all sorts of smarmy things. They are us. So it is clearly not impossible for Lott to be a racist. It's not even against the law to be a racist.

Yes it's "definitly uncool" that he basically said "Hey everybody, I'm a racist". He is the latest in a long line of politicians that have done and said stupid things when the cameras were on.

Stelliform

Dec 18, 2002, 05:43 PM

.....

Rower_CPU

Dec 18, 2002, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Stelliform
<snip>
Mabey we can get the opinion of a person with ethnicity who has travelled the country to give his/her 2 cents.

Sorry, but I have to point out that everyone has ethnicity.

White people are typically decended from Europeans (i.e the Caucasus) and their ethnicity is caucasian.

Just beacuse we don't have rhythm doesn't mean we don't have ethnicity. ;)

PS. It's "maybe", not "mabey".

jelloshotsrule

Dec 18, 2002, 06:22 PM

i'm guessing he meant non honkey.

being a honkey, i do have ethnicity, just no rhythm. as rower said.

and i can't jump.

i'm small in the pants

etc. etc.

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 06:35 PM

I've said again and again that racism is inexcusable whether or not it's standard.

My point is that Lott's history can be explained in that light, not in any way trying to justify it. If the south has become less racist in the past ten to twenty years and the only thing you have solidly against him in that time frame is this one statement then you can reasonably assume that he is not a racist. Of course he could be a racist and if any evidence other than praise for a 100 year old senator on his b-day ever comes up I would agree. I just don't see how the Thurmond event makes him a racist.
Yes he could make the mistake of revealing his racism (assuming he's a racist) just as well as offering stupid praise. But do you think it's likely that he would. And my point continues to be that he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
And concerning the salem witch trials, do you cast doubt on the repentance of Cotton Mather (one of the judges). He expressed deep grief in having gotten caught up in the whole thing, which skewed his decision-making during the trials. He was truly repentant, suffering immense grief over his mistakes. What more can you ask? Can you not forgive?
In Lott's case, almost all of the events you quote as making him racist happened before the past 10 -20 years, a reasonable time frame for the general shift of the south away from racism. He has publicly refuted former views. Can you not see this?
And I'll say it again so pay attention here: Trent Lott may very well be a racist, he may only be refuting racism to hold onto his job, he may never have given it up, but his most current record seems to show that he has, and because of this I don't want to accuse him prematurely. I don't support or agree or believe in racism. It is wrong, evil, and wicked. I think Trent Lott has made a serious mistake in judgment whether or not his remark was racist and is not a good choice for GOP leadership. All I have ever said is that I do not feel that Lott's comment was meant to be racist. I find that to say that it is racist is not taking into consideration that he likely has had a change of heart regarding his past and is not giving him the benefit of the doubt, which anyone deserves.

jelloshotsrule

Dec 18, 2002, 06:57 PM

i agree with kyle i think

as i've said, i don't see the statement as a big deal. first off, it's pretty interpretive about whether it in and of itself IS racist... though i don't know the exact quote... and while i think it's oversimplifying somewhat, i do think that he wouldn't have said such a thing in public if it had the racist slant that everyone puts on it...

i'm not saying he's not a racist.

i'm saying, if he was a racist before this statement as everyone is saying (and i won't disagree with per se), then why just call him on it now? yeah, this brings it to the light, but this event in itself doesn't carry the weight the rest of the stuff being brought up carries...

i guess the only way i can put a rationale on it is, no one knew he was STILL racist.... and if that's the case, i still don't think that can be drawn from statement x.

if there were some pretty recent, stronger evidence, then i'd say that would be enough to go on. and to get over this particular speech.

SPG

Dec 18, 2002, 07:20 PM

"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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40867-2002Dec11.html

Thurmond of course was running as a Dixiecrat, a sole position party...segregation.
Lott has consistently entertained the CCC, a "white rights" group throughout the past decade, even appearing on their newsletter's cover.

now, for a comment in 2001:
"Yes...he should have been elected in 1947...or 1948, it was" once again referring to Thurman's Dixiecrat campaign.

http://www.thismodernworld.com/weblog/mtarchives/week_2002_12_08.html#000043

Look up Lott's voting record and tell me a single instance where he voted in favor of anything directly benefitting minorities.

jelloshotsrule

Dec 18, 2002, 07:22 PM

thanks for the info

again, by all means, i don't disagree he's a racist.

i disagree that this particular statement is such a huge deal.

and as such, if he is such a racist, why not piss on him earlier about it?

Chomolungma

Dec 18, 2002, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
thanks for the info

again, by all means, i don't disagree he's a racist.

i disagree that this particular statement is such a huge deal.

and as such, if he is such a racist, why not piss on him earlier about it?

It is a big deal when you are the target of hate (albeit, not direct). Why am I not surprise that minorities like myself are more vocal about this than a typical white American. I got a feeling some people will miss what I say here, and worse dismiss it as BS.

Stelliform

Dec 18, 2002, 07:51 PM

.....

jelloshotsrule

Dec 18, 2002, 07:54 PM

again, i am NOT saying he's not a racist. and i am not racist myself. and i'm a big equal rights supporter.

what i'm saying is that you have to read into his statement to be too offended by it in my opinion.

that said, you're right. as a typical white american, i cannot put myself in your shoes 100%. that's not a fault however, it's just human nature.

although i'd argue, the "typical white male" is pretty much apathetic towards it all. while i'm engaging in discussion and trying to see everyone's side.

also, the typical white male is a republican or democrat. i'm not.

painting broadstrokes doesn't work for much.

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 08:14 PM

just wait until the news and current events magazines get read over the next few days

being a moderate democrat, i see the press in general as too liberal at times and this maybe a case of political assasination in the case of trent lott

after the magazines like time and newsweek, there will be a backlash from the small conservative media and perhaps from the moderate voice of fox news

a debate will ensue, most likely, and like one poster mentioned, if all that comes out of this debate is dialogue and understanding, then that will be a good thing

i have a hard time with the hard right who call themselves christians, of which some are and some are not, because of what i perceive as a national hijacking of a most treasured spirituality and beauty in the message of christ

again, i say let lott step down from the senate majority leader spot but keep his senate seat...he was, after all, voted into his senate seat and he should be able to finish out his current term, regardless of how unpopular his opinions may be the the masses

daveg5

Dec 18, 2002, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU

Just curious as to how you substantiate the claim that BET is a "completely racist network"...

Targetting an ethnic group for your programming is hardly racist. Somewhat exclusionary? Yes. Racist? No.

i may be mistaken but i thought BET was sold years ago to phillips/polygram a mostly white company i watched a little bit and they had as many white people on as foxnews has blacks

SPG

Dec 18, 2002, 09:27 PM

Let's break this down again:
"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."

I interpret this as saying that Trent Lott supported, and was proud to support the presidential run of a segregationist on a segregationist ticket and that if said segregationist won the country would be better off for the segregationist policies that would have resulted.
Am I off here? How do you interpret the meaning of the statement?
I think it is a reach to believe that it was simply meant to be a praise of a man's run for the presidency without supporting the man's single issue ticket.
I'm a white guy, so I don't think I have the grounds to claim how insulting a statement it is firsthand, but I think it speaks volumes on the hidden racism masquerading as "state's rights", "level playing field", "no quotas", and "no big government" aka: Segregation, anti affirmative action, discrimination, and no social services.

And Jello, the reason nobody called him on the earlier statements in the bigger press was because he was only one of many Senators, now he is the chosen Majority Leader of the Senate...big difference.

daveg5

Dec 18, 2002, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Backtothemac
I love how people from the North associate the south with racism. Racism in not geographic, nor isolated from any region. In fact, in my travels, I have found Northern states to be far more racist than the states in the south. At the very least down here if someone is stupid enough to be racist. They let you know. It isn't hidden, and thus not as dangerous.
I could not agree more, I live in Milwaukee WI area, which has top the national charts many times as being the most segregated large city, Racism exsist big time here and is very well hidden, for instance i have personally seen a young cop pull his revolver out and almost shoot 2 minority kids outside a convience store for basically playing thier boombox 2 loud. and quite a few others and myself were just a few feet away. he might not have been racist but I think if there was not a crowd those 2 might have been shot, my best friends mom was looking for an apartment in Brookfield, 99.9% white they were shown it after a black guy in a buisness suit with a BMW and the landlord went on and on about how they wanted to keep the area white when it was there turn, racist police parties in this area were legendary. but you can still get a cab, there is a lot of crime insome of the fatherless low income urban neiborhood but many are pretty good, some kids just beat a man to death, and who could forget Jeffry Dahmer undercover loan applying and home buying so that if you have color and its seen then you are treated mean. Anyway I was sort of on Lotts side until I saw the interview and a collection of reports of him saying the same thing many times before not to mention some obvious racial statements for Bob Jones U. interracial policy and affiliations with white supremeist groups. I now feel that in his heart he believes what he said because no one asked him to make such comments they seem to come giddily from his heart, i hope i am wrong though and his apoligizing is not only to appease the president and stay in power, not because he means it, Robert Byrd was just as bad but apologized before many had even read his remarks. and wasnt so close in the line of succession. Heck even Lymdon Johnson made racial statements in the whitehouse. our country's not so distant pass is not a pretty sight when looked at from indian, or black or japenese eyes, we have yet to truly apologize and make up for those past transgressions and until we do from the top down with some type of repayment not necessarily money (affirmative action not lotts definition or something else) to help get rid of the distrust and despair it will continually come back to haunt us.
I do believe in forgivness if the repentance was genuine and some type of punishment or payback or goodwill gesture is given. which may or may not be happening in this case.

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 10:00 PM

Well, when you run for president, you'll often have a key platform - in Thurmond's case in 1948, segregation - and many other issues you emphasize. I'm guessing Lott was referring to these. Overall, I don't think he meant too much by the remark in the first place. Regardless, it was a very stupid remark, I just don't see Lott being so stupid as to imply any real racism by it.

I had hoped not to get into a major discussion about this, but when I was continually told that it was impossible to see this remark as anything but racist and was accused of supporting racists, I felt the need to defend myself. Just to clarify once again so I don't have to go through this anymore, Trent Lott could very well be a racist, I just don't feel that his statement at Thurmond's birthday party was meant with any racism in mind.

daveg5

Dec 18, 2002, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by alex_ant
Everybody knows the negroes have done nothing but cause problems and should have been sent back to Africa while their numbers were still small.
Wow! Did you actually write this, Do you really believe it. it's the same thing Gov. George Wallace said and even he recanted. who's definition of problems are you using, Slave owner or slave or indian. does not each race have good and bad people in them and are not many in many blacks the genes of thier white slave owners like Jefferson and washington, oh they will rather not admit it. when were their numbers smile, I thought they outnumbered the whites in the south at one time.
I am sure that if you ask any group of who has caused all these problems, your awnser will be dependant on which group you ask or which news organization you get your news from.
That is a bold statement and you have a right to your opinion, I am just glad you are not in a leadership role in gov or a boss at a business as it seems you would not give a minority a chance to advance. the nazi's had such views toward the jews, it is not healthy for our melting pot especially now as we and our arm forces come together to fight terrorism{not Iraq)
Peace Out

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 10:29 PM

I think you can rightly assume by the lack of harsh and immediate criticism by everyone reading this thread that that statement was meant to be extremely sarcastic.

daveg5

Dec 18, 2002, 10:31 PM

What is your definition of a racist ,(not websters or heritage)

daveg5

Dec 18, 2002, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Kyle?
I think you can rightly assume that the lack of harsh and immediate criticism by everyone reading this thread that that statement was meant to be extremely sarcastic.
yea i just came to that conclusion after read more of the thread however i would like to hear from its author to make 4 sure. Any statement like that sarcasstic or not(when not none as off color jokes are usually the funniest if its exspected and everyone is in on it) needs a swift reply .
And i thought i would do just that as a newbie may see it and see the lack of reply and deem us all racist.

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 10:39 PM

Can you wait till Friday night? I have really got to study for finals.

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Kyle?
Just to clarify once again so I don't have to go through this anymore, Trent Lott could very well be a racist, I just don't feel that his statement at Thurmond's birthday party was meant with any racism in mind.

that statement taken alone may not be racist...it seems 50/50

but in context to his continous racist remarks and statements covering nearly five decades, then the context of that statement makes it look good enough to say that lott is likely a racist

the best thing for the gop would be for them to choose a more moderate, less controversial leader for the senate

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 10:51 PM

Just to clarify once again so I don't have to go through this anymore.
I'm not saying anything else about Trent Lott in particular.

jefhatfield

Dec 18, 2002, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Kyle?

I'm not saying anything else about Trent Lott in particular.

it's been a wild political ride with this thread and reminiscent of the old days here with mcrain and me vs. backtothemac with jello putting in a good word for the third party

good luck on finals;)

i just finished the one final i had in computer science and i am done for the year

kylos

Dec 18, 2002, 11:00 PM

Yeah, I've got 4 in the next two days(I'll explain later).

SPG

Dec 18, 2002, 11:23 PM

In the context of alex_ant's previous posts, and on the views he's stated before on these forums it is very safe to say that the comment was intended as saracastic overkill. alex_ant can say what he said to illustrate a point and not worry too much that he would be labeled a racist and that the label would stick.
If Lott, on the other hand, would have made that comment then he would be judged in the context of his voting record and his other statements, and would probably be judged to be a racist.
The interpretation of Thurmond's presidential run is a symbol. It represents and is mentioned as one thing, and one thing only...an attempt to stop integration and the civil rights movement through the enforcement of segregation laws. The Dixiecrats stood for it and made it the sole focus of their platform. So what was Lott referring to outside that? The Dixiecrats views on foreign relations? Their economic plan?
Come on Kyle, stop trying to be a contrarian for the sake of it. This is a pretty clear cut case and the only doubt left would not fit in to the "reasonable doubt" realm.

Oh yeah, I hear the Flat Earth Society is looking for a new spokesman. Kyle, you interested?:D

jelloshotsrule

Dec 18, 2002, 11:27 PM

spg. he's a racist. i hear ya

i didn't know that thurmond's ticket was based on segregation... never knew that

i'll chalk that one up to being a youngin. ;)

so now that i'm back on your side, let's go bust some corporations and mess up some honkeys!

and i can attest that alex's post was entirely sarcastic, as he is quite the opposite. he just is a prick and takes time to grow on you.

daveg5

Dec 18, 2002, 11:41 PM

thanks guys, you are must likely correct, however i think the ant can and will speak for himself if for only the reason to be even more sarcastic.
peace out

SPG

Dec 19, 2002, 12:03 AM

Yeeeeehaaaa! jello I'm with ya! I'm flying out tonight and will be at JFK in the morning, so hell yeah! Let's go bust up them corporations and mess up them...hey wait a minute, I am a honkey. Oh well, I guess I'll just go and hang out in Brooklyn and eat some pizza. I was almost backing your bust up the corporations and mess up the honkeys platform, but unfortunately you lost my vote as I, like most voters, am only interested in backing what will help me personally, a honkey.

kylos

Dec 19, 2002, 12:42 AM

drastik

Dec 19, 2002, 12:51 AM

Pepzhez

Dec 19, 2002, 12:59 AM

For clarity's sake, a recap of Trent Lott's career highlights (courtesy of the latest issue of the Village Voice):

1978: Leads fight to restore the citizenship of Confederacy president Jefferson Davis, lost when Davis bolted the Union.

1980: Salivating all over Thurmond at a Reagan rally, Lott says, "You know, if we had elected that man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."

1981: Fights to keep Bob Jones University tax-exempt, saying, "Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy."

1982: Votes not to extend the Voting Rights Act.

1982: Attends Mississippi White Citizens Council banquet as a guest of honor.

1983: Votes against national Martin Luther King holiday.

1984: Tells Sons of Confederate Veterans that "the spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform."

1990: Votes against amendment to the Civil Rights Act banning workplace discrimination.

1991: Addresses Mississippi chapter of the Council of Concerned Citizens.

1992: Praises the council in keynote speech to its annual convention, saying, "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."

1994: Votes to defund MLK Day commission.

1994: Attends a council banquet in his honor.

1995: Again addresses the council.

1990-98: Writes occasional column for the council's newspaper.

1997: Photographed with council leaders, who use his endorsement for recruiting.

1998: Attends council banquet honoring him.

2002: Council Web site banners pic of smiling Lott under the headline, "A Lott of Courage," and tells members, "Lott Needs Your Support."

2002: At Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Lott declares: "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."

krossfyter

Dec 19, 2002, 01:11 AM

all your racism are belong to us

Rower_CPU

Dec 19, 2002, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by krossfyter
all your racism are belong to us

este vato...:D

Oh, jello and SPG, I find the term "honky" to be demeaning and degrading and am shocked and horrified that anyone would be allowed to wantonly bandy about such a hate-laden word.

If you must use such terms, please use "cracker" or "redneck" or "hayseed" or "gomer" or...

jelloshotsrule

Dec 19, 2002, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by drastik
Drastik in 2016!

you don't ACTUALLY think you can defeath the pants pissers, right? i mean, come on. we piss our pants on live tv.....

that said, why not join us??? eh? eh?

spg and rower-. i too am a cracker. and there's nothing i'd rather do than spread a little "peanut butter" (ie, whoop ass) on some "crackers" (ie, white folk)

booyah!

SPG

Dec 19, 2002, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Kyle?

Like I said before, I'm done discussing Trent Lott. I've only reiterated myself 10 or 15 times and yet you still don't get what I'm saying. It's obvious you're not very good at comprehension of tough subject matter. That flat earth stereotypification shows that you have to oversimplify things to get your mind around them. You just don't get it.

No Kyle, YOU just don't get it. You refuse to yield an inch on this despite being given more an dmore evidence that your earlier opinion was wrong. It's okay to be wrong every once in a while, accept it and move on. Don't just defend your position for the sake of your position, unless of course you are a Trent Lott apologist or you truly believe that the man is not a racist and have evidence or arguments to support this view.
My personal attack on you, re: the flat earth thing, was to illustrate that I feel you are fighting a hopeless, erroneous cause.

jefhatfield

Dec 19, 2002, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by SPG

No Kyle, YOU just don't get it. You refuse to yield an inch on this despite being given more an dmore evidence that your earlier opinion was wrong. It's okay to be wrong every once in a while, accept it and move on. Don't just defend your position for the sake of your position, unless of course you are a Trent Lott apologist or you truly believe that the man is not a racist and have evidence or arguments to support this view.
My personal attack on you, re: the flat earth thing, was to illustrate that I feel you are fighting a hopeless, erroneous cause.

being a christian, i am appalled at the number of fellow christians who don't believe in evolution and believe the earth is but a few thousand years old...the evidence or truth of the issue never got in their way...their insistence on medieval catholic superstition is a bad witness for their other message of accepting christ...they are doing a grand job in smearing the name of god

as an educated person and a minority, i know when i see a racist and the kkk and nazis have got a foothold in the christian right and the christian right and people like reverend phelps in his hate laden messages deny any wrongdoing

christianity in america is fast becoming a cult so far from the true message of jesus christ

my pastor once told the congregation, if christ tried to enter most american churches today, he would be escorted out...btw...the policy of my church is real simple...shirt and shoes not required:)

wdlove

Dec 19, 2002, 05:26 PM

My pastor majored in science prior to entering seminary, now has a PhD. He's and OT scholar. Stated that the theory of Creation and the Bible are compatable.

Rower_CPU

Dec 19, 2002, 05:29 PM

Chomolungma

Dec 19, 2002, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by jefhatfield

being a christian, i am appalled at the number of fellow christians who don't believe in evolution and believe the earth is but a few thousand years old...the evidence or truth of the issue never got in their way...their insistence on medieval catholic superstition is a bad witness for their other message of accepting christ...they are doing a grand job in smearing the name of god

as an educated person and a minority, i know when i see a racist and the kkk and nazis have got a foothold in the christian right and the christian right and people like reverend phelps in his hate laden messages deny any wrongdoing

christianity in america is fast becoming a cult so far from the true message of jesus christ

my pastor once told the congregation, if christ tried to enter most american churches today, he would be escorted out...btw...the policy of my church is real simple...shirt and shoes not required:)

I agree with you, however, I think "understanding molecular and biological evolution" is a better way to put it (just opinion). Believing in something often time conjure up the idea of "leap of faith", and in our current understanding of evolution it requires no quantum leap in intelligent to understand it.

jelloshotsrule

Dec 19, 2002, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Of course they are. ;)

Evolution on the other hand...

evolution and the bible work. least in my book

brah.

Rower_CPU

Dec 19, 2002, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
evolution and the bible work. least in my book

brah.

I doubt very much that your book is the same as that of many Christians/Catholics.

Based on personal experience, I've come across few people who have managed to reconcile Creationsim and Evolution and who believe in both.

jelloshotsrule

Dec 19, 2002, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
I doubt very much that your book is the same as that of many Christians/Catholics.

Based on personal experience, I've come across few people who have managed to reconcile Creationsim and Evolution and who believe in both.

yeah, but not all

and evolution i believe WAS discussed in my catholic high school. possibly only as a "theory". which it is. but i don't remember much.. me being all artsy and stuff. ha

it's all about "7 days" not actually being 7 days....

Chomolungma

Dec 20, 2002, 10:10 AM

I believe it was in the early nineties the The Pope made it official, telling his flock that evolution is congruence with the Church's teaching. Catholic schools are among the best at teaching evolution (much better than public schools I'm afraid). Few evangelical fanatics out there still oppose this and their motives were described by jef.

I think this forum should end...we got totally off track. Be that as it may, we can certainly start another board.

:D

jefhatfield

Dec 20, 2002, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by wdlove
My pastor majored in science prior to entering seminary, now has a PhD. He's and OT scholar. Stated that the theory of Creation and the Bible are compatable.

one of the great teachers in had in school was insistent on the belief that the world was flat because the bible suggested it just like it suggests the earth is really just as old as the arabs of ur in the old testament

from ur came a group of nomads which eventually became the jews of today

when i witness to non-christians, i don't try and tell them the earth is still new or that the earth "four corners of the world" statement from the bible is flat

the one thing i learned in seminary is that the key is to have non-believers look at the message of something that is historically proven...that there was this 30-ish jewish carpenter who was executed and showed up a couple of days later and that his name was jesus and he was the savior of the world for its sins

so i don't doubt that there are educated people who believe in a flat earth, new earth, or any other non proven theory

evolution is also a theory but with a lot more science to back it up

with science, and politics, i leave it out of my evangelism...my goal is not to alienate most educated people or most moderates and liberals

my fear is that it's become the christian white...racist, mostly southern, and largely uneducated...that leaves out a lot of people who don't fit that mold who will not hear the message of jesus as he wanted it to be heard

jesus preached to everybody and even some of his followers were shocked because they thought the message was only for israel...and today, chirstianity is not for southern white republicans only, but the whole world

as reverend phelps of the white supremist christian identity movement and bob jones university with its ties to the klan gain power in american christianity, the religion in the usa gets marginalized into a cult of wrongdoing

centuries ago during the crusades, christianity got marginalized into a power hungry, gold hungry expedition not being the best witness for christ

we are humans and this explains why the church is never perfect...but we must try and keep the message close to what is was originally about

god bless everyone

jelloshotsrule

Dec 20, 2002, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by jefhatfield
the one thing i learned in seminary is that the key is to have non-believers look at the message of something that is historically proven...that there was this 30-ish jewish carpenter who was executed and showed up a couple of days later and that his name was jesus and he was the savior of the world for its sins

is it really proven historically that he showed up and saved sins, etc? i think that's where the faith comes in. ;)

jefhatfield

Dec 20, 2002, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule

is it really proven historically that he showed up and saved sins, etc? i think that's where the faith comes in. ;)

faith definitely drives the religion of christianity...but there were over 500 witnesses to having seen christ killed and resurrected

even roman scholars critical of christinity and sworn enemies of christ attested to his resurrection

nobody was around over 4,000-5,000 years ago to prove an old, old earth...hey wait, my ancestors, the chinese were there ;)

but i am sure some white, evangelical conservatives don't consider a chinaman like me a real human being worthy of salvation:p

jelloshotsrule

Dec 20, 2002, 10:30 AM

ok. but the saving of sins part was certainly tossed in. ;)

i took a class about the history of ancient israel. used the bible as well as other texts. too bad i am not good at remembering stuff. ha

jefhatfield

Dec 20, 2002, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
ok. but the saving of sins part was certainly tossed in. ;)

i took a class about the history of ancient israel. used the bible as well as other texts. too bad i am not good at remembering stuff. ha

the jews at the time were in bondage from the romans...there were many that thought the messiah was supposed to be a military leader to bail israel out politically

and from the verses in the old testament referring to jesus the messiah, both literally and in code (the hebrew of the time was great for concealing hidden codes), one could have believed in a political messiah

but the faith based side of judaism could see a more peaceful and loving side to the messiah...to forgive the world...not start a military and cut the heads off of the enemies

christ was peaceful and claimed to be god, not a military leader...and his movement was about love, not war

Rower_CPU

Dec 20, 2002, 10:45 AM

Back on topic...

Lott's resigning from the majority leader position.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/20/lott.controversy/index.html

jefhatfield

Dec 20, 2002, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Back on topic...

Lott's resigning from the majority leader position.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/12/20/lott.controversy/index.html

yes, i was going to mention that but i got off topic

mention jesus, then i become an evangelist

mention laptops, then i become an...evangelist

mention monty python....oops....you didn't hear that last part:p :p :p

drastik

Dec 20, 2002, 11:16 AM

The big fish to replace him is Bill Frist. This would be interesting as Frist has publicly said he won't sek reelection.

I know Bill Frist to speak to, and he is a good and decent man. I would upport this. My only concern is his role in national healthcare. Anybody from Nashville knows the Frist family want to be Southern Kennedys. They are one of our most wealthy and powerful families (right behind the Ingrams with their publishing empire, and they really aren't political, who I also happen to know. John Ingram is pretty down to earth for a guy that inherited half a billion dollars at 30). What we also know, and I think the rest of the country forgets, is that the Frists ade their money not in brain surgery alone, but in private Healthcare, namely HCA. Healthcare is big business in this town, so it gets a close examination, and what do you know, there were shady deals at HCA.

It just seems like conflict of interest. Otherwise, go Bill.

Chomolungma

Dec 20, 2002, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by drastik
The big fish to replace him is Bill Frist. This would be interesting as Frist has publicly said he won't sek reelection.

I know Bill Frist to speak to, and he is a good and decent man. I would upport this. My only concern is his role in national healthcare. Anybody from Nashville knows the Frist family want to be Southern Kennedys. They are one of our most wealthy and powerful families (right behind the Ingrams with their publishing empire, and they really aren't political, who I also happen to know. John Ingram is pretty down to earth for a guy that inherited half a billion dollars at 30). What we also know, and I think the rest of the country forgets, is that the Frists ade their money not in brain surgery alone, but in private Healthcare, namely HCA. Healthcare is big business in this town, so it gets a close examination, and what do you know, there were shady deals at HCA.

It just seems like conflict of interest. Otherwise, go Bill.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think shady deals in business today are nothing new.

jefhatfield

Dec 20, 2002, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Chomolungma

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think shady deals in business today are nothing new.

i am sure the democrats will try and down this guy, too since they are on a roll

first, the dems win in lousiana

then they, rightly so, go after trent lott

now people here are already saying stuff against frist...just think what the democrats and the press will do if drastik's comment on frist and healthcare are accurate

i hope the republicans get the cleanest, more decent senator they have to run their party in the senate

sometimes scandals are blown way out of proportion, but i think going after lott, as painful as it may have been for the gop, was the right thing to do

when democrat gary condit was attacked and thus ended his political career, the press had the right to go after him

but in the case of the press crucifying the vice president cheney for his conservative voting record in wyoming or going after the former president clinton with lewinsky making it look like watergate...were both examples of an issue blown way out of proportion

sometimes the press helps a good cause for gop and dems alike, but sometimes the press make false accusations or take the facts out of context

jelloshotsrule

Dec 20, 2002, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Chomolungma
Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think shady deals in business today are nothing new.

that doesn't make it acceptable.

drastik

Dec 20, 2002, 12:30 PM

I think you missunderstood.

I do think that Frist would make a good majority leader. To be fair, the problems with HCa have never directly involved Bill Frist. It was his families business, mainly his brother and father. My point was that he has some ties to private healthcare that could create a conflict of interest in that since. On the other hand, he is the only MD in the Congress, which gives him a better understand of healthcare than anyone else.

Conflicts of interest can be overcome if the person is decent and forthcomming and honest. Fred Thompson, also a Nashville boy, is a former lawyer turned actor turned politician turned actor again. His connection to the legal community could have posed a conflict with his seat on the Intelligence Commitee, but he was a good leader and effective none the less.

Sometimes possible conflicts of interest are not bad. Sometimes they are (read: only oil-man allowed to ave Iraqi oil contracts during the embargo makes the countries energy policy and then won't tell us who he consulted about it.)