Your Racist Friend

Back in 2002, Trent Lott said:

I want to say this about my state: when Strom Thurmond ran for President, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.

In response, a lot of people got upset, including Senator Gordon Smith, Republican of Oregon who, as Sam Stein reminds us said:

However they were intended, Senator Lott's words were offensive and I was deeply dismayed to hear of them. His statement goes against everything I and the people of Oregon believe in. I look forward to working with my Republican colleagues to arrive at a decision that is best for the U.S. Senate and the country.

Greg Sargent even has Smith getting more specific, saying after Lott stepped down from his leadership post that "Senator Lott's decision is best for the Senate and best for the country." Smith was right to be glad to see Lott go. Strom Thurmond's 1948 campaign was based on repugnant principles: "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race."

Now, though, Smith regrets the whole thing:

I was half way around the world when an event befell Trent Lott that shook me deeply. I was celebrating my re-election and on vacation. I watched over international news as his words were misconstrued, words which we had heard him utter many times in his big warm-heartedness trying to make one of our colleagues, Strom Thurmond, feel good at 100 years old. We knew what he meant. But the wolfpack of the press circled around him, sensed blood in the water, and the exigencies of politics caused a great injustice.

No doubt that was Lott trying to make Thurmond "feel good" rather than intending to seriously consider the historical counterfactual in which Thurmond's white supremacist ticket won in 1948. That said, what he was more specifically trying to do was make Thurmond feel good about his role as a leading white supremacist. Robert Byrd, for example, used to be in the Klan and has now changed his ways. One might try to make him feel good by saying nice about him. Nothing wrong with that. But you wouldn't specifically praise him as a Klan leader.

Unless, that is, you were a racist.

Meanwhile, with regard to both Lott and now to Smith, it should be said that indifference to racism is, when taken to these levels, itself a form of racism. Nobody who took the interests or attitudes of black people seriously would be saying this stuff.

Comments

Can't shake Strom Thurmond's hand and say you're only kidding.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | December 19, 2007 9:03 AM

This is where the dixiecrat party ends.

Posted by crack | December 19, 2007 9:14 AM

At least their crude racism is out front and confrontable. It seems to me there is something more ugly and insidious going on in the democratic party right now. I found this post via Rikyrah at www.jackandjillpolitics.blogspot.com -- she found it posted by a commenter on Daily Kos. I re-post it here with thanks to the original commenter -- I don't know who you are, but you've said something very important that people need to hear:

"Bell Hooks, in one of her many brilliant writings, said "Beware the liberal walking beside you." I understood the meaning of the words clearly enough when I studied hooks a decade ago, but I was living in Canada then, and didn't understand the raw guts of the thing.

Now I do.

The academic term for what Hillary, Kerrey et al (including the media) are doing is reinscription - the reinscribing of racial stereotypes. That's what the "just saying what other people are going to say!" thing is called. Think of it as drumming racism into our heads so it stays there. Here's another one - "I'm just describing reality, the way things really are." Bob Kerrey's "I meant it in a good way" comment is classic. It's like "Jews are good with money." (Kerrey actually lied tonight, by the way, in saying that Obama attended a secular madrassa. There is no such thing, as he well knows. But he wanted the word madrassa in there.)

They're trying to make us fear Obama on a subconscious level, so we hesitate, so we "feel" that there is something that just doesn’t "feel" right....

And they're trying to make Democrats fear the big, bad xenophobic Republicans.

But Conservatives have no monopoly on xenophobia.

hooks warned against liberals for good reason. There is power in feeling oneself to be "one of the good guys." We like that. We like to think that those other guys are racist, but we're not. We’re the heroes! We like black people! We want black people to get ahead!

Alas, we don't want them to get ahead of us. Subconsciously, we "feel" that Obama should know his place. We'll march beside, him but heaven forbid he leads! We’re being nice to him, he should respect that and know his place. These are feelings, not thoughts.

It's all about how many degrees of difference there are between us and the "other" that we perceive. White males still rule this country, much more than we know. It's all about the mind. White females are one step removed from the white male subject, and Hillary has her own difficulties on that score. But black men are further away, because race is even more different than gender, and blackness creates even more fear in white men than femaleness.

It's all about power and fear. We fear what is different, and we can’t grant power to that which we fear. The Clintons, more ruthless than Karl Rove in his own wet dreams, are capitalizing on that fear."

Posted by donna L. | December 19, 2007 9:16 AM

I can't stand here listening to you, and Strom Thurmond.

Posted by crack | December 19, 2007 9:17 AM

"That said, what he was more specifically trying to do was make Thurmond feel good about his role as a leading white supremacist."

How do you know this?

"Robert Byrd, for example, used to be in the Klan and has now changed his ways. One might try to make him feel good by saying nice about him. Nothing wrong with that. But you wouldn't specifically praise him as a Klan leader.
Unless, that is, you were a racist."

Here is Chris Dodd praising Robert Byrd on the Senate floor back in April of 2004:

“It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. ROBERT C. BYRD, in my view, would have been right at any time. He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this Nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century. I cannot think of a single moment in this Nation’s 220-plus year history where he would not have been a valuable asset to this country. Certainly today that is not any less true.”

Was Robert Byrd a valuable asset to the country when he was a Kleagle and Exalted Cyclops in the KKK? Was he right for the country when he filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Is Dodd's apparent indifference to this part of Byrd's life an indication that he is a racist?

Posted by torourke | December 19, 2007 9:27 AM

That said, what he was more specifically trying to do was make Thurmond feel good about his role as a leading white supremacist.

It would be so nice to possess Matt's mind reading ability.

I mean seriously, the old geezer was 180 years old. Can't you imagine yourself extemporaneously mouthing some meaningless bromide about an old guy's life and having your remarks misinterpreted? Lott was a pretty execrable senator, but on this, at least, I thought he got a raw deal.

Posted by Lefty | December 19, 2007 9:31 AM

And yet you ignore former KKK member Robert Byrd - and if he's reformed, I'm the queen of Romania. At least Republicans raised a stink about Lott; the left willfully ignores racists like Byrd.

Posted by James Robertson | December 19, 2007 9:33 AM

it should be said that indifference to racism is, when taken to these levels, itself a form of racism. Nobody who took the interests or attitudes of black people seriously would be saying this stuff.

Well put.

Posted by Antid Oto | December 19, 2007 9:34 AM

it should be said that indifference to racism is, when taken to these levels, itself a form of racism. Nobody who took the interests or attitudes of black people seriously would be saying this stuff.

Well put.

Posted by Antid Oto | December 19, 2007 9:35 AM

Little Old Lady: Good evening Sheriff.
Sheriff Bart: Good evening.
Lady: Sorry about the 'Up yours, nigger.'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thankfully Mel Brooks doesn't have to deal with all this.

Posted by steve duncan | December 19, 2007 9:35 AM

Can't you imagine yourself extemporaneously mouthing some meaningless bromide about an old guy's life and having your remarks misinterpreted?

It wasn't a meaningless bromide about Thurmond's life, it was a meaningless bromide about Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, in which the sole plank of his platform was white supremacy. If Lott had uttered some bland platitudes about Thurmond's accomplishment-free senatorial career, there never would have been a controversy. But Lott chose to laud the Dixiecrat campaign, and reaped the consequences.

Posted by Gabriel | December 19, 2007 9:45 AM

James Robertson: And yet you ignore former KKK member Robert Byrd - and if he's reformed, I'm the queen of Romania.

No, you're not the queen of Romania. However, you are very, very, very stupid.

One thing the Bush years and blogs have made clear is that America has oceans of extraordinarily stupid conservatives. I keep thinking "This can't be the real face of conservatism!" And yet there it is, with James Robertson's bovine visage, staring at us as it contently chews its Robert Byrd cud.

Posted by 65432 | December 19, 2007 9:56 AM

...and you say these are Republicans repeatedly making these ugly, thinly veiled racist remarks. Huh. Who'da thunk it?

Posted by ed | December 19, 2007 10:02 AM

the left willfully ignores racists like Byrd

Exactly.

As far as I can tell, bigotry is even MORE prevalent on the Left than on the Right.

You've got out and out racists like Joe Biden actually competing in the Democratic primary, for example.

And then you come to religious bigotry, which John Edwards endorses - remember the whole episode with the bigoted bloggers employed by Edwards's campaign. Not only did Matthew endorse Edwards for President, but he actually endorsed Edwards retaining those bigoted bloggers.

Posted by Al | December 19, 2007 10:03 AM

If you watch the video of Trent Lott making the comments at Thurmond's birthday party, there is absolutely no doubt that he meant what he said. It wasn't a throwaway phrase, or a meaningless platitude. The look on his face, and the tone of his voice, displayed righteous indignation. He really believed what he said.
I'm a Republican, and I was glad to see him step down from leadership. (If I recall, the news media did not cover this at all until the blogosphere - including conservative blogs - began making a stink about it.) Lott seems to me to be the worst kind of stereotypical career politician.

Posted by anon republican | December 19, 2007 10:04 AM

And yet you ignore former KKK member Robert Byrd

True, if by "ignore" you mean "specifically address the subject of".

Moron.

As for Chris Dodd praising Robert Byrd, I agree he's on very thin ice. And yet what I see is a speaker going through some rhetorical contortions precisely to avoid praising the man Byrd used to be back in his KKK days. Notice Dodd never says Byrd "was right" -- it's always that he "would have been right" back in times when, in reality, he wasn't actually alive. (For the twentieth century, Dodd mentions only Byrd's suitability for facing the international challenges the U.S. faced -- not domestic ones.) Essentially he's trying to praise the man Byrd is now and pretend his actual past didn't happen. This is, of course, silly on one level -- Byrd past and Byrd present are not two different people -- but it's very different from pointedly bringing up a politician's former run for office on a racist platform, which is what Lott did in praising Thurmond.

Finally, as for this:

Alas, we don't want them to get ahead of us. Subconsciously, we "feel" that Obama should know his place. We'll march beside, him but heaven forbid he leads!

To borrow (but also, I trust, to subvert) the punchline of an old racist joke: What this 'we' shit, white man? You may "feel" this way but please don't include me in your "we".

Posted by Ryan | December 19, 2007 10:06 AM

if you say "happy holidays" instead of "merry Christmas" you are an enemy combatant in the war against Christians; but if you solute the archtype segregationist, and wish the country followed him ALONG HIS SPECIFICALLY RACIST SEGREGATIONIST PATH WHEN THAT WAS HIS ONLY PLANK, then you are just a poor misunderstood well-meaning Mississippian. Good old Gordon Smith.

Posted by della Rovere | December 19, 2007 10:21 AM

Lefty - Yes, in theory I can imagine "mouthing some meaningless bromide about an old guy's life." But Lott made this same exact statement over and over again at events year after year, about how we "wouldn't have had all these problems" if Thurmond had won in 1948. Look it up. It was not a misstatement or misconstrued thought at all. It was a clever and calculated way Lott had put together to sound like he was just being sweet to an old man even while blowing the "we're with you whistle" to the racists.

I don't know why it got everyone mad when it did, but I'm glad it happened.

Posted by Liberal Chris | December 19, 2007 10:31 AM

"As far as I can tell, bigotry is even MORE prevalent on the Left than on the Right.

You've got out and out racists like Joe Biden actually competing in the Democratic primary, for example.

And then you come to religious bigotry, which John Edwards endorses - remember the whole episode with the bigoted bloggers employed by Edwards's campaign. Not only did Matthew endorse Edwards for President, but he actually endorsed Edwards retaining those bigoted bloggers.

Posted by Al | December 19, 2007 10:03 AM"

Every single person who has a chance to win the Republican nomination is a bit of a bigot. All of them are homophobes. All of them have no respect for atheists. They all support policies that will lead to a lot of innocent Arabs and Muslims being tortured and killed just so that they can look manly. If you really want to talk about the racist shit that Hillary is spewing about Obama, I'll agree with you. Personally, I've gone from wanting to see Obama (or, failing that, Edwards) beat her to seeing her absolutely destroyed and leaving her career in tatters. A blogger who was kicked off the Edwards campaign is nothing compared to Giuliani time and Diallo, Double Guantanamo Mitt, etc. Edwards's blogger just said some mean things. Meanwhile, every Republican running for president not named Ron Paul is running on the basis of, in effect, killing as many Arabs and Muslims as possible. Don't you think minorities would be smart enough to not vote for the racist party or are we just too stupid to know what racism actually is and we need some white guy to spell it out for us? A majority of blacks, Latinos and Asians in America vote Democratic. Meanwhile, which party did the Dixiecrats (all except for Byrd, the fuck) flock to? Which is the party of the people scared of Mexicans and the Spanish language? The Democrats actually stand a good chance of nominating a black man for president. Wake me up when the Republicans come close to nominating someone who isn't a white Christian heterosexual male.

Posted by Reality Man | December 19, 2007 10:35 AM

As far as I can tell, bigotry is even MORE prevalent on the Left than on the Right.

Everyone on the planet has prejudices. The difference between left and right is that the right has to freak out and explain why their prejudices are grounded somehow in reality usually with the preface "I'm not a racist, but.."

Posted by Ed Marshall | December 19, 2007 10:41 AM

Wake me up when the Republicans come close to nominating someone who isn't a white Christian heterosexual male.

Well, wake up then, because they're pretty close to nominating Mitt Romney.

(Mostly joking, of course. I agree with most of what you say. But if Mormons are Christians then the latter term is meaningless. I say that as a member of neither group.)

Posted by Ryan | December 19, 2007 10:43 AM

"And then you come to religious bigotry, which John Edwards endorses - remember the whole episode with the bigoted bloggers employed by Edwards's campaign. Not only did Matthew endorse Edwards for President, but he actually endorsed Edwards retaining those bigoted bloggers."

Al,

How were those bloggers bigots? Yes, they harshly condemned the Roman Catholic Church's anti-contraceptive position as being anti-female, and accused the male-dominated clergy of having sexist motives for promoting this postion. You can reasonably assert that such arguments are impolite, distorted, unfair, uneducated or even unreasonable, but you can't reasonably assert that such arguments are bigoted against religion in general or against Catholics specifically. There is nothing inherently bigoted about condemning a religious position on birth control as being immoral, and expressing the feeling that such position is made in bad faith.

On the other hand, when the Tim LaHaye Protestant fundamentalist types preach that all Catholics are not true Christians, and will be sent to Hell when the Rapture comes, then you have truly bigoted arguments being made against Catholicism. Moreover, the great irony about Bill Donohue and other Catholic League types is that they go to great lengths to position themselves as defenders of the true Catholic faith against the hordes of secular humanists, and yet make political alliances with the Left Behind crowd, who are the most fiercely anti-Papist element in American society. Uncle Tom Catholics like Donohue have no standing to call anyone anti-Catholic, when their political allies consist of people who preach that the Roman Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon.

Posted by eltoro | December 19, 2007 10:55 AM

I've spent time in Pascagoula, MS where Lott lives. Talk about segregation. Rich white, poor black. Race seemed to cast a shadow over the entire town, I've never felt such palpable tension. It's the first place I've ever been called "Boss" by an old black man, which made me feel dirty (the 2nd place was in Charlotte, NC).

At any rate, judging by how his town is, based on my time there, Trent Lott is a down-home southern racist - it's just in his blood and he probably isn't a spiteful, hate-filled racist, more of the garden variety southern gentleman racist where he probably thinks he's really good to the colored folk and can't understand why they don't appreciate him more, after all, he got them a new drinking fountain for their side of the school (or something)!

Posted by Adam | December 19, 2007 11:02 AM

...Trent Lott is a down-home southern racist - it's just in his blood and he probably isn't a spiteful, hate-filled racist, more of the garden variety southern gentleman racist ...

Another mind reader like Matt. This one does blood tests, too.

Posted by Lefty | December 19, 2007 11:14 AM

Because you put liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, neo-con in front of someone doesn't give them the right to be racist or not in any circumstance.

I live in the South. I was also raised in the North. My mother is racist, she was raised in the north and is a conservative. My father is not racist, he was raised in the north and is a conservative.

Your upbringing is going to contribute heavily to your decision on whether you trust people or not. You can tell somebody that it's wrong to stereotype, it doesn't mean they have to stop.

Freewill is what is. People are going to abuse it as they see fit. Oh sure, it feels good to get on your pulpit and preach to us, but in the end it is each and everyone of our decisions to act how we do, repercussions aside. I act differently from my mother, Strom Thurmond, and Trent Lott, but that was my choice, none of yours.

Posted by Steve | December 19, 2007 11:33 AM

I'm sorry, but the "Trent Lott is a racist" doesn't pass the logic test, at least not with the information we have. We all know politicians, and we all know that they pretty much are all cut from the same cloth. That being that they will show up at popular places, say things that people want to hear without having any knowledge to back it up, smile a lot, shake hands, kiss babies, etc. It's all crowd control and popularity building.

A few things have been said regarding Lott that throw up logical red flags:

"That said, what he was more specifically trying to do was make Thurmond feel good about his role as a leading white supremacist."

This doesn't pass the logic test, because it would be political suicide. Racism, and the reaction to racism is mostly illogical. This isn't saying that it doesn't exist and that there isn't proof it doesn't exist, but when racism is encountered, the reaction is almost always to raise the alarm and damned be the consequences if you're wrong. Because of this, every politician instinctively knows to err on the side of attacking racism. It is more likely that Lott was just "kissing babies" by saying something nice about Thurmond than actively supporting racism.

"If you watch the video of Trent Lott making the comments at Thurmond's birthday party, there is absolutely no doubt that he meant what he said."

Again, he's a politician, their job is to make you believe what they say, even if they have no basis for saying it, or could intellectually defend it afterwards.

"But Lott made this same exact statement over and over again at events year after year, about how we "wouldn't have had all these problems" if Thurmond had won in 1948. Look it up. It was not a misstatement or misconstrued thought at all. It was a clever and calculated way Lott had put together to sound like he was just being sweet to an old man even while blowing the "we're with you whistle" to the racists."

I looked and looked, the only reference I could find was to him making the statement once before in 1980. Think about what is being said here. If I had to say something nice about someone, I'd look for their biggest accomplishment, or the highlight of their life. Running for President would qualify as a highlight in my opinion. Thurmond lost that race, so what do you say about someone who lost the race? Now toss in the fact that he's a politician, and being popular in his home state is how he keeps his job, he's going to say something about the highlight of the guest of honor's life, someone he probably doesn't know well enough to say something specifically nice, he's going to say, "I wish he won the presidency in an authoritative manner, get some applause, and hopefully have more people vote for him on election day.

The second part of your statement asserts that he was trying to play nice to racists. The fact is, he can play nice to racists without being overtly racist. He can imply that he's one of them in other matters, and let them infer racism or lack thereof on their own without losing points with them.

There's another fact as well. Politicians don't stand alone. Planned speeches, public events, public appearances, statements, etc., are all usually written out by someone else, reviewed and scanned for errors, etc. It is a rare senator that will actively decide to wing it and say something political without input from their staff, or at the very least without informing their staff of what they're going to say in general so that they can handle the cleanup afterwards. For Lott to do this intentionally, knowing it's political suicide to be found out, not only once, but multiple times, without having a cleanup plan afterwards is illogical. It doesn't pass the logic test in my book.

Is Trent Lott racist? Who knows, and maybe this event is comeuppance if he is, but this ambiguous statement was not a racist one.

Posted by Frog | December 19, 2007 11:55 AM

"wolfpack of the press circled around him, sensed blood in the water, "

Mixed metaphor = bad.

Posted by Oberon | December 19, 2007 12:16 PM

The key line in Matt's piece is: "Nobody who took the interests or attitudes of black people seriously would be saying this stuff."

It is undeniably true. Good riddance to guys like Lott. Their time passed a long time ago.

Posted by TheCarpetMuncher | December 19, 2007 12:41 PM

Why was this even brought up in the Senate yesterday?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Tons of bloggers bitch about the obvious, but I haven't yet seen anyone explain why three senators decided this was a more appropriate topic than any of the other pressing issues the country faces.

Posted by bubba | December 19, 2007 1:05 PM

You've got out and out racists like Joe Biden actually competing in the Democratic primary, for example.

Exactly. There's simply nothing comparable on the GOP side. I mean, you don't see racists like Rudy Giuliani getting much traction among the Republican party faithful, do you?

Of course not. The Republican Party is clearly not interested in bigots, and will have no truck with them. End of story.

Posted by spencer | December 19, 2007 1:12 PM

But if Mormons are Christians then the latter term is meaningless.

Christian: Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Mormon: A member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Were you possibly confusing Mormons with Buddhists?

Posted by Jinchi | December 19, 2007 2:01 PM

Were you possibly confusing Mormons with Buddhists?

Ah, no.

'Christian Science' and 'Scientology' sound a lot alike, too, but that doesn't make them so.

Islam recognizes Jesus as a prophet, too. Doesn't make it a branch of Christianity.

But my earlier comment had a drive-by quality that's unfair, and I'm about to log off for the day, so in lieu of a substantive argument on this subject I'll retract the comment and apologize to anyone offended by it.

Posted by Ryan | December 19, 2007 2:24 PM

That said, what he was more specifically trying to do was make Thurmond feel good about his role as a leading white supremacist. Robert Byrd, for example, used to be in the Klan and has now changed his ways.

What a stupid post.

Nobody who took the interests or attitudes of black people seriously would be saying this stuff.

Okay, 'Inconvenient Truth' time: no one who took the interests of African Americans seriously would support regressive gas taxes, poverty-targeting cigarette taxes, or drug prohibitions (including decriminalized prohibitions) that create violent, volatile black markets in African American communities.

Remember Matt, indifference to racism is racism.

Posted by Shinyk | December 19, 2007 2:42 PM

It takes a lot for a political comment nowadays to physically nauseate me, but by God Smith's statement managed it.

As for the ridiculous fight going on in this thread (why is Matt's site suddenly attracting so many weird people?), let's re-note the obvious, shall we? Lott specifically praised Thurmond's 1948 policy positions, and Smith is now defending him for doing so. Whether they did this because they personally believe in racism, or because they are enthusiastically willing to politically pander to racists, is a wee bit beside the point. Dodd's praise of Byrd was revolting enough -- Byrd as a perfect Civil War leader, when in 1944 he was writing letters to Sen. Bilbo saying that he'd work for Hitler if the latter would promise to retain segregation? -- but at least he didn't specifically praise Byrd's past racism, and Byrd himself has declared that he has changed his stripes on it, whereas Lott was bragging about NOT doing so.

(By the way, at the time -- in 1969 -- National Review DID specifically praise Byrd's racism. See the cute little verses on the subject by their official humorous poet and long-time sheet-wearer W.H. Von Dreele.)

What both Smith's and Dodd's comments really prove for the trillionth time, of course, is the total moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the World's Most Exclusive Club And Mutual Admiration Society Masquerading As A Deliberative Body.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 19, 2007 4:24 PM

Let me add that it's singularly surrealistic to see so many of Matt's new (and hopefully short-time) posters defending Lott for something that Kristol, Krauthammer and Will furiously attacked him for at the time. (See the Washington Post pieces of the time.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | December 19, 2007 4:28 PM

Lott was drunk when he said it and he was at the weirdest party in history -- a combination 100th birthday / retirement party. The other people who were there, like former Democratic Senator Paul Simon, didn't take what he said seriously. The situation was simply too ridiculous.

Instead, this was later played up by members of the Self-Righteous Right like David Frum and Andrew Sullivan as a bit of status-striving on their part to show how morally pure they are. Of course, they merely wanted Lott to resign his leadership position, not his Senate seat, since the latter could conceivably have cost the GOP control of the Senate. Death to Senate Majority Leader Lott. Long live Senator Lott!

Posted by Steve Sailer | December 19, 2007 7:02 PM

Why not pile on Lott?

Posted by Comment | December 19, 2007 7:29 PM

Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but Oregon Democratic Senate candidate Steve Novick was on Lars Larson's radio show discussing Smith's comments. Might be possible to find the clip online.

Posted by Anthony Cantor | December 19, 2007 8:50 PM

All right, enough of this crap. Trent Lott's very roots are in the deeply racist, deep south Dixiecrat party. He only switched when others of his generation were doing so. Everyone around his age, as I am, knows this. As for Robert Byrd, he was likewise a segregationist, and a steadfast one, in the 1960s; since then, however (and unlike Lott), he has indeed reformed--regardless of what other posters say--to the point where, on civil liberties issues, he is to the left of his so-called patrician colleague, John Davison Rockefeller IV.

Posted by Henderstock | December 19, 2007 10:55 PM

"Lott was drunk when he said it and he was at the weirdest party in history -- a combination 100th birthday / retirement party. The other people who were there, like former Democratic Senator Paul Simon, didn't take what he said seriously. The situation was simply too ridiculous."

Ah, the Mel Gibson defense. Makes sense to me. I've often regretted all the lies I've told while drunk.

Posted by MikeR | December 19, 2007 11:47 PM

Byrd has been forgiven - because he asked for forgiveness. He's tried to make amends, while Lott and others try to paper over the past and mix in confederate nostalgia.

It's almost always a false note when conservatives allude to Byrd's past - Their pretend outrage is comical.

Posted by Comment | December 19, 2007 11:48 PM

Steve Sailer writes: "Lott was drunk when he said it and he was at the weirdest party in history -- a combination 100th birthday / retirement party. The other people who were there, like former Democratic Senator Paul Simon, didn't take what he said seriously. The situation was simply too ridiculous."

When Steve Sailer gets drunk he goes down to his secret basement room and frolics among his collection of lynching postcards.

"He didn't mean it - he was DRUNK!" What an excuse. I'll bet Stevie is a big Mel Gibson Sr. fan, too.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 20, 2007 1:08 AM

Personally, I think he probably wasn't thinking of Thurmond's segregationism at the time-- he was trying to praise a long-time political ally, not advocate the specific platform he ran on in 1948. I'd bet good money he wasn't even remembering that Thurmond's ticket was a one-plank segregationist line when he made the comment.

This doesn't wholly excuse him-- I think it points to a deliberate blindness in the GOP, a total inability to see things for what they are if they should happen to be politically inconvenient.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | December 20, 2007 2:59 PM

Anthony Damiani writes: "Personally, I think he probably wasn't thinking of Thurmond's segregationism at the time-- he was trying to praise a long-time political ally, not advocate the specific platform he ran on in 1948. I'd bet good money he wasn't even remembering that Thurmond's ticket was a one-plank segregationist line when he made the comment."

I don't buy it - for a pol of Lott's age and upbringing that would be as unlikely as forgetting that the Civil War had been lost by the South.

What he was caught by was the changing nature of news reporting. Thirty years ago no one would have noticed his remarks - they just would not have been reported. He thought he was babbling in front of other half-drunk good old boys, but the word got out and kept spreading and he was served up for dead by his own dumbass party.

It couldn't have happened to a shittier guy. (Well, okay, there's always Cheney...)

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 20, 2007 11:55 PM