Susanna Cornett, usually an interesting and provocative read is having some serious issues believing that Lott could be anything but a good ole boy conservative with a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth. He couldn't possibly be racist, I mean that would give the Dems some ammunition so let's pretend he isn't.
Let's.
Let's also pretend he didn't speak in front of the obviously racist Council of Conservative Citizens on more than one occasion. Let's also pretend that he didn't meet with official representatives of the group several times over a six year period. Further, let's pretend that his own uncle didn't out him on that one as well. Yeah, none of that happened. It would give the Democrats a political advantage, so it didn't happen. Are we all clear?
I thought she was about cutting on the bias? It appears she is more into denying the bias, at least in the case of the Republican Senate Majority Leader.
So, how does she go about helping to "cut on the bias"? She calls Senator Mitch McConnell, to tell his staff that Lott isn't racist, he just can't talk right. I guess she didn't see the irony in calling a Senator who is interracially married, to defend Lott, who has a well-documented relationship with the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization dedicated to, among other things, getting interracial marriage outlawed again. Nope, nothing wrong that approach.
Susanna and I agree on one thing – Lott should no longer be Majority Leader. The why, however, is where we disagree. She wants him gone because he's an inarticulate embarrassment, so she downplays the "racism" part. I believe he should be gone because he's an inarticulate embarrassment with ties to an obviously racist organization with no respect for the Bill of Rights and Constitutional government.
I got news for Ms. Cornett. This bias stuff cuts both ways. It is possible to fight bias on the Left without pretending that it doesn't exist on the Right. Lott has a history that involves more than just "questionable pronouncements". His history includes documented relationships with individuals interesting in rolling back hard won protections for equal marriage rights, among other hideous designs. Come on back to reality Susanna. Lott is what he is. Whether or not it helps the Democrats is quite irrelevant.
—-
You can read Susanna's response here.
Update: Whilst I was giving this post a second edit, Susanna was posting a response at her weblog as she has pointed out that the posting is different from what she read when she responded. I have now deleted a paragraph in the middle that had been the substance of the second edit. A third edit was made to add a link to her response. And this update is the fourth edit. As she pointed out succintly, in the comments session, the paragraph I removed gave the impression that she is against "interracial" marriage. That was not the intent, but I can see her point.
James, you make it sound as if I have something against interracial marriages myself, and I do not in any way appreciate that implication. I also think you should note that the current version of your post is expanded from what it was when I wrote my response.
Do you think you could express your objections to what I say without almost saying that I myself am racist? I don’t “downplay” the racism – that implies that I recognize that that is what it is and I’m deliberately passing it over. That’s not the case at all. It does appear that Lott has a checkered history with racism, and more evidence is emerging. But that doesn’t change the fact that assuming his remarks were racist immediately after he said them was wrong, without more evidence. And I continue to stand by that, even if (and it looks more likely to be “when”) it is established that it’s probable he does have a tendency to at least not grant racism the full disdain it deserves. If he steps down, and he should, it will be because of a body of evidence, not one comment.
Thank you for the edit and the update. Also, I apologize for somehow managing to show up three times on your trackback list; I have no clue why. Please delete two of them if you’d like.
I suspect we can set the McConnell’s interracial marriage to one side. If, for reasons I could not imagine, he has taken offense, I suspect he can handle it himself without help from James.
As to the central argument James offers, it seems to boil down to “anyone with eyes could see Lott is a racist.” So, is that credible, or might reasonable minds differ?
Al Gore, in a CNN interview on Monday, offered this:
Asked if he believes Lott is a racist, Gore said, “Trent Lott made a statement that I think is a racist statement, yes….
[it] is divisive and it is divisive along racial lines. That’s the definition of a racist comment.”
Which is an example of an evasive answer. Lott has been in the Senate fourteen years, and was a Congressman before that; Gore has been around Washington a while too, and has worked with Lott for years. If Lott is so obviously a racist, why doesn’t Gore say so? None of the CCC stuff is new – Gore was asked about it in the interview, and at another point says, roughly, “I can’t look into his heart and see if he is a racist”.
But, if you don’t trust Gore, how about Daschle? He also has worked with Lott for years. His comment on Monday, before the CBC showed him the way:
There are a lot of times when he and I go to the mike and would like to say things we meant to say differently, and I’m sure this is one of those cases for him as well.,”
Hmm, not exactly a blistering condemnation.
Now, I would never fault Susanna for lack of creativity, but on this issue, she agrees with plenty of conservative commentators – Lott may not have proven himself racist, but he sure did prove himself stupid.
So, if Susanna, a hundred other conservative commentators, Gore, and Daschle are all wrong, then congrats, James, you are right – Lott is a racist, and any one should be able to see it.
Otherwise, maybe this is just one of many things that are a matter of opinion. Susanna may not be purely objective on this, but I have no reason to believe that you are either.
Tom, I think that Gore’s response was a helluva lot better than Daschle’s almost apologetic one. But both men – to one degree or another – speak the talk of public figures who have become innoculated against discussions of racism among the power elite. I don’t think they’re alone. In their company are many right-wing leaders, as well. And joining them, I might add…is a whole host of journalists who saw nothing wrong with Lott’s comments.
We, in this country, don’t like talking about the injustices that brought about the civil rights movement of the sixties. It’s an embarrassment, and some think it’s overkill to mention in These Enlightened Times. That’s how folks like Trent Lott get promoted to positions such as US Senate Majority Leader. We close our eyes and say, “nevermind.”
Americans – Dems, Reps, Liberts, Greens, Purples and the Rest – we cannot afford to forget our past, simply for comfort or ideological convenience. What is it they say? Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it? Having Trent Lott THIS CLOSE to assuming senate leadership, suggests we’re doomed.
Certainly, the Republican Party can find someone in their senatorial ranks who can lead that body with dignity and without question of bigotry.
L
12/14/2002 7:30:00