Lott of Trouble


Click here for a little history on the Dixiecrat who Trent Lott is "proud" to have supported for president. Lott is taking a well-deserved beating for his recent remarks on Strom Thurmond: Glenn Reynolds, Virginia Postrel, Josh Marshall, and Andrew Sullivan to name just a few.

NEXT: CS Monitor: How Much Does Israel Cost Us?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I agree with seahay58 about this particular comment – the objections are all out of proportion to the comment. The objections need to put the comment in context as “the latest in a long line” of problematic behaviors and unwise associations, rather than a sufficient reason to dump Lott. The other commenters give more reasons, some bloggers give more reasons – so why is the focus on this statement?

  2. No. What Trent Lott said in and of itself disqualifies him from being an effective Senate Majority Leader.

    Many people (see http://www.janegalt.net/ and so on) want to cut him some slack in case he merely put his foot in his mouth. After all, he MIGHT not be an actual racist.

    The problem is that *on its face*, he actually said that the country would have been better off had it voted for the presidential candidate running explicitly to oppose civil rights and anti-lynching laws. That’s just stunning. Either he really meant it (and so is morally repugnant) or it’s the all-time worst gaffe (and is too incompetent to lead a party).

    Incidentally, this is the biggest problem with the race-card playing (or race-baiting) that’s happened in other, trumped-up cases. Jesse Walker’s comment (“if you need a sharp weapon”) sums it up perfectly. After years of villifying conservatives unfairly, liberals have no effective way of villifying someone who actually deserves it.

    Meanwhile, all the times that conservatives have taken a stand against frivolous race-based mudslinging, don’t mean a thing if we don’t call out and rebuke actual racism when we do see it.

    Many people on the left would love to claim that all conservatives are secretly just as bigoted as Lott’s comment suggests he is. This is exactly why we take a stand against both it and him.

  3. Sorry, but this seems much ado about nothing.
    I’ve never liked Lott as Majority leader(Minority either), but all this outrage seems manufactured.

    You can show your disagreement with Lott’s politics without cheapshotting him over some lugubrious remarks at a tribute to a 100 year old fellow southern Senator’s retirement.

  4. If this were an isolated incident, I’d agree; however, Lott’s been on the Council of Conservative Citizens’ christmas card list (visit cofcc.org; it’s a giant wet kiss) for too long to get a free pass on this one.

  5. Another reason to replace him with someone else. Lott has made some other remarks that could be used to hurt his team.

  6. Trent Lott has never been a positive face for the Republicans in the Senate. Now he is a liability. As Bush prepares for a tough race in 2004, the least the Republicans in the Senate can do is elect a Majority Leader that can help rather than make stupid remarks that hurt.

  7. Last time Lott was Majority Leader, he lost the Senate. He may know something about cloak room leadership but majority leader calls for skills better suited for a national political stage.

  8. I see. So the ONLY people to criticize Lott are “liberal totalitarians” ? all the conservatives and libertarians who have attacked his remarks are secretly liberals in disguise. And the real issue is federalism, not racism, even though the only person to bring federalism up is Richard Bennett.

    Talk about idiotic…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.