Dec

19

Conservative Columnists on Lott

Filed Under Politics 

I am busy at work today so here are some links I found interesting:
* R. Emmett Tyrrell on Lott:

Lott should have recognized that our politically polluted culture (our Kultursmog ) maintains a double standard for liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans. The double standard is unfair but not without its redeeming value. In recent years, we have seen that a double standard in public life is better than no standard at all. Imagine the coarseness of our society if all public figures were free to act as corruptly as the Jackson or his parishioner, Bill Clinton.

* Pat Buchanan on Lott:

Lott never used the word segregation, though it was instantly inserted in stories and headlines. But what did Lott mean? Probably nothing. But the least likely interpretation is that Lott, as majority leader, consciously decided, then and there, to declare it would have been far better for America if Strom had been elected because, then, America would still be segregated!
Can any decent, fair or honorable man seriously argue that this is precisely what Trent Lott meant to convey?

* Charles Krauthammer on Lott:

The Lott fiasco has had a clarifying effect on contemporary conservatism. Its three major strains–paleo, traditional and neo–have been thrown into rather sharp relief. The paleoconservatives, the lean mean unreconstructed circa-1964 Goldwaterites, are for Lott . . . Then there are the traditional conservatives, whose major interests are low taxes, less government and general social quiescence. They came out against Lott, some rather strongly, for reasons of good government and party politics . . . The principle is colorblindness, the bedrock idea enshrined in the 1964 Civil Rights Act that guides the thinking of the third strain of conservatism, neoconservatism. Neocons have been the most passionate about the Lott affair and most disturbed by its meaning . . .

* Ann Coulter on Lott:

What the Lott incident shows is that Republicans have to be careful about letting Democrats into our party. Back when they supported segregation, Lott and Thurmond were Democrats. This is something the media are intentionally hiding to make it look like the Republican Party is the party of segregation and race discrimination, which it never has been . . . Up until two weeks ago, conservatives were clamoring for Lott’s removal precisely because of his annoying habit of saying dumb things. (Showing their inferior intellect, liberals have only recently figured that out.) Republicans should ask Lott to step down as leader, but only for all the nice things he’s said about Teddy Kennedy.

Comments

2 Responses to “Conservative Columnists on Lott”

  1. Alan on December 20th, 2002 9:05 pm

    Buchanan–as usual–has it right.

    But at this point Lott needed to go. All we needed was for him falling all over himself trying to placate the left and prove that he isn’t segregationist.

  2. Andria on March 1st, 2003 4:25 am

    Ok, one comment only… At the top of this webpage you have a quote, a very disturbingly inaccurate quote. “Free People Will Set the Course of History - George W. Bush.” First off, G. Dubya is denying the “free people” of what is necisarry to “set the course of history.” Bush Sr, and Bush Jr. are disgraces to American History. REPUBLICANS in general have had tendencies to be trigger-happy and most often, ruin the economy, leaving a democrat to clean up the mess. (i.e. Clinton, who in his personal life, is unworthy of praise, but as a president doing his duty, is worthy of much admiration.) We don’t need another war, and we don’t need lies posted on sites like yours. For your best interest, I would stick something up there that comes from a man worthy of respect. Not one who did not mean it.

Leave a Reply