 |
||||||||
|
12/17/2002 06:55:00 PM | Timothy I'm Reasonably Sure About Lott Mickey Kaus says that former Clintonite Sidney Blumenthal might have gotten the ball rolling on Lott's Thurmond comments. He gets his revenge! Drudge has a link saying Lott is rumored to be leaving soon. But I want to question Nick when he says (in a post I think was accidently deleted) that: "it's not unreasonable to argue that Lott was praising Thurmond as a an ultra-rightist in general, not as a 1948 segregationist in particular." I'm curious to hear this "not unreasonable" argument. Sure, maybe Lott had on in mind that Thurmond was very conservative. But what Lott said on several occasions is that it would have been better if Thurmond won in 1948. In 1948, what exactly what was Thurmond 'ultra-right' about EXCEPT on race? Let me put it another way: if Truman and Democrats hadn't advanced civil rights and had been the same on every other issue, Thurmond would have never run as a 'dixiecrat'. And Lott told Sean Hannity last week that he isn't sure that Truman made a better president than Thrumond. Does anyone want to defend that? Either he's lying or he does not know history at all. Are we to believe that Lott is a moral and intellectual idiot, or that he knew what he was doing? Both great defenses. Trent said on BET that he wished he had voted for the Martin Luther King Holiday. The BET interviewer noted the vote was in the early 80s, and Lott says he still learning... Great. UPDATE: MSNBC is saying that on a third occasion (this time in 2000), Lott also said Thurmond should have been President (via Thismodernworld): MSNBC has uncovered a third instance of Sen. Trent Lott saying Sen. Thurmond "should have been President" in 1948, when he ran for President on a segregationist platform. In the video obtained by MSNBC, Sen. Lott is emceeing the signing of the National Defense Authorization Act on Oct. 19, 2000. As Sen. Thurmond signs the bill, Sen. Lott can be heard saying, "Now this is a famous signature right here. He should have been President in 1947 (sic), I think it was." MSNBC contacted Sen. Lott's press secretary, Ron Bonjean, who did not deny that Lott made the comments at the event. Bonjean insists that the fact Lott made the statement at the signing of the defense act makes their case that this is not about race and that it has nothing to do with race. Bonjean told MSNBC it proves that Lott meant Thurmond would have been tougher on defense, fighting Communism and best for the economy. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.