StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Lott’s Racism: A Long History

Kristol’s comment is telling. In fact, Lott’s public record on race going back more than 25 years indicates that the incoming majority leader has consistently preferred the legacy of Lincoln adversaries such as Jefferson Davis to that of Lincoln.

Lott's long history of support for racist and neo-Confederate causes is generally missing from coverage of the Thurmond controversy. On December 11, the New York Times and Washington Post did report that in 1980, then-congressmember Lott told a crowd at a Reagan rally, “You know, if we had elected [Strom Thurmond] 30 years ago, we wouldn’t be in the mess we are today.” But with few other exceptions, coverage of Lott’s record seldom goes beyond the current scandal and 1998 revelations of Lott’s links to the racist Council of Conservative Citizens.

As a member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1978, Lott was behind a successful effort to re-instate the citizenship of Confederate President Jefferson Davis (Associated Press, 6/2/78). In 1981, the year he became house minority whip, Lott prodded the Reagan administration into taking the side of Bob Jones University and other segregated private schools that were suing the Internal Revenue Service to restore tax exemptions withdrawn a decade earlier because of the schools’ discriminatory racial policies (Washington Post, 1/18/82).

In 1982 and 1990, Lott voted against extending the Voting Rights Act, the law passed to insure that minorities-- especially Southern blacks-- had access to the voting booth. In 1990, he voted against continuation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the crown jewel of civil-rights legislation that desegregated education and public accommodations. In 1983 Lott voted against a national holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr., and in 1994 he voted to de-fund the MLK Jr. Holiday commission.

Lott’s appointment to chair the 1984 Republican Platform committee occasioned a soft New York Times article (8/14/84) describing Lott as “a legislator who displays political shrewdness while avoiding making waves.” That was the same year Lott boasted in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, “The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform” (Southern Partisan, 4th quarter, 1984).

A few months later, in an interview with the neo-Confederate magazine Southern Partisan (4th quarter, 1984), Lott-- himself a member and promoter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans-- repeated Jefferson Davis’ posthumous endorsement of the GOP platform, throwing in a reference to the Civil War as “the War of Northern Aggression.” No one asked Lott then if the original "party of Lincoln" was becoming the party of Lincoln's chief nemesis.

It wasn’t until 1998 that national press scrutiny (with help from FAIR) focused on one neo-Confederate group-- the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC). The CCC is the successor to the notorious white Citizens Councils, whose history dates back half a century to the 1950s when the groups were referred to as the "uptown Klan." Today’s CCC rails against "race-mixing" and immigrants, and proudly associates with extreme rightists, from white supremacist David Duke to French racist and anti-Semite Jean-Marie LePen.

In December 1998, Lott denied any personal knowledge of the CCC, falsely claiming through a spokesperson that his links to the group amounted to a single speech made over a decade before he’d entered the Senate. In 1992, Sen. Lott praised the CCC as keynote speaker at its national convention; in 1997, he met with top CCC leaders in his Senate office; his column appeared throughout the 1990s in the group’s newsletter, which once published a cheerful photo of Lott and CCC members who were also his close relatives. Lott was also the guest of honor at a 1982 banquet hosted by a Mississippi chapter of the old white Citizens Councils (Extra!, 3-4/99).

In his defense of Lott (Meet the Press, 12/8/02), Bob Novak said, "Trent Lott got out there and he winged it. That's one of the dangers of not having a text. He thought it was a social occasion. He's thinking what comes to his mind." That sounds like a perfect reason to continue investigating Lott's racist connections.

Vympel wrote:His comments of endorsement regarding a campaign who's slogan was "Segregation Forever!" isn't just a blip on Mr Lott's political career- it seems to be a running theme:

Friday, Sept. 27, 2002 1:23 a.m. EDT

More Congressional Dems Defend Byrd's KKK Ties

Two more congressional Democrats found themselves on the defensive late Thursday over leading Senate Democrat Robert Byrd's past affiliation with a racist domestic terror group, but they declined to take the opportunity to condemn his decision to join Ku Klux Klan when he was young man in the 1930s or say the affiliation disqualified him from high office.

Appearing on Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes," Reps. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., and Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., refused to condemn Byrd's Klan past when asked whether it was appropriate to have the former KKK member leading attacks against the White House's plan to go to war against Iraq.

The exchange went like this:

HANNITY: Aren't you ashamed to have a former Klansman as one of the lead Senators of your party?

DAFAZIO (Pause) You know, I don't know anything about that, your allegations.

FORD: Sean, that can go both ways (crosstalk).

HANNITY: Is there a Republican former Klansman, sir?

FORD: We should be very careful. There are a lot of folks....

HANNITY: Is there a Republican former Klansman? Because if there is, I'll ask him to resign tonight.

FORD: Well, Mr. Hannity, I have great respect for Mr. Thurmond and Mr. Helms but there have been lots of things said about both of them over the years. But that's not....

HANNITY: Were they former Klansman? Alright. Now that we're done let me ask this. (End of Excerpt)

The two Democrats' refusal to condemn Byrd's Klan history followed by hours comments by Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who also defended the West Virginia Democrat's KKK past.

Asked if she thought past Klan membership should disqualify someone from serving in the Senate, Schakowski told Hannity on his nationally syndicated radio show, "No, not if you've totally rejected it - my goodness."

Like Rep. Ford, Schakowski initially tried to defend Byrd's Klan membership by suggesting Republican Senators Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms had also once belonged to the KKK.

But the ploy was short circuited when Hannity told Schakowski she was wrong.

Their exchange went like this:

HANNITY: You heard Daschle's meltdown on the Senate floor yesterday. And then you heard Sen. "KKK" Byrd on the Senate floor yesterday - you don't mind if I say that. Don't you think that anybody, if you're ever in the Ku Klux Klan, has no business serving in public office? I really feel strongly about it.

SCHAKOWSKI: Well, so then, maybe if Strom Thurmond....

HANNITY: He's done. He's finished.

SCHAKOWSKI: ....and Jesse Helms and....

HANNITY: Helms was never in the Ku Klux Klan. I don't think Thurmond was either. But Robert Byrd was. Don't you find that so obnoxious?

SCHAKOWSKI: I think he would agree that participation in the KKK is pretty bad.

HANNITY: But shouldn't that preclude you from being a U.S. Senator later in your life?

SCHAKOWSKI: No, not if you've totally rejected it - my goodness. (End of Byrd-KKK exchange)

As the segment was ending, Hannity reiterated that neither Sen. Thurmond nor Sen. Helms had ever belonged to the Klan.

Vympel wrote:Is he dead?

Vympel wrote:He should be dropped from orbit.

MKSheppard wrote:

Vympel wrote:His comments of endorsement regarding a campaign who's slogan was "Segregation Forever!" isn't just a blip on Mr Lott's political career- it seems to be a running theme:

Who gives a fucking shit?

Why aren't the Demmycrats censuring Senator Byrd? The man was a
FUCKING KLANSMAN!

Yes, that's right! The man who's 3rd or 4th in line to become the President
of the United States.....this man:


Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-West Virginia.....

Was a fucking KLANSMAN.

MKSheppard wrote:

Vympel wrote:He should be dropped from orbit.

He won't be, along with Jesse Jackson, you know...the guy who called
New York "Hymietown", because it's okay to make racist comments
and belong to racist organizations if you're liberal.....

Knife wrote:The real question is does Lott act like a racist now. And is the media scrutiny applied equaly to others who have been active in politics scince the 60's.

Stormbringer wrote:

Knife wrote:The real question is does Lott act like a racist now. And is the media scrutiny applied equaly to others who have been active in politics scince the 60's.

Quite Possibly and no.

As Shep pointed out, there are liberals that are much more inarguably racist yet they are let off the hook. And don't get me started on Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Knife wrote: From what I understand, and I might be wrong, is that Lot has done a good job for the people of Mississippi(thats his state, right?).

Knife wrote: And yes, so called liberals get a "get out of jail free" card with the media.

My overlaying point is that this whole thing just reeks of political manuvering.

Knife wrote:Who cares. Lotts statment was at a birthday party for someone who was turning 100 years old. He was making a statment that was to flatter someone who ran for President 50 years ago. Anyone who was alive to be part of the political scene 50 years ago would and does have baggage that anyone can trot out and question.

The real question is does Lott act like a racist now. And is the media scrutiny applied equaly to others who have been active in politics scince the 60's.

What is so appalling about Lott's remarks is not the bigotry but the blindness. One should be very hesitant about ascribing bigotry. It is hard to discern what someone feels in his heart of hearts. It is less hard to discern what someone sees, particularly if he tells you. Lott sees the civil rights movement and "all these problems over all these years." He missed the whole story.

Backbenchers might be permitted such a lack of vision. Leaders are not. Lott must step down.

Knife wrote:If the Democrats push too hard, they will shoot themselves in the foot. Nobody like the persecution of Clinton, and a simular campaign against Lot will acomplish the same. They are walking a thin line. Besides, if they push too hard, some others might be open to scrutiny, like Bird.

Knife wrote:If the Democrats push too hard, they will shoot themselves in the foot. Nobody like the persecution of Clinton, and a simular campaign against Lot will acomplish the same. They are walking a thin line. Besides, if they push too hard, some others might be open to scrutiny, like Bird.

Stormbringer wrote:

Knife wrote:If the Democrats push too hard, they will shoot themselves in the foot. Nobody like the persecution of Clinton, and a simular campaign against Lot will acomplish the same. They are walking a thin line. Besides, if they push too hard, some others might be open to scrutiny, like Bird.

It could but Lott lacks the charisma to pull it off. And the liberals do have the bulley pulpit on this one. They'll nail him if they can and it'll be hard for the Republicans to dodge it.

Stormbringer wrote:

Knife wrote:If the Democrats push too hard, they will shoot themselves in the foot. Nobody like the persecution of Clinton, and a simular campaign against Lot will acomplish the same. They are walking a thin line. Besides, if they push too hard, some others might be open to scrutiny, like Bird.

It could but Lott lacks the charisma to pull it off. And the liberals do have the bulley pulpit on this one. They'll nail him if they can and it'll be hard for the Republicans to dodge it.

Alex Moon wrote:

Stormbringer wrote:

Knife wrote:If the Democrats push too hard, they will shoot themselves in the foot. Nobody like the persecution of Clinton, and a simular campaign against Lot will acomplish the same. They are walking a thin line. Besides, if they push too hard, some others might be open to scrutiny, like Bird.

It could but Lott lacks the charisma to pull it off. And the liberals do have the bulley pulpit on this one. They'll nail him if they can and it'll be hard for the Republicans to dodge it.

Actually, the Republicans have been pushing as hard, if not harder against Lott. Sen. Nickles is aparently calling for new leadership elections for example. Many conservatives are just as angry about his words, if not more because they keep the idea alive that all Republicans are racists, which is not true. In addition, some see Lott as a political opportunist who has only harmed the party during his time as Senate Majority Leader.

Knife wrote:I don't think so with people like Bird and the actions of JJ of late. They are standing on sand and they think they are standing on granite. They can make some noise and be alright, and who knows, perhaps Lott will resign the leadership. But he won't resign the Senate, and if the opposition pushes to hard, they open a can of worms that they won't be able to control. They are too vulnerable on the issue to yell to loudly.

Knife wrote:

Alex Moon wrote:

Stormbringer wrote: It could but Lott lacks the charisma to pull it off. And the liberals do have the bulley pulpit on this one. They'll nail him if they can and it'll be hard for the Republicans to dodge it.

Actually, the Republicans have been pushing as hard, if not harder against Lott. Sen. Nickles is aparently calling for new leadership elections for example. Many conservatives are just as angry about his words, if not more because they keep the idea alive that all Republicans are racists, which is not true. In addition, some see Lott as a political opportunist who has only harmed the party during his time as Senate Majority Leader.

There is that as well. It will prove to be an interesting couple of weeks till the new Congress.