Do these words sound familiar:
And I would hope that we could move on from that and move to things that we can do to help the people all across this country, economic opportunity for everybody, community renewal, which is something that’s important for people of all races and income levels, work to make sure we have election reforms that guarantees that people have an opportunity and a right to vote, and the funds to pay for it; put more money in the education, so that really no child is left behind. That’s the best way to show how you really feel, is by doing things that will open up the opportunity for people all across our state.
Blah blah blah. Reading the transcript of Lott’s interview with Lott-defender Sean Hannity, you have to wonder who Trent Lott is channeling. This last piece of Clintonian blather was preceded by a long, elaborate Clintonian fib. When Trent Lott thinks of the presidential candidacy of Strom Thurmond, what he’s really thinking about is … national defense! As they say out there on the web, ROTFLMAO*:
If you look back at that time, which was 1948, defense was a big issue. We were coming out of the war, of course, but we also were dealing with communism and then in the ’80s, you know, when I talked about Strom again, we were talking about the problem in Iran, talking about deficits over the years, strong law enforcement speeches. I remember when I first got to the Senate, one of the first speeches I ever heard Strom give was talking about the need to have strong law enforcement to protect the people, all of the people. And also, I have a memory of Strom promoting economic development in South Carolina, as have others there in that state. So those are the kinds of things where we’ve had problems over the years with defense, budgets, you know, law enforcement. I think we could have done a better job.
Hands up everyone who thinks he’s telling the truth. The trouble with Lott is that he combines the worst part of some Democrats – big-government pork-barrel spending – with the worst part of some Republicans – racial obtuseness, in Lott’s case, to the brink of outright bigotry. The connective tissue is Clintonian spin. I’m not saying he doesn’t deserve to be a senator from Mississippi – that’s up to the voters. What I am saying is that he cannot be Republican Senate Majority Leader any more without destroying a good deal of what George W. Bush has accomplished. Nice try, Mr Lott. But your time is up. Do the decent thing and get the hell out of there.
(* i.e. Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off. By the way, Bob Herbert thinks Lott should stay. Doesn’t that tell you something?)
LOTT AND THE YOUNG: Here’s an email that confirms my suspicion of an age gap in how seriously to treat Trent Lott’s apparent nostalgia for Jim Crow:
You are absolutely correct on the generation gap. I am 32, my father is 55. We are both attorneys practicing in Toledo, Ohio, both Republicans. He thinks the Lott gaffe is just that, a gaffe, and thinks we should give him a pass. I, on the other hand, agree with you, Lott has to go. Lott is the worst kind of government lackey. He has no principles, other than governing, for the sake of governing. To Lott, and his ilk, it’s all about pork. Big government is good, as long it is my big government. I cannot stand this in a politician. At least Ted Kennedy does not hide his love for government. Lott would sell out any conservative principle (school choice, small government, pro business, growth through tax reduction, personal and economi freedom) to have a bridge built in Mississippi. And he is my party’s “leader” in the Senate?
I was ready to pull my hair out yesterday having this discussion with my father. Even he knows Lott’s conservative shortcomings, yet still gives him a pass. As a practical matter, the GOP has its best chance to dump Lott now. As a principled matter, the GOP has no business having this segregationist as its front man. Good bye, Mr. Lott.
And what really insenses me, what really makes my blood boil, is those who attempt to deflect Lott’s statements by citing to Robert Byrd and the KKK, or Bill Clinton and his southern pals. You know what? Jim Crow is Jim Crow. My GOP racist is no worse than you democrat racist? Dammit, what the Hell? Sean Hannity, as entertaining as he can be, is going total hack on this on his radio show. Mr. Hannity, condemn Lott, don’t compare, condemn. Where is your soul?
Yes, Hannity has been among the worst on this issue. Didn’t come as a surprise to me.
THE JESUITS TAKE A STAND: The current issue of America, the American Jesuit magazine, is devoted in large part to a defense of gays in the priesthood. Alas, the essays require subscription. But this wouldn’t be happening if the Society of Jesus wasn’t deeply worried about the forthcoming directives from Rome. What it suggests to me is that if Rome decides to purge celibate and faithful gay priests and seminarians, then the American church will not take that decision as binding. Many in the clerical hierarchy and many more among the laity and religious orders will simply disobey, leading to crisis and/or a real danger of schism. This may, of course, be what some at the Vatican want, and in the absence of a functioning pontiff, they might get away with it. But not without a struggle. And not without fierce resistance in America.
THE STEROID PANIC: A useful counterweight to the New York Times’ recent scare story about steroid use can be found in the current Reason magazine. But where both pieces agree is the need for much more research on how steroids can improve health and beauty, if used responsibly. I’ve experienced this myself and seen it in others with HIV and AIDS – enough to wonder how much more good these drugs could do if allowed to be used more widely:
One reason the health effects of steroids are so uncertain is a dearth of research. In the almost 65 years that anabolic steroids have been in our midst, there has not been a single epidemiological study of the effects of long-term use. Instead, Yesalis explains, concerns about extended usage are extrapolated from what’s known about short-term effects. The problem is that those short-term research projects are often case studies, which Yesalis calls the “lowest life form of scientific studies.” Case studies often draw conclusions from a single test subject and are especially prone to correlative errors.
And yet we all carry about in our heads the notion that steroid use will cause you to drop dead in your fifties. More research and less hysteria, please.
RAINES DIGS IN: The indispensable Sridhar Pappu has the goods on what really went down last week at the Times:
Mr. Raines, according to a Times source, has told people that the incident will not change the way he and the rest of the masthead conducts business at the paper. However, the story revealed a measure of control that surprised the outside world. Some asked if Mr. Raines had contracted the kind of iron-fisted attitude that former editor A.M. Rosenthal had insisted upon during his tenure. “So much of this comes from a top-down management structure as it does ‘censorship,'” said one Times source. “These are decisions that would normally be made by a section editor who would say, ‘You know what? I don’t like this for whatever reason.’ … Here, they’re actually making the decisions and putti
ng their fingerprints on it and they’re going to continue to put their fingerprints on it because they don’t trust their editors enough.”
Not encouraging, is it?
The Dish 