Also note from this and other threads that if Tom Delay takes a stand and publishes his unpopular beliefs, he's a man of principle. If McCain does the same, he's a crazy, loose cannon, cry-baby. unfortunately, I don't stand within the party lines of either party, so it's always a crap shoot for who to vote for. I definitely don't like the Republican leadership in the house and Senate, but I think I am in the minority of the public right now. People see the Bible thumping and the anti-gay, anti-diversity tactics of the most prominent republicans and mistake this for the true sign of integrity.

M1 and I would like to say this again.

Do NOT quote huge chunks of text when you are replying to someone. One or two sentences will do. If people want the whole thing, they can scroll up. And if you're replying to something directly above your post, just reply, there's no need to quote it.

Tarkus, President, Moderators For A More Readable Message Board.

That's what all the "Edited by Tarkus" stamps at the bottom of certain messages are about.

Please return to the regularly scheduled partisan mudslinging. Thank you.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
More interesting history on the republican leader:

* In a mid '80s speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Miss., Lott declared: "The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform."

---

At last: an honest politician.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Lott didn't say that all gays were kleptomaniacs. He compared gay rights legislation to legislation protecting kleptos or somebody else. A faulty analogy, for sure, but he did not make a direct connection between gays and kleptomania.

---

I haven't find the exact quote, though I'm sure it's on the 'Net somewhere. Google for "lott gay kleptomaniac".

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1...b19980618.asp#2

>>
....
Next, Dan Rather announced: "Elsewhere in Washington, there was no secret leak involved in the national stir caused by Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott. It was what Lott said right on the record about gays and lesbians, as CBS's Bob Schieffer reports."
Schieffer slid into a Lott soundbite: "The controversy began when Republican Senate Leader Lott said on a cable TV show that homosexuality was a sin, but it could be treated and controlled."
Schieffer then picked up: "Citing studies showing homosexuality is genetically preordained, gays were outraged. The nation's largest gay group said the remarks showed the 'far right has a stranglehold on congressional leadership.'"
After Michael McCurry complained how it is difficult "to get business done in Washington sometimes when you're dealing with people who are so backward in their thinking," Schieffer acknowledged that "several Republicans came to Lott's defense, including the House Majority Leader Dick Armey, who said just this morning he had looked up Bible verses supporting Lott's point of view."

....
Tom Brokaw next delivered the most dispassionate and even-handed summary of the furor caused by the Lott remarks:
"Now to what's going on in American politics and increasingly that debate is about culture and values. What's right, what's wrong? What's a sin and what's not? And tonight that debate picked up momentum because of recent remarks by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott. He said, he considers homosexuality to be a sin and a condition that can be helped like alcoholism, sex addiction or kleptomania. His political allies rushed to his defense, the White House was critical and the debate is on."
....
<<

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

just passing through

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

[quote]Originally posted by DC_guy:
Also note from this and other threads that if Tom Delay takes a stand and publishes his unpopular beliefs, he's a man of principle. If McCain does the same, he's a crazy, loose cannon, cry-baby.

---

That's because McCain is a nutcase, and Delay isn't.

JIP, Yes the point has come when LCR has refused to endorse, and I was personally responsible for pulling a wayward GOP Senatorial nominee's name from one of our endorsement ads back in '98 after we learned he had been giving money collected from us, among others, to fund radical right "surveys." I'm sure we'll do it again. LCR chapters across the country, and especially in CA, routinely decline to endorse GOP candidates. But, we do not advocate not voting for them, an entirely different thing, because under most states' rules, that could get us tossed from the party and squander our votes by which we hope to change it.

BTW, excellent op-ed in today's WSJ re: L'affaire Lott that provides history and perspective. I'll try to link it, but don't hold your breath(s?).

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:

BTW, excellent op-ed in today's WSJ re: L'affaire Lott that provides history and perspective. I'll try to link it, but don't hold your breath(s?).

---

If you can, please post a few salient quotes from the WSJ piece, because it isn't accessible without a subscription.

(I added a "Z" to CondoleezZa's name--with sweetness, of course.)

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Let's see...Babs, Baldwin, now Whoopi, too... Ump? What exactly has she done in your myopic view to deserve your dismissal?

Really. Having bad hair doesn't mean she isn't right on the money. And it's not really that momentous a statement. Obviously Lott is the face of the Republican party in part, he's the freakin' leader of the Senate Republicans, how big of a stretch is that?

Nancy Pelosi (I'm sure William LOVES her) was quite right in asking today, "forget what the Democrats might have to say about Lott's comments, where are the voices of his fellow Republicans?" Exactly.

Maxine Waters and her crew are trying to get him to resign, which I think is a little over the top, but I think he should at least give an explanation of what he meant by that fool statement, since in his "apology" he said it was not racist and was miscontrued and misquoted. Of course, he didn't need to be quoted, they just played the tape. How can someone be in politics so long and still be so stupid? I really think Prez Bush is at least getting more adept at knowing when not to say retarded things. Lott seems to be getting dumber every year.

Sorry, I'm too cheap to pay the online subscription fee - fiscal conservative and all - and already tossed the print edition. Perhaps one of our more well-heeled members might post from their subscription. On the other hand, it's a dollar or a walk to the local library well spent.

Personally, I would love it if some fellow GOPers took Pelosi's advice and used this incident to replace Lott as Senate Majority Leader. McCain would be the perfect replacement for any number of reasons, all of them good ones.

Tomorrow is trash day, so I might be able to find a copy in an hour left out in a bag for the recycling. I'll put on my "well-heeled" running shoes to make the foray.

I don't know anyone who gets the _WSJ_ for the editorials, so you'd think they would make them free for the asking online. You'd be wrong.

http://online.wsj.com/public/us

Twin, You're right; I like the paper - the only one I subscribe to - for its objective news reporting, features and strong consumer news. (Much more practical than Consumer Reports and no Bolshie bent!) Many of the WSJ's editorials are kind of wacko - like their call for unlimited immigration as good for the economy. But every now and then they come up with a good one.

To the people (i.e. Ump) who keep saying Lott just "doesn't think before he speaks" or that this was just a "lighthearted" comment:

In 1980, Trent Lott, then a House member from Mississippi, told a home state political gathering that if the country had elected segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond to the presidency "30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."(Washington Post)

He's been saying this crap for years. I think 22 years is plenty of time to figure out where he stands on this matter.

Many WSJ editorials can be found at Opinion Journal

[quote]Originally posted by Joe in Philly:


This brings to mind something I've been wondering: is there a breaking point? If someone like Lott makes these comments again and again and again and AGAIN, and if the party and its policies encourages him to continue making these comments (if not directly, then indirectly by failing to sanction him), is there a point where you see Log Cabin taking a stand and saying, "Enough is enough--if there aren't significant improvements soon you'll lose our group's support in all races no matter how much we like the candidate"?

As I mentioned before, I don't vote for any Republican candidates now. I did in the past--and for a few years I was actually registered as an independent because I was not happy with either party. But for me the rise of Newt and his gang in the '94 elections was my breaking point. I re-registered as a Democrat and haven't voted for any Republican since.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

---

Some of them are smart enough to break away from LCR. We have an openly gay city council member in Dallas who was a big into LCR for years and a couple of years ago became fed up and quit LCR and became a Democrat. Also, in the last couple of months I have read 2 letters to the editor in a local gay newswpaper from former LCR officers (Texas and national) who have also quit. Both basically stated that the members where more interested in being accepted in the republican party that fighting for their principles.

[quote] Yes the point has come when LCR has refused to endorse

---

If Ashcroft wouldn't be across this threshold, then who would? If LCR would endorse HIM, what type of troglodyte wouldn't it endorse? And further, why should gay voters take this organization seriously?

ok. I finally found the time to wend my way over to this debate. was afraid to do so for a long time.

so..... several quick points.

Yes Sen. Lott is the Majority Leader. No the GOP is not a monolithic brainless collective. most of us do disagree with his words.

Yes what he said was deplorable (in both 2002 and 1980) he really can't say it was a spontaneous comment due to the almost exactly same wording 20 years prior. and yes he was involved with the former "white Citizens Council" and when called on it said that he didn't know what the group was about. Just like his contention tha he was not referring to the segregationist stance of Candidate Thurmond. Even though that was the only thing the Dixiecrat party ran on. any student of american history knows that.

If you don't believe him, he's a bigot. If you do believe him, he's an idiot who should not be a senator. You pick.

The republicans are not having a mass demo to stone their own leader just like the Democrats didn't turn out en masse to dethrone King Clinton. It works both ways guys.

Whoopi Goldberg as a source of political analysis? Come on! Who's next? Mike Farrell and Martin Sheen? oh...... right......

Was Barbra Streisand mentioned in this post? Or was it another? At any rate, I just want to note that, for all her political flaws and personal idiocy, I love Babs' duet with Neil Diamond, "You Don't Send Me Flowers."

[quote]Originally posted by ung:
The republicans are not having a mass demo to stone their own leader just like the Democrats didn't turn out en masse to dethrone King Clinton. It works both ways guys.

---

Ung! I agree with most of what you say here, but you can't honestly be equating these two.

Clinton lied, yes, about getting a blowjob. Many Democrats were angry about this, and many did publicly chastise him.

That's VERY different from the Senate Majority Leader saying, basically, that he supports segregation. And few Republicans have said anything, most notably President Bush.

[quote]Originally posted by conor500:
That's VERY different from the Senate Majority Leader saying, basically, that he supports segregation. And few Republicans have said anything, most notably President Bush.

---

Isnt Bush on vacation? Or busy marketing the war? Im sure he would otherwise.

RZB, Leaving LCR isn't a matter of smarts, it's a metter of choice. Your post implies that if you're smart you have no choice. Surely that's not what you meant to say. Our members come to us of their own volition and may leave on the same terms; we don't enforce membership as a lifetime committment. As your post indicate, some opportunists come and go as the political winds change, but others of us choose to stay and - [refrain playing ...] - work from within. Would you deprive us of that choice because you think you know better? I didn't think so.

Or am I wrong?

I wood respond to Razorblade's sugjestchen that smart peeple caint bee Republicans, but I ain't no librul, which means that eye'm 2 stoo-ped.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
Both basically stated that the members where more interested in being accepted in the republican party that fighting for their principles.

---

Raze, I'm the first to say I think it's a little *odd* to be gay and Republican. But, your argument only holds up if you are a single-issue voter; that is, if being gay is the most important political issue for you.

But as William has said before, the other issues the GOP stands for outweigh the fact that some of them may not approve of his sexuality.

Similarly, there are some things about the Democratic party I disagree with, but I choose to remain in the party because for the most part, my beliefs are closer to those of the Dems than to those of the Republicans.

I say we let the Log Cabin thing go, and just discuss the issues.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
As your post indicate, some opportunists come and go as the political winds change, but others of us choose to stay and - [refrain playing ...] - work from within. Would you deprive us of that choice because you think you know better? I didn't think so.

Or am I wrong?

---

The ones that I know of that have left have not done so because they are "opportunists" they have done so because of convictions and principles.
They got tired of beating their heads against a wall to try to be part of a political party that clearly does not want them. They got tired of taking crums that some obscure state representative from Rhode Island would throw their way every once in awhile.
Also, I did not mean to imply that you are not "smart", I apoligize!

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Well, for starters I could post you a list of all DC elected officials. (We have a small pistol-style BB gun in our house - a relic of someone's college days - that a policeman friend of mine warns is actually illegal and could cause problems were it somehow discovered.) Then we could move on to the national level.

---

Dont really want a list, just maybe 4 or 5 names of elected officials on the national level, you know - senators, reps.

RZB, no problem, no offense taken. But what you're ultimately saying about these guys is that they simply gave up! I wonder how long they'd been at it in the GOP. 10 years and counting for me; some of us just don't tire so easily. There are opportunists in ALL parties, just as there are people with serious, constant convictions in them as well.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Dont really want a list, just maybe 4 or 5 names of elected officials on the national level, you know - senators, reps.

---

Giving you four or five names would be giving you a list. The list would be four or five names long. But then, as you've pointed out, I'm stupid, so maybe I just don't understand.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
They got tired of taking crums that some obscure state representative from Rhode Island would throw their way every once in awhile.

---

Just a point of order, so to speak. There are 435 representatives. I suspect most Americans couldn't name five of them, and if they did two would probably be dead or retired. Thus, pretty much every representative is "obscure." I would even argue that in the general scheme of American culture, Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, Dick Gephardt and Nancy Pelosi are all "obscure." But then, as Raze will tell you, I'm stupid, so what do I know.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
LCR chapters across the country, and especially in CA, routinely decline to endorse GOP candidates.

---

In individual cases, yes. I've read about those from time to time. But I'm thinking of more of a determination to break ties to the GOP completely--perhaps becoming "Log Cabin Independents" or something.

I agree with Connor and those saying if people want to be Republicans, Libertarians, Log Cabin, Time-Share Cabin, Trent Lottians, Clintonians, Replicons or whatever, then have at it.

I just find it intersting that gays seem to be the only group left that are often so willing to let themselves be marginalized and just sit there and take it. I really don't think that you'd find many black people willing to be in a political party who told them that their being black was like them being a criminal, or that the party was morally opposed to them being black or that they might could be black but better be quiet about it and pretend you aren't black. I don't think they'd stand for it and work within that party. Though I suppose they did until the 60's when they decided it was time to take a stand and make some demands.

Same for women who sat back and often were relegated to second class status until the feminist movement, and even then some women thought "those" women went too far, even though they benefitted greatly from their efforts.

I'm really not trying to slam the log cabin-ites. I think we all, myself certainly included, have been conditioned by church, society, whatever, to hide, deny, ignore and just act as if it's not big deal that these things are said about us and we can just still pull up a place at that same table, even if there is no chair for us. For me, that doesn't work. But thank goodness this is America and people can do what they want and say what they want and then leave it up to each individual to make those choices for his or herself.

P.S. The outsports message board rules.

[quote]Originally posted by mattkorey:
I really don't think that you'd find many black people willing to be in a political party who told them that their being black was like them being a criminal, or that the party was morally opposed to them being black or that they might could be black but better be quiet about it and pretend you aren't black.

---

How, exactly, would one "be quiet" about being black or pretend to not be black? Just asking.

JIP, If we were to do that, we'd completely lose any voice in the party and would rightly be viewed as outside partisans. That's why it's important to stay in and stick it out ... so to speak.

MK, Neither I nor my fellow LCR in SF or CA are one to sit there and take it ... to keep the metaphor alive. We CONSISTENTLY and LOUDLY voice objections whenever this sort of badmouthing occurs. Because we do so, it occurs with less frequency here in CA. It used to be called "in your face politics," but it makes more sense when you're really doing it into the face of some bigot on the convention floor after he or she's made an anti-gay remark than marching around Market St. carrying banners. And if that doesn't work, we have not hesitated to take 'em to court. See, Johnson v. Knowles, 113 F3d 1114 (9th Cir. 1997).

Again, I must fault the media for this. They report the slurs, but not what we do in response. That's not good reporting and it perpetuates stereotypes.

BTW, LCRSF's 25th Anniversary - where it all began - is this coming Monday, 12-16-02 at the Cathedral Hill Hotel on Van Ness at Geary starting with cocktails at 6 pm. US Atty. Kevin Ryan is our speaker and tickets are $75 each. Contact me if you're interested in attending.

Here's a Washington Post article that is really interesting about Lott. I think the good that will come out of this will be that Lott will lose clout with his own party (hopefully genuinely, not just distancing for political reasons). I know there are two sides to every story, but the fact that Lott spoke to the CCC in 1992 (when their views were probably even more openly racist) says a lot about Lott. Speaking to this group is advocating what they say. There's a link to their web site in this article. Take a look, it's shocking.
As long as they point this out as wrong, it isn't a republican problem, it's a problem with Senator Lott.

Talking Points

At the risk of sounding sensationalist, I do think it is still acceptable for Republicans (and sometimes Democrats too - I can be fair) to be "subtly" racist, such as promoting "states rights" and talking to racist groups but later denying any knowledge or support of their racist beliefs.

[quote]Originally posted by DC_guy:
Speaking to this group is advocating what they say.

---

This reminds me of when candidate GWBush spoke at Bob Jones University - which bans interracial dating and supports various other racist and homophobic views - and told the audience, "I look forward to publicly defending our conservative philosophy."

At Bob Jones U., A Disturbing Lesson About The Real George W.

According to the Jackson, MS Clarion Ledger, "Lott's remarks are similar to those he made at a Nov. 2, 1980, rally Thurmond attended at the Coliseum Ramada Inn in Jackson. After Thurmond spoke against federal pre-emption of state laws, Lott told the more than 1,000 people present, 'You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.'" This to me seems to exonerate Lott to some extent, inasmuch as Lott praised Thurman for his general support of small government and not for any particular segregationist policy. More than anything, I think Lott was just being polite in praising a nearly-dead guy on his 100th birthday and just got tripped up a bit by the 100 year old's past views. In the name of courtesy, southerners say things they don't mean all the time.

It's good to know there was a context to what he said in 1980, but he still should have thought about what he was saying. Also, his willingness to associate with groups like the CCC is a big problem. I still think this is a good opportunity for the Republican party to band together and show that they have no tolerance for this type of racism, even if it was a mistake, as a leader, Lott should have recognized the importance of what he was saying.

Also, from above, GWB did speak at Bob Jones, and he shouldn't have. I would hope that in his next campaign, he would be smart enough to avoid it. unfortunately, these types of conservatives are the ones being reached out to the most by the administration right now. but this could change over the next 2 years.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
According to the Jackson, MS Clarion Ledger, "Lott's remarks are similar to those he made at a Nov. 2, 1980, rally Thurmond attended at the Coliseum Ramada Inn in Jackson. After Thurmond spoke against federal pre-emption of state laws, Lott told the more than 1,000 people present, 'You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.'" This to me seems to exonerate Lott to some extent, inasmuch as Lott praised Thurman for his general support of small government and not for any particular segregationist policy. More than anything, I think Lott was just being polite in praising a nearly-dead guy on his 100th birthday and just got tripped up a bit by the 100 year old's past views. In the name of courtesy, southerners say things they don't mean all the time.

---

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Giving you four or five names would be giving you a list. The list would be four or five names long. But then, as you've pointed out, I'm stupid, so maybe I just don't understand.

---

Translation: Cant name even one.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Just a point of order, so to speak. There are 435 representatives. I suspect most Americans couldn't name five of them, and if they did two would probably be dead or retired. Thus, pretty much every representative is "obscure." I would even argue that in the general scheme of American culture, Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert, Dick Gephardt and Nancy Pelosi are all "obscure." But then, as Raze will tell you, I'm stupid, so what do I know.

---

There are 435 STATE reps from Rhode Island?
I thought it was a small state.

Re: Talking points. Lott's long association and alliance with the CCC is despicable and should lead to his removal immediately. He actually pretended that he didn't understand what this group does even though his uncle is a director!

How can any of the Republicans stand for this kind of systemic racism in 2002?

Bush's silence is wrong.

And gmginsf - It's unnecessary to dismiss and condescend to those who carry banners down Market St. while explaining the work you and others do on the convention floor. There are many kinds of activism and yours is hardly the only worthwhile choice.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
After Thurmond spoke against federal pre-emption of state laws, Lott told the more than 1,000 people present, 'You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today.'"

---

Again, William, this is an example of veiled racism. What state laws do you think he was referring to???

A couple more Trent Lott quotes throughout the years (from the Talking POints link DC Guy posted)...

To the board of the Council of Conservative Citizens, 1992: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy."

To the Sons of Confederate Veterans, 1984: "The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform."

It's pretty amazing that William would still defend Lott at this point. That's telling frankly. And you like to point at us following the Democrats blindly. Jeez this is blind and deaf and into a brick wall.

Not only did Prez Bush not condemn the remarks, he made a special point to praise Lott and say how much confidence he has in him and what a great leader he is. Bush being stupid again. Just when he was starting to look like he was getting it together somewhat. Oh well. People will always show their stripes eventually. Even if it's just Bush choosing politics over principle (which can be said about many pols Dem and Repub), it's very disheartening.

And I'm not one to march down Market street holding banners or be the Act-Up sort of activist type, but I sure think those that have, have done some really good work. To each his own style, perhaps they even compliment each other.

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
And gmginsf - It's unnecessary to dismiss and condescend to those who carry banners down Market St. while explaining the work you and others do on the convention floor. There are many kinds of activism and yours is hardly the only worthwhile choice.

---

Indeed there are - some more worthwhile than others - and I'm still waiting to hear exactly what you've done in any of those regards.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


There are 435 STATE reps from Rhode Island?
I thought it was a small state.

---

Sure, give or take a few. Seriously, I didn't see the "state" part of your response. But the point remains: your reference to "obscure state reps from Rhode Island" suggests there are well-known individuals who are currently serving as state reps from RI. You name me one, and I'll tell you the people who want to take away guns (like you don't know who they are).

By the way, do you think George Pataki, Bill Frist and Jim Kolbe are state reps from RI? (Hint: They're not, but they still support LCR, as do many other members of Congress.)

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
Twin, You're right; I like the paper - the only one I subscribe to - for its objective news reporting, features and strong consumer news.

---

They review toasters now too?

Undeniably a topnotch newspaper. The resident liberal, Al Hunt, is from Orange VA.

[quote]Originally posted by mattkorey:
It's pretty amazing that William would still defend Lott at this point. That's telling frankly. And you like to point at us following the Democrats blindly. Jeez this is blind and deaf and into a brick wall.

---

I'm just saying this whole thing is more nuanced than most people are able and/or willing to understand. Anyway, what do Lott's comments change, exactly? Most of you guys thought Republicans were racist last Wednesday, you think the same thing today, and you'll think the same thing next Wednesday. You'll always think it, nothing will change that.

[quote]Originally posted by conor500:


Again, William, this is an example of veiled racism. What state laws do you think he was referring to???

---

Precisely - you guys think everything Republicans do is veiled racism. This changes nothing.

The actual quote, as reported in the Wash. Post today (and taken from the Jackson paper, I believe) was "Then Thurmond declared: "[We] want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states." For many supporters and opponents of civil rights, the phrase "state's rights" stood for the right of states to reject federal civil rights legislation."

So this speech in 1980 was not just about small federal government. We all know the buzz-words people use when trying to allude to something they don't want to say openly, and "state's rights" (or in this case "the rights of the states") is a code word for racism and for the Confederacy. It is the same as when Pelosi was described as a "San Francisco liberal." She rightly pointed out that anyone saying that was likely referring to gays, and not anything else.

Whatever Lott's true beliefs, and I am convinced he's a racist, he has to understand that he is a national leader, and he will be heard. All he has to do to apologize is not to retract his statement, but to come out and state he does not believe segregation was a good way of life, or should have been followed. Thurmond has done this, George Wallace did it, I even think Byrd has come around on this point.