PDA

View Full Version : TO ALL CONSERVATIVES....!! Please tell me...


RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 09:04 AM
...what message is being sent by bringing this man back.
Please tell me that this man does not represent you and your Conservative policies. Please tell me that bringing this man back doesn't symbolize what's meant by 'we will work with the Democrats to ...blah-blah-blah ..."

Why does your party insist on screwing itself over and over?

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/44334/
:scared: :scared: :scared:

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 09:15 AM
Holy hell in a handbasket! :eek:
I guess it IS true. WOW!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/16/us/politics/16lott.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fP eople%2fL%2fLott%2c%20Trent
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/11/16/us/16gop600.1.jpg

Senator Trent Lott, left, pushed out of his leadership role in 2002, was named minority whip, the party’s No. 2 position, in the Senate Wednesday. Heading to a news conference with him was the rest of new Republican leadership, from left, Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas; John Ensign
of Nevada; the new minority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky; and Jon Kyl of Arizona.

By MARK LEIBOVICH
Published: November 16, 2006

WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 — In their rehabilitation campaign, Senate Republicans will rely heavily on a man whose recent history is itself a testament to sudden falls, unlikely recoveries and the fickle hands of fortune in American politics.

Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi, who went from Senate minority leader to presumptive majority leader to disgrace in a matter of days four years ago, was elected minority whip, the party’s second-ranking Senate leadership position, on Wednesday.

Usually, the choice of a whip, a vital but unglamorous job, would draw little attention. But the election of Mr. Lott offers an unlikely study in professional redemption.

“One thing that this proves is that the United States Senate, like the American public, likes a comeback story,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, the Tennessee Republican whom Mr. Lott defeated by a single vote.

Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who was said to be an important supporter of Mr. Lott, added, “He paid a pretty high price for the statement he made.”

Mr. McCain was referring to a 100th birthday party toast for Senator Strom Thurmond, Republican of South Carolina, in which Mr. Lott seemed to praise Mr. Thurmond, a longtime segregationist, for his 1948 presidential campaign. Noting that his home state had voted for Mr. Thurmond then, Mr. Lott added: “We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems.”

Mr. Lott, who was in line to be the Senate majority leader, explained his comments as a well-intentioned tribute to a longtime colleague. He issued serial apologies, but was eventually forced to give up his leadership position.

“We all believe in redemption,” Mr. McCain said Wednesday, adding, “Thank God.”

Republicans favored Mr. Lott for the leadership post largely because of their election losses last week. With Republicans now a minority in the Senate, Mr. Lott was seen as effective in rounding up votes and striking deals. Several senators said the caucus badly needed his legislative expertise, including his ability to work across party lines. (Among the first well-wishers to call him Wednesday were two Democrats, Tom Daschle, the former Senate Democratic leader, and Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.)

Mr. Lott declined to be interviewed, citing a desire to allow the incoming minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, to serve as the spokesman for the leadership team. “I’m going to shock you and defer,” Mr. Lott told reporters. “The spotlight belongs on the leader today.”

Mr. Lott, 65, made his way back into prominence by deploying the same skills that have sustained his political career. He courted and counted his votes carefully. He quietly did committee work and dutifully attended hearings. He earned credit by running for re-election this year rather than retiring, thereby saving what might have been a vulnerable Republican Senate seat. And he bided his time.

Mr. Lott has always been vigilant in allowing reason and results to prevail over emotion. He is a fierce pragmatist, who has spoken of his father’s alcoholism and its effect on him. “It makes you maybe grow up a little early,” he said in 1997.

He has always craved order and leaves little to chance. In the throes of his crisis in 2002, Mr. Lott spent hours bunkered in his home in Pascagoula, Miss., methodically calling friends and colleagues — 50 calls a day — in an effort to save his job. It was a rigorous and disciplined process, similar to the one he followed in recent days as he campaigned quietly for the whip post. He contacted colleagues by phone and in person, emphasizing his ability to get results, his encyclopedic grasp of Senate rules and his skill in working closely with the House.

Once forced out of the leadership, Mr. Lott complained bitterly that Republican senators and the Bush administration had betrayed him.

“I’d been knifed in the back,” Mr. Lott wrote in his book, “Herding Cats: A Life in Politics.” “But in order to be effective again,” he wrote, “I had to shake some of the hands that held the daggers.”

Mr. Alexander recalls seeking Mr. Lott out to make sure he attended a celebration for new senators soon after he stepped down in 2002. Few expected Mr. Lott to attend, and he was not in a celebrating mood. But he showed up . “He wasn’t pouting, “Mr. Alexander said. “He wasn’t feeling sorry for himself.”

Mr. Lott largely undertook his campaign for whip in one-on-one discussions, figuring that a visible effort would bring attention to his past troubles and perhaps scare off potential supporters.

“Nobody knew where he was; it was a stealth candidacy,” said former Senator John B. Breaux, Democrat of Louisiana and one of Mr. Lott’s closest friends. “His strategy was, ‘Run silent, run deep,’ like the old submarine.”

Mr. Lott’s “stealth” return was also forged over many quiet dealings and much legislative grunt work. “He reimmersed himself in committee work, went to a lot of hearings and asked a lot of questions,” said Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine. “Once you’ve been a leader, it’s hard to come back and do these things.”

Mr. Lott’s public fall was followed by a series of blunt remarks befitting a man who felt he had little to lose. “They’re going to have to deal with me,” he said of the Bush administration in a Time magazine interview in September 2003. “And they need to keep me in mind because I can be a problem.”

He became a critic of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld (“I’m not a fan,” he said in 2004.), the failed Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. He said President Bush should be “ashamed of the abysmal” way he had treated former Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, who resigned this year after months of lukewarm support from the White House. And he took repeated shots at Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, his successor as Republican leader. (Mr. Frist did not seek re-election this year.)

Mr. Lott was at his most fervent after Hurricane Katrina. He became a vocal critic of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, challenged insurance companies that refused to cover damages from the storm and helped secure federal relief money for homeowners.

The hurricane destroyed Mr. Lott’s home on the Gulf Coast and marked a pivot point in his life and career. Mr. Lott and his wife, Tricia, had decided in 2001 that he would not run for re-election this year. But the hurricane, which he called “a disastrous event of biblical proportions,” spurred a reassessment. “I concluded that I still have a zest for the job here in Washington,” he said in a news conference early this year. One of the many congratulatory calls to Mr. Lott on Wednesday came from Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist and Louisiana native, who said she gained respect for Mr. Lott after the storm.

“I believe in reconciliation; I’ve always believed in that,” Ms. Brazile said. “I’ll never forget the morning that I had to suck it up and call Trent Lott to help me with my relatives in Mississippi.” She added, “On Katrina, he’s just been a champion.”

Among the other callers were President Bush, from Air Force One. Vice President Dick Cheney offered his best wishes in person.

“It’s just a hugely significant political victory for Trent, especially after he had the rug cut out from under him,” Mr. Breaux said.

He said he believed Mr. Lott would thrive, given the makeup of the Senate and his ability to work with Democrats .

Mr. Breaux hastened to add a caveat: “Trent promised me he’d never give speeches at any more birthday parties.”

Robin Toner and Eric Lipton contributed reporting.

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 09:19 AM
Redemption? Forgiveness? Comeback?

What the heck are these ranking Republicans talking about? :scratch:

"Sluggy"
Nov 16th, 2006, 09:20 AM
Couldnt agree with you more, I personally loathe this person. I remember 6 or 7 years ago when Lott made the GOP concession speach (or something like that) and he read this whole statement, charged with totally religious crap, anti-this and anti- that - I cant stand Lott and for me, he is only valuable if I want to laugh "at someone" (which i dont) and if i want to be afraid for the world's future.

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 09:27 AM
This will be quite an interesting 2 years leading up to the 2008 elections due to this one man. He is a master at stone-walling Bills, and will only serve to complicate an already deteriorating 'Lame Duck' Congress.

So let the games begin! :lol:

RVD
Nov 16th, 2006, 09:31 AM
Couldnt agree with you more, I personally loathe this person. I remember 6 or 7 years ago when Lott made the GOP concession speach (or something like that) and he read this whole statement, charged with totally religious crap, anti-this and anti- that - I cant stand Lott and for me, he is only valuable if I want to laugh "at someone" (which i dont) and if i want to be afraid for the world's future.You know, even though I speak of Conservatives and Republicans in a not-so-favorable light :lol: , I still have quite a few Conservative relationships. I respect these folks as much as any man could. My ire was aimed directly at the Neo-Conservative [fundamentalist] base and not Republicans or even Conservatives as a whole. But this...
...THIS is a solid step backward, and I just don't understand what good could come of it. :shrug:

Lord Nelson
Nov 16th, 2006, 12:52 PM
All I will say is that both Republicans and Democrats have their extremists. BUT a person should be given a second chance. Alan Garcia and Daniel Ortega have been given second chances in ther nations. So far these two are doing a good job. It should be noted that Ortega wa not the official Sadinistas candidate. He was the Ortega candidate. :)
Anyway, Trent Lott should also be given a second chance.

*JR*
Nov 16th, 2006, 01:44 PM
All I will say is that both Republicans and Democrats have their extremists. BUT a person should be given a second chance....
Anyway, Trent Lott should also be given a second chance.
He never issued an unconditional apology though (including for other racially insensitive remarks) only an explanation. But you're correct about the Democrats, as Robert Byrd (just re-elected in West Virginia to a record tying 9th 6-year term) has used the N word. Including during the time he was the party's Senate leader from '76 thru ('86?) and wasn't pushed aside, despite also merely "explaining himself".
:shrug:

Lord Nelson
Nov 16th, 2006, 02:27 PM
He never issued an unconditional apology though (including for other racially insensitive remarks) only an explanation. But you're correct about the Democrats, as Robert Byrd (just re-elected in West Virginia to a record tying 9th 6-year term) has used the N word. Including during the time he was the party's Senate leader from '76 thru ('86?) and wasn't pushed aside, despite also merely "explaining himself".
:shrug:

Aha I did not know that. So I wonder what Reevandynasty has to say about Robert Byrd.

lakeway11
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:21 PM
Aha I did not know that. So I wonder what Reevandynasty has to say about Robert Byrd.


nothing of course...

Lott is not nearly conservative enough for me (or should i say pro free-market and anti-NWO)

samsung101
Nov 16th, 2006, 04:41 PM
Uh, all 'conservatives' did not vote on Lott.
The shell shocked GOP Senators did.


He is not a popular choice among most conservative pundits
and radio shows and writers. He isn't at all. The Lott decision
is about as liked as the Mel Martinez RNC selection.

They're not. Bush picked Martinez. It's not liked. The Senators
picked Lott, that's not liked.

McConnell as majority leader is a popular, and good, choice.


Most wanted a new face like Thune or Kyl. Or even
Alexander or even Martinez in that role, not RNC Chairman.

Quick..name the last GOP whip? The Democratic whip?

The Majority and Minority Leaders are the real power brokers.
They will tell the Whip what he or she can and cannot do.


But, it is something I understand.

The Senators did and by 1 vote, as McConnell did not vote, he
won the role.


He is a Senate rule book genius. Like Newt was with the House.
Like Daschle was. They're not the most congenial guys, but they
get things done behind the scenes. He's a guy who can broker
deals, and helped create voting blocks. Hard as it may be to believe,
Lott is actually liked in the Senate by both party members. He may
be a jerk, but, he's evidently inside the Senate a classy jerk.

With a 49/49/2 Senate, with 1 independent leaning GOP on foreign
policy issues, deals will have to be made. Blocks created. The GOP
can hold up bills, shape them, and with Lieberman they can even
get their way, or hold up a veto override too w/their votes. Lott
knows how to do that better than anyone else there.

That's why.

He's not a GOP base popular choice.


But, if the Democrats can have Murtha as their Majority leader, why
not. He's got ABSCAM and other shady deals in his past. Which it
seems only now many are being told of - again. If McCain can come
back from the Keating Scandal, I think Lott can from his verbal
gaffe. If Biden can insult Indians with his donut shop comment,
and be forgiven for it, I think old Lott can be given a 2nd chance
after several years of punishment.

I'd prefer Thune myself.

lakeway11
Nov 16th, 2006, 05:41 PM
I'd prefer Thune myself.


The New American puts Thune's voted record at 54% conservative (according to John Birch Society standards), which is rather dreadful but still only 5 Senators have a larger number (65% the highest)...Congressman Ron Paul of Texas once again has a 100% conservative voting record. Republican??? Kirk (IL) has the lowest. Nancy Pelosi (CA) has a 31% rank, which is higher than many, many Republicans...

Vlover
Nov 16th, 2006, 05:49 PM
Aha I did not know that. So I wonder what Reevandynasty has to say about Robert Byrd.

I'm sure RV will speak for himself but this is my take on the matter. Yes Byrd's past is terrible when it comes to race but so was the whole Democratic party then up to the 60's when the party began to change. A lot of racists Democrats then who wanted to continue with segregation switch to the Republican party including Strom Thurman. That is when most blacks also switch from the Republican party to become Democratics. Also that is why Democrats have a hard time winning elections in the South because the Republicans still race bait to this day.

Byrd claim to be a reformed person and we have to take people at there word until we can prove otherwise. As for Lott the statement was made by him very recently confirming that the Republicans in the South think that America would be better if the civil rights of blacks were still denied.

Just like Allen, Lott's true colors were shown when they thought no one else was "looking". I'm glad their views are not widely tolerated and they have suffered politically for it. It's time America progress for the better and reject these SOB's who want to reclaim the past.:tape:

BTW Thurman was against civil rights for blacks but he had no problem having sex with them sounds familiar......

kiwifan
Nov 16th, 2006, 05:55 PM
I'm sure RV will speak for himself but this is my take on the matter. Yes Byrd's past is terrible when it comes to race but so was the whole Democratic party then up to the 60's when the party began to change. A lot of racists Democrats then who wanted to continue with segregation switch to the Republican party including Strom Thurman. That is when most blacks also switch from the Republican party to become Democratics. Also that is why Democrats have a hard time winning elections in the South because the Republicans still race bait to this day.

Byrd claim to be a reformed person and we have to take people at there word until we can prove otherwise. As for Lott the statement was made by him very recently confirming that the Republicans in the South think that America would be better if the civil rights of blacks were still denied.

Just like Allen, Lott's true colors were shown when they thought no one else was "looking". I'm glad their views are not widely tolerated and they have suffered politically for it. It's time America progress for the better and reject these SOB's who want to reclaim the past.:tape:

Damn, newbie, you bring the pain!!! :lol: :worship: :lol:

SelesFan70
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:18 PM
BTW Thurman was against civil rights for blacks but he had no problem having sex with them sounds familiar......

Strom Thurmond :)

Wigglytuff
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:19 PM
I'm sure RV will speak for himself but this is my take on the matter. Yes Byrd's past is terrible when it comes to race but so was the whole Democratic party then up to the 60's when the party began to change. A lot of racists Democrats then who wanted to continue with segregation switch to the Republican party including Strom Thurman. That is when most blacks also switch from the Republican party to become Democratics. Also that is why Democrats have a hard time winning elections in the South because the Republicans still race bait to this day.

Byrd claim to be a reformed person and we have to take people at there word until we can prove otherwise. As for Lott the statement was made by him very recently confirming that the Republicans in the South think that America would be better if the civil rights of blacks were still denied.

Just like Allen, Lott's true colors were shown when they thought no one else was "looking". I'm glad their views are not widely tolerated and they have suffered politically for it. It's time America progress for the better and reject these SOB's who want to reclaim the past.:tape:

BTW Thurman was against civil rights for blacks but he had no problem having sex with them sounds familiar......
well said!!

Stamp Paid
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:22 PM
LOL, they're pandering to their Southern, Christian, Republican, racist stronghold right? :shrug:

Stamp Paid
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:23 PM
I'm sure RV will speak for himself but this is my take on the matter. Yes Byrd's past is terrible when it comes to race but so was the whole Democratic party then up to the 60's when the party began to change. A lot of racists Democrats then who wanted to continue with segregation switch to the Republican party including Strom Thurman. That is when most blacks also switch from the Republican party to become Democratics. Also that is why Democrats have a hard time winning elections in the South because the Republicans still race bait to this day.

Byrd claim to be a reformed person and we have to take people at there word until we can prove otherwise. As for Lott the statement was made by him very recently confirming that the Republicans in the South think that America would be better if the civil rights of blacks were still denied.

Just like Allen, Lott's true colors were shown when they thought no one else was "looking". I'm glad their views are not widely tolerated and they have suffered politically for it. It's time America progress for the better and reject these SOB's who want to reclaim the past.:tape:

BTW Thurman was against civil rights for blacks *cough* gays *cough* but he had no problem having sex with them sounds familiar......

Yes, sounds very familiar to someone in this thread as well. ;)

timafi
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:28 PM
i can't wait til he says a racist thing again a la Allen for Samsung to defend his sorry arse:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Vlover
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:46 PM
Strom Thurmond :)

Stand corrected! Yes, he's the same SOB;)

Wigglytuff
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:48 PM
LOL, they're pandering to their Southern, Christian, Republican, racist stronghold right? :shrug:

basically. but i will add that gays can be just as racist as the next fool *cough* selesfan70 *cough*

SelesFan70
Nov 16th, 2006, 06:54 PM
Stand corrected! Yes, he's the same SOB;)

Odd how you claim the democrats as a whole had a change of heart ( :lol: ), but you can't fathom the idea of Strom Thurmond or Republicans doing the same. :rolleyes:

SelesFan70
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:00 PM
basically. but i will add that gays can be just as racist as the next fool *cough* selesfan70 *cough*

You calling me a racist doesn't make it so, :rolleyes:

Lord Nelson
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:00 PM
basically. but i will add that gays can be just as racist as the next fool *cough* selesfan70 *cough*

lay off the cigarettes, it is bad for your lungs. :lol:

Vlover
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:21 PM
Odd how you claim the democrats as a whole had a change of heart ( :lol: ), but you can't fathom the idea of Strom Thurmond or Republicans doing the same. :rolleyes:

Hey I can only judge by their words and actions. Constantly voting against the civil rights of certain Americans and publicly alligning yourself with such ideas doesn't display any changes to me. There is no question that the GOP uses race as a wedge to remind the white males especially in the south of the main reason they should remain loyal to the Republicans. They have been a master at this to this day. It worked again in Tennessee even though it was subtle.

Another thing I'm curious about the "Red" south is that they are against the East and West progressives but need to rely on their taxes to provide subsidies and other government programs to survive. Also whose mainly paying to fund the wars that they love so much. Feeding and providing health care for women and children is so wrong but bombing them is fine.:rolleyes:

samsung101
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:48 PM
It isn't a popular choice in the party or on
conservatives media outlets.


4 years in political purgatory is a long time though.

Maybe they feel he got his punishment out
of the way.

I mean he was all set to be Majority Leader when
he gave Strom a stupid birthday comment. In
swept Frist in the only brave and daring move he
made in 4 years...after that he whimped out on
almost everything.



We'll see how long it lasts.





Murtha losing out today probably isn't popular either.

I'm sure Daily Kos is going crazy.
Rosie O'Donnell is probably screaming conspiracy.
Bush did it!

I mean he has THE PLAN!

The guy has the super secret, very smart,
Redeployment via Okinawa via Fresno via China
via NYC Plan for Iraq!

I really like her picks of some committee chairs who
have impeachment and censures in their backgrounds.

Dissing Jane Harman, ouch, Jane knows how to fight back
Nancy, watch your back.


Good groundwork!

Keep it up Dems. I like it!

Lord Nelson
Nov 16th, 2006, 07:58 PM
Hey I can only judge by their words and actions. Constantly voting against the civil rights of certain Americans and publicly alligning yourself with such ideas doesn't display any changes to me. There is no question that the GOP uses race as a wedge to remind the white males especially in the south of the main reason they should remain loyal to the Republicans. They have been a master at this to this day. It worked again in Tennessee even though it was subtle.

Another thing I'm curious about the "Red" south is that they are against the East and West progressives but need to rely on their taxes to provide subsidies and other government programs to survive. Also whose mainly paying to fund the wars that they love so much. Feeding and providing health care for women and children is so wrong but bombing them is fine.:rolleyes:

Are you implying that people did not vote for Harold Ford because he was black? Just because the media in general said that he was leading the polls does not mean that that scenario would take place. Things don't alway go as expected. In any case if he had won the media would then say that it was totally unexpected which would have contradicted their expectations. I love the media they make me laugh. :lol:
The Republican party is not a party of white males as you say. A lot of women vote too and also hispanics. Only blacks don't vote as much. Not because they all are liberals, In fact on average they seem to be more conservative than whites....One more thing, i've been to Georgia and the people ther did not seem to be as hill billie as I thought they would be. In fact the funny thing is I encountered more racism towards me in upstate New York than I did in the South. With regards to South I guess that mentalities are changing. They seem to be less stereotypical of blacks. So perhaps you should be less stereotypical of white southers.

Qrystyna
Nov 16th, 2006, 08:47 PM
"Conservative" sounds like something that should have been left back in 1956, not 2006.

StarDuvallGrant
Nov 16th, 2006, 08:49 PM
basically. but i will add that gays can be just as racist as the next fool *cough* selesfan70 *cough*

Yes they can. This message board is proof of it.

Stamp Paid
Nov 16th, 2006, 08:57 PM
Are you implying that people did not vote for Harold Ford because he was black? Just because the media in general said that he was leading the polls does not mean that that scenario would take place. Things don't alway go as expected. In any case if he had won the media would then say that it was totally unexpected which would have contradicted their expectations. I love the media they make me laugh. :lol:
The Republican party is not a party of white males as you say. A lot of women vote too and also hispanics. Only blacks don't vote as much. Not because they all are liberals, In fact on average they seem to be more conservative than whites....One more thing, i've been to Georgia and the people ther did not seem to be as hill billie as I thought they would be. In fact the funny thing is I encountered more racism towards me in upstate New York than I did in the South. With regards to South I guess that mentalities are changing. They seem to be less stereotypical of blacks. So perhaps you should be less stereotypical of white southers.

Oh please! As someone who was born and raised in Rochester, New York, and has lived in Georgia for the past 10 years, please allow me to tell you that you are wrong. In my experience, southern Whites are not only more prejudiced, but they are also much more aggressive in displaying their prejudice.

And Harold Ford lost because the RNC made an ad, that parodied him as being at the Playboy mansion and being in intimate situations with white women. This preys on some of the greatest historical fears of many southern whites and helped bring Ford down.

Lord Nelson
Nov 16th, 2006, 09:54 PM
Oh please! As someone who was born and raised in Rochester, New York, and has lived in Georgia for the past 10 years, please allow me to tell you that you are wrong. In my experience, southern Whites are not only more prejudiced, but they are also much more aggressive in displaying their prejudice.

And Harold Ford lost because the RNC made an ad, that parodied him as being at the Playboy mansion and being in intimate situations with white women. This preys on some of the greatest historical fears of many southern whites and helped bring Ford down.
That is your own point of view. i was a student at Marist College, Poughkeepsie NY. Man I hated that hell hole. Fortunately I transferred to a better university in DC. At Marist there where more than a dozen people who made racist comments on blacks. Probably would have said it on other foreigners such as myself but behind my back. Whites and blacks in general went out seperately. But Georgia is becoming more mixed like in the cities. Obviously in country side like with NY, situation is different.....Having said that I do not think that whites are more prejudiced than others in the south. I think that othere races, samething can be said. Ignorance is a human trait and it is not found in some races. But I understand you.

RVD
Nov 17th, 2006, 02:49 AM
Aha I did not know that. So I wonder what Reevandynasty has to say about Robert Byrd.My feelings concerning Robert Byrd were and are what they've always been. That is, he has a shady past that I do not condone. Neither has he ever come out [as far as I recollect] to openly denounce the KKK. In fact, if I recall, he opposed anything having to do with Civil Rights ! :mad:
Today, I consider him old school, out of touch, and a hypocrite. I will go as far as to term him a life-long closet racist. And I eagerly await the day that he passes on and allows a more progressive representative to take the reigns in leading his state into the new millennium.

Hope that answers your question. :wavey:

RVD
Nov 17th, 2006, 02:52 AM
nothing of course...

Lott is not nearly conservative enough for me (or should i say pro free-market and anti-NWO) :scratch: Did I miss something lakeside11?
Are you now answering for me? :confused:

RVD
Nov 17th, 2006, 03:03 AM
I'm sure RV will speak for himself but this is my take on the matter. Yes Byrd's past is terrible when it comes to race but so was the whole Democratic party then up to the 60's when the party began to change. A lot of racists Democrats then who wanted to continue with segregation switch to the Republican party including Strom Thurman. That is when most blacks also switch from the Republican party to become Democratics. Also that is why Democrats have a hard time winning elections in the South because the Republicans still race bait to this day.

Byrd claim to be a reformed person and we have to take people at there word until we can prove otherwise. As for Lott the statement was made by him very recently confirming that the Republicans in the South think that America would be better if the civil rights of blacks were still denied.

Just like Allen, Lott's true colors were shown when they thought no one else was "looking". I'm glad their views are not widely tolerated and they have suffered politically for it. It's time America progress for the better and reject these SOB's who want to reclaim the past.:tape:

BTW Thurman was against civil rights for blacks but he had no problem having sex with them sounds familiar......Beautifully stated.

And might I also add that people would be surprised to note that the Democratic Party today isn't all that removed from the Democratic Party of yesterday. There are just as many discriminatory, bigoted, and prejudicial beliefs held in both parties as has always existed. The only major difference is the disproportionate number of minorities in each party and what these minority representatives stand for.

Let me be clear here...

Being of a particular ethnic group does not automatically preclude that representative from exhibiting the very same racist, bigoted, and prejudicial attitudes towards their own people. We see it everyday. :shrug:

Again, superb post. :wavey:

RVD
Nov 17th, 2006, 03:25 AM
Are you implying that people did not vote for Harold Ford because he was black? Just because the media in general said that he was leading the polls does not mean that that scenario would take place. Things don't alway go as expected. In any case if he had won the media would then say that it was totally unexpected which would have contradicted their expectations. I love the media they make me laugh. :lol:
The Republican party is not a party of white males as you say. A lot of women vote too and also hispanics. Only blacks don't vote as much. Not because they all are liberals, In fact on average they seem to be more conservative than whites....One more thing, i've been to Georgia and the people ther did not seem to be as hill billie as I thought they would be. In fact the funny thing is I encountered more racism towards me in upstate New York than I did in the South. With regards to South I guess that mentalities are changing. They seem to be less stereotypical of blacks. So perhaps you should be less stereotypical of white southers.I believe you have your facts twisted a bit LN. Blacks are conservative in a far different way; mainly in the area of religion [Southern]. In fact, if you were to view a ethnic census map, you'd quickly note that the highest concentration of conservative Blacks exits along the Bible Belt. No surprise there. The slaves needed something to maintain and sustain them. :shrug: However, to suggest that these conservative blacks hold the same conservative views as their white counterparts is ridiculous.
On the other hand, most progressive blacks I know have very little in common with the typical Conservative Republican, which is a no-brainer. However, in some instances you find that their beliefs overlap to some small degree.
Moreover, you may encounter more conservative Democratic blacks in the blue states, but again, you'd quickly note that these have their roots in the southern red states as well.
What this all tells me is that we all have crossover beliefs to some degree, but what separates the majority is HOW those beliefs are expressed. Again, as I wrote in a previous post, there are members of both parties who share the same prejudices and racist beliefs. The difference is in how they 'present' these beliefs.

I like to look at voting records as an indication on who believes what. ;)

Vlover
Nov 17th, 2006, 03:49 AM
[QUOTE]There are just as many discriminatory, bigoted, and prejudicial beliefs held in both parties as has always existed. The only major difference is the disproportionate number of minorities in each party and what these minority representatives stand for.

Totally agree!! Most times it just comes down to the lesser of two evils. You just have to work with what you've got until you get what you want.

Wigglytuff
Nov 17th, 2006, 03:59 AM
Let me be clear here...

Being of a particular ethnic group does not automatically preclude that representative from exhibiting the very same racist, bigoted, and prejudicial attitudes towards their own people. We see it everyday. :shrug:

Again, superb post. :wavey:

exactly, we see this all time. even in this forum, its there.

Qrystyna
Nov 17th, 2006, 03:29 PM
One thing I've always wondered about conservatives... what exactly are they trying to 'conserve'? :confused: To me, as a very progressive person, it seems like they just want to hold onto the past, rather than jumping forward into the future. Human nature has evolved so much and will continue to evolve and change. The past is continually becoming obsolete.

lizchris
Nov 17th, 2006, 05:27 PM
:rolleyes: I'm sure RV will speak for himself but this is my take on the matter. Yes Byrd's past is terrible when it comes to race but so was the whole Democratic party then up to the 60's when the party began to change. A lot of racists Democrats then who wanted to continue with segregation switch to the Republican party including Strom Thurman. That is when most blacks also switch from the Republican party to become Democratics. Also that is why Democrats have a hard time winning elections in the South because the Republicans still race bait to this day.

Byrd claim to be a reformed person and we have to take people at there word until we can prove otherwise. As for Lott the statement was made by him very recently confirming that the Republicans in the South think that America would be better if the civil rights of blacks were still denied.

Just like Allen, Lott's true colors were shown when they thought no one else was "looking". I'm glad their views are not widely tolerated and they have suffered politically for it. It's time America progress for the better and reject these SOB's who want to reclaim the past.:tape:

BTW Thurman was against civil rights for blacks but he had no problem having sex with them sounds familiar......


That and the fact that he had little use for his daugher and didn't lover her wouldn't make him any different from the average Southern cracker.