Learning from Trent Lott
By Leon H Wolf Posted in Democrats — Comments (46) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In a fit of unexpected wisdom, former Kerry campaign manager Jim Jordan once remarked:
"We are too coastal. We are too urban. We are too secular. And, most of all, we are too dovish. The public simply doesn't trust us to keep them safe";
What Jordan was ahead of the curve in realizing, is that after so long, political labels have a habit of sticking - and that political labels that have stuck are often very hard to remove.
For this reason, if Dick Durbin is really concerned for the ideology of his party, and not just his own personal gain, he should take a page out of the Trent Lott playbook, do the right thing by his party and resign his position as minority whip.
When Trent Lott made his famous remarks praising Strom Thurmond at the doddering old man's birthday party, he did so while occupying the position of the number two man in a party that was struggling with the label of being an anti-civil rights party. Again and again and again Republicans were getting creamed in the African American vote for that reason. We can argue all year over whether the label was justified or not; the only thing that matters was that it stuck, and that Republicans were desperate to remove it.
And so, when Trent Lott came along and gave heavy caliber fodder to the opposition along this very line, those who truly understood political strategery on the right were among the first to call for him to resign. Powerline, Bill Kristol, and the Instapundit were among the earliest and most persistent voices calling for the ouster of Lott as Majority Leader.
Polyanna posturing aside, the political reality of the time was that we couldn't take meaningful steps to remove the "anti-civil rights" label while our number two guy was sympathizing with segregationist Presidential campaigns. And so despite the fact that Lott apologized, apologized again, then went on BET to apologize, for the sake of the party, he had to go.
Was that fair? Especially considering that Democrat Chris Dodd made nearly identical remarks about former Klanster Robert Byrd, and didn't receive so much as a slap on the wrist? The point is debatable. But for those who are interested in actually winning elections, sometimes you've got to put your legitimate complaints aside and deal with the perceptions of the American public. After much pressure, Trent Lott did the right thing and stepped down.
Now let's examine the reality for the Democratic Party of today. As Jordan correctly noted, they've been labeled as the party of the dovish and the squeamish. Too soft on crime. Too soft on the terrorists. Not trustworthy when it comes to national defense. Now, before I have to don my spit shield to save myself from the salivating attacks of Democrat loyalists, I'm not saying that those characterizations are accurate - that's another point to debate for another time. But it's long past time for the Democrat party of today to take a deep look in the mirror and realize that the label has stuck right on their forehead, and whining and carping about being labeled never made any label go away.
Into this political reality comes Dick Durbin, reading to us some descriptions of an FBI report about what's happening to terrorists in Gitmo. Never does Durbin stop to consider the amount of sympathy the average American has for these people. Never does he stop to consider that his party is already struggling with a squeamish, dovish image. Never does he stop to consider that - even if he doesn't intend to draw moral equivalency, maybe mentioning the Nazis, Stalinists and Khmer Rouge in the same paragraph as our country isn't the sort of thing that's good for our country, and certainly for his own political party.
Just for the purposes of this post, I will grant the Democrats the premise that Dick Durbin was misunderstood - that he misspoke, that he did not intend to say what Al-Jazeera and the rest of the world understood him to say. Great. Now ask yourself, where does that leave us?
In this case, it leaves you rabidly defending a man who most of the world thinks compared our government to Nazi Germany. Good for the country? You be the judge. Good for your own party?
Do you really need me to tell you that it's not?
Before this thing comes to a censure vote on the Senate floor, placing the rest of the elected Democrats in the Senate, including a number of your Presidential hopefuls in the unenviable position of choosing between loyalty to their party and their own future chances for election, the quiet calls and emails need to start coming in to Durbin's office, followed by a nice, friendly chat with Harry Reid - one that goes something like this, "Listen, Dick, we all love you, but we just can't afford to have you so out front right now." The Democrats get a free Sister Souljah moment, and a major feather in their cap with the American public.
Or, you can continue to cry Vast Right Wing Conspiracy!! and apply a little more epoxy to that label. It's your choice.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | For The Benefit Of Dick Durbin — Comments (45) »
Learning from Trent Lott 46 Comments (0 topical, 46 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Leon, agree with you, absolutely the right move is for the dems to make Durbin step down from his leadership position. As I recall Trent Lott, even after apologizing to the Senate, to the public, to everyone, over and over, still had to leave his leadership post. Of course, Howard Deam, despite numerous assinine comments has not quit as head of the democratic party. And I have not heard from moderate Democratic Senators--Lieberman, Bayh, and others--criticizing Durbin. What are they waiting for?
I'm not saying that those characterizations are accurate
HA! If anything, you're being way too generous. If I were in a bad mood, I would call them the party of conniving pinko sycophants and fifth column fellow-travelers who would sell the United States out to our enemies and let the global parasites suck us dry, as long as it was in the name of a "diverse community" and Human Rights, The New Secular Religion -- but that's just me.
They'll never censure Durbin for his remarks. It will never happen. It'll never get a moment of airtime, and there isn't a single Donk who will bring it up again, except to minimize what he said and explain it away. When Lott resigned, I knew a bunch of people who almost decided to take off work, put on Groucho Marx glasses and head to the local bar to celebrate. Lott was a trophy, and the collective response was "Yeah! We GOT him!" They'll never say a word about Durbin, and neither will the media; if any criticism surfaces, it will be buried on page A16394 of the Washington Post's Thule, Greenland Edition. Watch! Anybody wanna make a bet?
These are Democrats.
Trent Lott said something good about Strom Thurmond, who was a contemporary and fellow Democrat with Robert Byrd.
Strom changed parties, so he was a traitor. Byrd, OTOH, is still a Democrat. So equal membership in the Klan means something different, depending on which party you are in.
And calling American Soldiers out to be the equivalent of the SS or Pol Pot's people means different things to the MSM, too. Depends on which party you belong to, don't you know?
Heh.
John McCain said a lot of nice things about Robert Byrd the other day. Can we drive him from office along with Durban?
Enquiring minds would like to know if what is good for the Goose is good for the Gander in these cases.
Durban is a dommned fool, but he's a Democrat, so it'll all be fine with the MSM. No one will call him out on it. But if McCain runs as the Republican Nominee, expect to see ads from the Dems announcing how he praised a Klan member.
They eat their own, but only if it benefits another one of them. And right now it doesn't, so they'll never say boo about Durban.
Censure would be wonderful, but do you thing that the likes of the Shakey Seven would go along?
ROTFLMAO. It won't happen. Democrats can be as treasonous as they want to be, and it's all good.
a member of the Klan, that honor belongs to Byrd alone.
once ran for president of the United States on a platform supporting racial segregation.
In fact, he said this in a campaign speech:
"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the nigger race into our theaters, into our spring pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
- the party of conniving pinko sycophants and fifth column fellow-travelers who would sell the United States out to our enemies and let the global parasites suck us dry, as long as it was in the name of a "diverse community" and Human Rights, The New Secular Religion
Ya know, I've been using "commie-pinko tree-hugging hippies," but I like yours better. Mind if I steal it?
Dick Durbin to step aside from his leadership position?
It seems to me (to borrow the phrase from Karl Rove) that Durbin and Dean are the gifts that keep on giving?
It's for sure their 'message is getting out' - loud and clear. The American people are getting a real good look at the voices of the democrat party, and just what that party really thinks of America.
Strom Thurmond never apologized for his past.
"Just a professional association", to paraphrase.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/18/AR200506180
1105.html
HeHe.
Tell me another funny one, people!
where he paraphrased the now microscoped remarks of an FBI agent, but did not see enough to detect the use of the phrase as meant as a remark from himself, but rather the disbelief that such a thing could be written to describe events, and then being critical about that while using the remark as an example.
Wouldn't be my first choice as an example, but seems he likes the dramatic. But the question would be, did he mean those words exactly from himself? (Don't think so, maybe). Or did he mean those words to represent what he felt like too? (not sure) Or was it a paraphrase for use as an example? (I think so, but who knows).
Did he actually say he thought the place was what the paraphrase described? I need to know more. Anyone?
Because, if he actually meant that from his own point of view then it's sadly obvious he has not met with anyone remotely connected to national security and the happening at the base and is unfortunately ill equiped to be in his position.
When did this happen?
Anyway, if you ask me, I don't care one way or the other if the Senate decides to censure Durbin or not. I suspect it won't happen.
However, I do believe there was a level of irresponsibility in his comments, not to mention a break from the decorum expected of a U.S. Senator, that warrants a sabbatical from his current #2 position.
I suspect that won't happen either.
Something pithy and easy to remember?
That kind of thing you could copyright with pride!
is not that we need to apologize for the pasts of either Byrd or Thurmond. We don't. And we can't.
As far as I can tell, both "reformed" their ways in their latter years. The question is, why does one get a pass, even when he writes about his Klan membership, and one goes to his grave as an evil segregationist some three decades after renouncing his segregationist ways?
Could it possibly have something to do with the letters* next to their respective names?
*I of course refer to "D" and "R"
Thurmond, whatever faults he did have, was honest.
For Democrat Readers: Click Here!
I think Lott was done in for a variety of reasons, most of which we're driven by his own party - from pundits covering image, to the senate bloc seeing an opportunity for leadership change, to the WH seeing both of these and better coordination with Frist or another.
I don't think any of this applies to Durbin, particularly since Reid is so new, and nobody on the left seems to indicate any interest in making the move.
Meanwhile - free for all pounding from the right.
Durbin's statement got blown way out of proportion and we all know it. Since the before Abu Garab everyone a Nazi - the terrorists, the Christian Conservatives, the Terri Shavio killers, the Rumsfeld Pentagon, the pro-choicers, the pro-lifers, the too-liberal media, the too-conservative media, etc, etc. Everyone's a Nazi because the Nazis did alot of stuff in their day and if you brush your teeth and an analogy can be made then you're brushing your teeth like Adolf Hitler.
In classic Washington style, the first one to shout Nazi loses. Durbin shouldn't be censored for his N-word any more than Santorum should. He shouldn't be silenced any more than O'Reily or Franken - which is to say, he should be allowed to speak until he bores or annoys you and then you should be allowed to turn off CSPAN.
However, the Gitmo question still remains regardless of what we do with Durbin. In the end, Republicans giving this media time aren't doing themselves any favors. Judges still need apointing, taxes need raising/cutting/adjusting, the military needs spending, education needs attention, and maybe we'll have time for Social Security too. But crying fowl just lets the Right obstruct itself. The voters of '06 will have no love for a Congress that spent weeks trying to censor a Senator most people hadn't heard of till this June, when there are others things on the table.
I praise Strom Thurmond for embracing race relations so early; while it regretably did not change his politics, and he never did openly disclose it, he did privately acknowledge it, and did not back away from his obligations at all, which I find to be somehwat admirable when we now have so many single mothers with deadbeat ex-husbands.
He said some extreme things, but Weekly Standard for 6/20 collects and catalogs them all, so he's basically getting what he deserves.
That said, I'll be surprised if he does anything substantial to keep this episode going. I think it will reach the end of its news worthiness in a few days, unless there are really no other events worth covering.
I don't think the furor over the remark is remotely unjustified. It was a reprehensible thing to say, a positively despicable slander coming straight out of the mouth of the #2 Democrat in the Senate. This was a party leader, for heaven's sake, explicitly comparing Marine guards at Gitmo to Nazis, and then refusing to back away from those remarks through the proffer of a disingenuous non-apology. Had a Republican done something analogous, the punditocracy would be hastily erecting a rhetorical gallows, and rightly so.
Thanks so much for the link to the Rather interview. Somehow, I missed that whole exchange. It really helped to put Dan Rather in the proper perspective. He's even more of an a** than I thought.
How low can McCain go? Not Low Enough.
Sorry, here is the link.
If you don't have anything substantive to add, don't add, ok?
Sure why not, I like the people here.
Yeah those comments were a little irresponsible. But, what do you think about this? Do you think it could be assumed that these outburst in the Senate (not so unusual) would be better served to make little of them rather than make them an issue. I mean from either side, no defending anyone who does this.
For instance, would it not be better just to dismiss the entire thing and tell the guy to "sit down and shut up", if he has nothing constructive to offer. These Senate floor daytime drama's are becoming tiresome. Just lable them as "Drama Kings" and be done with it. No one gets any attention except to be made into a child throwing a tantrum. I think this would stop these "Congressional Con Drama's".
The Senate should start the pratice of heckling such a speaker. A spontaneous vocal fillabuster from the entire floor. Oh yeah, I can dream can't I?
I would call them the party of conniving pinko sycophants and fifth column fellow-travelers who would sell the United States out to our enemies and let the global parasites suck us dry, as long as it was in the name of a "diverse community" and Human Rights, The New Secular Religion -- but that's just me.
60 Million people are no anti-American subversives.
Very egalitarian of you.
It was a reprehensible thing to say, a positively despicable slander coming straight out of the mouth of the #2 Democrat in the Senate.
Could you tell me who it is that is being "slandered"?
60 Million people are no anti-American subversives.
Because there's a lot of them, they don't exist?
I guess it would be fine to call the Republican Part y the party of racism because there are some racists in the Republican Party?
patriot - One who loves, supports, and defends one's country.
- country (1) - The territory of a nation or state; land.
- treehugger - An environmentalist, especially one who supports the preservation of forested land and the restriction of logging.
- country (2) - The people of a nation or state; populace
- hippie - A person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles.
- liberalism - A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority.
- hippie - A person who opposes and rejects many of the conventional standards and customs of society, especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles.
Hence, "Tree-hugging hippies" are patriots.
And putting them in would muddy the waters a bit, but (disregarding for the moment Karl Marx's social views and communism as an economic principle) note that both 'pinko' and 'commie' can imply 'revolutionary' -- and as we all know, revolutionaries can certainly be patriots, so 'pinko commie' is not necessarily incompatible with patriotism either.
- 'pinko commie' is not necessarily incompatible with patriotism either.
You guys are always parsing things to your own advantage. I never mentioned 'pinko commies.' My comment was directed only to 'commie-pinkos.'
There are lots of patriotic revolutionaries. Most of the ones we seem to enjoy in this country these days are pinko commies, too. Heck, it's possible to be a pinko commie patriotic revolutionary murdering motorcycle diarist!
Let a hundred schools of thought contend!
The People's Group Name Picker as a starting point in your quest for a pithy acronym. Read a few, let it help focus your mind, and then guide yourself to a new synthesis.
I have one or two, but they're unprintable here on RedState.
Kowalski says: The Democratic party is the party of fifth columnists and subversives
Flyerhawk responds: That can't be! There are 60 million Democrats!
The logical error that most resembles Flyerhawk's is...
How exactly did I object to his logic? I objected to his rhetoric.
It is a cheap tactic intended to smear a large swath of people with the actions of a tiny majority, much like my response to you was.
the MSM beat Lott over the head with his words daily/hourly, I don't see the MSM jumping on Durbin to this extent.
I am not sure in the long run it is going to hurt the DNC anymore than it already has.
Although I absolutely agree that the labels and perceptions have a tendancy to stick, even if those labels/perceptions aren't really true.
Just look at how well the DNC has made the GOP look on race-it doesn't matter that the factual history of the GOP on race is much better than the DNC's on race-most people perceive the GOP to be the racist ones, and if you asked most people who voted for the civil rights bills and who voted against them in greater percentages, they would get it wrong.