WaxWorks
|
Friday, December 13, 2002
With friends like these, who needs enemies, Trent? (from salon.com)
These quotes are from Richard Barrett, first officer for the Mississippi-based segregationist National movement, and Lott friend:
When Barrett talks about Lott, the memories run deep. "Trent Lott began as a cheerleader at Ole Miss," he says. "He ran onto the field carrying the Confederate flag -- that's how he became popular. Would he have become popular running onto the field carrying a picture of Martin Luther King? I don't think so."
That's why Lott's apology and capitulation angers Barrett so much. "When did Trent Lott become an integrationist?" he asks. "It certainly wasn't at Ole Miss carrying the Confederate flag. Not when William Colmer put him in his office." After Colmer retired in 1972, he supported Lott, his chief aide, to succeed him, even though Lott ran as a Republican.
And Barrett remembers that November 1994 night, right after Lott was reelected to his second Senate term when, "at his victory celebration, at the Coliseum Ramada Inn, Trent entered the hall and the first person he went up to shake hands with and greet was me. He called me by my name and was very affable."
But has Lott ever specifically talked to Barrett about supporting segregation? Barrett finds the question naive. "Does Jesse Jackson talk to Al Sharpton abut integration?" he asks. "Do they have to? Is there some split in the black caucus on that issue? There is certainly no split in Mississippi on segregation. Mississippi is still the solid South."
Barrett says he spent a lot of time on the phone Wednesday night with close advisors to Lott, he says. "We're all like one big happy family in Mississippi. We're the heart of Dixie. I've certainly never heard him say anything in favor of integration, let me put it to you that way."
But is it impossible that Barrett was mistakenly assuming that Lott supported segregation? "As Al Smith used to say, let's look at the record," Barrett says. "Trent Lott has opposed the Martin Luther King holiday. He has backed white segregated schools."
Thursday, December 12, 2002
How much more can he take? Time is now reporting that Lott led the fight against integration at his college fraternity.
A Lott More: Here's a link to Lott's full interview with Southern Partisan magazine in 1984. Make sure you look at page 7 to see Lott explain why voting to make Martin Luther King Day a national holiday was a "bad vote" and "basically wrong."
So, I guess saying that you're spending Christmas with the whole clan means something totally different at Trent Lott's house...
Hmm. Obviously, this would change everything. Lieberman would clearly be in. And Daschle might jump in too.
Quite frankly, I didn't think it was possible that Gore would step aside, but I'm hearing this more and more in the press. Maybe the Nixon parallel is a good one -- lose in 1960, step aside in 1964, win in 1968.
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
|
|
Here's a link to the Lott Amicus Curiae brief in the Bob Jones case. The highlight, as far as I can tell is this passage by Lott explaining why Bob Jones' discriminatory policies do not fall under the public policy exemption denying tax deductions:
Moreover, racial discrimination does not always violate public policy. Schools are allowed to practice racial discrimination in admissions in the interest of diversity. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). An institution's right to pursue diversity is not constitutionally protected, but its right to practice its religion is protected by the First Amendment. If racial discrimination in the interest of diversity does not violate public policy, then surely discrimination in the practice of religion is no violation.
Here's the best I've been able to come up with so far on Lott's brief, from a William M. Brinton's
Online History Books &
World Affairs Commentary.
In November, 1981 Representative Trent Lott (R. Miss.) moved the court for permission to file an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in both cases. His motion was granted at 454 U.S. 1121. As of 1995, Lott was a United States Senator from Missisasippi. In his brief, Lott argued that his Mississippi constituents were engaged in enterprises that would be threatened by the loss of tax exempt status for Goldsboro Christian Schools. It seemed clear he was referring to contributions made as to which his constituents in Mississippi claimed a deduction on their tax returns for contributions made to religious institutions in North and South Carolina, both of which were segregated. These constituents were in effect subsidizing segregation the court found inconsistent with the national interest.
Kudos to Josh Marshall at www.talkingpointsmemo.com for this tidbit:
And of course, there's more. In a landmark case decided in 1983 Bob Jones University sued the government of the United States, and particularly the IRS, claiming the IRS had wrongly taken away its tax-exempt status because the school practiced racial discrimination. The Court found against Bob Jones University and another petitioner, Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc.
Deep in the court opinion we find this little snippet noting which individuals and organizations had filed amicus briefs on behalf of BJU and Goldsboro.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in No. 81-3 were filed by Earl W. Trent, Jr., and John W. Baker for the American Baptist Churches in the U.S. A. et al.; by William H. Ellis for the Center for Law and Religious Freedom of the Christian Legal Society; by Forest D. Montgomery for the National Association of Evangelicals; and by Congressman Trent Lott, pro se.
Drip, drip, drip ...
Yes, that's right. Here's the link to the case and the Lott reference is found on 461 U.S. 576. Now we need to see the brief...
Incidentally, I'm not sure that it would be good for the Democrats if Lott had to step down as Majority Leader, and someone more reasonable like Senator Frist (one rumor I heard today) took over. As Drudge says, developing . . .
Tuesday, December 10, 2002
I've always thought that the 2006 elections in New York raise some really interesting possibilities, and a news report today adds to the intrigue.
Both the Governor and the Senate seat will be up in 2006, as they were in 1998. Hillary will be up for re-election and she will certainly be a very difficult candidate to beat. Since September 11, though, I've wondered (and worried) what a Hillary-Giuliani Senate race would look like, as I think he's the only Republican who could beat her. I think, however, given Giuliani's temperment and leadership style, that he is much better suited to be Governor than Senator, but I think he would love to be the one who knocks off Hillary. Assuming that Giuliani doesn't become VP in 2004 (and it seems as though Bush will keep Cheney), Giuliani will have a tough decision to make in 2006 -- run for Governor or run for Senator.
I've thought that perhaps Pataki would make that decision easier for him, by running for a fourth term, and leading Giuliani to choose the Senate race. But reports are that Pataki has told people privately that he will not seek a fourth term. I think this is good news for Hillary and the Democrats, as I bet Giuliani chooses to be Governor rather than Senator, setting up a potential Elliot Spitzer/Rudy Giuliani race. I wonder if Pataki will decide to go after Hillary, mistakenly thinking he's more popular than he is. (Other than Cuomo, he really hasn't run against anyone strong)...
This may explain a lot. Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of culture and communication at NYU, has concluded that G.W.B. is a sociopath. Here's one of his examples:
At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush was scripted to offer an old saying: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What came out was the following:
"Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." Long, uncomfortable pause. "Fool me — can't get fooled again!"
Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe.
"There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said.
"What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."
I've just read the transcript of Clinton's speech to the DLC last week about the midterm elections. It's well worth a read. Clinton goes issue by issue, outlining where he thinks the party should go. He's still the master.
Monday, December 09, 2002
|
I've read the Esquire article about Karl Rove, and I must admit that, even though I had read DiIulio's letter to the Esquire reporter and followed the story pretty closely, I was still amazed by some of the observations in the story about the degree of influence held by Rove. It is not just DiIulio who comments about Rove's power, but other Republican operatives. The McCain/South Carolina story I knew previously (among other things, the Republicans smeared McCain by phoning Republican voters and telling them that the daughter that McCain and his wife had adopted from Mother Theresa's orphanage in Bangladesh was actually the result of an affair McCain had had with a black prostitute), but it is laid out pretty vividly in the article.
But read the article. It's worth it.
An interesting point is discussed at the end of the article. One White House source comments the day after the 2002 election that maybe the lack of policy wasn't "benign neglect" but rather "brilliant neglect" -- that, given the closeness of last election and the divided Congress, Rove focused for the first two years on the hard right wing core, to motivate them for 2002, when he could get a majority in Congress, and now perhaps he would move to the center for 2004. The source is quoted as saying "The question is, What will we do? Will we finally put together a thoughtful policy team to create a coherent plan for America's future, or just push through one political favor after another dressed up like policy? I guess it's really for Karl, Karl and the president, to decide."
The Simpsons were wrong! I love New Orleans after Landrieu's victory, which I must confess I did not think would happen. As the New York Times reported "Initial returns showed Ms. Terrell with a huge lead that vanished as vote totals from New Orleans were reported." Also, the Democrats were able to garner a big upset in a heavily Republican House district as well.
After November 5, Landrieu fired her campaign staff and hired the political operatives that ran Senator Tim Johnson's successful reelection campaign this year, making them the hottest team for Democrats this year. Twice, they've been able to successfully repel an incredible Republican onslaught. I'd imagine they'd be the hot team going into the 2004 Presidential Race, although it does look like their success has been based more on local than national issues, so perhaps it won't translate well to the national level. (Of course, people may have also said that about Carville and Begala in 1991).
