Tags: Why | Gang | Lott | When | Rather | and | Wallace

Why Gang Up on Lott When Rather and Wallace Get Off?

Wednesday, 11 December 2002 12:00 AM

But I am dismayed by the number of Republicans and conservatives calling for Trent Lott's head over his remarks about Strom Thurmond.

While not saying anything directly racist, Lott implied that he agreed with Thurmond's segregation views when Thurmond ran for president in 1948.

Lott quickly, and decently, apologized for the remark.

"... I'm sorry for my words," Lott told radio host Sean Hannity Wednesday.

"They were poorly chosen and insensitive," Lott said.

Lott then explained that he made his comments in this context:

"When I think back about Strom Thurmond over the years, what I've seen is a man that was for strong national defense and economic development and balanced budgets and opportunity, and that's the kinds of things that I really had in mind."

I believe Lott. For several good reasons, but one important one. He would have been crazy to want to imply he supported segregation.

And another good reason is that Lott has a long, good record when it comes to race issues and fairness.

But sadly, Republicans are scrambling to attack Lott. Why?

One of things I discovered early in my career is that if a conservative wants to get really accepted by the media and get a lot of airtime, he or she needs to attack a fellow conservative.

A conservative is "crowned" by the liberal establishment when he/she engages in ritual sacrifice of a fellow conservative.

This ritual act occurs when the "conservative" gets an op-ed in the New York Times or the Washington Post, and uses one of these platforms to attack a fellow conservative. After the ritual, the conservative gets a liberal "halo" and is "cleared" for plenty of airtime on CNN, ABC News, Nightline and so on.

No, I am not participating in the sacrifice of Lott.

Lott may not be the savior of the Republican Party, but he doesn't deserve to be ruined by an ambiguous remark that some have deemed offensive. I can understand why people may be disturbed, but I also appreciate Lott's apology and explanation. End of story.

Instead, I was wondering when the major media would get around to reporting Dan Rather's racist remarks.

I am talking about his comments in July of 2001, while on the Imus show, when Rather slammed CBS news execs for forcing him to report on the Gary Condit story.

Rather said on air, "What happened was they [CBS management] got the willies, they got the Buckwheats. Their knees wobbled and we gave it up."

Of course, the "Buckwheat" term is used to describe a frightened black man. At the time of Rather's use of the term, NewsMax noted that other public figures had gotten into hot water, even lost their jobs, for using the term.

Not limousine liberal Dan Rather.

Or what about his CBS colleague Mike Wallace. Wallace once said, with film rolling, that blacks and Hispanics had difficulty filling out loan applications. According to Wallace, they were simply too busy "eating watermelons and tacos" to learn how to read and write.

The comments made by Rather and Wallace are far more insensitive than anything Trent Lott has said. Why have they never been held to account or asked to resign?

The liberal hypocrisy continues.

© 2019 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

   
1Like our page
2Share
Pre-2008
But I am dismayed by the number of Republicans and conservatives calling for Trent Lott's head over his remarks about Strom Thurmond. While not saying anything directly racist, Lott implied that he agreed with Thurmond's segregation views when Thurmond ran for president in...
Why,Gang,Lott,When,Rather,and,Wallace,Get,Off?
537
2002-00-11
Wednesday, 11 December 2002 12:00 AM
Newsmax Media, Inc.
 

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
© Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved