Trent Lott is a gigantic cockfarmer

Who's a teeny tiny tiddling cock farmer?

His apology for the comments he made during the Strom Thurmond retirement debacle seem to smack of "Whoops! I didn't mean to say that aloud" rather than really being sorry or not meaning what he said.

(I hope politicians never figure out that just because an audience seems pleased, that doesn't mean the rest of the world will agree: it's because of this fact that the public gets a little ear on what ideologues do "in private.")

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! "See? I'm not a segregationist racist!"

That's me! That's me!

And actually segregationalism was THE PRIMARY thing that defined Thurmond's campaign -- any other claim is sheer revisionism.

http://www.bigzosso.ukbikers.net/assets/duplicate3/Kev_Braddell_and_me.jpg

"Anonymous" is just repeating Rush Limbaugh-isms, like the good little Dittohead that he is.

I could have maybe bought the "he didn't mean it *that* way" if not for all the apologizing he's doing now. But it sure was nice of the untouchable Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot.

lott has been all too equivocal ("discarded policies of the past" etc. -- which coming from a conservative might still be taken as a semi-nostalgic compliment) and until he actually comes out and says something like "i was wrong; strom was wrong; segretationism was wrong," it's hard to escape the idea that he might still believe otherwise.

and worse than that, it seems lott believed that some significant portion of his party supporters and the american public in general would find his message stirring and refreshingly candid. it's one thing to get people to support restrictions on the power of the federal government (a message the republicans have been mostly successful at getting across over the last 20 years), but it's quite another to tie such policies (even implicitly) to such abhorrent, racist views.

one of the reasons why bush (like reagan before him) has been politically successful is that he seems, at heart, to be a decent guy (i think many, many americans think his character is a much stronger positive than his lack of intellectual sophistication is a negative). what lott said, in contrast, wasn't so much dumb as mean.

i think the majority of americans were repulsed by lott's comments and do not share his views at all. and i think this will backfire far beyond the now-certain end of his political career, despite bush's admirably clear denunciation (hanle y -- what makes you call bush a racist?).

this incident has called into question a good portion of the moral authority of a group of politicians who have made explicitly moral appeals (on the response to 9/11, the clinton/lewinsky affair, corporate responsibility, etc) their trademark. in trent lott's case, the mask slipped. i think people will be watching more closely to see what other bodies wash up on the republican beach.

It's funny: it might be my own politics biasing my perspective, but this sort of thing seems to be a general conservative tendency. Republicans draw more of their support from groups the public would consider extremists; with Democrats, it's more likely groups the public might consider just silly. And the ostensible "mainstream" of conservatism is, I think, a lot more closely linked with the fringes than on the other side of the spectrum. So we see -- over and over! -- conservatives making wondrous blunders when talking to their "home crowds," so to speak, whether it's at Bob Jones or while feting Thurmond. They're magnificent to watch, as this Lott one was, because you can just feel them go on a roll: they make one comment and the crowd's receptive and then they start picking up steam and barrelling onward until clunk, they've revealed exactly the opinions the general public has always been afraid they're hiding somewhere in there.

(Actually this happens plenty with liberals as well, but it tends to be in print, columns in particular. In which case the potential for saying something blindingly awful is greatly diminished.)

Republicans are all cockfarmers. Do you hear that, republicans? You are a bunch of cockfarmers.

I was surprised by the furor over this one because Lott has a long and glorious history of shit associations and awful commentary: kind words for a white supremacist group called the CCC that he later lied about and denied; on-record support for Bob Jones University's prohibition of interracial dating; a cozy history with Southern Partisan magazine. (So many key figures in our government just adore this magazine that you'd think more people would actually read it.) I suppose if he weren't at the center of such a shitstorm he'd pretend that (a) he really had no opinions about segregation apart from the issue of federalism, in which he has some deep philosophical interest, (b) when he said a white supremacist group had the "right ideas" he meant all those other ideas they had, like about puppies and film criticism, and (c) he filed a Supreme Court amicus brief on behalf of Bob Jones not because of anything having to do with the dating policy but because of another theoretical concern involving federal power over the exercise of religion. (He'd have the even-handed concern for principle of ... of an ACLU member!)

I'm glad one of them finally stuck.

i think your surprise speaks to a misperception of the values that most people (from whatever point on the political spectrum) bring to current debates about racial issues. yes, of course, racism is alive and well in 2002. if you define the term broadly enough, most people have views that can be called racist. but i think some of that is more of a low-grade, chronic (or at least sub-acute) form of racism than that which drove so many people to protest desegregation. not that these more modern racist ideas aren't a problem, but at least they're not the same problem.

i think we can be too quick to slap the racist label on ideas we disagree with. some of today's racial questions (about affirmative action, or police profiling, or slave reparations) are such that reasonable people who aren't racists (by many definitions) may disagree about which course of action is best. but some of the battles of the past are not at all ambiguous (i don't want to write "more black and white"). i think the general public cares very much that those battles were won, and is sure that the winners were right.

i also think that when we fail to acknowledge that america is doing a much better job of living up to its founding ideals than it has previously, we take away some of the force of our criticisms of things as they still stand. it's a sort of godwin's law-like over-reaching that turns people (who, whatever else they believe, are usually convinced that they're ok) off, and increases the possibility that reasonable comments will fall on deaf ears.

but this may be an overly-optimistic view of the better angels of human nature. after all, i'm a white guy from canada, so i can only imagine what you've had to deal with. but being for segregation in 2002 would be akin to being for disenfranchising women. would you be surprised to see the american public reject that idea?

lott's support for that ban != his apparent support for thurmond's dixiecrat platform, and thus the difference in public reaction.

In other words, I follow your arguments as to why this might strike some people as worse than previous problems, but my whole point is that a lot of people don't even like to start thinking about it that much in the first place.

also, the confederacy is a big enough idea that it can be taken (not by me, though) as a symbol of other things that people can reasonably still think are important. thurmond's campaign in '48, from what i know of it, was little more than hateful race-baiting. it's a lot harder to dodge the question in this case, especially with that "not enough troops in the army" quote floating about.

i don't think people avoid thinking about these things at all -- racial politics are as hot-button as it gets. but i think many people (especially on the left) are conflicted enough about their own ideas on race (is this racist? will others think so?) that they tend to cut people some slack, especially when other, less inflammatory interpretations are possible.

but in this case, lott has no wiggle room at all. not just what he said, but the way he said it (eyes flashing, self-righteousness incarnate) has put him well outside the mood of just about everyone in the country.

The interesting thing about this statement is that I suspect many Americans do not feel that the GOP has much moral authority as far as the corporate responsibility issue. In fact, the GOP has been awfully quick to try and bury the issue-somewhat successfully, in my opinion. I can't remember the last time I heard anything about real actions being taken to combat corporate malfeasance, short of Harvey Pitt's resignation (which was actively opposed by the Bush administration, of course). Instead, right-wing apologists are popping up in magazines like Forbes spouting off about how CEOs are more honest than politicians and don't deserve to be punished despite having manipulated markets and reaped enormous personal fortunes while making shareholder money vanish into thin air.

the GOP followed the same pattern in attacking clinton more on his personal morality than his public record (by framing his personal moral failings as public ones). and much of their rhetoric post 9/11 is similarly oriented toward transcendent moral ideals (americans ever-innocent and good, facing an enemy of incomprehensible, implacable evil, etc).

this appealing fiction rests on the idea that "we" (depending on the speaker) are the good ones -- our character is proof enough that we should prevail. but what lott said will make it very hard for many americans to continue to assume that he has their best interests at heart, that he is really on their side. and those same questions can, and will be extended to the republican party as a whole.

from the left, the response might be: "it's about time!" but the thing is, however many things the bush administration has done that irritate or infuriate you (the environmental record, the tax cut, missile defense, whatever), these are questions on which reasonable people disagree. the number of people who read the wall street journal or listen to limbaugh should be proof of that (if you think that's just proof that they're all idiots, you're part of the problem, sorry). i still think that what lott said (and implied) this week goes so far beyond what's reasonable that many people (some for the first time in a long time) will call into question the ability of republicans to continue to present themselves as inherently good.

if the republicans are going to maintain their coalition, they will have to reassure moderates that lott's views (and those of others like him) have no part in the party mainstream. which means he's done. of course, this will go against the triumphalist rhetoric (and the increasingly baldfaced right-wing policies) accompanying their recent victories. but if the GOP doesn't draw a bright enough line in the minds of the voters, their moment at the top will be short-lived.

(Then there are folks like me who never thought that any of these assholes were the least bit morally "superior" to anyone, let alone Clinton. And I still don't.)

Line of the day, in the wake of Bush's "condemnation": "I don't know what is in Trent Lott's heart, but I know what's in his back: Karl Rove's knife".

As far as the Journal goes, true. Limbaugh, on the other hand--I've heard some of his ravings and anyone willing to seriously consider his wild denouncements of "the left wingers" and the 'statistics' he manages to fabricate out of thin air has no claim to reasonableness as far as I'm concerned.
I see your point regarding the corporate incidents; I didn't get the thrust of your argument in the initial post. I think the GOP could stand to lose some serious ground if they lose the perception of moral superiority as well. Many of their supporters toe the party line because of this perception rather than out of real support for Republican policies, which often tend not to be in the best interest of many working or middle class voters. However, I don't think the Dems are capable of usurping morality. I haven't been impressed with their recent public relations strategies, or lack thereof.

ummmmm, he said it was wrong specifically, several times.

Oh how I wanted to read this with the word 'lick'...

related to this -- my DC friends told me (long before this incident) that Lott was rumored to be a closeted gay. nicknamed him "mississippi queen," in fact.

*gurgle*

Senate Republicans have just elected Trent Lott to serve as their new minority whip, and every mainstream media story reporting that fact will note that Lott lost his job as Senate majority leader in 2002 after saying that America would have been better off if segregationist Strom Thurmond had been elected president in 1948.

We prefer to remember Lottisms from more recent vintages.

Lott on Iraq: After declaring that Senate Republicans and "real people out there in the world" don't "obsess" about Iraq like reporters do, Lott said in September that he doesn't understand why Sunnis and Shiites are fighting each other anyway. "Why do they hate each other? Why do Sunnis kill Shiites? How do they tell the difference?" Lott asked. "They all look the same to me."

Lott on Tom DeLay: In an interview with the Washington Times in 2005, Lott said that George W. Bush "needs Tom DeLay" and that the White House should have been giving him "aggressive support." "I think the president would tell anybody privately or publicly that Tom DeLay has been a strong leader, aggressive leader, and that he hopes he'll stay in that leadership position," he said.

Lott on ethics reform: "Now we're going to say you can't have a meal for more than 20 bucks. Where are you going, to McDonald's?"

Lott on critics of "earmarks": "I'll just say this about the so-called 'porkbusters.' I'm getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble since Katrina."

Lott on Abu Ghraib: In an interview with the New York Times' Deborah Soloman, Lott said: "Most of the people in Mississippi came up to me and said: 'Thank Goodness. America comes first.' Interrogation is not a Sunday-school class. You don't get information that will save American lives by withholding pancakes." Right, Soloman said, but unleashing killer dogs on naked Iraqi detainees isn't really the same things as withholding pancakes, is it? "I was amazed that people reacted like that," Lott responded. "Did the dogs bite them? Did the dogs assault them? How are you going to get people to give information that will lead to the saving of lives?"

Lott on what it means to look like an American: "I always had trouble understanding -- Iraqis look like Iraqis, and Americans look like Americans ... Methodists, Baptists and Catholics live in my hometown. They all look the same to me, they all look like Americans." Lott's hometown is Pascagoula, Miss., where about 65 percent of the population is white and about 29 percent is black.

Lott on saying things you shouldn't: " We've all fallen into that trap . . . where you go before some group that you really shouldn't, or you're not quite sure who they are or you use some inflammatory language that appeals to that group. And you know, you've just got to learn not to do that. We all have to learn to not to do that, Republican and Democrat alike."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2006/11/15/lott/index.html

GET AROUND
GET AROUND
I GET AROUND

http://image.com.com/mp3/images/cover/200/drd400/d406/d40672ko58k.jpg

Good question; it was the closest possible vote. Guess we'll see.

That is somewhat fatuous.

It's the only plausible reason he got any votes at all outside shear stupidity on his supporters' parts, which is plausible as well. Either situation is sad and pathetic.

-- Ed (dal...), November 15th, 2006 11:24 AM. (dali) (later) (link)

Feel free to expand on that thought.

He's the #2 guy now. He's going to be the guy on the Sunday morning shows. He's going to be the senator rounding up the Republican votes. He'll have plenty of support since the moderate Republicans lost power in this last election. Just because he skirted by with one vote doesn't mean that he'll be any less powerful than Mitch McConnell was in the last congress.

And won't we all be happy to see him.

If there’s one message that the electorate sent the Republican Party last week, it’s that we hadn’t given them enough of Trent Lott.

It's also worth remembering that not everybody wants these leadership jobs. They're a little like being in student government (if you'll excuse a ridiculous analogy). They take up a lot of time, they're kind of thankless, and nobody you have to boss around actually works for you

I'd imagine LBJ, Tip O'Neil, and DeLay want a word with him.

Lott, as Whip has to convince 49 fractious bumpkins to vote one way or the other, 24 of whom voted against him. Bush can largely scratch his arse and rely on rely on his minions in congress to do his work..., never having to refer back to his electorate. Lott has to see them every day.

Considering some of those comments up above from him, that's saying something!

for realz? I hadn't heard this story.

-- Dr Morbius

as being married to a dragon lady?

Fixed.

Overview of the dispute:
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2005/katrina_lott.html

Bill Minor (Jackson Clarion Ledger) column: "Insurance industry wary of a 'new' Sen. Trent Lott"
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061020/OPINION/610200317/1166

stenc, all I can say is I've heard things. from a Kentuckian.

well THAT one we know, but we are still uncertain of Lott's penchant for the grabblin'

blah blah whatever. i went to high school with his daughters and never heard anything. tho they'd never deny him being an asshole!

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Lott_expected_to_announce_resignation_as_1126.html

Awesomes!!!1! I wonder if Lott and Cochran drew straws to see who could resign first.

I expect Mike Moore will run...omg, an actual senator I can vote for, instead of constantly having to vote against somebody.

"By resigning before Jan. 1, 2008, Lott will dodge new ethics laws that would require him to wait two years before taking on a lucrative lobbying gig in Washington"

the repugs (lolz) are imploding. gives me (probably false) hope.

he is resigning to spend more time on his cock farm

why are they are all resigning/not running etc en masse? what are they going to run on as a party in all these open seats?

"We're not Bush, but we're Republicans! Please love us!"

i keep reading the title to this thread and thinking of chris tucker saying "and you KNOW this... mann!!!"

i guess he just wants to spend out his days surrounded by cocks?

though the senate is chock full.

there is a story i came across where Rove is telling Rs to distance himself from Bush in 08

you don't say

While the exactly reason Lott is stepping down before he finishes his term is unknown, the general speculation is that a quick departure immunizes Lott against tougher restrictions in a new lobbying law that takes effect at the end of the year. That law would require Senators to wait two-years before entering the lucrative world of lobbying Congress.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21973397

While the exactly reason

Yup, example #4522 of how spellcheck ain't a copy-editor

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071126/capt.fa98e170c4824a419b97d1dd10f883fa.lott_senate_dclb101.jpg

Smiley he stood scratching his head and looking down at Dan'l a long time, and at last he says, "I do wonder what in the nation that frog throw'd off for—I wonder if there an't something the matter with him—he 'pears to look might baggy, somehow." And he ketched Dan'l by the nap of the neck, and lifted him up and says, "Why, blame my cats, if he don't weigh five pound!" and turned him upside down, and he belched out a double handful of shot. And then he see how it was, and he was the maddest man—he set the frog down and took out after that feller, but he never ketched him.

Lott's interim replacement is my congressman, Roger Wicker of Tupelo. (One of Newt's boys, came in in '94.) What's the procedure for filling Wicker's seat for the next year? Will it just be empty?

maybe they'll keep it warm for him?

God, I hope Mike Moore runs for the Senate seat in the special election.

I thought he was gonna run for Cochran's seat?

When I saw "north Mississippi congressman", I almost got my hopes that a Democrat could fill Wicker's seat.

But there's probably a big difference between Tupelo and Hernando, isn't there?

I reckon the Lott/Wicker seat would be easier to win now, right? Wow, I just realized both MS Senate seats will be on the '08 ballot at once.

xpost, BIG difference

Don't know nuttin about Mr. Wicker, but Trent Lott is still a cockfarmer of stupefying proportions. It's a lifetime appointment.

i'm getting all my no. miss folks to write in Rock Hardy.

Wooooo! Fuck yeah! I'm a graduate of Moo U. and I have a clean driving record! Totally qualified!

Concerning Sen. Lott, I can't hope to improve on the admirable flurry of columns from hard-line conservatives calling for his departure. But I confess that I am amazed by the narrowness of their attack. Every one of them concentrates exclusively on the civil rights question. Of course black citizens ought to be outraged by any sick nostalgia for the years (and years and years) of Southern apartheid. Yet this is to make the point into one of "sensitivity." The Confederacy, under the leadership of Jefferson Davis, schemed to destroy the Union. It openly solicited the military support of foreign powers in order to do so. It attempted to assassinate a Republican president and may eventually have succeeded. It issued arrogant and disgusting orders for the execution of prisoners of war, without discrimination as to shade or color. It instated censorship, and it instated mandatory (if sectarian) religion. There isn't a "white" person in the country who should not spit upon its treasonous and hateful memory. There would be no such place as "America" if the bloody stars and bars had carried the day.

Thus, never mind that a vote for Strom Thurmond would have been a vote for a pro-segregation party that attacked the Republican as well as the Democratic tradition. More is at stake than the hurt feelings of Al Sharpton or the affected shock of President Bush. What about (say) a (say) female Republican senator from (say) Maine, whose state's regiment carried the day at Gettysburg and thus prevented the partition and demolition of the United States? Do we overlook the Confederate dream of making Washington, D.C., into a capital of slavery, on the ruins of a republic? How does Trent Lott face his own family, let alone his own party, with idle praise for sedition and terrorism on his lips? Can any Republican face any white voter on such a point?

so people think

support for thurmond == racist == just insensitive (wtf), but it should be

support for thurmond == sick nostalgia (i agree) == pro-Confederacy (sort of) == pro-presidential assassination (uh, wait a sec)

k-k-k-hitchens, what were you thinking?

I love when people in the Northern suburbs (including the suburbs basically 5 miles outside of NYC) wave the Confederate flag around. They probably just mean it to be racist idiots, but it's funny that they forget ... those dudes wanted them (as part of the North) dead black or white.