Tuesday, December 10, 2002

While Trent Lott's remarks were clearly over the line, it isn't as if - to many liberals - it was the first time he's crossed it. While I don't think all Right Wing/Republican voting types are racist's, its rare I find one who doesn't have a tin ear when it comes to racial issues, even when feigning concern. In all fairness this isn't limited to self-described conservatives - even the relatively liberal members of our not so liberal media see no problem with making a statement like "Jesse Helms isn't a racist, he just exploited the racism of his constituents to get himself elected." Still, while the condemnations of Lott by some were clearly genuine, forgive me for thinking that the condemnation from some circles isn't motivated more by a desire to see a Senate Majority Leader Nickles than any true concern. Hey, nothing wrong with a little crass opportunism I suppose - whatever real outrage I feel is also admittedly accompanied by some schaudenfreude.

In any case, I do hope that those who have rightfully condemned Lott take the time to wonder just what the hell is going on at the Conservative Paper of Record One of their editors is a member of a hardcore secessionist organization., the League of the South. His contributions can be found here and here and a debate about the organization's purpose can be found here. He's covered racial issues for the paper, citing as an authority the head of the explicitly racist New Century Foundation, so one can't simply argue that what he does in his free time doesn't affect his job. He's also tangled with the SPLC. In addition to his strongly racist views which clearly 'color' his coverage, he's no fan of gays and lesbians either, as this attack on Harvard President Lawrence Summers demonstrates (non-italics his):

Posted by BurkeCalhounDabney to thegreatbeast
On News/Activism 11/29/2002 11:35 PM PST #7 of 12

Harvard's president, Lawrence H. Summers, issued a statement calling the episode "extremely disturbing" and "part of a past that we have rightly
left behind." "Whatever attitudes may have been prevalent then," Mr. Summers said, "persecuting individuals on the basis of sexual orientation is
abhorrent and an affront to the values of the university."

Wimp! Speaking of someone who should be persecuted and run out of town ....

So, after you're done patting yourself on the back for your concern over Trent Lott's comments perhaps you can now redirect your outrage. Conservative types should be rightly concerned that "their" newspaper is home to this bigot. Perhaps you should let your views be heard.

Over to you Glenn.

UPDATE: McCain's posts have all been removed from Freepervile, so you'll have to take my word for it..

UPDATE 2: TAPPED has some thoughts as well.

But you got to dance with them what brung you, as the saying goes. Sullivan and Goldberg both contribute columns to the Times. If Lott's comments were "morally indefensible," as Goldberg wrote on The Corner, then McCain's certainly are. If "Lott Must Go," as Sullivan wrote on his site, then surely McCain must go, too. Perhaps Goldberg and Sullivan would even be willing, as a demonstration of their commitment to principle, to refuse to contribute to a newspaper with such a vile man in a relatively senior place on the masthead? This will be especially hard for Sullivan, who hates Signorile, but it would be the right thing to do.

As does Calpundit.