The Black Republican

MSNBC reports what was behind the scenes:

AFTER A FUTILE two-week struggle to hang on to his job, Lott made the decision to call it quits on Thursday night, after he began receiving call after call from influential Senate Republicans telling him they no longer supported him. One by one, they lined up behind Sen. Bill Frist, the rising star of the Senate and a good friend of President Bush, who had let it be known that he wanted to replace Lott as majority leader. For the record, Bush claimed it was fine with him if Lott kept his position, but no one really believed that Bush meant it, or that Lott could survive for long. Until Friday it seemed that Lott was the only one in the country who hadn't gotten the message that it was time for him to go. As one Republican strategist told NEWSWEEK: "I don't know what else we can do short of putting a horse head in his bed."

Believe it or not, this was the Washington Post's editorial on Saturday:

While neither Mr. Frist nor other possible contenders for Mr. Lott's position have been accused of making racially charged remarks, most of them have voting records on civil rights issues that track with Mr. Lott's -- a point duly noted by civil rights groups this week. That, however, should not be a political liability for the next majority leader. We do not equate conservatism with racism, and neither should any fair-minded American. It should be possible to hold views and positions that are at variance with those civil rights groups propound and still avoid being branded anti-equal-opportunity or an opponent of civil rights protections. We happen to find ourselves in agreement with many of the positions of civil rights advocates . But that does not mean those holding opposing views may not have an intellectually honest basis for their positions.

In more ways than one.

Just visit the site.

And no, I don't know what it is. Apparently no one does, either. I've done several web searches and all I've found is the same phrase over and over again. "If you figure it out - please let me know."

Call him "The Anti-Bork".

According to press reports, St. Thomas More Professor of Law Douglas W. Kmiec is being considered by President Bush for a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. I don't know what possessed the man to dare even to suggest such a bold idea, but I find it highly exhilarating. You see, Mr. Kmiec isn't just a strict constructionist, he is unabashedly pro-life and (dare I even say this in public?) he understands the concept of natural law. Worst of all, Mr. Kmiec is one of those disgusting papists. But there is more! Mr. Kmiec has a paper trail, and he's got the gall to wave it in the face of the Left and shout them down.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal (probably the only newspaper daring enough to accept his column) Kmiec responds to his critics:

I will point out, however, that as Ms. Aron and her counterparts frame the question, it is irrelevant. Transparent moral beliefs and a gratitude for the gift of life may be measures of the quality of a person; they are not, however, the most appropriate or direct yardstick for sizing up a potential federal appellate judge.

Why not an appropriate yardstick? Because disqualifying a person from a federal post on the basis of his religious or moral beliefs cuts deeply against the guarantee of religious freedom secured in the First Amendment; it might even contravene the Article VI admonition that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." And why not a direct yardstick? Because the job of a federal appellate judge is far more straightforward than these intractable issues--issues that, in the end, must be resolved as best we can within our many communities, informed less by top-down government edict than by bottom-up moral, religious and family belief.

I'd heard it before, but now that Lott is leaving as Majority Leader, our friends in the Senate who haven't heard of a little spat called the Civil War are claiming we - that means they, you and me - have "heard a wake-up call".

"This is an occasion where Sen. Lott and the Republican caucus could do something positive, like passing hate crimes legislation, like going into education programs," Specter said. "I am going to prepare a whole list for our Republican caucus when we take up this subject in January saying that this is a real wake-up call, not only for Trent Lott and not only for the Republican caucus, but for America," he said.

Well, I still don't know if I'm a neo or traditional, but at least I know what I think of prejudice.

I was arriving in the cafeteria at work which thankfully had a TV tuned to FOXNews coverage of Lott's not-quite-resignation. As I sat down, I heard a nearby coworker speaking loudly at no one in particular. He was sitting alone at a table quite close to the TV, quite obviously trying to draw attention to his comments. I thought he was a liberal, because when a picture of Rick Santorum appeared at some function where the Senator was flanked by a group of black women, the coworker remarked, "What idiots! Don't they know they're just being used?!" It seemed a standard reference to conservatives from a member of the Clarence-Thomas-is-an-Uncle-Tom Left.

But then he asked, "Why don't (the reporters) just shut up? What's the big deal anyway?" Though slightly confused, I thought he was being sarcastic, because the Left always assumes FOX is on the right, and that - as the Lecher of Little Rock said yesterday - racism is SOP for the Republicans.

I couldn't stand it any longer and said, "It's called racism."

"This isn't racism," he said, to my amazement. "They're making all this up out of nothing. He was just saying nice things about the old man. He wasn't even talking about segregation - he was just complimenting the other parts of Thurmond's platform."

I groaned inwardly as I realized I wasn't talking to a liberal, but to a paleo in deep denial. "Thurmond didn't have a platform outside of segregation," I tried to inform him, but he persisted in debating me.

Thinking back on his first comment, I realized I'd come closer to the mark when I labelled the incident "racism". I can't imagine what else to call someone who can look at a muted image of a white politician flanked by blacks and immediately assumes that the blacks are being used. Could it not be a Martin Luther King Day celebration, where Democrats invited Santorum as a way to seem "bipartisan", thus making Santorum the one who was used? Could it not have been a meeting of a group of conservative blacks who honestly believe in Santorum and his views, and were asking him to speak to their group as they tried to make the case for recruiting efforts for their organization?

There was no hope for this one, so I finished quickly and walked away. I just hope the old segregationist right isn't as widespread as the Democrats would like, and Lott and my coworker are rare throwbacks.

Trent Lott has decided not to run for Majority Leader when the Republican Caucus returns on January 6, but has not resigned his seat as Senator. Hopefully, the chastened Mr. Lott will take Peggy Noonan's advice (linked earlier).

I think he should rewrite the first paragraph of his obituary every day of his life by speaking about the American dilemma as a Southern white man of the 20th century. He should begin his speeches with, "My name is Trent Lott, and I used to be majority leader of the Senate. Let me tell you how I lost my job." Then he should speak with candor about what he knows and has seen of race in America. Q&A to follow. This could be a real contribution to our country.

After his huge scandal, John Profumo, England's former secretary of state for war, did something like this. He devoted his life to doing good. And to anyone who was watching, he died a great man.

Latest word is Bill Frist is receiving the lion's share of support from his colleagues. Hopefully, it will be unanimous, a sure sign that the Senate incident is behind us. Through the rest of the country, we must rededicate ourselves to the founding principles - and to one another.

There are a lot of important things said by Peggy Noonan today - some more important than the quote to follow - so read the linked column. The the first is:

(I)t would be best for the Republican Party--and the country--if Republican senators were utterly brutal and moved to fire him before then. This would be a Christmas present to the country: Jim Crow's long, gasping death is finally over. If they do not move before Jan. 6 they certainly must fire him as leader on that date. And when they do they should read a brief statement explaining what they did and why they did it. And then they should speak no more, and go back to work.

Being a former New Yorker, I've taken a special interest how the Lower Manhattan Development Corp.'s plans are progressing for Ground Zero. Several of the proposals struck my fancy, and two in particular made me much more optimistic than the previous proposals. Daniel Henninger is kind enough to throw cold water on that optimism in the Wall Street Journal.

Let's get something straight: There is no chance that any of these out-sized buildings will ever be realized, and these architects surely know it, though just as obviously their plans had to include signature buildings that reflected their reputational eminence. No New York tenant will lease space at those heights, and therefore no developer will build, not even the Port Authority. That mistake was made once, with the World Trade Center. You may see one of these buildings some day in Shanghai's Pudong Development Zone, but not here.

Daniel Libeskind suggests building at odd geometric angles around the "footprints" of the old towers. No, this isn't some bizarre cubist vision: if his plan is enacted, the footprints will always be bathed in sunlight between the time of day the first tower was struck until the time it fell, shortly after its twin. The odd angles of the buildings were calculated to permit no shadows to fall inside the former footprints during those hours. The idea is nothing short of breathtaking.

The other plan that caught my eye was designed by the THINK team. It features two latticework frames reminiscent of the Eiffel Tower that somewhat resemble the majesty of the old Twins, without actually putting buildings there and permitting the footprints to remain sacred. Even Henninger seems taken with the idea, asking, "The city's shorn skyline? Go ahead, put up teamTHINK's amazing, absurd, light-filled latticework tube." Henninger gets it - and though I've put my own little spin on his remarks, don't misunderstand - he gets it in the first paragraph of his column when he quotes the email of reader Jack Smith of Monticello, MN.

"This is Gettysburg, the Alamo, the Arizona Memorial. Sorry, Manhattan, but Ground Zero doesn't belong to you anymore. It belongs to all of us."

Of course, Emery was quoting Krauthammer, who today said:

Having thus staked their ground for decades on colorblindness and a reverence for the civil rights movement as originally defined, neoconservatives were particularly appalled by Lott's endorsement of its antithesis, Thurmond segregationism. Not to denounce it--on grounds not of politics but of principle--would be to lose all moral standing on matters of race.

So be it. There is a principle at stake here. Better to lose the Senate than to lose your soul. New elections come around every two years. Souls are scarcer.

But this led me to study a little conservology - I'd never bothered to figure out the details of paleo vs. traditional vs. neo, and wondered where I fit in. SelectSmart.com has one answer (more traditional than neo) but in the process I tripped over Richard Poe:

I approach the question of race much as I approach ecology. We don�t really know whether clear-cutting every major forest on the planet will fatally deplete the earth�s oxygen supply. Maybe it won�t. But why run such a dangerous experiment?

Likewise, it is possible that the neocons are right. Maybe America will survive the extinction of its Anglo-Saxon creators. But who, in his right mind, wants to put this theory to the test?

James Taranto pinpoints the emerging issue of the day (and Trent Lott is merely in a supporting role) by quoting The Weekly Standard's Noemie Emery, then asking:

Could it be that the cycle is playing itself out again, with the Democrats as the minority party hobbled by racial politics? For all the talk of Republicans' "coded" racial appeals, it is actually Democrats who play the race card with abandon. The 2000 presidential campaign, for instance, saw a pro-Democratic ad that sought to blame George W. Bush for the racist murder of James Byrd--even though, in Bush's Texas, the killers were sentenced to death.

CNN Asia quotes U.S. Navy officials saying, "Hundreds of sailors aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt have caught the flu as the virus hit the aircraft carrier during exercises in the Atlantic."

When the virus peaked about four days ago, it affected at least 300 of the more than 5,000 crew members stationed aboard the ship.

Thank you, Lord. I'll put in a little extra in the collection plate if you'll assign that messenger to overtime.

Sen. Bill Frist, a transplant surgeon turned politician who is on good terms with the White House -- and might want to live there some day -- on Thursday became the first Republican to openly declare interest in becoming the next U.S. Senate Majority Leader.

He dashed to offer assistance after the Capitol anthrax attacks in 2001, and raced to help the occasional visitor to Congress suffering a heart attack.

When a deranged gunman in July 1998 killed two Capitol policeman and was then critically injured himself, Frist rode in the ambulance, keeping the wounded attacker's airways open and heart pumping.

There's an added bonus: the Dems don't like the prospect.

Democrats acknowledge they are worried about Frist being the public face of the Republican party. Articulate and telegenic, he has the political equivalent of a good bedside manner, coming across as more moderate than many prominent Republicans, even though his voting record is fairly conservative.

It would be hard to attack a Princeton, Harvard and Stanford doctor surgeon who runs marathons and has done medical missionary work in the Sudan.

"He'd have a long honeymoon," sighed one Democratic aide. "It's hard to attack a heart-lung-transplant surgeon."

I didn't have time to post yesterday since I was attending an opening-night showing of The Two Towers. My initial reaction (similar to my first impression of Fellowship of the Ring) is that they butchered the book. But if history is any guide, I'll be singing the praises of Peter Jackson in two weeks, after I've seen it a few more times.

James Taranto is materful in his Best of the Web column today. The short version:

So along comes Trent Lott with what actually was a pro-racist remark, his retrospective endorsement of Strom Thurmond's 1948 campaign. And how does he propose to make amends for a sentiment that has outraged liberals and conservatives alike? By embracing the entire liberal agenda on race. In doing so he implicitly endorses the smear that the only way not to be a "racist" is to embrace "affirmative action" and other such policies. Lott probably hasn't thought any of this through and is merely thrashing about trying to find a way of surviving politically. But his betrayal of conservative principles is one more reason he deserves to be voted out of the Senate leadership by his Republican colleagues.

On a more personal note, I sent my two Democrat Senators emails early last week about the Lott affair. Bob Graham's office immediately sent back the stock answer of "I voted for so-and-so" that had nothing to do with my missive. Bill Nelson, on the other hand, replied thus:

I believe he should resign his leadership post because of the racially divisive comments he made at the party for Senator Strom Thurmond, but that decision is up to President Bush and Republican senators who can hold a new election for majority leader.

The last week has been so bad, how could it get any worse? Unfortunately, Stephen F. Hayes has an answer, and it sounds remarkably like 10,000 shoes dropping. (It also sounds remarkably like The Black Republican.)

SOMEONE PLEASE STOP HIM. The damage from Trent Lott's offensive comments 12 days ago could hardly be clearer. His support among Senate Republicans is crumbling. Even fellow GOP leaders, his strongest backers, have begun to consider ways to oust the majority leader and allow him to save face.

But judging from his remarks on Black Entertainment Television Monday night, the first stop of his Repent with Trent tour, Lott is as clueless as ever.

Yes, there's a 'but', and you'd better steel yourself for it: it gets worse.

BET host Ed Gordon asked the Senate majority leader about affirmative action. In that one moment, Lott cast aside years of principled Republican race-neutral policies to save his own ass. "I'm for that. I'm for affirmative action and I practice it," he pleaded, reiterating his painful claim of having many "good friends" who are black. "I'm an affirmative action participant."

This is nothing less than pathetic, blatant pandering. Lott would have us believe that although one week ago he was waxing nostalgic about the days of segregation, he is now in favor of racial preference programs for minorities. But there was more. Not content to embarrass just himself, Lott once again sought to make his problem the Republican party's problem. "It's not enough for me to do things differently," Lott said, when asked about the GOP Senate conference meeting scheduled for January 6. "I've got to get my colleagues to join me."

Of course, all this could have been averted - and perhaps even been a social and political improvement in our society - if Lott's cronies in the Senate weren't tripping over themselves for a week trying to defend him, instead of sending him and his anachronisms packing. Yet, even after all this, some continue to do so. Case in point:

Republican senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, one of the Senate's brightest and most articulate members, defended Lott this past weekend. He said Lott's remarks were a "wake-up call" for Republicans.

Politically speaking, I wanna have Ms. Noonan's baby. She, Clarence Page, and David Gregory appeared on The Chris Matthew Show this week (seen in many markets right after Tim Russert's Meet the Press).

(T)his is like "Sherlock Holmes and the Dog That Didn't Bark." What is amazing is what didn't happen. Republicans didn't come forward and defend Trent Lott. They sat, they read it, they looked at it, they talked about it to each other, and one after another, Republicans, most of them--it's almost generational, under the age of 50, came forward and said, `This is unacceptable and it personally offends me.'...

(M)any of those of us who were--who are not necessarily quick to be angry at conservatives, came forward with anger. I do think, in part, it's generational. And I think, in part, it tells you about a new--somehow, in terms of the aesthetics of the Republican Party, a new party being born.

Dick Morris in the NY Post:

He took the lead in doubling funding for historically black colleges in Mississippi, sponsored the bill to make racially motivated arson a federal crime, broke the filibuster to get the Africa Free Trade bill passed and brokered the deal that led to a vast increase in federal Title I education aid and earmarked it for poor schools.

And he helped get the Congressional Gold Medal voted for Rosa Parks.

The central problem today is that much of that subtle bigotry feeds off its counterpart in the black community, and is knowingly perpetuated by evil opportunists on both sides fanning the flames for personal gain.

Damnit, it's been more than 145 years since Kansas started bleeding. When are we going to finish fighting the central issue of the Civil War and finally - irrevocably - denounce racism in all its forms?!

I was tempted to say, "No duh!" but noting the context, The Black Republican understands that a black Republican is trying to make a point not often seen in the pages of USA Today.

It is injustice for the Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and NAACP President Kweisi Mfume to call for Lott's resignation when less than two years ago Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, the third-ranking Democrat and a known former Ku Klux Klansman, referred to some white people as "White Niggers" repeatedly on a news show. Yet no one called for his resignation.

Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. That goes for Texas, Utah, and even in Florida.

The former vice president, who came agonizingly close to winning the presidency two years ago, said Sunday he will not run again in two years, and probably will not have another opportunity to seek the White House.

"I don't think it's the right thing for me to do," Gore said. He said a rematch with President Bush "would inevitably involve a focus on the past that would in some measure distract from the focus on the future that I think all campaigns have to be about."

John Kerry's hairdresser continues to make waves in Washington. The news that the Massachusetts senator, Democratic presidential candidate, Vietnam veteran, Big Ketchup spouse, Vietnam veteran, amateur guitarist, Vietnam veteran and Vietnam veteran gets a $75 coiffure from Cristophe has riveted the Beltway and distracted from his message. ("As a Vietnam veteran, I know what it's like to wake up in a jungle full of terrifying bangs." "So it was tough finding a good salon over there?")

To be honest, it's not entirely obvious where the 75 bucks goes. I mean, I haven't seen the back of his head in awhile, so it's possible he has an attractively angled nape. Otherwise, the most likely explanation is that it's 15 bucks for the stuff on top but he pays $30 per eyebrow for some Ann Miller industrial-strength lacquer that freezes them into that permanently furrowed look.

For a politician as perpetually concerned as Sen. Kerry, this is money well spent. Come the New Hampshire primary, when the candidates are doing their grip-and-grins high atop Mount Washington, Al Gore will be howling in agony as the 200-mile-an-hour winds rip the chest hair out of his low-cut olive polo shirt and scatter it like confetti over gay weddings in neighboring Vermont, but Mr. Kerry's furrowed brow will be as attractively immobile as ever. The Kerry candidacy is such an obvious disaster waiting to happen that it seems a shame to wait for it to happen.

President Bush said Friday he will take the vaccine along with U.S. military forces but was not recommending the risky inoculation for most Americans. The inoculation will be free for those who want it, Thompson said over the weekend.

"The president is doing it because he is the commander in chief, and he believes that if he is ordering his troops ... to get this vaccination, he should do it as well," Thompson told CNN's "Late Edition."

Okay, so I'm slow.

It didn't occur to me while I was developing this site and giving it a name that it would take less than 24 hrs. to catch The Lecher of Little Rock in yet another lie: he wasn't the first Black President after all, was he?

It was just a quick stop, at a store on a campaign trip through the Northeast more than a dozen years ago. Trent Lott, then a Mississippi congressman about to make his move for the Senate, was visiting a state for a Republican candidate. When Lott walked in, he asked: "Why aren't there any black people here?" a source who has spent time with him in unguarded moments tells NEWSWEEK. Nervously, someone explained that this was not the most diverse of regions. "Not even behind the counter?" Lott said. Warming to his punch line, Lott added: "We'd be happy to send you up some if you need any�" and then chuckled.

Trent Lott might as well be a Democratic Party mole, placed among Republicans to cause his party severe political damage. Republican senators, some of whom have wanted to move in a new direction, must now decide whether Mr. Lott is a hindrance to the party. Will it be politics as usual, or will Senate Republicans clearly break with the past and proclaim not only to black Americans, but to all Americans, that their party is the party of emancipation, not segregation?

In an indication of White House wariness about getting squarely behind Lott, sources said Lott sought statements of support last week from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell but was rebuffed. Both are African American. Some White House officials said it was clumsy of Lott to ask.

Okay... finally!

After many hours of tinkering until I got the template looking just the way I wanted it, I'm finally ready to start filling this blog with all the useless drivel that is to come.

First some acknowledgements:

First and foremost, I'd like to thank Senator Trent Lott (R-Mississippi), who was the founding inspiration for this endeavor. With any luck, someone on his staff will see this and show him that he has awakened a groggy and quite inhospitable fellow. Please take your apologies and your disgusting threats and get out of Washington D.C. We don't need you in order to secure our destined status as the majority party. More importantly, and to paraphrase a certain Democrat, "(We) have a dream..." for the 21st century, and anyone who recalls fondly the days of segregation (consciously or unconsciously) does not figure prominently in that dream.

I'd also like to thank James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal and Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs who quite unintentionally may cause me to become addicted to blogging. At the very least, they have wasted much of my reading time in the last year, and have forced me to try this. Thanks a lot, gentlemen!

To the folks at The Fourth Turning I have nothing to say. I came here to escape you. I still believe, however....

David VanNatta, thanks for all your friendship through the years. Steve Johnson, I've started this despite the fact that you'll probably take it over in a few months for your own - until then, it's my idea so go away.

[Edit: Over the course of the last year, we've come a long way. Thanks to the suggestion of a reader, I think it's important that I make a link to this post prominent on the front page of the blog to further explain who I am and what we're doing here. Since some content in the original entry was intended as an in-joke at the time among friends and relatives, I've edited this entry to be more appropriate for general consumption today. For archival purposes, the original entry can be found here. - Chris 11-1-03]

I dedicate this blog to the founder of our Grand Old Party:

But you say you are conservative -- eminently conservative -- while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers who framed the Government under which we live; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You have considerable variety of new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers.... Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. And yet you draw yourselves up and say "We are eminently conservative!" - Abraham Lincoln, in a speech at New Haven, Connecticut, March 6, 1860

Do not become disoriented by the harangue levelled against the GOP by the Jacksonians and their Cult of Personality. We were the Conservatives of Reagan's Revolution, the Progressives of TR's Bull Moose, and we are still Radicals trying to set free an oppressed people.

Accepting the derisive nickname the Southern Democrats gave our greatest president, call me The Black Republican.