The Hannity Factor
washingtonpost.com
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 12, 2002; 8:16 AM
When a politician gets in a big, stinking heap of trouble, nothing is more welcome than a friendly media person.
That's why Trent Lott went on the air yesterday with Sean Hannity.
At a time when Lott is being kicked around by conservative commentators as well as the nattering nabobs of liberalism, Hannity provided a much-needed sanctuary.
Not many on the right are defending the Senate majority leader for embracing Strom Thurmond's segregationist candidacy of 54 years ago – especially after the revelation that Lott used the same "poor choice of words" at a 1980 rally with Ronald Reagan.
"What Lott said is utterly indefensible and stupid," Rush Limbaugh declared.
National Review's Jonah Goldberg called Lott's remarks "incandescently idiotic" in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
But Hannity remained a member in good standing of the tattered Team Lott. On his Fox News program, Hannity tried to get Lott off the hook by playing the Clinton card:
"We have back in October of this year, William Jefferson Clinton, in Arkansas saying wonderful things, what a remarkable man J. William Fulbright, former senator from Arkansas is, a known segregationist. He gave him the Presidential Medal of Freedom Award, a known segregationist, one of 19 senators who issued a statement entitled 'The Southern Manifesto', condemning the '54 Supreme Court decision of Brown vs. Board of Education, defending segregation. Why hasn't anyone condemned Bill Clinton for doing far worse than what Trent Lott has done here?"
Thus it was that Lott broke his silence on Hannity's radio show, a segment also carried by Fox.
Lott is hardly the first to go the friendly-media route. Al Gore, having bashed Fox as part of the great right-wing conspiracy, went on "Hannity & Colmes" Tuesday night – but only by taping an interview with the liberal half of the duo, Alan Colmes.
Hannity is a rising star among conservative talkmeisters. He's written a best-selling book ("Let Freedom Ring"), he's got a Web site, and his New York-based radio program has been picked up by more than 100 markets since going national last year. He's also a reliable pro-Republican voice, having once charged, for example, that Tom Daschle "wants the recession to continue for his own political advantage."
To his credit, Hannity asked all the right questions. Lott gave a broader apology for his "terrible" and "insensitive" words, and said of segregation: "I don't accept those policies of the past at all."
Next move: phoning Larry King, who's not exactly known for harshly interrogating his guests. (Follow-up question: "What do you make of all the hullabaloo?") Lott did say he rejected the segregationist policies of the past.
What's fascinating about this saga is that for days, most of the media couldn't be bothered to report it; now there are cable updates every 20 minutes. The Democrats who couldn't be bothered to comment are now body-slamming Lott all over the place. John Kerry has called for Lott to give up his leadership post (what constituency could he have his eye on?) Ted Kennedy and Joe Lieberman have hit Lott. Terry McAuliffe is demanding that President Bush denounce Lott's remarks. Jesse Jackson has entered the fray. People for the American Way has called for Lott to resign, as has the New York Times editorial page. The outrage industry is in full swing.
It doesn't take much courage, of course, to jump on this kind of bandwagon once it's already rolling.
Conservatives are also deserting the Mississippian. Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer says Lott should step down for what he calls a "capital offense."
"Trying to quell an uproar over comments he made last week that were criticized as racially divisive, Senator Trent Lott apologized at length today in a radio interview, saying his own words were 'terrible,'" says the New York Times.
"Republicans began rallying around Mr. Lott today, but his latest remarks did not satisfy Democrats, who called on Mr. Lott, a Mississippi Republican, to step aside as the incoming majority leader and urged the White House to repudiate the original remarks. One leading Democratic senator, John Kerry of Massachusetts, a possible presidential contender, called on Mr. Lott to resign his leadership post. . . .
"Former Vice President Al Gore, one of the first Democrats to speak out strongly against Mr. Lott this week, said he did not believe Mr. Lott's apology answered the criticism. 'It is simply not credible to state that Thurmond's campaign in 1948 makes him think about national defense,' Mr. Gore said. 'It was a campaign based on segregation.'"
Josh Marshall says Lott's sin was saying what he really thinks:
"I don't want to overplay the political significance of this. And I'm certainly not going to say the guy is toast. But I think Trent Lott's in real trouble. The conventional wisdom on the news today was that Lott had pretty much put this story to bed with his 'apology.' I didn't think that was true. Now it seems clear that it's not true.
"But you don't have to have your ear to the ground or be getting tips about long forgotten speeches to know this. Much of the wobbly coverage of this story (and much of the deep unease over this among conservatives) stems from fact that this obviously wasn't some misstatement or hyperbole or slip of the tongue. It's what the guy believes. You can tell that from just listening to his words. And it's clear from the man's long history of hobnobbing with neo-confederate wing-nuts and general nostalgia for the pre-civil-rights era South. It's even painfully, and belatedly, clear from his weird unwillingness to utter even a pro forma condemnation of segregation. It's what the guy believes. And for a lot of reasons that makes it hard for a lot of journalists to cover it.
"You don't have to believe that the guy's an out and out racist. But it's very hard not to conclude that he sees the old Jim Crow days as the good ol' days. And that's pretty damn bad.
"This shines a light in some pretty dark places. It makes a lot of people really uncomfortable. And it's not going away."
Andrew Sullivan sees dire consequences for the Republican Party:
"Sorry to those who think I'm making too much of this. But it seems to me that the G.O.P. has zero credibility on racial matters until they get rid of this man as Senate Majority Leader. When I'm in agreement with the Family Research Council, a virulently anti-gay group, you know something's got to give.
"Tuesday night's revelation – that Lott had said almost identical things over twenty years ago – clinches in my mind that this was not a poor choice of words. It was a classic political gaffe – where the politician in question accidentally says what he truly believes. And no, I don't think bringing up Robert Byrd, another old bigot, is a satisfactory response. It's a sign that you cannot defend someone when you respond by attacking someone else.
"Lott had a chance to repudiate his words and he chose to side-step the issue. He's flirted with racists before. He's said the same things before. It seems to me that president Bush now has his Sister Souljah opportunity. Just as Clinton secured centrist backing when he repudiated the anti-white racism of Sister Souljah, so Bush needs to repudiate the anti-black racism of Lott publicly, clearly and irrevocably. If he doesn't, then I'm afraid he will lose any black support indefinitely and the respect of many decent voters who aren't black as well. Lott's remarks are, in fact, a direct insult to black members of the administration and the Republican Party. Mr. President, we're waiting for you to say something."
Even the conservatives at the American Prowler are openly casting about for a replacement:
"Five days after Sen. Majority Leader Trent Lott made his unfortunate comments regarding the political heritage of the Dixiecrats, Republicans on Capitol Hill and conservatives in Washington and around the country are discussing how best to call for Lott's stepping aside as Senate leader.
"According to a knowledgeable Republican source, GOP members of both houses are extremely concerned that Lott's comments have so derailed the momentum gained from the 2002 elections that it would be impossible to come in in January, make numerous political confirmations for the executive branch, and begin planning a legislative agenda that would include accelerating the Bush tax cuts and pushing through a prescription drug plan for seniors.
"Even more upsetting to Republicans is the realization that Lott's comments may make it virtually impossible for them to bring a number of controversial judicial nominations to the Senate floor successfully.
"Republican Senate staffers meeting over lunch and in the hallways of Capitol Hill have already begun throwing out successor names, such as outgoing Republican Whip Don Nickles, incoming Whip Mitch McConnell, and even rising star Sen. Bill Frist.".... |
