Well firstly, you are correct on this issue and you should just accept that without question, even if others are unable to perceive the subtle but important differences between the Clinton and Lott comments.
I am almost physically allergic to the name "Bill Clinton" and yet it is clear to me Clinton's comments were merely analogic, belonging to an analogy that tried to present the Irish conflict in simpler terms than perhaps was prudent at the time. They may have inadvertently or otherwise relied upon negative stereotypes about the Irish, but since Clinton himself is of Irish descent and obviously wished to help bring peace to Ireland, there should have been no question at all concerning his intent and his posture toward Irish people in general. He nevertheless quickly apologized for the confusion once it was brought to his attention and that properly concluded the matter.
The Trent Lott Affair was different in that Lott inadvertently or otherwise publicly wished for a day when America officially oppressed blacks. The implications of the comments were by far weightier than those uttered by Bill Clinton. Lott's comments were not analogic and they did not show mere acceptance of negative sterotypes about any group. They instead implied a wish for official policies developed by a then overt racist, that would officially suppress black freedom. That Lott has espoused clearly racist views in the past, had associations with racists and that he obviously was not "winging it" as he claims, having made almost precisely the same comments about Thurmond several times earlier, suggests he does indeed wish for a 1948-type Dixiecrat racist as president and that he thinks a segregated America would have taken care of 'all these problems we have today.' Even should Lott not in fact wish for such things, his repeated comments overlooking Thurmond's more recent and laudable accomplishments to specifically honor his 1948 campaign, betray a lack of awareness of the expressed purpose of that campaign and a lack of concern for how it insults freedom-loving Americans.
When the comments first came to my attention here, I myself tried to make the points above to Lott and his people, encouraging them to quickly and clearly distance themselves from the perceptions Lott's comments had caused. Instead of seeking to vigorously defend his own honor, Lott belatedly offered only what he apparently thought was minimally required to put the matter to rest. He is amongst the topmost leaders of the GOP and yet was content with leaving millions of Americans in legitimate doubt as to his true motives in this area. That alone disqualifies him as being worthy of my support and I apply no double standard to dismiss him at all.
Secondly, Neo, I have locked horns with you on a variety of issues and have never encountered an opinion from you I could summarily dismiss as "sloppy." I can scarcely say that about anyone else who posts here, liberal, conservative or anything between the two. I enjoy opposing you when it happens because of anyone I have ever engaged in these forums you work hardest and with the greatest integrity to directly expose the weaknesses of my position--**ahem** though you have yet to succeed here (grin). |
