why didn't somebody tell me what was going on with trent lott? i'm buried in books over here and not watching the news, but this is top-notch entertainment, here, watching the guy back-pedal and try not to implode.
I love the way Republicans are pretending he simply mispoke. As Michael Kinsley says "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth." The truth in this case being that Lott in fact did admire the segregationist policies of Thurmond.
oh, this is unbelievably embarrassing for them. how's he going to get away with not resigning? (but i say keep him in office as long as possible for maximum damage to the party, keep them way off message, and then let him resign -- once the dems have a decent economic plan in place.)
Yeah, I love his non-apologies-- "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by what I said". "I misspoke". "You're spinning it wrong, that's not what I *meant* by that".
well, realistically, that's what all political non-apologies sound like. "in the event anyone was offended by what i shouldn't have said, i'm sorry they were offended" -- which, of course, sounds like sorry to hear about your fish, remember that? -- "but of course my intent wasn't to offend anyone and those who may have been offended have obviously misinterpreted my inadvertent remarks." it's as old as the hills.
what makes it such a riot (and i use the term deliberately) this time is (a) that he's done it before and (b) that it's such a hot button and (c) that the damage control hasn't even been that with-it, from the lott camp -- please, "i was referring to thurmond's plans for economy and the national defense"? i mean, first off, whatever, and secondly, nice try. that wasn't what the '48 campaign was about, for a start, and in case nobody was paying attention, we haven't had economic problems "for all these years" -- which president was the voodoo economist? and which one sunk us deeper into the recession? right, and then which one presided over the longest period of peacetime prosperity since god knows when? and which parties did each of those guys come from? and which party is in now, and what's going down with the economy? yeah. thanks for playing.
i'm not sure where he's trying to go with the national defense thing, either -- since '48, okay, we had korea (republican war), vietnam (everybody's fault), the escalation of the cold war (reagan, reagan, reagan), the persian gulf (republicans), bosnia etc. (democrats), and the ongoing melee in the middle east (which everybody since carter has tried to play in and not had much success, but that's not so much military as diplomatic anyway). i keep reading where the armed forces (excuse me -- uniformed services) aren't combat-ready, but how is that due to truman beating thurmond?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
oh, this is unbelievably embarrassing for them. how's he going to get away with not resigning? (but i say keep him in office as long as possible for maximum damage to the party, keep them way off message, and then let him resign -- once the dems have a decent economic plan in place.)
no subject
BULLSHIT!
no subject
what makes it such a riot (and i use the term deliberately) this time is (a) that he's done it before and (b) that it's such a hot button and (c) that the damage control hasn't even been that with-it, from the lott camp -- please, "i was referring to thurmond's plans for economy and the national defense"? i mean, first off, whatever, and secondly, nice try. that wasn't what the '48 campaign was about, for a start, and in case nobody was paying attention, we haven't had economic problems "for all these years" -- which president was the voodoo economist? and which one sunk us deeper into the recession? right, and then which one presided over the longest period of peacetime prosperity since god knows when? and which parties did each of those guys come from? and which party is in now, and what's going down with the economy? yeah. thanks for playing.
i'm not sure where he's trying to go with the national defense thing, either -- since '48, okay, we had korea (republican war), vietnam (everybody's fault), the escalation of the cold war (reagan, reagan, reagan), the persian gulf (republicans), bosnia etc. (democrats), and the ongoing melee in the middle east (which everybody since carter has tried to play in and not had much success, but that's not so much military as diplomatic anyway). i keep reading where the armed forces (excuse me -- uniformed services) aren't combat-ready, but how is that due to truman beating thurmond?