While the jury is still out for some of you to decide who is the bigger racist in Congress, I submit to you other proof of Mr. Lott's deeds during
his political career. This is a man who wants to be higher up in the Republican Leadership November of 2008.
I think that his endeavors say a lot more than what is published on Ms. McKinney's website. But alas, I digress.
Mr. Lott, when asked about what to do about the troops in Iraq, answered aptly in his usual manner. Mind you, this is the Congressional periodical
GOP unity is strained by attacks
“Honestly, it’s a little tougher than I thought it was going to be,” Lott said. In a sign of frustration, he offered an unorthodox military
solution: “If we have to, we just mow the whole place down, see what happens. You’re dealing with insane suicide bombers who are killing our
people, and we need to be very aggressive in taking them out.”
Mow them down? Who's playing the race card now?
Before you think that Mr. Lott's association with the CCC is a myth, here's more about it:
The Reality of the United Statesmen: Trent Lott, Politics and the Council of
Trent Lott addressed the national conference of the CCC in Greenwood, Mississippi on April 11, 1992—as Senator, not while a member of the House of
Representatives.[...]After urging those at the gathering to increase their recruiting efforts for the "conservative" cause, Lott concluded his
address praising CCC members stating, "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right
direction and our children will be the beneficiaries!"
According to their sources, Lott is "one of the leading political figures promoting the Neo-Confederate cause—a movement said to be filled with
racism and other forms of bigotry."
Additionally, Mr. Lott is just one of many elected officials involved with the CCC who hold the same views. Rep. Bob Barr (R-Georgia) Gov. Kirk
Fordice (R-Mississippi) and Gov. Guy Hunt (R-Alabama) just to name a few, have ties to the CCC. In fact, Bob Barr was the keynote speaker at the
CCC's national conference last June, and was pictured in the group's newsletter, addressing the CCC’s governing board and posing with several CCC
To be nonpartisan, I turned to OntheIssues.org to examine his stance on Civil Rights. Here is what the site said:
* Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
* Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
* Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
* Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
* Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
* Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
* Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
* Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
* Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
* Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)
* Rated 20% by the ACLU, indicating an anti-civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
In Counterpunch, Kendall Clark writes of how he perceives Mr. Lott's actions regarding his apology for what was said during Mr. Thurmond's birthday
The Real Distractions of Trent Lott
According to Lott's defenders and apologists, his critics are "overreacting" and "hurting America"; they "prevent Americans from focusing on
important issues" and "obviously fail to understand Southern culture" or fail to understand "the informal context" of Lott's racist comments.
Pat Buchanan said that Lott's comments were "innocuous"; Senator Shelby of Alabama even suggested that Lott shouldn't be "lynched".
Lott's critics would have been accused of race baiting, too, if his comments hadn't been so plain and so hateful. Lott's chief accomplishment so
far is to have been so insensitive and crude that it was impossible for his defenders to accuse his critics of race baiting.[...]What lies behind
this maddening spasm of unconvincing excuses and empty defenses is the idea that the material conditions of racism have withered under the harsh sun
of racial reform. Lott and his defenders, indeed most Republicans and Democrats, suggest that racism is largely, if not entirely a thing of the
past. Have you noticed that prominent white politicians are comfortable criticizing racism harshly only insofar as everyone consents to the idea that
it's a thing of the past?
With this being said, I have a few things to say about the posting of this ATNNS article:
The author, when criticizing an article by Greg Palast posted on Ms. McKinney's website, should also be aware of others who also need to be
mentioned as a comparison to the Georgia Congresswoman's deeds of "mentioning race".
Lest we forget, there are a few others that more appropriately wear the mantle of bigotry who hold high office in this country. Along with Mr. Lott,
there is of course, Mr. Barbour, Mr. DeLay and of course, the past exploits of Mr. Barr--to name a few.
I suggest in all due fairness, that the author of this piece about Ms. McKinney channels his abilities to speak out about these other transgressors as
well since he is so concerned about issues of race. If he is brave enough to highlight the transgressions of the Georgia Congresswoman, then he
possesses the same sinew and courage when exposing this horrible epidemic of bias across the halls of the House and the Senate regardless of
I'm sure he will--if he takes up the challenge. But if not, his silence in being complicit with the behaviors of some politicians as opposed to
others speaks loudly about his hypocritical approach to singling out Ms. McKinney and not thoroughly examining others who fall under these lines.