Opinions, Context & Ideas from the TPM Editors TPM Editor's Blog

As you likely now

As you likely now know, Trent Lott did an interview on Sean Hannity's radio show on Wednesday (audio feed here). He said various things, sort of apologizing, sort of not apologizing. My only reason for hedging about that is that you should really hear what he said for yourself because everyone's going to have a different opinion about his tone, what was spin, and what was sincere.

One thing I do feel compelled to mention is the instance where Lott seemed, frankly, to lie through his teeth. That came when Hannity asked Lott about his association with a group called the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist group, which is the successor to the White Citizens Councils from the civil rights era.

(If you think I'm exaggerating by calling them white supremacists, here's what David Keene, head of the staunchly conservative American Conservative Union, told The Washington Post when asked why they barred the CCC from their annual Conservative Political Action Conference: "We kicked [them] out of CPAC because they are racists.")

Here's the exchange between Hannity and Lott about the CCC.

HANNITY: I want you to just--to address this one issue that has been brought up by your critics. You had this controversy some years ago. You spoke to a group called the Concerned Citizens Council (sic). You want to explain that? What, if any, relationship do you or did you have with that organization, which has been accused of having racist points of view?

LOTT: Well, the event they are talking about, I presume, was an open forum for candidates running for public office. And the public was invited, the media was invited. This was not a closed thing. There were Democrats and Republicans there, and African-Americans there. And it was one of those events that you have almost every two years when you have important elections at a small community--you have them all over the state.

You don't usually ask who's sponsoring this thing. Now, in this case, I knew some of the people that were involved, but I also knew that a lot of political candidates were going there, and I said, you know, the things that we support in terms of opportunity for people there that I'd say anyplace else. But the main thing was, it was an open forum.

And here's Lott saying they have the 'right principles and the right philosophy'...
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), who last week claimed "no firsthand knowledge" of the controversial Council of Conservative Citizens, six years ago told the group's members they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy."

This week, after being asked about a newly surfaced copy of the group's 1992 newsletter, in which he appears to endorse the group and ask for its support, Lott renounced the organization and said through a spokesman he has nothing to do with them.

December 16, 1998
The Washington Post

And here's some hints that Lott may actually be a dues-paying member of the group ...
According to a number of CofCC members, including Dover, Mississippi Senator Trent Lott is a dues-paying member of the group, which is particularly strong in his home state. (Governor Kirk Fordice, for example, is an open and enthusiastic supporter of the group.) The Citizens Informer occasionally carries Lott's freely distributed newspaper column. Moreover, despite Lott's claim that he had "no firsthand knowledge" of the CofCC, Edsall reported on December 16 that Lott addressed the group in 1992, telling the audience members that they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy."

When I asked Baum--who had just volunteered that Barr was not a CofCC member--whether Lott does, in fact, belong to the group, he said, "We don't deny or confirm whether anybody's a member. If Trent Lott says he's not a member, then put it to bed: he's not a member." When I noted that another CofCC member had told me that there is a record of Lott's membership at the group's headquarters in St. Louis, Baum replied, "There's no earthly way you could obtain that information if it were true." John Czwartacki, Lott's spokesman, says that Lott rejects the group's views and "does not consider himself a member."

January 4th, 1999
The New Republic

And here's information about the columns he's written for the group's newsletter and his meetings with the group's leaders in his congressional office in Washington and in Mississippi ...
During its 10 years of existence, the council has maintained sustained relations with Lott. Photos of Lott at the group's gatherings in Mississippi and of Lott meeting in Washington with its officials have appeared periodically in the Citizens Informer, the organization's quarterly publication. The Informer regularly publishes a column Lott writes and distributes from his Senate office.

One of its earliest publications, the spring 1989 Citizens Informer, pictures Lott as he "talks with relatives, from left, his Uncle Arnie Watson; cousins, Frances and Frank Hodges, and aunt, Eurdise. Arnie Watson, a former State Senator, is a member of the Carroll County Citizens Council's Executive Committee, and Frank Hodges is a member of the Carroll County Citizens Council."

The summer 1997 issue of the Citizens Informer has a picture of Lott meeting "privately at his office with CofCC national officers": Lord, President Thomas Dover and CEO Gordon Lee Baum.

January 13th, 1999
The Washington Post

Every time he opens his mouth he digs himself deeper. First it was nostalgia for the good old days of Jim Crow. Now it's lies.

One other thing. Next

One other thing. Next time the AP rips off a story we broke at 11 AM and runs it as their own story at 5 PM maybe they could toss in a little attribution? I know it's their rep and all but do they have to be so slimy. Dow Jones Newswires caught wind of the Bob Jones Amicus Brief from the story TPM broke too. But they were classy enough to say we'd broken the story.

(AP said the "old court filing surfaced on a day when Lott tried to quell criticism." Dow Jones Newswires said "A congressional aide also circulated to reporters a copy of the brief unearthed by columnist Joshua Micah Marshall.")

Well Trent Lott does

Well, Trent Lott does a call in to Larry King tonight. And it's already been taped. And TPM's got the transcript. And well, let's just go to the tape.

The first run through about Lott's opinions about Strom Thurmond's 1948 candidacy?

Having said that, you know, I see -- I was 7 years old when, you know, Strom first ran for president. I don't really remember anything about the campaign.
And would Thurmond have been a better president than Harry Truman?
KING: But you don't think he'd of been a better president, say, than Harry Truman who defeated him that year?

LOTT: You know, I'd have to go back and look at the election of that year. Harry Truman obviously did a lot of great things for our country, and, you know, I was trying to remember who the Republican nominee was...

KING: Dewey. Tom Dewey.

LOTT: Yes, it was Dewey. I don't -- you know, I couldn't tell you one thing about what Dewey's policies were at the time. I remember the headline, you know, that Dewey wins.

KING: Yes, Dewey defeats...

LOTT: Yes, Harry Truman won. But, you know, one of the things that people don't even, you know, remember is that his running mate was a guy named Fielding Wright from my state.

Are we in meltdown mode now?

Heres a new statement

Here's a new statement just out from Joe Lieberman

Senator Lott's recent comments about Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign were hurtful, divisive, and fundamentally un-American. And the hurt they have caused is not going away, and will not until Senator Lott speaks out more explicitly.

The policies of the past that Senator Lott's initial statement appeared to embrace -- specifically, racial segregation -- are not just "discarded," as his apology put it. They are deeply offensive, morally wrong, and wholly contrary to our nation's most important ideal. And the revelation today that Senator Lott expressed nearly identical sentiments in 1980 raises some troubling questions that Senator Lott must answer immediately and fully if he is to restore his credibility as a national leader.

In particular, I would urge Senator Lott to come forward with a specific renunciation and repudiation of the indefensible days of segregation, which are a painful stain on our history, and which either ruined the lives or compromised the freedom of millions of our fellow Americans.

It's not enough to say his words may have been misinterpreted. He needs to speak from his moral center and make clear his commitment to racial equality. One way to do that would be to go beyond issuing another apology and meet directly with the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and show that he understands the hurt his comments have caused. That would go a long way toward healing the wounds that are widening now.

This is not about politics. It's about the fundamental American principle of equal opportunity -- about the core American value that we are all equal because we are all children of the same God. That's evident from the fact that Americans across the political spectrum -- liberals, centrists, and conservatives; Republicans, Independents, and Democrats; and people of every race -- have expressed outrage at what Senator Lott said.

To that end, I believe that President Bush also has a responsibility, as the nation's leader and the leader of Senator Lott's party, to show us where he stands and make clear that Senator Lott's words were unacceptable. The President has spoken vaguely so far through his press secretary, but that is not enough. These harmful words and their underlying message have hit a nerve among the American people -- offending our most basic values -- and I'm confident the President understands that. But the longer he waits to speak out, the more troubling his silence will be.

Honestly, Joe seems a bit late to the party. But he's at least right on the last point. The president's silence is becoming, well ... deafening.

And of course theres

And of course, there's more. In a landmark case decided in 1983 Bob Jones University sued the government of the United States, and particularly the IRS, claiming the IRS had wrongly taken away its tax-exempt status because the school practiced racial discrimination. The Court found against Bob Jones University and another petitioner, Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc.

Deep in the court opinion we find this little snippet noting which individuals and organizations had filed amicus briefs on behalf of BJU and Goldsboro.

Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in No. 81-3 were filed by Earl W. Trent, Jr., and John W. Baker for the American Baptist Churches in the U.S. A. et al.; by William H. Ellis for the Center for Law and Religious Freedom of the Christian Legal Society; by Forest D. Montgomery for the National Association of Evangelicals; and by Congressman Trent Lott, pro se.
Drip, drip, drip ...

Here is a very

Here is a very interesting -- and, to my mind, persuasive -- article from Slate on why the president's new pick to head the SEC -- William Donaldson -- is really impressive and why his pick for Treasury -- John Snow -- really isn't.

The essence of the story is that Donaldson really built a business, turned profits, is public-spirited, and so forth; Snow was your standard highly compensated CEO who didn't produce a very good return for investors. More importantly, he was what the author calls an "access capitalist", less an entrepreneur than someone business brings in from government to shake the Washington money tree for helpful regulations, deals, pork and the like.

The author of the Slate piece, Daniel Gross, makes the apt point that the Snow model is a pretty common one in this administration -- including the president, vice-president, defense secretary, and many others.

I think you can take this a bit further though. Critics of this administration often hit it for being full of so-called Chicken-hawks, folks who are all gung-ho to get into wars but somehow never found time to put on a uniform themselves.

On the economic side of the equation, it's also filled with what I'm calling (in a piece I'm now working on) safety-net entrepreneurs. Those would be folks who talk a great game about markets and risk-taking and entrepreneurship and gumption and such but have actually made their cash in ventures which are almost immune from real risk and where their skill isn't entrepreneurship but the ability to work the bureaucracy and purse strings of -- yikes! -- big government. Safety-nets for the poor and middle-class damage character; for the businessmen, they work just fine.

Dick Cheney's career at Haliburton is almost the archetypal example; Snow's seems a decent runner-up.


Finally, there's this piece in the LA Times. It seems former Goldman Sachs Chairman Stephen Friedman's appointment as head of the National Economic Council is on hold because supply-side activists are worried that he cares too much about fiscal responsibility and not enough about tax cuts.

That's a fascinating story. But there's an even more interesting one implicit within it. After the defenestration of Messrs. Lindsey and O'Neill the White House has been looking for people who are really respected on Wall Street and in corporate America -- not just think-tank hacks or ideologues. And they're also looking for people who will support their plans to push the budget even further into the red.

Doesn't it look like they're having a rather difficult time finding people who fit into both categories? Donaldson counts. But his position has nothing to do with fiscal policy. Friedman might too; but he may never even make it to the gate.

You dont have to

You don't have to feel sorry for Trent Lott. But I'm willing to shed a few tears -- and not just crocodile ones -- for his hapless flack Ron Bonjean as he tries to spin his boss's way out of a web of old statements in praise of segregation, the Dixiecrat party, and miscellaneous other examples of the abhorrent and ridiculous.

As today's Times reports, at a rally with Strom Thurmond in 1980, Lott said "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."

Oops.

Bonjean's attempt at damage control is so sorry and pitiful that it's almost like watching a car wreck. You want to look away. But you just can't help watching the carnage unfold.

A spokesman for Mr. Lott, Ron Bonjean, said the remarks at the 1980 rally also did not pertain to race but were made after Mr. Thurmond, then a top draw on the Republican circuit, had complained mightily about President Jimmy Carter, the national debt and federal meddling in state matters.

"We want that federal government to keep their filthy hands off the rights of the states," Mr. Thurmond was quoted as saying.

Mr. Bonjean, when shown the article, said, "Clearly, Senator Lott was praising the policies of Thurmond and Reagan, of smaller government and reducing the federal deficit." He noted that a campaign rally has a similar celebratory feeling as the party last week.

Strom Thurmond, deficit hawk!

An antecedent of the Concord Coalition?

Who knew?

Well theres the other

Well, there's the other shoe dropping. Early today I got a tip that back in 1980 Trent Lott had used nearly the identical "poor choice of words" to lament Strom Thurmond's defeat in 1948. I was told by a very reliable source that he'd said the words at a Reagan campaign rally in Mississippi in 1980 with Thurmond by his side. Try as I might I couldn't get a hold of a transcript to confirm it.

But as of 10 PM this evening Drudge has it blaring across the top of his site. So I think we can be pretty confident that someone else was able to confirm it.

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.

A whole article devoted

A whole article devoted to attacking lil' ol' me? And in the American Spectator no less? (Or at least its online alter-ego, The American Prowler?) This isn't payback for my not agreeing to contribute a list of books to the Christmas Books issue, is it? (You know, the email request you guys sent me on October 21st?) The piece is sprinkled with a few of what I'd call small errors of fact. But in general it's all above-the-belt and just the author's take on my recent posts on John Kerry and Trent Lott. And after all, being attacked is fun -- especially by the right people.

Ok, back to fighting the good fight. Nice to see this little operation is drawing some blood.

TPMLivewire