ANDREW SULLIVAN SAYS TRENT LOTT MUST GO:

Why are the Republican commentators so silent about this? And the liberals? (Josh Marshall, to his credit, states the obvious. And Bill Kristol, to his great credit, expressed disbelief.) And where’s the New York Times? Howell Raines is so intent on finding Bull Connor in a tony golf club that when Bull Connor emerges as the soul of the Republican Senate Majority Leader, he doesn’t notice it. And where’s the president?

Or at least Karl Rove, who ought to see the handwriting on the wall.

UPDATE: “Good for Andrew,” writes Josh Marshall, who, like me, is mystified by Lott’s response so far.

ROBERT BYRD: What remarks by Robert Byrd was I talking about? These:

Asked by host Tony Snow about the status of race relations, Byrd said, “They’re much, much better than they’ve been in my lifetime.” And then he went on to prove how much short of ideal they are. “There are white niggers,” he said. “I’ve seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I’m going to use that word.”

So there you are. Were Lott’s comments as bad? Well, on the one hand he didn’t use the “N” word, which is a cultural taboo for white people. On the other hand, he did seem to be wishing for a return to the days of segregation and Jim Crow, which — to me, at least — is worse than simply using a disapproved word.

UPDATE: A reader emails:

On the other hand, perhaps that there is such a universal understanding that both comments were wrong and vile, and that everyone can note that mentally and move on is a sign of progress. Still, when someone *really* makes a racially retrograde remark, like Lott or Byrd, I find myself wondering why civil rights groups don’t call in the press equivalent of a B-52 strike, instead of saving it for some poor white guy who uses the word “niggardly” in a speech, or who defends Huckleberry Finn.

Yeah. If you wear blackface to a party, your fraternity gets suspended. Openly wax nostalgic for segregation while holding national office and you get bupkis. Go figure.

JACOB T. LEVY: “It’s always been unclear at best whether Trent Lott had fully come to terms with the results of the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement. Turns out that the answer is: no. This is vile. Get rid of him.”

I wonder if any GOP Senators will be upset enough to bolt the party over this. Naw, that couldn’t happen. Could it?

Megan McArdle, meanwhile, wonders if Lott’s getting a bum rap:

I think it’s possible that he didn’t mean it the way it sounded; I think we’ve all had the experience of saying something accidentally that appeared to have an unequivocal horrifying meaning which was not at all what we had meant to say. It’s entirely possible that he wasn’t thinking of civil rights, but of the growth of government or some other “might have been”.

I wondered that too, initially. But if so, I think he would have, you know, said so. Instead, all we got was this:

Spokesman Ron Bonjean issued a two-sentence statement: “Senator Lott’s remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong.”

Bonjean declined to explain what Lott meant when he said the country would not have had “all these problems” if the rest of the nation had followed Mississippi’s lead and elected Thurmond in 1948.

Not exactly a ringing denial, or even a convincing explanation, is it? And, as Megan goes on to add:

But it doesn’t really matter, does it? In politics we go by what they say, not what they wanted to say.

I can’t believe how little play this is getting in the media. I think if the Republicans are smart, they’ll engineer a quiet resignation to head this one off at the pass.

Tom Maguire wondered the same thing, initially, and even sent me an email suggesting that I was jumping the gun on Lott. But now he’s down on Lott, too:

Well, I don’t know if I have ever said a good word about Trent Lott. I once noted that he has very impressive hair, but I recall a note of sarcasm in the comment. Still, for a professional politician, this is incredibly stupid. If T Lott were a sports broadcaster, and I am thinking of Jimmy the Greek as I say this, he would be unemployed.

Now, I seriously doubt that Lott believes that we would be a better country if Thurmond had defeated Truman. Well, I think I seriously believe that. Don’t ask me for evidence. If he does believe this, he is, at a minimum, hopelessly delusional. If he was just having fun, he is hopelessly stupid and insensitive. I have been waiting for the day when the Republican Party would deal with some of their lesser lights. Hey, where’s Pat Buchanan now? It can be done. Now, I don’t suppose we can stop the people of Mississippi from electing him, but he is a miserable choice for Majority Leader, and ought to slink away.

I don’t think he will.

I MENTIONED PROGRESSIVES AND EUGENICS BELOW; here is an interesting essay on the subject. Click on the “1” at the top to go back to the beginning for the complete context.

SAUDI SUCK-UP WATCH:

The German authorities investigating a Moroccan man on trial on charges that he was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States say there is evidence that he had contact with a Saudi diplomat as well as the leaders of an extremist group in Saudi Arabia.

But German officials said that despite their requests for help following up on these leads, responses had not been forthcoming from either American or Saudi authorities.

I think we’d be hearing more about this kind of thing, if it weren’t for Saudi money in Washington.

CHRISTOPHER JOHNSON AT THE MIDWEST CONSERVATIVE JOURNAL THINKS TRENT LOTT SHOULD STEP DOWN, though he notes that many expressing horror at Lott’s remarks gave ex-Klansman Robert Byrd a pass on some offensive racial remarks recently. Hey, I’m evenhanded — I think Byrd should quit, too!

UPDATE: A reader writes:

I’m glad that you are “flooding the zone” with this one. I couldn’t believe it when I heard Lott’s comments on TV, I kept waiting for the punch line. . . . BTW, it’s interesting that many conservatives seem to be the most upset. Probably because, as Josh Marshall indicated, it’s a sign of hubristic overstretch ala the 1994 “Revolution”. Can’t these guys govern?

That’s the big question, isn’t it? Unaccountably, the (annoyingly popup-filled) Democratic Party website is silent on this subject, giving weight to the suggestion that conservatives (and libertarians!) are the most upset. Either the Democratic Party is appallingly inept, by dropping the ball on this issue, or it’s appallingly cynical — preferring to let it pass now and raise it as an election issue later. But that’s stupid: they won’t have much credibility later if they sit on their hands now. So I guess “inept” wins either way. . . .

UPDATE: Howard Owens emails about the curious silence on this issue:

Glenn, I’m at a loss, really, to explain why conservatives care more about the Trent Lott issue than liberals and Democrats. I took a look at Democrats.com and DemocraticUnderground.com, two ultra liberal sites, and both ignore Lott’s comments. Even as the DU site discusses Thurmond’s birthday, it fails to mention both Lott’s remarks and Strom’s 1948 speech.

Personally, racism is thoroughly revolting to me. To me it violates the conservative principles of individual rights, responsibilities and equal opportunity. If the other conservatives who are reacting to this issue are like me, maybe they just care more passionately about racism as an evil than do Democrats, who cynically only see it as an issue to get votes on, and since this is no election season, race isn’t an issue to Democrats right now. It’s not that they are waiting until the next election cycle (as you mentioned); it’s that Lott’s timing was off (from a Democratic perspective). This will be a forgotten issue by the next election, so why talk about it (to paraphrase likely Democratic thinking).

I dunno. It’s still a mystery to me. Reader Bill Woods emails:

On NPR’s Weekend Edition they have a set of notable quotes from the previous week. This morning they had a quote of Lott speaking about Thurmond, but it wasn’t the pro-segregation one. I expected that to come next… but it didn’t. I don’t know why.

Washington Week in Review played the clip at the end of the show, with Gwen Ifill shaking her head and asking ‘what was he thinking?’, without obvious outrage.

I’m rather surprised at the muted reaction.

Me too.

JOSH CHAFETZ writes:

LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT … At the same time that the UN is telling the US that it needs to be more multilateral, at the same time that the UN is begging the US for a $1.3 billion interest free loan to renovate the buildings on formerly US sovereign territory — buildings which, by the way, sit on obscenely expensive land that was given to the UN by an American philanthropist — UN weapons inspectors are telling the US that it will only get to see a bowdlerized version of the statement Iraq released yesterday. Is that about right? Explain to me again why this whole UN thing was a good idea …

Indeed.

PUNDITWATCH IS UP!

READER PAUL SWANSON HAS A THOUGHT:

I’ve been wondering if Lott’s comments had any effect on the Louisiana Senate race. I mean, if I were black (and I realize that such projection is usually dubious) and living in Louisiana and heard about Lott’s comment I would be going to the polls saying “Hey Lott, poll tax this!” I found the first hint that this might be the case in a Washington Post article which had the following line: “Landrieu … apparently benefited from a heavy turnout of African American voters, her most ardent supporters, in New Orleans and other urban areas.”

I’d be interested in knowing whether this got much play in the Louisiana black community.

Meanwhile, Howard Owens has some suggested speakers for an upcoming Trent Lott “roast” in Mississippi.

CONDI, WARRIOR PRINCESS: If Strom Thurmond had gotten his way in 1948, we wouldn’t have her now, and the country would be worse off.

JOEL ROSENBERG HAS A PEACE PLAN for the Palestinians, but it’s an ugly one.

UPDATE: AlisainWonderland has more.

THE CENTER FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF CAPITALISM is joining the chorus of voices calling for Trent Lott’s ouster:

Trent Lott says that if the rest of the country had voted for Strom Thurmond, “we wouldn’t have had all these problems.” The only possible interpretation is that Trent Lott regrets the defeat of the positions of Thurmond’s campaign. Trent Lott regards the end of segregation and the end of lynching as “problems” which we, as a nation, shouldn’t have had. At least Thurmond had the sense to change his position over the years. It would seem Lott has not.

Trent Lott, as Republican Senate Majority Leader, has never been a particular friend of individual rights. He has acted as a stereotypical politician, bending with every wind and shifting with every tide. Now, however, he has pledged allegiance to a doctrine which is anathema to individual rights, to the United States Constitution and to the vast majority of Americans. This cannot be explained by political expediency. It must be his genuine conviction.

The question for the Republican Party is whether a man who gets misty eyed over lynchings and colored water fountains represents the Republican Party and whether such a man is fit to lead the Senate Republican caucus. If such a man is fit to serve as a leader of the Republican Party, then the Republican Party is the party of racism. If the Republican Party aspires to be the party of individual rights, then such a man has no place in the party leadership.

The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism calls for the resignation of Trent Lott from the leadership of the Republican Party. If Lott doesn’t have the grace to resign, his peers should remove him.

Seems the Blogosphere is way ahead on this one. Where’s everybody else?

OF COURSE, IT’S NOT AS SIMPLE as Truman = Good, Thurmond = Evil. (Well, mostly it is, actually, but only to a first approximation.) LincolnPlawg has a lot of interesting history, including a statement from Harry Truman that he opposed an anti-lynching bill, but would have to vote for it if it came up for a vote, and a letter from Eleanor Roosevelt (with a GIF) reporting that FDR thought federal involvement in anti-lynching efforts was a violation of states’ rights. (Given FDR’s blithe unconcern for the niceties of federalism, this seems like, well, an excuse. Or a lie, if you prefer.)

What’s astounding from a modern perspective is how deeply racist many figures regarded as “progressive” today were. Oliver Wendell Holmes’ support for eugenics, shared by many Progressives, is only one example, if an especially appalling one.

GEITNER SIMMONS HAS MORE ON TRENT LOTT AND STROM THURMOND:

Lott’s praise for the Dixiecrat movement certainly moves the Republican Senate leader’s post a long way from the days of Everett Dirksen, who encouraged his party in 1964 to vote for Lyndon Johnson’s Civil Rights Act — a sterling moment in congressional history. . . .

The Dixiecrat movement began to come together in 1948 when segregationist-minded dissidents walked out of the Democratic national convention in Philadelphia. A leader of the walkout was “Bull” Connor, the Birmingham, Ala., police commissioner whose fascistic tactics in attacking civil rights demonstrators would shock the nation in the 1960s. . . .

Thurmond’s pretense that Dixiecratism was devoid of racist sentiment was hard to square with the South Carolinian’s own stated racism. The national press noted, for instance, an incident involving Thurmond and William H. Hastie, appointed by Truman as governor of the Virgin Islands.

Thurmond invited Hastie for a visit to the Governor’s Mansion in Columbia, and Hastie responded appreciatively, extending an invitation for Thurmond to visit the Virgin Islands.

But when Thurmond learned that Hastie was black, matters abruptly soured.

“I would not have written him if I knew he was a Negro,” Thurmond thundered. “Of course, it would have been ridiculous to invite him.”

How refreshing: No double-talk, just the ugly truth.

As always, the whole post, and all of Simmons’ blog, is worth reading in full.

FLOOD THE ZONE! Virginia Postrel says Lott should go, too:

OUT, OUT DAMNED LOTT: Trent Lott must go. He’s a disgrace to the South, to the Republican Party, to the U.S. Senate, and to the United States of America.

Where’s Howell Raines’s crusading southern liberalism when it’s needed? (Mark Kleiman notes that the NYT is AWOL on the story; I guess country clubs are more important than the Senate.) Why isn’t every reporter, at every press conference, asking Lott or his spokesman what the Senate leader meant when he said a Thurmond victory in 1948 would have meant “we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years”? Exactly which problems? How would Thurmond have been better?

How, indeed?

CHRIS DALEY, A TSA SCREENER, RESPONDS to a Brock Yates column on airline security that I linked the other day.

THE EMERGING PORNOGRAPHIC MAJORITY: Oliver Willis, er, nails it.

MORE TROUBLE IN IRAN — AND THAT’S A GOOD THING!

TEHRAN, Iran, Dec. 7 (UPI) — A supposedly anti-American rally turned into a protest against the Iranian clergy in Tehran Saturday with some 3,000 students demanding the release of a reformist leader. . . .

Iran’s Islamic Republic News Agency reported Saturday that the students also called for the resignation of the pro-clergy judges who, they said, were trying to crush the reformist movement.

This despite efforts to prevent a protest by arresting leaders yesterday and last night.

UPDATE: Looks like the Administration is handling this well.

DANIEL DREZNER weighs in on Trent Lott:

If Senate Republicans allow him to . . . stay as Majority Leader, they will deserve whatever political misfortunes befall them as a result. It’s up to voters in Mississippi to decide whether they want Lott to continue to represent them in Washington. However, the Majority Leader position is a national one, and Senate Republicans need to think long and hard – oh hell, what am I saying, this takes ten seconds – about whether they want this man to be the visible face of Republican authority.

Beyond the moral reprehensibility of the comments, it’s also clear that Lott’s lack of political acumen is growing, not shrinking. That he made this comment in front of a C-SPAN camera is idiotic. His press spokesman’s statement – “Senator Lott’s remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong.” – is delusional. This wasn’t something stripped of its context or twisted beyond its original meaning. This was just wrong, and Lott seems to be exerting no effort to make it right.

Senator, I say this as a Republican — do all of us a favor and get off the national stage.

And scroll down for what Mickey Kaus calls a “sophisticated exegesis of Paul Krugman.

UPDATE: Josh Chafetz says that Lott is “stupid, stupid” and should resign as Majority Leader.

Lott’s a liability for the GOP anyway, and this gives them a chance to get rid of him while looking good and doing right. But will they be smart enough?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias agrees that Lott should go: “Meanwhile, it appears that most conservatives actually do appreciate how massively inappropriate Lott’s comments were. . . . Still, gasping in disapproval while letting the man continue on as majority leader of the US Senate is a pretty sorry effort. I’d like to think that both political parties could abide by a rule stating that folks expressing nostalgia for Jim Crow shouldn’t be elevated to the highest ranks of power and influence.”

Seems kind of hard to argue with that.

WHY WE’LL MISS DICK ARMEY

We, the people, had better keep an eye on we, the people; that is, our government. Not out of contempt or lack of appreciation or disrespect, but out of a sense of guardianship. How do you use these tools we have given you to make us safe in such a manner that’ll preserve our freedom?

That is a duty to our very essence as a nation. Who we are, what is it about us that has set us apart in the history of the world is our love for freedom.

As I said earlier, freedom is no policy for the timid. And my plaintive plea to all my colleagues that remain in this government as I leave it is, for your sake, for my sake, for heaven’s sake, don’t give up on freedom.

Couldn’t have said it better myself.

ANDREW SULLIVAN IS FISKING JILL NELSON — or at least her response to his piece criticizing her equation of beauty contests with oppression.

I think that it’s absurd for Nelson to claim her original column was treated unfairly, and her response merely proves the point.

ALPHECCA writes that a recent study linking gun ownership with increased risk of death is bogus.

In particular, he notes the lumping-together of homicides and suicides. This is often done as a way of inflating the numbers (because most “gun deaths” are actually suicides). Whenever I find that, I tend to assume that the study is intended to be alarmist, not informative.

ARTHUR SILBER has a lengthy post on speech codes and postmodernism.

CAMPUSACTIVISM.ORG SAYS THAT LIBERTARIAN STUDENTS aren’t progressive enough for it.

I guess a dedication to the politics of the 1960s is still “progressive,” though.

VEGARD VALBERG MISTS the idea that The Lord of the Rings is racist.