Susanna Cornett, usually an interesting and provocative read is having some serious issues believing that Lott could be anything but a good ole boy conservative with a penchant for putting his foot in his mouth. He couldn’t possibly be racist, I mean that would give the Dems some ammunition so let’s pretend he isn’t.
Let’s.
Let’s also pretend he didn’t speak in front of the obviously racist Council of Conservative Citizens on more than one occasion. Let’s also pretend that he didn’t meet with official representatives of the group several times over a six year period. Further, let’s pretend that his own uncle didn’t out him on that one as well. Yeah, none of that happened. It would give the Democrats a political advantage, so it didn’t happen. Are we all clear?
I thought she was about cutting on the bias? It appears she is more into denying the bias, at least in the case of the Republican Senate Majority Leader.
So, how does she go about helping to “cut on the bias”? She calls Senator Mitch McConnell, to tell his staff that Lott isn’t racist, he just can’t talk right. I guess she didn’t see the irony in calling a Senator who is interracially married, to defend Lott, who has a well-documented relationship with the Council of Conservative Citizens, an organization dedicated to, among other things, getting interracial marriage outlawed again. Nope, nothing wrong that approach.
Susanna and I agree on one thing – Lott should no longer be Majority Leader. The why, however, is where we disagree. She wants him gone because he’s an inarticulate embarrassment, so she downplays the “racism” part. I believe he should be gone because he’s an inarticulate embarrassment with ties to an obviously racist organization with no respect for the Bill of Rights and Constitutional government.
I got news for Ms. Cornett. This bias stuff cuts both ways. It is possible to fight bias on the Left without pretending that it doesn’t exist on the Right. Lott has a history that involves more than just “questionable pronouncements”. His history includes documented relationships with individuals interesting in rolling back hard won protections for equal marriage rights, among other hideous designs. Come on back to reality Susanna. Lott is what he is. Whether or not it helps the Democrats is quite irrelevant.
—-
You can read Susanna’s response here.
Update: Whilst I was giving this post a second edit, Susanna was posting a response at her weblog as she has pointed out that the posting is different from what she read when she responded. I have now deleted a paragraph in the middle that had been the substance of the second edit. A third edit was made to add a link to her reponse. And this update is the fourth edit. As she pointed out succintly, in the comments session, the paragraph I removed gave the impression that she is against “interracial” marriage. That was not the intent, but I can see her point.