Like punch-drunk prize fighters, the Democrats were stumbling
around after November 5 trying to figure out what hit them and what
to do next when Republican Trent Lott, the Senate majority
leader-in-waiting, handed them their marching orders.
That, of course, was not Lott’s intention when he attended
fellow-Senator Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party on December 5.
His intention was to deliver a bon mot in praise of the
centenarian. He said, “I want to say this about my state: When
Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of
it. And, if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we
wouldn’t have had all those problems over all these years.” Some
bon mot.
It took the Democrats about a minute to shake the cobwebs from
their collective head and go to work. Having gone through an entire
election without offering the voters a single idea, they put their
heretofore unused brain power to an immediate plan to wreak revenge
on the Republicans. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi thundered.
Outgoing Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, at first mildly
sympathetic to Lott’s plight, quickly changed his tone when he
understood the political possibilities. Black Caucus members
threatened a formal motion to censure Lott when the 108th Congress
opens. Campaign operatives smacked their lips over the replay of
Lott soundbites in 2004 television ads.
Lott’s first strategy was to issue an offhand statement of
apology that satisfied no one. He had hoped the issue would soon
blow away in the December winds that have turned Washington wintry.
When it became clear that more was needed, he went on two
sympathetic talk-radio shows, but the story kept growing. Reporters
sought statements from various Republican leaders, most of whom ran
for cover. Not so conservative columnists, commentators and
activists. The Family Research Council issued a strongly-worded
statement condemning Lott’s remarks. Cal Thomas, whose column is
syndicated in several hundred newspapers, wrote that Lott “might as
well be a Democratic Party mole, placed among Republicans to cause
his party severe political damage.”
Last Thursday, President Bush, before a largely black audience
in Philadelphia, spoke out against Lott’s “mistake” in sharp and
forceful tones, though he did not call for Lott to step aside as
majority leader.
On Friday, Lott sought to put the issue to rest with a 30-minute
news conference in his hometown of Pascagoula, Mississippi.
Although many of the words in his statement were those of apology
and contrition, they were delivered with no discernible emotional
intensity (let alone passion). The press conference was widely seen
as a failure.
Twenty Republican senators had a conference telephone call
Friday which lasted much longer than planned and during which a
good many negative assessments were made.
During the first day or two it seemed to the Republicans that
the controversy was largely a matter of Democrats trying to make
hay out of an ill-chosen remark. By week’s end, however, the issue
had gone well beyond that to the question of how the party wants to
be seen as it goes forward, leading both houses of Congress as well
as the White House. By keeping Lott in place, is the party of
Lincoln telling African-Americans that it is unconcerned about
throwbacks to what Lott seems to think were the “good old days” of
segregation? That, of course, is not the way the party wants to be
seen. But will it do anything about it? Oklahoma Senator Don
Nickles, the Republican whip for the last several years, yesterday
proposed that a meeting of the caucus be called to reconsider the
November election of Lott to the leadership position. If four other
GOP senators join him in the call, the meeting will be held.
Lott’s 50 Republican colleagues in the Senate now realize they
are the ones who can make this problem go away — by replacing Lott
as majority leader. If Lott stays, the Democrats — with relish —
will remind the public endlessly that the Republicans are led by a
man who extols a long-discredited chapter in the nation’s history.
Lott is not the first politician with a tin ear or his foot in his
mouth, but he is one the Republicans cannot afford as their leader.
He should step down.
