Massachussetts Senator John Kerry, puffed with righteous indignation, waded into the Trent Lott furor, demanding the Republican's head on a platter.

``There can never be an appearance of racism or bigotry in any high position of leadership,'' he declared.

Funny, but that's pretty much what prominent Italian-Americans were saying about Kerry the morning he tried to come off as droll on the Don Imus show, quipping, ``The Iraqi army is in such bad shape, even the Italians could kick their butts.''

State auditor Joe DeNucci led the angry backlash, charging, ``He wouldn't have the guts to say that about Jews or blacks,'' prompting a Kerry spokeswoman to suggest DeNucci cool his jets, that the senator was obviously being facetious.

Of course, that's the same thing his office said following another appearance on the Imus show when, attempting to belittle Bill Weld's work ethic, Kerry described the former GOP governor as ``a guy who takes more vacations than people on welfare.''

Is this to suggest our junior senator really has a bias against Italians, or that he looks upon the downtrodden with contempt? Not at all. It's just to suggest that he, as much as anyone in public life, ought to understand how a comment made in jest can make a speaker sound like a jerk.

Lott, by the way, did not seek Kerry's resignation.

Then there was Mike Wallace, a little harder to dismiss when, during a break in the taping of a ``60 Minutes'' piece on minority borrowers, he suggested they might have difficulty reading complicated contracts ``over watermelon and tacos.''

When Herald TV columnist Monica Collins called him on it, Wallace pleaded, ``It was light-hearted! I ask you to be fair.''

Isn't that what Lott is asking everyone today?

There's no recollection here of Kerry racing off to Italian-American lodges to clarify his remarks, or Wallace visiting black churches to explain himself.

Nor, for that matter, is there any record of Jesse Jackson showing up at B'nai B'rith breakfasts to convince the ``sons of the Covenant'' that his characterization of New York as ``Hymietown'' was a figure of speech, that's all, a harmless appellation.

Does anyone remember Kerry, that self-styled pillar of propriety, questioning Jackson's anti-Semitism? If not, what did Jesse ever do to deserve the benefit of anyone's doubt?

Alan Dershowitz once charged Billy Bulger with using ``code words'' like ``manipulative'' and ``crafty'' to communicate a bias against Jews, yet there was no ambiguity whatsoever when Dershowitz claimed English au pair Louise Woodward couldn't expect a fair trial in Cambridge because ``it has a very large Irish population.'' No bias there, right, counselor?

Really, it isn't complicated. Anyone who writes for a living understands the truth of a Red Auerbach maxim regarding communications: ``It's not what you tell people that matters; it's what they hear.''

Does Kerry believe Italian soldiers are inferior, or that welfare recipients are slothful? No. The assumption here is that he tried too hard to be what he's not, i.e., witty.

Does Wallace view blacks as cartoon caricatures? No. The assumption here is that he engaged in careless idle talk.

Does Dershowitz believe the Irish can't be expected to have integrity? No. The assumption here is that he was looking for any angle that might enhance a defense.

And the other assumption here is that Trent Lott wasn't speaking from a heart filled with malice when he tried to flatter a man who had just turned 100, assuring him he did indeed have the stuff of national leadership, essentially giving him a eulogy he could hear.

An act of hatred? Please. It was an act of kindness.

Indeed, Harry Belafonte likening Colin Powell's support of President Bush to ``a slave in the master's house,'' or Ted Kennedy's insistence that Robert Bork's appointment to the Supreme Court ``would take us back to the days of segregated lunch counters,'' were much clearer examples of irresponsible commentary. But it served their purposes and both got away with it.

Lott has nothing to apologize for, save a misconception.

It's the ones now exploiting his embarrassment who ought to be ashamed, especially the ones who have been down that road themselves.
http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/fitz12182002.htm

Um, no one is saying he didn't have the right to say what he said.
I think a lot of people are saying what he said was stupid. And that its stupidity is not politically correct- ie. that his stupid comment makes the Republicans politicaly vulnerable. IE- that they will not be able to court voters as easily as they'd hoped.
Much of the criticism is coming from the republican party itself- hoping that their party will appear more politicaly correct to voters.

It seems to me that this is obviously not a question of free speech. As someone else has already noted, nobody has said that Trent Lott can not make racist remarks, but rather that he should not. Politicians should not be expected to be more than human, however, they should be expected to have a minimum amount of respect for ALL the citizens of the country (and the world, but that seems to be a bit too much to ask). Free speech is a limited freedom, as it rightfully should be. Just as one may not scream "fire" in a movie theatre, nor can one mouth off on camera, spewing racist and disparaging remarks. Let's face the facts, Lott is a racist, ignorant, bloated fool, and I'm happy to see him go.

Yes what he said was dumb, and thoughtless. Conservatives are held to a different standard than liberals. Any lib. Can say anything about any group and pay no political price.

However, This has worked against them The Republican will come out of this experience stronger with better leaders. And the American public will see that they will not put with the type of hypocrisy that the Democrat party has made their banner

No, Im not missing the point.
This post claims that freedom of speach is being attacked by the politically correct.

He says that political correctness is killing free speach.

You are arguing that political correctness is saving the Republican party because the party is smart enough to censor their own mouthpeice.

I personally don't give a rats ass about the democratic party. I agree with you that most of them are brainlacks who say stupid things. I probably disagree with you about what are the stupid things they say.

You and the first poster are in disagreement. You, according to our first poster, are killing freedom of speach by realizing the political expediency of dealing with Lott.

I made the mistake of skimming over the article instead of completely reading it (long day at work) Andyou are right.
It might surprise you as to what we might disagree about when it comes to the near left and the moderately left (most Americans have no idea as to what the far left is.)As a conservative republican I have found that true Communist have a much better understanding of what they believe in contrast to the average Democrat who never has had to defend their beliefs, and who’s idea of political conversation is “ You are mean and want to kill old people, enslave minorities and drink blood.”

Or racist pig gets tossed out fast by his own party to damage control their dirty little race-bias secret?

Are you giving another example of intellectually bankrupt dialogue or are you identifying your self as one of brainless zombies unable to have a conversation with any one that uses words with more than 2 syllables

Lott's being kicked around by the Dems because he screwed up. Tough luck. He should be glad he got as far as he did!

This is just damage control. The Reps are operating under some bizarre idea that, just because their minority factions go along with their pro-business agenda, that these colored business people actually enjoy those racist rib ticklers you all exchange at the country club luncheons.

I got news for y'all. Those minorities are just happy to have some $$$ and a little access to the white supremacist power pyramid that Euro Americans have erected here. They're putting the old Stepin Fetchit face on... which they learned from years of being bombed and/or enslaved by the West, by the way.

Take a tip from me. Find some common ground, and learn to stand on it! What do you all have in common? You all like to shit on the working people of America, that's for sure. Maybe you all can teach each other some "white trash" jokes, and chuckle over your plans to create Maquiladora zones in the US of A. Won't that be a laugh? "Y'all white trash wouldna had these problems if y'all just kept the negroes in their place 50 years ago. Haw Haw Haw. Now don't that make you wanna join the GOP?"

Sorry for the rambling bullcrap. I just had to take a dump myself. I hate all you haters.

Racism does exist however, that is not the greatest problem facing minorities. The biggest problem they have is they are not prepared to enter the work force. I am a field engineer and in my job I go into many processing and manufacturing plants across the country. During my travels I see many people walk in to apply/interview for jobs (all races) it surprises me at how they dress and present themselves. Cut off shorts, T-shirts with drug messages, cigarettes stuck behind the ears and wads of smokeless tobacco in their mouth to the point that you can not understand what they say. Are this people surprised that they can not find a job? At one time the youth in this country were trained in school how to conduct a job search; now they can hardly read.

As far as the white supremacist power pyramid, do you think that white supremacist have any more love for Asians than Blacks or Latinos? I don’t think so, yet they have made great progress in this country. Employers are much more interested in a good employee than a specific race.

error

I think that President Bush gutshot Trent Lott.He was finished off Mr. Colin Powell. In doing so Mr.Bush lost my vote in the next election.

500 yrs from now, the history books will state that the exclusive policies of the blue dogs promoting their racial supperiority was more damningt hen black caucus.

Those blue dogs, promoting thier floppy ears and whiskey soured noses- using economic policy and strategic alliences with particular Republicans to continue thier chokehold over the brown cats, the bink bunnies, the rainbow storks. Rumor was that the hawks stayed behind the door so no one even knew that they had a roll to play.

History will remember that the segregated communities made up of a mix of "minorities" and white poor were held in check by the their racial politics, of the Blue Dogs and the racialist identities.

An oft remembered scene will be the ritual of the blue dog and its republican friend, snarling at the gates of the segregated communities... "I want meat, you must work low wages at Bow Wow wow wow grrrrr. You must work to free yourself of your racial identity Only then shall you grrrr, only then shall you be accepted outside of your skin. Work for us making our dog food. we like dog food. If you work hard at the dog food mills, we might through you a scrap of meat. On our turns of course. Bow wow. bow wow. "

"Pass the kibble!" "Pass the kibble now!"

Some of the residents inside of the segregated community, exhausted from a hard day of work allready, ignored the snarling dogs. Others fought back with further divisive politics. Others, realizing that their skin could not be shed, fought back trying to walk some sort of middle road understanding thier skin. Others ripped off their skin and joined the blue dogs at the gates, snarling like wolves."

Trust me, this will be remembered as well.
So sayeth the wise man, for I know.

History will remember that this had happened in the past, for history is memory of the past.