MrRant 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 ST. LOUIS Jan. 6 — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton apologized for joking that Mahatma Gandhi used to run a gas station in St. Louis, saying it was "a lame attempt at humor." The New York Democrat made the remark at a fund-raiser Saturday. During an event here for Senate candidate Nancy Farmer, Clinton introduced a quote from Gandhi by saying, "He ran a gas station down in St. Louis." After laughter from many in the crowd of at least 200 subsided, the former first lady continued, "No, Mahatma Gandhi was a great leader of the 20th century." In a nod to Farmer's underdog status against Republican Sen. Kit Bond, Clinton quoted the Indian independence leader as saying: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." The director of a U.S. center devoted to Gandhi's teachings said the remarks amounted to stereotyping and were insensitive. After being approached by The Associated Press to clarify the remarks, Clinton suggested in a statement late Monday that she never meant to fuel the stereotype often used as a comedic punch line that certain ethnic groups run America's gas stations. "I have admired the work and life of Mahatma Gandhi and have spoken publicly about that many times," Clinton said. "I truly regret if a lame attempt at humor suggested otherwise." Michelle Naef, administrator of the M.K. Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence, a Memphis, Tenn.-based organization founded in 1991 by a Gandhi grandson, credited Clinton and her husband, former President Clinton, with long having "supported the Gandhi message." But she said Saturday's remarks "could be incredibly harmful." "I don't think she was, in any way, trying to demean Mahatma Gandhi," Naef said. "To be generous to her, I would say it was a poor attempt at humor. Perhaps I'm overly sensitive, but I find it offensive when people use stereotypes in that way." http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap2004...40106_1188.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Brilliant, it's so insensitive and ignorant I'm suprised Dean didn't say it... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Brilliant, it's so insensitive and ignorant I'm suprised Dean didn't say it... ::shakes head:: I think Dean's footinmouth disease is spreading to the rest of the party. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Oh come on, it's only a racist joke. It's OK. She's a DEMOCRAT, remember? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Report post Posted January 7, 2004 And here I thought it was the liberals who usually got all pissy... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Ghost of bps21 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 How does the Democratic party expect to regain control when they continue to portray themselves as dumber than G.W.? Is that like...the plan? "They elected that dumb guy...let's be dumber!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 7, 2004 And here I thought it was the liberals who usually got all pissy... I honestly don't care, I just find the "top this" mentality lately to be amusing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 7, 2004 And here I thought it was the liberals who usually got all pissy... Hey, I'm defending her. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
treble 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 So stupid. Everyone knows he ran a car wash in Kansas City. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Let's see, should I even bother with the I-wonder-what-would-have-happened-if-a-Republican-said-it? line. Nah, I'll skip this one... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Let's see, should I even bother with the I-wonder-what-would-have-happened-if-a-Republican-said-it? line. Nah, I'll skip this one... They'd be forced to resign from the Senate and live the rest of their days as a hermit hiding from mobs of hippies? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Let's see, should I even bother with the I-wonder-what-would-have-happened-if-a-Republican-said-it? line. Nah, I'll skip this one... There would be a nation-wide movement for them to step down as senator of course! Hey, just a thought I had, but I didn't want to start a new topic since it's just a thought and based on nothing. Could Hillary end up being Dean's running mate? While she's not running herself, could she try to "get her foot in the door" so to speak or will she stay far away until 2008? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Let's see, should I even bother with the I-wonder-what-would-have-happened-if-a-Republican-said-it? line. Nah, I'll skip this one... They'd be forced to resign from the Senate and live the rest of their days as a hermit hiding from mobs of hippies? Even worse, they would have to resign from ESPN because Uncle Tom Jackson would get little Indians coming up to him asking if it would be OK for them to open up 7-11s... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Let's see, should I even bother with the I-wonder-what-would-have-happened-if-a-Republican-said-it? line. Nah, I'll skip this one... They'd be forced to resign from the Senate and live the rest of their days as a hermit hiding from mobs of hippies? Even worse, they would have to resign from ESPN because Uncle Tom Jackson would get little Indians coming up to him asking if it would be OK for them to open up 7-11s... kkk, I NEVER viewed Gandhi as an Indian man. Never. Ever. Not once. Remember the ads "Hunger Strikes amongst Friends"?... -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Let's see, should I even bother with the I-wonder-what-would-have-happened-if-a-Republican-said-it? line. Nah, I'll skip this one... There would be a nation-wide movement for them to step down as senator of course! Hey, just a thought I had, but I didn't want to start a new topic since it's just a thought and based on nothing. Could Hillary end up being Dean's running mate? While she's not running herself, could she try to "get her foot in the door" so to speak or will she stay far away until 2008? NO Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Let's see, should I even bother with the I-wonder-what-would-have-happened-if-a-Republican-said-it? line. Nah, I'll skip this one... There would be a nation-wide movement for them to step down as senator of course! Hey, just a thought I had, but I didn't want to start a new topic since it's just a thought and based on nothing. Could Hillary end up being Dean's running mate? While she's not running herself, could she try to "get her foot in the door" so to speak or will she stay far away until 2008? NO Are we forgetting what happened at a certain dead Senator's birthday party a few years ago? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 (edited) Are you referring to the controversy surrounding the rally honoring Paul Wellington in Minneapolis? If so, that wasn't a "birthday party." Edit: I meant, "Paul" of Wellington, New Zealand. Sure did. Edited January 7, 2004 by BX Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BUTT 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 I think he's referring to Trent Lott and the Strom Thurmond quote. Edit: Oh, and it's Paul Wellstone. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BX 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 My response of "NO" was directed at the possibility of Hilary Clinton being the Vice President to Dean. That would be horrible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Styles 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 My response of "NO" was directed at the possibility of Hilary Clinton being the Vice President to Dean. That would be horrible. Interesting, I remember reading polls that said if Clinton were running she would easily be the front runner for the nomination. As much as conservatives hate her, liberals seem to love her. Plus, a female running mate could be the finishing touch on the Dean/Mondale campaign comparisons.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kkktookmybabyaway 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Edit: Oh, and it's Paul Wellstone. Really? I thought it was Paul Welfare... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Interesting, I remember reading polls that said if Clinton were running she would easily be the front runner for the nomination. As much as conservatives hate her, liberals seem to love her. Plus, a female running mate could be the finishing touch on the Dean/Mondale campaign comparisons.... I don't really have any strong feelings either way for Hillary. She's just...there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Let's see, should I even bother with the I-wonder-what-would-have-happened-if-a-Republican-said-it? line. Nah, I'll skip this one... Well, making a joke about an Indian guy working at a gas station is much different then basically saying a guy becoming president would have been the best thing for this country, when that guy's main issue was keeping segregation. It would have been the best thing for this country if blacks were separated from whites?! Huh?! It appears, according to Trent Lott, it would. Lott's comment was 10 times more offensive than Hillary's was. Not to mention Lott was the Senate MAJORITY LEADER, not just a plain Senator, when he was making these racially offensive remarks. I just don't think it's fair to compare these two comments. Yes, Hillary's comment was insensitive, and it's for the best that she apologized for it. But to compare it to Trent Lott's comment and say she should face the same treatment is pretty ridiculous. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Salacious Crumb Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Let's see, should I even bother with the I-wonder-what-would-have-happened-if-a-Republican-said-it? line. Nah, I'll skip this one... Well, making a joke about an Indian guy working at a gas station is much different then basically saying a guy becoming president would have been the best thing for this country, when that guy's main issue was keeping segregation. It would have been the best thing for this country if blacks were separated from whites?! Huh?! It appears, according to Trent Lott, it would. Lott's comment was 10 times more offensive than Hillary's was. Not to mention Lott was the Senate MAJORITY LEADER, not just a plain Senator, when he was making these racially offensive remarks. I just don't think it's fair to compare these two comments. Yes, Hillary's comment was insensitive, and it's for the best that she apologized for it. But to compare it to Trent Lott's comment and say she should face the same treatment is pretty ridiculous. Ah yes, the whole putting words in someone's mouth. Give it a rest. He was trying to flatter an old man at his birthday party, there wasn't any racial stuff meant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Let's see, should I even bother with the I-wonder-what-would-have-happened-if-a-Republican-said-it? line. Nah, I'll skip this one... Well, making a joke about an Indian guy working at a gas station is much different then basically saying a guy becoming president would have been the best thing for this country, when that guy's main issue was keeping segregation. It would have been the best thing for this country if blacks were separated from whites?! Huh?! It appears, according to Trent Lott, it would. Lott's comment was 10 times more offensive than Hillary's was. Not to mention Lott was the Senate MAJORITY LEADER, not just a plain Senator, when he was making these racially offensive remarks. I just don't think it's fair to compare these two comments. Yes, Hillary's comment was insensitive, and it's for the best that she apologized for it. But to compare it to Trent Lott's comment and say she should face the same treatment is pretty ridiculous. Ah yes, the whole putting words in someone's mouth. Give it a rest. He was trying to flatter an old man at his birthday party, there wasn't any racial stuff meant. Bush Calls Lott's Comments Offensive WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Thursday sharply rebuked incoming Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott for comments that some have called racist, saying any suggestion that segregation was acceptable is "offensive and it is wrong." Bush's comments, delivered to a mixed-race audience in Philadelphia, came one day after Lott, a Mississippi Republican, said he would not give up his leadership post, despite the furor over his remarks. "Recent comments by Sen. Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country," Bush said to loud applause. "He has apologized and rightly so. Every day that our nation was segregated was a day our nation was unfaithful to our founding ideals." A spokesman for Lott said the senator agreed with the president that his comments were wrong and reiterated his regret at having said them. Lott later called the president and the two had what aides described as a positive conversation. The president did not call for Lott to step down, but other conservatives say Lott must offer a fuller explanation of his comments, despite his apology. "On their face, the recent comments of Sen. Trent Lott are offensive, repugnant and inimical to what the Republican Party stands for," said William Bennett, a noted conservative author and education secretary during the Reagan administration. Bennett suggested that Lott's explanations about what he meant when he praised segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign have been inadequate. "If Senator Lott can provide a satisfactory explanation for his statement, this entire episode should be forgotten," Bennett said in a statement released Thursday. "If he cannot, he needs to step down as the Senate majority leader." The president's strong statement suggests that Lott has failed to quell the controversy over his comments, which some conservatives complain have opened the GOP to charges of racial bigotry. On Thursday, the Congressional Black Caucus -- comprised of black Democratic lawmakers -- released a statement calling for a "formal censure of Sen. Lott's racist remarks." Two Democratic senators -- John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin -- have called on Lott to resign his leadership post, but there has been no such call from any GOP senator. Several, in fact, have risen to Lott's defense, saying his apology should put the matter to rest. But Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said Lott should have a "full-blown press conference" to address the controversy. Recent comments by Sen. Lott do not reflect the spirit of our country. -- President Bush "I have known Trent Lott for 20 years," McCain told CNN. "I don't believe he's racist. But he must proactively send a message to his colleagues in the Senate and the American people that he is absolutely opposed to any segregation in any form and racism in any form and discrimination in any form." The comment in question was delivered one week ago during a 100th birthday party for the retiring Thurmond -- a party that often resembled a roast of the South Carolina Republican. Lott noted that in Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign, whose centerpiece was opposition to integration, Mississippi was one of four Thurmond carried. "We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either," Lott said. That line initially drew little fire, but the criticism grew this week and intensified with a report of a similar comment he made at a 1980 campaign rally for Ronald Reagan in Mississippi. His comments followed a speech by Thurmond, who praised the platform that would soon put Reagan in the White House. "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today," Lott was quoted as saying of Thurmond in a November 3, 1980, article in The Clarion-Ledger, a Jackson newspaper. Another past incident also may come back to haunt Lott. Time magazine has reported that Lott vigorously opposed desegregating his fraternity when he was a student at the University of Mississippi in the 1960s. (Full story) Lott's comments have led two Democratic senators to call for him to give up his leadership post. Lott granted two phone interviews Wednesday during which he apologized repeatedly for the more recent comment, calling it "terrible." In neither case, Lott insisted, did he mean to endorse Thurmond's since-discarded segregationist views. Instead, Lott said, he meant to praise Thurmond's stance on defense, law enforcement and economic development. "This was a mistake of the head or of the mouth, not of the heart," he said in a call to one radio talk show, reprising a line first used in 1984 by civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, who was criticized at the time for describing New York City as "Hymietown," a comment many took as anti-Semitic. Jackson has blasted Lott for his recent comment. Kerry -- who is exploring a possible 2004 bid for the White House -- became the first senator to call on Lott to resign his leadership post with a statement Wednesday. Feingold did the same Thursday. The Wall Street Journal and the Family Research Council, a conservative group, have also criticized Lott for his comments, saying he has hurt Republican efforts to reach out to minorities. Lott said Wednesday night that he hoped he could be judged in the full context of his career, which he said has included support of historically black colleges and universities. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, called Lott a "good leader" but suggested that Lott address civil rights groups to "speak out openly about" the controversy. Credit: CNN.com -------------------------------------------- You can't say those weren't his intentions with that remark, especially since he had a history of doing such racially offensive things. Not once, but TWICE, saying things turned into a mess without Strum Thurmond, who was strongly FOR segregation.....being against desegregation in his college fraternity.....Trent Lott had a reputation as being someone against integration. Yes, it could have changed over the years, but evidence doesn't seem to point to that. If you look at his history, and what he has had a habit of doing, how could you say there was absolutely no racial intent behind his Thurmond comment? Now again, how could you compare his comment at Strum's birthday party, backed by those actions he once committed before, against Hillary making a "joke" about an Indian guy working at a gas station. Their comments on two WAY different offensive levels, so it's silly to complain that Lott was punished but Hillary won't be because she's not a Republican. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Of course, the untold story is --- Bush will call one of his own out when they make an offensive remark. Democrats won't. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Another story for Mad Dog, just to make sure. Scrutiny of Lott's past reveals controversial associations By Ana Radelat Clarion-Ledger Washington Bureau WASHINGTON — Since the beginning of his political career, Sen. Trent Lott has had ties with segregationists. The Mississippi Republican entered the political world in 1968 as an administrative assistant to then-Rep. William Colmer, D-Miss., a champion of white supremacists who used his position as head of the House Rules Committee to bottle up civil rights legislation. Richard Barrett, the general counsel of the segregationist Nationalist Movement in Mississippi, says Colmer was a "freedom fighter" and "a staunch segregationist who groomed Trent Lott." Lott, who is supposed to become Senate majority leader next month, has come under fire for remarks he made last week suggesting he sympathized with segregation. He apologized again Wednesday, saying he does not accept those policies. But he would not be interviewed for this article. Lott's controversial remarks have prompted greater scrutiny into what he's said and done in the past — a scrutiny that wasn't applied when he became Senate majority leader once before in 1996. He has longtime ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a neo-Confederate group that has been accused of racist views. In the last 10 years several columns written by Lott have been featured in the organization's publication, the Citizen Informer. Lott, 61, has tried to distance himself from the group since it was revealed in 1999 that he had addressed a rally sponsored by the CCC. "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries," Lott said at the CCC event. During a radio interview Wednesday, Lott said the rally was an open forum for political candidates and that he wasn't sure he was aware of its sponsor. The senator's membership in the Sons of Confederate Veterans also upsets civil rights groups. The Tennessee-based organization is the successor to the United Confederate Veterans and the oldest hereditary organization for male descendants of Confederate soldiers. It was founded in 1896. "Most of us are mainstream," said Ben Sewell, the group's executive director. "I can't say that everybody is, but most of us are." In a 1984 interview with Southern Partisan magazine, Lott was asked about comments he made at a Sons of Confederate Veterans rally in Biloxi. At the event Lott said, "The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform." "All the ideas we supported there — from tax policy, to foreign policy, from individual rights, to neighborhood security — are things that Jefferson Davis believed in," Lott said of the GOP's presidential agenda in 1984. During that interview, Lott also explained his opposition in 1983 to making the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a national holiday. "I would vote for eliminating some of the ones we already have, as a matter of fact. Look at the cost involved in the Martin Luther King holiday and the fact we have not done it for a lot of other people that were more deserving. I just think it was basically wrong," he said. Oran T. Smith, former managing editor of Southern Partisan and an expert on Southern Republicans, said Lott is not a racist but a man who revels in his Mississippi heritage. "I think he's a Southerner who likes to celebrate his Southerness," Smith said. In 1979, Lott received the Jefferson Davis Medal from the United Daughters of the Confederacy for his successful effort to have the president of the Confederacy's citizenship restored. Lott attended a 1980 rally for Ronald Reagan in Jackson that featured remarks from Sen. Strom Thurmond, R-S.C. After Thurmond spoke to more than 1,000 people present, Lott said, "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." Those 1980 comments echoed similar remarks Lott made last week at a 100th birthday party for Thurmond, who ran for president in 1948 as a Dixiecrat on a segregationist platform. "I want to say this about my state," Lott said last week. "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 these problems over all these years." Barrett, the National Movement's attorney, said Wednesday he is angry Lott apologized for those remarks. "He did not stand up for Mississippi," Barrett said. In 1981, when Lott was a House member, the Mississippi lawmaker intervened at the U.S Supreme Court to defend the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University in South Carolina. The IRS had moved to deny that status because the university banned interracial dating among students. Lott argued the First Amendment protected the school's right to ban interracial dating because it was based on religious beliefs. "Racial discrimination does not always violate public policy," Lott wrote. Still, Marty Wiseman, head of the Stennis Institute at Mississippi State University, said Lott is motivated by his passion for his home state's history and his political ideology, not racism. "Trent Lott's personal philosophy has been ultraconservative," Wiseman said. "Race has never entered into it." -------------------------------------- Again, my intent is not to turn this into a Trent Lott-bashing thread. It's just to show that history seems to dictate more was behind his Strum Thurmond comment than "being nice on his birthday." And I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but I don't think it's fair to complain that the two should face the same scrutiny when their comments were not near equally offensive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JMA Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Of course, the untold story is --- Bush will call one of his own out when they make an offensive remark. Democrats won't. That's a pretty vast generalization. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NYU 0 Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Of course, the untold story is --- Bush will call one of his own out when they make an offensive remark. Democrats won't. -=Mike Good thing I woke up from that "Every Democrat is pissed off at Howard Dean because he said Osama required a trial" dream. Yes, while there is a competitive primary happening at this time, this already disproves your "Democrats won't call out other Democrats for remarks" theory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted January 7, 2004 Of course, the untold story is --- Bush will call one of his own out when they make an offensive remark. Democrats won't. -=Mike Good thing I woke up from that "Every Democrat is pissed off at Howard Dean because he said Osama required a trial" dream. Yes, while there is a competitive primary happening at this time, this already disproves your "Democrats won't call out other Democrats for remarks" theory. They "called out" Dean for personal gain. What did Bush gain by calling out Lott? -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
