Weather | Sports | Forums | Comics | Classifieds | Calendar | Movies
© St. Petersburg Times, published December 18, 2002
I have known Sen. Trent Lott for more than 40 years. He is an honorable man with a personal special agenda to improve life for the underprivileged in our country -- a true friend of the less fortunate. I totally disagree with the comments that he made about the past, but I am really getting tired of all the derogatory, rhetorical attacks being orchestrated on his reputation. And he has eaten enough crow.
Everyone can make mistakes, it seems, except Democrats and many other far left wing hypocrites on their payroll. Democrat politicians are granted a pass by the media, even when certain people's lives have been lost during moments of their indiscretions. Lott is more than capable of being majority leader of the U.S. Senate. It is his destiny.
To fold his tent under this abusive attack by his enemies and rivals would only prove otherwise.
-- Guy Nash, St. Petersburg
In my opinion, Trent Lott was not advocating segregation in any way, shape or form. Do you really believe that Trent Lott would commit political suicide in this era of hypersensitivity and political correctness by publicly advocating racial segregation? On the contrary, Sen. Lott was most likely speaking highly of his longtime colleague Strom Thurmond's many years of political service, got carried away, spoke without thinking and, unfortunately, offended many people in the process.
I have some rhetorical questions for the Democrats and those who claim to have been offended by Trent Lott:
-- Why weren't you insulted when "the Reverend" Jesse Jackson called New York City "Hymietown"?
-- Where was your outrage when President Clinton was committing perjury, thereby denying Paula Jones her constitutional right to a fair trial?
-- Are you truly offended by Trent Lott's poor choice of words or are you still smarting from the Republican victories in last month's elections?
-- Thomas W. Cunningham Jr., St. Petersburg
I have been reading about the long history of Trent Lott and his family's racist past. It seems that he lacks education in this area.
As Gordon Edlin, professor of genetics at the University of California-Davis says, "Based on the well documented facts of genetics and biology, racial and ethnic prejudices make no rational sense whatsoever. . . . Human beings constitute one species and more or less the same average diversity is present in every human population or race."
Lott should return to school and not return to the Senate at all until he has reversed his state of ignorance -- because that is what it is, ignorance!
-- Yvonne M. Osmond, Hudson
As I am neither Republican nor Democratic and have voted 50-50 during the years, I should like to comment about the current travails of Sen. Lott. With the overwhelming coverage of the news media, Lott is surely in a compromising situation and a probable liability to his party. The sickening part of this situation is the speed with which the vultures gathered with much self-serving political publicity.
Here is a man who, probably after a bit of joy-juice, makes a flattering, albeit politically damaging remark to a 100-year-old man. Are there any persons over the age of 30 who do not have lingering shades of bigotry? Are there any who have not made thoroughly inappropriate statements?
What do you want from Lott now? Self-flagellation, a hair shirt? Am I the only person with a shred of sympathy for this man?
-- Miriam P. O'Laughlin, Seminole
This is a free country, and Sen. Trent Lott should believe whatever he may choose to. That is one of our inalienable rights, choosing a personal and political belief system. Of course, how he has slithered to his current political position is really what is in question here. Could he have misrepresented himself over the years to advance his political career?
Lott stated that had the rest of the nation followed Mississippi in 1948 in voting for segregation, our nation would not have all these problems we have today. That, of course, is conjecture.
What we do know is this: In 1972 when Sen. Lott started his political career, Mississippi was ranked at or near the bottom in education, housing and in economics in general. Thirty some odd years later the senator's state is still at or near the bottom. That speaks volumes in itself. So the senator should please keep his conjecture to himself. More important, is this the man we want to lead one of our nation's most powerful institutions?
-- Ben Mercadante, Odessa
It's sad to see all this hoopla against Sen. Trent Lott. I am not condoning the statements that he made publicly.
My question is where were the liberal media when Sen. Robert Byrd admitted certain things about his past about a year ago on live TV? And what happened? He came out unscathed.
-- Deme Varidin, St. Petersburg
Sen. Trent Lott's political views were always known to his colleagues. His recent faux pas has allowed the media to expose his segregationist position to the general public. He now stands naked, vulnerable, and has, I believe, lost his ability to credibly act as leader of his party. He should not wait to be asked to step down. He should do so voluntarily.
-- Orfeo Trombetta, Seminole
Re: A Lott to apologize for, editorial, Dec. 11.
The recent racist remarks of Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., have not only embarrassed the Bush administration but they have brought grief and sorrow to every thoughtful American. Lott has brought back sad memories of minority struggles for recognition and equality in America.
President Bush gave Sen. Lott a mild slap on the wrist and did not call for his resignation as majority leader. Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., called for Sen. Lott to resign as majority leader. Sen. Kerry is a Vietnam War hero who put his life on the line for the freedom and rights of all Americans.
-- William A. Crutchfield, New Port Richey
African-American voters and members of Congress should think twice about withdrawing their support from Sen. Trent Lott. If there was ever a member of Congress who will bend over backward in favor of any African-American issue, Sen. Lott is now that person. What better cause could he embrace?
Lott has truly painted himself into a corner. Each successive apology sounds more and more like a desperate criminal's attempt at plea bargaining. If he doesn't stop apologizing, they might run him out town, instead of simply not allowing him to become Senate majority leader.
-- Gary Rothberg, Seminole
Re: Considering race, editorial, Dec. 8.
The U.S. Supreme Court will probably put affirmative action into deep sleep with the two University of Michigan cases it has taken for review. Whatever it does it must render an intelligible decision that resolves conflict among lower federal courts. Is it correct to state that our constitutional premise still is equality of opportunity rather than equality of outcomes (humanly impossible and an abstraction)? Is it correct that there is still a measurable gap in making equality of opportunity a working doctrine in the public and private sectors? The answer is yes to both questions, so we have raised "diversity" to a moral and legal value without explaining what it means for a variety of ethnic and racial groups.
One can't keep hearing the term diversity and respect it without a plain English explanation of its content and value in our society. Diversity must have specific meaning to all of us, though some may regard its utility as obvious. Diversity is not a neutral number or percentage and is used as a justification for an action or explication of equality of opportunity. It needs a more rational and well-articulated basis and framework. Some political leadership would be helpful in achieving a publicly accepted meaning for diversity to avoid perversity.
Incidentally, colleges and universities have plenty of nuanced and creative ways to ensure diversity even if the Supreme Court opposes affirmative action. Admission officers have much flexibility to weigh factors relevant to race without ever even using the term and some are doing just that to secure diversity now.
-- James R. Gillespie, St. Petersburg
Re: Back to the admissions morass, by Jonathan Turley, Dec. 7.
Hear ye! Hear ye! The Supreme Court has agreed to review two University of Michigan cases and revisit affirmative action. Review, revisit. I call it a "do over." Let's hope the court gets it right this time: The admission process of any university should certainly be discriminating. Using race as a criterion, however, makes that process discriminatory.
"Diversity is a vital element in education," claims the writer of this piece. And, according to the editors of the Times, "racial diversity is a permissible goal." Not to be flippant, but, I have always thought that diversity in education referred to the difference in courses offered by the school. The religion, age, gender and economic background of the students who desire to be admitted to any course should be as irrelevant as their fashion sense.
As far as I'm concerned, diversity is not "vital." Education will live without it. And, as far as diversity being "a permissible goal," of course it is. But, so is full attendance at every class. The writer feels that "engineered" diversity, however, undermines the education process. I feel it intrudes upon it. It is like a trespasser who doesn't belong on campus.
The "compelling state interest in diversity" mystifies me. This is a country that we call a "melting pot," where all races, genders, religions, languages, cultures and economic backgrounds have blended into something else that, for more than 200 years, we have called one nation, America.
-- Jack Bray, Dunedin
Re: Deadline leaves many with no choice, by Kelly Ryan Gilmer, Dec. 14.
Thank you for another informative article about the upcoming school choice program that is being implemented by the Pinellas County school system. As a volunteer in the school system, I am not commenting about school choice but the quote in the article from a single mother: "To be honest, I got more important things to think about."
This is exactly the major problem with our schools -- that mother's most important thing to think about is her children. If she is not interested in her children and where they go to school, who should be? I see too many parents abdicating the parenting of their children to the school system.
Hopefully, after working 60 hours a week, that parent just may have made an offhand remark. Nevertheless, the responsibility is still hers.
-- Charlie Rutz, Clearwater
Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731. They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.
They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.
Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length.