Real quickly:
1. On the merits, the effort by right-wing partisans (such as the proprietor of Lakeshore Laments) to equate Reid's comment (which hit on the role of race and racial perception in American politics, although arguably in an impolitic manner and with archaic language) with Lott's belated endorsement of Strom Thurmond's segregationist presidential bid is laughable. I think the only people seeing a double standard are wingers such as the proprietor of Lakeshore Laments.
2. Lott's remarks were offensive to any thinking person, but he arguably could have skated had he made a robust apology early on. He did not. Instead he said he apologized if people were offended -- a significant distinction. He did this either because he truly believed America would be a better place if Thurmond had been elected in 1948 or because he didn't want to anger his base, or both. And by the time he made a full apology, it was too late. Reid made a full, not a parsed, apology. And usually in American politics that's enough.
3. As Chris Cilizza points out, another reason Lott's Dixiecrat endorsement was a big deal is that it gave Lott's ambitious colleagues the chance to thow him under the bus . If memory serves, plenty of GOPers and their supporters saw Lott as ineffectual. That hasn't happened with Reid.
Wingers who constantly decry spurious calls of racism no doubt hope this will be a big hammer to wield against Dems. While the incident no doubt will fuel further simmering impotent rage by wingers who feel they're victimized by today's world, I have a hard time seeing it get much traction beyond the talk radio circuit.
Comments