posted on January 10, 2003 11:06:16 AM new
Don't worry, Linda_K, I was busy in your other thread
OK, IMO since Pickering is from Lott's state and allegedly has a history of being of the same circle as Lott, I don't think it was wise for the GOP to re-nominate him.
From my POV, the GOP was pretty happy that they would have control and Lott, I think was acting like a pumped up Rooster when he said what he said that got him into hot water. Pretty cocky IMO.
So I think that the GOP think they have a slam-dunk with Pickering. I don't think so. I could be wrong, though.
To heal the GOPs wounds with the racial issue, they should have at least appear to be making amends.
Now, I know the Democrats can be as prejudice (boy! do I know that!).
So I was disappointed that the GOP renominated him.
posted on January 10, 2003 11:33:40 AM new
I do understand and see why it may look that way to some. IMO, race is used as an 'excuse' in this case for not wanting to allow a conservative into the fold. Pickering and the others aren't Lott, and comparing them to him isn't really right.
But what I don't think is right, is that it's wasn't allowed to go up for a vote. And now there's a chance for it to be reviewed again.
As a democrat, I wouldn't expect you to change your support for their side. But I'd ask if you've ever read Pickering's history. Checked out his voting record...etc....or are just picking the side of those who wish to make this a 'racial' issue.
Just one example: I was looking for the site I'd read about Pickering's previous votes. It shows the opposite of what he's accused of.
It's because he's a conservative, not a racist.
One such case: Senate Democrats argued that Pickering was too lenient in a case involving racist criminals and seemed to sympathize with segregationists during the Civil Rights movement. The charges were lobbed and Pickering's nomination was defeated, despite a letter from the brother of slain civil rights activist Medgar Evers praising Pickering as one of the few white prosecutors who stood up to the Ku Klux Klan in the mid-1960s.
posted on January 10, 2003 11:39:38 AM new
clarksville - So I think that the GOP think they have a slam-dunk with Pickering. I don't think so. I could be wrong, though. I don't think it's a slam dunk. It's going to depend on whether people believe what they're told, or read what he's done. I wouldn't be surprise if he's not appointed. But he does have bipartisan support. Does that make all who might support his nomination racists? Not in my eyes.
posted on January 10, 2003 12:31:09 PM new
I'm back!
I do lean toward Democrat party, but have publically supported several GOP local candidates and I do see that both parties are just as bad (and good) as the other.
There is propaganda on both sides that should be heard.
I don't consider you or anyone who support Pickering as a racist. Cause actually we all are racists, but it is a matter of being aware of one's biases and so on.
posted on January 10, 2003 08:40:19 PM new
or a sign of intelligent life here
Pickering left the Democratic Party to join the Republicans in 1964 in protest against the Democrat's support for civil rights -making him a poor choice as an appellate court judge right after Lott's removal.
posted on January 11, 2003 10:28:03 AM new
Oh! Chortle,chortle! Chuckle! Chuckle!
Ya have to admire the chutzpah of the GOP!
After ole magnolia-mug "Massa" Trent chokes on his lilly-white "right" foot, they throw salt on the wounds by re-nominating ole "Pickett's Charge" Pickering!!
Hey! Ya can't accuse Dumbo of pandering to (or even RESPECTING) the senstivities of Afro-Americans! The "big-tent" GOP strategy of inclusion has revealed it's true color: WHITE!
