Radiofree West Hartford -- Christmas in Nutmeg Land by Tom Evers

THE CROW'S NEST:

Christmas in Nutmeg Land

By Tom Evers

December 20, 2002

I know the webpage is officially shut down, but since the world doesn't come to a grinding halt, I figured I would get in a column or two. So stay tuned, so you don't miss anything.

I'm probably going out on a limb with this, but with the holiday season in full swing, it looks like Santa might be taking a second look at his list of who's been naughty and who's been nice.

Everyone knows that I've been a strong advocate of Governor John G. Rowland over the past twelve years. As Governor, Rowland has done a fantastic job leading the state and keeping Connecticut in great shape (with a minor exception of this years' budget crisis which both he and the Democratically controlled legislature should take shared responsibility for). This column supported Rowland during this last election campaign cycle when he was running against Bill Curry - who is no friend of conservative, common-sense policies. But if the stories being reported by Radio Free West Hartford's Editor Donald Dodd about Rowland's infidelity are true (based on the investigative work that Don has done), then Republicans could be in even more trouble then they are perceived to be in at this moment, and Rowland alone would be responsible for the added set back.

This week's resignation of Kristine D. Ragaglia, Commissioner of the Department of Children and Families unfortunately raises even more questions concerning circulating rumors, or is this simply a "timing issue"? From our vantage point here, and based upon results or lack thereof, Rowland should have asked her to step down from her post a long time ago. With few exceptions, Republicans have been able to take the high ground on moral issues and maintain a fairly respectable posture in the public eye. The idea the Connecticut could have its own "Monica-gate" or "Rowland-gate" or Ragaglia-gate" is nauseating to say the least.

One would wonder if former State Republican Chairman Chris Depino, a close, personal friend of the Governor resigned a week or so ago because he didn't want to deal with the fallout from all of the current chaos. If true, it prompts questions of who knew what and when. It also would put another black mark on Waterbury, which recently has taken on a rather negative perception problem when it comes to politicians who have little regard for laws and family values.

Over the last few weeks, Republican Trent Lott, our Senate Majority Leader, took a beating at the hands of the liberal media. As everyone is aware, two weeks ago during a birthday celebration for Senator Strom Thurmond, Lott made a remark that if Thurmond was elected President than we wouldn't be having all the problems that we are having today.

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda.

The reality is that on its own, Lott's remarks were meant to bring a smile to the 100-year-old Thurmond - plainly speaking, Lott was pandering to Strom and to the crowd. Telling an old man that we would have made a great President is a nice thought.

But everyone else opted to formulate a "read-between-the-lines" viewpoint. Liberals rushed on television and began to drum up visions of "coded language", etc. etc.

At first, Senator Tom Daschle (D) and others laughed off Lott's comments, and it was generally accepted that Lott's comment was an "off the cuff remark" with little meaning. Unhappy with this response, the elite liberal media became hysterical, followed by the Congressional Black Caucus (a group that serves as a key force in polarizing race relations) and House Minority Leader, Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

The liberals screamed and hollered with a fevered pitch to try and make the connection between Lott and the segregationalist Dixiecrat Party platform that Thurmond ran on back in 1948. They also reached back to the early 1980's to supportive comments made by Lott about Southern Confederate Jefferson Davis. They went back and highlighted sentences and phrases to try and make a case that Lott is involved in some great "Confederate conspiracy".

Let's put a few things in perspective here.

First, Thurmond's election to the Presidency in 1948 would have been a disaster for the United States in terms of the negative impact it would have had on race relations. But obviously, this wouldn't have happened. The possibility of Thurmond having been elected is about as probable as Pat Buchanan being elected today.

Second, southern politicians are not banned from making positive comments about the South, southern generals, or southern heritage. From a liberal perspective the Civil War was about slavery - a ridiculous point of view. The Civil War was about "states rights", which is a standard-bearer of today's Republican platform. Slavery, which was immoral and heinous, was merely a small piece of the puzzle. And by most reasonable historian's point of view, the slave issue was used by President Abraham Lincoln to draw southern blacks into the war and to fight on behalf of northern causes. Moreover, the notion that slavery was limited to only southern states is another misnomer that is widely perpetrated. (I can get into more detail on this in another column). The point is that Southerners have a right to protect and be proud of their heritage.

Third, Senator Lott is not a confederate. He has never called for a separation of the southern states from the United States. And he has a long record of speaking out in favor of civil rights and supporting race relations, and voting for legislation that supports equality among all peoples.

Forth, President George W. Bush, did a disservice by buying into the liberals rhetoric and blasting Trent Lott before the cameras, which gave credibility to liberal accusations about Lott's character. Lott is not a racist, but the President didn't say that, did he? Lott has also indicated that rumors are being leaked from the White House to try and push Lott out.

Fifth and the main point: For the record there might be an underlying reason for Bush's comments, which has little to do with Lott's comments. Many Republicans do not see Lott as an effective Republican leader; they see him as a weak link in moving forward with the Bush agenda. Some Republicans see this whole matter as a great opportunity to displace Lott and put a leader that will work day and night, without compromise toward moving President Bush's agenda through the Senate in early 2003.

Democrats would love to see Lott stay right were he is, and have even suggested a "censure" for his record. They would love to make Lott their race-issue in order to stir up votes against Bush and Congressional Republicans in the next election cycle.

Time will tell whether Lott can survive. I predict that he probably won't make it through in the long term. Sooner or later, he'll have to see that the negatives associated with him in his current position are much larger than the race issue. If he doesn't see it, Senate Republicans will probably form a caucus and take action by insisting upon his removal. Republicans have a hard enough time getting into the super-majority, and to have an ineffective leader stalling a great opportunity for movement is unacceptable.

Sometimes taking one for the team is a necessary evil. When you are in a powerful position such as Trent Lott, there is much to be lost: a big title, a big office, control, fraternizing visits at the White House, and an unbelievable amount of influence over society.

It's going to take a big man to put his party before power.