An African-American ex-White House staffer says the GOP is in denial about its race problem. We agree, but it seems the staffer is in denial as well--about what it is the Republican party stands for. She asserts, astonishingly to us,

"In its soul, and in its history, the GOP is a party of moderates. We are at our core a party of abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights supporters and fighters for the individual liberty of all people."

The author begs the GOP to reach out more to Black professionals like herself--the black middle class. What about the less fortunate African-Americans, what does the GOP offer them? The GOP has offered a solitary, ill-advised response to crime for decades: Build more prisons and increase penalties. Does the staffer really think it is okay that compassion is extended only to successful, productive members of society. Where does that leave these African-Americans:

1.4 million African American men, or 13% of black men, are disenfranchised, a rate seven times the national average. Given current rates of incarceration, three in ten of the next generation of black men can expect to be disenfranchised at some point in their lifetime. In states that disenfranchise ex-offenders, as many as 40% of black men may permanently lose their right to vote.

Nearly one in seven (13.4%) black males aged 25-29 were in prison or jail in 2001, as were 1 in 24 (4.1%) Hispanic males and 1 in 55 (1.8%) white males in the same age group.

46% of prison inmates in 2001 were black and 16% were Hispanic.

Black males have a 29% chance of serving time in prison at some point in their lives; Hispanic males have a 16% chance; white males have a 4% chance.

(Sources: Bureau of Justice Statistics and The Sentencing Project)

As the ACLU reminds us:

The war on crime and drugs has disproportionately targeted people of color for arrest, prosecution and long, mandatory prison sentences so that today, one-third of all black men in their twenties are either behind bars, on probation or. Voting districts created to provide fair representation have been undermined by lawmakers and by the courts, and felony disenfranchisement laws have robbed hundreds of thousands of minorities of their right to vote. Segregation and discrimination in housing opportunity still exists, and a backlash against affirmative action in employment and education threatens to slam the door of opportunity in the faces of those who are most deserving. Anti-immigrant laws have stripped away basic civil rights for many of the nation’s ethnic minorities. We have come a long way since Jim Crow ruled the South, but deeply entrenched discrimination, subjugation, subordination, and racial violence are still with us and affect not only African-Americans, but Latinos, Asian Americans, American Indians, and Arab Americans as well."

Spare us the GOP "compassionate conservative" jingle.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson examines the civil rights records of Lott, Nickles, McConnell and Frist in a commentary in the LA Times, The Grand (Dragon's) Old Party. He finds Nickles more frightening than Lott (he not only voted against Martin Luther King Day, but suggested it be an unpaid holiday celebrated only on a Sunday) and astutely notes,

"These men are not shoot-from-the-lip, bellicose, confrontational race-baiters like Lott. They are quiet, respectable, gray-flannel opponents of civil rights. And this makes them even more terrifying than Lott."

"Yet what's even more frightening is that such men are a big reason the Republicans have resuscitated the party from its century of near extinction in the Deep South."

Hutchinson provides an interesting post-1964 history of the Republicans in the South. As to President Bush, he says:

"President Bush has also subtly stoked the racial fires. He spoke at racially archaic Bob Jones University, ducked the Confederate flag fight and the racial profiling issue and refused to support tougher hate-crimes legislation."

"Then there is his handling of the Lott debacle. When Lott attended a second Strom Thurmond birthday bash at the White House, there is no indication that Bush rebuked Lott for his remarks. It took nearly a week, and a firestorm of public outrage, before Bush finally condemned him."

Hutchinson's conclusion on the future of the Republican Right?

"Lott apologists worry that with him out as Senate leader, the GOP conservative agenda will go to pot. With Nickles, McConnell or Frist, and Bush as gatekeeper of that agenda, there's no danger of that."

He's right about that.

The Washington Post profiles Tennessee Senator Bill Frist today, and he seems like a really nice man with really bad politics.

The Post portrays him as a jetsetter surgeon who pilots himself around in his own plane, occasionally to pick up organs for his needy patients. He was born rich and got richer. His family owned a company called HCA that morphed into the "largest chain of for-profit hospitals in the country." After a hostile takeover in which his family ceded control, HCA became Columbia/HCA.

"In 1997, FBI raids on company hospitals turned up widespread Medicare fraud. According to attorneys for the whistleblowers who revealed the massive overbilling, HCA engaged in illegal practices even before the takeover. But Thomas Frist Jr. returned to the helm of the company as unpaid chairman and chief executive, and worked to restore trust in the company. This week, HCA (the old name is back) announced that it would pay the federal government $631 million to settle fraud claims-bringing the total payments by the company to $1.7 billion...." "With the health system in crisis, Republicans are considering a Senate majority leader who made his millions from a family-run company that defrauded Medicare, overstated expense statements, billed for services ineligible for reimbursements and paid kickbacks to physicians to encourage referrals to HCA facilities," said Physicians for a National Health Program, which has clashed with Frist over health care issues."

Frist spent $3.4 million of his own money to win his first senate race in 1994. His voting record has been the same as Lott's 90% of the time. Friends say he may have presidential aspirations for 2008.

Eli Lilly is a big financial contributor to his campaign.

Frist wrote a provision, enacted into law, that restricted the ability of plaintiffs to sue the company for injuries resulting from Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative used in vaccines against childhood diseases. The Lilly provision was quietly woven into the legislation creating the Department of Homeland Security.

"He really shows the true compassionate conservatism," says Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.). Sorry, but we go right for the mute button whenever we hear that overused, meaningless jingle.

Let's take a closer look at his voting record. How does the wealthy, conservative, southern senator come out on non-health care issues?

Nathan Newman provides Frist's record on abortion, civil liberties, the environment and labor rights.

We checked his record on crime issues and civil rights and here's what we found:

On Civil Rights:

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (Jun 2000)
Voted NO on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (Mar 1998)
Voted YES on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)
Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (Sep 1996)
Voted NO on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (Sep 1996)
Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (Dec 1995)
Voted YES on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)
Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (Mar 2001)

On Crime:

He is pro-death penalty and wants to limit death penalty appeals. He favors three-strikes sentencing laws. He believes in an absolute right to gun ownership.

Voted YES on limiting death penalty appeals. (Apr 1996)
Voted YES on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on spending international development funds on drug control. (Jul 1996)
Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Here is Trent Lott's voting record for comparison.

New York has asked former mayor Rudy Giuliani to cut back his security detail:

The former mayor is protected by a small platoon -- about 16 -- of New York City police detectives, at a public cost of about $1 million per year. Giuliani's security details dwarfs that accorded other former mayors, and the present mayor, Michael Bloomberg.

Police detectives also protect Giuliani's fiancee, Judi Nathan, driving her to her beach home in the Hamptons when she goes to water her flowers. A New York Post report stated that a police detective accompanied Nathan to Atlanta for a book reading by her betrothed. While there, Nathan and the officer went shopping, selecting a diamond and sapphire engagement ring for Giuliani to give her.

Six police officers flew with Giuliani and Nathan to Paris, and booked about $20,000 in overtime along the way. The city has long provided security to former mayors, but none in recent memory have had a contingent nearly as large as Giuliani's.

Frank Rich is right on target with his New York Times column today, Bonfire of the Vanities:

"We shouldn't congratulate ourselves quite so fast. The Lott story didn't break this month -- it broke four years ago. Where was the press then? Where were the Democrats? "

He's right. Trent Lott took the fall but there are a host of other, even more powerful Republicans, that have "racial lapses" of their own....Ashcroft and Bush, to name a few.

"There are still too many Republican politicians who believe they can pander to whatever racist voters are out there without being called on it. When they are, they cringe — not so much because they care about losing their few black votes but because they care about losing soccer moms who are offended by race- baiting. "Elections are settled in the suburbs nowadays, 43 percent of the vote," said George Will in condemning Mr. Lott. It's that political reality, not any moral imperative, that mandated the majority leader's death sentence."

"President Bush is no bigot, and as he likes to remind us, some of his best employees are Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. He is in favor of something called "affirmative access" — which has led to a grand total of zero black Republican Congressmen in the next Congress. "Compassionate conservatism" seems less a program than a p.r. strategy to provide cover for the likes of a Lott or an Ashcroft."

"Asked this week what the administration has done for black Americans, Ari Fleischer used the kind of examples we heard from Mr. Lott. He said that "the president looks forward to going to Africa" (how patronizing can you be?) and wants "to double funding for historically black colleges and universities" (weren't the Republicans for color-blind policies rather than a politically correct form of de facto segregation?). Mr. Fleischer also said that the president sees education as "the next civil rights movement." If so, Mr. Bush is not that movement's courageous leader; in his education bill, he dumped the tiny school voucher provision that Republican polls say many black families want."

"Black voters are not fooled by such empty theatrics. For all the "diversity" at his convention and his rhetorical "compassion," Mr. Bush drew a third less of the black vote than his father and Bob Dole did. The White House's main concern now is that white voters be fooled. So Republicans are trying to create a moral equivalence between Democratic racial lapses and their own, hoping that Robert Byrd's long-renounced K.K.K. past and use of the word "nigger" will somehow blur their own recent record. Bill Frist is the ideal new Senate majority leader, because his own genuinely good works in Africa and "compassionate conservative" geniality will camouflage a voting pattern that, on any issue touching black Americans, is virtually the same as Mr. Lott's."

"Sen. Trent Lott has resigned as Senate Republican Leader. He will stay in the Senate. His support dwindled among Senate Republicans as they began to line up behind Frist, who said yesterday he would challenge Lot for the leadership position.

Update: Here is the text of his resignation speech.

From Half the Sins of Mankind who correctly guessed that we are a fan (make that big fan) of Bob Dylan:

"Lott's comments are a product of forgetting the past; Pat Buchanan's phenomenally ignorant remark about Lott's being "lynched" also falls into this category. No one has ever made these people think about America's racial history. So they talk wistfully about the 1950s, which to them are all Mom and apple pie, not the unpunished murder of Emmett Till. In their minds, states' rights are about localized decision-making, not keeping people enslaved and disenfranchised. Actual lynchings are no part of their memories; lynching is just a metaphor to them."

I saw the morning papers but I could not bear to see The smiling brothers walkin' down the courthouse stairs.
For the jury found them innocent and the brothers they went free,
While Emmett's body floats the foam of a Jim Crow southern sea.
If you can't speak out against this kind of thing, a crime that's so unjust,
Your eyes are filled with dead men's dirt, your mind is filled with dust.
Your arms and legs they must be in shackles and chains, and your blood it must refuse to flow,
For you let this human race fall down so God-awful low!
This song is just a reminder to remind your fellow man
That this kind of thing still lives today in that ghost-robed Ku Klux Klan.
But if all of us folks that thinks alike, if we gave all we could give,
We could make this great land of ours a greater place to live. -- Bob Dylan, "The Death of Emmett Till," 1963.

Some journalists ( Joe Conasen ) and bloggers ( Skippy ) are suggesting we turn our attention to Attorney General John Ashcroft after Trent Lott. The ACLU , the NACDL (National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers) and many other groups fought hard to defeat Ashcroft's confirmation. His 1998 interview with Southern Partisan Magazine was but one issue.

Here is the NACDL Press Release describing John Ashcroft's record prior to becoming Attorney General. These are the reasons the Board of Directors of NACDL opposed Ashcroft's confirmation:

"Ashcroft's unprincipled distortion of the record of an African-American judicial nominee, Judge Ronnie White; his ambush of White on the Senate floor, rather than questioning him in committee hearings; and his unjustified criticism of the same nominee's dissents in two death penalty cases;

his denouncing of federal funding for treatment of citizens who abuse drugs, in spite of its proven efficacy in reducing crime, and his proposal that persons convicted of even minor drug offenses be denied professional licenses;

his unswerving support of the death penalty and his opposition to a death penalty moratorium, despite mounting evidence of racial and geographic disparities in its application and the fact that innocent persons have been and continue to be condemned to death;

his staunch advocacy of mandatory minimum sentences;

his actions in opposition to keeping statistics on racial profiling;

his endorsement of the racially-divisive journal, Southern Partisan, and his expressed empathy for the Confederacy;

his effort at making crimes which are already punishable by states and localities into federal crimes, and at taking away traditional responsibilities of state and local law enforcement officials and conferring them, instead, on federal officials.

We did some research and came across some of the statements issued by Senators who opposed Ascroft's confirmation at the time of his hearings. We especially liked the press release issued on January 31, 2001 by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan as to why he would vote against Ashcroft's confirmation as Attorney General.

Sen. Levin presents the issue of Ashcroft's interview with Southern Partisan not just in terms of Ashcroft's words, but in terms of what those words mean, when considered in context of his other actions and inactions. The entire statement is part of the Congressional Record. It is also available on Lexis.

Levin gives four examples of Ascroft's divisive and impartial views, the first being "his position and his effort with respect to the nomination of Judge Ronnie White as a Federal District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri." The third reason was his statements on drug offenders. In an effort to make this post shorter than War and Peace, we are only going to reprint Levin's second and fourth examples, and his concluding remarks:

"While Senator Ashcroft's rhetoric over the years reflects his zeal and determination, it has not reflected the same concern for fairness and impartiality. I have concluded that his record and rhetoric are so divisive and polarizing, that his nomination will not provide the necessary confidence all Americans are entitled to have in the fairness and impartiality required of the Department of Justice."

"Second is Senator Ashcroft's interview with Southern Partisan magazine, a publication which has been described as a "neo-confederate." Senator Ashcroft not only granted an interview to Southern Partisan magazine, he commended the magazine for helping to "set the record straight." He said "We've all got to stand up and speak- in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda."

"While in that interview Senator Ashcroft expressed support for Southern Partisan's message, he later said that he didn't know much about Southern Partisan and didn't know what it promoted. Fair enough. But since his interview, much has been said about the magazine in the media and at Senator Ashcroft's own confirmation hearing. Southern Partisan is described as a publication that defends slavery, white separatism, apartheid and David Duke" by a media watch group. in 1995, Southern Partisan offered its subscribers t-shirts celebrating the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. In the same year, an author, printed by the publication, alleged "there is no indication that slavery Contrary to Christian ethics" and in 1990, another article praised former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke as a "candidate concerned about affirmative' discrimination, welfare profligacy, the, taxation holocaust. a Populist spokesperson for a recapturing of the American ideal," In 1996, an article in the magazine alleged "slave owners ... did not have a practice of breaking up slave families. If anything, they encouraged strong slave families to farther the slaves' peace and happiness." And in 1991, another writer printed in the publication questioned, "Newly arrived in New York City, I puzzled, Where are the Americans?' I met only Italians, Jews, Puerto Ricans."

"l take Senator Ashcroft as his word that he did not know much about Southern Partisan magazine when he praised them for helping to "set the record straight." But where was the immediate disgust, horror and repudiation when he learned what he had inadvertently praised? And, after the inquiries of others, why didn't he make a prompt inquiry to satisfy himself that he had not inadvertently advanced the purpose of a racist publication? Even in his written responses to the Judiciary Committee, he said he only rejects the publication "if the allegations about (the] magazine are true."

"More than two years after his original interview, it appears that he never took it upon himself to inquire about the magazine's purpose. A person being considered for the office of Attorney General, the single most important person charged with enforcing our nation's civil rights law in a fair and just manner, should accept the obligation to make an inquiry if the American people are to have faith that their Attorney General will "build a single nation of justice...."

"A fourth example is Senator Ashcroft's opposition to James Hormel's nomination for Ambassador to Luxembourg. Senator Ashcroft stated in press accounts that he opposed Mr. Hormel's nomination because Mr. Hormel "actively supported the gay lifestyle." Senator Ashcroft also said a person's sexual orientation "is within what could be considered and what is eligible for consideration" with respect to the qualifications to serve as an Ambassador. To suggest that a person could not represent America's interests or should be judged professionally because of his sexual orientation is inappropriate and divisive. When pressed on this issue by the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft further responded in writing: "I did not believe Hormel would effectively represent the United States in Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe."

"To suggest that Luxembourg would not welcome Mr. Hormel's nomination is untrue. Luxembourg has outlawed discrimination based on sexual orientation and its government specifically said they would welcome James Hormel as Ambassador. And, most importantly, to fail to retract such contentious statements about a person, because of his sexual orientation, adds- further doubt that all our people, will have confidence that this nominee will strive to build that single nation of justice the President has called for. "

"In summary, I am deeply troubled by Senator Ashcroft's record of repeatedly divisive rhetoric and sometimes simply unfair personal attacks...Senator Ashcroft has frequently engaged in "us" versus "them" rhetoric. He frequently rejects moderation and has even criticized some members of his own party for engaging in what he characterizes as "deceptions" when they "preach pragmatism, champion conciliation (and) counsel compromise."

"Senator Ashcroft, in his confirmation hearings, in his written answers to the questions posed by a number of Senators, including myself, either reaffirmed some of his divisive statements, or simply never explained his extremely divisive language. His refusal to comment on some of the most troubling past statements leaves them standing as his current views. Senator Ashcroft's extremely divisive language and his approach to issues in terms of "us" versus "them" would not prevent me from voting for his confirmation for most positions in the cabinet. But more than any other cabinet member, the Attorney General, as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States, is charged with the responsibility of assuring that the Department of Justice's goal is equal justice under the law for all Americans. I will vote no on the nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General of the United States."

Clearly, it's too late to dethrone Ashcroft as Attorney General. Unlike Lott, he was not elected by the people but appointed by the President, to serve at the pleasure of the President. So what is our purpose in re-airing all of his dirty laundry now? These are our motives: to prevent him from being able to make a run for higher office in 2008; to reduce his chances of receiving a future cabinet post; to make him less desirable to corporate America as a future rainmaker; and most importantly, to implore journalists and the public to examine his statements and actions carefully and to protest loud and often when he steps over the line.

Trent Lott picked up some Senate endorsements Tuesday: Ted Stevens of Alaska and Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado.

Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (Pa.) remains in his corner.

Lott needs 26 votes if a leadership election is held. Arlen Specter thinks he'll have them. So does Larry Craig and Mike Crapo. Most senators are not revealing their positions. Bush would like to see Bill Frist of Tennessee or another Republican take over.

Lott might be offered a chairship of another committee. A new leadership position might be created for him. These are some of the options under discussion.

"In an interview with ABC News yesterday, Lott said he will fight hard to keep his leadership post. "I'm a son of shipyard worker from Pascagoula, Miss.," he said. "I have had to fight all my life, and I'm not stopping now. . . . I think I need to work through this with everybody that's involved, including my colleagues. They have a right to tell me how they feel and what they suggest."

You can read more about Bill Frist's chances here.

Here is the transcript of Trent Lott's interview Monday on BET in which he expressed his across the board support for affirmative action.

Representative John Lewis (D-Ga) is ready to give Trent Lott another chance:

"Lott also said he had reached out to several lawmakers to push forward an agenda he said would help minorities, including talking with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., about setting up a task force on reconciliation and with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, about setting up an African-American summit."

"Lewis, a veteran civil rights leader, said Lott was ``sincere'' in their Monday conversation and he suggested that the Mississippi senator join him an annual civil rights tour in March through places like Selma, Ala., where police badly beaten him during the 1960s civil rights struggle."

``I'd like to come down on his side, giving him a chance,'' Lewis said. ``I'm not one of those calling for him to step down and give up his leadership post. We all make mistakes, we all make blunders. It's very much keeping with the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence to forgive and move on.''

The GOP will decide Lott's fate on January 6. The Bush Administration has said it won't resist a leadership change.

Jeanne D'Arc of Body and Soul has outdone herself today (no small feat) in her masterful post Lady Sings The Dixiecrat Double Entendre Blues --mixing Billie Holiday with Trent Lott (via a song named "Strange Fruit" that Ms. Holliday used to sing sometimes, and only sometimes because she tended to throw up afterwards, as it was about lynching,) racism, and the interpretation of words.

From Jeanne:

"Try to imagine Lady Day in an evening gown, a white gardenia tucked in her hair, on stage in a nightclub, singing a graphic song about lynching, while her audience sipped champagne. It's impossible, grotesque. And in fact, Billie was generally reluctant to sing the song, partly because, as you can imagine, it took a lot out of her. In her autobiography she says she threw up every time she had to sing it. But she also had mixed feelings about the song because her audiences so often missed the point. She'd sometimes get bizarre requests to sing the "sexy" song about "black bodies," which unnerved her to say the least. Proof, if you need any, that as often as not, even the most eloquent voice is not heard."

Somehow, and it makes total sense when you read it, Jeanne moves in one linear sequence from Lott to Reagan, to Ashcroft and Southern Partisan magazine. We are truly impressed--not to mention envious, of Jeanne's immense writing talent.

We picked this off the comments on Daily Kos, so we don't know if it's real or not, but we did see the news at the gym today which reported Trent Lott has come out for affirmative action. So maybe the following is for real:

"Asked for his views on affirmative action policies, Lott said, "I'm for that," even though he has voted against affirmative action legislation.

"Across the board?" Gordon asked.

"Absolutely," Lott said.

"Would you be willing to clean out Al Sharpton's toilet with your tongue?" Gordon also asked.

"Absolutely. When does he want me to start?" Lott replied."

If it's true, and Lott is trying to make amends to the African-American republican voters (and let's face it, how many are there besides J.C. Watts?), our assessment is "Too little, too late."

That being said, we stand by one of our earlier comments on the possibility of Lott's forced resignation

"We haven't taken a position of whether Trent Lott should stay or go, we kind of feel like what's the difference if he goes, another one will just take his place, and what if it's one who hides in sheep's clothing? The voters knew who Lott was when they elected him and they elected him anyway. We think Lott should be outed and ostracized, which he has been, but we'd rather see pundits and politicians move on after that and focus on opposing the Bush Administration's proposals, like war. Like on civil liberties."

Although, with each passing day, he seems to be digging himself into a deeper hole, we have to wonder: If he stays, will his profile be so high that he is forced to vote fairly, just to show he isn't the racist his remarks implied he was? Will the Democrats and minorities be better off if he stays now that he has been outed and has repented and promised to reform his neanderthal views?

We tend to believe, but we're not positive yet, so don't quote us later if we change our mind, that Lott might be better right now than Nickles or the other GOP drones--remember that saying, "The Devil you know is better than...."--and we think that this devil has been effectively neutered, for our purposes.