Politicians are normally rational creatures. This isn't to say that they act in ways that I find preferable. Rather, though they upset me rather often, normally it's based on at least a perception of political gain. When they do dumb things, it's usually based on a miscalculation of the same.
That being established, what was Gordon Smith's angle, defending Trent Lott's comments on Strom Thurmond (specifically, that he should have been elected to the Presidency on his 1948 segregationist platform)?
Steve Benen has the complete story, but let's run through the basics.
-Gordon Smith is a vulnerable Senator in a blue state. Defending Trent Lott's bone-headed (to say the least) comments is hardly a winning strategy.
-Though Lott is retiring, the comments themselves are hardly back in the news -- indeed, I'd suspect Lott more than anyone would rather let sleeping dogs lie on that front.
-Indeed, Lott himself repented and called the comments disgraceful.
-And when Lott said the comments, Smith condemned them, and expressed satisfaction when Lott did resign his post as Majority Leader.
So, while it's easy to mock or condemn Smith, I'm too perplexed to even be scornful. What could he possibly have been thinking?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
My sister says rationale is a noun, not an adjective. She was at first impressed at your content, but apparently at Amherst presentation trumps content.
Yikes, was that a silly mistake! Thanks!
Post a Comment