tcsenter, what do you mean my mischaracterize. I think you must have been suckered by the spin. All you need are Lotts words and a bit of history. Are you saying it was a slip of the tongue?
Lott was attempting to pay tribute and give praise to Strom Thurmond. Lott NEVER uttered a word about race, about segregation, nor did he even suggest that the reason he believed the country would have been better off had Strom Thurmond been elected President is because of Thurmond's segregationist view at the time.
In fact, Lott gave similar commentary in 1980 during a campaign rally for the Reagan's presidential bid, again in voicing a word of tribute to Strom Thurmond as he was leaving the podium. Not once did Strom Thurmond or Lott mention race or segregation, and Thurmond had by 1980 long since publicly recanted and denounced his early segregationist views.
Of course, Lott's statements ALSO do not preclude the interpretation that Lott was giving praise to Thurmond's segregationist views, either. Lott's remarks are, primarily, a marvel of non-specificity, so that one may read as little or as much as one wishes to read into them.
If Lott did not wish to imply support of Thurmond's former segregationist views, then his words were ill-chosen, since he should have known that his statement as worded would be wide open to and lend itself to that interpretation. But what his statement is
not is 'overtly' or explicitly racist.
When you have any statement that is open to such interpretation as to just what the speaker meant by them, the
only 'correct' interpretation is what the speaker meant by them. If Lott says that he did not intend to give or imply support for Thurmond's segregationist view, then nobody is really in a position to dispute that, and Lott has essentially diffused the situation by announcing that his statement was not meant to be praise for Thurmond's former segregationist views, no matter how much race-baiting politicians like Barbara Boxer, or Jessie Jackson, or Kweisi Mfume would like to drag this out for political gain.
Of course, its fine to have your own opinion or conjecture about what Lott meant, but to confuse one's opinion for fact is neither here nor there.
