The Rainbow's gonna tour
Dressed up, somewhere to go
We'll put on a show!
--"The Rainbow Tour", Evita

You know, on the one hand, I firmly believe that most of this is spectacularly silly. Is Trent Lott, in all likelihood and in many ways, an unregenerate segregationist? Well, it would seem so, now wouldn't it? Is this in the slightest newsworthy, in and of itself? Good heavens, no. Not if you've been paying attention to his comments and record over the time he's been in Congress. Do I believe that he thinks that the country would probably have been better off if segregation had been the rule back in 1948 and was still the rule now? Well ... probably.

Do I believe that anything of the sort was on his mind when he made that toast to Thurmond? Frankly, not in the least. I honestly believe that he was thinking of nothing more than a nice way to make the guy feel good about his years of service. A tribute, if you will. That it was a manifestly inappropriate tribute goes without saying -- as it should have done in the first place. But does it warrant all this hoopla? So far, to use DVD terminology, we've had, Apology Original Version, Apology Revised Edit, Apology Expanded Version, Apology Special BET Edition and now apparently we're getting the three-week long Apology Tour. So, yes, perhaps things are just a bit excessive. But they have been most informative and illustrative.

BET Interview With Sen. Trent Lott (washingtonpost.com)
     GORDON: What about affirmative action?
     LOTT: I'm for that. I think you should reach out to people...
     GORDON: Across the board?
     LOTT: Absolutely, across the board. That's why I'm so proud of my own alma mater now, University of Mississippi, that obviously had a difficult time in the 60s and 70s, now led by an outstanding chancellor, Robert Khayat, that has gotten rid of the Confederate flag, that has now has an institute of reconciliation, that has a leadership...
     GORDON: Yet your votes in the past have not suggested that you are for affirmative action.
     LOTT: I am for affirmative action. And I practice it. I have had African-Americans on my staff, and other minorities, but particularly African-Americans, since the mid-1970s. I have had a particular program...
     GORDON: But to have one on one's staff--you understand the difference, though, to have a black on your staff and to push legislation that would help African-Americans, minorities across the board, are completely different.
     LOTT: You know, again, you cam get into arguments about timetables and quotas. Here's what I think, though. I think you've got to have an aggressive effort in America to make everybody have a chance.

And, you know, that would be wonderfully inspirational, and evidence of the fact that he really has changed his opinions ... if it weren't for the fact that evidence suggests that he's lying through his teeth.

From Lott, Denials of Racism -- and Explanations (washingtonpost.com): ..... Lott's assertion that he supports a broad range of affirmative action programs may represent an even more recent change of heart. In 1990, Lott voted against a law to restore affirmative action programs struck down by the Supreme Court.
     In 1997, Senate Republicans -- with Lott as their leader -- blocked the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to head the civil rights division of the Department of Justice, citing Lee's advocacy of affirmative action.
     The following year, Lott voted for an amendment that would have eliminated one of the largest federal affirmative action programs. The program, signed into law by President Ronald Reagan in 1983, directs a percentage of federal construction contracts to minority-owned firms.
     "You can get into arguments about timetables and quotas," Lott said in last night's interview -- an apparent allusion to Republican arguments of recent years that "affirmative access" to opportunities is preferable to "affirmative action" programs that set specific targets for minority participation in higher education and on the job. But Lott offered no specific objection to traditional affirmative action programs, and after the interview was screened for Washington reporters, a spokesman for Lott declined to go into detail on Lott's remarks. "One has to be careful to recognize that affirmative action is not quotas," said Dave Hoppe.

I should think his spokesman would have declined to go into detail, yes. I should imagine that his spokesman was deeply shocked that his senator had said any such thing.

[Lott] avoided only one question: Gordon asked why Lott had never, until now, discussed in detail his changed opinions on racial matters. Even Thurmond, whose 100th birthday celebration was the scene of Lott's troublesome remarks, long ago repudiated his earlier segregationist views, Gordon noted. Lott fumbled briefly for an answer, then chose instead to explain his 1992 opposition to the extension of the Voting Rights Act. His current support for election reform, he said, is proof of his commitment to voting rights.

Um ... right. Whatever.

And now the internal Republican politics are getting spectacularly nasty.

Lott Losing Bush's Support, Advisers Say: ..... White House officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Monday that Bush would not try to save Lott's job. Bush's political advisers say they are highly disappointed with Lott's explanations, but say they had been ordered by the president not to take any overt or covert action against the Mississippi Republican. The White House faces a dilemma: Lott is hurting both Bush and his party, but any effort to take down Lott will hurt Bush with his Southern base, say senior Republicans close to the White House. Bush also feels some loyalty toward Lott, White House officials said. Thus, the president's political team is forced into what one White House official called a "strategy of silence," hoping events themselves lead to Lott's removal or much less likely somehow end the controversy.

Well, if Lott doesn't end the Apology Tour and just SHUT THE HELL UP for the next three weeks, it's not likely that the controversy will end. Each apology just digs him in deeper and deeper. (Not that this will prevent his re-election out of Mississippi, of course. But then, he's got a few years before he needs to worry about that, I think.

And, aside from the previously noted idiocy of the Black Caucus, now the Democrats are wading in with things like this, from the abovelinked ABC News article: "Democrats are discussing a rare censure motion against Lott, and several have said he should consider stepping down." Excuse me? Censure? For what? For speaking out of turn? For an acute lack of moral turpitude as defined by Senate rules? For essentially repeating remarks he's made before which somehow were not worthy of censure at the time? For making remarks at a time and place which somehow allowed the public to actually notice that he seemed to be an unregenerate segregationist? What? In all seriousness, I'm not seeing something worth censuring here. Surely the right to free speech means that you have the right to make an absolute and utter public idiot of yourself, however damaging to yourself and your party it may be. His remarks don't bear on the Senate as a whole; even the veriest fool realizes that. (Except the Democrats in the Senate, apparently. Which says something about the distance between fools and Senators, unfortunately.) Apparently, the First Amendment doesn't apply to Congress itself. Who knew? Aside from the issue of censuring someone for behavior that, by the Senate rules, is neither illegal -- is in fact specifically legal, for heaven's sake -- and not unethical according to those same rules, surely politics ought to dictate that the Democrats should also SHUT THE HELL UP. Lott and the Republicans are doing just fine hanging themselves all by themselves. They don't need help. In fact, helping the thing along only makes the Democrats appear excessively opportunistic and cynical. (Yes, I know. They are excessively opportunistic and cynical, as are the Republicans. Nonetheless, piling on like this is simply not good politics.)

Some Republican aides speculated about an effort to coax Lott from his leadership with the prospect of a committee chairmanship. They worry that a humiliated Lott could resign his Senate seat, allowing Mississippi's Democratic governor to name a Democratic replacement and leaving the Senate at a 50-50 tie.

Oh, please. Bush may not be willing to save Lott's job as majority leader, but I should think he's entirely capable of leaning heavily on him to prevent his resignation. Besides, a 50-50 split isn't really relevant. All that means is that Cheney would then exercise his tie-breaking vote as president pro tempore of the Senate, so it doesn't make much difference whether Lott stays or goes ... unless, of course, a few other Republicans bolt the GOP. And given that Vermont is apparently now on the fast track to receive a nuclear dump that it does not in the least want, I should think that Jeffords will provide a most salutory lesson in that regard.

MITCH ALBOM: A ridiculous response to Lott's remarks: ..... And here is where it stands: Lott is apologizing. Democrats are digging for more dirt. Republicans are trying to make sure the president seems strong on civil rights, while not losing a Senate leader who can appease the "good ol' boy" voting faction. The media jumps all over it because a fight is always good for ratings.
     And in the middle of all this noise, here is the only question that matters: Do blacks, Latinos, Asians and other minorities really feel that anyone is looking out for their interests in this, or just covering their own behinds?

Good grief, what on earth have we got to do with this mess? This has nothing whatsoever to do with actual minorities or services for us, or even general attitude towards us. This is politics, pure and simple. Leave us out of it, thanks kindly.

In any event, since Mr Lott seems predisposed to continue the Magickal Apology Tour, Carl Hiaasen has kindly written them for him.