Looking back, it’s odd so much of the Trent Lott debacle was focused on Lott himself. When he paid those fateful compliments, the fury from colleagues and media was swift and unforgiving. True, it was justified — Lott would wear a Klan hood instead of a suit if he could do so and stay in power.

But no one looked to the little, old bigot in the wheelchair, a man who is so thoroughly backwards and evil that paying him compliments gets you fired and burned by media. Strom Thurmond is the poster child for so many problems in the contemporary Senate.

Although people from Bob Dole to Trent Lott have praised him, they seem to forget that Thurmond has been racist for the last 100 years. He probably would be for the next 100 too, because he has made token adjustments to a world view including statements such as: “I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there’s not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the n****r race into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.”

True, that was 54 years ago, and there have been slight improvements since then. But he still consistently votes against support for racial minorites, women and other groups.

So the question remains as to why no one said anything about Thurmond’s past when Trent Lott slipped up. Many make the argument that he was too old, feeble and senile to make any real difference in his last few terms. But those underestimations don’t account for all the evil ties he has made throughout the years, allowing others to use him for their own gain.

Which brings us to the next poster Thurmond should be on: those supporting term limits. Someone as old and decrepit as Thurmond shouldn’t have been elected to office for a term that includes his 100th birthday.

I wouldn’t even vote for Bobby Kennedy if he was running at that age. Well, not if he had to be wheeled in from a hospital to vote for an issue he knows nothing about because he is bedridden and barely able to communicate. I can’t support anyone who is so feeble he becomes completely controlled by greedy party hounds and self-serving aides who decide the representative’s vote on issues affecting the country.

His useless senility exhibits the advantages of incumbency, too. Granted, his case may be better labeled “entrenchment,” because few others have quite the advantages he does now. But incumbency in all cases — with all the benefits of having the office already, free postage, much more funding and name recognition — helps the incumbent overshadow the opposition to the point where he cannot compete. The fact that another capable candidate could not win in South Carolina over a decaying Thurmond shows how easily people are lulled into a feeling of security by voting for someone they have heard about, no matter what his message may be or how long ago the candidate could actually stay healthy long enough to say it.

So why Lott’s comment ignited such a hellfire of contempt and scorn is understandable: supporting Thurmond’s past too strongly is a bad move, both morally and politically. But the questions remaining are not so easily understood. How could someone so backwards and decrepit be repeatedly elected to the U.S. Senate? Why has Thurmond’s terrible track record been ignored by media, even in the wake of Lott’s comment?

It’s odd how something as established as Thurmond’s past has been taken for granted, as he was elected again and again to the Senate. Thurmond’s presence is like some sort of weird constant, something you took for granted and left alone because it was such a bizarre and worthless spectacle, not causing you enough harm to really protest.

But with his past record and his continuing inadequecy, there should’ve been continuous protest — the kind faced by Lott — against Thurmond. With all the issues in the Senate today — the dire consequences of the wars looming around every corner and the host of domestic problems plaguing us every day — there is no room for entrenched lifetime politicians, blatant racism, or senility.

John Ross is a junior in comparative studies and can be reached at [email protected].