Black Democrat could fill Lott's seat .

sunherald ^ | 12/17/2002 | BEN BRYANT

[KQQL]

Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott's insensitive remarks have triggered a chain of events that could put a black Democrat in his Senate seat.

State Democratic Party Chairman Rickey Cole said if Lott resigns and Gov. Ronnie Musgrove appoints a replacement, Jackson lawyer Mike Espy would be the best choice. "If I had to pick, it would be Secretary Espy, hands down," Cole said. "He has Washington experience, and he's proven that he can build biracial coalitions. It would immediately begin the healing process."

Espy, who served in Congress and as U.S. secretary of agriculture, "would make a fine senator" if Lott is forced to quit the Senate because of his racially charged remarks at Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, Cole said.

For now, Lott is resisting suggestions that he resign. But political observers are already discussing possible replacements for Lott. The list includes Espy, Attorney General Mike Moore, recently defeated U.S. Rep. Ronnie Shows and Rep. Chip Pickering, the Republican who beat Shows last month.

If Lott resigns, state law would require Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, a Democrat, to appoint a replacement. A special election would be held within 90 days if the senator left this year. If he resigned in 2003, though, the election for the seat would coincide with next year's Nov. 4 balloting for statewide offices.

Assuming Musgrove would appoint another Democrat, either scenario would temporarily alter the partisan balance of the U.S. Senate, which Republicans now control by a two-seat margin. Equally interesting, though, is the impact Lott's resignation would have on state politics.

Start with Musgrove, who would have to appoint Lott's replacement. "Everything Ronnie Musgrove does is going to be to enhance his re-election prospects," said Marty Wiseman, a political scientist at Mississippi State University.

That could mean appointing a black to galvanize that base.

Espy probably has the most statewide appeal of any black Democrat. He demonstrated his ability to win votes from white and black voters from 1987 to 1993, when he represented Mississippi's 2nd Congressional District. In 1998, a four-year, $20 million corrputon investigation by Independent Counsel Donald Smaltz ended in Espy's acquittal.

Still, black Democrats are traditionally underdogs in Mississippi, which hasn't elected a black official in statewide balloting since Reconstruction.

Moore, a Democrat, may face better odds. Moore, who like Lott is from Pascagoula, is known nationwide for helping direct lawsuits against tobacco companies in the mid-1990s. He and Musgrove have often butted heads, though. Moore has even been rumored as a potential Musgrove rival for next year's Democratic gubernatorial nomination.

Another possibility is Shows, a Democrat from Bassfield who lost a bitter race against Pickering. Shows is "damaged goods right now, but he won't be damaged goods for long," Wiseman said.

On the GOP side, Pickering, a former Lott aide, is considered the senator's protege. Earlier this year, Lott was the chief backer of Pickering's father, U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering, who was nominated to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bush. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee killed the nomination by charging that the elder Pickering was insensitive to minorities.

It wouldn't be hard to imagine a campaign by the junior Pickering to reclaim Lott's seat.

And, said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, the GOP should hope that Lott leaves this year, forcing an election within 90 days.

"Republicans would win, no question, if there were a shorter amount of time before the election," Sabato said.

Regardless of his partisan affiliation, any new senator would be less adept than Lott at bringing money to South Mississippi. Northrop Grumman Ingalls and local military bases would be more reliant on Sen. Thad Cochran, a Republican from Jackson who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Unless Lott changes his mind about his political future, though, such scenarios remain in the realm of imagination.

"Politics is a lot of fun to watch," Wiseman said. "It can be a lot more fun to watch than football, certainly from a Mississippi State perspective."

[CedarDave]

If he stays, he needs to be put on a REALLY short leash.

Good idea, BUT who is going to hold that leash and how tight should it be? Just being on a leash will show him to be a crippled leader, and the RATs will continuely probe and push in an attempt to keep him off guard. How can he be a leader when he knows that both sides are trying to second guess him? All will be love and kisses until the first controvesial issue comes up (likely judgeships) then all bets are off. If (for example) a judge has any background that says "merit over race", you can bet the Rats will call on Lott to prove he's a changed man and oppose a nomination based on the Black definition of Affirmative Action. No more strict constitutionalist judges -- more liberal, "progressive" ones.. Just one example, I'm afraid. And believe me, I'm trying to think of ways he can remain and still be an effective leader (not that he was one before).

[CedarDave]

That's one possible solution -- get them off your backs long enough to let it die down. As cake_crumb suggested, keep him on a short leash.

[CedarDave]

That's one possible solution -- get them off your backs long enough to let it die down. As cake_crumb suggested, keep him on a short leash.

[LaGrone]

If Lott had been man enough to say something like he (Lott) was simply trying to make Strom feel good, and any other reading into his remarks are incorrect, And stayed with that position, I too would support him til the end. However Senator Lott has flailed around trying one apology after another to appease Blacks and the liberal media.

We all know how impossible that is; there will be no forgiveness for him from the left. It is embarrassing to watch him reach for any apology that might work.

He should have stuck to his guns from the get go. Then he would have my support. He can no longer fight the Libs with the vigor needed because he has conceded too much to the Left to extricate himself from the controversy.

He should step down from Leader and stay in the Senate until another Rep can be appointed or elected, or stay a back-bencher.

[Wordsmith]

Yes, I was thinking of the "It's not enough... I've got to have my colleagues join me" bit. Speak for yourself, Trent.

[cake_crumb]

>"Correct: Thanks to all the useful 'conservative' idiots who picked up Jesse Jackson's 'Lott is a Segregationist' smear campaign for the political expediency of replacing him with somebody they like better as speaker"

Since I did neither the above nor the following, I'm in a perfect position to give EQUAL thanks to:

"The useful 'conservative' idiots who picked up the Dem "THIS IS ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!" smear campaign,

"The useful 'conservative' idiots who picked up the Dem "YOU'RE A RACIST/SHEEP/STUPID/DIVISIVE/COWARD UNLESS YOU DEFEND LOTT THE WAY I SAY YOU SHOULD DEFEND LOTT" smear campaign,

"The useful 'conservative' idiots who picked up the Dem UNLESS GEORGE BUSH GROWS A SPINE AND DEFENDS LOTT THE WAY I SAY LOTT SHOULD BE DEFENDED, HE WILL BE A ONETERMPRESIDENTONETERMPRESIDENTONETERMPRESIDENT" smear campaign, and the

"The useful 'conservative' idiots who picked up the Dem "IT'S THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S FAULT" smear campaign,

For aiding the Dems in their quest to destroy destroy the Republican administration and aid another Third Way Socialist into the White house and destroy the Republican party BECAUSE FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

The rest of us would like to put an end to all the childish bickering, so that those in the Republican party who wish to concentrate fighting enemy fire with fire can suceed in doing so, in order that this fiasco may be put to rest with the principles of the Republican party not ony intact due to the strength, moral principle and dedication used in its defense, but maybe even STRONGER than it was before...

And THEN we can go back to the non-issues, like fighting terrorism and stimulating the economy.

[Monti Cello]

I thought JC Watts quit?

Yes, but I believe the leader need not be a member (perhaps I am thinking of House Speaker). HIghly unlikely, in any case, but it would be cool.

[cake_crumb]

"The left is going too far. Their talking heads on TV are really getting weird."

The left going too far doesn't surprise me. They're like Muslim terrorists: they don't know when to quit.

As for the weirdness of the TV talking heads, is it any worse than the weird accusations and namecalling going on around here on these Lott threads?

[concerned about politics]

If Lott had been man enough to say something like he (Lott) was simply trying to make Strom feel good, and any other reading into his remarks are incorrect, And stayed with that position, I too would support him til the end. However Senator Lott has flailed around trying one apology after another to appease Blacks and the liberal media.

Yep. Treat the left wing children like a parent. Scold them, send them on their way, and grab the remote.

[1L]

I told those of you conservative Republicans that are trying to hang Lott out to dry that you are doing to Lott exactly what you accuse Lott of doing to the party: getting gutless when the heat is on. I'm afraid now the blood is in the water. When will you people ever learn that pandering to Democrats makes things much, much worse.

[concerned about politics]

As for the weirdness of the TV talking heads, is it any worse than the weird accusations and namecalling going on around here on these Lott threads?

I'm beginning to think Jessie is a FReeper! He's here to "help."

[cake_crumb]

He's been on a short leash ever since he became majority leader again...it needs shortening.

[Trust but Verify]

Lott brought this all upon himself. Between his idiotic words and his incredible backpeddling on BET last night, he has nobody to blame but himself. He finds himself in a hole and keeps right on digging, oblivious to the harm he's causong his party, who have just managed to pull off a nearly impossible feat by winning seats in a mid-term. And to top it all off he threatens to QUIT if he loses his leadership position? I admire your defense of him, but he's WRONG!

[cake_crumb]

"Yes, I was thinking of the 'It's not enough... I've got to have my colleagues join me' bit. Speak for yourself, Trent."

Right. Better yet...can we duct tape him to a chair with a gag, at least until the senate reconvenes?

[cake_crumb]

"However Senator Lott has flailed around trying one apology after another to appease Blacks and the liberal media."

He promised to continue to do it:

"I accept the fact that I made a terrible mistake, used horrible words, caused hurt. I'm sorry about that. I've apologized for it. I've asked for forgiveness. And I'm going to continue to do that."

[cake_crumb]

"I'm beginning to think Jessie is a FReeper! He's here to 'help.' "

Probably. And his son, JJJr. HEY...and Algore. He got right in on the act too...and Terry McAwful MUST be...

[Uncle Bill]

"Show me where George W. Bush has EVER said he supports AFFIRMATIVE ACTION."

Still pouring kool-aid Howlin?

Bush administration to defend affirmative action

Bush to defend affirmative action policy

Bush to defend affirmative action policy

Bush selling out on Affirmative Action to get votes

Never-Ending Supreme Court Case Has Bush Fighting for Affirmative Action

Bush Administration Defends Affirmative Action

Reuters
By James Vicini
Friday August 10 8:52 PM ET
Source

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Disappointing conservatives who wanted the government to switch sides, the Bush administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Friday to uphold a federal affirmative action program .

The Republican administration defended the Transportation Department's highway construction program that favors minority and disadvantaged businesses, maintaining the position the previous Democratic administration adopted a day before President Bill Clinton left office.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the program's regulations were ``narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest'' and that ``Congress has a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination and its effects on government spending and procurement.''

The closely watched case marked the first test of affirmative action during George W. Bush's presidency, and drew sharp criticism from opponents of racial preferences.

Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, said, ``I think this is not only horrendous policy, I think it is bad politics.''

Chavez, who was named by Bush to be labor secretary but withdrew after a furor erupted over a domestic worker living in her home, said federal contracting would have been an easy case for the administration to draw the line against racial preferences.

``To cave in so early bodes poorly for the administration taking a stand later on,'' she said. ``I think the motivation behind this decision was political.''

CONSERVATIVES HOPED FOR CHANGE

Conservatives opposed to affirmative action had hoped the Bush White House would change the government's position on the issue, based on the president's stand during the campaign and prior statements by top administration officials.

During the campaign, Bush opposed affirmative action programs that used racial quotas, but generally supported greater opportunity for minorities, calling it ``affirmative access.''

Olson, the government's chief advocate before the high court, has previously been critical of affirmative action programs. As a senator from Missouri, Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) opposed the contracting program.

Former Attorney General Edwin Meese and Chapman University law professor John Eastman, in an article published in the Washington Times on Friday, cited a 1998 speech by then-Sen. Ashcroft opposing use of race classifications in federal law.

Bush and Ashcroft should ``place government-sanctioned racial discrimination back where it belongs -- in the course of ultimate extinction,'' Meese, a top White House aide and attorney general during Ronald Reagan (news - web sites)'s presidency in the 1980s, and Eastman wrote.

The case began 11 years ago to the day when Adarand Construction Inc., a Colorado construction highway firm owned by a white man, initially sued over a 1990 program that set aside construction contracts for minority businesses.

The Supreme Court in a 1995 ruling in the case imposed tough new standards before the government can give preferences for minorities.

After the ruling, Congress reauthorized the law and the Transportation Department revised the program.

A U.S. appeals court upheld the revised program, and the Supreme Court then agreed to hear Adarand's latest argument that the program amounted to unlawful race discrimination.

Olson urged the high court to affirm the appeals court's decision. ``Eliminating racial discrimination and its effects remains one of the nation's greatest challenges,' he said in the 50-page brief.

The current program ``is not unconstitutional on its face,'' Olson said.

He argued that ``discrimination, not race, is the key'' to getting status as a disadvantaged business, and that the regulations seek to limit that status to firms owned by individuals who have suffered the effects of bias.

The high court will hear the case in its term that begins in October, with a decision due by the end of June.

---

Who stated the following:

"Government ought to have a policy that helps people with a downpayment."

A. - OR - B.

Answer

You are not hallucinating, he really wants to have the government provide downpayments.

---

A Government Limited To What?

Only your hairdresser can tell the difference

[cake_crumb]

WHAT was the ruling, and WHY was the AA program in the SCOTUS? They don't START at the SCOTUS after all...therefore this has been in the court system a while, and there's more to the story than we're meant to learn.

[Howlin]

Guilt by association? That's the SAME CASE and Olson asked it to be dismissed because of no proven damages, not by defending QUOTAS.

And thank you SO MUCH for providing me with the WORDS I needed to prove you and TLBSHOW are bending the truth!

AL GORE, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He said, if affirmative action means quotas, he's against it. Affirmative action doesn't mean quotas.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good.

GORE: Are for it without quotas?

Bush: Well, I may not be for your version, Mr. Vice President, but I am for what I just described to the lady.

And LOL @ you for accusing ME of drinking the Kool-Aid. How in the HELL do you explain all that crap you keep stored up to post wherever you think you can get away with it? Talk about obsessive hate.