[Common Tator]

here are some excerpts from the washington post.

-----------------------------------------------------
But Sen. Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, issued a strong statement of support for Lott late on Monday night: "When I go back, I'm going to defend my friend, I'm going to try to make certain he stays as our leader."

Lott appeared on Black Entertainment Network on Monday night to apologize for his remarks for a fifth time.

Some Republicans are dismayed the controversy may drag on until next month, saying it is particularly damaging in the afterglow of Republican victories in Nov. 5 elections.

"The next thing to decide is, will the White House step in to try to retain order in this process? If not, it will disintegrate into chaos," said a senior Republican.
--------------------------------------------------------

It is very obvious that Bush and Rove want Lott gone. It is also obvious from the last qoute in the story above that the White House doesn't have the votes to remove Lott.

My sources says Bush and Lott just don't hit it off. There are ideological differences too. And Bush is more of a river boat gambler than Lott. But I think the main bone is that Bush wants to run the entire show and Lott will not let him. That is typical of Majority leaders. My biggest problem is I do not see a way for Bush to win this fight. Both Lott and Bush can lose, but I don't see a way for Bush to win. From what the Post says this game is a long way from over.

I know Lott was aware that Bush wanted to take him down before the election in November. That is why Trent held the the election for Republican Leader during the Special Session. Normally they vote for leader right before they start the new session. But lott did not want to give the Bush forces enough time to organize against him. So it is obvious that Lott knew Bush wanted him out as majority leader. They now have the time, but can they get it done.

I think this is going to be a real donny brook. The new York Times says it is all over and Bush has outed Lott. But the Washinton post is not sure at all. I suspect Bush people are talking to the Times and Lott's people are talking to the Post. Notice that Bush had people leaking that if lott stepped down as majority leader he could have his choice of Committee chairman's jobs. I'll bet that went over great with some committee chairman lott might push out if he took the bait. It is a sign that Bush does not have the votes to defeat Lott right now. They will have to keep trashing Lott. It may get to be counter productive.

Bush is indeed hiding under the bed while trying to take Lott down, But all he is hiding from is the public. If Lott retains the leadership over Bush's best efforts to take him down, Bush may get a lesson in hard ball he won't like. Lott has been playing this game since 1968. He is pretty good at it. His biggest fault is he says what he thinks. That is not all that negative with the other Senators. There is never any doubt about what he says or what he means. Senators tend to like that.

I knew Lott back in the 60's when he was top staffer for Congressman Bill Colmer. Colmer was a tough dude and Lott was his pit Bull. The lefist Democrats thought they could keep Lott from getting the Democratic Nomination in 1972 (the year Colmer retired). The put 12 Democrats in the primary. Lott fooled them by running for the nomination as a Republican and wining the general election with Colmers help. If the leftist Democrats had not tried to take Lott down, he would be a Democrat today and Bush would not have a problem. It would have been Lott and not Daschle for the last 2 years.

I know many people think this is all principle and ideology. But their are ideologues and there are players. Most of the people in congress are players. It is like sports. The fans are loyal to teams. The players just want to get in the game. You need to understand that as you watch events unfold. But don't underestimate Trent Lott. He plays to win. And if he fails he will try to take you down with him. That is why some are afraid to cross him.

If Lott does win the election for majority leader there is no doubt the Republicans hold the Senate. If Lott does not win every one thinks he will resign his seat, and the senate may go to Daschle again. That is scary as hell to the other Republicans in the Senate. It just maybe that a majority of Senators tell Bush to shove it. If Lott wins, Bush may have to make an appointment to talk to Lott. At least until 2005.

[nicollo]

When the steeliest "majority leader" of them all, Nelson Aldrich told the President, "there will be no amendments to the bill," Senator Elihu Root took him by the hand and led him to the roughest, toughest Speaker of the House of 'em all, Joe Cannon. "Mr. Czar," said Root to Cannon, "let me introduce you to your fellow Czar."

The President got his amendments.

Mr. Tator, the President has not been silent. He was very emphatic and very public in his statement about this. He said Lott's an ass. And he has been equally emphatic in his public "no comments" ever since. Why repeat it? Nobody questions the President's position on this. Nobody can define him by it. Whatever games are being played on the inside, the President has already won this thing with the public.

If that pisses off Lott, it's his problem in the first place. I think the President has escaped from this marvelously. It's up to Lott now to coo and redefine himself. Btw, the (com)Post noted that Bush spoke with Lott before and after the Philadelphia speech. Any guesses what the fly heard?

Alright, let's say Lott hates Bush and wants revenge. If I were Bush, I'd tell him to eat his own pile. Bush knows what's in Lott's hand. Bush is the dealer. All Lott can say is, "I'll give it to the Democrats." For his part, Lott can never be sure what's up the Presidential sleeve. You yourself said Bush is the better gambler. Call.

Majority Leaders follow Presidents. When's the last time a Majority Leader defined national policy? They tweak it, or kill it, but they have no say in its essence. And don't forget that there's this little thing called "The House." It's Bush's, entirely.

Nobody remembers a Majority Leader. They remember traitors. If Lott wants to make history he can bolt, now, and possibly throwing the Senate back to the Democrats, or in '04, with a Civil War reenactment of Strom Thruman in '48. Ain't no "solid south" for him to grab this time. Either way, he's history, and he'll be remembered for a stupid speech at Thurmond's birthday party.

If he keeps the Leadership and tries to thwart Bush, no one will ever know it. If he keeps the Leadership and helps Bush, no one will know it. His position is ugly, and nothing, no games, no BET immolations, and no apology can change it.

Lott is Bush's gal now. He can be a priss, and take the door, or he can say "no, no, no," all the way to the bedroom.

Lott represents a problem for Bush. Bush represents a career and history for Lott. Lott can screw his own party, and his country, by giving the Court back to the Democrats. That doesn't hurt Bush in 2004. Hurts the hell out of the rest of us, but it doesn't change Bush's position. Probably enhances him for '04, actually. This is Lott's problem. It's Lott's fault. Bush has put the grenade on the table. If Lott thinks so highly of himself as to pull the grenade, so be it. I think he'll play ball, and give that grenade back to the President. He'll be Majority Leader through '03, at least. If this scandal has legs, he'll be gone by December next. If not, we're arguing the low price of oil and "nation building" in Iraq all the way into the '04 elections.

I don't think this story makes it past the New Year. It'll re-explode like a fire cracker in January, but nobody will hear it over the bombs going off over Baghdad.

Just some loud thinking...