A Very Sorry Majority Leader

The Weekly Standard ^ | 12/14/2002 | Stephen F. Hayes

[jwalsh07]

If you believe Lott is a segregationist then I would expect you to ask Lott to resign from the Republican Party and the senate.

That is one of two principled positions to be taken here and I have nothing but respect for anybody who takes one of those positions based on how they feel about Lott.

I have nothing but disdain for those who have jumped on the dump Lott bus from ML but keep him as a back bencher.

[Ohioan]

Wishful thinking never won an election.

True enough. But panicking to appease demagogues lost many.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Howlin]

"Stay on as Majority leader and make life for the leftist impossible"

Based on his past record -- you know, the one he had before he created this absolute disaster -- I'd say that is HIGHLY unlikely.

[Calamari]

Lott is elected to the senate by the voters of his state. If they don't want him as their senator then they can vote him out when his seat is up for election.

Lott's position as majority leader is an elected position voted on by the republican senators in the senate.

The democratic senators can't vote him out of his senate seat nor can they vote for or against him as majority leader of the senate.

If there is no challenge to him as majority leader from his fellow republican senators or if he wins the election for majority leader against a challenger then he is the majority leader. All the democrats can do is continue the caterwauling but this will get old soon. He has apologized several times now and that should be the end of that. To the left no apology will be acceptable so Lott and the republicans should move on. The upcoming war with Iraq and possible future operations against other terrorist nations will make this very old news.

The democrats don't have the votes to do anything to Lott. The republicans do. Do the republicans want to have their majority leader picked by the democrats? I don't think so.

The reality is that the republicans need 60 votes to get anything done in the senate due to the filibuster threat. If any bill does not have at least 60 senators in favor of a motion for cloture then the isue is not going to advance. The democrats can still be obstuctionists but that may not play well with the folks back home and could lead to further erosion of their minority at the next election. If Bush is still apopular president at the time of the 2004 election he will have coattails and democrat senators painted as obstuctionists up for election in 2004 risk being swept aside in all but the most liberal states.

[A.J.Armitage]

Fine. Let's be the party of Trent Lott. Let's give every single non-white in the country a big, personal F you.

Let's lose everything in 2004. Let's see demographics make sure we never elect another Republican President and never get a majority in either house.

Let's give the left a free hand forever. Those people are worse than you know. If they're left unchecked, they'll make America a dictatorship within my lifetime. But hey, you'll be dead, so what does it matter to you?

So go ahead. Kill the American Republic and all hope of freedom in the world for a thousand years just to keep your man Lott happy.

[A.J.Armitage]

If you believe Lott is a segregationist then I would expect you to ask Lott to resign from the Republican Party and the senate.

Giving one seat to the Democrats for 90 days vs. giving them America forever.

Real tough choice.

[over3Owithabrain]

All I have to say is if this comes down to Bush vs. Lott, ol' Foghorn is gonna get his ass kicked. W has made mincemeat of stronger and smarter foes than this dimwit.

[jwalsh07]

Then do it AJ and quit complaining to me how rough your 22 years on earth have been.

[over3Owithabrain]

You "Lottbots" keep trying to frame this issue incorrectly. Lott doesn't have to be racist to lose his ML position, being a stunningly vapid moron is reason enough.

By the way, defending a weak, foolish man is not my idea of principle...

[A.J.Armitage]

Have I complained about anything in my life? No.

You're as delusional about what's in front of your own eyes as you are about politics. (And I'm not 22.)

[jwalsh07]

You "Lottbots" keep trying to frame this issue incorrectly. Lott doesn't have to be racist to lose his ML position, being a stunningly vapid moron is reason enough.

LOL, I opposed Lott for ML before you even knew who he was. If Lott steps down now, he's an admitted racist and if you can't understand that then you shouldn't be in the debate.

By the way, defending a weak, foolish man is not my idea of principle...

Not so weak after all. He seems to be making a fight out of it whether he wins or loses.

I assume you've taken the position that Lott should be a fine fellow and stay still while the firing squad gets them in their sights and then become a back bencher. If so you wouldn't know principle if it bit you on the ass.

[jwalsh07]

Whatever.

[over3Owithabrain]

Again, you frame the issue correctly, sure you're not a Democrat? Lott is a supreme moron, defend that Mr. Principle, instead of assuming he's only in trouble for being a racist. And only a immoral dolt would consider Lott's current struggle for self-preservation a display of fortitude. I suppose Lucifer should be praised for taking a third of the angels with him!

[over3Owithabrain]

Also, I could give a flying f what Lott wants or how he feels. He hurt his party immensely and continues to do so every day. He apparently cares not what happens to anyone else so long as he keeps power. So screw him, if we can use his vote until we can get a non-moron replacement, great. But regardless, he's not worth an ounce of support or rationalization.

[WarrenC]

Amen to your #59.

[jwalsh07]

I see you're prone to hyperbole. It's also clear that you have difficulty making a rational argument. To boot, you're showing clear signs of the Chamberlain Syndrome.

Which particular bone is stuck in your craw, impeachment, segregation or both?

[over3Owithabrain]

Well, thanks for the weak debate. Actually my arguments are quite rational, apparently to the point of going over your head and forcing you to try to shift the premise and find ulterior motives.

Best of luck in your "loyal" defense of a small man.

[Yaelle]

...by deliberately characterizing innocuous comments as racist.

Not so. Lott said something that was racist and indeed very stupid. Worse is that he did not stumble over one word or two, but spoke clearly and in full sentence what a nonracist would never have even THOUGHT. This isn't about PC or the Democrats; Lott did this to us himself.

[Yaelle]

Hear, hear. Let's call his bluff.

[jwalsh07]

You don't even have the balls to answer a simple question.