Trent Lott's Debacle - Now, Bush Must Act

December 14th, 2002 | Sabertooth

[Jeff Chandler]

should he care to retire then rather than serve his entire term.

In other words, make him an offer he cant refuse!

 

Lott would be replaced by a rat. He is holding all the cards.

[rintense]

I agree that this must be resolved by Republicans and no one else. It must 'look' like it was done by all Republicans in the Senate, meaning that Lott loses Speaker because of a challenge. But, if Bush asks him to resign his Senate seat, he has to make it worth Lott's while. Lott is holding all the cards, and the balance of power in DC depends on what he does. Bush must understand this and come up with a brilliant plan that gives them what they both want.

Anything less, and Lott will stay where he is.

I posted this elsewhere, but I'll post it here too:

First, I would take this issue away from Democrats. If anything is going to happen to Lott, it needs to come from Republicans and no one else. Republicans also need to unite behind Lott, which can be done by saying, yeah, his remarks were stupid and wrong, but also state that the man is not a racist. The Dems are the ones who have equated Lott’s remarks with racism. And the Republicans have let them because they are scared to death to address the issue.

Second, continue talking to Lott to make him see the bigger picture. Work with him and acknowledge that he's in the catbird seat, but also have him agree to the bigger picture of taking the 'racist' issue away from Democrats and fight the stereotype of 'Republicans are racists' by directly and forcefully challenging Democrats outlandish allegations. Once he sees the big picture and understands that him being challenged for the leadership role is part of this process, have other Republicans challenge his leadership role and win, but give Lott the chair of any committee he wants. Broker a deal where his state may get more pork. Honestly, there are so many ways that Republicans could get Lott to accept a committee chair and not quit the Senate. But they have to actually think about it first, without giving knee-jerk reactions.

Third, mount a national, combined effort by all Republicans to directly challenge, refute, and abolish the 'Republicans are racists' stereotype by giving a clear and accurate model of the history of segregation, as well as revealing the double-standard that current Democrat Senators (Byrd, etc.) are spewing. This is key in getting more blacks to look at the Republican Party as an alternative to the Democrats. Combine this with the Dems obvious attempt to regain power and reveal their true motive for wanting Lott gone. If the Dems are digging into Lott’s past for ‘patterns of behavior’, then Republicans need to also expose their true motive as well as their own double-standard. If Democrats were truly concerned about racism, folks like Byrd and Shaprton would not be part of their party. And I’d hammer away on this point until I sounded like a broken record.

I consider myself an optimistic person. And the Lott remarks are a great opportunity for Republicans everywhere to address an issue they have been dodging for years. It's time to set the record straight. For the past two years, Republicans have been successful in taking away key issues from the Democrats. Segregation and racism absolutely must be the one in the next two years that Republicans champion and make their own.

We’ve been saying for years that Republicans need to play hardball. Right now, it seems that Lott- the one who has been said to not have a spine- is the only one playing the game.

It’s time for all Republicans to step up to the plate and knock this issue out of the park.

[The Iguana]

Well said, sabertooth.

[jude24]

Actually, you'd get rid of Trent Lott if he got a traffic ticket. This is still about impeachment, isn't it?

Not really. I'm one of the few on this board that thinks that, given what was in the Starr Report, impeachment was debatable. I really don't care about Lott's move on impeachment.

My bigger concern is that Lott's faux pas will set back the Republican cause by as much as 10 years. Because of an ill-considered comment by a Southern good-ol'-boy, Republicans are now on the defensive about race again -- just as we were beginning to make inroads.

His comment was so incredibly stupid that he is not qualified to continue as Senate Majority leader. We can do better.

[Jeff Chandler]

It's time for all Republicans to step up to the plate and knock this issue out of the park.

Amen.

 

[BuddhaBoy]

And, he will leave the Senate

I don't care. If that is the price for getting rid of him, then so be it. Lott is an enemy of Conservatism, a Dick Morris-created empty suit of political expediency. I wont miss him, and there will be an election for his seat in 1 year.

[cynicom]

Boy...

If you are a conservative, why are you on the sidelines with the democrat cheerleaders???? Does your moral indignation blind you to the fact that there is something afoot here besides the "racism" of Trent Lott?

[Dave S]

"He is finished as a Senate Majority Leader of even mediocre effectiveness. " Since this is the base of your thesis, it really should be supported- which you haven't even tried to do.

You have at least half of Free Republic against him and you dont think his effectiveness as a Republican leader is in question? LOL

[John Lenin]

I'm with you, lets defeat PC ism. Running and hiding just feeds the wolves and thats what the GOP has done for 30 years. All those who cannot see the big picture of whats going on with this should stand aside and let the people who do win this battle.

[Jeff Chandler]

Republicans are now on the defensive about race again

Instead of acquiescing to the rats again, it's time to go on the offensive (see post #62).

[sinkspur]

I do know what is in his heart alot better than some of the Lott apologists here, but I am troubled that some of them are not simply standing up for the GOP in their mind, or fighting the liberals, or what have you, but are simply racist themselves, and actually do agree that the dixiecrats were swell folks.

Care to show how those of us who don't think Lott should be railroaded are "racists themselves"?

You slimey jerk. You can't defend your side so now the rest of us are racists

If you're going to argue like a child, find a children's website. There are only adults here.

[BuddhaBoy]

I agree with Sabertooth’s idea that Conservatives need to take the issue away from the Democrats. I happen to believe that Lott is a racist. Not because of any Democrat, but because of Lott’s lame attempts to apologize.

Sure there is more afoot, but I don't care, not this time. Sometimes you have to do what is right, no matter what your enemy thinks.

[Endeavor]

I WHOLEHEARTEDLY support your stance. Very well said, Sabertooth.

[Dave S]

You want to destroy a man because the race pimps have embarrassed you

I want Lott out because HE embarrassed me and my party and because HE failed to do the simple things HE needed to do to resolve the issue when HE could. Now its too late. He is not a leader. He cant even take care of himself.

[jwalsh07]

Lott is an enemy of Conservatism

Dishonets. Lott's lifetime ACU rating is 93. Its not about conservatism it's about race and impeachment. Let's keep it real.

[jude24]

Yes. We do need to go on the offensive about race -- but first we must clean house.

Wouldn't it be cool to hijack that issue away from the Democrats? But to do so, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard. Having a KKK grand marshal may be okay for the Democrats, but we shouldn't even tolerate the slightest hint of racism.

That's why we must harshly come down on Lott. He cannot stay as Senate majority leader.

[EDINVA]

" ......Lott can threaten to resign from the senate, setting in motion events culminating in a rat senate majority. He has W by the short hairs."

But is Lott willing to accept the same fate and reputation among his GOP colleagues that was accorded to Jeffords ??? I think not, so his threat to resign is a game of chicken (one I'm not sure I want to see the GOP playing !)

[dogbyte12]

the key word there was Some .

It wasn't ALL or even MOST

I am sorry if you took it to mean I was referring to you. I wasn't referring to anybody in particular, just that I personally know a Lott defender who is a racist, so I am wondering if Some Lott defenders don't mirror his views.

Grow a thicker skin.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I totally disagree with you on this one. I've always advocated Sen. Lott stepping down because I think he stinks as leader (We have for over a couple years here at FR). But not for this. In fact, I would have preferred he do it soon, but now that this has been blown totally out of proportion, I think it needs to be in 4 to 6 months. Just not now!! If we cave to the CBC, we will NEVER get anything done, and this type of thing will be their sword, their POWER. Aren't you sick of it yet?

His words were meant to honor a centurian on his birthday. Even Democrat Simon WHO WAS THERE, called Sen. Lott and said he never took his words the way they are being portrayed.

In fact, Sen. Levin made simular remarks regarding Sen. Thurmonds run for Presidency!!! (See article below)

I'm disgusted that people are caving in to the CONGRESSIONAL BLACK CAUCUS. Who by their very name are racist!!! (Imagine a CONGRESSIONAL WHITE CAUCUS!!)

I agree totally with Mark Levin, read his article. Do I expect you or anyone else that has sided with the racist libs who are trying to oust Sen. Lott to change their mind? Of course not. That would require and objective look..and this thing has taken on emotional wings. Not logical ones. One only has to look at the response of other politicians, like Sen. Byrd, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and the actions of Dems like Bill Clinton giving a KNOWN segregist the Medal of Freedom.. with great praise I might add. This is simply a purely a biased witch hunt. IOHO

Read on.....

December 11, 2002 2:35 p.m.
Selective Moral Outrage, Part II
Why only be outraged at Lott’s remarks?



On September 24, 2002, the Senate Democrats set aside time during morning business to pay tribute to Strom Thurmond. What's remarkable about every one of these statements is that they were effusive in their praise of Thurmond, and none contained any negative reference to Thurmond's 1948 presidential bid as a Dixiecrat, let alone any reference to his segregationist past.

What are we to make of this? Are these senators sympathetic to segregation? Of course not. Clearly, it would have been inappropriate to use the occasion to disparage Thurmond. Their purpose that day was to honor him. And they did.

Some have argued that their grievance with Trent Lott is more particularized. During Thurmond's 100th-birthday celebration, Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

Lott says he was not referring to Thurmond's segregationist views. Many Democrats aren't buying this explanation. While refusing to label Lott a racist — who, in fact, is a cautious legislator who tends to seek comity rather than confrontation — they apparently insist that his comment was intended to be racist.

Well, then, what are we to make of Democrat Senator Carl Levin's September 24th praise of Thurmond? Among other things, Levin said, " ... I am pleased to join my colleagues in paying tribute to Senator Strom Thurmond and honoring him for his unparalleled record of public service to this Nation." And then a few sentences later, Levin says, "In 1948, while he was still Governor, [Thurmond] ran for President as a State's Right Democrat and received 39 electoral votes, the third best showing by an independent candidate in U.S. history."

Are we to conclude that Levin was honoring Thurmond for, among other things, his historic showing as a segregationist candidate in 1948? If not, why else would Levin have mentioned it in the context of praising Thurmond's career?

Of course, Levin's not a racist, either. He made this statement in the same vein as Lott did. Yet, there's no condemnation of Levin — either from Democrats or Republicans. And so goes the politics of selective moral outrage.

[Sabertooth]

I agree in general with your outline. The first order of business is to get the Lott fiasco resolved. Until then, he's a millstone around our necks.

One disagreement. Lott's remarks are so painfully stupid that the Democrats don't have to spin as hard to call them racist as we do to say they aren't, even though we're correct that Lott is not a racist. If you pay tribute to the Dixiecrats in big sweeps you may as well tar and feather yourself.

Lott did just that, hence this mess we're all in.