[Sabertooth]

JMO, but I think it's the best solution left to us.

[Sabertooth]

((((((growl)))))

[Wait4Truth]

I agree with you 100%.

[NYS_Eric]

Good post. (Let's hope it plays out as you suggest-- only Lott can make it so in the end.)

[sinkspur]

Even though I don't believe that's what Lott meant, nor that he's a racist, that fact is inescapable.

This sentence is unbelieveable!

You don't think Lott meant anything racist, or that he is, in fact, racist, still it's an "inescapable fact" that he is racist.

Help me out here. I don't get it.

I need you, and I'm asking you as you President to do this for the good of America."

And, were I Lott, I'd look Bush in the eye and say

Mr. President, do you think I'm a racist?

If you don't, why are you asking me to step down instead of defending me?

I'm too racist to be Majority Leader, but not racist enough to have me on your team?

[jwalsh07]

You're way behind the curve dude. The conversation has already taken place. Lott grew some balls and told President Bush that he wasn't resigning for being something he's not.

Then Bush spanked him and Lott stood up and took his beating in public. But, its not enough for you.

Lott has to be detroyed.

[mrsmith]

"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.

It's not an easy political calculation IMO.

[tomahawk]

I agree.

[Torie]

No, Bush has said what he thinks. It is up to the GOP caucus to decide what to do about Lott (Bush might chat privately with some senators one on one who wish to seek his counsel perhaps). If they decide to dump him as ML, then Bush can invite Lott to the ranch to attempt to deflect him from carrying out his blackmail, and resign from the Senate, if in fact that is what Lott is doing, and he persists, about which we hear conflicting stories. For Bush to publically dictate who should be ML is indecorous, insensitive to the structure of the separation of powers, and might backfire over the long term.

[JCG]

He is finished as a Senate Majority Leader of even mediocre effectiveness. It's time to cut our losses.

You got that right. Twice!

America's Fifth Column ... watch Steve Emerson/PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
New Link: Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

Who is Steve Emerson?

[scottinoc]

This whole issue is a farce

[TLBSHOW]

as Rush said attack the rats and throw back their racist words.........


Harry S. Truman, Democrat


In 1911 Truman wrote to his future wife, Bess: "I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's honest and decent and not a ****** or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a ****** from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman."
Truman continued: "I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America."

http://reformed-theology.org/jbs/html/bipartisan_bigotry.htm

[PRND21]

Now, the Democrats are all over the opportunity Lott has injudiciously provided to them.

Yourself included it seems.
But hey, it's your vanity.

[Jorge]

Well said.

Unfortunately the big baby is threatening to resign from the Senate if he can't be the Majority Leader.
Incredible.

[John Lenin]

If Al Sharptons base is energized and want him to run for President is this good or bad for Republicans ?

[xzins]

I agree. Lott will turn the GOP into the JimCrow poster child during the next election.

It's a shame, but it sometimes good men say the wrong things at entirely the wrong times. This is one of those times.

[McGavin999]

This tempest in a teapot needs to be put to rest. This country is under attack and we must not allow anyone to divide us when we are facing the dangers that are ahead of us.

Not too long ago 3,000 innocent people were killed by people who sought to divide us. We have thousands of young men and women who are about to put their lives on the line for us and they need us to stand together behind them and not be bicking over something that was said at a friggin birthday party no matter how stupid it was. It's time to suck it up and stop worrying about things that don't quite equate with massive outbreaks of smallpox, or a nuclear devise detonating in a major US city.

[Dave S]

I agree 100%. Perhaps Bush should offer him the following if he will step down from his leadership role:

1) Committee chairmanship of his choice so he can continue to bring home the pork for Mississippi.

2) Promise of an ambassadership to the country of his choice or a job with a major lobbyist in 2004 should he care to retire then rather than serve his entire term.

3) The gratitude and respect of his comrades and party.

On the other hand if he doesnt step down, Bush should make it clear to him that Mississipii will suffer as will his post Senate career. That he will be persona non grata in Republican circles and that Bush will continue to separate himself from him.

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

[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.

[Endeavor]

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

[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.