Replies

"Funny that he was good enough to be elected ML for five times"

The current issue aside, do you think the Senate has functioned effectively and appropriately the last eight years?

I know the democraps are obstructionist but that's just politics as usual.

The impeachment fiasco, which surfaces on these threads, was more than a frustration. It was a sign that something isn't right with the majority. Lott's DOA rebuff to the House made no sense.

I would concede that there weren't 67 votes to be had; but a sober airing of the evidence, out of respect for the House managers and the nation, and the victims of clinton's crimes, would have been a salutary tonic.

No need for hysterical Monica sideshow crap, just the goods, presented professionally. Then take a vote and let the chips fall where they may.

It was an opportunity for Lott to show the nation that the issues weren't "all about sex," regardless if clinton had been convicted or not. As it happens it was probably good that he wasn't. But Lott blew the opportunity
to elevate the public debate.

In so doing Lott undermined the credibility of every good faith Republican in the House and Senate who wanted the truth to come out. And that's an issue of his lack of integrity.

As for "power-sharing," did you find that a good example of Lott's leadership? I found it to be an inexplicable cave-in.

There's something sick and twisted in the Lott Senate. I have no secret knowledge as to what it is but I know what I see. And coming back to the issue at hand, it all revolves around Lott himself.

Remember, this is the man who said it was easier being the minority leader because he didn't really have to be responsible for anything.
So now he's leading a slim majority. how much confidence do you have in his commitment to leadership?

Finally, how many other people offerred their praise to Thurmond, but without finding it necessary to mention his segregationist campaign?

Many fellow senators and other people have been praising the old man but only Lott apparently, needed to dredge up 1948. Why?

In the Bob Jones case, the Justice Department already filed an amicus brief. Why did Lott feel the need to file a separate one in which he explicitly sought to preserve the right of the private school to practice "racial discrimination(the words he used in the brief)?"

Some one said this was actually a First Amendment case.
Fine. Have there been no other challenges to the First Amendment that Lott could have chosen as a vehicle to display his devotion to civil liberties?

Fortunately perhaps, we here in the bleachers have kibbitzing rights without having to make decisions. But for my money-- No, ML Lott isn't worth a bucket of warm spit--and hasn't been. He's dangerous, and he needs to go.

All the things you cover are justified to be explored. I'm not saying they shouldn't nor that Lott has been a great Senator or leader. But the flip side of this situation is reality.... And imo that reality is the democrats are out to play hard ball politics, rough, dirty and below the belt. That said they want the Senate back or as much power back as they can get. That is all this is about at the present time.

If they succeed in this endeavor and I think they most likely will then we, you and all the rest of the citizens will dance the Democrat jig. Extortion, racism, who knows what else will be used to get their way. Each time it works it only becomes easier to use the next time.

Either stand up to it or accept it as a way of governing for the future... just my opinion, of course as I don't have the insight into all this that most around here seem to have.