Replies

Welcome to power sharing...... or worse a Majority Leader Daschle. Yep that makes perfect sense to me at this stage. Kick the no good SOB while he's down, don't accept his apology or asking for forbearance.

You and the others will get your wish as this is going to continue until Sen. Lott resigns as he should since it appears the Party has dumped him. Funny that he was good enough to be elected ML for five times but now he's not worth a bucket of warm spit.

Funny that he was good enough to be elected ML for five times but now he's not worth a bucket of warm spit.

Oh, come on... In Washington of all places, you should know that the two aren't mutually exclusive. There are plenty of veteran incumbents who aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.

"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.

45- "now he's not worth a bucket of warm spit"

what's changed?

jellyfish T. incomp-a-lott is STILL not worth a bucket of warm spit.

Too bad he didn't fight for Republicans/conservatives as much as he is fighting to keep his own power.