Turning a Corner?-Lott Supporters Now Say They Are 'Approaching' 26 GOP Votes for Lott

National Review Magazine ^ | December 19, 2002 | Byorn York

[ewing]

Sources on Capitol Hill say that Incoming Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi has collected assurances from more than 20 Republican Senators that they will support him in a new election to determine whether Lott will remain as Senate Majority Leader.

'We have got well over 20 and are approaching 26,' says one Lott supporter.

Twenty Six votes ( out of 51 total GOP members) are required for Lott to keep his job.

[Poohbah]

I know what Thurmond stood for in '48. But you guys have just not proved how much of that Lott had in mind -- or even knew, if he had bothered to think, which I very much doubt he did -- when he made his statements.

OK, so we have to keep him because he's a blithering idiot...

Thank you for your input, Mr. Daschle, now GTFA.

[gridlock]

But you guys have just not proved how much of that Lott had in mind

What do you think he meant by "these problems".

[aristeides]

I suspect he was shooting his mouth off and not thinking at all.

[aristeides]

I was replying to people who said Lott had expressed support for the "segregationist Dixiecrat platform." Whether he should remain leader is an entirely different matter.

[aristeides]

You're discussing whether he should be leader. I was replying to people who had accused Lott of supporting the "segregationist Dixiecrat platform." There is a difference, you know.

[gridlock]

I suspect that he thought, as a lot of Southerners his age do, that racial desegregation was a bad idea and that the loss of the "Southern way of life" that resulted from racial desegregation was a bad thing. I don't know that this is true, but I suspect.

Since I can't read what is in his heart, I will just have to rely on what he said. What he said is clear enough.

[Cboldt]

All I'm saying is that I'm impressed that Senator Lott didn't fold.

I'll give you that he is a fighter, but fighter for what? On the point of staying MPL in the Senate, he didn't fold, he fought. On the point of forcing racial preference as a matter of law, he recently came out in favor of affirmative action -- which makes a negative impression on me. Has he always been in favor of affirmative action? Or did he fold?

[aristeides]

What he said made absolutely no mention of the Dixiecrat platform.

[Bluntpoint]

"You're not going to admit that you're reading an interpretation"



Trent 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."

Let us break it down for you.

"I want to say this about my state:"
1. I is Trent Lott.

2. My state is Lott's state.

When Strom Thurmond ran for president,
3. He ran one time, 1948 on the Dixiecrat platform, a party of those who bolted from the Democratic Party because of their anti-lynching and anti-poll tax platform. Which would make Strom for lynching and poll taxes.

we voted for him.
4. We, meaning his state, him meaning Strom.


We're proud of it.
5. We're, meaning Trent's state, of it meaning the voting for a segregationist on same party.

And if the rest of the country
6. Rest is us, country equal U.S.

had followed our lead,
7.Had meaning if the rest of country had voted for a segregationist like his state did.

we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."
8. We, us. Had these problems. Since it was the segregationist party that his state had supported, one could not think he was talking about the mail service.

[WarrenC]

How many times does Lott have to say he regrets the Dixie-crats defeat in '48 before you'll believe he means it? This morning one of the networks aired a clip from a couple years ago that has Lott leaning over to the man standing beside him while Thurmond is sitting before them signing some document. Lott can be overheard saying, "you know he (Thurmond) should have been elected president in '48." Maybe some day Lott will explain what it is about the Dixie-crats that gives him such a hard-on that he has to repeat this line so often over the years.

[gridlock]

When you support a candidate for President, does it not mean that you support his platform?

[my right]

It's very simple, If Lott refuses to be a team player and is stupid enough to think that he can still be a viable senate majority leader, then Bush needs to take charge and pressure him to step down, keep his mouth shut, and keep his seat. I would also like to say that I think that the Clinton clan had something on Lott to make him cave in on the impeachment hearings.

[aristeides]

He made that comment in 2000 when Thurmond was signing a defense authorization bill, I believe as chairman of a Senate defense committee. What does that have to do with segregation?

[Smogger]

You're discussing whether he should be leader. I was replying to people who had accused Lott of supporting the "segregationist Dixiecrat platform." There is a difference, you know.

Wrong.

There is no difference between actually supporting the "segregationist Dixiecrat platform" and appearing to support the "segregationist Dixiecrat platform."

Both should get you slapped and removed as Senate Majority Leader.

[gridlock]

Do you think that federally mandated racial desegregation was a bad idea?

Do you think that federal anti-lynching laws and a federal ban on the poll-tax was a bad idea?

Just curious.

[Bluntpoint]

"When you support a candidate for President, does it not mean that you support his platform?"

Of course not. If I vote for a candidate of the NARAL party that has no bearing on my feelings concerning abortion.

Of course that would make me a lying equivocator.

[aristeides]

Not necessarily, not even at the time. There have even been presidential candidates who have more or less said not to take their party's platform too seriously.

And when you make that kind of statement of support of a former candidate 54 years after the fact, in a social setting which suggests what you say is not to be taken too seriously, it's not reasonable to press it to necessarily imply such support of the platform.

[leilani]

"expect Senators to continue to PUBLICLY support Notta Lott right up until the exact instant when they vote AGAINST him." Of course. That's Washington. But NOBODY thinks this guy is gonna survive a week. He SCREWED UP (again) and now he's got to do right by his colleagues and his family and step down. It's that simple. (He can go somewhat gracefully at this point or he can destroy his family's name - it's his choice.)

[aristeides]

You really think people defending Lott over this have to support Thurmond's '48 program? Those questions are ridiculous. I haven't made accusations against you.

[dalebert]

What happened to "Lott only has 10 votes?"