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.

[gridlock]

The questions are ridiculous, and yet you do not answer them. A simple "no" and "no" would suffice.

[WarrenC]

You tell me aristeides, what does a defense bill have to do with the Dixie-crats? They were a one-issue party: segregation. As someone wrote, the notion that they broke away from the Democratic Party because Truman, the nuclear bomber of Japan, was weak on national defense, is ludicrous.

[aristeides]

You're a "lying equivocator" if you vote for someone whose program you do not support? You think people who engage in tactical voting thereby make themselves "lying equivocators"? You sure are the moralizer.

[aristeides]

I have not answered them because I consider them insulting. Have you stopped beating your wife?

[Bluntpoint]

"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."


This is what Thurmond said in a nationwide radio address on the eve of the 1948 election:

"Don't forget the so-called civil rights program would bring about the end of segregation in the South, forcing mixing of the races in our hotels, in our restaurants, in our schools, in our swimming pools and in all public places. This change in our customs is not desired by either the white or the colored race."


Yeah, your right. He sounds so wishy-washy on the issue of segregation.

Intellectual Honesty. Give it a try. It won't hurt.

[gridlock]

If you say that it would be a good thing if somebody you do not support actually won, then you would be a lying equivacator.

I am proud of my vote for Jackson in the Democratic Primary in 1984. That does not mean that I wish he became the President of the United States.

[aristeides]

So why do you think Lott made that comment at the signing of the defense bill, then?

People on this board have attempted to demonstrate the Dixiecrats had no real defense program in '48. I have no idea whether they did or not, but the evidence those people have brought forward is probably enough to show that the Dixiecrats had no such program. But I suspect Lott was just as ignorant as I have been until recently of the absence of such a program.

Lott could make that comment in that setting because of his ignorance, and because nobody takes seriously that kind of flattering comment anyway. And I suspect the same thing happened at the birthday party.

[gridlock]

I did not ask if you stopped supporting racial segregation.

I asked if you think that federally mandated desgregation and federal anti-lynching and anti-poll-tax laws were a good idea.

[Bluntpoint]

"You're a "lying equivocator" if you vote for someone whose program you do not support? You think people who engage in tactical voting thereby make themselves "lying equivocators"? You sure are the moralizer."

You have Strom's own words about the issues of his platform.
Are you saying he was being tactical?

[aristeides]

You're talking about Thurmond in '48. I don't dispute your facts on that.

I'm talking about Lott in '02. That's an entirely different matter.

[aristeides]

And I think those questions are just as demeaning as the question I asked you. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that defense of Lott implies support of segregation.

[Bluntpoint]

And we gave you what he said.

You are just being silly. I think you might be just "funnin" us to make us think you have alzheimers.

The joke was funny. You had me.

[aristeides]

Yes, you gave me what Lott said, and it did not say he supported the platform.

[Bluntpoint]

Your nurse is coming, hide the laptop.

[gridlock]

My questions imply nothing of the sort.

They can be answered in the affirmative or they can be answered in the negative.

You can say "I support federally mandated racial desgregation and federal anti-lynching and anti-poll-tax laws", or you can say "I do not support federally mandated racial desgregation and federal anti-lynching and anti-poll-tax laws".

The question does not imply your answer.

[aristeides]

And we gave you what he said.

"We"? You admit this is team tag?

[aristeides]

The question does not imply your answer.

Yes, it does.

[aristeides]

Note that I am not insulting you or your buddy. Some of us have manners and behave like reasonable human beings.

[montag813]

If you mean we can't get their votes by kissing their fannies then I agree with you. If you mean we should ignore any problems faced mainly by blacks then I don't agree.

That is what I mean. By adopting quota policies and race-based tax cuts, we will lose white voters while getting zero blacks, since the Dems want even more radical such policies plus reparations. This is a no-win game.

Tax cuts for ALL Americans, tort reform, medical malpractice reform, school vouchers...all these Conservative policies will greatly increase the quality of life and (as with tort reform), reduce the expenses of minorities in America.

If we pander to Al Sharpton and the Race Pimps we will lose. And besides, blacks pale in comparison to Latinos in their future political clout...Bush is right to put a higher focus on them.

[Bluntpoint]

Remember the knight who kept having all his arms and legs hacked off in Monty Python's "Search for the Holy Grail?"

Remind you of anybody?