LOTT SAID IT BEFORE (Drudge Siren)

Drudge ^ | 12/10/02 | Drudge

[walrus954]

After a fiery speech by Thurmond at a Mississippi campaign rally for Ronald Reagan in November 1980, Lott, then a congressman, told a crowd in Jackson: "You know, if we had elected this man 30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today."

More to follow...

[Mo1]

But everyone is so wraped up in the spin that they are all blinded by truth

I guess I'm guilty for actually reading and understanding your point

[puroresu]

I wrote: Did Senator Lott say that "resumption of segregation would have prevented so many of the problems we've experienced since then"? No, he did not.

You wrote: Did I say he did, or did you strategically move the quotation marks around to distort what I said? (Hint: the correct answer is the latter one.)

The quote I provided is the proper analogy to your assertion, because the analogy you provided was incorrect to the situation.

I wrote: Case closed.

You wrote: Yup. Case closed. You have to misrepresent what I said to make your point, therefore, I claim the win.

It really did go over your head, didn't it?

I wrote: His expressed opinion about Senator Thurmond was no more racist than my expression of admiration about the genius of one of our founders.

You wrote: The only significant difference between the Democrat and Dixiecrat platforms was the issue of segregation. That is the platform Thurmond was running on in 1948. Either Lott is actually in agreement with that platform, or he's too much of a blithering idiot to be trusted with anything important (the latter is my opinion).

You persist in this nonsense, don't you?

I stated an outright admiration for James Madison. Lott praised a fellow politician after he delivered a fiery speech and, later, at his 100th birthday.

If you don't see where this is headed, you're blind. In 30 years someone praising George Washington will be deemed unfit for office.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

And what was "the mess we are in today" in 1980 of which Lott spoke while campaigning for Reagan?

It had nothing to do with race or segregation. The mess was the failure of near 50 years of the Democrat's socialistic policies which had then climaxed in the disastrous Carter administration (stag-flation, hostages in Iran, the Oil crisis, etc.), policies which Thurmond vigorously opposed in 1948, in 1980, and today.

This whole controversy is a bunch of hooey. Lott obviously greatly admires Sen. Thurmond, who has had an amazing political life of which all true Americans should be proud. Good for him. There are few politicians who have dedicated themselves to the betterment of their country and constituency like Thurmond did both in war and in peace.

[abigkahuna]

I guess its my time to throw in my two cents. Let me start off by saying while I consider myself a conservative, I am not a registered Republican, but an Independent.

With that now said, what to do with Lott.

The Republican Senators have to decide what to do with Lott. Don't they have to vote on Majority Leader? Why would Lott automatically be the Majority Leader?

If another Republican Senator says he wants to be Majorty Leader, wouldn't there then be a member vote?

Lott appears to be vulnerable here. His leadership has been weak. So whats to stop someone else from runnity for the post?

[wizzler]

You know, I love Drudge, but this is a perfect example of why he's not a real journalist (and why he shouldn't bitch that real journalists occasionally give him a hard time).

Once again he sticks a tease at the top of his page for hours, with no link and no further information. But in fact, in this case his source is the New York Times, and the story is online at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/11/politics/11LOTT.html

His driving goal is page hits. And this (in addition to his 480-second autorefresh) is one of his tricks. He teases readers with something juicy, just enough to keep them clicking and clicking as they wait for him to post a link to real meat. What he does is disingenuous -- it's an attempt to build the fantasy that he's an insider who's got something the rest of us don't know about.

But those of us with Nexis access know that 99 times out of 100, when Drudge sticks one of his breathless "DEVELOPING" taglines at the end of some new item, the story has actually already been long "developed" and is online somewhere, or even in print.

The end result is that he spends a great deal of time keeping actual news out of readers' hands. It's not unlike the cheesy local newscasts, with their constant "news" updates, teasing viewers and telling them to "tune in at 11" to get the full story.

Real journalists, people who are naturally born to the job, have it in their blood to disseminate information. They don't withhold news when they've got it -- that would go against every natural impulse in their beings. Which is why Drudge and your cheesy local news stations aren't practicing actual journalism.

Yes, I still enjoy Drudge. It's a nice clearinghouse for titillating stories. I just don't always appreciate the sneaky way he titillates sometimes.

[Mo1]

I guess

[ApesForEvolution]

So how much damage and how listless does another GOP Senate Majority have to become *before* Lott can no longer be defended? And, if Lott leaves the Senate, then that's on he and anyone that supported him to begin with.

[Poohbah]

What are you talking about? The Dixiecrat platform was in favor of the popular stuff from the New Deal (the TVA, farm subsidies, et cetera).

[plain talk]

No you don't. When I heard his remark the first thing that came to mind was the trillions we've wasted on the welfare state, not segregation. Segregation was a million miles behind in the rearview mirror in 1980 and now to most of us except for the Jesse Jacksons of this world. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise. His mistake was in giving needless ammo to liberals. For that and for his lousy interference in the impeachment, they should use this opportunity to replace him with someone better.

[sinkspur]

First off, Lott as the GOP leader has proven in the past to be more of a RAT friend than RAT opponent.

You're one of those who wants to get Lott over a grudge from the past.

This is all about your petty grievances and anger because, even though Lott has been elected by his GOP Senate cohorts to be their leader since 1995, YOU don't like it and YOU want him gone.

You're a brat, AFE, and you always will be. You don't have a clue as to how the world works.

What do you do for a living, dust library shelves?

[ApesForEvolution]

I could care less who else in the room sees the big white elephant. What I do care about is that the elephant is removed from running the show. Albatross...meet humility.

[Poohbah]

No you don't. When I heard his remark the first thing that came to mind was the trillions we've wasted on the welfare state, not segregation.

Your personal ignorance does not excuse Lott's remarks.

[Mo1]

can you guarantee that??

[tellw]

I hope Lott is challenged. I think Rick Santorum would make a terrific majority leader to replace him. He's a good, younger conservative from a state the GOP really needs to get back into its column in the electoral college.

As for Lott, he can stay in the Senate and chair a committee.

[SwordofTruth]

This was 22 years ago, enough already!

[ApesForEvolution]

First off, assuming the Vacant Lott as Leader can get anything done with a slim majority and his penchant for completely giving away the farm to the RATS and trampling on the Constitution and principle is a bad assumption. Second, if Lott steps aside and then leaves the Senate, then this whole world is about Trent the idiot and nothing else. Ridiculous.

[sinkspur]

I could care less who else in the room sees the big white elephant.

Of course. You're a brat. Brats have to get their way.

If you and Poohbah are the only ones who see the white elephant, maybe there's not one there.

[Myrddin]

If Lott goes, the Senate falls back into the hands of the Democrats for another 2 years. The Democrat governor will appoint a Democrat replacemant for him. Bush's agenda will be wiped out before the Senate even gets a chance to convene in January. The pubbies need to select a new leader in the Senate, but they can not permit a loss of control.

[Texasforever]

What do you do for a living, dust library shelves?

That is above his level of evolution. This guy is just another guy around here that was in agony when the GOP took back the senate and defied all of their doomsday predictions. Since the elections this site has become more anti-GOP than DU.

[TLBSHOW]

There are 3 things at play here abortion, truth and God.
#1
Lott is planning to ban partial birth abortion as one of the first things he does next year.
#2
Our leader needs to tell the truth about Islam and the threat it is and not tell lies about Christians in America.
#3
Be not deceived, God is not mocked, for whatever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” (Gal 6:7)

until the President apologizes for his anti-christian remarks it will not get any better.


,,,,,,
GREAT NATIONS HAVE GREAT LEADERS

WAYNE JACKSON

Many times in the Old Testament, God’s prophets (those who brought His message to the people) taught that if a nation is to be great, it must have good leaders. To the nation of Israel, the Lord once said: "Your princes are rebellious, And companions of thieves" (Isaiah 1:23). He went on to tell them that the widows, and the children who had no parents, could not receive fair treatment from rulers like these.

History has proven that the greatest nations have been those whose leaders believed in God and respected the teaching of His Word.

Thomas Erskine once served as Lord Chancellor of England. He wrote: "I am deeply devoted to the truths of Christianity." Sir William Blackstone was one of Great Britain’s leading teachers of the law many years ago. He said that the belief that God is watching our conduct is one of the most important foundations of a nation’s law system. That is why, in most courts of law, people are asked: "Do you promise to tell the truth--so help you God?"

Sir William Gladstone, one of England’s most famous Prime Ministers, said: "Most men at the head of great movements are Christian men." Gladstone believed that the proofs which show that the Bible is from God cannot be shaken.

George Washington, the first president of the United States, once wrote a book containing a record of some of the prayers he prayed during his morning and evening worship periods. In one of these, the "father of our country" asked God to help this nation respect and obey Him, so that the people might have a place among the great nations of the world.

Andrew Jackson, our seventh president, wrote a "will" before he died. (This is a kind of "letter" that explains how you want your things to be divided after you die.) He said: "The Bible is true. Upon that sacred Book I rest my hope of eternal salvation through the merits of our blessed Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Abraham Lincoln, one of our best presidents, said that the Bible "is the best gift God ever gave to man." He also said that without the Scriptures, we could not "know right from wrong."

A nation will prosper when it obeys the laws God has given in His Word. When it rejects Divine Truth, it someday will fall. Many years ago, leaders in France made fun of the Bible. They tied a copy to the tail of a donkey, dragged it outside the city, and burned it. Since that time, the French government has fallen thirty-five times! It does not pay to mock God.

June 1998

http://www.discoverymagazine.com/articles/d1998/d9806a.htm