WHO WILL LEAD THE SENATE?-GOP Leaders Discussing How/Who Calls for Lott to Step Aside

The American Spectator ^ | Dec. 11, 2002 | The Washington Prowler

[ewing]

Republicans on Capitol Hill and conservatives in Washington and around the country are discussing how best to call for Trent Lott's stepping aside as Senate Majority Leader.

According to a knowledgeable Senate source, GOP members of both houses are extremely concerned that Lott's comments have so derailed the momentum gained from the 2002 elections that it would be impossible come January to make numerous confirmations for the executive branch, begin planning a legislative agenda that includes accelerating the Bush tax cuts and pushing through a prescription drug plan for seniors.

Even more upsetting to Republicans is that realization that Lott's comments may make it virtually impossible to bring a number of potentially controversial judicial nominations to the Senate floor successfully.

[jwalsh07]

When they went after Newt and Bob Livingston, they didn't step down, they stepped out. Any retreat by Lott or the Republican Senate gives credence to those claiming Lott is a racist and a segregationist.

The onslaught from that situation would end up just like Gingrich and Livingston. Lott would resign his seat.

Fortunately, I think the opinion of the general public will be contrary to that espoused by the alliance of the professional race-baiters and the anti-Lott conservatives.

But as a matter of course, I would like to add that anybody here who thinks Lott is a racist Dixiecrat should be demanding he resign from the senate, not just as majority leader.

[1L]

What the hell kind of principle is that?

I agree with you, but, think about this: how stupid can those RATS who are calling for Lott's head be? You'd think they would want him around to keep taking advantage of. Makes you wonder if we will hear anything from the Senate leadership who know his true stripes.

[Jorge]

If KKK Byrd can 'rehab' his image over time on the other side of the aisle, I see no reason why Trent cannot do the same thing.

I'm sure he can. "over time".
Unfortunately not in time for the next session of Congress, or the next 2 years of Republican majority control.
He's a liability we can't afford.

[xzins]

I thought they were but I didn't want to be rude to the people. You gotta be a Senator before you can be Senate Leader.

[RFP]

And your Junior Senator ain't too shabby either...JI is onto the Chinese. KnowhatImeanvern?

[Incorrigible]

[1L]

Kay Bailey is widely known as Senator Air Head.

Widely known by whom? I've met her, and while we aren't exactly best friends, I can tell you that she isn't an air head.

[hchutch]

Agreed.

And when the Dems try to resurrect this, we can say, "You will note he is no longer the Republican leader in the Senate. But the Democrats still have a former KKK recruiter in their ranks holding a high position."

Save Byrd's KKK past for later.

[Sabertooth]

So anytime the Dems use the "R" word the Republicans scramble to appease them? It's time the Repub's "got a pair".

If the GOP had a pair, Lott would have been gone from Leadership years ago. He's the poster boy of Republican eunuchs.

Remember when Lott hung the House Managers out to dry during the Senate trial of Clinton?

It's time to cut our losses.

[4CJ]

That being said, I'm starting to question some of Lott's views myself on race. I didn't realize he had been tied to the Council of Conservative Citizens

In his speech, Lott, according to the newsletter, called the Citizen Informer, warns against the forces supporting government spending: "We need more meetings like this across the nation" to offset these liberal pressures. "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction and our children will be the beneficiaries."

After the Informer article became available, Lott's spokesman disassociated Lott from the CCC and sharply criticized the organization: "This group harbors views which Senator Lott firmly rejects. He has absolutely no involvement with them either now or in the future," John Czwartacki said this week.

He defended Lott's 1992 keynote speech to the CCC at a Greenwood, Miss., meeting, arguing: "This appears to have been a widely attended political gathering with the senator giving what sounds like generic stump speech remarks . . . With their votes, contributions or time, tens of thousands of people endorse Trent Lott's views. That endorsement does not necessarily go the other way around."
Thomas B. Edsall,"Lott Renounces White `Racialist' Group He Praised In 1992", The Washington Post, 16 Dec 1998

[NarniaSC]

There was no ambiguity to his statement. Everyone at Strom's party with any brains thought long and hard how to phrase their praise.

"States' Rights" was 95% about segregation. Dewey's platform - I was amazed to read - was reasonably conservative without being segregationist, so there was a good Truman alternative already out there. If the Dixiecraps had *really* just wanted limited government, they would have bolted to the Republicans, even in 1948.

Strom winning in '48 would have been an unmitigated evil, giving a national mandate for Jim Crow (and I say this, like almost all South Carolinians, as a lover of the post-60s Strom). Only a complete political idiot or closet racist would dream otherwise. I'll give Trent the benefit of the doubt: he's an idiot.

[M. Peach]

I totally agree with you Mia - and I've said it on other threads - he betrayed the country and the constitution when he let clinton slide.

He's a self-serving gutless traitor - and I can't understand why he's been allowed to continue to stay on as leader. There was scarcely an outcry for what he did during the impeachment trial - and in my opinion - this remark pales in comparison to the damage he did when he prevented the house managers from presenting their case.

Can you or anyone else here tell me the process involved in deciding who takes over for him? I'm assuming that the Republican Senators choose his replacement as did the house when Gingrich resigned. Someone please enlighten me in this regard....

[KLT]

All true Mia....even we MORONS in NY...most of which voted for corrupt, inept, dishonest, grotesque and inexperienced candidates know Nickles is the way to go:

[Steve_Seattle]

"your brainwashing has been completed"

The four articles of impeachment all had to do with lying and obstruction of justice in order to cover up Clinton's sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky and its relevance to the Paula Jones lawsuit, which was basically a claim of sexual harrassment. In that sense, the Dems were able to spin it as being "just about sex." I didn't say that I agreed with the Dems' spin, only that they were succesful in spinning it and that they couldn't have done it without a sympathetic media.

[Servant of the Nine]

Don Nickles!

Don Nickles!

Don Nickles!

Yes, or Anyone but Mitch McConnel. It takes 60 votes to move anything thru the senate, and Mitch is so abrasive he couldn't get 9 Democrats to go along with Free Money.

So9

[jwalsh07]

And when they come for Tancredo, do we cut our losses then also?

[Consort]

The Un-Fab Four — A cross section of the Senate GOP Mentality of recent times.

[Sabertooth]

And when they come for Tancredo, do we cut our losses then also?

Where do you see an equivalence between Lott and Tancredo?

Did Lott stand behind the House Managers? Why should he expect us to close ranks behind him now?

[DodgeRam]

I don't think he should leave the senate, not even the democrats are asking that. He should resign the leadership post, and we'd still have 51 seats. You point about senate pro tem byrd is right on. In fact is'nt it mr byrd who would be behind the house speaker to become president?