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.

[aristeides]

It's easy to make claims like that on the Internet. I will remain skeptical, after seeing the sorts of things you posted last night.

[ApesForEvolution]

What, Poohbah, you haven't been smeared a communist RAT yet? If it matters to you, you'd better change your tune about the mushy GOP's beloved Lott...I doubt you will, either, though. I've been to the right of the GOP most of my life, at least since Ronaldus Maximus. What would Ronaldus have to say were he to be in 100% possession of his great faculties?

[Deb]

Sorry. You're one press release behind on the Daschle reaction. Since he was Maxine Waterized he has changed his tune.

And Bush has come out in defense of Lott. The Senate elected him Majority Leader, it's their call to ask for his removal.

All of you complainers who have done nothing but belly-ache about Lott, have no idea what kind of skill it takes to get legislation to the floor while riding herd on the liberal GOP senators. Lott is extremely skillful at the delicate dance required on every vote. He's personally a bit too much like a televangelist for me, but if he wasn't good at his job Don Nickles would be Majority Leader.

He should not go.

[aristeides]

Where do you think the Republican agenda is going if the Republicans lose the majority in the Senate?

[ApesForEvolution]

It's also easy to smear someone on the 'Net. Why don't you clarify your attacks by posting something I said that leads you to believe I'm a RAT...

[aristeides]

People who are curious can look for the thread where texasforever accused you. Personally, I found his accusation very credible.

[xzins]

I was initially opposed to the idea of getting rid of him over this.....that it'd look like caving in to the liberal smear campaign.

Instead, I now think it makes more sense, given how much play this has gotten, to go ahead and say it would be a "healing" move for him to volutarily step down as leader. The pubs could tie it all together by saying how STRONGLY they desire minorities to see us doing the right thing EVEN THOUGH Lott has said his intentions were honorable.

We wish to avoid the APPEARANCE of wrong.

Frist was very articulate, smart, visionary, organized....you name it. I, too, was very impressed.

[Poohbah]

Where do you think the Republican agenda is going if the Republicans lose the majority in the Senate?

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of the slippery slope: "If A, then B, then C," without showing the causal chain.

If Lott is so damaged by this mess (or is so spineless, or so self-centered and egotistical) that he must resign from the Senate in addition to his post as Majority Leader, then he will be completely useless as Majority Leader anyway, and the Republican agenda goes nowhere, and we get the 2004 campaign of Trent Lott's stupid remark being played over footage from Birmingham, Little Rock, and Selma.

[ApesForEvolution]

Texasforever carries very little credibility apparently here, as the dozen+ FRemails that I have received since last night, supporting my views, convinces me.

I look forward to you citing one post, in its appropriate context, that supports your failing assertion that - because I believe that it's time for Lott to realize that he's a detriment to conservatism, the GOP and its upcoming agenda and must go as Leader - I'm a RAT.

You throw dirt but you aren't willing to dig it up yourself?

This is another example of how a loser in any particular discussion acts...

[Deb]

Altura! How great to see your name. I guess we've been lost in the ocean of people since the "good old days".

I'm glad we agree.

[aristeides]

For example, you said this:

Frankly, what you think moves me not. There are many Republicans that aren't worthy of receiving my vote, but have, and I am constantly rethinking my blind support of the GOP every day. The lesser of two evils is getting rather old. The 'Patriot' Act comes to mind. Pure rubbish.

[prognostigaator]

"Every one of you Lott trashers are disgusting. This is exactly one of the times when the entire party should rally against the Democrats and throw their political grandstanding back in their faces.

Tossing Lott overboard at this time is proof we don't deserve the majority.

The Democrats are using this as their first shot in the '04 election and their politicizing needs to be turned on them like a cannon to blow their lying heads off."

Such prognostications are endorsed.....by me, too.

[aristeides]

Isn't there also a logical fallacy in thinking that, merely because Lott's removal as leader may result in his leaving the Senate, therefore it results that his staying leader has to be at least no better than having a RAT majority in the Senate? Do you really believe that we would be better off -- or at least no worse off -- if the RATs keep the Senate?

[aristeides]

The mere APPEARANCE of right more important than the REALITY of power? I think that's living in a dream world.

[Poohbah]

Isn't there also a logical fallacy in thinking that, merely because Lott's removal as leader may result in his leaving the Senate, therefore it results that his staying leader has to be at least no better than having a RAT majority in the Senate? Do you really believe that we would be better off -- or at least no worse off -- if the RATs keep the Senate?

Either way, the RATS effectively keep the Senate--but this presupposes that Lott actually leaves, which does not inevitably follow from your argument, unless you are saying that the Vacant Lott is far too ineffectual as it presently stands to perform his job.

[ApesForEvolution]

And so that makes me a RAT? Actually, by criticizing this statement, it is easy to label you a blind statist GOP'er. That's not good for the GOP (where it needs to go to bring America back to Constitutional principles) nor for America.

Were you aware that the 'Patriot' Act was poisoned with the 4th Amendment-gutting 'sneek-a-peak' infringement by the DOJ, because 'sneek-a-peak' was stripped out of the last bill it was inserted into once that bill was read and debated?

Were you aware that the Bush Administration strong-armed the GOP House Leadership (Hastert, IMO, isn't much better than Lott) into forcing a 'either you're a "Patriot" or you aren't' vote of the Act with no reading or even debate?

And that's A-OK with you simply because it's Republican legislation and you're a Republican?

That, fellow FReeper, would make you a statist fool...and certainly doesn't warrant your specious attack that I'm a RAT. But, I'll survive...

[Sideshow Bob]

All of you complainers who have done nothing but belly-ache about Lott, have no idea what kind of skill it takes to get legislation to the floor while riding herd on the liberal GOP senators. Lott is extremely skillful at the delicate dance required on every vote. He's personally a bit too much like a televangelist for me, but if he wasn't good at his job Don Nickles would be Majority Leader.

**** Bzzzt! Wrong answer, Deb.

I'm both a state and federal lobbyist. I've seen firsthand that Lott is not skillfull at any dance, delicate or otherwise. Lott is an ineffectual, timid "leader."

The reason he is Majority Leader is not because he is good at his job. Lott is Majority Leader because the GOP Senate caucus likes having a weak, timid ineffectual "leader" to maximize their own individual spheres of power and influence.

[The Irishman]

Tossing Lott overboard at this time is proof we don't deserve the majority.

Now you've done it, I find myself in complete agreement with you and Sinkspur both. Keep up the fight, these FReepers mau-mauing Lott know not what they are doing.

Regards.

[aristeides]

What I said was that I thought you had outed yourself as a non-Republican. I don't think you'll be able to find a statement I made saying that you're a RAT.

[xzins]

I'm not talking of Lott resigning....just stepping down as majority leader. So long as you retain power, then the appearance of doing right is very important.

If you've done no real wrong, and the choice is between keeping the Senate or not, then, of course, keep the Senate.