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]

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

Doesn't that mean, if Lott's removal means Lott's resignation from the Senate, that you keep him the leader?

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Senator McConnell has stood by gun owners!

[xzins]

Absolutely. Control is more important than appearance.

However, if we can have both control and appearance, then I'd take that, too. Plus, I don't think Lott's been that effective a leader.

[princess leah]

THERE IS NO WAY LOTT needs to step down! There is way too little happening for this whole thing to be going on so long!

[xzins]

I don't want him to step down because of the Strom Thurmond deal, I want him to step down because he's basically ineffective.

However, control of the Senate is more important than my leadership preference. There is, though, no reason for him to resign just because he steps down as majority leader.

[Dave S]

Look at Lott's statement of apology. It does not contain the word "if".

Here is the quote. The "if" is implied. He doesnt say that what he said was wrong just that some may have gotten the wrong impression and been offended by it. He's saying that what he meant was just fine, but that some unthinking people may have misunderstood. He's blaming the victim. Well that dog wont hunt. Thurmonds reason for running as Dixie Crat in 48 was to promote his then segregationist views. Thurmond grew in office. Apparently Lott is trapped in his childhood.

A typical Clintonian "apology." Sort of reminds me of all the efforts Clinton made at apologizing to the country over Monica.He never could get the words out could he?

"A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embrace the discarded policies of the past. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."

[WoofDog123]

Good thing lott didn't use the ancient germanic-rooted word Niggard, niggardly

[Dave S]

if Lott's removal means Lott's resignation from the Senate, that you keep him the leader?

Why are you saying that voting in Frist or Nickles as Majority Leader means that Lott has to leave the Senate? One doesnt follow from the other? Nickles ran against Lott in 96. He didnt win and he didnt leave. Is Lott that much of an egotist that he would grab his marbles and leave. If so what a cry baby. Not the kind of person that's going to do much for the Republicans anyway.

BTW, his comments have already screwed up Bush being able to nominate conservative judges. Imagine some on the SCOTUS are really pissed. They cant retire w/o fear of being replaced by someone more liberal.

[pgkdan]

Tom DeLay, the HAMMER,

You suggest Delay, someone earlier suggested JC Watts..good grief! Delay is the House Majority Leader and JC Watts is an outgoing member of the House. How about suggesting a Senator to fill the job of Senate Majority Leader?

[Capt. Tom]

Senate Majority Leader is know as the first among equals. He has to be a senator. In the House, the Speaker does NOT have to be a sitting house member but I dont know of any case during my lifetime when the speaker hasnt been a House member.

Thanks for the info. Usually in a groups by-laws there is some wiggle room . Looks like the senate blocks outsiders,and the house doesn't. Thanks. - Tom

[aristeides]

There is a difference. "If" would suggest doubt about whether anyone was really offended. "Who" does not.

[aristeides]

Lott's leaving the Senate if he is removed from the leadership might not be a legal necessity, but I think it comes close to being a psychological one.

[WoofDog123]

I have been accused of some rather odd things as well on FR for not following the worship-line. Among the more colorful things one unbalanced individual said to me were that (1) Clinton was my "god" and then that (2) I had obviously voted libertarian; there are some individuals who are very quick to flame for the oddest reasons. I often wonder how many of them are drunk at the time of posting.

It is a shame, however, to see a senior republican have something innocuous he said interpreted maliciously in the worst possible of many contexts by the media and then that used as a club to take him down. His 1980 comments were in the context of current events like with Carter, Iran, inflation, canal treaties, etc, for goodness sakes!

[pgkdan]

If Lott steps aside over something as insignificant as this, then I hope he leaves the Senate altogether. May as well. He'll just go from a racist Majority Leader to a racist Senator from Mississippi, and will be dogged for the remainder of his time in the Senate

It's not often I can agree with every thing you post in a reply but this is an instance where we're singing from the same book. This entire issue is garbage. Is anyone ever going to stand up to these race pimps and make them back down??? Lott explained himself completely on Hannitty today...he apologized to every human beiong on the planet and that's that. If I were him I'd simply refuse to discuss it any longer.

[my right]

How about all of us that said three weeks ago that we wish that someone with more backbone and less political smarm would take over the senate leadership. We need a good gutter fighter but I do so hate to loose Lott in this manner. It's still hard to believe that he could do such a stupid thing.

[ApesForEvolution]

I have been accused of some rather odd things as well on FR for not following the worship-line. Among the more colorful things one unbalanced individual said to me were that (1) Clinton was my "god" and then that (2) I had obviously voted libertarian; there are some individuals who are very quick to flame for the oddest reasons. I often wonder how many of them are drunk at the time of posting.

Yeah, who knows. I'm learning more and more everyday whom the unstable/challenged ones are and choose to forgive them and move on. Life's too short and FR has brought a little fun back to politics and patriotism for me. Thanks for the comments.

It is a shame, however, to see a senior republican have something innocuous he said interpreted maliciously in the worst possible of many contexts by the media and then that used as a club to take him down. His 1980 comments were in the context of current events like with Carter, Iran, inflation, canal treaties, etc, for goodness sakes!

It obviously wasn't innocuous enough, in context with his previous assertion of same, along with the facts that he, being a southern (Mississippi), high profile politician, to rise above the appearance of impropriety. He had no political cache of support left in too many corners on the right to be spent on him. I personally believe the case can be easily made (and has been all over FR lately) that Duncehead is not worthy of leading a new, thriving GOP Senate Majority and doesn't deserve the opportunity to allow the conservative agenda to be co-mingled with RAT leadership again. Yes, I understand where you are coming from, but this is, IMO, the very best thing that could have happened and at the very most opportune time. Lott is, IMO, a GOP disaster waiting to happen and it appears he has taken himself out from his sheer obliviousness to what he says. This only happened because of what he says and how poorly he then handled it. And it doesn't sadden me one bit, because, again, IMO, he has drastically improved the opportunities for conservatives in the future. Lott's because problem is himself and his focus on himself. He has no balls to do the right thing, dam* the consequences. Just do the right thing for America, not just for self or just for the party.

[Flyover Country]

Bob Dole is just as big an appeaser and ass kissing of the Demodrats as anyone ever was. Get someone in there who will not cave to the Democrats and no power sharing this time.

[montag813]

PAGING DR. FRIST...

Emergency surgery required on the GOP.

Only Bill Frist can lead us to victory.

[San Jacinto]

"...the gains from 'victim' status would be offset by the appearance of weakness...

I think that is one way of stating the issue which must be finessed. True if the R's appear weak and apt to cave, it does embolden and strengthen the 'Rats. However, Lott's thick headedness has put us in that box. We can see how this plays over the next few days, but right now it looks like the longer Lott delays falling on his sword the more bilge we will take on.

Remember, the people want strong leaders BUT they are also all gaga over this "getting along" crapola.so here's what we do-- Heatedly point out the Dems are "playing politics" "Everyone knows that Trent is no more a racist that Senator Byrd or Hillary Clinton or anyone who has used a regretful phrase from time to time" BUT because the Dems play politics with this "vital issue", Trent is stepping down so that the Nation will not be distracted during these times of crisis..."We must devote full attention to the war on terror and fixing the economy"...We call upon the 'Rats to stop these diversionary games and get to work on the real issues in a bi-partisan way with our new Majority Leader Senator Nichols?...Santorum?....Frist?....Hutchinson?

Of course, this presumes old Trench-mouth Lott is man enough or smart enough to go along.

[Flyover Country]

It think it can be pretty well said that most do not like Lott as Majority leader. That being said, I don't care how it happens, but he needs to go and let someone with a "pair" be the leader. I was not looking forward to another stint of Lott as leader of the Republicans and possibly have another fiasco like the last time he was in charge. Like when he stabbed us in the back during the House Impeachment proceedings (would not let any of the House Mangers have a shot at Impeaching Clinton. Begone with him!