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

[duckln]

Lotts latest statement was close to the mark and warrants serious discussion.

But, caving during the 'impeachment', and supporting the B52 woman pilot that raped a non com are two examples of going beyond the pale.

Someone just mentioned Sen. Frist, sounds viable at this point.

[ApesForEvolution]

What defines a Republican? Blind loyalty? That's insane. I vote Republican, to date, all the time. I'm to the right of the vast majority of the Republican Party. My interest is in the preservation of America and it's founding principles, not the Republican Party per say. When the two entities can help to further each other with America being the first priority, so much the better. You might not have called me a RAT, but you alligned yourself with twits that did and echoed similar remarks. Anyway, lets move on. You want us to forget that Lott is a dolt and detriment and I don't want him to lead this new Republican Majority in the Senate because Lott is all to capable, as evidenced by his past, of bending over for RATS and damning the Constitution for his own purposes. He too puts party over country, if you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, which to me is unacceptable. If he quits the Senate altogether after he's challenged and ousted as leader, then he's the fool times two.

[ApesForEvolution]

Very well stated. That's the type of closure we need, very, very soon on this.

[San Jacinto]

There was a newpaper article recently on the CFR suit. Both McConnell and McCain have had their depositions taken by the opposing lawyers. It was very personal as each Senator was asked about "favors" they had done for contributors, etc. McCain was asked about using a corporate jet in the 2000 campaign furnished by a company which had a bill pending in front of the committee McCain chaired, and that sort of stuff. I think these two must hate each other's guts.

[Inkie]

Sure. We should do what Dems do. Circle the wagons around their own, no matter how disgustingly they behave.

[Inkie]

Yeah, cuz his boss, Maxine Waters, read him the riot act.

[my right]

kind of new to this and I hope I'm not violating any posting rules or copywright laws.

©2002 Tribune Media Services

Contact Kathleen Parker

A whole Lott of trouble

Just as I always suspected. Senate Republican leader Trent Lott isn't a Republican at all, but is really a Democrat. How else to explain his remarks at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party that have made the Republican Party look like what it swears it isn't - racist?

All the way down in Thurmond's home state of South Carolina, you could hear the collective thud as Washington Republicans slammed their heads on their desks: "Oh, no, Trent, Trent, say it ain't so."

Lott's comments were part of a general Stromfest during which the eldest statesman was feted for outliving everyone, including himself. Lott said he was proud that his state of Mississippi, known in South Carolina as "Thank God for Mississippi" (translation: their SAT scores are even lower than ours), had supported Thurmond for president in 1948.

You'll recall that Thurmond, then governor of South Carolina, was running as the presidential nominee of the Dixiecrat Party against Democrat Harry Truman, a pro-civil-rights candidate, and Republican Thomas Dewey.

Dixiecrats, you'll also recall, were among other things pro-segregationist. Who can forget Thurmond's voice (I mean really) when he declared: "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

Finally, in 1948, you'll surely recall, blacks generally weren't allowed to vote in the deep South.

In the context of those facts, hear this from the new hero of the anti-right:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it." (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE) "And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either." (GASP) (SILENCE) (EAR-SHATTERING SOUND OF PINS DROPPING)

Hmmm, wonder which problems Herr Lott had in mind? That darned black vote? Those integrated public schools? Hip-hop? White flight? Black crime? The blind date that darkens the door of the white family room? (I'm just speculating here.)

Whatever he meant - and no one is rushing forth to explain - it was, er, spellbinding. Sort of like Yasser Arafat saying: "If only Hitler had survived, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years."

The only explanation offered from Lott's office at this writing came from spokesman Ron Bonjean in a short statement: "Senator Lott's remarks were intended to pay tribute to a remarkable man who led a remarkable life. To read anything more into these comments is wrong."

It is true that Thurmond is a remarkable man who has led a remarkable life. As a resident of South Carolina, I can attest to his popularity here regardless of past positions that are no longer popular or acceptable. Nearly everyone has a Strom story, usually about his being the first to call when a family member dies or a baby is born. His Dixiecrat, segregationist days are part of America's ugly past, and most South Carolinians are no more nostalgic for those times than are most New Yorkers or most Californians.

It's possible, as Lott's spokesman said, that the senator was merely paying tribute to Thurmond rather than eulogizing a segregated past. Surely even Lott isn't wistful for those times and the horrors played out to keep blacks from becoming full citizens?

But then you have to wonder why he said it. What was he thinking? What did Lott expect others to think when he invoked 1948, not exactly a banner year in America's trudge toward racial harmony, and a political platform that was racist by any other name?

One struggles for a plausible explanation. Granting Lott the benefit of the doubt - that he is not a knuckle-dragging racist blockhead - the most likely explanation is that Lott simply wasn't thinking at all. He didn't mean it. It was just a gaffe. On the other hand, as Michael Kinsley once noted, a gaffe is when a politician is honest.

No, no, I stick by my original theory. He's a Democrat, a plant programmed to say extraordinarily stupid things in order to burst the Republican Party's post-election bubble and provide the reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton a full deck of race cards to play until kingdom come. There can't be any other explanation.

Nobody's that dumb. Surely.



©2002 Tribune Media Services

Contact Kathleen Parker

[MissAmericanPie]

The only way Lott could be more of a liability is for him to switch parties, or be replaced by an even bigger democrat leg hugger. He may have made history as the worst Majority Leader ever to hold the position.

[aristeides]

Common Tator has pointed out on another thread that Lott would have another choice that would allow him to stay in the Senate and remain relevant. If he returned to the DemocRATs and brought one other senator along with him, he would continue to be a senator in the majority, and no doubt he would be rewarded with a juicy chairmanship.

He's not up for reelection until 2006, by the way.

[Gilbo_3]

"He's a liability we can't afford." I have wished that Lott be replaced as majority leader for a long time, but you don't seem to realize that for him to step down now, for this reason, is a no-win situation for the Republicans. If he resigns from the Senate, he will probably be replaced by a Dem and the Republicans will lose their Senate advantage. If he steps aside but keeps his seat, the Dems will still say that he taints the party and that the party is full of racists and racist-tolerators, which is exactly what they will say if he remains the majority leader. So there is no advantage to the Republicans for him to step aside. In my opinion, stepping aside would in fact be worse, because this would be interpreted by the Dems as saying, "Yes, I am a racist, and I have been a racist all along, and the racist Republicans made me their leader," whereas if he remains he can say "I was misunderstood, I am not a racist." And eventually this will go away.

If we follow this logic and wait for a new spineless move on his part, a new vote for ML could happen. Would be much more favorable than giving in to BS Dem prropaganda.

[Jorge]

I have wished that Lott be replaced as majority leader for a long time, but you don't seem to realize that for him to step down now, for this reason, is a no-win situation for the Republicans. If he resigns from the Senate, he will probably be replaced by a Dem and the Republicans will lose their Senate advantage.

Clearly there is no cause for him to resign from the Senate..not over a stupid statement like that. Others have kept their seats after committing far worse offenses.

If he steps aside but keeps his seat, the Dems will still say that he taints the party and that the party is full of racists and racist-tolerators, which is exactly what they will say if he remains the majority leader. So there is no advantage to the Republicans for him to step aside.

I disagree. The Dems who kept Torricelli on after his censor, who have an x-KKK member etc. etc, would look like nit-picking bitches and hypocrites for claim Lott's presense taints all Republicans. Especially if they try to carry this on after Lott is out of the spot-light as Majority Leader.
However if he stays on as Majority Leader, then they can continue to target him and the Republicans for keeping him as their Majority Leader. This option out of the question.

In my opinion, stepping aside would in fact be worse, because this would be interpreted by the Dems as saying, "Yes, I am a racist, and I have been a racist all along, and the racist Republicans made me their leader," whereas if he remains he can say "I was misunderstood, I am not a racist." And eventually this will go away.

I think it's too late for that. He's already apologized, and made it clear he wasn't just sorry people were offended, but that he was genuinely sorry for what he said. That it was wrong. He called his statement "terrible" etc.

He can't very easily now go back to claiming he was just misunderstood. (even though he tried that on Hannity today)

And I don't think there's a chance that it will "just go away". The Democrats won't let it. And as long as he is Majority Leader they will be able to keep it going.

[San Jacinto]

To acquiesce now would be a dangerous precedent for the Republicans, regardless of how you feel about Lott.

That does concern me. However, I think there are ways Lott could be replaced and the issue somewhat turned on the Dems, as I have previously posted.

Changing focus slightly, I wonder if someone simply ran against Lott and won-- say Don Nickles --could the 'Rats make a big deal out of that?

[Eric Esot]

1 vote for Kaye Bailey Hutchinson. Maybe we need a woman on top of the pile in the Senate for a change.

I second that nomination; during the whole ‘every vote needs to be counted’ I had a nice long chat with her and she sure has her head on straight and tight. She would be the last to withdraw.

[rmmcdaniell]

The GOP Senate will probably replace Trent with Strom as Senate Leader until next month's Leadership Election. Then they will vote for Jim Jeffords to replace Strom. If they don't do that, then they will probably do something really stupid.

Thank you for your content-free post

[thatdewd]

That'll play well with the Republican base (who will vote repub regardless), but the 'swing' voter block will just remember it as a confirmation of the allegations being made. "Why else would he have stepped down?" That's what they'll be told and that's what they'll remember 2 years from now. They won't remember the reasons given now as anything but excuses, and the press will play it so much even republicans will wonder. Long term, its better to beat down Gore and Jackson. They realise this is bigger than Lott. Why do you think so many dems are now pushing to get him removed when he's the best friend they've had? Think about it. They're willing to sacrifice having a Colonel Klink opponent like Lott because they see that his capitulation over this is far more valuable in their campaign against the whole party. Like I said, I want him gone too, and this certainly provides W with a strong enough reason to "have a talk" with him about stepping down later. I believe that W is sharp enough to realise the long term damage that would ensue from legitimizing Gore and Jackson and having him step down NOW. It has to be done later, for other reasons. This is bigger than whether or not we like Lott. This isn't about Lott, and the dems know it. It's about the Party and the battles that will be waged in 2004. If we legitimize their exaggerations, we will be cutting our own throats in the next election. We can use this to remove Lott, but it must be done quietly for other reasons, which means Later.

[The Irishman]

Just do the right thing for America, not just for self or just for the party.

I don't see it as being the "right thing for America" for a good man to be placed on a skewer and roasted for committing a thought crime, and least good is that the "conservatives" on this forum are participating in the "auto de fe".

I'll say this for the Democrats, at least they stand by their man. Lott's "thought crime" is nothing compared to Clinton's real crime and from this site, of all places, the worst of motives are imputed to him. Woe to any Pubbie who brings upon himself the scorn of the politically correct as you will have not friends here.

Regards.

[bybybill]

Ron Paul is in the House. He has never been in all leadership position.

[yoe]

Whoops! Sorry, however we still need his sort of determination and success!