Sean Hannity is gonna hang himself with this Lott issue.

Sean Hannity's Website ^

[VaBthang4]

Hannity.com Frontpage:

"Saying he used "a poor choice of words," Trent Lott spoke with Sean on the newsmakers phoneline at length on December 11th in an exclusive interview. This follows a firestorm of criticism by Liberals and Conservatives alike in reaction to comments made by Lott at Sen Strom Thurman's 100th birthday party."

[RAT Patrol]

I doubt Rush and Hannity want to keep Lott in power as much as they know an injustice when they see one, and they're in the business of talking about it.

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

I saw the original remarks that Lott made at Strom's B'day party on C-SPAN. I realized there and then that they were stupid even made in the context of the party.

It is undeniable that Lott is not the only senator or politician who has made questionable remarks. The point is that Lott's remarks were stupid. I think that the Pubbies could get a better leader than Lott.

Lott should go not because he's a racist. He should be replaced because he is stupid. We don't want a stupid person in a compromised position when we have an opportunity to make some progress.

[RAT Patrol]

In my mind there is only one group's voice that matters on this issue and that is the voice of black conservatives. Let them decide Lott's fate.

[Tempest]

I agree.

[aristeides]

KKK Byrd is currently president pro tem of the Senate, fourth in the line of presidential succession.

[sinkspur]

I don't understand why Rush and Hannity want to keep Lott in power.

They're tired of Republicans CONSTANTLY bending over and taking it up the wazzoo from the likes of Castro-lover Maxine Waters.

The Democrats see a way to get the Senate back, and they have found a way to do it.

And, there are lots of Republicans (on this board, and elsewhere) who are keeping the fire going.

[krodriguesdc]

I disagree - Lott should stay - as much as I think The Repubs would be better off with a less compromising MW, especially now that we control the Senate and House and WH, Lott should stay because the dems will make asses out themselves over this issue and they will ultimately pay for it at the voters booth as they turn people off with their constant hypocrisy...

I just hope Lott has learned his lesson about compromise with these demo-turkeys!

[tomswiftjr]

Reminds me about the Dr. Suess book, Marvin K. Mooney (a thinly veiled roman a clef about Nixon - published in 1972):

"The time has come. The time is now. Just go. Go. GO! I don't care how."
"You can go on stilts. You can go by fish. You can go in a Crunk-Car if you wish."

He's only dragging us down. Larry Craig will be the only singing senator left!

[Cobra64]

Sean never shuts up. He's like a flippin' bull dog. He never let's go and move on.

[b4its2late]

Lott is screwed if he doesn't and screwed if he does.

IMHO, He's (and we are) better off staying in power and thumbing his nose at the dems. You let them get away with forcing someone out like this, and they won't stop. He should stay until Republican Senators and the President want him to go.

[KC_Conspirator]

Its the hypocrisy of it all that gets me angrier than the devil. To this day the New York Times has yet to mention a SINGLE WORD about Robert Byrds blatant racial slur of last year or Bill Klinton's speech about his segregationist mentor, yet Bob Hebert just wrote a smear job on all Republicans as rasicsts.

[spectre]

Bump!

[Ohioan]

I do not think that the issue is wanting to keep Lott in power. He has, indeed, been wishy-washy on some issues. It is not enough to be in your heart a Conservative. All that is a given.

But to appear to be purging Lott from power because of a perfectly harmless statement of his historic views--his preferences with respect to an election 54 years ago--is to give encouragement to the worst brand of Leftist demagoguery, while appearing to be sending a message to many Conservatives who, like Lott, sincerely admire and respect Strom Thurmond's lifetime of dedication to the American tradition, that they have no place in the Republican party. This is both immoral and potentially suicidal.

Note, that almost all of the hue and cry over this comes from people who either are committed verbal warriors on the Left, or from self-styled "Conservatives" and moderates, who are so self-conscious that they appear willing to appease any militant Leftwing group, that employs name calling techniques, lest those would be appeasers get tarred under the same umbrella. It is just plain silly to suppose that the broad mainstream of the American public will really see it an important issue, what someone believes about a 54 year old historic event (over 13 Presidential elections ago)!

The strategists of the Left have been more and more picking out historic issues, to try to create dissension in Conservative ranks. Just as there are issues on which the Left is very vulnerable--some of the ethnic and class jealousies within their ranks, for example, as well as the clash of petty ambitions and prima donna mindsets;--so Conservatives, who being Conservative are very prone to strong historic opinions, are vulnerable to ascerbations of old arguments.

We see this from time to time, on threads dealing with issues of the 1860s. The attacks on the Confederate flag by the American Left over the past three or four years, are a deliberate attempt to divide the Conservative base. The answer, of course, is not to abandon those old nostalgic issues which attract us. It is to keep them in perspective. Those old differences are never a reason not to work with people who are likeminded on the issues of the present. That is the crux of the matter. That is where we need to keep our primary focus.

So those who want to express their disagreement with Lott over Thurmond should be free to do so. But if they care about a united Conservative approach to the present, they should speak softly, proportionately. And those of us who agree with Lott's statement should respond softly, proportionately.

One other thing, that should be kept in mind. Thurmond was justly honored--think what you will about his 3rd party run in 1948. It was Strom Thurmond, more than any other Senator, who kept Richard Nixon to his promise--the price of Southern Conservative support--to start appointing Conservatives who believed in strict consrtuction to the Federal Bench. He has kept up that pressure on Republican office holders, ever since. George Bush would not be President, if five Justices sitting on the Supreme Court because of that Thurmond pressure, had not been in place in Deccember, 2000.

We can debate each other. But we ought not to devour our own. Not over some silly, contrived issue like this.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site.

[isthisnickcool]

Sean Hannity is gonna hang himself with this Lott issue.

By using the term "hang" you are implying that you agree with lynching. Which is, of course, RACIST. Because of your obviously RACIST leanings you should have to resign from Free Republic or be kicked off. /sarcasm off

[dirtboy]

Republicans are held to a higher standard and we're getting VERY tired of it.

I don't get tired of it. I'd rather belong to a club that has a higher moral price of admission any day of the week.

[dirtboy]

Who do you think Dubya is going to anoint majority leader? McCain?

Hardly. But I would imagine a Majority Leader with some stones would be able to keep McCain on a much shorter leash.

[Cousin Eddie]

I agree that the left's moral hypocrisy is maddening. But we shouldn't practice it by getting into semantic or reletive degrees arguments.

If we're going to hold true to our ideals, Lott should step down from the leadership post (but not the senate).

Livingston stepped down when word came out that he cheated on his wife...it was the right thing to do. Clinton obviously didn't do the right thing.

Lott has repeatedly said this stupid thing and he therefore has lost the moral authority to lead. Who cares what Byrd said or what the Kennedy's did to MLK? If we follow that path, we follow the same path of the dems who wanted to investigate the sexual history of every Republican in Congress.

[dirtboy]

The Democrats see a way to get the Senate back, and they have found a way to do it.

And how is this going to return the Senate to the Dems, sink? The biggest threat to GOP control of the Senate would be for the GOP to defend Lott at any price, thereby handing the Dems a golden hammer to beat the GOP with in 2004...

[VaBthang4]

I disagree...

If Lott were to remain the Leader of the Senate then everytime there is a signing ceremony, everytime their is a press conference requiring Conservative Senate leadership, everytime a microphone is stuck in Trent Lott's face, regardless of the subject matter...the underlying vibe will be "That is the idiot closet racist".

True or not doesnt matter in the Political realm.

And I have no doubts that he will be on camera. Lott doesnt know how to shut up. His hubris and insulated loop of friends and associates causes him to think he is right in what he does. After we won back the Senate...the overall thought process was "dont gloat". Lott was on three different news shows the next morning. And the day after that he was on two others that I am aware of. Some might offer that because he is the ranking Conservative Senator he should've been on TV. I completely disagree...and I'd bet cash money that The President's Political consultants would agree with me.

His job is to be in his office getting work done, not running his mouth getting face time with the networks [which by the way are ever salivating and lying in wait with loaded questions]. Lott isnt smart enough to spin the Liberal questions back at reporters so he just comes off ducking his interviewers with obvious non-committal political double-talk.

Lott is not the face we want on our products and unless he is removed from the leadership position...he will be.