White House Says Senator Trent Lott 'Should Not' Resign

CNN ^ | December, 12, 2002 | Wolf Blitzer

[ewing]

Wolf Blitzer said word has come down from the White House that Trent Lott should not resign as Senate Majority Leader and that his apologies are good enough.

Nothing on what the Republican National Committee might say tomorrow..

[Wait4Truth]

I think Lott needs to step down as Majority Leader but not from the Senate. This is not the first time he has made comments such as these, as you have noted. There is a hill of evidence at this point which may become a mountain soon. I applaud what the President said today. Lott's "apologies" have been by radio call-in. He has not even had the guts to come out and face people. From the day George W. Bush was elected governor of Texas, he has been reaching out to all people, including minorities. Why should he allow this thoughtless wimp to destroy what he has worked so hard to build in the Republican Party? Lott cannot get the President's agenda through now and will absolutely not be able to help get conservative judicial nominees to confirmation. He screwed up, he waited days to apologize and when he did, he did it by radio instead of in person. He is useless now. We need and deserve a better Majority Leader. That's my humble opinion.

[bdeaner]

"If I am going to be branded a "racist" merely because of my party affiliation, why should I NOT support Lott and his attempts to fight the same, old, unfair and unwarranted accusations."

The way I see it, friend, there's no reason to be bitter. Let them call us racists, but let us BE upstanding citizens who fight for the American dream for ALL people -- and against the welfare slavery of the Democrap political machine. Have faith that the truth will win in the end. Let's have hope that if we DO the right thing, then the truth will prevail. Otherwise, we are no better than them.

[bdeaner]

"Instead of denouncing Mr. Lott, Americans ought to think hard about the important and unsettling truth he accidentally uttered."

You've got to be kidding.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Lott should have had a speech on Saturday night or Sunday morning talking about the seriousness of what he said. He should have talked about how that he knows all the details of segregation-- all the history of it and that he never meant to say what he said.

He hasn't shown that he understands the gravity of what he said. He hasn't addressed saying the same thing in 1980 and the rest of the issues.

[pfflier]

I don't like Lott, he weaseled out of his responsibility to nail Clintoon.

That being said, what is this tempest all about? That he mentioned an historical fact? Times have changed regardless of the "racist" drumbeating. What was normal then is reprehensible in current context which will probably again change in moral context in another 50 years.

The point is that he is an improved man over time, he has learned from and renounced his mistake.

Tell me please-oh-please, that even approached a President molesting an 18 YO intern.

[DoughtyOne]

I read a thread title a little while ago that stated Bush has said Lott should NOT resign. I agree with him. I'm not saying your comments are without reason, but I do not come to the same conclusion as you.

Face it, the Democrats are not going to play by decent rules. If we do in total, they'll simply walk all over us. Do I like feeling compelled to operate by those rules. No. I don't like it at all.

I have never been a fan of Lott. I do think he's dense. I do not think he is a racist. If I thought Lott was a racist, I'd be for dumping his arse outright. Can I explain his reasoning? No. I certainly think there's more to it than we have heard so far.

If Lott goes, the Dems will simply out the next Republican and the next and the next. How you you like to see a scenario play out that sees Lott resign, then his replacement is revealed to have done something, then the next person is shown to have done something. If you think it looks bad to tough it out with Lott, that would be exponentially worse.

We need to wait until the stakes aren't as high, then quietly move Lott to lesser positions until he retires in the next year or two.

I am sympathetic to your reasoning, but I do think there are extenuating circumstances that require measure that wouldn't normally be tollerated.

Thanks for your comments. I will not state categoricly that you are conclusively wrong.

[Edmund Burke]

Wasn't McLame himself censured by the Senate for his role in the Keating S&L affair?

[Edmund Burke]

Perhaps it will happen in a few weeks during the height of the Iraq war.

[John Lenin]

Quit acting like a bunch of Liberals. Let Lott decide his own fate.

How does it feel to be on the same side as Maxine Waters ?

[Political Junkie Too]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Which wrongs are you referring to, Byrd's KKK past or Democrat hypocrisy by ignoring it while feigning outrage over Lott?

-PJ

[ewing]

How does it feel to be supporting Trent Lott acting like Bill Clinton?

[Political Junkie Too]

If Lott is the new Evil Incarnate, then he should resign the Senate and throw it back to the 'Rats. That way, "we" Pubbies can keep the moral high ground. Of course, we don't want that, so Lott's comments are really OK, as long as we keep the Senate.

Or, it's simply time to draw a line in the sand and put an end to the race-baiting that elevates tangential slights like Lott's while ignoring more egregious examples like awarding Presidential Medals of Freedom to segregationists or uttering racial epithets on national TV solely for short-term political gain.

-PJ

[Orion]

Agreed. I was just trying to point out all the sanctamonious hand-wringing by Pubbies is wearing a little thin.

We want to use Lott to show the world we are not racist, but don't want to lose the Senate.

If he is so bad, ask him to leave the Senate. If not, give it a rest.

[John Lenin]

Dump the holier-than-thou attitude. No one is perfect.

[Polybius]

Say what you want, if Lott steps down now, it's a surrender. Nobody wins except the NAACP fundraisers.

What exactly would they "win"?

Lott has not been a stellar leader. Making him step down as Majority Leader would:
A. Take away the Democrat's boogieman.
B. Give the Republican Party the moral high ground.
C. Give the GOP a more competent Majority Leader who is not the poster child for the Foot in Mouth Disease Foundation.

The GOP will "win" and the Democrats will "lose" if Lott is demoted to ordinary Senator.

[bdeaner]

Thanks for your willingness to listen to a different perspective. I can see where you are coming from. From a certain perspective, it seems that jumping on Lott right now plays into the hands of the RATS. And, in the short run, it does. The way I see it, though, that's the breaks. I think we should stand for our principles and let the politics follow from there. I think what Dubya said today in his Philadelphia speech was not about political posturing, but about principle.

Whether or not Lott should step down as majority leader is a tough call. I did read that the WH made a statement that Lott should not resign-- then again, didn't the WH make a similar statment about O'Neill before he was canned?

Regardless, I think your main point is that Lott stepping down would invite the RATS to keep sniping at Republicans. Sure, they will keep sniping. And, you know, that's their nature. They'd be dishing it out still even if this Lott thing hadn't happened. And we'll keep dishing it out, too. But sometimes even their criticisms are right. I think Lott's statements transcend party lines, and it is not just Democrap political posturing going on here. I think the Dems just jumped on an opportunity of a lifetime, because Lott handed them his nuts on a silver platter. Can you blame them?

The question is, do you really think this is going to stick to every Republican they try to snipe, just because Lott steps down as majority leader? I don't think so, because most of the time Democrap whining is unjustified, annoying and just plain wrong. And the American people know better. I think they also know an insensitive and repulsive statement when they hear one. And if, for political reasons, we don't take a stand against it, even if against one of our own, then what happens to the credibility of the Republican party? What then? That's what concerns me. So, I applaud Dubya's speech, and I expect that behind the scenes, there is increasing pressure on Lott to step down.

[bdeaner]

I'm saying that Democrat hypocrisy should not be justification for Republican hypocrisy. Let the Dems be hypocrits, and let us stand for principles. Lott's comments were wrong.

[Political Junkie Too]

Lott's comments were wrong, but I don't believe that they rise to the level of resignation. The evidence is in the precedence. The Senate is so steep in tradition -- they weren't willing to oust a racketeer, they weren't willing to oust a manslaughterer, they weren't willing to oust a Klansman who uttered racial epithets (oh, but OJ goes free because a cop said one once or twice or more), but they want to oust someone who made a tangential reference to segregation in the 1940's -- an utterance that others made practically verbatum? I was never a fan of Lott's leadership, either, but I know a shakedown when I see one.

-PJ

[Texasforever]

I'm saying that Democrat hypocrisy should not be justification for Republican hypocrisy.

How many more GOP leaders do we throw to the racial, feminist, or gay wolves before we establish this "moral high ground" ?

[bdeaner]

Nobody is throwing Lott to the wolves. He threw himself to the wolves. I'm just saying it would be stupid to go in after him.