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..

[bybybill]

Oh stop it. Phil Gramm left the Senate to make money. Thats what he said and I am not so close to God to say he`s lying

[ApesForEvolution]

I wouldn't be surprised if he's crisp by this time tomorrow night. If it goes on much longer, we're *really* going to find out what skeletons in the closet truly means.

[bybybill]

How do we lose more if Lott stays? After what GWB said today, this isn`t going to cost him a single vote.

[ApesForEvolution]

You have a knack for insanity bordering on hilarity, I'll give you that...

[ApesForEvolution]

"Oh stop it. Phil Gramm left the Senate to make money."

If that's what the Lott says should he leave, would you believe him too? Gramm was fed up with the Lott as much as anything.

[Texasforever]

You have a knack for insanity bordering on hilarity, I'll give you that...

Please stop.

[ApesForEvolution]

"How do we lose more if Lott stays?"

Two words: Filibuster and Cloture.

New favorite RAT subject? The Vacant Lott.

[bybybill]

So you are saying that if Lott goes, Tiny Tom and the Rats won`t use filibusters and cloture? If you can get that in writting, I`ll help Trent pack his bags.

[bybybill]

Are you Phil Gramms brother? How do you know why he moved on? My BS detector is off the meter.

[AmishDude]

It is not possible to find a weaker majority leader than Lott.

[AmishDude]

You make very good points, let me deal with them.

A. Take away the Democrat's boogieman.

Lott isn't a bogeyman. Bush is. Ashcroft is. Democrats don't hate Lott (yet). They're gleeful at his predicament for what it will do for them. The more attention is drawn to this, the more sympathetic Lott is: no apology or explanation he gives is ever enough.

B. Give the Republican Party the moral high ground.

They already have it. It's, IMHO, too high. A mere comment by a Republican is sufficient for his ouster. If we never capitalize on this high ground, it's worthless.

C. Give the GOP a more competent Majority Leader who is not the poster child for the Foot in Mouth Disease Foundation.

This is true. For this reason and the fact that Lott is now compromised, he has to step down from the leadership within, say, 3 months. It's not a win, though, in any sense.

When Lott is forced out,
A. Democrats will demand he resign from the Senate itself. (After all, if he's not good enough for the leadership, why is he good enough for Senator?)
B. The bar for Republican behavior is set yet higher. Soon angels themselves will be unable to be elected Republicans.
C. Lott will still be something of a poster child for racism in the Republican party, even as just a Senator, but this time without the platform to defend himself. I should say, though, after the James Byrd dragging ad, Republicans should not worry about their words or actions being portrayed as racist. It will happen no matter what they do.

[SunStar]

Better go tell the bad news to your buddies at the DNC. I'm sure it will get them hyperventilating.

If you have nothing constructive to say, then go to hell.

[SunStar]

What should force his resignation from his leadership role would be if he gets into some kind of sharing arrangement with the Democrats.

He did that already. Then, the Rats screwed us by getting Jeffords to switch. Lott's time should have already ran up.

[Willie Green]

If you have nothing constructive to say, then go to hell.

I thought identifying a liberal RINO buttboy who won't stand up for conservative principles was very constructive.

[rwfromkansas]

I did hear about those instances and they obviously disturb me greatly.

But, I still am not convinced he was talking about segregation in the quote in question. His past history does not mean he definitely was doing so.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Does one have to say they are a bigot to be one? No, they only have to hold the views of a bigot. An alcoholic is an alcoholic whether they admit it or not.

Trent Lott, to my knowledge has never really repudiated his segregationist past. He said what he said soberly and with conviction-- just the same way his Dad probably said it.

[BenR2]

You have a good mind and a strong spirit and a love for liberty and an energetic love for debate. For all these I must salute thee. However, on this issue, you are a johnny-one-note, and are simply talking through me and past me -- without truly addressing the heart of my concern, which I have posted to you more than once: I am separating any disdain I may have for Lott's record as Majority/Minority/Majority Leader from my paramount concern that a Republican is being run from office by DemRat Libs with diehard Republicans like you cheering on the sidelines -- not for LOTT -- but for Daschle and Maxine Waters, etc. I don't get it -- and I really don't like it.

That said: Let us move on and agree to disagree on this one. You have eloquently stated your case; I have presented mine. Neither of us has persuaded in swaying the other to his own perspective.

See you on another thread, where we will no doubt match wits again -- or, who knows, perhaps even agree with one another on some issue.

FRegards.