Posted on 12/12/2002 9:05:40 PM PST by Pokey78
Edited on 04/23/2004 12:05:04 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
What Lott told us last week, and what he should do now.
People approach the Trent Lott story in political terms. Does it hurt the Republican Party? Do the Democrats get more out of the scandal if they successfully campaign for Mr. Lott's departure, or do they gain more if he continues as GOP leader, functioning as a handy daily symbol of the racism that resides in the secret heart of all conservatives? What did President Bush's comments mean? And by the way, why isn't the New York Times flooding the zone?
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
The Democratic governor of Mississippi will undoubtedly replace Trent with a Democrat.
Knowing whether Lott would stay in the Senate or not if he could not be Majority Leader is not a matter of "brains". It is a matter of having more inside knowledge of the personality of this man than somebody else may have.
If what you are saying is true, then think about what this means.
It means that we are dealing with a man that is so self-centered that he would put his ego above what is best for his country.
If that is the case, and you may be right, then Trent Lott is a man with as little integrity as William Jefferson Clinton and is therefore a man that should never have been elected as the GOP Majority Leader.
In such a scenario, it would be pretty hard to be an effective lobbyist on Capitol Hill when the Democrats consider you a David Duke and the Republicans consider you a Benedict Arnold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.