Senate Source Threatens Vote of Confidence/No Confidence Unless Lott Racial Firestorm Stops

Politics makes strange bedfellows. It is sort of sink or swim "together". No one in their right mind would not say that Lott has never been good at his job as leader.

I'm perfectly sane and I will flatly tell you that Lott has NEVER been good at his job as leader. In 1996 I couldn't wait to get rid of Dole and promote Lott as leader because I thought Lott would act similar to Speaker Gingrich. Remarkably, Lott has been far worse as leader than Viagra Bob. At least Dole compromised on issues to promote his presidential nomination/coronation. I can't figure out why Lott gives away everything he does to the Demoncrats.

The senators that voted him in are the ones to blame, it is their job to take him out, not Bushs, not the media. I rather doubt if Bush would like to be blindsided in public by any senator, such as he did to Lott.

Well, I agree in part. Yes, the GOP Senate caucus is to blame for re-electing Trent last month (although I noticed Lott held the Maj Leader election before new senators Sununu, Alexander, Dole, Graham, Coleman, Cornyn, Chambliss, Ehrlich & Talent arrived). Since Lott has no discernible legislative agenda of his own and President Bush has a full agenda (which Lott has previously dragged his feet on) he would like to see passed in a GOP controlled Congress, Lott's continued "leadership" should be fair game. President Bush is acting appropiately in his subtle urging for Lott to step down or for the GOP caucus to remove him.

Can you imagine, in 04, if Lott were to denounce Bush in such a manner? Surely no one believes that Bush has endeared himself to Lott and quite possibly a few others.

That's pretty funny. A popular sitting President having to endear himself to some snotty, prep boy Senator from a pissant state like Mississippi in order to gain re-election.

I thought Bush made a terrible mistake in his manner of addressing the issue. Perhaps whoever wrote the speech must have since gotten a notice to never do it again.

Terrible mistake? it was, quite possibly, the most eloquent statement ever made by a politician in an attempt to retrieve the party's dignity and redirect media focus squarely back upon the boob who caused the controversey. The guy who wrote the speech deserves a medal, a raise and a promotion.

All of this swirl of politics is about power, not Lott, it never was, he is just the venue. The democrats and media play hardball, if the republicans are willing to help them to regain power by destroying their own, they welcome all the aid Bush in his rightrous indignation will provide.

Yes, it is about power. Lott has harmed the GOP's ability to exercise the power of controlling all 3 branches of federal government. And if Lott stays as leader he will continue to harm and disrupt the GOP's power.

Lott can stay on the back bench of the Senate, but he needs to be removed as the media focal point of Congress.

He spoke favorably of Thurmond carrying Mississippi DECADES AFTER Thurmond recanted his segregationist views. Good grief, he wasn't endorsing segregation. He was endorsing the type of man Strom Thurmond became.

On the pro-life issue, not many people know this, but former governor Hugh Carey of New York became a pro-lifer after leaving office. If a pro-lifer went up to him at a pro-life rally, or at his birthday tribute, and after hearing him speak said that as a New Yorker they were proud to have once elected him, I would assume logically they were talking about the current Hugh Carey. Not the former pro-abort Hugh Carey.

For heaven's sake, Thurmond gave a fiery speech for Ronald Reagan in 1980, Lott said he was glad Mississippi voted for him, and everyone assumes he was endorsing segregation, even though Thurmond repudiated segregation years earlier. Ditto for the birthday party remarks.

Actually, I hadn't thought about the Hillary analogy, but now that you bring it up, it does fit. But not in the way you think. Lott's critics seem to see a conspiracy when there is none. As if Lott's part of some segregationist conspiracy, along with Strom Thurmond, and I suppose every other right-of-center Republican in the country. Ooooooh, we found out Lott supported segregation in Mississippi back in 1961. Oooooooh, and look at what I just found out....he praised a 100 year old man who was once a segregationist. Therefore, he must now be a segregationist and a racist, even though he's never even had the nerve to stand up and fight against affirmative action programs out of fear of the professional race pimps like Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus.

This whole thing is nothing but a professional race baiter witch hunt scam being run by the 'rats and the professional race pimps like Sharpton and Jackson. They took an innocent comment by Lott and made it into something sinister, knowing that once they played the race card, about half the Republicans on message boards and most of the Republicans in Washington would tuck tail and run. They knew Lott would apologize like a wimp, allowing them to announce that the apology "proves" he's a racist. Now, all they have to do is decide what they want. Should he be booted out, thus proving the 'Rats and the racist Congressional Black Caucus can dictate who we have as a leader? Or should they let him stay in return for payoffs to their constituencies?

After all, thanks to wimpish Republicans, including Lott and a lot of Freepers, it's likely be their call, not ours.

After all, thanks to wimpish Republicans, including Lott and a lot of Freepers, it's likely be their call, not ours.

Oh, puh-leeze. First of all, there is a very good reason why many conservatives are not rallying to help Lott save his toupee - he really hasn't given us a good reason to do that. "Gee, let's expend a tremendous amount of political capital and risk getting the GOP branded as racist - so we can keep Trent Lott as Majority Leader and he can continue his tireless efforts to dilute the conservative agenda by continually kowtowing to the Dems."

But beyond that, Strom's repudiation of segregation is secondary here. Lott put the election of 1948 clearly into the context of LOTT'S own opinions. What Lott meant is not clear. Whether Lott is a racist or not is also not clear. But he seems incapable of learning how to stay out of these minefields, and he has shown little leadership or desire to promote the conservative agenda. Both are symptoms of bad judgement. You may think we're allowing Jesse and Al to have their way. The point is, if Lott does resign as MJ and a pubbie with stones takes his place, the joke will be on the other side - hence the efforts of Daschle and Jeffords to help Lott out. Daschle knows what a tough MJ would mean to the Dems, and Jeffords is trying to avoid having the Capitol mop closet as his office.

I believe most are concerned that if he steps down as Majority Leader he will then feel it necessary to quit the senate altogether.

How many of you want to get rid of Lott so bad that you're willing to give up control of the Senate to do so?

What needs to happen:

Lott needs to say that he can understand how what he said could be misinterpreted as a racists comment, but it was only meant as a complement to the accomplishments of Sen. Strom.

He needs to denounce racism and segregation and confirm that they have no place in his heart or the Republican party.

He then should conceed to a vote of confidence/no confidence to be held in January by his fellow Republican Senators.

That would get the emotion out of it. If the pubbies really want him out, they can do it then and have it be the party keeping its own house.

How many of you want to get rid of Lott so bad that you're willing to give up control of the Senate to do so?

I don't think it will go that far.

He then should conceed to a vote of confidence/no confidence to be held in January by his fellow Republican Senators.

The problem is, this forces 49 Republic Senators to become part of this debate and possibly get singed by something that so far is mostly limited to Trent Lott. I think it would be better for Lott to do what you said as far as apologizing and in no uncertain terms denounce racism and segregation - but then say, in the interests of all concerned, he is stepping down as Majority Leader so the country can put this all behind them. That would keep the rest of the GOP senators from getting sucked into this mess. That would get the emotion out of it. If the pubbies really want him out, they can do it then and have it be the party keeping its own house.

I assume you've seen the tape. When Lott joked about Mississippi supporting Strom..everyone in the rotunda laughed....when he continued with the now infamous comments...there was dead silence....not ONE laugh....everyone in the room knew it was a big mistake, instantly.....everyone that is, except Lott......his political antenna weren't plugged in, obviously......he needs to go..

So you think Lott advocated lynching blacks by praising Thurmond? Thurmond was wrong to support that platform, and he later abandoned those views.

Yes, Thurmond was a segregationist back in '48. Nearly every southern governor, congressman, and senator back then opposed every piece of civil rights legislation. One of those was a bill to make lynching a federal crime. Southerners opposed it, as they did all such laws, fearing that any imposition on the south would snowball into full-fledged integration. They were very much like the pro-aborts today who oppose banning late term abortions fearing it will lead to more restrictions down the road.

They were wrong to support segregation, and it led to some real extremism. Ditto for today's pro-aborts.

Go back and take a look at that Dixiecrat ballot again. You'll see the name of a congressman named Whitten. He served a long tenure in congress, from 1941 to 1995. He was a white supremacist, a segregationist, and an opponent of the anti-lynch bill. Like Thurmond, he later recanted those views. He also became chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee courtesy of the Democrats, all of whom lauded him at his retirement ceremony eight years ago.

http://www.djournal.com/djournal/site/pages/specialsections/125/whitten.htm Changed:11:25 AM on Thursday, June 3, 1999

So you think Lott advocated lynching blacks by praising Thurmond?

He said NO such thing. Hint - it's a lot easier to put words into people's mouths if you use a shoehorn...

I agree with you that Lott's been a poor Republican leader, and I'm sure a lot of the demands that he step down are coming from Republicans who see this as a convenient way to do it.

I don't think he's a racist. He was just saying something nice to make old Strom happy.

I just think we have to stop backing down every time the 'rat smear operation gets into high gear. I remeber when I first heard the allegations against Clarence Thomas, my first thoughts were that he was doomed and would withdraw his nomination.

But luckily I was wrong. Never having met the man, nor having read much about him, I didn't realize what a courageous man he was. By vowing to fight back, he forced the 'rat bullies to back down (many acted frightened of him when he stood up to them). He also forced normally spineless Republicans like Hatch and Danforth to grow a backbone, and the result was a sweet victory.

If we always stood up to 'rat bullying like that, these smears would stop.

That argument seems strange coming from someone taking the position you've taken on Lott's birthday party remarks. The whole premise of the attack on Lott is that he was endorsing the Dixicrat platform by saying he was proud Mississippi voted for Thurmond.

Look, he said what he said, and you can rationalize it all you want. It won't change what he said nor will it change the fact that it was a seriously stupid thing to say, not to mention offensive. Yes, I said the "O" word. Sue me.

Not gonna sue you....you're entitled to your opinion. I've stated mine as well, and it's here for all to read. That's what message boards are for!

Bob...

Lott...As the ultimate punishment for Lott, I think the others should take away his executives restroom key. That would be the end to end all of punishment.

Politics being an art and not a science there are many vagaries from day to day due to the human nature factor. One days worth of the media, democrats and Bush piling on Lott may well look as a shining example of moral, pure,and just, political fervor, one that will cleanse the party of such a sinful person.

After the tent is down, the firebrand minister departed and the trash taken away, has there really been a permanent and lasting benefit for the republican party and its future? There is always a plus and a minus for someone in any political bloodletting. Lott was expendable years ago. Bush used a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel to rid the senate and party of a boil and I fear the party will have a price to pay in the future.

I'm with Sideshow Bob and dirtboy 100%. Lott's wounds were self inflicted; Bush did what he had to do. Undoubtedly he will do more if Lott can't take the hint or pull himself out of his self-dug hole. So far all Lott has accomplished in his normal, ham-handed manner is to make the hole deeper while simultaneously pulling the rest of us in on top of him.

Should we defend Lott the way the Dems defended Clinton? Just because he's "our guy"? -- So how are we better than them? It's not even good politics, look how Clinton and various scandals robbed the Dems of their 40 year stranglehold on the Congress. What really killed them was not the scandals, but the way in which they reacted to them. They showed themselves to be completely out of touch. Lott has the same problem.

The purpose of a Senate majority leader is to advance an agenda. Lott has showed himself to be singularly ineffective in this area -- and that was before this incident. Worse, he has a propensity for doing exactly the wrong thing, again and again. If he had a history of success, AND if this were not the latest in a long string of "DOH! Stupid Brain!" moments, then he might be worth trying to save. As it is, he should withdraw from his current posistion and pursue a committee chairmanship instead (like Robert Byrd before him).

Lott's second mistake was apologizing for a misconstrued statement.

To say that Lott's statement was "misconstrued" is not correct. Misconstrued means the listener is at fault - that someone who listened more carefully to what was said would understand the true meaning of what was meant.

This, sadly, is not the case. The fault is not that of the listener in his poor listening, but in the speaker in his poor speaking. Lott's statement was not misconstrued, it was misconstructed. Maybe Lott wanted to say that he likes Strom Thurmond, the man before him today, with the values and the beliefs that he has today, and that this man would have made a good president and prevented many of the problems we have. But he didn't come close to saying that.

Lott constructed his praise of Strom in such a way, that one could only construe the worst. And surely, this was not done because Lott meant it, but because he was so caught up in just saying anything nice to Strom that he didn't pause a moment before speaking to think about what would be meant by his words, given their historical context.

These comments are not proof of Lott being a racist today, but they are proof of him being profoundly stupid. And the GOP doesn't want stupid leaders. After all, we're not Democrats.

bump

"...to me it's become pretty much impossible not to conclude that Lott really is a racist."

Well, yes. He probably is. But in benign way, not in a way that deserves pilloring.

His "racism" might be best defined as that "soft bigotry of lower expectations", a term that President Bush used to characterize the direction of his education policy.

In that sense, it isn't functionally different from the bigotry shown by "sophisticated, well-educated urban folk" for "blue collar workers" or "rural bumpkins". It's a distorted view born of stereotype, generally ill-considered and inaccurate.

Not to mention mildly offensive.

But it isn't anything to expend any emotion or action upon. If anything, the burden lies with the biased -- not his target.

The Democrats and the media are thus wildly overplaying the regrettably stupid slip of the tongue. It's as if they themselves don't suffer from the same kind of "soft bigotry" -- toward conservatives, "rednecks", "manual laborers" and blacks!

Lott's mouth, though, has been an ongoing source of embarrassment to the party. This time, he really stepped in it. And, left in a position of leadership, he will doubtless do it again.

Parading his "soft bigotry" in public, with the cameras rolling, was an incredibly idiotic event. It's not his "racism" that is a problem (except for him), it is his IQ. And that affects the Senate, the party and the country. Anybody who makes these kinds of mistakes is simply not fit for a leadership position.

Lott needs to be taken out of the game and led to the sidelines. Not because he's a "racist", in the true meaning of the term, but because he's not equipped for the job he occupies.

As the ultimate punishment for Lott, I think the others should take away his executives restroom key. That would be the end to end all of punishment.
Politics being an art and not a science there are many vagaries from day to day due to the human nature factor. One days worth of the media, democrats and Bush piling on Lott may well look as a shining example of moral, pure,and just, political fervor, one that will cleanse the party of such a sinful person.

After the tent is down, the firebrand minister departed and the trash taken away, has there really been a permanent and lasting benefit for the republican party and its future? There is always a plus and a minus for someone in any political bloodletting. Lott was expendable years ago. Bush used a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel to rid the senate and party of a boil and I fear the party will have a price to pay in the future.

***

Sinful person? Firebrand minister? Political bloodletting?

What the hell are you talking about? Your attempted metaphors and analogies are a jumbled mess of jibberish.

Please read the following more slowly for better comprehension or perhaps find an adult to read it to you.

While many have their doubts about whether or not Lott is a racist, the main thrust of most FReeper's desire for Lott to step down is that Lott's comments were stupid. A seasoned politician should know better, especially a politician who is the media's focal point of the congressional GOP.

We're not saying Lott is evil and needs to be cleansed. We're saying Lott is/was dumb and his continued presence in leadership is harmful to the party and the President's legislative agenda.

I think the back bench is a *fine* place for Lott.

I agree.

You forget that Lott was a segrehationist forty years ago when that meant people who associated with people who lynched blacks. I still remember walking by a store in East Texas where a bunch of kids from a neighboring town drove past firing a .22 at blacks kids dancing inside. One kid was struck in the head and died. Vivid in my memory is walking past the next day and seeing the bloodstain on the floor. THAT is the reality of segregation: stupid hated and bloodshed, not mere words.