Posted on 12/13/2002 7:40:55 AM PST by ewing
Senator Charles Hagle (R-Nebraska) broached the prosepect that Lott's job is in jeopardy.
'Is this a big enough deal to cause a revolution in the Republican conference?I dont think so, but these things have a way of going further than expected.'
Increasingly this week Lott has been subjected to the drip-drip-drip of criticism and scrutiny that ofeten drives officials from power in Washington.
Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) suggested Thursday that the GOP leader do more to diffuse the controversy, perhaps appearing at a news conference or other forum 'in which he just makes clear that he is wrong.'
snip A senior Senate aide says that Lott is trying to weather the political storm, hoping it will calm during the holidays.
'If it [the Lott racial controversy] doesn't die down, I think the Senate Republican caucus will be forced to give a vote of confidence/no confidence in him the aide exclusively told the Los Angeles Times in the Friday morning editions.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
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.
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 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.
He said NO such thing. Hint - it's a lot easier to put words into people's mouths if you use a shoehorn...
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.
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).
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.
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 agree.
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.