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. 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.
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. 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.
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.
Lott's comments basically forced Bush to make the statements he did. The GOP has a hard enough time overcoming the racist image without foolishness like Lott's.
I rather doubt if Bush would like to be blindsided in public by any senator, such as he did to Lott.
How do you know that Bush did not call up Lott? Bush knew he had to make a strong statement on the matter. This is ENTIRELY Lott's fault. No one else's. He didn't just hand his enemies a hammer, he gave them a sledgehammer, one they could use to whack on the entire GOP. Bush had to take that away and focus the attention back on Lott. Otherwise, the entire party could have been damaged by the raw stupidity of one of it's leaders.
Can you imagine, in 04, if Lott were to denounce Bush in such a manner?
A few Dems denounced Clinton. That was a shame. We cheered them on, and condemned those who fell in behind Clinton. I ain't gonna do the same with Lott, I'm not gonna cheer party unity at the cost of party integrity.
Surely no one believes that Bush has endeared himself to Lott and quite possibly a few others. 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.
That's TWO speculations on your part. Once again, Lott's comments left Bush little choice.
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.
The GOP is at a disadvantage in this game, and, quite frankly, I'm glad. We declare that we are held to a higher standard, and then actually act on those standards. The Dems talk the talk but never walk the walk. If it means that Lott falls on his sword while Byrd keeps his post, so be it. That is the price of integrity. Otherwise, everything we fought for with Clinton's impeachment is just words, mere verbage to be discarded when inconvenient or politically inexpedient.
I wonder if that has anything to do with Mary Matalin being fired by the White House.
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.