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 second you on that. As someone once said, one of the disadvantages of being a noble is that you're occasionally obliged to act like one.
You'll probably get some grief for saying so, though. There are a fair number of people at FR who don't think any principle is more important than getting more power for the GOP.
For me, I just don't want somebody this dumb in an important position. I believed that before this current silly controversy came up. It reminds me of the check-kiting scandal in the House years ago; the apologists for the Reps who bounced checks said that gee, no taxpayer dollars were lost, so why should we care? My reply was that we shouldn't entrust billions of taxpayer dollars to somebody too stupid to balance his own checkbook.
In politics everything is speculation and or opinions, it is not a science. All I know is that I and many others gave time and money in the effort to regain control of the senate. I would hate to see that achievement squandered. If righteous indignation over something that transpired forty years ago, is to be more important than control of the senate, then so be it. Tom Daschle would be only to happy to maintain his position, meanwhile he tolerates Robert Byrd with no problem, a man that is third in line for the presidency.
There seems to be no indignation on anyones part about that, why, because the democrats understand that sanctimonious, self righteous indignation has no place in hardball politics. Power, you either have it or you do not, Bush and Lott through thru combined incompetence may very well be handing it back to the democrats.
We may however stand tall, in the minority again, being the moral party. So be it.
Amen!