LOTT THREATENS TO QUIT THE SENATE IF FORCED FROM LEADERSHIP

Newsnight with Aaron Brown | 12/13/2002 | Jonathan Karl

[sinkspur]

Trent Lott, in a conference call with 27 GOP Senate Republicans today, said that he would leave the Senate if forced from the Leader position.

Jonathan Karl said three or four of the Senators viewed this as "blackmail," but that the majority still support Lott and want him to continue as Leader.

[Askel5]

actually, I'm more.

Yes ... still eagerly awaiting the details on the "birth of Jazz" in the Big Apple as opposed to the Big Easy.

[EternalVigilance]

Honestly, I don't have a dog in this hunt... But if the Dems can gather on the steps of the WH after Clinton was impeached and tell us that he was the best President this Country ever had nothing Trent could say could even compare to that...

Hey, on that we are totally agreed!

[ApesForEvolution]

Does anyone have any empirical evidence about number of eligible black voters and their turnout last POTUS election? Just curious to put some reality into thoughts about black voting potential next go round.

[jwalsh07]

You should weep because the republican senate is gutless. They should be speaking up for Lott. More democrats senators have attested to Lott not being a racist than have republicans especially if you count rino's as democrats.

But gutless seems to be a commodity in endless supply on my side of the aisle these days.

[EternalVigilance]

I love you too, habs.

[chnsmok]

Yes, January should provide some good theatre.

[Uncle Jaque]

Hey Trent, Baby;

Don't let those swingin' doors hit ya
Where the Good Lord split ya!

Adios, Y'all!

I'm pretty sure that he'll be replaced by a Demmie, which will bring the "majority" down to what... one?

It shouldn't be much of a trick for Klinton & Co. to flip one of our RINOS like they did Jeffords; heck - the Senate is full of 'em! I will be very pleasently surprised if the GOP still has a majority by New year's Eve, frankly.

But Lott-o, we can do without. If the Republican Party can't do any better than this, then maybe we deserve to lose.
If Freedom loving American Patriots don't take our Party back pretty soon, then it's headed down the flush. We may have just snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory AGAIN, here - as us Republicans seem to have a steady reputation of doing.

[ApesForEvolution]

"From what I've seen lately you will all pile on whoever takes his place as "too moderate or too wimpy or too something"..."

Only is he is.

[fooman]

Blacks should be for vouchers, but we are in a case of do they PERCEIVE that this is in thier best interest.

I see that you have lots of postive energy tonight.

With pubbies breaking the 11th commandment we need all we can take.

[what's up]

I think the Republican Senators will speak out in the days ahead. Timing is everything. If they all came out in the first 24 hours they would have no political capital left if the thing is drawn out.

Better strategy to let the Dems' words of support out first IMO.

[sneakypete]

Hell, thanks to Newt we barely impeached the SOB for the felonies of perjury and obstruction of justice.

Sorry,I don't agree. It was the same sexually repressed idiots who stabbed Newt in the back that kept screaming about Monica so much there were no headlines about treason. That allowed Carville to repeat the "It's all about nothing but sex,folks. That's all these Republicans care about,sex!"

[ApesForEvolution]

My clarity has probably been dimmed by Lott-induced sleep deprivation...LOL!

[EternalVigilance]

...and to all a good night.....

[FirstFlaBn]

Remember LBJ? He was a southerner. He was a good old boy. But he recognized that segregation was wrong and he fought to end it.

What are you smoking? Here’s excerpts from a couple of reviews of the Caro recent bio of LBJ:

Caro goes into great detail showing all of Johnson's votes with the Southern Senators. They not only blocked civil rights bills, they also saw the passage of favorable legislation for the oil and gas industries.

After numerous civil rights battles in the Senate, Johnson gets the Civil Rights Act of 1959 through the Senate. Caro shows how Johnson co-opted the civil rights issue from the Republicans by getting an insubstantial bill through the Senate...

And another:

So in the late '50s, with the segregationist South’s still-strong hold on Congress and with increasing pressure from the North for civil rights, LBJ, the ultimate pol, hedged his bets and played it both ways. When he assumed the presidency in 1963 following JFK's assasination, LBJ began to see more votes in the latter than in the former. All of a sudden, LBJ, the tacit supporter of the Jim Crow Southern senators in the 1950s, was singing "We Shall Overcome."

What you proffer as LBJ’s heartfelt support for Civil Rights legislation is above revealed to be something quite different. Maybe you should read a little history before trying to make a point by invoking bogus claims.

Lott was busy fighting to keep the ni--ers out of his little fraternity.

Assuming this story is true - recall it came from Karen Tumulty and Tom Johnson - and despite the fact that you know nothing of the circumstances, let me ask you, do you have a problem with private organizations making their own decisions about who they invite to join? Compare it to today’s hubbub over NOW’s wailing over women membership at Augusta National. Lott’s fraternity days were pre-1964, but you’re clamoring to condemn him for engaging in legal activities.

Some conservative you imagine yourself to be. Let’s see, in a few sentences you managed to establish that you have no command of the facts, yet from your numerous posts on this subject over the last couple of days, still expect to be taken seriously. Maybe Lott isn’t the only dumb one.

[Texasforever]

Why should Bush stand up for Lott when Lott sat around for four days with his finger up his ass instead of nipping this thing in the bud

Because Bush had already accepted the FIRST apology. I am accused of being the premier BushBot around here and for good reason but I don't take to cowardly statements of support that are in fact designed to appease the unappeasable. If Bush had included his repudiation of the same virulent racism of today and the democrats success at keeping blacks on the plantation by letting 13% of the population drive every domestic program for 50 years his statement would have accomplished something. It is about time for an accounting of the 6 trillion dollars and special legislation aimed specifically at blacks and what the result has been.

[marajade]

Staying positive on FR is mostly a challenge for me and believe me I absolutely love a challenge... its a character flaw I got from having a father that I absolutely detested... my only defense was my use of words...

[okie01]

Thanks for the confirmation.

P-M, see more detail in #724.

[habs4ever]

I noticed you couldn't answer any specific questions about Lott's capabilities, probably because that would require those leedle grey cells of yours to overheat.

[DAnconia55]

NO Dem would have voted for impeachment, no matter what, just like Lott said

Ah. That obviously relieves him from his moral and legal responsibilities then. Glad to know.

[panther33]

I'm tired of this crap about Lott. Too many people are twisting his words around and making him out to be a racist white boy.

Bullsh-t. Everybody knows what he was referring to with Thurmond's 1948 campaign, and it wasn't segregation. While I realize that he has to at least soothe some people, if I were him I wouldn't have even apologized for my remarks. I would have explained them instead. If that isn't good enough, then I wouldn't want your vote anyway.

Lott should remain Senate Majority Leader!