Posted on 12/15/2002 6:33:57 AM PST by rightwing2
Fox News just reported that ABC reported that Nickles has called for a new Senate leadership challenge to Trent Lott!
" Rhode Island Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee, a moderate Republican, told the Providence Journal that Lott's remarks smacked of "stupidity." But he did not call for Lott to step aside because he worries that potential successors might be more conservative. "
Good to know he's out there fighting for the party's ideals.
I am mostly a bystander on this, but I do feel that I should comment on the following items:
1. As far as I can tell, the only real threat that Lott might leave is from Mitch McConnell, who may have been misunderstood...or may have been pushing the anti-Lott feelings for his own agenda...or may have been carrying a veiled message from Lott. None of us really knows. However, the story being pushed so hard by MSNBC, CNN, and Bill kristol on NPR makes me think it is probably being exagerrated.
2. McCain's injection of himself into this is a further red flag, as he is not particularly known an a unifying force in the Senate.
3. I really hate to see Karl Rove trashed because of innuendo. He has been a loyal adviser to the President, and I find the inference that he is a puppetmaster offensive both to him but most importantly to President Bush.
4. Lott grew up in the segregated south, as did my father. Old speech patterns and undercurrent prejudices are hard to completely remove, no matter how willing the individual is. What is important are ACTIONS, and in this case I am sspeaking of actions in the Senate. If enough evidence exists of ACTIONS which are suspect then perhaps Lott should consider resigning.
5. I like the idea of Frist as an interim ML for the next two years while everything calms down. He will keep the RINOS from bolting, he has no long-term plans to stay in the Senate, and he is a calming influence. Plus, a lot of senators can support him because of his work on the election.
5. I fervently hope that those who are so angry with Trent Lott (and there is none more exasperated than I was a couple of days ago) look beyond their desire to punish the man for perceived mistakes, and think about both the good of our Senate majority and the spring agenda.
I have long said that Lott is not a quick thinker when confronted with an emergency. This has been my gripe from the impeachment onwards. It is not that he is weak; it is that he can't think of alternatives very quickly, and therefore does things which seem to make problems go away. It has finally come back to bite him, because he made a foolish blunder, and then compounded it by not getting good advice on how to handle it. (Trusting his instinct is a definite disaster.)
I will say this, though: I am disappointed at the name-calling and outright flaming going on on both sides of this issue. I see many people whom I consider friends who are disappointing me in their demeanor and refusal to discuss this rationally.
That is all I have to say right now, but I hope some of you will quit allowing your chains to be yanked by either side in this issue; it does NOT solve the problem and is bad for conservatives and also for Republicans (both groups named so that the different factions won't take offense).
You know nothing would make a Christian church happier than converting every street dwelling wino to Christianity. The trouble seems to be in getting them to the church to hear the message.
I therefore propose that all churches serve free wine to the winos, free drugs to the drug addicts, virgins for the pedophiles ect. ect........
Of course there is some risk involved with this strategy, since they may only attend for the freebies, but I guess it is a risk we should be willing to take for the good of the church, after all it wouldn't really change the goals of the church, would it?
I wonder would this work in politics too? Does seem familiar though.....
Was Lott being stubborn, or was it too painful for him to state those words until forced at the point of a sword by the president? It's a bit long... but let me paste a snippet from the NY Times article today.
After graduating from Ole Miss in 1963, Mr. Lott worked for the university as a recruiter and then enrolled in its law school. He spent a year as the acting law school alumni secretary, making a host of valuable contacts. Among them was the state treasurer, William Winter, then the president of the law school alumni association.
In 1967, Mr. Winter ran for governor of Mississippi as the leading moderate in a field of Democrats that included Jimmy Swan, a white supremacist, and former Governor Barnett, who was by then discredited. But, a former aide says, Mr. Winter was shocked to learn that Mr. Lott, after graduating from law school, had signed up as a campaign worker for Representative John Bell Williams, a defender of the state's racial past.
"It shocked him," the former aide recalled. "He said, `I thought Trent was for me.' "
As it happened, Mr. Lott picked a winner. Mr. Winter led all voters in the primary but was defeated by Mr. Williams in a brutal runoff. In November, Mr. Williams beat, by more than two to one, a moderate Republican who called for racial change.
"It was a very racist campaign," said Mr. Winter, who came back to win the governor's office in 1979. "The thrust of it was who could best be entrusted to maintain total segregation in the state."
One typical Williams campaign circular showed a photograph of Mr. Winter speaking at a rally with some blacks in the crowd. "Awake, white Mississippi!" the flier warned. "Are these front row sitters going to determine the destiny of Mississippi?" Mr. Winter's election, the circular said, "will insure Negro domination of Mississippi elections for generations to come."
I don't know what is in Trent Lott's head now, but for him to "forget" to mention "segregation is immoral" on LKL after Bush told him to do it, might have been the nail in his coffin.
And how would that make his position any worse?
I believe it was a semi-covert tactic used by some of the pro-Lott forces...but when it instantly drew the exact opposite response wanted, that particular cynical ploy was just as quickly abandoned.
There's only one bullet in a gun like that, and if you really are not going to fire it, you will be quickly disarmed.
It was a weak play because Lott knows the political abyss that move would condemn him to forever. Nationally, Republicans have invested too much in control of the Senate for them not to hate his guts forever if he cost us control.
Because he didn't utter the word "segregation" doesn't change the fact he SAID that a man who ran as a segregationist in '48 should have won. It's been what, almost two weeks, and I have yet to see any evidence that Thurmond ran on anything but segregation in '48.
Some of the very same people who labeled Byrd a racist after his white niggar remark are defending Lott now. The only difference between the two is that one has a D after his name and the other an R. Ironically it's these very same people who are harping on the hypocrisy of the left.
Segregationism in the black community could be discussed. The racism against asians by blacks is something that is usually taboo. Let us let it all hang out, openly, honestly for once. Trent Lott type people let so-called black leaders immorally subvert anybody who listen from a position of personal responsibility. Trent Lott doesn't force the average black household to watch 7 1/2 hours of tv a day instead of having the kids do homework.
This is a message true, race neutral republican conservatives can win. With no boogie men like Lott to kick around, Jackson and Sharpton will look quite foolish to the black community, when arguing that they know better than Collin and Condi about what it takes to succeed.
At this stage I doubt even is Lott knows what he's said as it been spewed so many ways from sundown. However I can very easily see Lott telling someone what he'd do if removed from the leadership spot.... and "resign from the senate" would be something I'd expect him to say and do. But I don't really look at it as being a blackmailer as much as I look at it as he's laying the cards on the table of what will happen. I'd rather know that going in than to think he's gonna be a good ol' boy, roll over and take the lashing, tuck his tail, and speak only when spoken to when all that isn't what he intends to do. I prefer the cards up front , maybe others here would rather he keep his mouth shut and get his chastisment then resign.
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.