[Miss Marple]

Whew! I have now read this whole thread! I am exasperated with almost all of the people on this forum, for failing to clearly look at the situation without injecting rumor, inferences, personal prejudices, and long-held grudges into the equation.

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).

[ImphClinton]

Great post.

I really believe most of us here are out for the good of the Party. It is most unfortunate that we can not have more leaders with the instinct for politics that President Bush has.

I am very sad that Trent Lott does not understand the racial problem that 2002 America faces but it is obvious he does NOT.

First and Bush had better come up with a great plan that addresses the black problems or we will still be hurt as a party long after Lott resigns. It needs to help get Blacks out of poverty raising the minimum wage for those 20 and older might be a great start.

[steveegg]

Considering I have a strong anti-Lott bias, good points. I do, however, have a couple of comments.

First, the fact that the Left is focusing on the removal of Trent Lott means that they have one and only one RINO that will follow in the footsteps of Jeffords right now regardless of the status of Lott. While I strongly believe that is Lincoln Chafee, that person's identity is not vital right now.

Second, if McCain were serious about trying to ensure that President Bush is a one-termer, he's going to have to lay all of the groundwork sometime in 2003, including leaving the Republican Party. If the Senate is already at 50-50 for whatever reason, Senate Illegitimate "Majority" Leader Tom Daschle becomes our worst political nightmare again.

Given that, it is vital that until that point is reached (IMHO, that is inevitable and the only question is when it happens), the Senate Republicans actually do some leading. Trent Lott has proven time and again that he is incapable of providing that leadership. Picking a replacement with the express purpose of trying to keep all the RINOs in the fold is just as bad as keeping Lott as neither Lott nor any leader with that objective will avoid another bout of power-"sharing".

All of that having been said, while it is vital to remove Lott from his leadership role, it is just as vital that he remain Senator. Should he retire, the Democratic governor of Mississippi will appoint a Democrat to replace Lott. Within 24 hours of the resignation (it doesn't matter whether that appointee makes it to Washington), I fully expect the "mystery leaper" to leap and give Daschle his illegimate "majority".

[deport]

Question... have you heard from PhiKapMom in the last few days? She hasn't posted on the forum since Dec 3rd and I'd like to hear her thoughts on Nickles, Watts assessments.

[EternalVigilance]

I agree with many things in your post, but we don't need some sort of so-called 'interim' leader like Dr. Frist.

We need strong new leadership that can consolidate our majority for the long haul...and lay the groundwork for increasing our majority in '04.

Time is too critical to be sidetracked into a strategy like that.

The Frist path is one that leads to a years-long dead end for the GOP...and I will continue to argue against it as forcefully as I can.