Posted on 12/17/2002 8:16:30 AM PST by KQQL
Good idea, BUT who is going to hold that leash and how tight should it be? Just being on a leash will show him to be a crippled leader, and the RATs will continuely probe and push in an attempt to keep him off guard. How can he be a leader when he knows that both sides are trying to second guess him? All will be love and kisses until the first controvesial issue comes up (likely judgeships) then all bets are off. If (for example) a judge has any background that says "merit over race", you can bet the Rats will call on Lott to prove he's a changed man and oppose a nomination based on the Black definition of Affirmative Action. No more strict constitutionalist judges -- more liberal, "progressive" ones.. Just one example, I'm afraid. And believe me, I'm trying to think of ways he can remain and still be an effective leader (not that he was one before).
We all know how impossible that is; there will be no forgiveness for him from the left. It is embarrassing to watch him reach for any apology that might work.
He should have stuck to his guns from the get go. Then he would have my support. He can no longer fight the Libs with the vigor needed because he has conceded too much to the Left to extricate himself from the controversy.
He should step down from Leader and stay in the Senate until another Rep can be appointed or elected, or stay a back-bencher.
Since I did neither the above nor the following, I'm in a perfect position to give EQUAL thanks to:
"The useful 'conservative' idiots who picked up the Dem "THIS IS ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!" smear campaign,
"The useful 'conservative' idiots who picked up the Dem "YOU'RE A RACIST/SHEEP/STUPID/DIVISIVE/COWARD UNLESS YOU DEFEND LOTT THE WAY I SAY YOU SHOULD DEFEND LOTT" smear campaign,
"The useful 'conservative' idiots who picked up the Dem UNLESS GEORGE BUSH GROWS A SPINE AND DEFENDS LOTT THE WAY I SAY LOTT SHOULD BE DEFENDED, HE WILL BE A ONETERMPRESIDENTONETERMPRESIDENTONETERMPRESIDENT" smear campaign, and the
"The useful 'conservative' idiots who picked up the Dem "IT'S THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S FAULT" smear campaign,
For aiding the Dems in their quest to destroy destroy the Republican administration and aid another Third Way Socialist into the White house and destroy the Republican party BECAUSE FOR THE HUNDREDTH TIME THAT IS WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
The rest of us would like to put an end to all the childish bickering, so that those in the Republican party who wish to concentrate fighting enemy fire with fire can suceed in doing so, in order that this fiasco may be put to rest with the principles of the Republican party not ony intact due to the strength, moral principle and dedication used in its defense, but maybe even STRONGER than it was before...
And THEN we can go back to the non-issues, like fighting terrorism and stimulating the economy.
Yes, but I believe the leader need not be a member (perhaps I am thinking of House Speaker). HIghly unlikely, in any case, but it would be cool.
The left going too far doesn't surprise me. They're like Muslim terrorists: they don't know when to quit.
As for the weirdness of the TV talking heads, is it any worse than the weird accusations and namecalling going on around here on these Lott threads?
Yep. Treat the left wing children like a parent. Scold them, send them on their way, and grab the remote.
I'm beginning to think Jessie is a FReeper! He's here to "help."
Right. Better yet...can we duct tape him to a chair with a gag, at least until the senate reconvenes?
He promised to continue to do it:
"I accept the fact that I made a terrible mistake, used horrible words, caused hurt. I'm sorry about that. I've apologized for it. I've asked for forgiveness. And I'm going to continue to do that."
Probably. And his son, JJJr. HEY...and Algore. He got right in on the act too...and Terry McAwful MUST be...
Still pouring kool-aid Howlin?
Bush administration to defend affirmative action
Bush to defend affirmative action policy
Bush to defend affirmative action policy
Bush selling out on Affirmative Action to get votes
Never-Ending Supreme Court Case Has Bush Fighting for Affirmative Action
Bush Administration Defends Affirmative Action
Reuters
By James Vicini
Friday August 10 8:52 PM ET
Source
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Disappointing conservatives who wanted the government to switch sides, the Bush administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) on Friday to uphold a federal affirmative action program .
The Republican administration defended the Transportation Department's highway construction program that favors minority and disadvantaged businesses, maintaining the position the previous Democratic administration adopted a day before President Bill Clinton left office.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the program's regulations were ``narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest'' and that ``Congress has a compelling interest in eliminating discrimination and its effects on government spending and procurement.''
The closely watched case marked the first test of affirmative action during George W. Bush's presidency, and drew sharp criticism from opponents of racial preferences.
Linda Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, said, ``I think this is not only horrendous policy, I think it is bad politics.''
Chavez, who was named by Bush to be labor secretary but withdrew after a furor erupted over a domestic worker living in her home, said federal contracting would have been an easy case for the administration to draw the line against racial preferences.
``To cave in so early bodes poorly for the administration taking a stand later on,'' she said. ``I think the motivation behind this decision was political.''
CONSERVATIVES HOPED FOR CHANGE
Conservatives opposed to affirmative action had hoped the Bush White House would change the government's position on the issue, based on the president's stand during the campaign and prior statements by top administration officials.
During the campaign, Bush opposed affirmative action programs that used racial quotas, but generally supported greater opportunity for minorities, calling it ``affirmative access.''
Olson, the government's chief advocate before the high court, has previously been critical of affirmative action programs. As a senator from Missouri, Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) opposed the contracting program.
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese and Chapman University law professor John Eastman, in an article published in the Washington Times on Friday, cited a 1998 speech by then-Sen. Ashcroft opposing use of race classifications in federal law.
Bush and Ashcroft should ``place government-sanctioned racial discrimination back where it belongs -- in the course of ultimate extinction,'' Meese, a top White House aide and attorney general during Ronald Reagan (news - web sites)'s presidency in the 1980s, and Eastman wrote.
The case began 11 years ago to the day when Adarand Construction Inc., a Colorado construction highway firm owned by a white man, initially sued over a 1990 program that set aside construction contracts for minority businesses.
The Supreme Court in a 1995 ruling in the case imposed tough new standards before the government can give preferences for minorities.
After the ruling, Congress reauthorized the law and the Transportation Department revised the program.
A U.S. appeals court upheld the revised program, and the Supreme Court then agreed to hear Adarand's latest argument that the program amounted to unlawful race discrimination.
Olson urged the high court to affirm the appeals court's decision. ``Eliminating racial discrimination and its effects remains one of the nation's greatest challenges,' he said in the 50-page brief.
The current program ``is not unconstitutional on its face,'' Olson said.
He argued that ``discrimination, not race, is the key'' to getting status as a disadvantaged business, and that the regulations seek to limit that status to firms owned by individuals who have suffered the effects of bias.
The high court will hear the case in its term that begins in October, with a decision due by the end of June.
Who stated the following:
"Government ought to have a policy that helps people with a downpayment."
A. - OR - B.
You are not hallucinating, he really wants to have the government provide downpayments.
Only your hairdresser can tell the difference
And thank you SO MUCH for providing me with the WORDS I needed to prove you and TLBSHOW are bending the truth!
AL GORE, FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: He said, if affirmative action means quotas, he's against it. Affirmative action doesn't mean quotas.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Good.
GORE: Are for it without quotas?
Bush: Well, I may not be for your version, Mr. Vice President, but I am for what I just described to the lady.
And LOL @ you for accusing ME of drinking the Kool-Aid. How in the HELL do you explain all that crap you keep stored up to post wherever you think you can get away with it? Talk about obsessive hate.
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.