TRENT LOTT AND A FEW GOOD REPUBLICANS

Chronicles Magazine ^ | 12/20/2002 | Thomas Fleming

[JohnGalt]

...

[bosshog]

The current flap at Augusta National isn't aided by Trent and Hootie having the same hair style...

[Bahbah]

"Multi-culuralism is as authentic as Kwanzaa and as destructive as collective farms."

There are some really good lines in this piece. This is just one of them.

[billbears]

For moderate and conservative Republicans, on the other hand, the sacrifice of their Senate Majority Leader will be one more indication that the leaders of the GOP have jumped onto the revolutionary bandwagon with both feet and that they are prepared to betray their middle-class constituency at every turn.

I just wish some would see that instead of measuring Lott up for his impending dismissal. Lott has been thrown to the multiculturalists all in the name of inclusion and PC.

[xzins]

I want Lott out, but the first paragraphs of personal attacks (prissy, vindictive, only mother could love, etc.) are out of line.

This article will hurt the effort to replace Lott.

[Ff--150]

Lott has been thrown to the multiculturalists all in the name of inclusion and PC.

How true; yet, for his disgrace during impeachment it's time for Lott to go away.

[republicman]

I can only hope that if Lott goes

1) the repubs don't start passing all kinds of lib crap to "prove" they aren't racist sexist homophobes. (and have Bush sign it into law) We did our part putting in a republican congress, now its time for them to do their part and deliver

and 2)I hope that next time the libs play their racebaiting crap, and they do it on someone we do like that we fight those evil bastards on it instead of cowering in the corner

and 3)the senate needs to censure Robert Byrd for his "white nigger" comment and being a former clansman. Then they should censure Hillary Clinton for calling someone a "Jew bastard" and mocking Willie Brown in a black accent.. And probably a few more I haven't thought of. If we're going to have a racism outing session everyone should participate. All or none.

[conservativemusician]

The article makes some good points, but I didn't see Lott holding his nose on BET when he said he for was for affirmative action across the board. I saw a man desperate to placate the radical opposition and save his own skin.

It was revolting.

He needs to go, not for his incredibly stupid remarks, but for his incredibly weak leadership. His stance during impeachment and his "power-sharing" agreement with Daschle come to mind.

How about loyalty to one's constituency?

[4CJ]

For moderate and conservative Republicans ... the sacrifice of their Senate Majority Leader will be one more indication that the leaders of the GOP ... are prepared to betray their middle-class constituency at every turn.

Worth repeating. What's honour amoung friends?

[JohnGalt]

You mean Mississipians?

While limited in scope, I checked Southern heritage sites for reaction. They are punting on Lott simply because they feel he betrayed them by groveling back to the Left/Communists. Thus, Southern Heritage issues which delivered the Congress to the GOP, are being handed back to the Democrats. If reports are true that should Lott step down he will be replaced with a pro-Southern Heritage Democrat.

[billbears]

If reports are true that should Lott step down he will be replaced with a pro-Southern Heritage Democrat.

While I would be the last to ever have a problem with that, the major issue right now is that if he were to step aside the NAALCP would tout that as a win against Southern pride. My understanding also was that Lott would be replaced by Espy who served under Clinton. I imagine he wouldn't be very pro anything except possibly abortion

[Ff--150]

I'm waiting to hear this is because of Libertarians--no sarcasm tag...

[shrinkermd]

"I want Lott out, but the first paragraphs of personal attacks (prissy, vindictive, only mother could love, etc.) are out of line. This article will hurt the effort to replace Lott"

I surely agree with you. An ad hominem attack like this is more characteristic of Gore Vidal who calls us heterosexuals worshipers of a "sky God."

[vannrox]

.





Great article.
I agree with them.
Period.






.

[JohnGalt]

I doubt the Democrats will miss an opportunity to steal Southern Heritage back for the D's.

[conservativemusician]

I don't want him out of the senate, I want him out of leadership.

I also realize that this would be against precedent.

What are the alternatives? Lott advancing the liberal agenda to prove he's not racist or a 50-50 split and battle for the somewhat conservative agenda. Pick your poison.

We are not going to have our cake and eat it, too.

[guitfiddlist]

Let's suppose that the SML vote was just before the convening of the 2003 Senate - as it was supposed to be - instead of it being moved up to early November by the conniving Trottsky to cut out the incoming Freshmen Senators and allow a decent interval for a new take on the Senate and its leadership.

And everything else remained the same - his impossible to reinterpet remarks in support of segregation - and his unconscionable pandering with our causes to save his own skin.

Would any of us be having a conniption about GOP Senators voting on January 6 to elect a new SML? I don't think so. Would we consider Lott to be owed the SML position? I doubt it. Would we excuse any other Republican for wanting to sink the USS GOP just because the selfish POS couldn't get a particular Chairmanship or seat? We can look at Jeffords for that answer.

Time to hold Lott accountable for his failed leadership, and vote according to the original voting schedule that he mangled for his own selfish benefit.

[Cboldt]

Very good article, except it does not touch on Trent Lott's embrace of affirmative action.

. . . if I were an ordinary, law-abiding, hard-working, Christian American of African descent, I would be looking for a politician who upholds the law and the Constitution (whether he likes you and your group or not) and who would dedicate himself to undoing the welfare state, constructed by leftist Democrats, that has made black urban communities a living hell.

And how then would Trent Lott be the man to lead this effort, given Trent Lott's embrace of affirmative action, if the author was an ordinary, law-abiding, hard-working, Christian American of African descent?

And on that omission, I think the conclusion of the article is thrown into disarray.

I noticed that the author of the article asserts the GOP is not the party of conservatives, and that further, appears resigned and submissive to the notion of more government. Not that he likes the idea, rather, is resigned to it as a fait accompli. That strikes me as wimpy. But, very insightful observations, overall.

[shrinkermd]

I guess implying Lott is homosexual is the latest in thing by the Rockford Institute and John Galt. To begin with you "real men" should read rintense's post below:

"Well, I can only tell you what should have happened to avoid this mess. The only reason this got reported was due to Adam Clymer, a liberal hack who hates Bush. I suspect Lott's remarks would have gone unnoticed, as many other completely stupid remarks by politicians do. That said, Lott should have apologized immediately after the news broke.

"President Bush should not have taken such a harsh and strict tone in his statement in Philly. Sure, he could have said what Lott said was wrong and all that other stuff, but there is a way to say it correctly. And in my opinion, it was done wrong. Bush should have mentioned Lott's long service, his record, and that he still considers Lott a friend. In a way, it was what Bush didn't say that was the most telling.

"Third, Lott should have NEVER gone on BET. It was nothing more than pandering. Everyone saw it, including the Black community.

"Fourth, the alleged WH leaks should have been stopped once and for all by Bush, himself, directly addressing all the questions Ari had been bombarded with. It would take just one simple statement from the President to stop it.

"Lastly, and most important, when this news story broke, every single Republican in the Senate and House should have come out in support of Lott. Condemn the words but not the man. Accept his apology and work to make things in the future better.

"But none of that happened. And in the past few weeks, the Republican Party has looked like a bunch of chickens running around with their heads cut off. Lott's remarks became nothing more than drum to beat for those republicans who view him as weak. And it makes me sick that not one Republican has even addressed the real issue here- the false stereotype that Republicans are racists. That is the calling that so many are missing. And all this Lott crap is just a dog and pony show of posturing and politics that only make us look completely inept.

"My solution? Let what happens in the Senate happen. If Lott is voted out, good. If Lott stays, good. It should be their call all the way. Bush should have never said anything about it, because no matter what anyone says, his comments brought him into this mess when he shouldn't have been involved at all. You don't jump in and play in one play and then go sit on the bench. Oh, and haven't you noticed how low-key the President has been since his Philly speech? It's a week before Christmas, and we've hardly seen or heard from him. It makes me very uncomfortable, and only affirms to me that the Republican Party has a major twist in their panties because they don't know how to deal with all this. Honestly, I think Bush needs Karen Hughes back. I do not like the influence that Rove is having." 16 posted on 12/20/2002 8:16 AM CST by rintense

If the Rockford Institute and John Galt want to know what real men think, I think rintense, a lady I presume, is the ideal place for them to start.

Now let us lock at the Rockford Institute, the sponsor of the author of this screed: Mission statement is: "The defense of the family;The promotion of liberty;The decentralization of political and economic life;The celebration of the literary and artistic inheritance of our civilization;The adherence to Truth, revealed through Scripture and tradition Can't argue with that.

Self-purported Influence Is: "The Rockford Institute is consistently credited by major media outlets - the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, GQ, the New Republic, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and the National Journal (to name just a few) - with setting the terms of the national debate. Articles and opinions by Institute staff have appeared in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Sunday Telegraph (London), the Spectator (London), the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Detroit News, and many other newspapers and periodicals around the globe. Institute staff have appeared on PBS, the BBC, CBS Nightly News, NBC News, the Today Show, ABC's World News Tonight and Nightline, CNN, C-SPAN, CBN's 700 Club, National Public Radio, Chicago Tonight, and numerous local and regional television and radio programs." They also puff up the fact they use Pat Buchanan regularly. I guess publicity is one of their goals.

Now go back to the article. If they are looking for nation-wide publicity, forget it. This article is crammed full of opinions lacking in inductive reasoning. The opinions one can share, but the scattered, cumbersome and clumsy writing is hard to explain. Maybe they just dictate things at the Rockford Institute.

One thing is clear. Personal attacks apparently are lead-ins for their articles. I would suggest the author goes to Senator Lott and tells him, "..you are prissy.." Looking at the author's picture at their website, leads me to believe he will fare poorly with Senator Lott being a Southern boy and all of that.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Lott *threw* himself to the multiculturalists all by his lonesome. Nobody forced him to endorse "affirmative action across the board."