So Much More Than Lott

newsmax ^ | 12/31/2002 | Barry Farber

[Beenliedto]

The Republican Party just turned and ran from what they feared would be dreadful political trouble down the road.

The Republican Party did exactly what George wanted....

And now George's man is Majority Leader.

[Jorge]

That was a lovely speech...only problem is your facts are a bit distorted.
Many major Dems were not applauding Lott's demotion at all, but in fact wanted him to stay on as Majority Leader as a punching bag. (including the Black Caucus, Alan Colms etc. etc.)

Furthermore the Republicans are not "apologists" for Bush, because Bush didn't nothing to apologize for. I agree 100% with how Bush handled the Lott mess.

It's really sad to see that a few die-hard Lott/Dixiecrat apologists are still not ready to come to terms with reality... are still fighting this long lost war.

[noah]

You're exactly right. While we certainly didn't want to lose the senate over it: it was Trent Lott who engineered the sellout of the brave House republicans who charged and prosecuted BC with their hands tied in a rigged show trial engineered by TL

[Austin Willard Wright]

Exactly. Right now, there are more important matters. For example, we need to stiffen the GOP's back on the University of Michigan quotas case. Defending a weak sister like Lott only diverts us from this goal.

[.30Carbine]

Dogs aren't the only ones who smell fear. We all do. The beautiful woman smells the fear of the nervous nerd asking for a date. The boss smells the fear of the insecure worker asking for a raise. And the voter smells the fear of a political party – even one controlling all three branches of government – that so quickly sacrifices a leader who did NOT mis-think, who did NOT mis-act, but who merely mis-SPOKE.

I really like this article and I thank you for posting it.

[cynicom]

Jorge...

Lost war???? Lost by whom??? I, personally will not vote for Bush in 04. That means I will not vote for president in 04, leave it blank.

The author of this story is trying to get across to the readers that this mess was not over Lott, or racism. The democrats with the aid of Bush have hung the tag of "racism" on the republican party, falsely I may add, but republicans are swallowing the line, sinker and all. The democrats applaude you, I do not.

[sinkspur]

did he really?

He did. Really.

He also poured out all the Aunt Jemima pancake syrup in his pantry. They still had the old Auntie on them, the one in the do-rag.

[Marauder]

Professional politicians have been the curse of this country, both parties, the country suffers for it as we slide into socialism, fostered by both parties.

This is my main pet peeve. The Founding Fathers would be shocked and dismayed to see the population almost completely abdicating their responsiblity to cast informed votes in every election. This failure is what leads to what we have today, an "elite" class of professional pols that stop at nothing to retain that power.

"Term limits" is an option that is built into the system. We the people must exercise it, or we will lose it.

[wardaddy]

Am I the only one troubled by this Republican unconditional surrender to an obviously phony charge?

No.

[Bob J]

I'll say it one more time, no one has removed Lott from the Senate (that's up to the voters in Miss) and he had no right to the speakership. He served at the behest of the majority members and if it was their opinion that he would not be able to effectively fulfill the duties of that office, it would be appropriate to step down.

All conservtives know libs control the media and they salivate at the prospect of taking a pubbie out...look what happened to Newt. Lott himself must have known any misstep would have brought an avalanche of criticism and bad press, and, to comport himself appropriately. Lott painted himself into a media corner with his voting record, no matter how justifiable he believes it is, and when he made the absurd remarks, had absolutely no where to turn for plausible deniability. If Lott didn't have PD, how would any supporters the author demands should have come forward?

The author suggests Lott should have immediately come out and state that in reality he would have preferred another candidate in '48, but was being kind to an old man. Lott didn't do this. He attempted to justify his remarks, his voting record, etc., which left no place for his friends to mount a credible defense without sacrificing their own careers.

Lott, on his own, created this public relations nightmare. It was his goofs and misteps which led to his being removed as majority leader. Attempts to lay the blame at the feet of others for not running into the burning house to save him, is ludicrous. Lotts house is in flames because he was alone playing with matches around a greasy stove, in a clapboard lean to, without an extinguisher in site. As the fire truck pulled up, their was Lott, trying to put it out by throwing water on the flaming grease, which only made it worse. By that time, it was over, their was no hope of rescue, and anyone attempting such would surely have succumbed to the smoke right alongside Lott.

Postscript:
Lotts supporters ask for the kind of loyalty he refused the courageous House Managers. Where was Lott when many of them, like Jim Rogan, were targeted for extinction? Where was Lott when Bob Barr was getting redistricted out of existence? They put their political careers on the line and when they needed Lott, he told them to pound sand...his career and the dignity of the Senate was more important. Well, ex ML Lott, sometimes chickens do come home to roost.

[wardaddy]

Because most on this forum (and our esteemed POTUS)capitulated in the name of racial indignation whether real or postured before Lott groveled.

[cynicom]

President Hayes, way back in the 1870s, pleaded with congress that there was a need for term limits on the presidency. He suggested an amendment of one six year term for office. He was of the opinion that a first term president was running for his second term the first day he took office, in that mode, he would do what was in his re-election interest, not the interest of the country.

In my long life, I have found Hays to be 100 per cent correct.

[Walkin Man]

Now the race baiters not only rule the demoRat party but the Republican Party as well. Watch what you say Republicans, search every speech, word by word so you will be sure not to offend Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Hillary Clinton! Woe to you if you make a mistake, for you will have commited a thought crime and your fellow Republicans will be the first to stick their knives into your back!

[sinkspur]

It's really sad to see that a few die-hard Lott/Dixiecrat apologists are still not ready to come to terms with reality... are still fighting this long lost war.

Well, well, another "canonized conservative" painting with a broad brush. Because I think that Lott was screwed over a meaningless remark, I'm therefore a "Dixiecrat apologist"?

You've become so accustomed to smearing you just can't help yourself, I guess.

[jwalsh07]

Am I the only one troubled by this Republican unconditional surrender to an obviously phony charge?

Nope. Lott was simply a down payment.

[sinkspur]

Where was Lott when Bob Barr was getting redistricted out of existence?

Bob Barr, instead of staying in his district and facing the opposition, moved so he could take on another conservative Republican, John Lindner, a collosally stupid move that blew up in his face. And now, he's going to work for the ACLU.

That's your idea of "dignity"?

[artsie]

The "I will not vote" mantra disgusts me especially from people obviously politically inclined. Surely there will be someone that you could find to vote for. If not why not a write in? To me Voting and Jury Duty are my civic obligations. America asks nothing of me, these are the least I can do for the honor of citizenship.

[cynicom]

artsie...

I have been voting for nearly 50 years. When it comes to president, a conservative usually has to vote for the lesser of two evils, to me that is not much of a choice. The only two votes I ever cast with fervor, were for Ronald Reagan. I expect never to vote again in that manner. I see no one on the horizon with his stature.

[cynicom]

I even voted for Goldwater because of Reagan, so actually that is three votes for Reagan. At the time I knew Goldwater was a loser and he was.

The dems showed clips on tv of A-Bomb explosians, no text. People got the message, Johnson won in a landslide. They said a vote for Goldwater was a vote for war....Does that sound like what mite happen in 04?????

[artsie]

Even though I don't have the same credentials, I appreciate your sentiment. Is there anyone out there that closely resembles or articulates your views? As I mentioned, write them in. That may seem futile I know but voting R in CA seems that way to me. I still show up and vote.