So Much More Than Lott

newsmax ^ | 12/31/2002 | Barry Farber

[TLBSHOW]

.30Carbine didn't miss the boat the republicans did.

Please Don't Back Down Mr. President

President Bush should also understand that while conservatives like myself generally admire the job he has done, we are wary of his increasing tendency to sacrifice principles for political gain. I understand the need to make pragmatic compromises but the disappointments are starting to accumulate- the Ted Kennedy education bill, the steel tariffs, the coddling of Saudi Arabia and other Arab autocracies, the mindless charade of pointless inspections and erosion of America’s diplomatic leverage on Iraq during the last three months. In many respects, the decision President Bush faces with respect to the Michigan lawsuit may define the soul of his presidency. Is he a politician who actually believes in certain fundamental things on which he is willing to spend political capital? Or is he someone, like former President Clinton, that believes that capturing and holding the presidency is an end in and of itself, irrespective of what the office is actually used for? I strongly believe that the answer is the former, not the latter. If President Bush makes decisions based on what he believes, and makes a heartfelt argument to the America people of why racial preferences are inherently wrong, he’ll be successful. During the 2000 campaign he pledged that he would not just blindly follow the advice of analysts and political consultants, but rather, he would lead, as a president should. Conservatives anxiously wait for him to do just that with the lawsuit against the University of Michigan.

http://www.cornellreview.org/rfaart.cgi?num=10

[justshe]

Didn't miss the title or the thread at all, .30Carbine.

What about 'flogging a dead horse' did you not understand re: my post? If you have read the entire thread you will see there are many 'opinions' from posters re: the continuing "Lott saga" and the GOP.

MY OPINION is that this author, Barry Farber, is flogging a dead horse.

Is that clearer to you now? Or did YOU, perhaps, misunderstand MY post and thus thought you should educate me? If so, thank you for allowing me to clarify.

[TLBSHOW]

It isn't the left its the real econservatives that are sounding the alarm. Like Bob Burr, Phyllis Schlafly, Paul Weyrich, Phil Gold. Robert Novack and more. Like fellow freeper Carl Limbacher of Newsmax.

Bush Policy's Newest Critics - Conservatives

It's not the left that is sounding some of the harshest criticism against the president's tactics in fighting the war on terrorism, it's many of the nation's most solid Republican conservatives.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/12/29/183445

[M. Thatcher]

Yawn.

Fortunately, the whole lot of those of you het up about TRENT FRICKING LOTT can fit in a phone booth.

[TLBSHOW]

Bob Burr = Bob Barr

[TLBSHOW]

After all, she writes, it was Dick Armey who killed TIPS, the proposed Justice Department program that would have recruited mail carriers, meter readers and other workers with access to private homes to act as government snoops. Armey added language to the Homeland Security Bill specifically outlawing both TIPS and a national ID card.

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/12/29/183445

[TLBSHOW]

Leftist attacks on Senator Trent Lott are no surprise, but now pundits on the Right are banging the drums to oust the Majority Leader. As has been widely reported, Lott stated that he was proud that the people of Mississippi supported J. Strom Thurmond’s 1948 states’ rights presidential campaign and that “if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years.” In response, the Family Research Council, National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg, radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, columnist Andrew Sullivan and others have joined Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in demanding Lott’s head on a platter.

http://www.cornellreview.org/nsogart.cgi?num=107

[M. Thatcher]

How exciting. And its relevance to anything I've posted is precisely zero.

[sinkspur]

Let it go.

I have. But, if you're going to come on these threads and ridicule, I'm gonna get right back into the fight.

Why don't you let it go? Just ignore the threads, unless you're running for thread police.

[M. Thatcher]

I have.

Yeah, right.

[gitmo]

So, already by Christmas the Republicans took their newly revealed "racist" Trent Lott and chopped him off like a hood ornament and left him folded up in the glove compartment like a paper napkin full of forgotten fruitcake.

Instead of a political army guided by courage and conviction, we now see the Republicans as a nudist in the middle of a barbed-wire fence.

This guy must have an odd life.

[deport]

If Republicans thought that tossing Trent Lott off the sleigh would slow the pursuing wolves, they were mistaken.

---

I agree, but just curious, what should have been done by the GOP as Lott went from apology to apology and kept getting worse. Lets assume you could lay out the sequence of events and it was within your power to call all the shots. Now what was the proper procedure/protocol to follow? What would TLBSHOW have done? You're now front and center, give it your best shot.

[okie01]

No. Trent Lott isn't a "racist". But, in front of the cameras, for the benefit of history, he said something that, on its surface, could not be interpreted as anything other than "racist" and deeply regressive.

He did this all by himself. Nobody made him do it. It was, solely, Trent Lott's fault. Nobody else's.

Y'know, Trent Lott was an inept Minority Leader. And an even more inept Majority Leader.

He was prone to saying dumb things. This was neither the first, nor would it be the last (as evidenced by his pitiful performance on BET).

As such, Lott constantly cost the party energy and embarrassment -- which could have been better spent on moving the ball forward, rather than having to drop back and protect his ass. Over and over.

Had Lott been an effective leader and a positive contributor to the party's legislative program, he would have been defended for what would have been perceived as a momentary lapse of mis-speaking.

As it was, Lott's fumble, his inability to recover and the liberal media attack on Lott offered the party (and its conservatives) the opportunity to rid itself of what had become a demonstrable burden.

In effect, the libs did us a favor. The Majority Leadership is now in stronger hands. And Lott is consigned to where he can help, with his reliable conservative vote, but can't any longer hurt, with his perpetual fumbling.

Thus, the Republican Party and the Conservative Movement is in better shape today than it was a month ago.

All of which leaves me to wonder: Why are you investing so much energy in Trent Lott's defense? His record simply doesn't warrant it.

[justshe]

TLB....your comment ("...but now pundits on the Right are banging the drums to oust the Majority Leader") makes absolutely NO sense.

They banged.

He's gone.

There is no "NOW" now. It's done. Over. Fini.

You are now flogging the dead horse too.

[justshe]

Excellent post, okie01.

[sinkspur]

The Majority Leadership is now in stronger hands.

We'll see, won't we?

[deport]

You have to read TLBSHOW with a grain of salt. That's a normal cut/paste job from him from the link he provided, not his writings.... and it was dated back on Dec. 12/02. The Show is a piece of work.

[okie01]

"We'll see, won't we?"

Yes, we will.

But I rather doubt Frist would've had to be reminded that Homeland Security was sufficiently important to warrant passage in the lame duck...

Lott had a legislative mentality, and simply wasn't accustomed to pursuing a goal.

I make the odds that Frist is an improvement on Lott as a leader about 9 of 10.

[CounterCounterCulture]

[billbears]

But, in front of the cameras, for the benefit of history, he said something that, on its surface, could not be interpreted as anything other than "racist" and deeply regressive.

Really? What exactly did he say that couldn't be taken in numerous ways. Personally, after hearing Lott's original statement, racism was not the first, second, or even fifth thing that came to mind about that statement. Many people I work with commented the next day they could see nothing wrong with Lott's statement. However the NAALCP supporters and the apologists from the Republican party that are willing to sell their homes, careers, offices, and souls to gain a majority were more than willing to throw Lott to the multiculturalist wolves.

So tell me, to you which is more important. Power or principle? The Republican party has sold itself out (which they have time and time again) to gain this power to return to a more Constitutional founding (what used to be in some way on the platform). By the time they gain this coalition of members they won't be able to do half of what they promise for fear of insulting anyone. We'll be a kinder gentler Democratic Party, is that it?