Posted on 01/02/2003 6:12:39 AM PST by sheltonmac
By the way, was there anything technically wrong with what Lott said? Is it at all possible the we would be better off? Not on the issue of segregation--one man in the White House would not have been able to stop desegregation even if he wanted to--but on such issues as states' rights? In Lott's defense, Harry Truman wasn't exactly the best choice for this country.
Another whiny rant blaming the neocons. Quite frankly, Lott never gave conservatives any good reason to back him up, and then managed to careen madly across the political landscape, throwing supporters off his wagon as he backstabbed conservative values left and right in a futile effort to save his job at the expense of his party.
You sound like a liberal, blaming others instead of placing the blame firmly where it belongs - with Trent Lott himself.
The resident, sanctimonious, self righteous, socialist republican partisan apologists are going to have you for lunch.
Then why get rid of him now? The neo-cons could have rid themselves of Lott long ago for being a compromising liberal. But no. They have to wait until he says something that might be construed by someone on the left as potentially politically incorrect. Neo-cons simply fall down and curl up in the fetal position whenever someone plays the race card. They are cowards.
Freedom of speech does not grant one carte blanch freedom from responsibility for what someone says. The office of Senate Majority is not a right - it is a priviledge, and the ML serves at the will of the other GOP Senators. Trying to make this a freedom of speech issue is asinine.
So soon? They just finished gorging themselves on one of their own. How could they be hungry already? ;-)
Run the names by us that were running against Frist, when he was elected?????
Duh - because he did something damaging to the party - and his sandbagging of greater GOP interests was hardly an isolated incident. To me, it was always a mystery why the GOP Senators didn't demote Trent ages ago (probably because they were afraid of retribution if they failed), but his gaffe made it a no-brainer, especially when it subsequently became clear that Lott would backstab the interests of the party to save his perks and power.
What does that have to do with my statement? Nothing. Once again, freedom of speech does not grant freedom from responsibility from one's one statements, especially for a party leadership position.
He probably would have undercut welfare reform just for good measure.
Exactly. Lott should have been kicked out long ago for much worse things than this. He proved that he was not deserving of such a priviledge. But forcing him out for something he said plays right into the hands of the race-baiters. You're sending a dangerous message. You would have been in a much better position had you called for Lott's ousting because of something he did to damage the conservative cause. But maybe you neo-cons have a different agenda in mind.
Was it in display in his BET interview?
He needed to go, because he was willing to sell out the conservative cause to retain his seat. (BET interview - affirmative action)
Perhaps, without Lott, the spineless imbecile, as majority leader, the GOP will steer a course closer to conservatism. With him as leader there was no chance of forwarding conservative principles.
Lee, I rarely disagree with you, but on this one; I totally disagree.
Sometimes, the politically correct thing is, coincidentally, the right thing to do.
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.