Senate Source Threatens Vote of Confidence/No Confidence Unless Lott Racial Firestorm Stops

ABC News and the Los Angeles Times ^ | December 13, 2002 | Richard Simon and Janet Hook

[aristeides]

As holdonnow reminded us on another thread, KKK Byrd was Senate leader of the RATs for 12 years in the 70's and 80's. That means he was Senate Majority Leader of them for some of those years.

And he was persuaded to leave the party leader post by being offered the chairmanship of the Appropriations Committee, a post he preferred. He remains currently both chairman of that powerful committee and president pro tem of the Senate, fourth in the line of presidential succession. If the RATs succeed in manufacturing a new Senate majority, he will remain in those positions.

[dirtboy]

Ahh..So you shoot the wounded also, not a team player, sorry to hear that.

No, you ask a man who has demonstrated that he is unfit for a leadership position to do the right thing for the GOP and the conservative movement, to step down as Majority Leader and let someone else take the reins. And THEN you take the Dems own words about Lott and beat them over the Dem's heads regarding Byrd.

[aristeides]

Teddy Kennedy speaking on Lott now on C-SPAN Radio.

[Servant of the Nine]

This is a blessing for the GOP.
We were pretty much stuck with Lott, who was inept, dumb and cowardly.
The Dumbocrats have saved us by forcing the choice of a new smart tough agressive Majority Leader.

So9

[ewing]

Hopefully, this will turn out okay.

[ClancyJ]

If Lott caused all this hyperventilating just by making a bad joke, just think what reaction had been if he had driven a car off a bridge while drunk and drowned a young, female campaign worker.

Great comment. The reason? The "R" behind his name and the "D" behind the name of the driver of the car.

[jpl]

Just as William F. Buckley once said that it became impossible not to come to the conclusion that Pat Buchanan is anti-Semitic, to me it's become pretty much impossible not to conclude that Lott really is a racist.

[ewing]

National Review has a huge headline editorial calling for Lott's resignation as Leader.

[dirtboy]

The Dumbocrats have saved us by forcing the choice of a new smart tough agressive Majority Leader.

Yeah, the GOP Senate rank-and-file was afraid to take on Lott. Now, since Bush has given them cover, they might just boot him out of his position and give us a real partisan leader, instead of a guy whose idea of fun is to wear a jacket with 'WELCOME' stenciled on the back and lie down in front of Dashcle's office.

[ewing]

I wish Buckley would come out himself on that very issue, his column today really didn't address much..

[cynicom]

dirt...

Politics makes strange bedfellows. It is sort of sink or swim "together". No one in their right mind would not say that Lott has never been good at his job as leader. The senators that voted him in are the ones to blame, it is their job to take him out, not Bushs, not the media. I rather doubt if Bush would like to be blindsided in public by any senator, such as he did to Lott.

Can you imagine, in 04, if Lott were to denounce Bush in such a manner? Surely no one believes that Bush has endeared himself to Lott and quite possibly a few others. I thought Bush made a terrible mistake in his manner of addressing the issue. Perhaps whoever wrote the speech must have since gotten a notice to never do it again.

All of this swirl of politics is about power, not Lott, it never was, he is just the venue. The democrats and media play hardball, if the republicans are willing to help them to regain power by destroying their own, they welcome all the aid Bush in his rightrous indignation will provide.

[tm22721]

Many act surprised that Republicans act like capitalists (who eat their own when the heat is turned up).

BUMP

[dirtboy]

Politics makes strange bedfellows. It is sort of sink or swim "together". No one in their right mind would not say that Lott has never been good at his job as leader. The senators that voted him in are the ones to blame, it is their job to take him out, not Bushs, not the media.

Lott's comments basically forced Bush to make the statements he did. The GOP has a hard enough time overcoming the racist image without foolishness like Lott's.

I rather doubt if Bush would like to be blindsided in public by any senator, such as he did to Lott.

How do you know that Bush did not call up Lott? Bush knew he had to make a strong statement on the matter. This is ENTIRELY Lott's fault. No one else's. He didn't just hand his enemies a hammer, he gave them a sledgehammer, one they could use to whack on the entire GOP. Bush had to take that away and focus the attention back on Lott. Otherwise, the entire party could have been damaged by the raw stupidity of one of it's leaders.

Can you imagine, in 04, if Lott were to denounce Bush in such a manner?

A few Dems denounced Clinton. That was a shame. We cheered them on, and condemned those who fell in behind Clinton. I ain't gonna do the same with Lott, I'm not gonna cheer party unity at the cost of party integrity.

Surely no one believes that Bush has endeared himself to Lott and quite possibly a few others. I thought Bush made a terrible mistake in his manner of addressing the issue. Perhaps whoever wrote the speech must have since gotten a notice to never do it again.

That's TWO speculations on your part. Once again, Lott's comments left Bush little choice.

All of this swirl of politics is about power, not Lott, it never was, he is just the venue. The democrats and media play hardball, if the republicans are willing to help them to regain power by destroying their own, they welcome all the aid Bush in his rightrous indignation will provide.

The GOP is at a disadvantage in this game, and, quite frankly, I'm glad. We declare that we are held to a higher standard, and then actually act on those standards. The Dems talk the talk but never walk the walk. If it means that Lott falls on his sword while Byrd keeps his post, so be it. That is the price of integrity. Otherwise, everything we fought for with Clinton's impeachment is just words, mere verbage to be discarded when inconvenient or politically inexpedient.

[Helms]

Poor Humpty Dumpty:

Truth is stranger than fiction, what worst and totally unnecessary a thing could Lott have said? This was like watching someone attempt suicide in public.

Seems to me that Pride Cometh before a Fall and that while Lott has little reason for a big ego, he has managed to invent one.

All The kings horses All the kings Men...

Then again, we have been purging the Congress of the likes of Livingstone, Newt ( who I greatly adnmire for what he did in 94), Dick Armey, etc.

The only mandate that the Republicans have is to put winners at the top, and let losers like Trent self destruct of their own accord.

[AshleyMontagu]

Anyone who thinks this will end with Lott resigning his majority leader post is deluded. The sharks are circling, they smell blood and won't quit until a dem replacement has been named for his Senate spot.

[Cowboy Bob]

I'm not sure that I follow this whole controversy...

During a Birthday celebration, the Senate Majority leader praises a man on his 100th birthday. This man is a sitting (retiring) Senator who has been in office for 50 years. What the Majority leader says is that the country would have been better off if you had achieved the highest office you sought. Why wasn't there any controversy about Thurman during the past 50 years? The people of South Carolina kept on re-electing him. There was no effort to centure Thurman in the past, why are they attacking him now?

If at a birthday party, Tom Dashle had praised Ted Kennedy, saying that the country would have been better off if Ted was elected president in 1980. Would this be an endorsement of Murderers?

Where did Trent Lott endorce Segregation in his comments about Thurman? This is just a desperate attempt by the Democrats to find an issue.

By the way, how do the Democrats figure this strategy will win back the White vote in the South?

[JPJones]

Can somebody explain to me why Senator Kennedy can kill his girlfriend and noone questions his fitness to serve in the Senate while Senator Lott makes an innapropriate comment at a birthday party, apologizes several times and yet he is expected to resign.

Yeah and Bill Clinton not only speaks inappropriatle, but acts so as well (Monica) in addition he gets impeached, and yet HE didn't have to resign....

[churchillbuff]

Can somebody explain to me why Senator Kennedy can kill his girlfriend and noone questions his fitness to serve in the Senate

Not true - - Kennedy isn't up for leadership post. If he were, I think Mary Jo would be an issue.

Likewise with Byrd. If he wanted to be Dem leader, you'd hear about his KKK past.

Same thing seems to be applying to Lott - it's because he's the GOP LEADER that his comments invite scrutiny. A back bencher wouldn't get the attention.

[rightwing2]

One more shoe drops and I expect GOP Senators to begin calling for Lott to step down.

This thing is spiralling out of control--building a momentum all its own. Already, it has damaged the GOP's standing with blacks--one of the main minority groups that Bush is trying to cater to. Its not that what Lott said was so bad. It wasn't but it sure was stupid. This press conference is really Lott's last chance cause the RATS and the liberal media aren't going to let this go. Basically, he needs to come out and very humbly admit he made some very stupid remarks which were misinterpreted. He needs to explain some of his past questionable statements and actions. Then he needs to come out very passionately against all forms of racial discrimination and pledge to fight it strongly if allowed to serve as Senate Majority Leader. Frankly, I think Lott comes up short and is pressured to resign before the Senate reconvenes in three weeks.

[puroresu]

I've been around colleges continuously since 1976 and I haven't been to one yet that didn't have segregated blacks-only fraternities, sororities, clubs, honor societies, etc.. These segregated associations don't seem to upset the liberals who are castigating Lott.

Lott grew up in a segregated society. Virtually all the whites of that era favored segregation, and admitted it. Lott admitted being a former segregationist in an interview. Most of his critics, if asked about the propriety of blacks-only fraternities today, would say that "African-Americans need to be able to have their own exclusive clubs to maintain their unique cultural heritage". They'd then launch into an assault on Lott for being a segregationist 41 years ago.

This is much ado about nothing, and an effort to demonize people who grew up in the south during that era. I went to segregated schools for a total of one year (first grade). My family objected to the schools being integrated. So did every white person in my town, to the best of my knowledge. But it all worked out in the end, and people around here aren't segregationist anymore.

It's just how things were and they didn't want it to change. People act like every southerner from that era was some crazed KKK grand dragon or something, out burning crosses and lynching blacks. Most people weren't. But most southern whites (I'd say easily 95% of them) didn't want to end segregation.

Fortunately, it's not that way now. I don't mind people criticizing segregation. It was a stupid and despotic system. But I easily understand why people who were born and raised in such a society, where segregation was reinforced by law, by custom, and even by religion, would object to outsiders trying to break up their system. I was only a kid, so I didn't understand what the big deal was. But if I'd been born earlier, and had been raised to understand that segregation was our way of life, I probably would have been a segregationist. And you know what? Virtually everyone on this board would have been one, too.

This business of demonizing people for their past is just plain wrong. I belong to an online pro-life club. We have among our members people who were formerly pro-abortion. We have women who have had abortions as members. Should we throw them out of our club because they weren't as "enlightened" as we were five years ago? One young lady in our club has a sister who is strongly pro-abortion, but she still loves her. Should I encourage her to hate her and have nothing to do with her until she becomes pro-life?

This Political Correctness has to be stopped or it will destroy us as a nation. For God's sake, give it a rest. Criticize Lott if you want for being a poor leader who has generally been weak, incompetent, and ineffective. But please stop hounding him for saying a few nice words about an elderly man who hasn't been a segregationist for decades. Lott isn't perfect. He wasn't blessed to be born in "enlightened" New England where they didn't have official segregation policies. He was born in a place where by definition you would have to work with segregationists to get started in politics. Bill Clinton's mentor was a segregationist. Big deal! The past is the past, including Senator Fulbright's. Clinton should have been ousted for his criminal conduct, not for being born in a state where all the politicians were segregationists.