While the above statement is true, perhaps what is left out is perception.
Which of these will kill you?
This one"
Or this one?
Posted on 12/20/2002 5:49:37 AM PST by GoldenEagles
False. It is the operatives themselves who have made the big deal so they could get rid of Lott and replace him with a Dubya Yes-Man.
I despise Lott, but this trumped-up RACIST RACIST RACIST slander campaign by "conservatives" is despicable.
A Tale of Two Bubbas (Lott & Clinton) ~ John Fund Opinion Journal ~ John Fund's Political Diary ^ | December 19, 2002 | John Fund Posted on 12/19/2002 4:09 AM PST by Elle Bee JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY A Tale of Two Bubbas What do Trent Lott and Bill Clinton have in common? Not enough for Lott to survive. Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST Trent Lott and Bill Clinton were both born poor in the Deep South of the 1940s. Both crawled their way to the top of the national political heap with enormous grit and drive. Both are extremely stubborn men who instinctively refuse to bow to pressure and quit when controversy envelopes them. The difference is that Bill Clinton could be removed as president only by a two-thirds vote of the Senate--something his party's loyal support precluded. But Trent Lott's support within his party is melting away, and right now he is nowhere near the 26 votes from GOP Senate colleagues he needs to retain his job. "I am the son of a shipyard worker," Mr. Lott told ABC News this week. "I have had to fight all of my life. And I am not stopping now." But by digging in he only continues to alienate conservatives whose support he needs but has never really enjoyed. "Trent Lott isn't a conservative," says Paul Rodriguez, editor of Insight magazine. "He is seen as a slippery legislative mechanic who appeases friend and foe alike to advance the political agenda of the moment--and his own advancement." That deal-making, pork-barreling side of Trent Lott was on vivid display during apology No. 5--a Monday night interview on Black Entertainment Television. Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, watched the performance and was appalled to see Mr. Lott play to his audience and suddenly embrace "across the board" affirmative action. She wrote in the New York Times that Mr. Lott had become the new "groveler-in-chief of the Republican Party. At a time when fighting racial inequality requires a willingness to challenge the mainstream civil rights establishment, Mr. Lott's party will no longer be able to stand tall." Republicans who have stood with Mr. Lott until now are starting to peel away. Sid Pierce, a Mississippi businessman, is fed up with what he sees as Mr. Lott's "increasingly frantic efforts to make amends for his remarks." He notes that Mr. Lott is now so politically compromised that on BET the senator said he would rethink his support for Judge Charles Pickering, a lifelong family friend. Rep. J.C. Watts, the only black Republican in Congress, has defended the majority leader, but on Wednesday he said that if he were Mr. Lott he would step aside. "I would not put my family, my kids, my friends, my party through what I think the senator is going to have to go through," Mr. Watts told CNN. Bill Clinton angered many Democrats when in 1998 he was found to have lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but almost every congressional Democrat decided that having a president forced out of office would reduce the party's chances of holding on to the White House. As it turns out, the Democrats might have prevailed in 2000, if Mr. Clinton had resigned and handed the keys to the White House to Al Gore. Instead, Mr. Clinton stayed as a visible reminder of the many scandals surrounding his presidency, and left Mr. Gore with conflicted feelings about defending the Clinton record. No doubt Mr. Lott looks to Bill Clinton for inspiration in outlasting his critics. The two men have even sought advice from the same political consultant--Dick Morris. Now a commentator for the New York Post and Fox News Channel, Mr. Morris worked for both men in the 1980s and 1990s, often at the same time. He is now estranged from and a bitter critic of Mr. Clinton. But he still speaks with Mr. Lott and has become a vocal defender. "I got to know him better than any American politician other than Bill Clinton," Mr. Morris says. "I probably had 150 meetings with Trent Lott. He has said exactly as many racist things to me as Bill Clinton has, which is to say zero." This connection to Mr. Morris hasn't helped Mr. Lott shore up support with other GOP senators. "When I saw the Svengali Dick Morris tell Fox News he had had 150 meetings with Trent, I just blew a gasket," one GOP senator says. "It may help explain a lot of strange decisions that Trent has made, including why we had such a shortened and meaningless impeachment trial of Bill Clinton." In the past, Mr. Lott has acknowledged to me that he frequently consulted with Mr. Morris, but also said, "I seek advice from a variety of sources." People who have worked for Mr. Lott say it is indeed the kind of people he routinely consults that troubles them. One former aide notes that while Mr. Lott has voted for many curbs on litigation, his many connections with trial lawyers made him an unenthusiastic promoter of tort reform. Another former aide, Walter Olson, worked for Mr. Lott when he chaired the House Republican Conference in 1988. He believes that Mr. Lott's connections with the trial bar made Republican senators hesitant "to go to the mat" against outrageous legal fees granted to trial lawyers who worked in the 1998 class-action lawsuits brought by state attorneys general against the tobacco industry. Mr. Olson, now a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, notes in his new book, "The Rule of Lawyers," that trial lawyers often exploited their connections with Mr. Lott. He publishes a transcript from a 2001 Michigan arbitration hearing setting the fees that would go to trial lawyers who worked for the state in its suit against the tobacco industry. Mississippi's Attorney General Mike Moore, the driving force behind the nationwide effort against the tobacco industry, appeared before the arbitration hearing as a witness to argue for much larger than customary fees for the lawyers involved. He said the lawyers should be compensated generously because they had employed a three-prong strategy, of which only one part involved legal work. The other prongs involved political influence and public relations. When asked to assess the "impact" of the political influence wielded by the lawyers, the attorney general noted the fact that he had retained Richard Scruggs as lead lawyer in the tobacco case, and Mr. Scruggs had gold-plated political connections: "Trent Lott is Dickey Scruggs' brother-in-law. You don't think that this had anything to do with it? . . . Our team had the Senate majority leader as a brother-in-law of the lead lawyer, and it had an impact on this. And every AG and every other person recognized the power of that. Again, political one-third, PR one-third, and legal one-third." In the end, the tobacco settlement handed a select few trial lawyers $600 million a year for the next quarter century. If trial lawyers tithe only a tenth of that to political campaigns, Democrats will likely snag upward of 90% of an annual political bonanza that will amount to $120 million per two-year election cycle. Mr. Olson notes that while Mr. Lott recused himself from the Senate's debate over legal fees in the tobacco cases, he also "stood by while trial lawyers exploited their relationship with him and declined to chastise them." When I asked him about his trial lawyer connections in 1998, Mr. Lott joked that he "wasn't about to disown my brother-in-law." It is Mr. Lott's failure to be more than a deal-making legislative tactician that has ensured conservatives have few qualms about abandoning him in the wake of his racial remarks. They sense the deal-maker in Mr. Lott has now taken over completely. "His redemption [from his remarks] will be purchased through support for racialist social reforms that make a virtue of the same segregationist spirit that has now brought him low," writes conservative scholar Shelby Steele. Liberals wound up forgiving Bill Clinton for accepting Dick Morris's advice and signing welfare reform in 1996. They stuck with him through impeachment. But Trent Lott lacks that deep reservoir of support within his party. Conservatives are outraged at the damage Mr. Lott has caused to their efforts to reach out to minority communities and advocate principled race-neutral policies. Mr. Lott's outrageous pandering to his critics has only stoked the anger and disappointment. Bill Clinton survived, but Trent Lott is no Bill Clinton. . A Tale of Two Bubbas (Lott & Clinton) ~ John Fund Opinion Journal ~ John Fund's Political Diary ^ | December 19, 2002 | John Fund Posted on 12/19/2002 4:09 AM PST by Elle Bee JOHN FUND'S POLITICAL DIARY A Tale of Two Bubbas What do Trent Lott and Bill Clinton have in common? Not enough for Lott to survive. Thursday, December 19, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST Trent Lott and Bill Clinton were both born poor in the Deep South of the 1940s. Both crawled their way to the top of the national political heap with enormous grit and drive. Both are extremely stubborn men who instinctively refuse to bow to pressure and quit when controversy envelopes them. The difference is that Bill Clinton could be removed as president only by a two-thirds vote of the Senate--something his party's loyal support precluded. But Trent Lott's support within his party is melting away, and right now he is nowhere near the 26 votes from GOP Senate colleagues he needs to retain his job. "I am the son of a shipyard worker," Mr. Lott told ABC News this week. "I have had to fight all of my life. And I am not stopping now." But by digging in he only continues to alienate conservatives whose support he needs but has never really enjoyed. "Trent Lott isn't a conservative," says Paul Rodriguez, editor of Insight magazine. "He is seen as a slippery legislative mechanic who appeases friend and foe alike to advance the political agenda of the moment--and his own advancement." That deal-making, pork-barreling side of Trent Lott was on vivid display during apology No. 5--a Monday night interview on Black Entertainment Television. Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, watched the performance and was appalled to see Mr. Lott play to his audience and suddenly embrace "across the board" affirmative action. She wrote in the New York Times that Mr. Lott had become the new "groveler-in-chief of the Republican Party. At a time when fighting racial inequality requires a willingness to challenge the mainstream civil rights establishment, Mr. Lott's party will no longer be able to stand tall." Republicans who have stood with Mr. Lott until now are starting to peel away. Sid Pierce, a Mississippi businessman, is fed up with what he sees as Mr. Lott's "increasingly frantic efforts to make amends for his remarks." He notes that Mr. Lott is now so politically compromised that on BET the senator said he would rethink his support for Judge Charles Pickering, a lifelong family friend. Rep. J.C. Watts, the only black Republican in Congress, has defended the majority leader, but on Wednesday he said that if he were Mr. Lott he would step aside. "I would not put my family, my kids, my friends, my party through what I think the senator is going to have to go through," Mr. Watts told CNN. Bill Clinton angered many Democrats when in 1998 he was found to have lied about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but almost every congressional Democrat decided that having a president forced out of office would reduce the party's chances of holding on to the White House. As it turns out, the Democrats might have prevailed in 2000, if Mr. Clinton had resigned and handed the keys to the White House to Al Gore. Instead, Mr. Clinton stayed as a visible reminder of the many scandals surrounding his presidency, and left Mr. Gore with conflicted feelings about defending the Clinton record. No doubt Mr. Lott looks to Bill Clinton for inspiration in outlasting his critics. The two men have even sought advice from the same political consultant--Dick Morris. Now a commentator for the New York Post and Fox News Channel, Mr. Morris worked for both men in the 1980s and 1990s, often at the same time. He is now estranged from and a bitter critic of Mr. Clinton. But he still speaks with Mr. Lott and has become a vocal defender. "I got to know him better than any American politician other than Bill Clinton," Mr. Morris says. "I probably had 150 meetings with Trent Lott. He has said exactly as many racist things to me as Bill Clinton has, which is to say zero." This connection to Mr. Morris hasn't helped Mr. Lott shore up support with other GOP senators. "When I saw the Svengali Dick Morris tell Fox News he had had 150 meetings with Trent, I just blew a gasket," one GOP senator says. "It may help explain a lot of strange decisions that Trent has made, including why we had such a shortened and meaningless impeachment trial of Bill Clinton." In the past, Mr. Lott has acknowledged to me that he frequently consulted with Mr. Morris, but also said, "I seek advice from a variety of sources." People who have worked for Mr. Lott say it is indeed the kind of people he routinely consults that troubles them. One former aide notes that while Mr. Lott has voted for many curbs on litigation, his many connections with trial lawyers made him an unenthusiastic promoter of tort reform. Another former aide, Walter Olson, worked for Mr. Lott when he chaired the House Republican Conference in 1988. He believes that Mr. Lott's connections with the trial bar made Republican senators hesitant "to go to the mat" against outrageous legal fees granted to trial lawyers who worked in the 1998 class-action lawsuits brought by state attorneys general against the tobacco industry. Mr. Olson, now a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, notes in his new book, "The Rule of Lawyers," that trial lawyers often exploited their connections with Mr. Lott. He publishes a transcript from a 2001 Michigan arbitration hearing setting the fees that would go to trial lawyers who worked for the state in its suit against the tobacco industry. Mississippi's Attorney General Mike Moore, the driving force behind the nationwide effort against the tobacco industry, appeared before the arbitration hearing as a witness to argue for much larger than customary fees for the lawyers involved. He said the lawyers should be compensated generously because they had employed a three-prong strategy, of which only one part involved legal work. The other prongs involved political influence and public relations. When asked to assess the "impact" of the political influence wielded by the lawyers, the attorney general noted the fact that he had retained Richard Scruggs as lead lawyer in the tobacco case, and Mr. Scruggs had gold-plated political connections: "Trent Lott is Dickey Scruggs' brother-in-law. You don't think that this had anything to do with it? . . . Our team had the Senate majority leader as a brother-in-law of the lead lawyer, and it had an impact on this. And every AG and every other person recognized the power of that. Again, political one-third, PR one-third, and legal one-third." In the end, the tobacco settlement handed a select few trial lawyers $600 million a year for the next quarter century. If trial lawyers tithe only a tenth of that to political campaigns, Democrats will likely snag upward of 90% of an annual political bonanza that will amount to $120 million per two-year election cycle. Mr. Olson notes that while Mr. Lott recused himself from the Senate's debate over legal fees in the tobacco cases, he also "stood by while trial lawyers exploited their relationship with him and declined to chastise them." When I asked him about his trial lawyer connections in 1998, Mr. Lott joked that he "wasn't about to disown my brother-in-law." It is Mr. Lott's failure to be more than a deal-making legislative tactician that has ensured conservatives have few qualms about abandoning him in the wake of his racial remarks. They sense the deal-maker in Mr. Lott has now taken over completely. "His redemption [from his remarks] will be purchased through support for racialist social reforms that make a virtue of the same segregationist spirit that has now brought him low," writes conservative scholar Shelby Steele. Liberals wound up forgiving Bill Clinton for accepting Dick Morris's advice and signing welfare reform in 1996. They stuck with him through impeachment. But Trent Lott lacks that deep reservoir of support within his party. Conservatives are outraged at the damage Mr. Lott has caused to their efforts to reach out to minority communities and advocate principled race-neutral policies. Mr. Lott's outrageous pandering to his critics has only stoked the anger and disappointment. Bill Clinton survived, but Trent Lott is no Bill Clinton. .
An unintended consequence of their character assassination campaign will be just what Nietsche predicted: if Lott survives, he will be much stronger and a much more troublesome obstacle.
I don't find him to be honorable as claimed in the article. This would mean he showed traits of character that were worthy of special praise. Not Trent. Fund's article reveal him to be a legislator who is himself oportunistic and seems actuated by the agenda of the moment --ultimately loyal to himself and his interest. I think if he had any greater interest, say like his party, the president or the country, he would recognize that he had made himself a liability as the public face of the GOP. Frankly, he is not that smart to pull off a Clintonian ruse, but Lott seems to strive to doing just that. He is failing that as we speak, and only making himself appear ridiculous. This is not honor.
George Will recently called him "an ineffective mediocrity". I would settle on that as an apt characterization. But no, not an honorable man. I do not have to prove he is dishonorable or worse [I do not want to argue that] to object to him being called "an honorable man."
Sorry, I posted it twice, BTW. In fact I did remove what I guess now was a third copy of hte article. Oh well.
While the above statement is true, perhaps what is left out is perception.
Which of these will kill you?
This one"
Or this one?
If he had been, then the President would not have undermined Lott by letting it be known that he "would not stand in the way of having him replaced."
Bush's Homeland Penitentiary Act has nothing to do with preventing terrorism and everything to do with creating a a zero-privacy police state where everything you do and own is recorded in a nice little file at the FBI/CIA/NSA.
"Red on yellow, kill a fellow."
Right..............but you get my point?
Yes. Your point was very clear and well illustrated.
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.