MONDAY MORNING QUARTERBACKS -- On purging of Lott, unfit leader, California, etc.

The Daily Oklahoman ^ | 30 December 2002 | Various

[PhiKapMom]

Monday Morning Quarterbacks
2002-12-30

On purging of Lott, unfit leader, California, liberal Times, marriage

No one should doubt for a moment the political sagacity of Karl Rove, the extraordinary White House political counselor whose fingerprints are all over the strategy that dethroned Trent Lott from his coveted Senate leadership post. Is Machiavellian a proper description of his approach?

Perhaps. But only as far as the "craftiness" part of the dictionary description of that term applies, although some of his enemies would argue that the other characteristics attributed to the Medieval Italian political genius, "duplicitous" and "deceitful," also apply to Rove.

What is evident is that President Bush's longtime Texas adviser has a political sensitivity mixed with common sense that is far beyond the average, one that approaches or even eclipses that of legendary Roosevelt political strategist Louis Howe who managed to put together the most unlikely voting coalition in the history of the Republic -- Eastern liberals, Southern reactionaries, blacks, lily-white unionists -- to keep his man in office through four elections.

Rove's instant recognition of the dangers inherent to the Republican Party and, thus, his boss in Lott's disastrous endorsement of Sen. Strom Thurmond's race-based 1948 presidential campaign probably saved the day. And his awareness of the need to move quickly to disassociate Bush from the Mississippian's off-the- cuff birthday praise for Thurmond was evident in the president's early and unexpected strongly worded denouncement of Lott's comments. From that moment on, Rove clearly realized that Lott had committed an unpardonable political sin and could not survive it.

Dan Thomasson in a syndicated column

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lott has provided even more evidence of his moral unfitness for leadership. In desperation to save himself, the clueless Lott has now groveled his way to supporting affirmative action. Three weeks ago he was pining for 1948 segregation; now, on BET, he embraces 2002 racial preferences -- without even a pit stop at 1964 colorblindness! It's an amazing trajectory, and a disgraceful one. It can only happen to a man without a principled bone in his body on the issue of race.

In his multiple confessions, Lott has practically pledged himself to enacting the modern liberal agenda of racial preferences. It is an ironic recapitulation of what happened 40 years ago. Out of shame and atonement for the racist past, liberals abandoned racial blindness and became apologists for racial preferences. Lott's newfound shame and atonement are as phony as it gets, but the result is the same: He, too, has gone from one kind of racialism to another. He set the indoor record, however, by doing it in a week.

A man who has no use -- let alone no feel -- for colorblindness has no business being a leader of the conservative party.

Charles Krauthammer in a syndicated column

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some defenders of Lott were angry at the double standards being applied in the media and elsewhere. Race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were taken seriously in the media when they attacked Lott morally, despite Jackson's own record of anti- Semitic remarks and the hoax against white public officials that put Al Sharpton on the map.

All that is true -- and important in other contexts -- but irrelevant to the crucial issue of whether Trent Lott should have remained the majority leader of the Senate Republicans. Stopping black racists from accusing others of racism was not one of the options available to Republicans. Nor was making the media honest an option on the table, desirable as that might be.

The actual choice that faced Republicans is whether they wanted Trent Lott to be out front as the face of their party when they confront future political battles over judicial nominees, national security and the rest of the Bush administration agenda.

Any judge who has ever ruled against any claim -- however outrageous -- by any organization that calls itself a civil rights group is likely to be hit with charges of "racism" when he or she is nominated for an appellate court appointment and is up for confirmation in the Senate. Who is going to go on nationwide television and reassure the public that the nominee is not a racist? Trent Lott?

Thomas Sowell in a syndicated column

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

White House political operatives have told California Republican leaders that President Bush, despite GOP disasters there in 2000 and 2002, plans a vigorous 2004 re-election campaign in the nation's most populous state.

Bush stayed away this past autumn from the uphill campaign by Bill Simon, the untested Republican candidate against Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. Nevertheless, the White House is making clear that neither Simon's narrow defeat nor Bush's lopsided loss two years earlier convinced the president to give up on California.

If Bush is serious about California, however, he may have to enforce Republican unity in the state. The president is being urged to intervene against Shawn Steel's election as state Republican chairman. Steel has been engaged in a bitter feud with Bush's principal agent in the state, investment banker Gerald Parsky.

Robert Novak in a syndicated column

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Politicians aren't the only public figures who feel so strongly about an issue they ultimately become the story.

Peek at the imploding so- called newsroom of Howell Raines, executive editor of the New York Times. Since last July, the paper's obsessive liberal crusade against all-male membership at the Augusta National Golf Club, site of the annual Masters tournament, has added up to more than 40 stories and editorials. But when sports columnists Dave Anderson and Harvey Araton dissented a bit from the Raines line, their columns were spiked, a journalistic breach that inflamed reporters inside and outside the Times. Some freedom of the press. You can have an opinion at the New York Times -- as long as it reflects the opinion of Howell Raines.

After a thorough roasting by conservatives and liberals alike, Raines surrendered and published the columns. Upon reading them, you would wonder why on Earth they would be smothered. They both toed the liberal line and argued that the male-only membership policy at Augusta should and would be dissolved.

Brent Bozell in a syndicated column

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage is in trouble for a lot of reasons, but surely one important factor is the relentless hostility unleashed by the 1960s counterculture, which portrayed marriage as oppressive, patriarchal, outmoded and destructive to children. The attitudes of today's elites reflect that never-ending campaign. Now we have lots of "marriage" counselors who never use the word marriage and textbooks on families bristling with hostility toward the nuclear family. As I wrote in this space several years ago, "One of the problems in trying to shore up the institution of marriage is that so many of the professionals who teach and write about it -- counselors, therapists, academics and popular authors -- really don't support marriage at all."

What they do tend to support is known as "close relationship theory," the idea that sexual and emotional satisfaction come from intense, fragile and often short-term relationships that aren't necessarily going anywhere. One advocate calls them "microwave relationships," cooked up fast, served and consumed, presumably with other similar meals to come. It all seems like the dream world of a randy adolescent chasing cheerleaders. Marriage is knocked off its pedestal and the family itself fades away. Children tend to fade away, too, in close relationship theory, as emphasis comes down hard on adult fulfillment.

John Leo in a syndicated column

[PhiKapMom]

Having been gone for a good portion of the month of December due to my oldest daughter getting married in San Diego, I was not here for the Lott fiasco.

Now I want to add my two cents since the controversy seems to still be going on in some circles. First I was stunned to see Lott being supported on here to the extent he was and some still do. How many of the Lott supporters were looking for a new Majority Leader when we took back the Senate because of his eneptness in being Majority Leaders? Ask yourself that question if you still support Lott.

Secondly, anyone that would want Lott out front as the spokesman for Republicans in this session of the Senate is not thinking. His comments (which I found deploreable BTW) would have been the focus of the Senate not the Bush Agenda.

Third, his comments about how he was ousted by his enemies went beyond my comprehension. His so-called "enemies" did not make those comments. I, for one, remember that Strom Thurmond was not a lifelong Republican and didn't even know he ran for President in 1948 until Lott brought it out. Did you Lott supporters bother to check out what Party he ran for and the platform? And you wanted Lott to remain as head of the Senate after you found out! Give this person a break!

Read what others have to say in the above articles and think before voicing your continued support for Lott! It gains nothing except make this forum look like it supports Lott and his statements! This member of FR does not support him in any way and haven't for a long time. This latest fiasco just proved to me that he should never have been Majority Leader to begin with!

That is the end of my rant!

[PhiKapMom]

BTW -- bold in the article is mine!

[chiller]

I'll second that emotion.

[BIGZ]

Who called Paul Fray a F--king Jew bastard?

[PhiKapMom]

I think that the RATs should do some purging of their own starting with Robert Byrd, Patty Murry, and most notably the anti-Jewish Senator from NY, ms. clinton!

Didn't mean to infer that I thought the press was fair -- what happened with Lott resigning as Majority Leader was necessary but the press and the RATs overplayed their hand IMO and it will come back to bite them. Now it would be great if the press had the same standard for Byrd, Murry, and Clinton, but I am not holding my breath.

[PhiKapMom]

Thanks!

I couldn't believe what I was reading when I started back over the articles I had been bumped to in My Comments so when I saw this is this morning's Daily Oklahoman, I figured it was time to give my two cents!

[Woodworker]

Lott reminds me of Jefferson Davis, i.e., an inept leader. Frist proved able to stick to the goal by wining back the Senate against the odds. It's one thing to overlook off-the cuff remarks, but another to overlook ineptitude. That said, one goes with the other. Lott is best as he is now, gone from leadership, but still in the Senate.

[PhiKapMom]

Lott is best as he is now, gone from leadership, but still in the Senate.

Very well stated and my sentiments exactly!

[TLBSHOW]

Then you missed these stories or just ignored them?

As principal author of Lott's demise, Bush must now face its consequences: limiting his freedom in policy touching on race. He has to decide whether to approve Solicitor General Theodore Olson's proposal for U.S. intervention against the University of Michigan in the racial quota case before the Supreme Court. He has to decide whether to renominate U.S. District Judge Charles Pickering, a friend and Mississippi Republican ally of Lott's, for the appellate bench. To go with Olson and Pickering would raise accusations of "racism."

The Lott affair quickly burned off the remaining Republican glow from mid-term election victories, but its impact transcends that. Democratic operatives dragged out the old chestnut of candidate Bush's 2000 visit to Bob Jones University, with spokesman Ari Fleischer harangued about it at Friday's White House briefing. The theme is that the GOP's Southern base, the bedrock of its national election victories, is an illegitimate legacy from racist Dixiecrats.

robert novack

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/rn20021223.shtml

The idea that Lott took the occasion of an old timer's birthday to introduce a new policy initiative to bring back segregation – a Democrat policy – is ludicrous.

Ann Coulter

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/ac20021219.shtml


The consequences of this rout of the Republicans, due to their own cowardice, are going to be sweeping.

The liberal establishment has the bit in its teeth. All the momentum of November is gone. Republicans are going to be made to apologize for their past racist sins, to grovel before the inquisition, to abandon any and all plans to block the "civil rights" agenda of Sharpton, Jackson, Daschle and Gore. They will be told to drop any thought of nominating conservative Southern judges to U.S. courts. All efforts to overturn affirmative action -- i.e., reverse discrimination -- are almost surely now dead.

It is hard to see how Lott survives, or why he would want to. His own president cut him dead and collaborated, almost surely at the instigation of "Boy Genius" Karl Rove, with his assassins. And rather than fight the false charges, Lott apologized four times and threw himself on the mercy of a court that had convicted him, without evidence, of a thought crime he did not commit. Now, he is asking forgiveness of the very enemies he was elected to fight.

How does one now lead?

What should the president have said? A suggestion.

"Every day that America was segregated was a day that America was unfaithful to our ideals. I believe that. Sen. Lott believes that. Sen. Thurmond came to believe that. As for those who have maliciously and falsely accused Sen. Lott of a statement he never made and a sentiment he never expressed, they should stop dealing the race card from the bottom of the deck."

Lott's enemies would have scattered like the jackals they are. Now, with Bush's assist, they have horribly wounded his majority leader. Trent Lott is the victim of a hate crime, not the perpetrator of one.

Pat Buchanan

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/pb20021219.shtml

[Ole Okie]

Hey, glad to see you back, PKM!

Thanks for this post, which covers a lot (Lott?) of ground.

Lott's unfitness for his high office was evident from his craven actions at the time of the impeachment trial, among other egregious doings.

But truth to tell, I defended him at the time of the trial on the basis that there was no way under heaven to get a 2/3 majority in the Senate. Mea culpa! It was a mistake on my part to mentally excuse his cowardly actions, and I have repented many times over.

Nonetheless, it didn't take Rove's calibrated eyeball to realize that Lott had gone totally over the edge with the disastrous Strom Thurmond remarks. As Li'l Abner used to say, "...as any fool can plainly see; Ah sees!"

Thanks again for posting this. And...

BEAT WASHINGTON STATE!

[cynicom]

At the top of the page it says, "A conservative news forum".

With that in mind, it does not say "REPUBLICAN", nor does it say differing opinions with PhiMom not allowed.

As for "thinking", just perhaps there are some people that think beyond the race issue. The last time I looked that was also still allowed.

[PhiKapMom]

Hello to my fellow Sooner!

Your statements fit me perfectly. I, too, defended Lott during impeachment until I found out how Lott had the whole deal put together with Daschle before the rest of the caucus was informed. By the time Lott went back to the caucus, the agreement had been leaked. I lost my respect for Lott then and NEVER regained it back. Especially when he promised Sen Nickles that if he didn't run against him in 1998, that he (Lott) would step down as Majority Leader in 2000 which appeared in this same paper. Well 2000 came and went and Lott stayed. Then in 2002 he moved up the election for Majority Leader to not give anyone a chance to oppose him.

It was way past time for Lott to resign as Majority Leader IMHO!

GO Sooners!

[cynicom]

TLB....

Some sanctimonious, self righteous republican socialists on FR are the best allies the democrats have and they value their worth.

[PhiKapMom]

Did I tell you that you couldn't think -- I told some of you that you should think about comments made about Lott in the past!

This is not my forum and I have as much right as you do to state my opinion. If you don't like it, disagree, but it might do some of you some good to look back and reflect.

Some statements I have seen on here defending Lott make the rest of us look bad and I take exception to those! Some have bordered on racist themselves and when you read them all together as I have done over the last week, they make me sick. Excuse me for caring about people regardless of their race!

BTW, if you don't like my Republican comments then why are you involved in the Lott fiasco which happens to be a Republican matter the last time I checked!

[PhiKapMom]

You want to go tit for tat -- I have a month to catch up on and I frankly have had it with the anti-Bush crowd and especially the anti-Rove crowd that rears its head on here with less than truthful comments presented as facts.

You don't speak for the vast majority of conservatives that are "not" on this site and maybe it is time you took a good look around off FR. This website has some arch conservatives that I don't see in my everyday life here in Oklahoma which is as conservative as you can get. Much to your dismay I am sure, they actually support the President and Karl Rove!

You have a right to your opinion but so do I and I intend to exercise that right!

[Fred Mertz]

...the Lott fiasco which happens to be a Republican matter the last time I checked!

Welcome back PKM. Now get the wool out of your eyes.

[PhiKapMom]

You list Buchanan as someone telling Republicans what to do! Give me a break!

As for the rest, don't know what they are up to but most have not been a friend of this President on most issues! If you cannot see that keeping Lott as Majority Leader would have been the only focus, then take off your blinders.

As for Ann Coulter, there is a lot I disagree with her on in the past in articles and on TV.

Your articles do not impress me especially after the amount of time that has passed. These articles are current and reflect the opinions of the vast amount of Republicans notwithdstanding the crowd on here and some pundits who make their living off of talk shows!

[PhiKapMom]

You are defending Lott? Give me a break! What happened to all the Freepers that called him inept and wanted him out as Majority leader?

Do I take it from your comments, that you would have voted for Lott to remain as Majority Leader BEFORE he made these comments and his apologies which got worse by the day?

[PhiKapMom]

Take your Republican socialists comments and think. You know that is not true and is a perfect example of what I have been pointing out.

Innuendoes and lies do not fit well on here and neither does calling people names when you disagree!

[TLBSHOW]

Bush Policy's Newest Critics - Conservatives

At the root of this conservative disquiet is the right wing's traditional distrust of government power. They recall Benjamin Franklin's warning that those who sacrifice liberty for safety's sake deserve neither liberty not safety.

Carl Limbacher

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