Lott Resigns as Majority Leader

[Capt Dizle]

I have to chuckly about the wrong side of history remark when almost all of the developed world struggles with a new societal problem, obesity while hundreds of thousands are still dying every year of starvation.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Not only that, but many Republicans were dissatisfied with his leadership anyway and were more than happy to see him go.

Lott's ouster is the fault of his own incompetence and GOP back-biting more than anything else.

Ridiculos. He was unoposed for Majority Leader till this flap. You just made that one up.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Perfectly good sounding arguement other than the fact that it is wrong. Sure, you can always find a few people who are exceptions but to accept your arguement you have to condemn just about every Southerner and just about every German, just about every Mongol, and just about every Soviet, and just about every Chinese Communist, and so forth.

Man, get off your high horse. Does it make you feel special to sit in judgement of others? Snobbery is the least flattering of all vainglories.

Do you really believe that we have no higher obligation than to just go along with the general direction of society? And that anyone who criticizes that direction, in the moment or in retrospect, is on a "high horse"?

I've read many of your posts. That's not you at all; you're not at all afraid to stake out a position contrary to conventional wisdom. You're being disingenuous here.

That said, I'm not sitting in judgments of whole societies; I'm sitting in judgment of men in positions of responsibility and power. Does it make me feel special to sit in judgment of such others? No, it makes me feel like an engaged citizen of a democracy; judging our leaders is our first and most important responsibilty.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Ridiculos. He was unoposed for Majority Leader till this flap. You just made that one up.

A sitting majority leader who hadn't yet had any controversy and had overseen the GOP election wins last month. However, GOP conservatives have always been *****ing about him being too willing to compromise with the Democrats:

http://commonconservative.com/ace/ace096.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock121202.asp

"Lott's black problem would be bad enough were he a crafty parliamentarian or a strong-willed leader. Alas, he is neither.

Lott engineered the ill-conceived power-sharing agreement with Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) when the Senate was split last year, 50-50. Despite Vice President Cheney's tie-breaking vote that could have maximized GOP control of committees, Lott gift-wrapped additional legislative influence for Senate Democrats. Daschle, of course, shredded this deal when Vermont Senator James Jeffords left the GOP, giving Democrats a one-seat edge.

As for his spine, Lott is a chiropractor's dream. Here's what he told radio host Oliver North when his inability to control Jeffords cost Republicans their majority: There is "something liberating about being in the minority — you're not as consumed with trying to move the trains."

I know plenty of conservatives who view Lott as a spineless compromiser.

So no, I didn't just make that up. You're like the male version of Dixie Carter on "Designing Women."

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Do you really believe that we have no higher obligation than to just go along with the general direction of society? And that anyone who criticizes that direction, in the moment or in retrospect, is on a "high horse"?

I've read many of your posts. That's not you at all; you're not at all afraid to stake out a position contrary to conventional wisdom. You're being disingenuous here.

That said, I'm not sitting in judgments of whole societies; I'm sitting in judgment of men in positions of responsibility and power. Does it make me feel special to sit in judgment of such others? No, it makes me feel like an engaged citizen of a democracy; judging our leaders is our first and most important responsibilty.

Not disingenuous at all. I am bucking this current wave of conventional hogwash that anytime a white person misspeaks its a Freudian slip that reveals their true nature. Instead, its just a wholesale caving in to political correctness.

Robert Byrd is playing a Confederate general in Ted Turner's upcoming movie. Please condemn him. Senators Gramm and Allen, both republicans are getting bit parts. Are they going to be drummed out of the Senate?

If you want to judge Thurmond, go ahead. He has been coasting for many years and I don't know what he stands for but I have paid close attention to Lott and I don't see how you can condemn him as a racist unless you condemn just about every other Republican leader. Maybe that is what you are about.

Do you think that everyone who opposes affirmative action is a racist? Heck, forget that, Lott admitted to supporting that.

Its all a game where the race card still trumps all and while racism exists, so do many who exploit it.

And many beat the drums to show how superior they are. Hah!

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov




A sitting majority leader who hadn't yet had any controversy and had overseen the GOP election wins last month. However, GOP conservatives have always been *****ing about him being too willing to compromise with the Democrats:

http://commonconservative.com/ace/ace096.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock121202.asp

"Lott's black problem would be bad enough were he a crafty parliamentarian or a strong-willed leader. Alas, he is neither.

Lott engineered the ill-conceived power-sharing agreement with Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) when the Senate was split last year, 50-50. Despite Vice President Cheney's tie-breaking vote that could have maximized GOP control of committees, Lott gift-wrapped additional legislative influence for Senate Democrats. Daschle, of course, shredded this deal when Vermont Senator James Jeffords left the GOP, giving Democrats a one-seat edge.

As for his spine, Lott is a chiropractor's dream. Here's what he told radio host Oliver North when his inability to control Jeffords cost Republicans their majority: There is "something liberating about being in the minority — you're not as consumed with trying to move the trains."

I know plenty of conservatives who view Lott as a spineless compromiser.

So no, I didn't just make that up. You're like the male version of Dixie Carter on "Designing Women."

Good line.

But you are still intentionly bull****ting the issue. There are always people who are dissatified with a leader but you made it sound like his leadership was teetering on the edge. Guess what. That was a lie. He won. So stick have some spine and stick to your guns. Your postion is that he was sacked because he is an evil racist. Right?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Not disingenuous at all. I am bucking this current wave of conventional hogwash that anytime a white person misspeaks its a Freudian slip that reveals their true nature. Instead, its just a wholesale caving in to political correctness.

Freudian slip? Are you smoking something? He didn't slip, he said what he meant to say. He's said before, after all.

Robert Byrd is playing a Confederate general in Ted Turner's upcoming movie. Please condemn him. Senators Gramm and Allen, both republicans are getting bit parts. Are they going to be drummed out of the Senate?

What a great comparison. Movie roles in a film based on a historical subject to someone making a statement they wish a segregationist had won. Most people know that movie roles don't attest to political philosophy, or else Ralph Fiennes would have been hanged.

but I have paid close attention to Lott and I don't see how you can condemn him as a racist unless you condemn just about every other Republican leader. Maybe that is what you are about.

I call bull****. If you'd been paying close attention to Lott, you'd know how unhappy many conservatives were with his leadership. And, if you don't see how we can't call him a racist, you're blind. Besides his repeated remarks of this kind, there's his legacy of opposition to civil rights legislation, his actively and successfully seeking to bar blacks from his college fraternity (nation-wide, mind you), and his addressing the white supremacist group the CCofC and telling them that they stood for what was right. ANd his defense of Bob Jones's University and its racist policies?

Come on, open your eyes.

Do you think that everyone who opposes affirmative action is a racist? Heck, forget that, Lott admitted to supporting that.

Perfect example of the gutlessness that Lott has been known for that makes conservatives mad at him.

Its all a game where the race card still trumps all and while racism exists, so do many who exploit it.

And many beat the drums to show how superior they are. Hah!

By the same token, it's becoming all too common for people to play the PC card and defend any racist behavior. Give us a break, really.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Good line.

But you are still intentionly bull****ting the issue. There are always people who are dissatified with a leader but you made it sound like his leadership was teetering on the edge. Guess what. That was a lie. He won. So stick have some spine and stick to your guns. Your postion is that he was sacked because he is an evil racist. Right?

No, I'm afraid your wrong. His leadership wasn't teetering until this because, as I said, he had led the GOP Senate contigent at a time when they had had a huge election win. So there was no reason to challenge his leadership then. The comments and the storm that followed provided a convenient excuse for others who were hungry for the position to take over. And yes, many of them were not happy with him. They blamed him partially for Jeffords' defection in 2001, handing the Senate to the Dems.

And no, my position is that he was sacked because he had shown himself not politically savvy enough to retain the leadership, and there are GOPers eager to step in for their own benefit as well. That's politics.

The fact that Lott is a racist is just the sidenote that started this mess.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


Not disingenuous at all. I am bucking this current wave of conventional hogwash that anytime a white person misspeaks its a Freudian slip that reveals their true nature. Instead, its just a wholesale caving in to political correctness.

If it was a matter of Lott misspeaking, or of Lott simply offering thoughtless, fatuous praise of a friend (as Imran keeps insisting), I'd agree with you. But what's driven him from his post is not this one statement, but that he's publicly pined for days of segregation on many occassions (all under-reported until now), and that his voting record has matched his rhetoric. It's not the fault of ordinary people that the mass media is lazy, cowardly, and in bed with Washington, and so hasn't drawn any attention to that until now (or even now, initially; of the 12 major media outlets covering Thurmond's party, only one reported on Lott's remarks, and they only broadcast the report once -- at 4.30 am EST). But it's to people credit that, when this finally got their attention, they were pissed. Good for them!

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


None of that matters. What matters is keeping Trent Lott as majority leader would have been politically damaging to the GOP because it would have tarnished our image. It was decided that it would be more politicaly useful to have someone else as Majority leader, so Lott had to go. Simple as that.

Thats pretty silly Shi. How would keeping Lott have tarnished our image of being nothing but a bunch of closet racists?

I guess now that Lott is defrocked Republicans will never be accused of racism again. Right.

God help this country if all of us are free to slander a man by calling him a racist, but if we say a word of praise about the body of a man's work, as Lott did, we are condemned if once upon a time that man's work was on the (gag) "wrong side of history".

Al Gore must be chuckling right now. In a week he slew Lott, made the President look weak, the Republican Senate appear morally bankrupt, and made Hillary Clinton the front runner for the Democratic nomination.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Al Gore must be chuckling right now. In a week he slew Lott, made the President look weak, the Republican Senate appear morally bankrupt, and made Hillary Clinton the front runner for the Democratic nomination.

While I'm happy about all but the last of those, you can't give Al Gore the credit. Lott slew himself, the Republicans made themselves look morally bankrupt by slavering to take Lott down on a convenient excuse, and Hillary is a result of the media making a big deal out of nothing (i.e. her potential presidential bid).

And I don't see how Bush looked weak from this.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


If it was a matter of Lott misspeaking, or of Lott simply offering thoughtless, fatuous praise of a friend (as Imran keeps insisting), I'd agree with you. But what's driven him from his post is not this one statement, but that he's publicly pined for days of segregation on many occassions (all under-reported until now), and that his voting record has matched his rhetoric. It's not the fault of ordinary people that the mass media is lazy, cowardly, and in bed with Washington, and so hasn't drawn any attention to that until now (or even now, initially; of the 12 major media outlets covering Thurmond's party, only one reported on Lott's remarks, and they only broadcast the report once -- at 4.30 am EST). But it's to people credit that, when this finally got their attention, they were pissed. Good for them!

I guess I agree with Imran on this, Lott just didn't think about what he was saying. I don't believe for a second that this was anything more than another witch hunt.

I am hard pressed to see much difference in today race card and McCarthy's communist card. Maybe if I were a contemorary of McCarthy I would understand better.

I am sure some of the geniuses around here can pretend to know all about McCarthism and tell me the difference.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


While I'm happy about all but the last of those, you can't give Al Gore the credit. Lott slew himself, the Republicans made themselves look morally bankrupt by slavering to take Lott down on a convenient excuse, and Hillary is a result of the media making a big deal out of nothing (i.e. her potential presidential bid).

And I don't see how Bush looked weak from this.

Quite to the contrary, Bush emerges stronger than before. He jumped on Lott before anyone else in the GOP, so now he looks farsighted and fairminded. And who is the Administration's very best friend/lapdog in the Senate? Bill Frist. It's been a very good week at the White House.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


While I'm happy about all but the last of those, you can't give Al Gore the credit. Lott slew himself, the Republicans made themselves look morally bankrupt by slavering to take Lott down on a convenient excuse, and Hillary is a result of the media making a big deal out of nothing (i.e. her potential presidential bid).

And I don't see how Bush looked weak from this.

Bush played it just about the way Bill Clinton would have. It's a question of character, not political skill.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by jimmytrick


I guess I agree with Imran on this, Lott just didn't think about what he was saying. I don't believe for a second that this was anything more than another witch hunt.

I am hard pressed to see much difference in today race card and McCarthy's communist card. Maybe if I were a contemorary of McCarthy I would understand better.

I am sure some of the geniuses around here can pretend to know all about McCarthism and tell me the difference.

I'm not a genius, but I play one on TV, so here goes:

Under McCarthyism, people were hounded from their jobs for even the slightest hint of leftism.

At present, even long histories of racism are forgiven.

That would seem to be something of a difference.

If race were the new Communism, not only Lott but also Byrd, Thurmond, Gramm, McConnell, and many others would have been hounded from office years ago; and surely Bush Sr., who voted against the landmark Civil Rights acts of '64 and '65, would never have become president.