New Era of Reform for Republicans: Trent Lott for Whip!

[banyon]

Lott running for whip post

By Elana Schor
After keeping his plans close to the vest since Election Day, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) formally declared his bid for minority whip on Monday evening.

Lott had refrained from openly discussing his intentions for the whip race even after GOP Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who was next in line based on seniority, lost his reelection bid last week. Few on Capitol Hill would second-guess Lott’s prowess at backroom maneuvering, and his silence had given way to questions about whether a new feint was in the works.

But Lott spokeswoman Susan Irby confirmed his bid in a statement. "Senator Lott is running for Republican whip. His name will be on the ballot. We are closing in on victory," she said.

Lott was forced to step down as Senate majority leader in 2002 after comments he made at former Sen. Strom Thurmond’s (R-S.C.) birthday party touched off a racially charged controversy and the White House threw its backing to now-Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

Frist’s fellow Tennessean, Lamar Alexander (R), has already declared his whip bid and continues to make calls lining up support before Wednesday’s leadership elections.

"We feel really good about where we are," Alexander chief of staff Tom Ingram said on Monday, projecting that the conference majority Alexander claimed late last week had grown to "majority-plus."

Ingram acknowledged that the secret ballot of Wednesday’s election means victory will rely on trusting that senators will stick to their public commitments. Still, he expressed confidence in Alexander’s whipping for the whip job, which has seen about 10 senators making calls on his behalf.

One source close to that whip operation said the Alexander camp has Lott’s support in the conference pegged at about a dozen senators.


http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/111406/lott.html

[banyon]

I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years either.

[patteeu]

What new era of reform? It's the democrats who promised reform, not the Republicans.

I wasn't a big Lott fan, but I think Bill Frist was a weak leader by comparision. McConnell seems better, but I have no problem with bringing Lott back onto the leadership team. Lott has experience organizing the minority too and while he was somewhat disappointing from the point of view of a conservative at times, he was still more helpful to conservatives than his predecessor, Bob Dole. I think it's a positive move for Republicans.

Besides, he didn't deserve the raw deal he got after his Thurmond remark. IMO, there was nothing wrong with that remark and it was a shame that Republicans, including George Bush, didn't stand up for him.

[Bowser]

LMAO @ post 2!

[noa]

Besides, he didn't deserve the raw deal he got after his Thurmond remark. IMO, there was nothing wrong with that remark and it was a shame that Republicans, including George Bush, didn't stand up for him.


Did you take issue with Kerry's 'botched joke'? IMO, if you thought Kerry seriously thinks our troops are stupid, then you should also think that Lott seriously thinks our nation would be better with racial segregation.

[patteeu]

Did you take issue with Kerry's 'botched joke'? IMO, if you thought Kerry seriously thinks our troops are stupid, then you should also think that Lott seriously thinks our nation would be better with racial segregation.

Lott didn't say he thought our country would be better with racial segregation, he said we'd have been better if Thurmond had won his presidential race.

Just as I believe that gay marriage is inevitable now despite strong sentiment against it at the moment, I think an end to racial segregation was inevitable at the time that Thurmond was running for president. But our country would have been significantly better off, IMO, if that desegregation had come about more naturally through the democratic process instead of being backdoored through judicial decision and executive agency rulemaking. But more to the point about Thurmond, I think we would have been better off if the idea of states rights federalism had prevailed instead of the idea of a centralized great society.

[banyon]

What new era of reform? It's the democrats who promised reform, not the Republicans.

I wasn't a big Lott fan, but I think Bill Frist was a weak leader by comparision. McConnell seems better, but I have no problem with bringing Lott back onto the leadership team. Lott has experience organizing the minority too and while he was somewhat disappointing from the point of view of a conservative at times, he was still more helpful to conservatives than his predecessor, Bob Dole. I think it's a positive move for Republicans.

Besides, he didn't deserve the raw deal he got after his Thurmond remark. IMO, there was nothing wrong with that remark and it was a shame that Republicans, including George Bush, didn't stand up for him.

Why did the president berate him for it and he disavow it then?

But the affable Lott, who can count votes in the ideologically diverse Republican caucus, appears to believe that he can ride out the storm. After the president spoke, Lott's office issued another in a series of tight-lipped apologies: "Senator Lott agrees with President Bush that his words were wrong and he is sorry."


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/shapiro/2002-12-12-hype_x.htm

[Amnorix]

Just as I believe that gay marriage is inevitable now despite strong sentiment against it at the moment, I think an end to racial segregation was inevitable at the time that Thurmond was running for president. But our country would have been significantly better off, IMO, if that desegregation had come about more naturally through the democratic process instead of being backdoored through judicial decision and executive agency rulemaking. But more to the point about Thurmond, I think we would have been better off if the idea of states rights federalism had prevailed instead of the idea of a centralized great society.

Read his platform. State's rights is part of it, but any current politician who says what Lott said would be vilified, and rightly so.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dixiecrat1.html

And after 90-odd years of the political process failing Blacks, in part BECAUSE they were locked out of the political debate, and with Plessy v. Ferguson upholding separate but equal, how can you criticize Brown v. Board of Education?

Brown opened the door for MLK and the concept that maybe America isn't a society for whites only.

[Amnorix]

I note, further, that he may as well have said he supported Jefferson Davis and that if the country followed his lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years.

The last phrase, especially, is very troubling. What "problems" is he referring to? Would states rights have saved us from Communism, the Cold War, Vietnam or terrorism? Clearly not, so what problems does he mean, I wonder?

[patteeu]

Why did the president berate him for it and he disavow it then?




http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/shapiro/2002-12-12-hype_x.htm

Because they are politicians and it was unpopular. Duh. :)

If you can find a place where Lott admits he was making a racist comment, I'll be impressed and withdraw my support.

[patteeu]

Read his platform. State's rights is part of it, but any current politician who says what Lott said would be vilified, and rightly so.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dixiecrat1.html

And after 90-odd years of the political process failing Blacks, in part BECAUSE they were locked out of the political debate, and with Plessy v. Ferguson upholding separate but equal, how can you criticize Brown v. Board of Education?

Brown opened the door for MLK and the concept that maybe America isn't a society for whites only.

I think we would have all been better off if racial equality had been achieved democratically instead of imposed by the courts, but I can understand the value of overturning the Plessy decision. The backdoor that really irks me was the decision of the Nixon(?) EEOC to impose affirmative action on the country (expanding it from the government sector to the private sector IIRC), making discrimination on the basis of race practically mandatory rather than prohibiting it.

[patteeu]

I note, further, that he may as well have said he supported Jefferson Davis and that if the country followed his lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years.

The last phrase, especially, is very troubling. What "problems" is he referring to? Would states rights have saved us from Communism, the Cold War, Vietnam or terrorism? Clearly not, so what problems does he mean, I wonder?

The endless problems created by the modern democrat party. :D

The guy was stroking an old man with kind words. I doubt that it was a serious political statement in any sense and I am very confident it wasn't a pro-racism comment. Do you seriously think otherwise?

[banyon]

Because they are politicians and it was unpopular. Duh. :)

If you can find a place where Lott admits he was making a racist comment, I'll be impressed and withdraw my support.

I already gave you the reference. Make a small inductive leap.

If he's wrong and sorry and it's not because the statement had inappropriate racial tones, then what is he wrong and sorry about?

[Calcountry]

What new era of reform? It's the democrats who promised reform, not the Republicans.

I wasn't a big Lott fan, but I think Bill Frist was a weak leader by comparision. McConnell seems better, but I have no problem with bringing Lott back onto the leadership team. Lott has experience organizing the minority too and while he was somewhat disappointing from the point of view of a conservative at times, he was still more helpful to conservatives than his predecessor, Bob Dole. I think it's a positive move for Republicans.

Besides, he didn't deserve the raw deal he got after his Thurmond remark. IMO, there was nothing wrong with that remark and it was a shame that Republicans, including George Bush, didn't stand up for him.No, I don't want reform, I want gridlock.

Of course, I have no representation in washington anymore. Both my Senators are Dems, and my Congressman got zero'd out as well.

[patteeu]

I already gave you the reference. Make a small inductive leap.

If he's wrong and sorry and it's not because the statement had inappropriate racial tones, then what is he wrong and sorry about?

He's sorry he made a statement that could be cast in that light. As I asked Amno, do you seriously think Lott is pro-racism or pro-segregation?

[MarcBulger]

What a bunch of BS. Deleware Senator Biden stated the same thing about Robert Byrd, how he was a credit to the Dem party how the Country needs great leaders like him. Robert Byrd was the Grand Wizard of the KKK. But, he's a Dem so the Press and the Dem Party give him a break. Please.

[noa]

Robert Byrd was the Grand Wizard of the KKK.


WRONG! Byrd was actually an Exalted Cyclops. Next time, get your facts straight. :D [/sarcasm]

[tiptap]

Byrd is probably still one-eyed about race. And he doesn't have a black daughter either. So I don't know what to think. Other than to argue that it isn't natural to throw off discrimination. It is not natural, as in behavior, for people to forgive and to be generous to people who share little DNA. And for most folk skin color is a easy mark for distance in sharing common DNA.

It is indeed a LIBERAL, THINKING CHOICE. And alone makes the American public one of the most liberal in understanding. You must be vigilant against the natural tendencies. And it is correct because we all actually gain by having all Americans being productive. That is what the economics tell us. That is different than the natural tendency.

[banyon]

He's sorry he made a statement that could be cast in that light. As I asked Amno, do you seriously think Lott is pro-racism or pro-segregation?

[noa]

Well played Banyon. I tried making the same argument before, but I guess its not a two way street.

[patteeu]

Cute banyon. I take it then that your answer is that you don't believe Lott is pro-segregation, right?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Lott didn't say he thought our country would be better with racial segregation, he said we'd have been better if Thurmond had won his presidential race.

Just as I believe that gay marriage is inevitable now despite strong sentiment against it at the moment, I think an end to racial segregation was inevitable at the time that Thurmond was running for president. But our country would have been significantly better off, IMO, if that desegregation had come about more naturally through the democratic process instead of being backdoored through judicial decision and executive agency rulemaking. But more to the point about Thurmond, I think we would have been better off if the idea of states rights federalism had prevailed instead of the idea of a centralized great society.

JFC. You are completely bat shit. What the hell happened to you? Were you always this crazy, but were able to keep it under wraps until your 'Pubs lost power. It's comforting to know that your libertarian streak includes overt support of the racist politics of the South in the 1940's and 50's. Oh you may not call it support, but you'd be wrong. It's known as the banality of evil.

[patteeu]

JFC. You are completely bat shit. What the hell happened to you? Were you always this crazy, but were able to keep it under wraps until your 'Pubs lost power. It's comforting to know that your libertarian streak includes overt support of the racist politics of the South in the 1940's and 50's. Oh you may not call it support, but you'd be wrong. It's known as the banality of evil.

My libertarian streak leads me to believe we should have a colorblind society, not the race-conscious, victim-oriented mess that you support.

[banyon]

Cute banyon. I take it then that your answer is that you don't believe Lott is pro-segregation, right?

I don't know what he really believes, but the point of this thread was to say that if I were a Repub, I would think that it is a terrible choice, almost as bad as the Dems letting Pelosi be Speaker.

[patteeu]

I don't know what he really believes, but the point of this thread was to say that if I were a Repub, I would think that it is a terrible choice, almost as bad as the Dems letting Pelosi be Speaker.

That's fair enough, but IMO the Republicans are better off fielding a minority leader who can navigate the rules of the senate rather than worrying about a meaningless gaffe from the distant past. If Barney Frank can manage to get his association with a gay prostitution ring behind him and if Robert Byrd can put his Ku Klux Klan history behind him and if John McCain can get past his Keating 5 taint, I think Lott can get past this. John Kerry will get past his gaffe too, but he doesn't have the kind of useful skills that Lott has to ride back into a position of power.