posted on December 13, 2002 06:56:36 PM new
Lott made ANOTHER attempt at an apology. Claiming this time that it was just a mistake and that he was only trying to suck up to Strom Thrumond who holds similar attitudes, Trent is as defiant as ever.
In the meantime, all 3,257 black supporters of the Republican Party canceled their party status.
posted on December 13, 2002 07:05:33 PM new
>The truth about Trent Lott....http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/
LOL! What a BIGOT and RACIST!
I'm laughing because so many Republican supporters in the past have denied those allegations, dismissing it with the casual wave of their hand as "Liberals out to smear Good Republicans -- again!"
Remember that arrogant attitude of theirs?
Now they can't deny how deeply steeped into Racist Phylosophy and Racism that the GOP really is; that the Racist policies aren't "just good common sense" but are really an effort to legitimize rasicsm in this country.
Of course, they'll just behead Trent Lott's career and turn him into persona non gratia and then act like nothing has happened and continue their evil course.
posted on December 13, 2002 07:10:23 PM new
I'm sure that the Bush administration is busy looking for a replacement. Trent Lott is a big liability now for the Republican Party. Even the New York Times has an editorial calling for his removal.
posted on December 14, 2002 10:55:23 PM new
personally, I think the whole thing is being blown WAY out of proportion. People, both conservative & liberal, have known Lott's views for years. He has apologized for the remark (which wasn't at all specific) at least five times. Obviously, despite his views, he has not been influential in holding back the progress of black Americans.
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 14, 2002 11:31:38 PM new
He hasn't had the chance to do the real damage yet. He was starting to when Jeffords switched parties last year and derailed him. Now his chance is back and he wants to "right" the perceived wrongs of the past. Will you let him off with just his fifth apology and allow him to do as he pleases as Senate Majority Leader?
Besides, I recall the tenth time that Clinton apologized and Trent Lott led the charge to "unforgive" him! Why now should we do differently for him? Because he's a bigot? Because you think so?
posted on December 15, 2002 12:57:00 AM new
Hasn't had the chance yet?!? He's been in office what--14 years? He'd better make his move soon...
And what does Clinton have to do with it? I can just see it--50 years from now whenever anything occurs, you'll *still* be dragging Clinton into it...sheesh!
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 15, 2002 01:00:32 AM new
Now that lott is to be the senate majority leader you'll need to sit through an hour's prayer before being innoculated against smallpox, bunnicula.
posted on December 15, 2002 02:38:53 PM new
>Hasn't had the chance yet?!? He's been in office what--14 years? He'd better make his move soon...
Bunni, if your car can't get you up the hillside, fourteen years of trying won't help. By getting a bigger, much more powerful vehicle, you can break speed records going up the slope.
That's the same position that Trent Lott is in. Before, he had a lot of power, but not the position and authority to roll out his program in total. So he's been bidding his time, waiting for this opportunity to come upon him as Senate Majority Leader to fulfill whatever agenda he truely has. And what agenda is that? With a pronounced BIGOT view, no one wants to give him the benefit of the doubt, as it it's too dangerous to do. Not even his own fellows in the GOP are willing to take that risk. Except you, of course.
>And what does Clinton have to do with it?
Clinton himself has nothing to do with it. but your plea to everyone to just let it drop after five apologies, I think that turnabout is only fair to point out just how stiff he was when the shoe was on the other foot; that what goes around, comes around -- and this time, it's good riddance to bad rubbish!
WASHINGTON, Dec. 15 - Senator Don Nickles of Oklahoma, currently the second ranking Republican in the Senate, today became the first Republican senator to publicly suggest the party should consider replacing Trent Lott as the party's leader in the Senate. A few other Republican Senators agreed that they should meet quickly to confront the controversy.
Mr. Nickles said that the furor that has engulfed Mr. Lott over his racially charged statement regarding Senator Strom Thurmond and Mr. Lott's record on civil rights will hamper his effectiveness as Republicans take charge of Congress next month.
In a statement, Mr. Nickles said that he accepted Mr. Lott's apology for his remark at Mr. Thurmond's birthday party that the nation would have been better off had Mr. Thurmond, who ran for president on a segregationist platform in 1948, been elected. But he said that ``there are several outstanding senators who are more than capable of effective leadership and I hope we have an opportunity to choose.''
Mr. Nickles was under term limits as the assistant Republican leader and is scheduled to be out of the leadership when Congress reconvenes next year. He dropped a challenge to Mr. Lott earlier this year. His statement was first reported today by ABC News.
``Can he be effective?'' asked Mr. Nickles in an interview reported on ABC's ``This Week.'' ``Can he campaign in places like Chicago? I don't want to squander our ability to get things done. We only have a short window this year.''
On the same program, his successor in the No. 2 position, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said today that though Mr. Lott has been weakened by the controversy, he did not think a new election for leader was warranted. Other Republicans also voiced their support, with varying degrees of enthusiasm.
``I know of no one who feels that Senator Lott should resign,'' said Mr. McConnell. Mr. McConnell added that ``I think Senator Lott is going to continue as our leader.''
But Sen. John Warner of Virginia said he, too, thought the Senate's 51 Republicans should meet quickly and decide the matter.
``I feel we should come together as a group and make that decision and put to rest, once and for all, this controversy,'' he said on CNN's ``Early Edition.''
``The party's been hurt by it,'' he said, without saying how he would vote. ``We're going to be judged by how we handle this.''
On the same program, Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said Mr. Lott should go.
``If Tom Daschle or another Democratic leader were to have made similar statements, the reaction would have been very swift,'' said Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. ``I don't think several hours would have gone by without there being an almost unanimous call for the leader to step aside.''
Sen. Dodd said Mr. Lott's remark last week ``was not an aberrational statement. There's a pattern here over the years.''
Senator Charles Hagel of Nebraska joined Mr. Nickles's call for a new vote. ``I support bringing the Republican conference together as soon as possible,'' he said in a statment. `` Republican Senators must either re-confirm their confidence in Senator Trent Lott's leadership or select a new leader.''
Other Republicans said he should be given the benefit of the doubt even as they repudiated his comments.
``I'm not prepared to throw him overboard,'' said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania on CNN. He said that Mr. Nickles should have assembled a group of four others who agreed that a new vote is needed before calling for it. Under the rules, five senators are needed to call for action to force the Republican conference to meet.
Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama told CNN he thought there would have to be a new vote. ``I think we have to do this,'' he said. ``Senator Lott has a lot to prove.'' But he added that Mr. Lott still has his confidence. ``I don't think we should lynch him,'' he said.
posted on December 15, 2002 07:55:50 PM new
Borillar: plea? what plea? BTW, your argument smells suspiciously like that of black jurors who state outright that because of how blacks were treated in the past, they will refuse to convict a black man now, regardless of the crime. The argument stinks to the high heavens in both circumstances. Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should end there --Clare Booth Luce
posted on December 17, 2002 07:58:41 AM new
Lott was disgusting in his interview for BET. Practically begging, promising the world; yet he still couldn't help himself. "I've had minorities, I mean mostly African-American minorities on my staff since the 1970's" [Some of my best friends are black]; (asked what 'problems' would have been avoided by a win by the Dixicrat party) -"I meant fear, communism, blah, blah, blah, blah" (those issues weren't even boards in the dixiecrat platform). "I didn't understand the importance of Martin Luther King [when he voted against the MLK monument] but I do now".
Sheeesh, Lott will do ANYTHING right now to keep his power but look out! That man, that lifelong racist, is going to hate every body or thing that he sees as having made him demean himself this way, and he's going to be dangerous. He's got the support and the contacts to get anything at all done up to and including murder. Just look at him - he's the epitome of every rich southern plantation slaveowner character you've ever seen in any movie or read about in any novel and he looks like that and acts that way because that's how he's styled himself for all of his life.
posted on December 17, 2002 09:34:36 AM new
>Borillar: plea? what plea? BTW, your argument smells suspiciously like that of black jurors who state o . . .
Bunni, you obviously want to stick to your opinion, your support of this man, no matter how much injustice that it causes the victims of this man or the past injustices caused by him. That speaks pages about you.
posted on December 17, 2002 10:01:44 AM new
Borillar - That's taking a BIG jump to say that about Bunni. VERY unfair statement....and not at all what she said.
Reamond - You think they're aren't people who were also segregationists on the democratic side of the aisle? There are. Maybe that's where these voters will go if they can't support Lott.
posted on December 17, 2002 10:19:34 AM new
>Borillar - That's taking a BIG jump to say that about Bunni. VERY unfair statement....and not at all what she said.
Oh, really, Linda? I'm so stupid, so why don't you explain it to me?
posted on December 17, 2002 10:32:28 AM new
junquemama - LOL [again ]
Borillar - I'm not like you, I don't call people STUPID just because they hold a different opinion that I do.
Bunnicula's a big girl [well...she's really kinda short] and can defend her own words. I commented because I see you putting words in her mouth that she never said.
posted on December 17, 2002 10:46:13 AM new
Helen - GET REAL. IT'S NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. While you tend to constantly harass every statement I make, not by just disagreeing with it but by your constant insults, jabs etc., I NEVER once referred to YOU as Jane Fonda.
posted on December 17, 2002 10:54:25 AM new
You are right, Linda. Your statement followed Stusi's and I misinterpreted your meaning. You were taking a quote...again out of context. That caused the confusion.
posted on December 17, 2002 11:06:24 AM new
Just can't ever admit to being wrong, can you Helen?
As as far as Jane Fonda goes...there's NOTHING I need to learn about her. What she did when our servicemen were in Vietnam was unforgiveable. She's a traitor in my mind and that's never going to change.
]