DebateGate

General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Amianthus on November 15, 2006, 01:33:30 PM

Title: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: Amianthus on November 15, 2006, 01:33:30 PM
Wednesday, November 15, 2006

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Trent Lott was elected by his fellow Republicans on Wednesday as the Senate minority whip by a one-vote margin.

This returns Lott to the GOP leadership for the first time since he stepped down as majority leader in 2002 following a flap over comments he made at Sen. Strom Thurmond's birthday party.

Lott edged Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander. Sen. Mitch McConnell was unopposed in his bid for Senate minority leader.

-- CNN Congressional Producer Ted Barrett

Article (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2006/11/lott-gets-minority-whip-post.html)
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 15, 2006, 03:32:08 PM
Lott must have talents far beyond those he projects when interviewed.

On air, he looks and sounds like some old corrupt pol that escaped from "Hee-Haw". Boss Hawgs slightly more couth younger cousin, perhaps.
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: Amianthus on November 15, 2006, 03:38:13 PM
XO, is your posting policy "if I don't have something nasty to say, I'll keep my mouth shut?"
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 15, 2006, 03:42:43 PM
I suppose that Trent Lott seems to be some sort of genius to you.

The discussion is about HIM, not me.

I am just assuming the role of my sister, Millicent Bystander,  here.
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: Amianthus on November 15, 2006, 03:49:45 PM
I am just assuming the role of my sister, Millicent Bystander,  here.

Was she the village idiot? Or did she just like to make (usually incorrect) assumptions?
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 15, 2006, 03:54:36 PM
An appropriate response would be to regale us with your great wisdom, and tell us why it is that Trent Lott is not the "Hee-Haw" caricature that he appears to me.

Millicent and I have come to expect greater things of you than these tawdry put-downs.

Has your  great reservoir of insider info and serendipitous perspicacity run dry?
 
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: Amianthus on November 15, 2006, 04:04:35 PM
An appropriate response would be to regale us with your great wisdom, and tell us why it is that Trent Lott is not the "Hee-Haw" caricature that he appears to me.

I'd rather just leave your nasty comment alone. Your observations are nearly always wrong, so it doesn't really need to be refuted. About the only time you're correct is with your spelling corrections on other's posts. Shame you aren't as careful with your own.

So, I guess from example in this thread alone, I'm correct and that you won't say anything unless you have a nasty comment to make?
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: sirs on November 15, 2006, 04:14:24 PM
I'd rather just leave your nasty comment alone. Your observations are nearly always wrong, so it doesn't really need to be refuted. About the only time you're correct is with your spelling corrections on other's posts. Shame you aren't as careful with your own.

So, I guess from example in this thread alone, I'm correct and that you won't say anything unless you have a nasty comment to make?

Let's watch and be further educated     8)
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: _JS on November 15, 2006, 04:36:03 PM
It seems to me that Lamar Alexander would have been a better choice. He is a former governor of some respect and is a known moderate voice amongst the Senate Republicans. He doesn't come tainted with any former high praise for Strom Thurmond or meetings with the CCC that might hurt the GOP from a racial standpoint. He is also a bit more of an outsider than Lott or especially McConnel which would have projected a much better image for the party after the recent scandals.
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: jayc28 on November 15, 2006, 04:51:32 PM
This was an absurd choice and it goes to show that the GOP learned nothing from their defeat. There are two main reasons:

1. I don't care if Lott apologized until he was blue in the face and was shown kissing the ring of Al Sharpton on national television. The racial baggage brought on by his comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party will dog him and be a distraction.

2. He's part of the old boy network that is not only loves getting pork home to Ole Miss, but he also sneers at those conservatives (like moi) who are tired of these so called fiscal disciplinarians spending like drunken sailors.

Twits.
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: Amianthus on November 15, 2006, 04:55:12 PM
Twits.

Hey Jay!

Couldn't agree more...

Good to see you again.
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: Xavier_Onassis on November 15, 2006, 05:18:24 PM
I do not know what hidden talents McConnell and Lott may possess. I do know that McConnell is pretty much the lobbyists best friend and has always opposed every bill that Common Cause has suggested to reform campaign financing so as to eliminate corruption and the appearence of corruption from the American political scene. I have seen McConnell frequently on the Sunday morning pundit interview programs, and have rarely agreed with anything that comes out of his mouth. He seems to be guarded, sly, and deceptive.

Lott, as I said, seems to be a nouveau riche bumpkin of the sort that would like to explain all day about why women should not be permitted at the Augusta Open, why Lester Maddox has a right to pass out souvenier axhandles as a jovial gesture of Southern hospitality, and why pretty much any business except his own homeowners insurance company is a positive and stalwart friend of The American Way.

I think I trust Lott rather more than McConnell, simply because he would seem to be easier to put one over on by some crafty Democrat. A closet bigot is preferable to a sneaky thief. I think the term "sneaky thief" suits McConnell. McConnell seems to be eleigible for the title "Prince of Pork", among other things, and Lott is hardly a piker at this, either. It may be true that they have broken no laws, but their lack of conviction is most likely because they are experts at doing things that are immoral before anyone has passed a law against them. To paraphrase Forrest Gump, "Sneaky is as sneaky does". McConnell is what could be described as a "slim customer", a fellow not to be trusted or underestimated.

Lamar Alexander has run several times for president. This means nothing in and of itself, but I have observed that when someone does run for president, all the skeletons tend to pop out of his closet, all the people he has deceived tend to step forward and denounce him, and all his business deals tend to be analyzed far more than occurs with senators like Lott and McConnell, neither of whom I would trust to use my best silverware if I actually had best silverware. There wasn't much exposé of shady dealings with Alexander, so I am going to speculate that he is the more honest choice to lead a political party in an honest manner.

I would prefer that the political parties that run my country are as honest as they can be. I doubt that perfect honesty is ever likely, but it should certainly be a principle.

Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: larry on November 15, 2006, 08:38:06 PM
The return of Trent Lott is the equivalent of the GOP spiting on the voters. I see this as an act of revenge on part of the GOP. Personally, I think the GOP is driving nails into its own coffin. Lott and company just don't get it. The faith based agenda is dead and the GOP just appointed a religious fanatic to be the leader. Religious insanity is a serious mental health illness. Trent Lott, should be in the house,  the nut-house.
Title: Re: Lott gets minority whip post
Post by: Michael Tee on November 15, 2006, 09:16:47 PM
I thought the appointment of Trent Lott was purely symbolic.   Think about it.  Trent Lott for Minority whip.  Minority.  Whip.  What goes with whips?  Chains.  What goes with whips and chains and minorities?  NOW you're getting it.  THAT'S the Republicans' Southern Strategy for the 21st Century.
Title: Re: Lott....tangent
Post by: sirs on November 15, 2006, 10:15:51 PM
The return of Trent Lott is the equivalent of the GOP spiting on the voters. I see this as an act of revenge on part of the GOP.  Personally, I think the GOP is driving nails into its own coffin. ...

Actually, her's where those nails will come from.

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

In just two short years, Republicans have gone from being champs to being chumps. In 2004, the Republicans were voted control of all three branches of the federal government and most state governorships. Today, they are left wondering what hit them.

Now that Democrats are in control on Capitol Hill, President Bush has expressed hopes of getting a bipartisan immigration bill. The only bipartisan bill that can get past a Democratic Congress is an amnesty bill, which can be a down payment on another Republican defeat in 2008.

If the people in the White House do not understand how outraged their supporters were at this year's attempt to pass an amnesty bill for illegals -- virtually guaranteeing that even more millions will come -- then it is hard to know what message they got from the Republicans' recent debacle at the polls.

Immigration was not the only issue but it was part of the more general issue of betrayal, which includes the Republicans' runaway spending, among other things.

If the Republican leaders have learned nothing from their recent defeat, perhaps some Republican supporters will. Some of the most baffling e-mails received from conservative Republicans before the election were those which said that they were so disillusioned and/or disgusted with the Bush administration that they were going to vote for Democrats in order to send a message.

This is the kind of emotional self-indulgence common among liberals but apparently some conservatives have now also come to see elections as occasions to vent their feelings rather than to choose among existing options for the future of the country.

Sending a message may have its benefits but -- as with all benefits -- the question must be asked: "At what cost?"

On the left, it is considered OK to say things like "open space" or "alternative fuels" without any thought of the cost. What is new is finding the same spirit now flourishing among some conservatives as well.

As events unfold over time, perhaps those conservatives will reconsider whether it was worth it to "send a message" to President Bush at the cost of making Senator Pat Leahy chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senator Leahy's control of that committee virtually guarantees that the only kind of federal judges who can get confirmed are the kind who are likely to spend decades on the bench creating new "rights" for criminals, illegal aliens, and terrorists.

Was that price even considered by conservatives who indulged their anger instead of weighing alternatives? It is easy to say "the parties are no different" or "things couldn't get any worse."

People have said that before -- and have been proved wrong before. Before the election of 1860, abolitionists said it would make no difference whether Lincoln or a Democrat was elected. But millions of people were freed because that prediction was wrong.

In Germany, the Weimar Republic was nobody's idea of an ideal government and, in the desperate days of the Great Depression, no doubt many German voters thought that nothing could be worse. But they discovered during the dozen years of Nazi rule just how much worse things could be.

Congressional Republicans don't have enough votes to stop any legislation or confirm any judges, especially since the Democrats stick together, unlike Republicans. Moreover, with a Republican President saying that he wants both a bipartisan immigration bill and a bipartisan minimum wage bill, there is not even a hope of a veto.

But the fact that you cannot stop something does not mean that you have to become an accomplice. There is no reason why a majority of Republican Senators should ever again vote to confirm another extreme activist judge like Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Nor is there any reason why Congressional Republicans should again outrage their supporters by voting for another illegal immigration amnesty bill. Not unless they want to be chumps again in 2008.

Even aside from moral issues, betrayal has had a bad political track record under both the elder President Bush ("No new taxes") and the younger President Bush ("comprehensive immigration reform"). Congressional Republicans will have to face the voters again in 2008, even if President Bush does not.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2006/11/14/from_champs_to_chumps