House/Senate leadership showdown

[Keystone Phil]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061115/ap_on_go_co/congress

Murtha vs. Hoyer

Boehner vs. Pence vs. Barton

Blunt vs. Shadegg

I'll have my eye on all of them but especially the Senate Minority Whip race (wow, I am a nerd) - Lott vs. Alexander. While both made it known that they'd be running while Santorum was in a tough re-election fight, Alexander's moves bothered me more. I hope Lott takes him down. By the way, McCain is supporting Lott.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The smart picks:

Hoyer
Pence
Shadegg
Alexander

[Keystone Phil]

Take that, Lamar!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ah good, get that racist back in the spotlight.

[Keystone Phil]

Ah good, get that racist back in the spotlight.

Yeah because Senate Minority Whip is one of the most recognizable positions in American government.

[Keystone Phil]

I love how CNN breaks this news on their website:


News Alert >> Senator Trent Lott is elected as the Republican Party's number two in the Senate by a single vote -- four years since he was ousted as Majority Leader after making racially insensitive comments

[TeePee4Prez]

Ah good, get that racist back in the spotlight.

Lott's comments could very well be taken out of context.  Whether he is racist or not shouldn't be based on those comments.

[Keystone Phil]

Ah good, get that racist back in the spotlight.

Lott's comments could very well be taken out of context.  Whether he is racist or not shouldn't be based on those comments.

A voice of sanity. Thank you.

For the record, I wanted Lott out of leadership after that incident but not because I felt that the comments were racist. I am so glad that he's back though.

[bullmoose88]

Ah good, get that racist back in the spotlight.

Lott's comments could very well be taken out of context.  Whether he is racist or not shouldn't be based on those comments.

A voice of sanity. Thank you.

For the record, I wanted Lott out of leadership after that incident but not because I felt that the comments were racist. I am so glad that he's back though.

Whether they were or weren't racist isn't the issue, it probably doesn't matter. Lott lost on that one and earned the perception of being a racist (which in my humble and not really important opinion he may very well be). Regardless if I'm right or not, shaking that perception or at the very least not having it tarnish the Republican Party will be very difficult.

[Keystone Phil]

Whether they were or weren't racist isn't the issue, it probably doesn't matter. Lott lost on that one and earned the perception of being a racist (which in my humble and not really important opinion he may very well be). Regardless if I'm right or not, shaking that perception or at the very least not having it tarnish the Republican Party will be very difficult.

I felt that way too but we were talking about being leader then (I didn't want him to be in charge because of the perception and because I just wanted someone new. I remember calling Santorum's office, urging him to run    ). He'll get his name in the news for a day after this win and we'll move on.

[TeePee4Prez]

Whether they were or weren't racist isn't the issue, it probably doesn't matter. Lott lost on that one and earned the perception of being a racist (which in my humble and not really important opinion he may very well be). Regardless if I'm right or not, shaking that perception or at the very least not having it tarnish the Republican Party will be very difficult.

I felt that way too but we were talking about being leader then (I didn't want him to be in charge because of the perception and because I just wanted someone new. I remember calling Santorum's office, urging him to run    ). He'll get his name in the news for a day after this win and we'll move on.

Robert Byrd made some pretty bad comments FAR worse than Lott's.  I'm not excusing Strom Thurmond either.  All Lott said was  the country would be better off if Strom Thurmond was President.  He didn't say it was because of segregationsit policies.  If that were the case, then I would put Lott in the same class as Byrd and Thurmond, but he never directly said anything.  There is a very good chance Lott insinuated a rebirth of segregation, but I don't know that for sure.

[bullmoose88]

Whether they were or weren't racist isn't the issue, it probably doesn't matter. Lott lost on that one and earned the perception of being a racist (which in my humble and not really important opinion he may very well be). Regardless if I'm right or not, shaking that perception or at the very least not having it tarnish the Republican Party will be very difficult.

I felt that way too but we were talking about being leader then (I didn't want him to be in charge because of the perception and because I just wanted someone new. I remember calling Santorum's office, urging him to run    ). He'll get his name in the news for a day after this win and we'll move on.

Robert Byrd made some pretty bad comments FAR worse than Lott's.  I'm not excusing Strom Thurmond either.  All Lott said was  the country would be better off if Strom Thurmond was President.  He didn't say it was because of segregationsit policies.  If that were the case, then I would put Lott in the same class as Byrd and Thurmond, but he never directly said anything.  There is a very good chance Lott insinuated a rebirth of segregation, but I don't know that for sure.

I have no love for either Byrd or Lott...I'd rather not see someone who I feel is a racist in as the minority whip of the party of Lincoln.

Sorry phil, but I could care less if Lamar was openly preparing for rick's job...you might be a little jaded....but the writing was on the wall for some time...it might be polite to use a little more discretion, but Lamar did what he felt he had to do...its not like Lamar is some idiot novice...there was probably good reason for his actions.

I can perhaps understand why you prefer anyone to Lamar...but to prefer someone who will allow the media to portray the Senate GOP, or the whole party, as a bunch of segregationalist sheet wearers because someone slighted a lame duck candidate...is excessive.

[MODU]

As I said in the parallel thread:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[J. J.]

As I said in the parallel thread:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm only going to partly agree with MODU here.  The remarks were innoculous praise for a dying man. 

Lott however represents a state that is more than 1/3 Black.  If he was really in touch with that community, why couldn't he point to his good record there?  Even in the case Charles Pickering, a fellow Mississippian that had the opposition of the national NAACP for a nomination to the federal courts, he had the support of numerous local Black leaders, including for heads of state NAACP and the brother of Medgar Evers.

If there had been a string of local Black leaders that stood up and said, "I've known Trent Lott, I've worked with him, and he's no racist," Lott would have had no problem.  That kind of tells me that he kept the Black community at arms length.

 

[AuH2O]

Lott is a master at Senate rules, particular arcane ones. He's a solid tactician and, rather obviously, a better vote-counter than Alexander, who thought he had won.

In other words, he's perfect for the Minority Whip spot. A very smart and underrated move by the Senate GOP; now we just need the House GOP to go with Pence/Shadegg.

[Colin]

Lott should be kept away from the reins of power for a while. While his comments may or may not have been racist and may or may not have been taken out of context it tarnished him and the view of the Republican Party as a whole. Putting Lott into the Whip position would look like we are condoning some of his actions in that sense, however odd that is. I don't think that Lott's any more racist than any other Senator, it was most likely a laudatory comment that was muffed or taken out of context, but I think that Alexander would probably bring less of that prior stain to the position.

You have to remember it's not what is said but how it is viewed that matters.

[Keystone Phil]

Sorry phil, but I could care less if Lamar was openly preparing for rick's job...you might be a little jaded....but the writing was on the wall for some time...it might be polite to use a little more discretion, but Lamar did what he felt he had to do...its not like Lamar is some idiot novice...there was probably good reason for his actions.

I can perhaps understand why you prefer anyone to Lamar...but to prefer someone who will allow the media to portray the Senate GOP, or the whole party, as a bunch of segregationalist sheet wearers because someone slighted a lame duck candidate...is excessive.

Alexander should have shown more respect to his colleague that was in the middle of a brutal re-election fight and we're not talking about Alexander doing this in August or Spectember; Lamar came out well before that. The Lamar/htmldon wing of this party didn't care one bit about Santorum losing so you bet I'm going to be mad and strongly support almost anyone over Alexander.

As for how Lott is portrayed, I worry about that, too, but I then realize that we have to lead and being constantly obsessed with how the media will portray him is silly. They'll get over it since nobody knows/cares about what the Whip does.

[Keystone Phil]

If there had been a string of local Black leaders that stood up and said, "I've known Trent Lott, I've worked with him, and he's no racist," Lott would have had no problem.  That kind of tells me that he kept the Black community at arms length.

 

I think a few did come to Lott's defense. While he's not black, I remember James Carville being in the Crossfire as a guest figure, defending Lott. If that extreme hack could do that...

[Sam Spade]

This Time article explains very well why Republicans chose Lott and what message they are trying to send.  I agree with nearly everything said in the article, fwiw.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1559922,00.html

[bullmoose88]

Sorry phil, but I could care less if Lamar was openly preparing for rick's job...you might be a little jaded....but the writing was on the wall for some time...it might be polite to use a little more discretion, but Lamar did what he felt he had to do...its not like Lamar is some idiot novice...there was probably good reason for his actions.

I can perhaps understand why you prefer anyone to Lamar...but to prefer someone who will allow the media to portray the Senate GOP, or the whole party, as a bunch of segregationalist sheet wearers because someone slighted a lame duck candidate...is excessive.

Alexander should have shown more respect to his colleague that was in the middle of a brutal re-election fight and we're not talking about Alexander doing this in August or Spectember; Lamar came out well before that. The Lamar/htmldon wing of this party didn't care one bit about Santorum losing so you bet I'm going to be mad and strongly support almost anyone over Alexander.

As for how Lott is portrayed, I worry about that, too, but I then realize that we have to lead and being constantly obsessed with how the media will portray him is silly. They'll get over it since nobody knows/cares about what the Whip does.

We don't know how much respect Lamar owed Santorum, that may be a closed doors issue. I personally don't mind Lamar's actions, but thats more of a pragmatic issue. If Lamar wanted to be whip (knowing now that Lott was in the race too), the only chance he had was to go public. Lame Duck be damned.

[Keystone Phil]

Lame Duck be damned.

Well, let him take that position when he tries to run for, and lose, another leadership spot.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Republicans are in a whole Lott of trouble.

[NewFederalist]

The Republicans are in a whole Lott of trouble.

N'yuk, n'yuk, n'yuk!