No More Trent Lott!

[melon]

Also Senators and Presidents who-
abuse power
obstruct the law
lie under oath
prey on women
refuse to take ownership of their wrong doings are bad for America
and
bad for humanity..
Simple as that.

Or, in the case of former President Reagan with the Iran-Contra scandal, you pretend that you don't remember anything.

Melon

 

[diamond]

when did ronnie prey on women w/o nancy's bidding?

 

[diamond]

Brother Oliver North took the hit for Reagan anyway.

You know u little liberals better go home and regroup.

thank u
good nite
diamond
xxox

 

[Dreadsox]

Or, in the case of former President Reagan with the Iran-Contra scandal, you pretend that you don't remember anything.

Melon

Sad part is.....

I really believe he didn't know anything to remember.
GHWB was running the show.

PEace

 

[martha]

when did ronnie prey on women w/o nancy's bidding?

Come on, db, answer the question.

Or get a new song.

Or are you hinting that Ronnie only did it with Nancy's permission?

 

[U2Bama]

It's interesting how all of you guys start out by saying how much you can't stand the old boy, and then bring up other people to take the focus away from someone who appears to have been very consistent in his bigoted views and the expression of those views.

Why are you defending him? Seriously. Why? And please try to keep the focus of your comments on Trent. Please don't point to the other boys who jumped off the roof, too, and didn't get yelled at.

Why would you defend a bigoted old bastard who finally got the shit he deserved for the thinking and actions he's pursued for years?

Or you can dismiss me as a liberal, and refuse to answer me. (Which will answer my question in ways you may not have intended.)

(Notice how I've not mentioned anyone else here, not any other Republicans or Democrats who've said stupid, racist stuff.)

Martha:

I consider myself to have always gotten along quite well with you in these forums and I recall us always treating each other with respect. But if I am reading your response here correctly, then I must admit that I am currently a bit disappointed.

The article that dreadsox posted (maybe in another thread) about Jackson, Kerry et al. made me think about the bi-partisan presence of off-color humor. And my own knowledge of the history of Southern politics made me think of the hypocricy of the sermons that have been preached this week by Clinton and Gore.

I would have had no problem with Senator Daschle or Congressman Gephardt bashing Senator Lott, but to hear Al Gore doing it, and then hearing Clinton backing him up on it, really made me feel the need to post the things I posted in my reply.

We should not overlook what Senator Lott said; we should not overlook the racist past of Strom Thurmond. By that same measure, we should not overlook the racist past of Robert Byrd, a ranking Senate Democrat. Why was it so wrong for me to bring up these other folks? Just because they are Democrats? I hate to tell you this, but if you mop a floor that appears to be squeaky clean, you will pick up some dirt, regardless of the party affiliation of that floor.

Isn't their an opinion developing in some other thread to the effect that, "since the U.S. has used weapons of mass destruction on other countries in the past, the U.S. should not be able to tell Iraq not to use them"? Well, let's localize it a bit, and apply the same standard to finger pointing politicians. Maybe the whole bunch should either point out every bad thing their colleagues have done, or never say anything bad their colleagues have done.

Basically, I just found it ironic that people like Clinton, Gore and Kerry were salivating over Lott's demise when they had similar issues closer to home.

And for the last time, I DO NOT LIKE LOTT, I DID NOT LIKE LOTT, AND I AM GLAD HE IS NO LONGER THE SENATE MAJORITY LEADER.

Thank you.

~U2Alabama

 

[us3]

Nixon? He was completely guilty, and Nixon had the taped conversations to prove it.

Melon

Ah, yes! Let?s not forget John Dean who told us about the tapes.
For the most part, it?s seems those ?pubs? have never been able get rid of the evidence.

I have often wondered if Webster Hubbell had ?flipped?, instead of biding his time for a consultancy at 300K , or if Ollie N. hadn?t got immunity, or if they had been able to recover ? No controlling legal authority? Al?s email?too bad Monica didn?t swallow.

 

[us3]

... like a skilled surgeon removing a cancer growth..

"Paging Dr. Frist! Paging Dr. Frist!"

That said we teach you a new word.."accontability" [/B]

Methinks you are "promulgating" a new word, not teaching.

 

[bonoman]

Does anyone not find it funny how GWB said a week after all this happened that he didnt agree. Then when Lott resigned bush said he was sad to see him go and he was a close friend and a great person. if he would have said that to begin with would Lott still be around?

 

[pub crawler]

I am with you Diamond, I do believe the party is better off with him stepping down. I am also proud that the party is policing its own.

Eh? Elsewhere in this thread you defend Lott absolutely, saying his comments were innocent. So what exactly do the Republicans need to "police?"

 

[diamond]

.

.

Or are you hinting that Ronnie only did it with Nancy's permission?

Martha-
Some of us Republicans cannot hide our sexiness

Bonofellow-
The real story is GW wanted him gone and silently orchestrated his removal.
Also since Trent appears to be contrite GW says nice things to now that he is gone.
GW is a polictian w good timing..

us3-
accountability.
hows that mrs spellchek?

Pub-
Were working w Dread, he is progressing..



the rest of u little liberals have made it fun in this thread..

DB9

 

[Dreadsox]

Does anyone not find it funny how GWB said a week after all this happened that he didnt agree. Then when Lott resigned bush said he was sad to see him go and he was a close friend and a great person. if he would have said that to begin with would Lott still be around?

Bonoman.....

Newsweek has a great article on the situation. I read it last night after all the posting. It basically leaves me with the impression that Bush wants to court the center more in the next election. Something he will be able to do since he is not going to be challenged for the nomination so he does not have to court the extreme right as he did in the last election after losing New Hampshire.

Politically, Bush's handlers are very very smart. In public last week he blasted Lott and in private, he had his people work hard to remove Lott behind the scenes. This removed the issue from the hands of the Democrat, and made him look like he was promoting his agenda of compassionate conservatism.

THis week he will publicly go on the record as saying he does not think Lott should have stepped down and that Lott is not a bigot. Even though behind the scenes he had him removed. It is in Bush's best interests to have Lott removed so that the party is not perceived as the party of bigotry in the next election. It is also in his best interests to have his hands clean from the removal so that he does not lose the support of the right.

By doing this he has just made the republican party stronger. He has his own man as majority leader and will now be able to put forward a more compassionate conservative adjenda.

Pub Crawler....

My policing comment has to do with the above statement. Bush has made the party stronger and taken the issue from the democrats. It is bad for the party to have it perceived as being a party of 'Bigots". I still think it sucks that an off the cuff comment gets blown out of proportion. However, perception is reality, and it was time for the good of the party to cut the bait.

Peace

 

[Dreadsox]

There is a *big* difference between Watergate and having sex with an intern.

I think I made it clear....I could care less who or what he was having sex with. Please do not turn it into he was being a naughty boy by having sex. I am willing to bet a majority of our Presidents have been bad in the White House.

The "MAJOR" issue that I have here is the man did not perform his job as president. He took an oath to uphold the constitution. He lied under oath. I do not care what he lied about.

It is sad that people always think the issues with Clinton were about sex. Telling the truth when you are supposed to uphold the Constitution is the issue by interfering with a criminal investigation. And deep down, isn't that what Nixon was doing too?

When the soldiers who serve in our armed forces can be dismissed from the service for the very same offenses, I think it is reasonable to hold the president to those same standards.

Again....

If the man had stepped down, there would have been no long drawn out hearings. Al Gore would probably have had the edge to win.

 

[diamond]

Bonoman.....

Newsweek has a great article on the situation. I read it last night after all the posting..

Politically, Bush's handlers are very very smart. In public last week he blasted Lott and in private, he had his people work hard to remove Lott behind the scenes.

However, perception is reality, and it was time for the good of the party to cut the bait.

Peace

Dread-
Prolly same article I read.
Perception is reality that sums it up...

Lott is more of an obtuse baffoon w bad timing than a bigot.

us3-
your nieces like your avatar, they started squealing.."Builder Bob"
when seeing it here dork.

DB9

 

[martha]

By that same measure, we should not overlook the racist past of Robert Byrd, a ranking Senate Democrat. Why was it so wrong for me to bring up these other folks? Just because they are Democrats?

Of course not.

But that's a classic move to deflect attention and criticism; bringing up the transgressions of others, particularly members of the opposition, to soften something that one of your own has done. So many of the posters in this thread kept insisting that Lott was a some kind of victim of something other than his own way of thinking.

I certainly can appreciate it when Democrats get called for doing or saying something stupid, racist, or sexist (not Democrats!). It's when that's repeatedly brought up as some kind of justification for not going after someone like Lott that I disagree with it.


And, since when is a son responsible for the actions of his father? Or is there someting about Al Gore your not telling me?

 

[diamond]

Of course not.

But that's a classic move to deflect attention and criticism; bringing up the transgressions of others, particularly members of the opposition, to soften something that one of your own has done. So many of the posters in this thread kept insisting that Lott was a some kind of victim of something other than his own way of thinking.

I certainly can appreciate it when Democrats get called for doing or saying something stupid, racist, or sexist (not Democrats!). It's when that's repeatedly brought up as some kind of justification for not going after someone like Lott that I disagree with it.


And, since when is a son responsible for the actions of his father? Or is there someting about Al Gore your not telling me?

no no martha-it has to do w one word..hypocrsy.
thats all.

al gores father= al gores baggage.
the dems were planning to use this racial thing as stratagy.
the gop woulda brought up alfred gores racial past in the next election the minute al gore went to the race card.
this is one of the reasons al had to step down.
he was damaged goods if race relations were brought into the forefront of the next election..
al left the race too soon acting out of fear.

diamond

 

[pub crawler]

Pub Crawler....

My policing comment has to do with the above statement. Bush has made the party stronger and taken the issue from the democrats. It is bad for the party to have it perceived as being a party of 'Bigots". I still think it sucks that an off the cuff comment gets blown out of proportion. However, perception is reality, and it was time for the good of the party to cut the bait.

Peace

Fine. I'm cynical about your response and I do not agree with some of the underlying premises you have put forth, but at least you answered succinctly and articulately here -- in contrast to earlier posts in this thread where you were all over the place in your defense of Lott (e.g., you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton).

That said, if there is truth in what you say about Bush's strategy with respect to his private and public airings on Lott, then my opinion of Bush is that he is a schemer and that he doesn't stand on moral ground -- he's just looking to capture popular opinion and (in the next election) the popular vote.

When are we going to get a president with some backbone?

 

[diamond]

then my opinion of Bush is that he is a schemer and that he doesn't stand on moral ground -- he's just looking to capture popular opinion and (in the next election) the popular vote.

When are we going to get a president with some backbone?

Well this is where u r in error because Bush has demonstated his
diversity and anti bigotry by his cabinet selection.

He didnt wanted slap Trent the clumsy ox more than nesecessray.
He was trying to salvage a dumb ass' character by saying nice things once he was removed...

Diamond

 

[pub crawler]

"Newsweek has a great article on the situation. I read it last night after all the posting. It basically leaves me with the impression that Bush wants to court the center more in the next election. Something he will be able to do since he is not going to be challenged for the nomination so he does not have to court the extreme right as he did in the last election after losing New Hampshire.

Politically, Bush's handlers are very very smart. In public last week he blasted Lott and in private, he had his people work hard to remove Lott behind the scenes. This removed the issue from the hands of the Democrat, and made him look like he was promoting his agenda of compassionate conservatism.

THis week he will publicly go on the record as saying he does not think Lott should have stepped down and that Lott is not a bigot. Even though behind the scenes he had him removed. It is in Bush's best interests to have Lott removed so that the party is not perceived as the party of bigotry in the next election. It is also in his best interests to have his hands clean from the removal so that he does not lose the support of the right.

By doing this he has just made the republican party stronger. He has his own man as majority leader and will now be able to put forward a more compassionate conservative adjenda."


diamond, see emboldened phrases above for instances of political game-playing.

 

[pub crawler]

To clarify my earlier post to Dreadsox where I stated:

"you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton"

I should have said:

"In effect and/or in a roundabout sort of way, you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton."

 

[nbcrusader]

If you can separate his comment from his past, then go for it. I can't separate what people say from what they believe. You'll have to school me in that skill someday. Or not.

I would certainly like to learn the skill of looking into a man's heart and be able to tell him what he believes.

What triggered this whole incident was a casual comment. Any calls for his removal prior to the comment (based on his past and beliefs) were deafeningly silent.

 

[diamond]

.



diamond, see emboldened phrases above for instances of political game-playing. [/B]

these words are dread's opinion-his interprtation..

welcome to polictical game playing -seems to b a necessary evil in our age of Mass Media .
HOWEVER- Mr Pubster-

I judge a man by his actions more than words.
gw has-
-built a culturally diverse cabinet.
-publically denounced trent's stupid statement.
-privately asked to have him removed.
-demonstrated racially senisitivty and compassionate conservativism since taking office-
a) by acknowledging Muslims
b) by ackknoweldging other cultures during the Holidays
c) by listening to a rock star who used to blast his father on stage and then said he agrees w the rock star on certain issues
d) refuses to crucify Trent more than necessary
e) will say that Trent is a moron but not a true bigot.

Its time for u Democrats to find some "real" "genuine" compassion and
find some "real" issues..

is GW guilty of polictal gamemanship?
sure
is he indeed a compassionate man and broad thinker?
yes

Welcome to the modern age.
The land of sound bites sensationalism and screaming liberals.

thank u-
your friend-
diamond

 

[Dreadsox]

Fine. I'm cynical about your response and I do not agree with some of the underlying premises you have put forth, but at least you answered succinctly and articulately here -- in contrast to earlier posts in this thread where you were all over the place in your defense of Lott (e.g., you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton).

That said, if there is truth in what you say about Bush's strategy with respect to his private and public airings on Lott, then my opinion of Bush is that he is a schemer and that he doesn't stand on moral ground -- he's just looking to capture popular opinion and (in the next election) the popular vote.

When are we going to get a president with some backbone?

Ummmm...No was not desperate. If you want to interpret it that way that is fine. I think I have said a number of times I am not trying deflect or raise smoke screens on this issue. I cannot help your interpretation of it. Diamond sums it up though....Hypocracy. Lott committed no crime, Clinton did.

As to the truth behind my statement, I can only report what I read and my interpretation of it. As for Mr. Bush being a schemer......

President Bush did not start off looking to be so right in the last election. He was pushed there by McCain. He was realing from the loss in NH and had to turn somewhere. If you recall, he visited Bob Jones and the Newsweek article also pointed out that someone (not associated with the Bush campain) was raising questions about McCains "black daughter", whom he and his wife adopted. All things that I am sure BUsh would like to not have to do next time around if he is indeed courting the center.

The President is a shrewd politician.

Peace

 

[Dreadsox]

To clarify my earlier post to Dreadsox where I stated:

"you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton"

I should have said:

"In effect and/or in a roundabout sort of way, you desperately tried to shift the onus for Lott's transgressions over to Clinton."

Nope

But you can think that if you want to.

 

[Dreadsox]

"Newsweek has a great article on the situation. I read it last night after all the posting. It basically leaves me with the impression that Bush wants to court the center more in the next election. Something he will be able to do since he is not going to be challenged for the nomination so he does not have to court the extreme right as he did in the last election after losing New Hampshire.

Politically, Bush's handlers are very very smart. In public last week he blasted Lott and in private, he had his people work hard to remove Lott behind the scenes. This removed the issue from the hands of the Democrat, and made him look like he was promoting his agenda of compassionate conservatism.

THis week he will publicly go on the record as saying he does not think Lott should have stepped down and that Lott is not a bigot. Even though behind the scenes he had him removed. It is in Bush's best interests to have Lott removed so that the party is not perceived as the party of bigotry in the next election. It is also in his best interests to have his hands clean from the removal so that he does not lose the support of the right.

By doing this he has just made the republican party stronger. He has his own man as majority leader and will now be able to put forward a more compassionate conservative adjenda."


diamond, see emboldened phrases above for instances of political game-playing.

These are my words....and I think they emphasize the way a politician works. Especially a skilled one.

No different than the way any politician, no matter what party works.

If you think of Kennedy for a moment. The general public had no idea that the President cut a deal with the USSR to have the missles removed from Cuba. Kennedy was perfectly happy letting the public think it was his blockade that did the trick. Not that he told the USSR that he would remove the missles the US had in Turkey.

Brilliant political gamesmanship. Set himself up nicely for the next election had he made it.



PEACE

 

[pub crawler]

these words are dread's opinion-his interprtation..

True, but I like the way dread read between the lines because it shows Bush's true colors. I'll bet it's pretty close to a dead-on interpretation.

welcome to polictical game playing -seems to b a necessary evil in our age of Mass Media .

Well if it's necessary than I think it's time for a major revamp of our political system and process.

HOWEVER- Mr Pubster-

I judge a man by his actions more than words.
gw has-
-built a culturally diverse cabinet.
-publically denounced trent's stupid statement.
-privately asked to have him removed.
-demonstrated racially senisitivty and compassionate conservativism since taking office-
a) by acknowledging Muslims
b) by ackknoweldging other cultures during the Holidays
c) by listening to a rock star who used to blast his father on stage and then said he agrees w the rock star on certain issues
d) refuses to crucify Trent more than necessary
e) will say that Trent is a moron but not a true bigot.

I won't respond to each of these points now because I'd rather do some research first.

Its time for u Democrats to find some "real" "genuine" compassion and
find some "real" issues..

If you're including me in those you are addressing here, I'll let you know -- for what it's worth -- I'm not a Democrat. I think the Democratic and Republican platforms are too similar and I agree with neither. Frankly, I wouldn't miss either party if they both went away.

is GW guilty of polictal gamemanship?
sure
...

Welcome to the modern age.

Just about every politician plays the games -- I'll agree. But that doesn't make it right. In fact, it's completely wrong.


Thank you.
your friend.
pub crawler

 

[pub crawler]

These are my words....and I think they emphasize the way a politician works. Especially a skilled one.

No different than the way any politician, no matter what party works.


PEACE

True, it works the same way in either party. And I still think it's wrong.

 

[diamond]

just as long as dread and pub realize who their daddy really is..
me

thank u
Diamond

 

[U2Bama]

Of course not.

But that's a classic move to deflect attention and criticism; bringing up the transgressions of others, particularly members of the opposition, to soften something that one of your own has done. So many of the posters in this thread kept insisting that Lott was a some kind of victim of something other than his own way of thinking.

I certainly can appreciate it when Democrats get called for doing or saying something stupid, racist, or sexist (not Democrats!). It's when that's repeatedly brought up as some kind of justification for not going after someone like Lott that I disagree with it.


And, since when is a son responsible for the actions of his father? Or is there someting about Al Gore your not telling me?

Fair enough, martha. I guess my point in highlighting the transgressions of Gore and Clinton was because of an old biblically-based theme I personally try to follow, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Now I am cerainly not imposing a theocracy where all of our politicians and past politicians are forced to live by such biblical rules or that public policy should be shaped around this, but it is generally a good rule to live by.

Granted, Clinton and Gore are now on the entertainment and collegiate speech circuits, so I guess they do not have to worry about re-election consequences, but if they ARE going to make public comments about the situation, then they should expect people to put them under the scope of political correctness as well.

Regarding Al Gore, Jr. and the influence he woudl have had on his father, I am merely pointing out his relationship to another player in the whole Southern "states' rights" and "Dixieicratic" movements that I as a Southerner am so terribly ashamed of.

~U2Alabama

 

[bonoman]

these words are dread's opinion-his interprtation..

welcome to polictical game playing -seems to b a necessary evil in our age of Mass Media .
HOWEVER- Mr Pubster-

I judge a man by his actions more than words.
gw has-
-built a culturally diverse cabinet.
-publically denounced trent's stupid statement.
-privately asked to have him removed.
-demonstrated racially senisitivty and compassionate conservativism since taking office-
a) by acknowledging Muslims
b) by ackknoweldging other cultures during the Holidays
c) by listening to a rock star who used to blast his father on stage and then said he agrees w the rock star on certain issues
d) refuses to crucify Trent more than necessary
e) will say that Trent is a moron but not a true bigot.

Its time for u Democrats to find some "real" "genuine" compassion and
find some "real" issues..

is GW guilty of polictal gamemanship?
sure
is he indeed a compassionate man and broad thinker?
yes

I agree with you that he did those things but arent alot of those things things he SAID not ACTIONS?



We have all must relize what sort of world we live in and the politcs that are practiced. Bush isnt the president because his bus stopped at the white house he is the president because he is a great politician.

This say one thing and do another is a good political move to a degree. All of us here have figured out quite easily what Bush did with Lott. Do we not think no one else can just as easily figure it out and it could work againist him? I can nearly guarentee if Bush came out and denounced Lotts comments (even though they really arent as bad as some Dem. are making them) and support the man, Lott would still be around. Or is this just the opp. Bush was looking for to get rid of Lott?