Think conservatives were happy to see former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., rise again this week, winning enough Senate Republican votes to become minority whip? Quotes rounded up by the Kansas City Star suggest otherwise.
Charles Bird (Redstate.com) called it “a bad beginning” and Lott “one of the biggest pigs in the federal trough.” Mary K. Ham (Townhall.com) wrote, “You Guys Are Killin’ Me, Part 87,458.” Michelle Malkin (michellemalkin.com) said, “Another GOP Maalox moment.” And Andrew Stuttaford (National Review Online) concluded: “Thanks a Lott.”
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
19 Comments
Thank you, CF’s god, for this gift.
YA’ KNOW WHAT MAKES ME SICK?
It just sickens me that now congress critters judge each other by measurements of earmarks and how much money they appropriate for their lobbyists.”He’s a bad guy because he’s getting X number of dollars for X number of corporations and X number of pork projects.”
Sadly, that is the normal working routine (when they do work).The way our political system has evolved since the industrialization of our country, has been totally geared towards big business and industry, and away from the interests of the people.
I believe it is an accurate statement to say that business does in fact, by proxy, run our govt.
NOW THAT’S WHAT MAKES ME SICK!
Trent Lott and Nancy Pelosi … now there’s a pair to draw to !!! No wonder Hunter Thompson shot himself. I feel like I’m watching some Ionesco/Camus/Sartre incomprehensible existential plot development. Or reminising many years ago wondering of my beloved daughters, “What the hell were you thinking?”
And Rhonda, has the term “original thought” ever crossed your mind ? The ability to pull up random quotes from Google does not equate to editorial journalism. Except perhaps, at “Whatzamatta U” ?
I think Lott’s bad news for Bush; he’s probably been plotting some kind of evil revenge on the administration ever since they left him dangling after the Strom imbroglio.
Also, Lott’s well-positioned at helping John McCain look good going into 2008. Since I don’t think Giuliani stands a snowball’s chance in hell of being POTUS*, and Romney is too Mormon to be elected, that leaves McCain if the GOP is still interested in filling the position. And I think they will be interested. ;)
Lott’s a pretty shrewd pol, he’ll likely keep Harry Reid on the tippy end of his toes.
*–Giuliani is: not New York, but instead too Noo Yawk, too northeastern, too bald, too much like an Other John Kerry…and which self-respecting midwesten Red-stater would ever want that guy in his living room in the depths of every winter delivering the STOTU address?
Pedant: I think Romney is the logical choice if McCain falters (please falter John). No one that I have spoken with thinks being Mormon is a factor. Why would it be?
outlander, Romney will need to account for the evangelical vote in order to win (either turn out the evangelicals to vote for him, or get them to stay home in lieu of voting for a Democrat). My guess is that Romney really has only the first choice, get the evangelicals to vote for him. The second option doesn’t exist for Romney because it would be easy to manipulate sitting out as a vote against Jesus.
Every evangelical I’ve spoken to believes that Mormons are not Christians, not REAL Christians. I believe this is related to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, along with some other Mormon that I don’t know much about but that certainly seem to bother evangelicals.
So for Romney, he HAS to have the evangelical vote because they’ll be energized anyway. I don’t think that’s a vote he can win from the evangelicals I know. Also, just the act of courting these voters will be tricky enough to present lots of gopher holes in the political terrain, any one of which could snap an ankle on Romney’s candidacy.
I just don’t see a Mormon being elected to national office.
Of course, if Romney underwent being publicly born again, then all bets are off.
“Except perhaps, at ‘Whatzamatta U’ ?
rm, are you incinerating she’s stupid?
Actually, rm, those four sites provide a reasonably accurate barometer of the lunatic right blogosphere(IMHO, of course!). If you’re complaining that they don’t represent conservatives in general, you might tell them. . .
Pedant: IMO the big majority evangelicals don’t care whether a candidate is born again or not. They are smart enough to know that it is all about the issues and electability. Romney has the education, experience (2002 Winter Olympics, conservative governor of a blue state etc..), and he is articulate. In short, he is electable. I think he would be able to gain the evangelical vote.
True evangelicals only like their own kind (born again) and then that relationship will get rocky after awhile.
The truth is, evangelicals are only interested in what will bring them the most money. Get the person that can bring in the money and the evangelicals will love him/her.
If you doubt evangelicals love money, then how come they have all the mega churches?
Rage: LOL. No, I make no assumptions regarding her intelligence. But, I would suggest that her former niche (according to her bio) covering Opera and Ballet seems a more appropriate venue than editorial journalism. Or what the Beagle purports to be editorial journalism.
“IMO the big majority evangelicals don’t care whether a candidate is born again or not.”Posted by: outlander | November 18, 2006 at 10:20 AM
Oh I agree. But in Romney’s case, being born again would be the only credible way to cast off his Mormon-ness.
In terms of the evangelical vote, the key is the absolute size (i.e., votes cast) of that “big majority” you mention. In my experience, evangelicals appear to care deeply whether a candidate is Christian. And in my further experience, evangelicals care more deeply still that Mormons falsely claim to be Christian.
I read the rest of your post as a longer way to say that you’d vote for Romney over McCain. I doubt you’ll get the chance, imo, but then you just never know.
FWIW, I haven’t ruled out voting for a Republican for POTUS, but first the GOP would have to do a major spring cleaning by Nov 08. A major piece of refuse thrown out would have to be James Dobson and his ilk. If the GOP continues to pander to Dobson and his kind, then they’ll certainly lose my vote.
With all due respect, anybody who thinks Romney has a chance in hell is living in a dream world. His “mormon-ism” is such a non-issue. I would venture 9 out of 10 voters don’t even know who he is…or care! This may sound racist or extremist or whatever other labels or epithets may arise, but I believe that people ought to have to pass a basic test illustrating whether or not they have a clue who or what they are voting for or against! An uninformed illiterate voter is worse than no voter at all. As an educated, conservative and (gasp) Jew, I am not any better or worse voter than anyone else who would spend 30 minutes or less pre-election just to get a grasp on who the hell they’re voting for.
To say I wouldn’t vote for XYZ because he’s a Mormon, or a Catholic (remember JFK, I do), or a Jew, or black, or Hispanic, or Vietnamese, or not “born again” is beyond the absurd. These people should just stay home … witness the poster child of this kind of thinking — Phill Kline ! What the hell were people thinking when they elected him ???
Winston Churchill said once, “A man who cannot read is no worse off than a man who does not read”. A truer statement has, to my knowledge, has never been made.
rm6046: How many people knew who Bill Clinton was 2 years before he was elected? If Romney were still an unknown this time next year, then he’d have a problem. But put him on stage with Rudy or McCain and the comparison will be apparent. And I don’t see Rudy or McCain sucking in all the money and starving the other candidates like W did.
Ironically it could be Massachusetts that kills Romney. After all, we all “know” than everybody from Massachusetts is a Commie.
Randomnumber–
It was Mark Twain, not Churchill.
Trent Lott–his reincarnation shows that the Pukes are determined to repeat their mistakes and to entrench the Puke party even further into the clutches of the Old Confederacy.
Note–they lost that one too . . .
I for one, am encouraged by the Republicans’ selection of Lott as Whip.My personal experience has been that Lott is far less pro-Big Business than Lamar Alexander.Having worked in Washington on legislation that affects my industry, it’s good news that three of the four top leaders in the Senate–McConnell, Reid and Lott–are pro-local.And Durbin, I think, will come around.Okay, so I don’t agree with McConnell and Lott on most of things… at least if they get their way, a number of us will get a bigger platform to disagree with them on.
Uhm, Mr. C., I’m glad Lott gave that impression (no sarcasm), but I’m confused.
What exactly was he doing from 1995 to 2000?? And, as I recall, McConnell was at his side. . .