The Town Hall Archives

The Top Crusader · Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:21 pm Post subject: Trent Lott!!

I figured Jarod would enjoy this topic... Wink

So... what's the next step here?

David O · Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:32 pm Post subject:

I'm sure he will.

(I seriously wish I followed pol uh tics more closely.)

hawkeye · Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:31 pm Post subject:

Top Crusaider: What do you mean what is the next step? Senator Lott will probably dropped like a hot potatoe, unless President Bush is forced to intervene. In that case, I think Bush will probably reccomend allowing Lot ot keep his position, since he has apologized numerous times, but a close eye will be on Lott.

The past couple days, I have been trying to get into keeping up with what is going on. Im not trying to be like Jared (Im not insulting him), but I am trying to be more aware of what is going on around us, so at the very least, I can pray.

Considereing numerous people are in court possibly facing imprisionment for protesting in front of an abortion clinic, and a judge was told to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the courthouse lawn, and Lott is under fire, and the US is at war with terror, which includes S Africa, Korea, Iraq, Afganistan, and perhapse even China in the worst case, we Christians need to know what is going on and pray. Christianity is under fire in the world, even in the US. The US is under fire, and the world is on the verge of war, possibly a world war. And Athiest and Pegans and lesbians and gays are rising up standing for what they believe, while trampling Christian's rights and the US's Biblical basis, and California is being, well, California, the independant state, making its own federal government. If we Christians don't pray and stand for and fight for what is right, we don't want to see what the world will become.

Jared · Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:50 pm Post subject:

Wow, a topic was made just for me! Let's see... I've written pages and pages on this at my website... I think Lott must go (and I think he will lose his leadership post when the Republican Senators meet on Janurary 6th to discuss the issue. Here are a few things I've written on this issue, in chronological order. (It could be noted that I got harsher as the days wore on... Lott's "mistake" was terrible enough. His terrible excuse for apologies only made it far, far worse.)

[START]

DECEMBER 10

LOTT'S BIG MISTAKE

Everyone else seems to have weighed in on it, so I ignored it for a while. It was all over the place and it just didn’t seem necessary to provide the exact same commentary as everyone else is providing. It’s become such a big issue, though, that I almost can’t help but mention it, so I’ll get it out of the way right now.

I’ve never been a big fan of Trent Lott because I felt that he was an innefectual leader, often negotiating “in a spirit of bipartisanship,” leading to the death of many important pieces of legislation. He was weak, he never explained his positions (the times he actually stood for something) clearly and he had a poor record in the Senate concerning seats (under him, the GOP continously lost seats even as Clinton made a fool out of himself in the White House). In other words, while I was glad that a Republican would once again be Majority Leader, I wasn’t extremely thrilled that it would be Trent Lott. I much prefer men such as Rick Santorum, Don Nickles, Bill Frist, Jeff Sessions and Mitch McConnell.

But stilll, he was the Republican leader and has made promises to do better this time. So even though I would have preferred someone else, he’s a lot better than Daschle. Or at least, I thought so. He’s not bolstering his case here.

A few days ago, Senator Lott, in a celebration of Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday, Lott declared: “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had of followed our lead we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

You want to say what? If the rest of the country followed your lead, Senator, the United States may not have faced some of the issues it faces today because it could still be facing the basics like civil rights. I like Strom Thurmond as he is now, but when Thurmond ran for the presidency in 1948, he was running on the Dixiecrat ticket precisely for the reason that neither of the major parties would accept the horrible things he stood for. Yes, things have changed. Strom is now a very different and highly-respected man. But with his comments, Lott isn’t.

A reader sent me a link to some liberal commentary on Senator Lott entitled “Massa Lott and the Senate Plantation,” which made a lot of allegations about the Senator. I personally don’t believe everything this piece says, but even though Lott has apologized - multiple times - questions that have been raised won’t easily be quelled. According to National Review Online contributor Robert A. George, this isn’t the first time Lott has said somethig degrading and probably won’t be the last. Consider:

In a 1984 speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Miss., Lott declared: "The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform."
The spirit of Jefferson Davis? Now maybe he meant states rights, but if that’s the case, he sure chose an odd way of saying it, just as saying that his state voted for Thurmond for president back when Thurmond was a strong segregationist. He may have only been saying nice things about a one hundred year-old man, but it definitely was a poor way to say it. Either the Senator needs a change of heart or some lessons on how to restrain himself from speaking without thinking.

Have those who have railed on Lott, men like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Al Gore, gone too far in saying that Lott is a racist, a man who is trying to revive the Confederecy, etcetera? Yes, I’d say so, but their outbursts don’t reduce the seriousness of Lott’s statement.

Upon learning of Lott’s statements, Bill Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, said, “It's ludicrous. He should remember it's the party of Lincoln.” Wrote David Frum for National Review Online, “Lott could hardly have chosen a more inopportune time to hand his opponents proof that the Republican party is an updated version of the Dixiecrats.” In other words, Lott’s comments were stupid and costly.

Senator Daschle, someone I generally despise, has taken the high ground on this issue, saying that he accepts Senator Lott’s apology and does not believe that anything ill was implied. It may be that this is the case, but few people seem to completely buy that explanation. Lott has severely damaged the image of the Republican party, the party that not only was responsible for emancipation but for the civil righs act. He offended a lot of people. And he has proven, at least to me, that he doesn’t deserve to be at the forefront of the party. I would really like to see some new Republican leadership in the United States Senate.

DECEMBER 13

STEPPING DOWN?

I’ve had a busy morning, which is why I haven’t posted until now. I kept hoping, though, that I’d have something to talk about besides Trent Lott. Not that I thought it wasn’t newsworthy, by any means, but because it was too newsworthy. In other words, the major media and the more prominent bloggers are all over the issue, so what can I add to the flood? (Answer: nothing.) Still, if there’s other news out there, you won’t find it easily – and you certainly won’t find it here. Is this a “lott” of Lott? Are you tired of hearing something along those lines for about the 97th time?

Yeah, me too.

But the Trent Lott story is far from over. Matt Drudge has been saying (and apparently AP has confirmed) that Senator Lott will give a public press conference at 5:30 PM (eastern) today. Both sources agree that it’s most likely yet another apology. (Do you get the impression that if he had done the apologizing right the first time, he wouldn’t have needed to do it three more times?) Others, however, aren’t so sure, including Josh Chafetz in his comments at The Volokh Conspiracy:

Lott will be holding a press conference this afternoon in Pascagoula, Mississippi. The AP thinks the press conference is to apologize, as does Drudge. But a Republican Party source tells me that Lott is pretty close to being shown the door, and that the press conference this afternoon may in fact be an announcement that he's stepping down. My source told me, however, that nothing had been decided yet for sure.
Yeah, well my sources tell me—wait, I don’t have any sources. But regardless, this is very interesting. According to Drudge, the Bush White House is expecting an apology. If that is true, it’s surprising that “a Republican Party source” would have more information on the situation than Bush, leading to one of the following conclusions:

A party source knows more about what’s going on than the President.
Drudge got it wrong and the Associated Press followed, as they didn’t have anything on the story other than what Drudge said.
The party source is wrong.
Even Lott himself doesn’t know what he’s going to do yet.
The White House isn’t talking and the silence was wrongly interpreted.
Since it’s unlikely that Chafetz’s source, as reliable as he may be, knows more than the President on this matter. Unless, that is, he happens to work for Lott or something. It’s also unlikely that the Associated Press would repeat the story straight from Drudge, but it is quite possible that they both drew the same, perhaps faulty, conclusion in the absence of facts. While it’s possible that Lott hasn’t made a decision yet, it doesn’t make sense. Does he have two speeches written – an apology and a resignation, for use as needed? Probably not. Could the party source be wrong? Yes, quite possibly. Chafetz writes, “…nothing has been decided for sure.”

Of course, a complete resignation would be costly, as the Democratic governor of the state would be likely to appoint a Democrat. A question, however: if Lott were to resign now, before the 108th Congress came into session, the governor of Mississippi would appoint a new Senator, but wouldn’t there have to be a special election to determine who takes the seat at the start of the new session? A quick special election. And since it’s Mississippi, wouldn’t there be a good chance that a Republican would win the seat. Now, I’m not constitutional scholar and I don’t profess to be the best at understanding the election system. If I’m wrong, please let me know!

But even if his resignation would cast the Senate into 50-50 chaos (with Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote – as long as the Democrats don’t haul in McCain, Chafee or Snow), isn’t it worth it? The damage he has done to his party is immense, his respectability is gone, his ability to carry out his task is limited and besides, his words and actions are reprehensible. Even though it may cost the party for the time being (for which he will be fully to blame), it’s better for the party and for the country as a whole if he steps down.

But what if he simply resigns his leadership position while retaining a Senate seat? It’s possible, but would it quell the condemnation? And would Lott be content to be under someone else? I could be wrong, but I imagine that this is an all-or-nothing situation. Unfortunately, I think it will be “all,” meaning that Lott holds onto the seat. And with the things Lott is likely to agree to in order to “cleanse” himself of his sin, it may be far less costly to have a 50-50 Senate than to have a 51-49 Senate with Trent Lott in charge.

What a disaster. Why is this man our majority leader? Give us Bill Frist, John Kyl, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum or Jeff Sessions. In other words, give us any conservative Republican who isn’t named Trent Lott. Oh, and preferably, one with an ability to lead. All the abovementioned are able leaders who would be great in comparison to Lott. Most in the blogosphere have preferred Frist thus far; to me, Frist and McConnell are both extremely viable choices. As long as it’s not Trent Lott…

But it will be. I wish I could believe it, but I doubt Chafetz’s source is accurate on this issue. (Please, unnamed source, prove me wrong!) I don’t think that Trent Lott is at all ready to part with power; it would require a Presidential push to make him do so. Mr. President, start pushing.

PROVING WHY WE DON'T NEED HIM

Senator Lott has apologized – again. They way he’s going, he’ll have to start apologizing for his apologies soon. This one was awful. Now, the start was decent: he said he had a prepared statement to make, followed by a brief announcement (at which point I was thinking five minute “I was wrong and I apologize” statement followed by the announcement that while he would remain in the Senate, he would resign from his leadership role – and yes, I know I said that it would be all or nothing earlier, but the way he opened made me think that it was the announcement he was leading up to).

The first four minutes or so of his speech were pretty good; not eloquent, but they said what needed to be said. He apologized profusely, said that there was no way to explain away what he said even though it wasn’t what he really meant, agreed with the President and utterly denounced racism in a succinct manner. So far, so good.

But that’s exactly where he should have stopped. Instead, his speech rambled on for another ten minutes or so in which he talked about all the good things he has done over the years, about how his economic policy has helped people, how his father was a sharecropper and he’s no stranger to poverty and wants to fix that, how he has done all kinds of things to promote equality. In short, what started out a good apology quickly wound up a policy speech. Lott is not a great speaker in the first place (we’ve seen what can happen when he, as he said, “wings it”) and in this rambling prepared statement, which lacked a prepared feel once he got out of the apology (I wonder how much he was “winging it” this time?), annoyed those listening to the speech and undid what good he may have done with his apology.

But of course, there was to be the brief announcement. Now I know Drudge and others have said that he wouldn’t step down, but I was hopeful that they would be wrong (even though I did doubt it). When he said brief announcement, I thought for sure he would be stepping down. What else could the announcement be about, an upcoming appearance on Black Entertainment Television? Exactly.

How cruel. Conservatives all over the country have been tortured by this man’s words and want him to step down. He says he has an announcement after his apology and we think that he’s doing something for the good of the party and the country, only to be treated to the fact that he’ll be doing a one-hour program on BET to, best as I can figure, apologize again and treat the viewers to his views on political issues.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. He is right on many of those issues, like free trade, national defense and all kinds of conservative issues, but today was a day for profuse apology, not campaigning. Besides, with his style, this program on television next week isn’t exactly going to be breaking ratings records. Of course, a politician doesn’t have to be a great orator if he is a great person, but it would be nice for the leaders to be able to communicate to the people. The problem with Lott is that no one believes him to be a great orator and following the revelations of the last few days, many question whether or not he can be called by any “a great person” either.

Over the years, Trent Lott has severely damaged the Republican Party and squandered dozens of opportunities for conservatism. He has done the same again, but this time it’s far, far worse. A real apology the first day might have helped, but he started out by being surprised that some people took his words in a racist way (as if it was very difficult to construe them in such a manner), then said that he simply misspoke, then explained what he was “really thinking” and now apologized yet again. The problem is, Mr. Lott hasn’t made a good apology yet and, quite frankly, the American people don’t want to hear from him on national television saying he’s sorry again any time soon.

"Lott's basic defense is stupidity ... I don't think Sen. Lott has ever been known for his emotional connectivity. That's not his strong point and I didn't see very much of it in this press conference," commented Dr. Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University said on FOX News.

It’s pretty bad when you have to plead stupidity to explain away your errors. If the Senator from Mississippi wanted to give an apology that ended the problem, he failed miserably. So much for dreams of Bill Frist as Senate Majority Leader; so much for hopes that the problem could be dealt with and put behind the Republican Party. Let’s hope that the GOP can still focus on the issues before them this upcoming session without too much distraction from the problem known as Trent Lott.

DECEMBER 17

LOSING THE AGENDA

Yes, I know that you’re probably tired of hearing about Trent Lott, but there are some portions of his “interview” on Black Entertainment Television that must be noted. Consider, for example, the following:

Lott announced that he has changed his mind about making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a federal holiday – having voted against it when it was on the Senate floor – and said he supports affirmative action.
"I'm for that," Lott said when asked by Gordon again. "I'm for affirmative action and I've practiced it. I've had African Americans on my staff and other minorities, but particularly African Americans, since the mid-1970s."
Now it may be a more important issue for some people, but I don’t care what his position is currently about Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday being a holiday. I understood why he opposed it in the first place – he didn’t see a reason to hurt the economy in this country by adding another day where people were off work – and I can see why a person could be in favor of it. As I said, I don’t place great importance on this non-issue. The problem is, though, that just Friday night during his press conference apology session, he defended and explained this position, but now he’s saying that he has changed his mind about the issue. If he changed his mind, fine. If he didn’t, that’s fine as well. It bothers me, though, that he appears to have given different answers in answering different people.

An argument could be made that during the press conference he was explaining the reason he originally voted against it, not saying he still agreed with his original decision. But if that were the case, wouldn’t he have said so at that time?

Then comes what I consider to be a much more important issue, affirmative action. “I’m for that,” Lott declared, and it seemed to take the interviewer by surprise, as he asked Lott the question a second time. So Lott’s for affirmative action? When did that happen? I am all for equality, obviously, but by definition, affirmative action does not favor equality. Hiring should be done on a basis of credentials, not race. Isn’t hiring based on racial standards exactly what civil rights legislation attempted to stop in the first place? It looks like Trent Lott is already beginning to cave under pressure. This is a bad sign for the GOP. The interviewer pressed on, demanding, “You understand to have a black on your staff and to push legislation that would help African Americans and minorities across the board are completely different?” Sometimes it’s hard to tell what Lott knows. Also:

Lott also said he had reached out to several lawmakers to push forward an agenda he said would help minorities, including talking with Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., about setting up a task force on reconciliation and with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, about setting up an African-American summit.
Now, I’m all for an agenda that will help minorities if it’s constitutional and doesn’t achieve the “help” by completely ignoring others. I’d love to see some aid in the form of, for example, school vouchers so poor minority families with kids stuck in failing schools can pull out and place their kids somewhere else. But Lott seems to be going a different way on this, as he talks about setting up a task force for reconciliation. The current generation of white Americans have nothing to do with the cruel and evil practice of slavery abolished over 140 years ago. It was a terrible, terrible chapter in our history, but I am not responsible for it and neither are the rest of Americans. Why should we be responsible for “reconciliation?”

Rush Limbaugh has been talking about how the Democrats are extending the blame to all conservatives and particularly southern ones, but while that may be true, it’s no reason to ignore the problem. On Limbaugh’s website, the following was stated:

This has gone beyond Trent Lott now, and the reason it has is because while everybody is focused on Lott, the liberals have expanded it, and nobody is responding to that. I'm trying to respond by pointing out just a little truth to counter some of this stuff. However, if you think it's all oriented around Lott, and when he goes then it's going to be smooth sailing for the rest of us, I don't think that's the case.
True, but as long as Lott’s in there, the conservative agenda is gone. Lott is already starting to cave and it will only worsen as time wears on. Senator Nickles had the right idea when he took a stand and said that Lott must go. Some are suggesting now that Lott will eventually be forced to step down and in order to keep him in the Senate, he might be offered a committee chair. When I heard this, my first thought was that it would be unfair to take the committee away from some other Republican leader and give it to the undeserving Lott – unless of course the man Lott replaces as committee chair replaces Lott as Majority Leader. Still, it sounds like appeasement to me.

But it’s a lot better than having Lott as Majority Leader.

[END]

I also published a piece by someone else about the issue at my website (http://conservativejournal.cjb.net)

So, here's the next debate if we all agree Lott should go... Who should replace him? Sure, MITCH McConnell has probably clinched the AIO vote because of his name, but who is best for the job: Frist, Santorum, McConnell, Sessions or Nickles... or someone else? Personally, my vote goes for Frist, followed closely by Nickles, but all of them are good. I won't buy into the anyone-but-Lott concept (Could you imagine having Majority Leader McCain? We'd have to wonder if our party leader would switch parties!), but anyone from that group would be very acceptable to me. Your opinions, please!

The Top Crusader · Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:49 am Post subject:

Ya know, I'm really gonna have to look at that Conservative Journal of yours, Mr. Wakakkaskshzziski. Anyway, I'm about to run out the door, so I didn't read anything that you just said! Laughing

But here is my 2 cents...

Lott should without a doubt step down as Majority Leader. Not that I so much care what he said, but simply, that is going to be a huge thorn in the side of the Republican party, as long as he is in power.

I am not too certain that he needs to resign as a senator, though. I'd say maybe finish out this term at least, but we definetely don't want him as Senate Leader.

You have to admit, though... while you would think he's smart enough not to say something like that, and mean it the way people took it...

...what he said was really, really dumb. I saw it before it was all scandelous, and my first thought was "Wasn't Thurmond a segregationist?! Confused

" So I wondered what in the world Lott was trying to do.

But that's just me.

Although, the spin I've heard on the news makes it sound even worse.

I hope Jared's website is a "No Spin Zone!"

David O · Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 2:01 pm Post subject:

You mean you wish I couldn't practice my ballerina at Jared's site? Wink

Jared · Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 2:21 pm Post subject:

David,

You have a ballerina?

The Top Crusakashzziski,

My last name is WALCZAK. Simple. W-A-L-C-Z-A-K. Not Wakakkaskshzziski. Got it? ;)

"I hope Jared's website is a 'No Spin Zone!'"

Well, no spin, but plenty of bias! ;)

What I mean is that I don't hide, obscure or ignore facts because they contradict what I believe. No spin. But bias? Well, did you really expect "The CONSERVATIVE Journal" to take an objective look on the great deeds of Al Sharpton? I work on a basic assumption: liberals are wrong. Really, I'm no more biassed towards the right than CNN is biassed leftward; I just freely admit it!

Zwall · Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:29 am Post subject:

I feel the same as all of you. If that counts?

*looks around*

Jared · Posted: Mon Dec 23, 2002 7:22 am Post subject:

In case you're still interested in the Lott stuff and saw that he continued his string of apologies in an interview in which he claimed that he "fell into a trap" and invoked conservatism and Christianity into the whole thing ...

Yesterday, I took time out from my "investigative reports" comparing Santorum and Frist and taking a look at the voting record and accomplishments of Alaska's new appointed "Republican" senator to give Trent Lott some advice. Wasn't that kind of me?

-----------

Memo to Lott: Be Quiet! - 6:54 PM

The upper chamber of congress and its members grabbed the spotlight when Trent Lott found himself in deep trouble at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party and today, seventeen days later, they still haven’t let go. Even after agreeing belatedly to step down as Majority Leader, Trent Lott hasn’t managed to stay out of the news, his soon-to-be replacement, Senator Bill Frist, is being profiled everywhere, a Washington Democratic Senator made positive comments concerning Osama bin Laden and a picture of Democratic Senator Robert Byrd wearing a Confederate Army uniform appeared on the Drudge Report. With all this, what should I write about? I planned to focus a small amount on each story, but as I wrote, I realized that I had plenty to say about just Trent Lott. If you aren’t tired of hearing about him yet, read on. Tomorrow, perhaps, I’ll focus on the others I mentioned.

If I were Lott, I wouldn’t be talking right now. I would be avoiding the limelight, quietly going about my life, saying and doing nothing that could attract even the least bit of media attention. The preferred scenario would have his name not even appearing in newspapers until after Bill Frist takes over the leadership. He should have just gone to Pascagoula and stayed in his home, venturing out only when necessary. If he felt the urge to apologize yet again, he should have stood before his mirror and recited his little speech about his father being a shipyard worker and telling the glass with a smile that his life has been the American dream.

Conservatives have a different name for it: the Republican nightmare.

However, Trent Lott is in a talkative mood. He’s only apologized about five times; it seems such a waste to live such an “American dream” and not tell everyone in the country about it. And while each apology and explanation has been a dismal failure and he seems to have failed to learn basic decency as a child (or at the very least, failed to learn the importance of choosing words wisely), he apparently did take to heart the old adage, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.” Therefore, Trent Lott was not satisfied with five failed apologies. No, that wouldn’t do at all. So he started talking again... let’s see, that makes it six failed apologies now, right? Read this introductory sentence from an Associated Press article:

Sen. Trent Lott, in his first public remarks since resigning as Senate Republican leader, said Sunday that had fallen into a "trap" set by his political enemies and had "only myself to blame."
Even as he’s admitting that it’s all his fault, he’s pointing his finger at others. Now, I have nothing against some good Democrat-blaming – if it’s accurate. But in this case, the “son of a shipyard worker” gives no evidence, no reason to believe his claim. And how exactly did they set the trap? Was Tom Daschle holding Lott’s cue cards? (“Oops, sorry, Trent. Now how’d that one get in there?”) Did the Democratic Party organize the entire birthday party just knowing that the poor “son of a shipyard worker” would stumble?

I get the impression that you could add a messy toupee and call him the Southern Jim Trafficant, but that would be unfair … to Mr. Trafficant. Seriously, though, doesn’t his tiresome “son of a shipyard worker” speech sound very similar to Trafficant’s constant reference to being the “son of a truck driver”? Just as with Jim Trafficant’s continuous mention of his father’s career in repeated attempts to get himself out of trouble, Trent Lott’s “look at what I’ve accomplished” speech utterly failed. Take a look at how the article concerning his sixth, more unofficial apology continues:

However, he said there were those who had been gunning for his resignation.

"There are some people in Washington who have been trying to nail me for a long time," Lott said. "When you're from Mississippi and you're a conservative and you're a Christian, there are a lot of people that don't like that. I fell into their trap and so I have only myself to blame."
He wouldn't say who those political enemies were.

Okay, wait. Does it look like he’s trying to take down the entire party with him? He should realize now that the “they’ve been trying to nail me for a long time” excuse just doesn’t work. Of course they have! Has he never experienced negative campaigning during his years in the House and Senate? Obviously, the opposing party would love the chance to pin something on him; the idea is to never give them the chance to do so!

Even worse, Lott feels it necessary to drag his state, conservatism and Christianity into the mess. As a conservative and a Christian, this bothers me. It was Christians who were the most ardent abolitionists, Christians who pushed for equal rights and Christians who worked the hardest to see that discrimination was stopped. Unfortunately, Democrats have been confusing the record for years by claiming it was the “conservative Christians” that did all the racial damage. Then Lott does something completely stupid, giving some credibility to the false Democratic claim. Now, by invoking his religion, he appears to be trying to pull his faith down with him.

Christianity can survive a lot worse than this, of course, but Christians need to be shining examples, reflecting the light of Christ. Lott’s comments reflected anything but and his attempts now to invoke his Christianity seem questionable at best. His mentions of his conservatism seem almost aimed at tying his stupidity to the entire party. Is this his revenge on the party for being essentially forced out of the leadership?

In case you thought I was making too much of these comments, here’s a continuation of Lott’s comments in apology number six: “I feel very strongly about my faith. God has put this burden on me, I believe he'll show me a way to turn it into a good.” Now hold on a minute; did he say that God put this burden on him? I believe firmly that God can use all for good and that He is in control, but He gives humans the freedom to make their own choices, right or wrong. Lott made a decision to say something dumb – to have an entire career filled with dumb mistakes or worse, actually; it wasn’t God who brought these problems upon him. Can God make something good happen out of this? Of course, and perhaps something great will happen because Bill Frist is the majority leader. Maybe partial-birth abortion will be banned and that couldn’t have been done under Lott; maybe something else good will come out of it. I don’t know, but I won’t limit the Lord. But let’s be clear: God didn’t place this burden upon Trent Lott; Mr. Lott placed the burden upon himself.

He should just be quiet and live with it. The apology tour is over; now, he should respond with actions rather than words.

----------