Democrats have elected Steny Hoyer to be House Majority Leader, over John Murtha, who had been promoted by incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Hoyer's the better choice, but this is not a good indication of Pelosi's abilities to have such a defeat on the first test of her leadership.
Pelosi was my Congresswoman for the last 7 years I was in San Francisco (yeah, I went from Pelosi to McDermott. Trust me, I don't select residences for the elected officials). Never mind her over-the-top liberalism, she never struck me as particularly capable, and has difficulty expressing herself well in the media.
This limited-government conservative is not all that disappointed by the prospect of a Democrat-controlled Congress, provided it continues to be led by ineffectuals whose accomplishments are likely to be modest.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 16, 2006 12:08 PM | Email ThisLott is a lousy choice. I would agree with all the commentary on Instapundit calling the respective leadership contests a "dumb-off"
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 16, 2006 12:42 PMIt cracks me up when the left uses fallacious arguments like Cato just did above. Two wrongs don't make a right.
There never should have been any expectation of Pelosi's ability to lead. It's simply non-existent and an accident of her tenure in the House. One thing we've learned in the last half century of politics, is that it takes Democrats less time to screw up, because they are more prone to overreach. Just sit back, relax and enjoy the ride as Pelosi drives the train off the cliff.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 16, 2006 12:55 PMSo you would like to see our government be ineffective and make only modest accomplishment as long as the Democrats control congress. Screw the immigration problems, screw enacting the 9/11 commission recommendations, and screw a different (perhaps even winable) course correction in Iraq. After all, it might make the Republican party look bad... right?
At least your honest about putting the interests of your political party ahead of the best interest of America. Thank you for that.
Posted by: Splinter on November 16, 2006 12:58 PMMy hope, no matter what party controls congress or the white house, is that America DOES make real accomplishments and IS effective occasionally. Especially now, when we are at war.
With all due respect, your post makes you sound like a sore looser.
Posted by: Splinter on November 16, 2006 01:06 PMThey approved Lott, despite his openly racist -- or at best, disturbing -- endorsement in 2002 of a Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign.
The Dems, on the other hand, rejected Murtha (with his questionable ethics) by a wide margin.
Take heart, SP readers, at least the Republicans won something this election cycle!
Posted by: Vonnegut on November 16, 2006 01:11 PMVonnegut you are an idiot. You have the nerve to say ANYTHING about Trent Lott when your party keeps on electing Robert Byrd, a Grand Kleagle of the KKK who once said "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
Posted by: pbj on November 16, 2006 02:23 PMPosted by katomar at November 16, 2006 02:03 PM
Better yet, give us your thoughts on Marcy/Darcy whining "sexism".
Thank God we voters in the 8th managed to have a collective brain where this empty set of Manolo Blahniks is concerned.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 16, 2006 02:25 PMHappy to give you my thoughts on Byrd. He renounces his involvement in the KKK decades ago, and no one claims that he supports segregation. If he had said something supportive of the KKK in 2002, I would have called for his ouster the same way lots of people -- Democrats *and* Republicans -- did regarding Lott in 2002.
Look, it's not what the person did in their past -- and renounced -- that's at issue. What Byrd *and* Thurmond did as far as being in the KKK and supporting segregation is vile. But in 2002 no one (Democrat or Republican) was calling for Byrd *or* Thurmond to be banned from high office because of their pasts, which they both (believably) renounced.
What I believe Lott did was support those segregationist views in 2002. He said that he was "proud" to have voted for Thurmond in 1948. Take a look at what Lott said he was "proud" to have voted for in 1948: "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial identity of each race . . . . We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes . . . . We oppose and condemn the action of the Democractic convention in sponsoring a civil rights program calling for the elimination of segregation . . . regulations of private employment practices, voting, and local law enforcement."
See for yourself at: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/dixiecrat1.html
I've explained my thoughts on Byrd. My standard is the same as yours on Thurmond, who was in his past viciously segregationist but somehow "kept getting elected" by REPUBLICANS.
pbj, if you think Byrd can't serve in Congress because of his past, explain whether you ever applied that standard to Strom Thurmond.....I didn't -- I and everyone else dealing with the Lott question is talking about his PRESENT views, as shown by his own words THIS century.
Defend Lott if you want....That kind of thinking can only help the Democrats cement their victories in Congress.
You couldn't be more obviously wrong. This is from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd):
In his latest autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a member [of the KKK] because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision -- a jejune and immature outlook -- seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."
Byrd also said in 2005: "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times . . . and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."
Byrd, just like Thurmond, renounced his segregationist past. Lott, in 2002, said he was "proud" to have voted for a segregationist -- and one who was running *because* of the segregation issue (the very reason for Thurmond's presidential run from the Democratic party was civil rights and segregation).
Byrd says that he *thought* that the KKK was OK when he joined it -- 60 years ago! That's not his view now.
Care to revise your assessment?
And what's your defense of Lott's "proud" stance in favor of voting for a segregationist running on a racist platform?
The ex-Klansman showed his true colors when asked by Fox News Sunday morning talk show host Tony Snow about the state of race relations in America. Sen. Byrd warned: "There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much."
Posted by: katomar on November 16, 2006 04:55 PMBut if you're going to condemn Byrd for what he said in 2001, why aren't you condemning Lott for what he said in 2002? And why aren't you opposing someone like Lott be no. 2 in the Senate?
Your silence about Lott is deafening.
And so is your silence in the face of absolute proof that you were wrong about what Byrd has been saying for decades about renouncing his KKK membership.....
I stand by my original point that started your (and pbj's) ill-conceived deflections:
Today was a day that the Democrats rejected someone for a leadership position whose values are questionable (Murtha) while the Republicans embraced someone who has indicated he supports segregation (Lott). Although I wish that Murtha had been defeated even more soundly than he was, I'm glad to be on our side and not yours right now.
Posted by: Vonnegut on November 16, 2006 05:12 PM
Lott, R-Mississippi, made the comment Thursday on Capitol Hill during a 100th birthday celebration for Thurmond, who is retiring next month after nearly 48 years in the Senate. The comment was broadcast live on C-SPAN.
"A poor choice of words conveyed to some the impression that I embraced the discarded policies of the past," Lott said. "Nothing could be further from the truth, and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my statement."
What he said, verbatim, was:
"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 followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said at last week's party.
He did not state any support for segregation and did not say the problems he was referencing were race-related. It was a generic statement, and he certainly has never used racist language publicly, as Byrd has quite often. And Lott was never a member of the KKK.
Posted by: katomar on November 16, 2006 05:49 PMWell, I can't argue with your point about Byrd. I do tend to believe his explanation, but your opinion on his statement is respectable.
But of course I disagree with you about Lott. How you can call his statement in praise of Thurmond's candidacy "general" is beyond me. He specifically stated that he was "proud" that he and those with him voted for Thurmond in 1948, which was a flat-out racist campaign. I mean, the very reason for the Dixiecrats' existence in 1948 was racism! And Lott said that we "wouldn't have the problems we're having" if Thurmond had only won the presidency. I don't think he was talking about the notion that Thurmond would have made the trains run on time.
Lott didn't praise Thurmond's "career" or his "life" (both of which included a lot besides that 1948 run). He praised that presidential campaign, which was all about racism. Try to be objective about that.
Posted by: Vonnegut on November 17, 2006 02:45 PMOr, I suppose instead of listening to the Lott statement for what it was, you could look to the "context" in which he delivered it....Oh, but wait -- you reject that kind of "contextual" approach!
Or, do you only reject "context" when it comes to the other side of the fence?
Posted by: Vonnegut on November 17, 2006 02:48 PM