Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Time Mag.: Payback Time for Lott?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
kskiska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-03 11:11 PM
Original message
Time Mag.: Payback Time for Lott?
The former Senate Majority Leader was hung out to dry by the Bush administration, and now he's biting back

Nine months after being forced to step down as Senate majority leader, Trent Lott is back. And he's taking swings at George W. Bush, the President whose strong condemnation of Lott's racially insensitive remarks at the late Strom Thurmond's birthday party helped precipitate Lott's demotion. In June the Mississippi conservative voted against a Medicare prescription-drug bill the President had urged Republican Senators to support. Earlier this month he publicly warned Bush that he had to give Americans more details on postwar-Iraq plans. And last week he joined Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan in a resolution to overturn another White House backed measure, the Federal Communications Commission's decision to relax media-ownership caps.

"He has really found his niche," says a friend. "He recognizes you don't have to have the top power seat in the Senate to be extremely powerful." Lott has breathed life into the dormant Senate Rules and Administration Committee, whose chairmanship he got as a consolation prize after being deposed. He has used the panel to explore such politically sensitive proposals as changing the Senate's filibuster rules and the laws on presidential succession. And he could become a pest when Bush seeks approval for his $87 billion request for postwar Iraq. While Lott has told Bush aides he will support the request, he says, "I don't like this kind of huge expenditure. They've got to explain it better."

more
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,110103...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
wrkclskid Donating Member (579 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-03 11:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. That article
Edited on Sun Sep-21-03 11:17 PM by wrkclskid
Almost makes me want to read his memoirs, whatever intramural problems the Repukes hae should be helped along by the Dems. Diide and Conquer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-03 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Revenge can be a two-way street
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Mahatma Gandhi

OR

If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
Niccolo Machiavelli

Lott's power trip could work for Dems at times, and then against them.

The man is an idiot.
Angel_O_Peace
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. So, Niccolo intimates we should kill a man so we don't have to fear his
retribution, his vengeance? Death seems to be the only way to do that with any shred of certainty. I don't see any other way around it. So... is that why he would take out entire families? Even that doesn't work with any guarantee. Someone always remembers. And, it also contradicts the usual thoughts on terror. Terror and threats only go so far, then they engender an oppositon.

I agree with Gandhi's view, and I'm not a pacifist per ce. There are in the general course of things, valid reasons to fight, as long as we can still see the cause and the ends we are fighting for.

We are all, at one time or another, idiots.

Having said all that, maybe Trent has seen the enemy, maybe he even knows him for what he is. Politics can be a difficult trial. I was going to say politics can be a bitch, but that seemed a bit hostile, so, god/dess bless us every one, even the guys on the other side of the aisle. (That doesn't mean we have to trust them implicitly, or even, at all.)

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 03:22 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. While I do understand and agree with Ghandi,
I also would like to quote an old Indian masterpiece, the Mahabhratta wherein Krisha is accused of cheating at war to defeat the forces fighting against Dharma.

"I was born to destroy the destroyers, and I became your friend out of my love for mankind."

Duryodhana bitterly replies that the Pandavas could never have won without cheating, to which Krishna agrees; right does not always triumph by ideal and unsullied means. "There are limits to the extent an individual can be moral in an immoral society" (Chaitanya 110). Krishna tells Yudhishthira: "Sometimes one protects dharma by forgetting it."

I watched the neocons systematically destroy political polity (Dharma) in the US. So I am now unmoved when I hear them appeal for civility or mercy. Hit them in the balls with a war hammer, slide an arrow into a back in the dead of night, just remember that when Dharma, or in this case polity is restored, you must then follow its strictures when dealing with those who will debate and legislate with you from a divergent POV. We are in the dark age, when Truth and Justice stand on one leg, we must be a greater prop therefor.

This is how Dharma and realpolitik merge into right action.
I could pray to the lady with PNAC blood metaphorically dripping from my hands, and she would smile upon me, this is my belief.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dhalgren Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. I agree with you.
Battling evil is good - the methods are inmaterial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. I can see how that might be the perception
that Machiavelli urged one to kill an opponent instead of just injure him. If you read the quote within the entire writing I don't believe that is the case.

The only reason this is worth mention is that Rove is a Machiavelli devotee.

One fine example of what Nic is talking about actually happened before his time by a few centuries. When John took the throne of England there was one other contender, his brother' Geoffrey's son, Arthur of Brittany. When there was a skirmish and Arthur was captured the original plan was to put out his eyes. That would render him about useless as a leader in those days.

Another great tactic was like a pincer move. Physically maim AND hammer with massive debt. Oh yeah, that about reduces a would be insurgent to the status of impotent lickety split. Look at Dukakis and the BCCI business.

Machaivelli is alive and well and being channeled by the Bush gang through Rove (who thankfully lacks Mac's foresight).

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fovea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #15
20. As you may have gathered from my nick
Edited on Mon Sep-22-03 09:58 AM by realpolitik
I am rather a fan of Niccolo. But I am a fan because we was the first non-normative analyst of politics.

I note that Karl apperently glosses over the inconvient part wherein Niccolo cautions the Prince about the futility of subjugating a democracy to princely autocracy.

Rove will end up something like the hated axe man of Bernarbo Viscounti.
Ok, he will probably not end up bodyless on the end of a gate post, but you get the idea.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. Figuratively speaking.....
If you can tag a politician with a major scandal or take a wealthy man's money, he's no longer capable of much revenge.

Killing him is more certain, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-03 11:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. Remember
It was not liberal Democrats who brought down Lott. It's kind of hard to make that argument when Republicans run the show in Washington. Hence, I don't see Lott's "revenge" being directed at anyone other than fellow Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whoa_Nelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-03 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Point taken
However, inadvertently there may be times when his choices/actions will hinder things for Dems, and at other times may be helpful. That was the only point I was making. O8)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Lean Left Donating Member (487 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-21-03 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Revenge or not
He's looking into changing the filibuster rules. Screams 'judicial appointments' to me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissMarple Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:20 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Over time, changing the rules affects both parties.
They often overlook that small point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #7
19. Yeah, like term limits.
But notice how most of them have squirmed out from that trap and ran again anyway?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PennyLane Donating Member (240 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Maybe it's a sign........
........that Bush and Rove have pissed off the wrong folks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RichV Donating Member (858 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
10. Won't happen
Requires 2/3 vote and they don't have the support in the Senate to change the filibuster/cloture rules. Both sides need it for when they're out of power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truthisfreedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:23 AM
Response to Original message
9. don't trust lott. moreover...
don't pay any attention to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unknown Known Donating Member (829 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 01:58 AM
Response to Original message
11. Trent Lott's brother-in-law is Richard "Dickie" Scruggs
the famous trial lawyer who brought the tobacco industry to their knees. He was portrayed by Al Pacino in "The Insider".

However, he gained notoriety before this in the class action suits for clients exposed to asbestos.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/6039643.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
screembloodymurder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:20 AM
Response to Original message
13. How long till his plane goes down
I'll give him one month.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
14. republican infighting
oh goody! i'll take more of that -- means less work for the dems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SOS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
18. Lott
made his error 15 years ago. He supported Jack Kemp against George Bush Sr. in 1988. Like the mafia, disloyalty to the Bush gang puts you at the receiving end of a vendetta.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
21. It seems there is a big difference between . .
. . democratic (small d) political discourse - where you voluntarily follow rules that allow all voices to be heard and represented in the debate, where you disgaree repsectfully with your opponents - and political "war" where you do whatever is necessary to gain and hold onto your power and destroy the enemy as completely as possible.

The great hatred I feel for repukes has come from my realization that over the last 20 years they have moved our democracy from the first form into the latter.

It's too bad most dem politicians don't get it yet.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aristus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
22. Lott will vote 'yes' on the $87 billion, just you wait.
One thing he's good at is bringing home the pork. I'm sure he will insist Mississippi get some of the lucre in exchange for his support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nolabels Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
23. Time magazine such a credible avenue for dissemination of information
The magazine that plasters up Hitler and Stalin on the front page to try an put them in a good light, till it is all too clear they are main perpetrators in an evil in carnage.

To be a blood thirsty barbarian give a person a leg up on the rest of the population, then most of us must be working to the wrong ends


http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/04/news/column_wastler /
(snip)
Who's your choice for Man of the Year?

"It's no wonder so many people detest the news media," Jack said in our Eye Opener newsletter, which we write during the CNN Money Morning show. " ... Unless they run a picture of bin Laden's head on a stick, I'm not interested. This man is revered by thousands of people in the Middle East who don't know any better and putting him on the cover of a prestigious publication like Time magazine only adds to his cachet as a larger-than-life figure."

Actually, and much to Jack's chagrin, I can understand Time's reasoning.

Who has changed the course of world events this year more than Osama bin Laden? His acts of terror and cowardice have pushed the world's super-power into a war and a mission it would have never contemplated a year ago. Thousands of lives ended because of him. Thousands more are changed, because of this one man.

It wouldn't be the first time the magazine has singled out a villain as the Man of the Year. Adolf Hitler was the honoree in 1938. Joseph Stalin, who arguably killed more people than Hitler, got the nod in 1939 and 1942. More recently, the Ayatollah Khomeini, no friend of the United States, was named in 1979.


There have been unsavory choices before at Time.

It should be clear from these past choices and current considerations that Time's Man of the Year designation isn't so much about honor as it is about influence. That's why Time would be better off calling its exercise "Newsmaker of the Year."

But it doesn't, which is unfortunate for those of us with corporate ties to the magazine (CNN/Money and Time are owned by the same company, AOL Time Warner). The magazine, while pursuing a journalistically sound goal, runs the risk of alienating some of its primary audience. Some folks won't get the philosophical intent. They will just see Time giving what looks like an honor to America's deadliest foe.
(snip)

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/festjc/c...

1. The Incubation Period
"I believe that it was the will of God to send a boy from here into the Reich, to make him great, to raise him up to be the Fuhrer of the nation."Adolf Hitler, 1938, in Linz

(snip)
His feeling of superiority, which was necessary to him after he had failed in every personal challenge he had met, was founded not only on an arrogant contempt for mankind but also on the racial-biological twist, which, clearly following in the footsteps of Lanz von Liebenfels, he gave to his vulgarized Darwinian ideas. On the coincidence of belonging to one particular race, the failure could build up the self-importance his inflated ego demanded ever more urgently because of the abysmal depths of his own being. The Aryan - this was soon to become the firm core of his anti-Semitism - was 'the highest image and likeness of the Lord', and just as he had been the source of all the great achievements of culture and civilization in the past, so under the creative plan of providence he was destined in the future too for the loftiest position, for mastery. Meanwhile the Jew, as the principle of destruction and evil, with the hate and vengefulness characteristic of the inferior, increasingly opposed the Aryan in order to subjugate the world by the means peculiar to him: planned corruption, deliberate pollution of the pure Aryan blood, and the systematic poisoning of public life. 'Was there any shady undertaking,' Hitler demanded later, 'any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like the maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.' (23) The press, art, prostitution, land speculation, syphilis, capitalism as well as Marxism, but also pacifism, the idea of world citizenship and liberalism, were the camouflages adopted at different times to conceal a world conspiracy, and behind all of them stood the figure of the Eternal Jew. The last obstacle to the Jew's plans was the German nation with its high proportion of Aryan blood; if that champion was vanquished in the mighty conflict, the victory of mongrel man, the end of civilization and the disruption of the plan of creation were at hand; a stop must be put to this threat. 'In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.' (24)
(snip)

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/festjc/c...

Martin Bormann - The Brown Eminence
Admittedly it is not honesty which in real life overcomes dishonesty. In the harsh struggle for existence the stronger, the harder capacity for self-assertion daily gains the victory and yet it is bitter if this capacity is based upon intrigue and a burning ambition as in the case before us. Martin Bormann
But you know, don't you, that in my dictionary DUTY is written in capitals.
Martin Bormann

From too great a distance, as from too close, a totalitarian system of government looks like a single tightly knit block whose massive structure towers over society, as vast as it is impenetrable. However, this impression, based upon the determination and the merciless energy with which such governments achieve their purposes, is an illusion. What the observer sees as a block is often enough merely the reflection of his own anxiety, which has clothed this arbitrary and unrestricted power in a compact mental image. In contrast, the National Socialist regime had a curious and at first sight astounding lack of structure, which was not the result only of the laziness about establishing an orderly system which continually betrayed the leading National Socialists' urban bohemian origins. This structural untidiness is the expression of one of the basic principles of totalitarian government: the maxim of the unreliability of all authority, which, paradoxically, is the leadership's most reliable instrument for the establishment of an intimidating, continuously threatening super-authority. The effect of this is that power itself recedes into the background and becomes curiously intangible.
By keeping the jurisdiction of the various authorities intentionally vague and their hierarchical positions inextricably involved, it was possible to play a double game, leaving the individual in a state of utter helplessness like that experienced by Kafka's heroes and producing the same psychological reactions. The individual in the National Socialist state gradually-lost an human certainty and dignity in the crushing encounters with a power that could not be located and yet was everywhere.

The duplication and finally the 'multiplication' (1) of authorities, which gave this feeling of insecurity a basis in institutional organization, began with the separation of party and state. Every state function was balanced against a party office of equal status, and the result was a chaos of rival institutions, all of which considered themselves competent in such matters as foreign policy, intelligence, administration or law. This dichotomy was largely a reflection of the principle that lay behind the rise of National Socialism, as of every totalitarian movement. Such movements do not see themselves as a party in the literal sense, that is to say as the representative of a part within the framework of an accepted order, but as the spearhead of a bid for total domination which 'is developed and realized in express and open hostility to the state'.(2) It is true that after the law of 1st December 1933 official pronouncements repeatedly stressed the unity of party and state; in fact, however, the dividing line was sharp. The state soon degenerated into a mere 'technical apparatus' with purely executive functions. It still had the task, as representative of the civil principle, of inspiring trust and appearing to preserve bourgeois standards, but the party gained wide scope for the expression of its emotional drives and the achievement of its aims. The top leadership, in its single-minded and opportunist pursuit of power, could waver from side to side, play off one against another, and if necessary betray all. The preponderance of power, and above all the role of formulating and realizing its own totalitarian aims, always lay with the movement, just as in his own eyes Hitler was always the 'Fuhrer' rather than Reich Chancellor. Beyond its purely technical functions the state, visibly deprived of its sovereignty, had no importance except as a facade. Its task was to represent a power which it did not actually possess, a power that stood behind it and appropriated to itself, for its own legitimation, a deep-rooted popular attachment to the state which drew on common national experience, tradition and respect. Hidden and secret, the real centre of power, by its very aura of anonymity, appeared to its opponents, as well as to the merely refractory, all the less vulnerable, all the more terrifying, all the more omnipotent - an earthly deus absconditus.(3)
(snip)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SayitAintSo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
24. Hell Hath no Fury like a Repuke Scorned ....
Gotta love it when they eat their own ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UTUSN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-22-03 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. "Pest". ------LOL. Giving Us Repite, Pestering Repukes for now n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 30th 2014, 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC