"Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." - John Galbraith
Have Republicans ever liked their Senate leader?
When I was young we had Howard Baker. I don't think I remember him being liked by conservatives. Then we had Bob Dole, a lovable curmudgeon but not exactly a trench fighter (except in the literal WWII sense, but that was a few years prior.) Then we had Trent Lott who came in like a lion and went out like a lamb. Huge disappointment. And now we have Frist, a man sitting on a 55-seat majority and still thinking like the minority leader. If his fish-like gaping wasn't enough after the Dems' closed-session publicity stunt last week, we now have his foolish Iraq resolution.
Do we just appoint weak leaders, or is there something about the internal logic of the Senate which compels them to act so spinelessly?
Posted by Discoshaman at novembre 17, 2005 12:40 AM | TrackBack
Trent Lott did a good job until it became clear that he didn't think about how minority groups would hear a comment that he meant perfectly innocently, and that's a no-no during a time when Republicans are trying to show that they're the ones whose policies are more in the interests of minorities who have been harmed by liberal policies for decades now. I think most Republicans were pleased with what he had done until then.
Posted by: Jeremy Pierce at novembre 17, 2005 10:11 PMI remember things differently. We were all excited when he came into office, but I remember a lot of disappointment once he took command. If the base had been in love with him, he wouldn't have been thrown under the bus so readily.
Posted by: Discoshaman at novembre 17, 2005 10:23 PM