Be careful what you ask for:

Remember a little over a year ago when there was a furor over Trent Lott's warm remarks about Strom Thurmond?

At the time, the blogosphere was active (both on the left and by some on the right like Andrew Sullivan) and credited with helping remove Lott from his position as Majority Leader of the Senate. As the time, we had reservations - not because we endorsed Lott's statements - but because we saw the affair more as an opportunity for the White House to put their man - Bill Frist - into a leadership position in the Senate. The White House and right-wingers were, on the whole, dissatisfied with Lott because he wasn't aggressive enough for their cause. They wanted a change. And if the "good government" blogosphere got credit, that had the advantage of disguising the real power being exercised. (Ask yourself, since then has a similar blogosphere effort had any effect on the leadership in the House or Senate?)

And that brings us to the recent remarks by Bill Frist about Richard Clarke:

... I do not know if Mr. ClarkeÂ’s motive for theses charges is partisan gain, personal profit, self promotion, or animus because of his failure to win a promotion in the Bush Administration.

In his appearance before the 9-11 Commission, Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility. In my view it was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation.

Would Trent Lott have said something like that? We think not.

posted by Quiddity at 3/27/2004 05:50:00 AM