# Will Lott's return to the leadership backfire on the Republicans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618 "2006-11-16T01:58:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/41 "2006-11-17T03:27:11Z")
[QUOTE=ITR champion] Well, if Lott wants to prove his mettle with budget-cutting conservatives, I’ve got a few [suggestions](http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/upload/pork_projects.html) of where to start. [/QUOTE] This gets back to the tricky definition of pork, which sometimes appears to be “projects that I think sound bad.” What’s wrong with the government giving money to a hospital in Guam, for example? Is Guam just crawling with hospitals? “Pecan Scab Research” sounds bad, not to mention gross, and so does the “Mother’s Day Shrine Building” and the “Montana Sheep Institute.” But what’s wrong with the government supporting the Guamese hospital or the Agassi College Prep Academy? ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/42 "2006-11-17T03:36:01Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] There’s also an understanding that a reduced federal budget might indeed mean an increased state and/or local budget. Many of us that you characterize as “righties” understand that local governments are often more effective at spending our dollars than Washington is. [/quote] While you, as an individual, may believe this, I’ve yet to encounter anyone who advocates increased local taxation in lieu of less federal taxation. Not “righties”, “lefties”, “in-betweenies” or anyone. And as **elucidator** points out, the minute that states start enacting their own social programs, then you’ve created one hell of a mess. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/43 "2006-11-17T04:00:01Z")
[QUOTE=GLWasteful] While you, as an individual, may believe this, I’ve yet to encounter anyone who advocates increased local taxation in lieu of less federal taxation. [/QUOTE] Hi. All things being equal, I want all money going to the lowest level of government that can do a given task. > [@](#): > > And as **elucidator** points out, the minute that states start enacting their own social programs, then you’ve created one hell of a mess. Why? I see no problem whatsoever with different states having different welfare systems, etc. In such fashion, we may find what works best. Let a thousand flowers bloom. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/44 "2006-11-17T04:07:02Z")
“Pecan scab research” might _sound_ bad, but it’s a reasonable agricultural expenditure to study diseases of a major tree crop. (Pecan scab is a fungus that attacks pecan trees) The problem with those “Your Tax Dollars At Work” type “exposes” of government funding of research is that just because something sounds like a waste of time or money just going by the title of the organization involved, it ain’t necessarily so. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/45 "2006-11-17T04:16:21Z")
[QUOTE=furt] All things being equal, I want all money going to the lowest level of government that can do a given task. [/QUOTE] I can see that, but in Arkansas and Mississippi, the black kids con’t get a subsidised lunch program and they’ll grow up to steal the satellite radio receiver out of your Caddy rather than become cardiologists who will save some White guy’s fat ass from a heart attack. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/46 "2006-11-17T04:25:38Z")
[QUOTE=furt] Hi. [/quote] Hello there. It’s my pleasure to have met all both of you. > [@](#): > > Why? I see no problem whatsoever with different states having different welfare systems, etc. In such fashion, we may find what works best. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Balkanization. Let’s say that you in (checking. . .) Honduras (thought I recognized that SN) decide to eliminate whatever OSHA might be called there. As soon as everyone in Nicaragua (play along) realizes what a sweet set up you have, they all come and want to establish their businesses there to avoid those onerous and oh-so-mightily unfair OSHA laws that exist back on the auld sod. Are you gonna keep 'em out? If so, how? If not, what happens when you’ve managed to destroy the land? Or water? Especially to those who might live downhill and/or downriver from you. Say, in Belize? ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/47 "2006-11-17T04:47:16Z")
[QUOTE=GLWasteful] Hello there. It’s my pleasure to have met all both of you. [/QUOTE] Considering there’s two in this thread in just the last few hours, you might consider the possibility that there are more. > [@](#): > > Balkanization. Let’s say that you in (checking. . .) Honduras (thought I recognized that SN) decide to eliminate whatever OSHA might be called there. As soon as everyone in Nicaragua (play along) realizes what a sweet set up you have, they all come and want to establish their businesses there to avoid those onerous and oh-so-mightily unfair OSHA laws that exist back on the auld sod. Are you gonna keep 'em out? Of course not. If the citizens of Honduras want no OSHA, no OSHA it is. I think it’s unlikely they should choose that, but I suppose it’s possible. > [@](#): > > If not, what happens when you’ve managed to destroy the land? Or water? I reject the assumption that without OSHA they will inevitably destroy the land (especially since OSHA is not an environmental agency, but I take your point). They may find a system that works more efficiently than OSHA. They may find that in 2006, people are concerned enough about their environments that states that have lax environmental standards have a hard time getting good workers (imagine that – states competing to be the greenest and thus attract residents). In any event, I think the people who live there (and the local officials they elect) are more likely to care about the conditions in small place like Honduras than are the federales living hundreds of miles away. > [@](#): > > Especially to those who might live downhill and/or downriver from you. Say, in Belize? If our choices negatively affect other states, that’s where the federal government steps in (utilizing lawyers, guns and/or money, of course). ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/48 "2006-11-17T06:44:31Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Well, heck, **John** , not talking about _you._ You’ve gone to great lengths to assure us that you are not a “righty” but an independent thinker, a small “l” libertarian. None of this applies to you. [/quote] No, I usually only offer that up when asked. Nice try, though. And I didn’t say you were talking about me. > [@](#): > > I certainly appreciate your candor, however much it pains you. IOW, you don’t have a rebutal. > [@](#): > > Really? By what mechanism? Is this a verifiable fact or does it slide towards political opinion? You have a good trapdoor there, “often”. Yes, I’m sure it “often” is, but is that a function of the size of the government unit, or a function of the persons who constitute said unit? I suggest it is the latter. It’s as much as a verifiable fact as anything you’ve posted in this thread. 😉 And the reason I said “often” is because there are some things, like military expenditures, that do have to be handled at the federal level. Again, though, nice try! > [@](#): > > A recipe for Balkanization, and competition between states. Some of our states simply don’t have the resources to provide for its citizenry. Are you going to establish border controls in California to keep Tom Joad and his Okies from invading _en masse_, should another Dust Bowl arise? Are we “one nation, indivisible” or no? Uhm, all the stuff I mentioned is happening **now** , and we don’t have to post guards at the state borders. > [@](#): > > Yes. You do. If it is, it is, and someone should tell you. And if you won’t listen, someone should make you listen. Economic justice is justice. If we don’t have a responsibility for the well-being of our fellow citizens, we are not a nation, just a gigantic Monopoly board, with rules that rest lightly on the haves, and crush the have not. There are other ways to offer a social safety net besides the MW. If the federal gov’t must insert itself, perhaps it can set goals and let us lowly staties decide how we’ll meet those goals. And I noticed it changed from “justice” to “economic justice”. The former most of us can agree on. Get back to me when you get more than a handful of people who agree on what the latter is. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/49 "2006-11-17T06:47:06Z")
[QUOTE=GLWasteful] While you, as an individual, may believe this, I’ve yet to encounter anyone who advocates increased local taxation in lieu of less federal taxation. Not “righties”, “lefties”, “in-betweenies” or anyone. And as **elucidator** points out, the minute that states start enacting their own social programs, then you’ve created one hell of a mess. [/QUOTE] Most social programs already are handled largely at the state level, and we don’t have Balkanization. I just don’t see the need to federalize tham anymore than they already are. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/50 "2006-11-17T07:18:21Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] …IOW, you don’t have a rebutal… [/quote] What’s to rebut? You characterize my post as a gigantic strawman, what do I do, stamp my foot and yell “Is not!”? > [@](#): > > …There are other ways to offer a social safety net besides the MW. If the federal gov’t must insert itself, perhaps it can set goals and let us lowly staties decide how we’ll meet those goals… Sure, maybe. Any reason to believe that is superior? Other than the fact that it accords with your political philosophy, what recommends it? And what if they don’t _want_ to meet the goals? George Wallace was a big fan of state’s rights, MLKing, not so much. > [@](#): > > … Get back to me when you get more than a handful of people who agree on what the latter is. Is the popularity of one’s opinion to be the measure? As yours tremble on the edge of world domination? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/51 "2006-11-17T07:41:25Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] What’s to rebut? You characterize my post as a gigantic strawman, what do I do, stamp my foot and yell “Is not!”? [/quote] OK. Why don’t you quote the posts in this thread that made the arguments you said people were making. If you can’t, then it’s a strawman. > [@](#): > > Sure, maybe. Any reason to believe that is superior? Other than the fact that it accords with your political philosophy, what recommends it? Well, we won’t ever know if the feds don’t let us try, will we? Is there some reason that you think your method is superior? > [@](#): > > And what if they don’t _want_ to meet the goals? George Wallace was a big fan of state’s rights, MLKing, not so much. I’d be OK with mandating federal methods if the goals weren’t met. But issues like MW and fundametal civil rights are two completely different animals. MLK and GW were more concerned with the latter, and the feds do have a role to play there. > [@](#): > > Is the popularity of one’s opinion to be the measure? As yours tremble on the edge of world domination? Where did I say that? You’re using the term “economic justice” as if it meant something specific. I’m just as concerned about economic justice as you are-- but we have a different definition of what it means. Alll I said is that you can’t get people to agree on what “economic justice” is. So, while a cry for “economic justice” is appealing emotionally, it doesn’t mean anything specific, intellectually. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/52 "2006-11-17T08:31:12Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] OK. Why don’t you quote the posts in this thread that made the arguments you said people were making. If you can’t, then it’s a strawman… [/quote] Oh? Strawman status is dependent on whether or not one is making a direct reference to a previous post? News to me. Which memo was that? > [@](#): > > …Well, we won’t ever know if the feds don’t let us try, will we? Is there some reason that you think your method is superior?.. Didn’t say it was. The “small government” meme is usually presented as a truism, as if it were some obvious fact that doesn’t require substatiation. I’m only saying “Sez who?”. > [@](#): > > …I’d be OK with mandating federal methods if the goals weren’t met. But issues like MW and fundametal civil rights are two completely different animals. MLK and GW were more concerned with the latter, and the feds do have a role to play there… Sure they’re different. But why should the fed gov have a role in one but not the other? Again, “sez who?” > [@](#): > > …Where did I say that? You’re using the term “economic justice” as if it meant something specific. I’m just as concerned about economic justice as you are-- but we have a different definition of what it means. Alll I said is that you can’t get people to agree on what “economic justice” is. So, while a cry for “economic justice” is appealing emotionally, it doesn’t mean anything specific, intellectually. You’re not making a lot of sense here, **John**. If it doesn’t mean anything specific, then how could you have any definition _at all_, much less one that differs from mine? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/53 "2006-11-17T08:38:47Z")
Anyway, back to Trent Lott… I’m wondering about the whole Bill Frist thingy. There was a lot of opinion at the time that Trent’s demotion had more to do with grooming Bill Frist for bigger and better things than with Trent’s rather clumsy gesture to an old fart. I really don’t think he was making any appeal for segregation any more than I think John Kerry was dissing the truth. It was an opportunity seized upon for another end entirely. So is the “Frist wing” eclipsed and the “Lott wing” ascendant? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/54 "2006-11-17T08:39:50Z")
“…John Kerry was dissing the _troops_…” Sheesh. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/55 "2006-11-17T14:45:00Z")
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton] No cite, but I’m fairly certain business regulation and oversight actually accounts for a relatively small portion of the federal government’s budget and personnel; getting rid of it would not make the government noticeably “smaller,” or reduce your tax bill. [/QUOTE] Exactly. **elucidator** is being uncharacteristicly ignorant in this thread about government and where it’s large and where it isn’t. Business oversight and regulation isn’t expensive, and is definitely needed. No clear thinking conservative would disagree with that. However, the runaway costs of the federal government mostly have to do with taking money away from some groups of people and giving it to other groups of people. Most conservatives properly recognize this. Cancel Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Foreign aid and any other program where the government is just handing money out to people and you’d save what? It’s definitely more than half the federal budget. Probably more like 60-70%. Yes, conservatives like to have a strong well funded military. So what? Simply because there is one area where conservatives do want to have the government spending doesn’t mean you can mock them because they want smaller government in other areas. The military is less than 20% of the budget. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/56 "2006-11-17T15:21:23Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] The people I’m talking about object more to the interference than to the expense. They don’t care how much it costs to stamp out your Chicken Inspector’s badge, they just don’t want someone telling them how to raise their chickens. Or how much to pay the poor bastard who has to cut them into Piggly Wiggly bargains. [/QUOTE] Ermm . . . yes . . . Actually, that was the point about “small government conservative” hypocrisy that **I** was trying to make. Guess I should have been clearer. ---
**Author:** ![GLWasteful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f05b48/32.png) [@GLWasteful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GLWasteful)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/57 "2006-11-17T15:43:50Z")
[QUOTE=furt] Considering there’s two in this thread in just the last few hours, you might consider the possibility that there are more. [/quote] Well, for now I stand by my statement. After all, there have only been two, and The Dope is hardly representative of the general population. > [@](#): > > If our choices negatively affect other states, that’s where the federal government steps in (utilizing lawyers, guns and/or money, of course). This is where I lose you. It appears that you’re saying that you’ve no problem with the government stepping in as mediator, but you don’t want them establishing a national norm. Do I have it? Because establishment of said norm would, to my eye, eliminate the need for them to ride to the rescue, after the damage has already begun happening. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/58 "2006-11-17T16:54:13Z")
[QUOTE=Debaser] …Cancel Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare and Foreign aid and any other program where the government is just handing money out to people and you’d save what? It’s definitely more than half the federal budget. Probably more like 60-70%… [/QUOTE] But you’re not actually advocating such a radical departure? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2006, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/59 "2006-11-17T17:19:48Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Oh? Strawman status is dependent on whether or not one is making a direct reference to a previous post? News to me. Which memo was that? [/quote] No, but if you hold up an argument, especially an exageratedly absurd one, that no one in the thread is making for the purpose of shooting it down, that’s a strawman. Like this: > [@elucidator](#): > > Boil it down, they usually mean getting the government off the back of business, so that the acolytes of Mammon can run amok without pesky rules and regulations. If I can make a buck pissing in the Mississippi in St. Paul, you can drink my pee in St. Louis, fuck you very much, have a nice day! No one in this thread has advocated the elimination of anti-polution laws. It’s wonderful that you think we need such laws, but everyone else in the thread thinks so, too. > [@](#): > > You’re not making a lot of sense here, **John**. If it doesn’t mean anything specific, then how could you have any definition _at all_, much less one that differs from mine? It doesn’t mean any one specific thing, if you prefer. So your exhortation that I concentrate on “economic justice” will not send me in the direction you want me to go since my definition will be quite different from yours. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618/60 "2006-11-18T01:19:15Z")
[QUOTE=tomndebb] Alternatively, Lott was dumped (by an internal vote of his own party) for an individual _faux pas_ that we can expect the electorate to forget in two years [/quote] The point was that the Republican debacle last week was due to their poor leadership and lost credibility. They’re keeping the same poor leaders, and on both sides of the building at that. > [@](#): > > the country may decide to go back to the Republicans after that party holds up the lack of “progress” in Iraq as a sign of Democrat intransigence thwarting the efforts of the administration. I really don’t think you’d want to bet on \*that \* happening. > [@](#): > > I have never in my life considered voting for my senator or representative because his party boss was a scumbag–this is not a parliamentary government–and I really doubt that anyone else does, either. The first statement is fine, the second one is \*way \* out on a limb. OF COURSE a good reason to vote for someone is the expectation that they’ll form part of a bloc that will push the country in the direction you want it pushed. That’s why parties _exist_. And FTR, it isn’t because Lott is a scumbag that he’s convinced a lot of people to vote against the Republicans, it’s knowing that a Republican would be pressured to support a scumbag for leader if he wanted to get anything done. > [@](#): > > Which is actually a fairly strong argument among some people that the Feds do not need to “interfere” with the miniumum wage, since the market has already driven wages higher than the minimum for an overwhelming number of jobs. Except for the large numbers of people who aren’t covered, who do get only the now-ancient federal-level wage. Do we forget about them because so many people are luckier? Not outside the fantasies of Libertaria. That’s another thing government is for. > [@](#): > > It is entirely possible that some some event will occur to cause the electorate to hand a veto-proof Congress Never been such a thing. Too hard to maintain party unity, either way. > [@](#): > > The Republicans have McCain, Giuliani, and several others that people have already considered presidential material for several years. The Democrats have no one with the current national recognition who is considered “presidential.” You know how fast that changes once the primaries are under way. How many recent “finalist” candidates \*were \* anointed Front Runners this early? Carter? Clinton? Nope, nobodies at the time. Likewise, you can ask President John Glenn and President Pete Wilson what good the early buzz did _them_. > [@](#): > > So any assumption that the Democrats are going to sweep into office on a platform of “anybody but Bush” (given that he is leaving, anyway), is probably flawed. Obviously. 😃 Now how about an assumption that “anybody but _another Republican_” will be an effective platform, though? Hell, it’ll even work for the \*Republican \* candidate, who is going to have to claim to somehow be a different kind from the ones who’ve screwed up so thoroughly in this administration. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-lotts-return-to-the-leadership-backfire-on-the-republicans/380618.md?page=4)