Are we sure Lott wasn't referring to Thurmond '48 the way we think he did

http://upway.com/cgi-bin/wedg.cgi ^ | 12/11/02 | "David Phipps"

[foreverfree]

When you get to this mb, scroll down to and click on "Trent Lott/Strom Thurmond", then scroll down to the first "David Phipps" post.

[QUOTE]

I think [Lott] was talking about the way that Truman just handed Eastern Europe, China, and Korea to the Communists. He wouldn't stand up to Stalin at the end of WWII, even though we had the manpower and the machinery to bury the USSR alive right then and there (not to mention the bomb when the Russians still didn't have it), and he wouldn't give the Chinese nationalists the help that they absolutley begged us for and then he tied MacArthur's hands in Korea and wouldn't let him do our job. If we had done those things then, we probably wouldn't have had to deal with an arms race over the next few decades which our economy (and the national debt) has never really recovered from, not to mention our current diplomatic problems with China. Not that Chiang Kai-Shek was any saint himself, but at least he considered himself an ally of the USA.

Thanks a lot, Truman.

[END OF QUOTE]

[mikeb704]

Gee, and I didn't even notice her.

:)

[foreverfree]

lavrenti:

Since we're dealing with hypotheticals here, I'll pose one: what would President Thurmond do when Plessy was struck down in 1954?

Bluntpoint:

He would have had Thurgood Marshall lynched.

Perhaps. But reelection in 1952 would have been necessary first.

foreverfree

[foreverfree]

Thanks for contributing to this thread in a nice, dignified manner.

Thanks too to the moderators for correcting the title.

foreverfree