Breaking: Trent Lott News Conference at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time

[MeekOneGOP]

Breaking: Trent Lott News Conference at 5:30 p.m. Easter Time

[mhking]

Lott ain't going no damn where yet.

This is yet another apology, timed so that it can go on the evening talking head-casts. Then the Dems will use the Sunday morning shows to rip him apart yet again. Unless something miraculous occurs, Lott'll be history by Tuesday.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Well, then we might as well concede defeat for 2004 now.

[dfwgator]

He says Trent's not stepping downAs Senator, or as Majority Leader?

[usmc_chris]

I've been wanting Mr. Lott to step aside for years for his inability or lack of desire to push a conservative agenda, but certainly not over this ridiculous episode. Urging him to bow out now is capitulation to those that practice the politics of personal destruction.

[dfwgator]

This is yet another apology, timed so that it can go on the evening talking head-casts.

IF that's the case, then why is he doing it late Friday afternoon? That's when it would get the least amount of coverage.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Sorry, Julie. Lott did praise Thurmond's segregationist campaign. By saying the country would have been better off electing a segregationist in 1948, he's doing just that. He meant those words in 1980, he meant them last Saturday, and he meant them the times he said it behind closed doors (which in your heart you know he's done). He was pro-segregation as a 22-year-old and then went to work for a white supremacist congressman in MS. Trent Lott is a bigot. You'll feel better once you admit it.

[GraniteStateConservative]

But why are we prolonging this Mike?

[Darling Lili]

I don't think he is capable of opening his mouth without inserting his foot at this point.

Hopefully, he'll have someone else prepare his statement. I can't guarangee how he'll handle questions, though. ;)

[dfwgator]

Why couldn't he have been a loyal Republican and said he supported Dewey in '48?

[MeekOneGOP]

Perfect !

Byrd said in part, "I think we try to have good will. My old mom told me, `Robert, you can't go to heaven if you hate anybody.' We practice that. There are white ni**ers. I've seen a lot of white ni**ers in my time. I'm going to use that word."

See this Michelle Malkin article about Robert Byrd from March 7, 2001

Former KKK Clansman,
Senator Robert Byrd…...

[Cyber Liberty]

My humble prediction: The purpose of this news conference will be for Lott to grovel and beg the liberals to let him stay in power.

Then, if he is successful, he'll have to pay everyone of them off with things like a higher min wage, prescription drugs for free, for everybody.

Add to this the fact that the 'Craps have been sniping at Bush for two years and haven't been able to score a hit. Lott's gonna get the brunt of everything they failed to do to Bush, and he'll roll over and take it.

If Lott stays on, you can kiss any gains made November 5th goodbye.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Well, there's the rub. He'll either say he's completely stupid-- the Forrest Gump of the Senate-- or he'll say he really wishes a Dixiecrat had won in 1948. Either way he'll get hammered hard.

[FBD]

"...conservative black Democrats..." "There a lot of folks in that group?"

You bet there are, and they distrust the Republican party, because they think it's racist.

Don't believe me, read what a well known black conservative has to say on the matter...

BY Armstrong Williams December 10, 2002

Again, GOP drops the ball on the race issue ...

So far, President Bush has made a considerable attempt to build bridges in the black community. His grassroots support for school vouchers and the diversity of his own cabinet should proclaim to black Americans that they are part of the Republican Party.

But black America's distrust of the Republican Party runs deep. The psychological scars won't just fade away. And whatever gains the president has made (and was poised to make with a GOP-controlled Senate) can be ripped to shreds when just one leading member of the GOP makes remarks as racially insensitive as those offered by Sen. Lott.

That is why the only acceptable response from the GOP should be harsh criticism. Sadly, no such criticism seems forthcoming.

That sound you hear is the GOP once again dropping the ball on the race issue.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Because his parents were probably Dixiecrats. The Republican Party didn't exist in any real way in MS in 1948.

[MeekOneGOP]

heh heh !

[Diver Dave]

He needs to omit the, "I am the son of a sharecropper" garbage as he did in his first apology attempt on Hannity's radio show. I don't think he is capable of opening his mouth without inserting his foot at this point.

I say we start a pool for this press conference.

Guess how many times Lott says, "You know" during his ramblings.

I'll go with 13.

Winner gets the satisfaction of saying "I was right."

[concerned about politics]

Sorry, Julie. Lott did praise Thurmond's segregationist campaign. By saying the country would have been better off electing a segregationist in 1948, he's doing just that.

Not really. He could have been praising his ability to fight government spending, or his ability to work with the left, or his vision of better schools. Who said he was praising his segragation? Who says that's what thought was in his head? Who? The left. Can they still read minds like in the 200 election? Unless they're diving thoughts again, maybe Lott ment his love for friggin flowers!
Did Lott say "I praise him for his stand on segragation?" No, he didn't. He may not have even been thinking about that! Prove he was!
This is left wing race bating. Nothing more. More dividing the people for votes, and attemptiong to use their politics of personal destruction and political blackmail.
Lott is innocent until proven guilty. Unless America can read his mind and divine his intent, I say get over it. Rent a good movie or something.

[Bernard Marx]

You two are exactly on track. It amazes me to see how many on this thread don't grasp the political realities. If the Dems can roll us on this one, by choosing who will (or won't) be our SML, we'd just as well kiss any hope of running the Senate away. The Dems are masters of "governing by other means."

I'm not fond of Lott, either, but I hope Bush backs him 100% after giving him a public scolding. If at a later time it's decided (by Republicans!) someone else would be a stronger SML, so be it. I think he'll eventually have to be replaced but it should be Republicans who do it, not race-baiting liberals.

Already we have Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmah Carter volunteering to take over for Secretary Powell and the President in mediating the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that noted foreign policy expert Sean Penn visiting Baghdad. And that's not to mention the other 100 "experts" giving their policy pronouncements from Hollyweird. The new Democrat "State Department" will be America's newsrooms, editorial boards and TV screens.

[usmc_chris]

Or, perhaps he will say that he was rendering an encomium to the country's longest serving Senator and that nothing more should be read into his tribute?