I don't understand that remark. Of course I don't have to defend him. I don't have to vote either or wake up in the morning and go to work. But I do those things because I want to. In the case of the Republican party, I defend it because I want to see more people become Republicans. And the reason I want to see more people become Republicans is because I believe the Republican party can do alot of good for this country if it is given the chance.
What I am guessing is that some people who are defending Lott's statement simply don't have too much of a grounding in the history of our country. Simply put, many blacks are very suspicious of voting Republican because they suspect rightly or wrongly that the Republican party is filled with people who view what was going on in the South up until the 1960s as not being such a bad thing. Some people say that the appropriate response to such an attitude is that if people can't figure out for themselves why the Republican party is good for the country then those people should be ignored. I say that such an attitude is stupidity personified. Convincing people to vote for conservative values is a constant battle that requires constant education because voting conservative typically does not result in an immediate payoff or in a tangible upfront benefit, as would be the case if you voted Democrat and got a new governmental entitlement. In any event, if Lott is going to remain as the third highest ranking Republican in the country, I am going to have to defend him and his stupid statements. Any help you could give me in explaining how I can defend what he said about Thurmond's run for the presidency in 1948 without looking like a lying Democrat would be appreciated.