Replies

There is a contingent here at FR that wants to defend Lott come hell or high water, simply to deny the Dems a win. This is exactly what the Democrats did with Clinton. It's not just dishonest, it's childishly dishonest.

You are absolultely correct. Yes, the 'rats are piling on and their motives are not pure. That does not mean that we should automatically take the opposite side than the democrats on this issue. We should do the right thing, regardless of what the 'rats say or do or what their motives are.

There is a contingent here at FR that wants to defend Lott come hell or high water ...

You are so right. Lott was a poor leader before, and this debacle hurts him and all republicans. Frankly, I resent having to be put in a position to defend this guy. Of course its a Democratic double standard, of course the dems are the party of hate, fear, and personal destruction.

The only issue here, however, is what is best for the Country. What's best for the Country is a strong, unified, Conservative Republican Majority that is free to win the battle of ideas and principles without being forced to defend its idiots. Lott should have the class and foresight to step down from the leadership right now.

That FR mindset that wants to fight this to the death is wrong. Lott is not worth fighting for. We are the party of personal responsibility. Let Lott take responsibility for being an idiot. As for granting the dems a win, they don't want Lott out. Its much better to keep him as the face of the Senate Republicans. When Lott goes, we should put a younger, smarter, more conservative senator up to lead. Someone with a backbone and a sense of political savvy.

Unfortunately, this club of isolated fools in the Senate will put forward some other senior Senator who is completely out of touch. We should be thinking young, smart, vibrant, and unimpeachable in character -- and very conservative.

How about Frist or Santorium?

Lott should have been gone long ago; but only for being so concilliatory toward democrats in the first place! He typifies my idea of a slippery, slimey, self-absorbed politician! If he really meant, what everybody seems to have inferred from his statements; he's doubly duplicitous and obsequious in apologising for having said them! I belive a man should say what he means and mean what he says. While segrgationist views may be unpopular in this Country today, they're not unlawful, or are they? Or, are the P.C. Police justifiably pursuing this man?