Replies

As I said, the segregationist intent was the medias, not his

The moment when Lott's intent mattered a whit is long past. He let his pro-Dixiecrat, segregationist-friendly words just hang out there and ingnite an inferno. In the aftermath, he did precious little to put out the fire.

When did we all just stop thinking and start buying the story of the libs?

It's not the "story of the libs," it's Lott's own words.

How about if you make a statement tomorrow that someone can take easy advantage of to smear you, do we hang your rotting body along the road side to please your critics or do we defend you and deal with whatever problem we have with you seperately.

If I woke up tomorrow and realized that in some brain fart I'd said something which should never have been said, bringing shame and chaos to my party, then I'd find the first dozen microphones available, and say "Sometimes we say stupid, inexcusable things. Last night, I did just that, but here are my real feelings..."
If Lott had done that, this would be all but dead now. He chose a fatal moment on the wrong issue to hunker down.

If I woke up tomorrow and realized that in some brain fart I'd said something which should never have been said, …then I'd find the first dozen microphones available, and say "Sometimes we say stupid, inexcusable things. Last night, I did just that, but here are my real feelings..."

Hey, you don't need a dozen, one should be enough!

No, he went, according to his own words, to the radio as it was the closest thing to him and responded in shock the way any of us might have responded. If it had been Byrd, this would be over with. It was Lott, a conservative, so he must crawl a mile through broken glass to be worthy of being attacked a little less agressively by the press and you are arguing we should provide the glass because the Democrats are being divisive and trying to wreck our party.
Gee whiz. When is that not the case? But your approach is well it's a mob, let's placate the mob and nail an innocent man to a tree. Plays into their hands just as much as not doing it but it soils your hands too. Sorry, that doesn't cut it for me.

And it is the story of the libs. Lott didn't march up there and say "you should have won because you were a segregationist" and you know it. It's common sense. If you have two people running that both believe in tax and spend policies, their stance on that hardly differentiates one from the other. How then can you say, "Dang, a segregationist won. If a segregationist had won, things might be different." Good grief. I must be nuts to think so clearly. Can you tell me where it makes sense. I sure as heck can't. I don't see anyone thinking it out and taking it to the media either.