LOTT MUST STAY, THE BORKING MUST END.

I have had serious problems with Trent Lott's leadership for quite a while. I would love to see him replaced, but not under these conditions! In 2 years I'd be quite happy to see a conservative Senate Majority Leader with some backbone. Unfortunately, I can't think of one in the Senate, maybe we could convince Dick Armey or J.C. Watts to run? We need a Leader who knows that the Socialist/Democrats cannot be trusted to keep a bargain or return a favor. It is obvious that this is not Trent Lott. However, to replace him under these conditions would be to encourage even more Borking of both our leaders and our appointments. To steal a line from one of my favorite movies (They Call Me Trinity), "It ends here. It's got to end here." Let's just say NO to Borking! It's time has passed. It is a terrorist practice that the left is very good at; when they have a willing partner in the main-line media. Once someone is accused of racism, their career is over. This prevents any real dialog on race, since if someone mis-steps; they are done this leads to a one-sided monolog, for to dissent from the current PC version is to place one's career at risk.

I could go on a rant about how Lott has bent over for the Democrat/Socialists, appeasing them, helping them for years. I won't here though; it is a side issue that only illustrates their lack of gratitude. Let's just realize that the S/D's bring new meaning to the phrase; "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile." Sadly, the Republicans never press their advantage when they have it. This may be why they only have it for short periods of time; having a Republican advantage doesn't seem to really advance the Conservative agenda very far. This is primarily because when we do have an advantage; our guys are Borked to death!

My main point here is we need to end the Borking. It's got to end here! We cannot let the enemy (yes, they are the enemy; that is how they view and treat us, that makes them our enemy) tell us who we can pick for our leaders. We can no longer allow them to pick our judges. They would allow us to do nether for them. Even when we had compelling evidence of crimes, including felonies, in the Clinton White House, Clinton beat impeachment because the D/S party stood solidly behind him. Yet, Newt was Borked to death over an affair with someone who was his own age, and didn't work for him. Nor did he commit any crimes, much less felonies. Judge Pickering was Borked almost to death over a lie of racism.

Does anyone actually think that if we just dump Lott, the Borking will end? Let's look at the history of the last 2 years. The D/S side has been struggling to find an issue that has traction, to no avail. Then, in an off year election, when they should have been gaining seats, they lost them. But, they kept a Senate seat in LA! Big news! They were energized. Then they saw a weakness they could exploit on our side. A Republican Leader said half jokingly at a Birthday Party for another Senator that if he'd have been elected in 1948 we wouldn't have had all these problems we have now. For the first two days of the wall to wall coverage of this, every report had a little addition to Lott's statement. They added an end quote, then (a former segregationist), then a quote and went back to what Lott said. When something is read to you, the quotes and parentheses are silent. Lott was by no means endorsing segragation, yet the way the "quote" was read made it sound like a slam dunk!

This is an effort by the D/S party to firstly re-assert their power over the agenda, and secondly to silence a Republican majority from any meaningful discussion of race issues. Were we to have a meaningful discussion of this issue, some interesting facts might come out about the history and agenda of the D/S party. Silence through intimidation; terrorism without the blood. Republicans have been and are terrified of being called racists. Yet it is the D/S party that seeks to destroy black families via the welfare state. It is the D/S party that looks at blacks as "useful idiots"; as long as they stay on the plantation that is. It is the D/S party that still won't allow Justice Thomas to speak publicly. It is the D/S party that uses the phrase "Uncle Tom" for any black that strays from their fold or disagrees with them.

It is well past time this lie was exposed. It is well past time that people are allowed to discuss race openly and honestly, without fear of being destroyed for their views. The forced silence on the issue feeds racists on both sides of the color line. Jessie Jackson would be nothing without the KKK, and visa versa. Yet the silence helps both. It helps to prevent a discussion of why many blacks are not progressing, or why young blacks to turn to crime, which feeds the KKK, who in turn feed Jessie Jackson. Yet, it is the D/S party, the "friend" of the blacks who perpetuate this.

To dump Lott would be to yet again concede the issue. We have a majority in both houses of Congress, and we have the White House. Should we let the other side set the agenda? I think not! We must support Mr. Lott, openly and publicly. Even most of his enemies admit he is not a racist, then go on to imply that he is one in the same breath. The only D/S who has openly called Lott a racist also claimed that Lott voted for Mr. Thurmond in "48, when he (Lott) was 7 years old. Is she (Waters) credible?

A big deal has been made of Lott's opposition to blacks in his fraternity. But let's look at this. It was the early 1960's. Much of the nation, especially the south, was segregated. Mr. Lott didn't have much chance to deal with blacks socially. Once he did start to deal with them, he realized, as did Mr. Thurmond, that blacks were people too. It was also a case of PC back then. If you were white you weren't supposed to talk with blacks. If you were white, you were supposed to consider blacks to be only part human. That was the prevailing social rule of the day. Lack of contact makes it easy to demonize groups; only one side gets heard. Who controlled the south back then? Gee, wasn't it Democrats? In fact, Mr. Thurmond ran on the DIXICRAT ticket. Dixi-CRAT? Hmmm, wouldn't that have been a split from the Democrats? Yet, it is the Republicans who are the racists? No mention in the main-line press is ever made of Sen. "Sheets" Byrd (D-WV) former leadership position in the KKK. Sen. Sheets "reformed". Well gee, didn't Sen. Thurmond and Sen. Lott? Nope, they are Republican!

Folks, we need to end the Borking of our guys over lies! "It's got to end here".

Just saw the roundtable on CNN's Late Edition and Julianne Malvicious just said that not only is Lott a sheet wearing KKK member, but, so is Judge Pickering a sheet wearing,KKK member and therefore,he should not be seated on the federal bench. I am amazed at the amount of columns that are now being written, stating,as a fact-Republicans are all KKK members in their heart, it's just finally being talked about publically.

GOOD GRIEF .. did anyone at that table say something to her .. that comment was uncalled for

Right now his worst enemies are on the Republican side. The Whitehouse leaked the news about Colin and Condi refusing to support. Nickels calling for a vote (like that would have happened without at least tacit WH support). Blame the RATS if you want but I think they'd be just as happy if he stayed. Right now his worst enemies are on the Republican side. The Whitehouse leaked the news about Colin and Condi refusing to support. Nickels calling for a vote (like that would have happened without at least tacit WH support). Blame the RATS if you want but I think they'd be just as happy if he stayed. Right now his worst enemies are on the Republican side. The Whitehouse leaked the news about Colin and Condi refusing to support. Nickels calling for a vote (like that would have happened without at least tacit WH support). Blame the RATS if you want but I think they'd be just as happy if he stayed. Who knows the real reason but the Administration is playing this to oust Lott. Did he step on someone's toes over there?

Not too long ago standing ovations in the Senate were being accorded to Senator Thurmond. Sen. Lott has said he often kidded Sen. Thurmond with "You would have been a great president" If this was so offensive then, why hasn't an uproar occurred before now? Could it be that the 100 year old Sen. Thurmond is no longer in the Senate and those who are piling it on don't care about his feelings now? I don't think he is unaware of Sen. Lott's troubles and it seems cruel to an old man who changed his ways and had a distinguished career.

" GOOD GRIEF .. did anyone at that table say something to her .. that comment was uncalled for"

Everyone jumped on her-Robert George most loudly-the black conservative/libertarian from the NYPost. But,it tells you where the Bork Wing of the Democrat Party is going-if you're a Republican from south of the Mason Dixon line,there better not be any pictures of you trick or treating, as Casper the Ghost, when you were six.

Nodoby wants to face the music.

The great Leftists of the past are all segregationist and heralded for it. Find the names yourselves and read what they stand/stood for. ALL OF THEM are continually recognized for their great efforts.
The conservatives have done more to provide opportunities for minorities than the Leftists yet consistently receive meager vote support. The racist Leftists haven't changed during the decades, what does that tell you?
The NAACP ran commercials attempting to link Bush with the J Byrd dragging in an effort to associate him with racism. Another free pass?
Belafonte's remarks were unacceptable yet he remains part of the Leftist group. Another free pass?
If you... know what Lott really meant by his comment, would the Civil Rights Act would ever have been passed without our party's support?
REPEATING, this isn't the first time the subject has come up in Congress by someone of EITHER party in an affectionate manner. Why is Lott taking the heat?
Since you "cleansers" are so willing to drop to your knees without demanding replication from the hippocratic accusers, why do you think you're not opening the doors for another "Impeachment hunt"? Who wins then?
What right do the Leftist racists have to demand Lott's removal? (Find them if you don't know who they are.)
Which party first introduced their horror with regard to this topic?

Yep, it's Borking unlike anything Bork ever experienced. It's too, too bad that so many "conservatives" are as easily manipulated as Democrat voters and are so brain-dead they can't see what's going on. The really disturbing thing is to see how many of them there are on FreeRepublic.

"I am amazed at the amount of columns that are now being written, stating,as fact-Republicans are all KKK members in their heart..."

What else would you expect? We did not stand as a united voice and proclaim that this racist slander will no longer stand....we did not say that not another Republican will be "borked".

To those who thought sacrificing Lott would end this reign of terror...let me be among the first to point out that these attacks have only just begun. Our enemies can smell our fear.

And we have both liberals and our Conservative friends to thank.

" And we have both liberal and our Conservative friends to thank"
Here's what I posted on another thread-

"Whatever happens with Lott,he was just the tune up.It will not stop,it's only going to get worse. Anyone who thinks that having new leadership in the Senate, will make the Maxine Waters and Jesses Jacksons end their litmus tests for Republicans,is naive.My preferred scenario in this mess-would have been for the Republicans of all stripes to have handled this privately and behind the scenes-if Lott goes,it would have been so much cleaner to have it done without the hysterics and publicity.The conduct of everyone-Lott's gaffe and tin ear to the eagerness of many conservatives to be the first in print and on the tube to throw him over, smacked more of their own self aggrandizement,than a genuine concern for the party.Quite frankly,I was disappointed in Nickles today-he has the phone numbers of the other Republican Senators,why make your announcement on the talk shows? If you have the votes,have a new election. Why add more fuel to the fire?This orgy of public self flaggelation by Republicans on all levels, is disquieting and smacks of showboating by some. Too bad they couldn't take a page from VP Cheney and do their business away from the CNN microphone."

blacks never ...

Do you ever consider your words before speaking or writing? Categorical statements about the behaviour of whole racial groups is usually symptomatic of a serious antisocial phenomenon called: racism.

Not only do such categorical statements reveal more about the speaker than his subject, but they virtually guarantee his assertion to be wrong on the merits, since no racial group in the history of the world has every acted with the uniformity asserted in the speaker's rhetoric.

For example, your present assertion that blacks "never" have a problem sitting down and shutting up if told to do so by presumably senior democrats is easily refutable using merely two words and one integer: Al Sharpton 2004.

Logic is not your strong suit, IMO.

For example, your present assertion that blacks "never" have a problem sitting down and shutting up if told to do so by presumably senior democrats is easily refutable using merely two words and one integer: Al Sharpton 2004.

Logic is not your strong suit, IMO.

Omitting Ford, McCall, and all of the remainder let's focus on your example, Sharpton. He has spent years and years climbing the ladder to achieve a dream, presidency. Unlike others here who can read minds, I don't know if you are making the above statement up, if you read the context in a Leftist publication, or you too have converted, but "logic is not your strong suit" if you believe Sharpton has Leftist support for the office. And what's the opposite of campaign support?

What have the Leftists done for blacks over the past four decades other than to feed them hand-outs and tell them to "sit down and shut-up"?

He has spent years and years climbing the ladder to achieve a dream, presidency.

No he hasn't, that's the point. Al Sharpton has not 'paid his dues', has not climbed the ladder, as you put it. What elective offices has he held that would support your statement that he's patiently climbing the ladder to the presidency? None, that's what. He only started talking about the Presidency in the last couple of years.

The whole point of Sharpton's campaign is that he's an insurgent against the (white) Democratic elite. He is, in the truest sense, the uppity N-word, ignoring his 'Massers' McCauliffe and Clinton and the rest and (to his mind) speaking truth to power.

Also, if you think Al Sharpton has not made serious progress garnering political support among urban black voters (a major Leftist constituency), against the wishes of the Democratic elite, then you're simply not paying attention or your logical engine is misfiring. Sharpton is dangerous, shrewd, and bears watching. But that's not my point. Your grievous errors of logic, I believe, were.

I didn't say 2004 was right, it was your reference.

Sharpton started from the bottom with nothing and has achieved. I never said he had paid his dues for the office.

I stated specifically he didn't have Leftist support and if you have assumptions to the contrary expound on them.

Remember this;

What have the Leftists done for blacks over the past four decades other than to feed them hand-outs and tell them to "sit down and shut-up"?

Just in case you didn't see it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.