Of course, by even asking such questions, you're giving in to the ratty-rat rats. Pretty compelling, no?
Riiiiight. So we should be like the 'Rats? Should we also have embraced Nixon after Watergate? Had him running the Republican party in a major state? Let him dictate the dispersal of party campaign funds? Installed his personal shill as RNC chairman? Paid him top dollar lecture fees? Fawned over him as an all around great Republican?
If Republicans had behaved like that it would have cost us dearly (as it has the Clintonized 'Rats, even if not as dearly, yet, as it should have). We would have paid much more severly for Watergate than we did. It is likely that Reagan would have never had the congressional majority he did in the first two years of his first term. That could have meant his tax cuts, deregulation and rearmament programs would never have passed.
Against their hopes the liberal media has strenghtened the party by holding us to a higher standard. We should certainly embrace that higher standard in this case.
Even if Lott had not proven himself stupid and out-of-touch, how has he earned the right to keep his leadership position unchallenged (facilitated by the chicanery of moving up the vote last month)? Is it by shirking his constitutional duty and agreeing to a sham impeachment trial in '99? Is it by bending over to the 'Rats and allowing them to share control of a Republican majority Senate in '00? Is it by letting Little Tommy Dasshole run parliamentary rigns around him the last two years?
I will say I'm not for forcing Lott to resign, but I'm sure looking forward to his being voted out of the leadership in January. In the mean time he should get no cover.
Of course, by even asking such questions, you're giving in to the ratty-rat rats. Pretty compelling, no?