Posted on 12/18/2002 9:58:16 AM PST by RCW2001
I know -- every time I look at it I start cracking up again :-) It looks like something you'd buy at Disneyland's Frontiertown or something. That feather is a riot! The sad thing is, Chester thinks he looks cool.
Would you be terribly offended if I didn't put much stock in a web site named "smokinggun.com?
Forget Democratic Underground, too.
dumbocrats and progressives have been known to creatively edit or... (GASP!) make stuff up!
You still haven't answered my question, Hank. But that's pretty typical of those downplaying Lott's comments.
Here you go:
Uhh.... I believe Lott offered up "clarifications" of what he meant on several occasions. George Will unsnarled Lott's "clarifications" yesterday with this from his column, I'll c/p from that:
"Major apology No. 2 was issued on Sean Hannity's radio show, in an attempt to recover from major apology No. 1, in which Lott said he had used "a poor choice of words" about "discarded policies." On the Hannity show Lott said he meant that Thurmond was the proper presidential timber in 1948 because of Thurmond's stance on national defense.But by 1948 -- the Berlin airlift, the Truman Doctrine of aid to Greece and Turkey and other nations menaced by communism -- Truman's Cold War defense stance was robust. And the platform of the States' Rights Democratic Party, aka Dixiecrats, under whose banner Thurmond ran, did not mention defense -- other than the defense of the South against what Thurmond called the "social intermingling of the races."
http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/5622215p-6598349c.html
Show me where Lott said "segregation" and I'll support you. But you can't.
Atleast he has said he will not bolt the senate.
Sorry, but you're wrong. I don't have the quote handy, but I'd say you're the one trying to get in to Trent's head. The plain sense of his statement is that he thinks it would have been good if Strom had won the Presidency in 1948. If he just wanted to praise the man, he could have said that he wished Strom had run - and won - in, say, 1976 or 1996. Or just a generic "you'd have made a great President, Strom." Trent went out of his way to SPECIFICALLY bring up and then praise Strom's '48 candidacy.
For the past few days, Ari has stated over and over and over again that the President does not believe Lott should resign as Majority Leader. Now, since this whole Lott issue has been one argued on the basis of principle, what principle is the President following? Say one thing, do another?
I want my President to be honest. I want a straight forward answer. And that simply isn't happening with Ari saying one thing, and leaks saying another. That's why BUSH HIMSELF needs to belly up to the bar and state FROM HIS OWN MOUTH what he feels. Period.
Chester just signed his own death warrant as Majority Leader.
OK, how do YOU interpret these remarks.
To tell you the truth, I took "all these problems" to mean the problems with terrorism. I never saw any way to connect that to black people, and the belief that Lott was endorsing segregation still seems to me to be an unsupportable stretch. (But don't get me wrong: under any circumstances it was a moronic comment.)
Whether I'm right or not, Lott could probably have deflected this by unloading both indignant barrels in response, but instead he opted for the Jimmy Swaggart option, pleading guilty to the charge. At that point, his fate was sealed. There's no defending a man who won't defend himself.
Once again, you ASSUME that is what he meant. In reality, you don't know but you are willing to give up the Senate over it.
Sorry, but I don't see any "complaint" by Lott. Looks to me like JESSE J. HOLLAND is just sticking to the Dems playbook!
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.