I checked back through my list and it hasn't happened. I was only given a reference to a party platform. I can understand your desire to avoid the question because it causes you to think outside of the way you have been told. You have been told what to think and that is easier than determining the truth yourself. Facts can sometimes be troublesome to those who prefer blind allegiance to the media. But thinking independently is important to those who want the truth.
Instead of accepting the thought package that has been made for you, think outside that box. Here's what Lott said "I supported Thurmond because of his defense stance". Instead of automatically believing what the media has told you, find out if Thurmond HAD a defense stance. Instead of assuming, try looking at the bare facts.
Are you willing to give up the Senate to the Democrats over this?
That question should be directed at Trent Lott. He's the only one who can turn that seat over to the Dems.
And if he does that at a time when the country is at war, and the President needs the support of Congress, and the voters have shredded historical trends to give it to him, I will consider him the moral equivalent of a draft dodger.
Actually, I would like to know if Thurmond had a stance on Purple People Eaters in 1948.
He didn't have a stance on defense. He didn't have a stance on Purple People Eaters, either.
If he did have any kind of a defense stance, don't you think SOMEONE would have produced SOMETHING by now?