Replies

they won't portray us as a "racist" party, if Lott steps down from Majority Leader?

They didn't portray Bush as a "black" killer in the last presidential election? What about the dragging death of that black, whose daughter said, in a national TV campaign that a vote for bush or a republican was JUST LIKE HER DAD BEING DRAGGED TO HIS DEATH ALL OVER AGAIN... or "every time you vote republican, another black church burns, another brother is killed..." eh?

We won before with their accusations. They have nothing else. Whatever happens to lott, we will be portrayed as racists and that is all the democrats have, because you see, they are NOT IN POWER... and if they keep pushing the race thing, THEY WILL LOSE AGAIN.

AMERICANS are tired of the "poor black people" crap. Especially the BLACK AMERICANS who have discovered the truth. Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Democrats were the pro slavery party. They still are.

Lott will survive.
We will move on.
We don't need their votes.
Black Americans are just .... AMERICANS.
Eventually, they too will stop believing the "republicans hate blacks and want to starve seniors" crap, and vote in their own best interests.

Done right, 18 mos of repubican rule can go a LONG way towards putting truth up against the lie in tangible, believable ways that cannot be ignored.

Dumping TRENT is tantamount to admission of racism, and Lott is NO racist. This is a tempest in a teapot, and will die. Whether Lott stays or goes. And America sees what is being done... they know, this is a put-up JOB by the democrat hacks of the old failed regime... hillary's goon squad.

OLD TACTICS "yawn...."

The difference between Lott and Bush's past, however, is Bush's history of race relations is squeaky clean. Lott's is filthy dirty.

Bush doesn't make racist-sounding statements. Lott? Yes. Continually.

No one said Bush was raised in a culture steeped in racism. Lott admitted he was (BET interview).

Bush doesn't claim to have ever been a racist. Lott did (again, BET interview).

Bush never said the country would have been better off with a Dixiecrat president in 1948. Lott did.

See the difference?

Done right, 18 mos of repubican rule can go a LONG way towards putting truth up against the lie in tangible, believable ways that cannot be ignored.

And you think that Trent Cave-A-Lott can possibly do that right? He didn't have enough conviction to rule conservatively with majorities of 56-44, 55-45 and VP (50-50) BEFORE there was anything resembling a personal controversy. What makes you think he has enough conviction to rule conservatively with at best a 51-49 majority (remember, the Dem's call for equal committee funding happened immediately after Landrieu won and before Lott put his foot in his mouth again)? If anything, he's even less likely to lead in a conservative fashion (he's pledged to try to get the other Pubbies on board quotas and not even considering conservative judges not approved by the NAALCP).

they won't portray us as a "racist" party, if Lott steps down from Majority Leader?

The Democrat's will always try with varying degrees of success to paint the Republican party of a party that panders to racists and xenophobes. How successful they are will of course depend on Republican politicians themselves.

If Republican party strategist, Bush, Rove, et al feel that Lott has single handedly set the party back years in terms of reaching out to minorities I say they have a right to feel that way.