There is a big difference between honoring a segregationist and honoring his segregationist behavior, and Trent Lott illustrated this by doing the latter when he should have done the former.
Going on about how Thurmond's Dixiecrat segregationist presidential campaign should have succeeded was both unnecessary and assinine, unless, of course, Lott was sincere in wishing for the success of racial segregation, which is what primarily defined the difference between the "Dixiecrats" and the Democrats. In referring to that campaign specifically, Lott was, in no uncertain terms, waxing nostalgic about an openly segregationist endeavor.
I expect better from a man in his position of national trust, and I don't apologize for doing so.
Lott apologized, but I think he deserves every lash the press and his colleagues deal out to him.
Not that I am for it, but why all the talk against segregation? I don't know how many responses I read were that of black Americans but it appears to me that black Americans want nothing to do with America anyway. They identify themselves with Africa even though they have been in this country as long as any of the whites. They manufacture clothes with names like "FUBU", an acronym for "For Us By Us." Black Americans are doing just fine segregating themselves. There are black universities, black fraternities and sororities, black beauty pageants and blacks television stations. So is all of this banter about Lott's gaffe just PC posturing or what?