When Jeffords jumped, Byrd became president pro tempore of the Senate, thus fourth in the line of succession to the presidency. He still is, until such time as the Republicans officially take control of the Senate, which may end up not happening now. If the result of this Lott flap is to return majority control of the Senate to the RATs, Byrd will continue to be president pro tem, fourth in the line of succession?
Given his history, why can't that be made an issue?
There is a double standard, no doubt about it. However, I take great pride in the fact that Republicans discipline their own. I do not see this as railroading; it was an incredibly stupid thing to say. While I think the argument logically could have been made that the context, Thurmond's party, provided an alternative way of viewing what he said, Drudge's revelations nix that. This is his own doing. Even Fred Barnes and Mort Kondracke on FNC, supported by Brit Hume, were troubled by this. Mort said it best. To have even said this as a mistake must mean that somewhere deep in his soul is something he may not realize exists--and that Lott needs to do some soul-searching. I am very proud to be a Republican to hear these voices question him. Lott did this to himself. I can't help that the liberal press would have given a Dem a pass; that's another issue. Lott deserves what he is getting.