Replies

"...the gains from 'victim' status would be offset by the appearance of weakness...

I think that is one way of stating the issue which must be finessed. True if the R's appear weak and apt to cave, it does embolden and strengthen the 'Rats. However, Lott's thick headedness has put us in that box. We can see how this plays over the next few days, but right now it looks like the longer Lott delays falling on his sword the more bilge we will take on.

Remember, the people want strong leaders BUT they are also all gaga over this "getting along" crapola.so here's what we do-- Heatedly point out the Dems are "playing politics" "Everyone knows that Trent is no more a racist that Senator Byrd or Hillary Clinton or anyone who has used a regretful phrase from time to time" BUT because the Dems play politics with this "vital issue", Trent is stepping down so that the Nation will not be distracted during these times of crisis..."We must devote full attention to the war on terror and fixing the economy"...We call upon the 'Rats to stop these diversionary games and get to work on the real issues in a bi-partisan way with our new Majority Leader Senator Nichols?...Santorum?....Frist?....Hutchinson?

Of course, this presumes old Trench-mouth Lott is man enough or smart enough to go along.

That'll play well with the Republican base (who will vote repub regardless), but the 'swing' voter block will just remember it as a confirmation of the allegations being made. "Why else would he have stepped down?" That's what they'll be told and that's what they'll remember 2 years from now. They won't remember the reasons given now as anything but excuses, and the press will play it so much even republicans will wonder. Long term, its better to beat down Gore and Jackson. They realise this is bigger than Lott. Why do you think so many dems are now pushing to get him removed when he's the best friend they've had? Think about it. They're willing to sacrifice having a Colonel Klink opponent like Lott because they see that his capitulation over this is far more valuable in their campaign against the whole party. Like I said, I want him gone too, and this certainly provides W with a strong enough reason to "have a talk" with him about stepping down later. I believe that W is sharp enough to realise the long term damage that would ensue from legitimizing Gore and Jackson and having him step down NOW. It has to be done later, for other reasons. This is bigger than whether or not we like Lott. This isn't about Lott, and the dems know it. It's about the Party and the battles that will be waged in 2004. If we legitimize their exaggerations, we will be cutting our own throats in the next election. We can use this to remove Lott, but it must be done quietly for other reasons, which means Later.