Replies

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.

David Horowitz is not one to underplay the hypocracy of the race pimps. Yet, Horowitz' conclusion is this:

"If he was oblivious to the implications of his outrageous remarks at Thurmond's party, that is reason enough for him to step down as Republican leader in the Senate. The stakes are simply too high to allow this kind of political stupidity (which is to put the best spin on it) to pass without consequence. It is bad for the Republican Party and for the country."

The longer Lott stays, the more this will fester.