Replies

Exactly. Mark Levin is trying to do damage control by defending the defensible. But he totally ignores the elephant-sized gaffe of Lott's. Exactly what "problems" does Lott think we would have avoided if Strom, running on the Dixiecrat platform, had won the presidency.

And frankly, I expect better analysis from Mark Levin.

The only explanation I'd buy is that he was just thinking outloud of saying something to please Sen. Thurmond, something he didn't believe but said anyway.

I agree with that - there are many times I've said something stupid...but didn't really even mean it anyway. But, we can't afford these kinds of goofs from our Senate leader. Lott needs to go.

But, we can't afford these kinds of goofs from our Senate leader. Lott needs to go.

I'm listening to that. I'm also listening to other posts here that say don't let the Dems push us around and Lott is *our* leader and stay loyal to the Republicans. Hmmm. I don't know what I think. I guess, I'm definitely loyal to the *party* but the question is whether Sen. Lott is what's best for the party. And as to the Dems pushing us around -- well, if Sen. Lott's a liability, I'd be happy for the party's sake to push him over. He's just one guy. The Republican party, to make it in the 21st century, *has* to be able to relate to all types of people. And I'm definitely not buying Mark Levin's point taht this was no worse that what Sen. Carl Levin said.

So I'm all about party loyalty, but that's not the same thing as loyalty to an individual. And I'm all about circling the wagons when a Republican innocent is being hunted by the Pelosi sharks. But is he an innocent?

I guess I really want to hear what he has to say today. If he can persuade me he's an innocent on this, I'm behind him. But the Republican party's interests, not Sen. Lott's, come first. And for the majority leader in the Senate, I have high expectations. Minor gaffes are OK. Major ones aren't. We have to win in 2004. This is all bigger than Sen. Lott.

Sounds like a lot of people think they are qualified to be thought police or can interpret hate crimes. Lott never mentioned blacks, race, segregation or anything that might be considered racist. For all we know, he may have been referring to States Rights and that thing called the 10th Ammendment, you know, the one that says the Federal Government should stick to only those things strictly enumerated in the Constitution. The point is we can't know what he was thinking and based on the evidence presented, there isn't a court in the land that would convict him.

I am one of those who would like to see him go for his "no evidence" impeachment rules and his "power sharing" but this isn't the time for that. We're violating Reagan's 11th commandment and no good can come of it

Exactly what "problems" does Lott think we would have avoided if Strom, running on the Dixiecrat platform, had won the presidency.

It seemed pretty clear to me that he was referring to the issues we would not be dealing with had a real States Rights President ever been elected. He was stupid not to make it very clear as soooo many people like to take a mans words and use them against him.

I mean come on here, we all know that Lott is not a racist. That assumed, what was the platform of the Dixiecrate outside segregation. Pretty simple, but people just have to get themselves riled up.

What I want to know is why Lott would want to remain an embattled Majority Leader anyway. The guy can't love power, he doesn't exercise it. He's really just a back- slappin' buffoon who backed into the job when the nation reared up and surprised everyone with the '94 revolt.

He couldn't keep Jeffords on the reservation, he ran from impeachment like a frightened schoolgirl, and now he's got diarrhea of the mouth at a time when it's crucial for the visible members of the party to watch their friggin' step. I don't need to see him leave the Senate, but it would be real nice to see him serve his term as simply the senior senator from Mississippi.