No, it's not offensive to the South--Trent Lott's stupidity is far more offensive to them than anything the NYT editorial board might say--and his stupidity is also offensive to the rest of the nation.
Let's get this straight: most of the conservative Republicans I know out here in California are making jokes about why Trent Lott is living proof that cousins should not marry.
Your sarcasm is well placed. It is absurd to even suggest dropping Lott at this moment in time. Frankly, I agree with those who point out that he has been wishy-washy and often ineffective. But in the face of this vicious attack on Lott because he dared to praise the most consistently Conservative Senator in recent decades is patently outrageous. People need to stop and catch their breaths, and look at what is being done here:
The Left has launched one of their typical, apparently hysterical, but actually carefully calculated efforts to push America to the Left, without ever even debating the issue on the table. We are being treated to the typical ex cathedra pronouncements. We are seeing the typical raised eyebrow, the supercilious disdain, the sanctimonious pretense of the moral high ground. But no where do they dare to debate the actual issues before the American people, when Strom Thurmond ran for President in 1948. We are just supposed to kneejerkedly assume--because they belligerently demand that we assume--that Strom Thurmond was wrong, and that anyone who suggests that he was right, must be driven from American politics.
Well, Strom is now over 100, and is retiring from the fray. But those Conservatives, who think that Strom was wrong--so very wrong that it is an unforgiveable sin for anyone to even suggest that he was right--need to at least acquaint themselves with the issues. Because it was Thurmond--and not Truman or Dewey (and certainly not Henry Wallace, who ran on the far Left)--who took the stands that were by far the most consistent with the overall Conservative philosophy. And the Left is making fools out of Conservatives, who will jump through hoops to distance themselves from values they actually hold sacred.
The principal reason that Thurmond led a revolt from the Democratic Party in 1948 was about freedom and the preservation of a predictable Constitutional heritage that put freedom first. It was the same reason he again revolted in 1964, to lead many Conservative Democrats into the Republican Party, in support of Barry Goldwater. It was the same reason he insisted ever since, that Republican Presidents appoint more Conservatives to the Federal Judiciary. (It was Thurmond, more than any other man in Washington, who has responsible for the gradual improvement on the Federal Bench, since 1969.)
The major "Civil Rights" issue in 1948, was whether Washington should be allowed to dictate employment practices to private employers across America (F.E.P.C.). How can anyone suggest that Lott needs to apologize for supporting Thurmond in opposing such Federal dictation? 16 years later, when Lyndon Johnson finally rammed the proposal through, the Conservative Republican candidate for President--Strom Thurmond's good friend, Barry Goldwater--also opposed the Socialistic measure--as do I. (For more on the specific issue, see "Civil Rights" vs. A Free Society.)
But no one is actually debating the underlying issues. They are simply buying the Leftist smear of Thurmond--when we should all be honoring him--on the pretense that Lott has done something terrible in praising his lifetime of dedication to Conservative and Constitutional values. It does not take a lot of analysis to understand the corner that those Conservatives, who are in a panic over this, are painting themselves into.
For the love of common sense, we need to say to those who are parrotting the enemy, "Snap out of it!"
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site