How so, Jim? Shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard? Shouldn't we do what's right regardless of whether there is a media firestorm? Trent Lott said that we'd have been better off electing a pro-segregation, pro-poll tax Dixiecrat (not a Republican, mind you) in 1948 on AT LEAST two occassions. How many times, Jim, does he have to say it before we believe him? Many people (some here at FR I've found) agree with Lott that Thurmond should have been elected president. Why is it so far-fetched that Lott believes what he said (AT LEAST twice)? How is it weak-kneed to purge our party leadership of people who believe what Lott said? Isn't it the right thing to do? The weak-kneed thing is to let Lott remain. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. Just because Kerry and others are right on Lott's removal as Majority Leader, it doesn't logically follow that it's the wrong course of action-- that would be a fallacy.
Which means that you and every other "conservative" trying to hang Lott because of this have helped hang Trent based on false evidence of bigotry. You feeling good about that?