Replies

You mean if we're all that weak. The weak-kneed Republicans who are hollering for his removal will do us more harm than the Democrats. Ignore the Democrat howls. Let the Senate have their election for the position. Hopefully, someone else will win the vote.

You mean if we're all that weak.

With 49 solid votes for a filibuster...Lott gives that filibuster a figleaf of "idealism" to avoid charges of petty partisanship.

Lott has fatally damaged himself.

He needs to do the right thing now and remove himself from consideration.

Let the Senate have their election for the position. Hopefully, someone else will win the vote.

Haven't they already had their election for the position and chosen Lott?

The weak-kneed Republicans who are hollering for his removal will do us more harm than the Democrats.

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.