How do you know that? I think they want to demonstrate their power by winning a victory NOW, and then they will use that demonstrated power to intimidate everybody else. What we need to do is to deny them that victory NOW.
They don't need a Lott in place to continue to find flimsy excuses for race-baiting. Once he's gone, they'll just go after others. And they'll do it with all the more vigor if we have emboldened them.
Because the election cycle is over for now. If Lott is still in the leadership slot in January 2004, he becomes the issue again.
I think they want to demonstrate their power by winning a victory NOW, and then they will use that demonstrated power to intimidate everybody else. What we need to do is to deny them that victory NOW.
Son, you would make a lousy chess player. You play to win, not to delay someone else's victory, and that means you occasionally write off a misplaced pawn or minor piece. Failure to do so means that eventually, your king is checkmated, and you lose the game.
They don't need a Lott in place to continue to find flimsy excuses for race-baiting.
This one isn't as flimsy as you wish it were. We can deal with the flimsy attacks that may follow much more easily than the not-so-flimsy attack underway now.
Once he's gone, they'll just go after others.
There's only so many times you can do this to different people, but by God, you can do it to one cooperative target over and over again.
And they'll do it with all the more vigor if we have emboldened them.
Pursuing a flimsy attack with vigor is a great way to achieve failure. So's defending the indefensible.