(I will now act as if you haven't heard enough legitimate reasons the past four days.)
He should resign as Majority Leader because he is now a liability to the Republicans.
Fresh off a surprise GOP sweep that was thought unlikely because of black voters' supposed undying loyalty to the Democrats, Lott, with one ridiculous statement in praise of a reformed segregationist's rejected philosophy, has given Democrats and all others left a new reason to rally blacks and other minorities back to the plantation under the "They're All Racists (or Uncle Toms)" banner.
This is more damaging than the left's smearing of the Willie Horton ad, the controversy over visits to Bob Jones University, or Dick Armey's "Barney Fag" Freudian slip (if Frank weren't so damaged himself by his now-legendary poor choice of boyfriends, that could have been much worse). Reading Lott's comments -- not listening to the audio portion or watching the speech, but simply reading them -- there is 0% ambiguity about his words in praise of Thurmond's 1948 presidential run, which, at the time, Strom himself touted as a pre-emptive strike against legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The inference that the unqualified "problems" that Lott mentioned had to do with Americans choosing integration over segregation is only unreasonable to the dense and the willingly foolish.
Like Thurmond, and his fellow reformed race-baiter, the late George Wallace, Lott was thought to have had a troglodytic outlook on racial issues that was unlearned his decades in public office serving alongside minority colleagues. If someone had brought up his activities in his frat house, it would be easy to say, "It's irrelevent; that was a long time ago." That won't wash now! His reckless, foolish statements just days ago breathed new relevence into his past actions.
It's just plain dumb to blame the Democrats for this. They are who they are. They live for moments like this. They will make something out of nothing as long as it will slime the other side, which is why they never talk about Byrd. Being aware of that, there's only one thing that can be done: make sure you don't give them a real reason. Lott broke that rule.
Since Thurmond joined the Republicans, he has been one of the elder statesmen of the party and the Senate itself. His dedication and energy are the stuff of legend, enhanced by his becoming a father in his seventies. In later years, he gained respect that transcended politics. It's hard to root against anyone who's about to become an entire century old unless they are evil personified. Thurmond's time fitting that description are well in his past.
All that time, Republicans managed to show him respect without applauding every single step he took. And just when it seemed like the GOP was going to have a feel-good story to end this Senate session, what happened? Lott laid a daisy-cutter sized rotten egg that stunk up the Capitol and gave conservatives palpitations!
Earlier today, I answered a previous question from you: "Was Reagan wrong to honor Thurmond with these words?"
My response was:
"These words?" Absolutely not.While reading this transcript [of a Reagan speech] -- which I presume you did -- did you notice how Reagan managed to turn the trick of honoring Thurmond without coming close to saying anything that could be misinterpreted as endorsing segregation? Do you think that was an accident?
Now, I will ask you a question: which of my comments do you think is inaccurate? Do you think that Lott has gained prestige as a result of this brouhaha? Does it elevate his stature as a leader in the Senate? Is he the one who should be trusted at the helm of that august body at this rare moment of American history when the Republicans control both legislative branches and the White House (albeit with slim margins in Congress and despite losing the popular Presidential vote)?
Why should Lott remain as Leader?
I eagerly await your answer. Don't chicken out.