Replies

None of this would be happening if Lott hadnt said what he said.

What you do not appear to realize is that Lott's exact words, even without the context, had nothing at all of racist content or overtones. In fact, since a person's words have to be judged in light of similar, more explicit, things he has said on the same subject, Lott's words at Thurmond's 100th birthday party in no way could be construed as racist. Back in the 80's he said a similar thing and then he elucidated his comment by enumerating various ways things would have been different and why. None of them had any hint of racism. The current brouhaha is over a statement that is so general and non-specific that it serves excellently as a verbal Rorschach. The unimaginative see nothing but the equivalent of an inkblot. The disturbed racial opportunists, such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, both denizens of psychologically murky waters, who are determined to create a meaning, do so, attribute it to him, and then use that to further their own political ends.

I don't like Trent Lott. I think his handling of the Senate during the trial phase of impeachment was absolutely and completely despicable. I think his offering to share power with Daschle and the Democrats was moronic. But the sheer amount of non-thinking, knee-jerk reactionism on this issue (meaning the lack of actual analysis of what was really said) among people who should know better (ie., Republicans) is breathtaking. That so many of them are so ready to resort to the same type of expediency that characterizes moral relativist, liberal Democrats shows how degenerate the American intellect has become.

Bush took part in this same specious mindset by condemning the remarks, thus giving credence to the completely out of touch with reality spin placed on them by those who deliberately used this for their own partisan aims. And Lott was just as foolish as Bush for apologizing. This is Democrat propoganda pure and simple. They were desperate to find anything as a rallying point after their disappointing election show (remember them talking about a 50 seat gain in the House?). You don't fight it by acquiescing to it. You show it for the carbuncle it is and then lance it.

Lott said something that no halfway thinking Conservative who in anyway comprehends the media's zeal [and record] for completely twisting someone's remarks would have said. Now if you fall in the "I would've said it" crowd then that is on you.

A. Lott is an idiot who doesnt know that we dont have a level playing field.

-or-

B. Lott is a man with a track record of saying a list of things that must be viewed in their context and oh by the way...they happen to offend the same group.

Eitherway...he has to go.

What do you think Trent Lott meant by saying "We wouldn't have had all these problems all these years"..?

Doesn't it make you curious that he has explained his remarks besides a mealymouth apology, though he has had plenty of time?

Lott has given no exculpatory explanation of his remarks, and that is odd to me. If his remarks were innocent, just say "What I meant was..." and be done with it.

I have read many interesting theories of "What he meant was..." but these are meaningless. We heard what we heard.

I don't want an apology, but I am dying for an explanation that has not been forthcoming.