Replies

He spoke favorably of Thurmond carrying Mississippi DECADES AFTER Thurmond recanted his segregationist views. Good grief, he wasn't endorsing segregation. He was endorsing the type of man Strom Thurmond became.

On the pro-life issue, not many people know this, but former governor Hugh Carey of New York became a pro-lifer after leaving office. If a pro-lifer went up to him at a pro-life rally, or at his birthday tribute, and after hearing him speak said that as a New Yorker they were proud to have once elected him, I would assume logically they were talking about the current Hugh Carey. Not the former pro-abort Hugh Carey.

For heaven's sake, Thurmond gave a fiery speech for Ronald Reagan in 1980, Lott said he was glad Mississippi voted for him, and everyone assumes he was endorsing segregation, even though Thurmond repudiated segregation years earlier. Ditto for the birthday party remarks.

Actually, I hadn't thought about the Hillary analogy, but now that you bring it up, it does fit. But not in the way you think. Lott's critics seem to see a conspiracy when there is none. As if Lott's part of some segregationist conspiracy, along with Strom Thurmond, and I suppose every other right-of-center Republican in the country. Ooooooh, we found out Lott supported segregation in Mississippi back in 1961. Oooooooh, and look at what I just found out....he praised a 100 year old man who was once a segregationist. Therefore, he must now be a segregationist and a racist, even though he's never even had the nerve to stand up and fight against affirmative action programs out of fear of the professional race pimps like Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus.

This whole thing is nothing but a professional race baiter witch hunt scam being run by the 'rats and the professional race pimps like Sharpton and Jackson. They took an innocent comment by Lott and made it into something sinister, knowing that once they played the race card, about half the Republicans on message boards and most of the Republicans in Washington would tuck tail and run. They knew Lott would apologize like a wimp, allowing them to announce that the apology "proves" he's a racist. Now, all they have to do is decide what they want. Should he be booted out, thus proving the 'Rats and the racist Congressional Black Caucus can dictate who we have as a leader? Or should they let him stay in return for payoffs to their constituencies?

After all, thanks to wimpish Republicans, including Lott and a lot of Freepers, it's likely be their call, not ours.

After all, thanks to wimpish Republicans, including Lott and a lot of Freepers, it's likely be their call, not ours.

Oh, puh-leeze. First of all, there is a very good reason why many conservatives are not rallying to help Lott save his toupee - he really hasn't given us a good reason to do that. "Gee, let's expend a tremendous amount of political capital and risk getting the GOP branded as racist - so we can keep Trent Lott as Majority Leader and he can continue his tireless efforts to dilute the conservative agenda by continually kowtowing to the Dems."

But beyond that, Strom's repudiation of segregation is secondary here. Lott put the election of 1948 clearly into the context of LOTT'S own opinions. What Lott meant is not clear. Whether Lott is a racist or not is also not clear. But he seems incapable of learning how to stay out of these minefields, and he has shown little leadership or desire to promote the conservative agenda. Both are symptoms of bad judgement. You may think we're allowing Jesse and Al to have their way. The point is, if Lott does resign as MJ and a pubbie with stones takes his place, the joke will be on the other side - hence the efforts of Daschle and Jeffords to help Lott out. Daschle knows what a tough MJ would mean to the Dems, and Jeffords is trying to avoid having the Capitol mop closet as his office.