In politics everything is speculation and or opinions, it is not a science. All I know is that I and many others gave time and money in the effort to regain control of the senate. I would hate to see that achievement squandered. If righteous indignation over something that transpired forty years ago, is to be more important than control of the senate, then so be it. Tom Daschle would be only to happy to maintain his position, meanwhile he tolerates Robert Byrd with no problem, a man that is third in line for the presidency.
There seems to be no indignation on anyones part about that, why, because the democrats understand that sanctimonious, self righteous indignation has no place in hardball politics. Power, you either have it or you do not, Bush and Lott through thru combined incompetence may very well be handing it back to the democrats.
We may however stand tall, in the minority again, being the moral party. So be it.
The Dems, through their blind support of Clinton, lost the House, Sentate, governorships, state houses and, eventually, the Presidency. Maintaining integrity is essential in the long run for power politics - it is what got the GOP where it is today.
We may however stand tall, in the minority again, being the moral party. So be it.
First of all, we are not saying Lott should resign as Senator, just majority leader - so that will NOT change the Senate. And even if it were to change, we still control the House, the White House and SCOTUS. So that is hardly being in the minority, and I do not wish to act more like Dems to protect someone who isn't worthy of protection.