Replies

I agree with doing the right thing. In this case, however, what is doing the right thing? He said something stupid. Does that justify removal on the RATS' terms? He did not rape a nursing home owner. He did not sell missile technology to the ChiComs. He did not commit perjury or suborn perjury. He did not obstruct justice. He did not get disbarred. He did not introduce a false affidavit to the court. He did not intimidate witnesses.

I don't want Lott gone for saying something stupid. I have wanted him gone for being ineffective and a pushover for the RATS. But I don't want him gone because the RATS are making it happen. He did not commit an "impeachable" offense here.

Here I part company from you - I remember impeachment as if it were yesterday, and my anger at Trent Lott is still raging: we had to put up with 2 more years of Clinton polluting the world. Had Lott done his duty, it is possible that could have been avoided.

Let us also not forget if Lott remains, his definition of bipartisanship - basically doing whatever the Democrats tell him.

Lott has never been there for conservative causes when it really mattered. Now he wants conservatives to expend political capital to save him. Forget it. Let him twist in the wind.

Regards, Ivan

He did not rape a nursing home owner. He did not sell missile technology to the ChiComs. He did not commit perjury or suborn perjury. He did not obstruct justice. He did not get disbarred. He did not introduce a false affidavit to the court. He did not intimidate witnesses.

Just can't let go, huh?

Neither can I.

I agree with doing the right thing. In this case, however, what is doing the right thing?

That's the crux of our discussions since this erupted.

Lott stays as leader and we reap whatever excrement hits the fan from having this albatross around our necks. Lott leaves the Senate, our agenda is screwed. Lott does the right thing and only gives up the leadership and our long-term and short-term futures still are plausible. Unfortunately he is unwilling to do the latter at this time.

He said something stupid.

Incredibly stupid. Stupid Stupid Stupid.

Does that justify removal on the RATS' terms? He did not rape a nursing home owner. He did not sell missile technology to the ChiComs. He did not commit perjury or suborn perjury. He did not obstruct justice. He did not get disbarred. He did not introduce a false affidavit to the court. He did not intimidate witnesses.

*F* the RATS. They do not have Lott's interests, the GOP's interests, nor the nation's interests in mind. They only care about power and their twisted agenda. This should be solely what WE think is the proper way to handle this. Nixon shouldn't resign because the RATs wanted him out. Nixon had to resign because he was wrong and we needed him to resign to keep the GOP viable, which it has.

Let's think about what having Lott as leader does for our recruitment of new party members from wavering moderates, still trying to understand the issues from our perspective, to the next generation of voters. Will some newbie look at the parties and say, "Hmmmm...is the leader of the GOP Senators a racist? Do I want to be of the same party as that?" Whether true or not, that's what we face. Let's also think about how this affects our fundraising efforts. Would somebody risk embarrassment of exposure by contributing to Lott's party? Does Lott hurt us in these two key factors of battling the Democrats and their spin machine?

I don't want Lott gone for saying something stupid. I have wanted him gone for being ineffective and a pushover for the RATS. But I don't want him gone because the RATS are making it happen. He did not commit an "impeachable" offense here.

Absolutely.