Replies

"For you to start painting anyone who compromises in Congress as a RINO is rediculous. I agree that Trent Lott has to go, But it's not because of his performance as the ML, but for the way he has handled himself after he made his remarks at Thurmonds B-Day Party. I've listened to all of you "My way or nothing" types for too long and you usually vote for candidates that couldn't garner any more votes than Ralph Nader"

I am an Independent Conservative Constitutionist Christian and have voted in general elections for no one other than Republicans. It is not *JUST* the compromise that offends me; it's *HOW* he compromises. And, for the record, Lott has redefined the art of compromise. I fully understand how DC works and I liked it better when we had leaders that persuaded with logic and passion. RINOs are part of life, but letting them lead de facto is unacceptable if the party is ever going to gain generational majorities like the RATS have. If you believe that Lott has done a good job as Leader, then that is you opinion, which I presume comes from your 'moderation'. If you are upset with the Lott only *NOW*, then you can understand why I have been for years, because this is *SO* predictable. In fact, I did predict this, to the *TEE*.

For the record.... I have never been happy with Trent Lott, But I wanted him to be replaced on our terms, not theirs, But it's too late for that now, and Trent Lott can look in the mirror when he wants to cast blame.

It was your "RINO" comment that brought on my response. So many of these narrow minded .02%rs around here whose knowledge of history is limited to this mornings breakfast are the ones who continually use that term for anyone who understands that every single piece of legislation that has ever been signed into law has been debated and compromised beyong belief. To me it's a sign of complete an utter ignorance.

Sorry for the rant :-)