Replies

Didn't miss the title or the thread at all, .30Carbine.

What about 'flogging a dead horse' did you not understand re: my post? If you have read the entire thread you will see there are many 'opinions' from posters re: the continuing "Lott saga" and the GOP.

MY OPINION is that this author, Barry Farber, is flogging a dead horse.

Is that clearer to you now? Or did YOU, perhaps, misunderstand MY post and thus thought you should educate me? If so, thank you for allowing me to clarify.

Leftist attacks on Senator Trent Lott are no surprise, but now pundits on the Right are banging the drums to oust the Majority Leader. As has been widely reported, Lott stated that he was proud that the people of Mississippi supported J. Strom Thurmond’s 1948 states’ rights presidential campaign and that “if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years.” In response, the Family Research Council, National Review Online editor Jonah Goldberg, radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, columnist Andrew Sullivan and others have joined Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in demanding Lott’s head on a platter.

http://www.cornellreview.org/nsogart.cgi?num=107

What about 'flogging a dead horse' did you not understand re: my post?

I understood your post to mean that this thread was 'flogging the dead horse' of the 'Lott saga' as you called it. It is my humble opinion that the 'flogging' of the 'dead horse' occurred while Sen. Lott was still in power as ML.

What the author of this article, and TLBSHOW by posting it, wish to discuss, is not the 'dead horse' (Lott) but those who 'flogged' him, and why they did so. I am of the opinion that it needs to be discussed, but you seem adamant in your attempts to sweep it under the rug - the old elephant in the livingroom trick.

MY OPINION is that this author, Barry Farber, is flogging a dead horse.

I know. You are incorrect. The author clearly stated, not only in his title, but in the body of his article, "In sticking to Trent Lott, let me quickly point out that I'm not talking about Trent Lott; rather, I'm talking about so much MORE than Trent Lott....The key question, rather, is, What does the Trent Lott affair now say about the Republican Party?"

If you don't want to discuss it, don't. What purpose do you serve by trying to stop others from doing so?