Another flippin' idiot who doesn't get it.
For everyone who agrees with this imbecile, read this carefully: IF LOTT WAS SIMPLY "ACKNOWLEDGING THE DISTINGUISHED POLITICAL CAREER OF HIS 100-YEAR-OLD COLLEAGUE, HE SHOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. IF LOTT WAS REFERRING TO STATES' RIGHTS AND A LESS INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT, HE SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT.
WHAT HE SAID WAS THAT IF THURMOND WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT "WE WOULDN'T HAVE ALL THE PROBLEMS WE DO TODAY." NOW, GENIUS, WHAT "PROBLEM" IS THURMOND MOST FAMOUS FOR TRYING TO PREVENT? THAT'S RIGHT, BRAINIAC: THE "PROBLEM" OF INTEGRATION!
LOTT DIDN'T HAVE A SATISFACTORY ANSWER FOR WHAT THE "PROBLEMS" WERE, AND EVEN IF HE DID, HE WOULD HAVE STILL HAD TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT HE SAID HIS STATE WAS PROUD TO HAVE VOTED FOR A PRE-CIVIL RIGHTS ACT SEGREGATIONIST!
No, the neo-cons were so desperate to prove that they could be just as racially sensitive as their slightly more liberal counterparts that Lott's political fate had already been sealed. He was the perfect fall guy, and his sacrifice was worth it if it meant keeping the GOP in power.
Oh, shut your stuff up! If Lott had remained Majority Leader, he would have been the equivalent of a firing range target for the left for the two years he's still got left -- which, if you haven't forgotten, is a Presidential election year!
You idiots who are in the business of ragging on "neo-cons" for being realistic and pragmatic don't seem to realize that the left is relying on gaffes like Lott's to EXPAND THEIR BASE -- something that is already forecast to happen just by means of illegal immigration and the percentage increase in non-whites. Even if you think that the future lies in rallying more white voters to the GOP by being intentionally provocative on racial issues, THAT will be a additional war cry for the Democrats! And on top of that, if your approach is taken, and the Dems accuse the GOP of shutting out minorities, THEY'LL BE RIGHT THIS TIME!
Now THAT was a quality personal attack. :^)