So, the only issue Thurmond stood for was segregation, and the only reason Lott said what he did was because he still believes in segregation? If the GOP wanted Lott gone, they could have given him the boot long ago for much worse things. By forcing him out now they give the impression that freedom of speech is an antiquated notion.
By the way, was there anything technically wrong with what Lott said? Is it at all possible the we would be better off? Not on the issue of segregation--one man in the White House would not have been able to stop desegregation even if he wanted to--but on such issues as states' rights? In Lott's defense, Harry Truman wasn't exactly the best choice for this country.
By forcing him out now they give the impression that freedom of speech is an antiquated notion. Freedom of speech does not grant one carte blanch freedom from responsibility for what someone says. The office of Senate Majority is not a right - it is a priviledge, and the ML serves at the will of the other GOP Senators. Trying to make this a freedom of speech issue is asinine.
Everybody went to bed thinking Truman had lost and that Dewey was the next president. I didn't know that was the election that Strom ran in. Did Strom cost Dewey the election? Any of you computer search wizards or old geezers know the facts of that election. Did Strom cost the Republicans that election? Lott would really be frosted if realized the implication that we all might have been better off if Strom had not run at all.
I am glad that Lott is no longer the majority leader. But as usual the Republicans did the wrong thing at the wrong time for the wrong reasons.
