Replies

sink, help me out here....

I have a hard time believing that the dims would have stopped labeling pubs as racist, sexist, homophobic, elderly hating, earth raping bunch of white supremicists - no matter what happened with Lott. So, I find it disengenous when they continue down their misbegotten path it has any more traction then it did before. Like saber said - this is so 2002.

Sen. Lott did not display leadership or strength.

Here's the dilemma that Lott's comments put me in.

Could a principled (by that I mean conservative) person approved of Sen. Lott's comments?

I couldn't.

Could a principled person accept the comments were taken out of context, and defend Sen. Lott's honor, even give him the benefit of the doubt based on his past?

I tried, but his explanation did not provide what principles of Thurmond's Presidential campaign would have helped us to avoid all those "problems." His apologies did not express a conservative philosophy and rang more hollow each time. His abandoning of conservatism on BET added my nail to his coffin.

Could another more principled politician weathered the criticism coming from both sides better than Sen. Lott?

I believe so. I would hope they would go down fighting explaining their bedrock conservative views. I think Sen. Lott demonstrated that he was not a good choice for SML in the next congress. I won't condemn him for past statements or affiliations, nor absolve him for his past votes. That's background or mitigation, but how he handled himself during this fiasco were testimonials of his character, principles and leadership abilities.

IMHO, he failed the test. Who administered it was irrelevant.

As a matter of fact, Sen. Lott gained back my respect because he let go of the leadership position, stayed in the Senate.

So, he's not SML, he's still one of us, and no one has called him a racist.

What am I missing?

Could a principled (by that I mean conservative) person approved of Sen. Lott's comments?

Did you approve of Dick Armey's comments, labelling Barney Frank "Barney Fag"? No, but you understood that he simply misspoke. Lott has a habit of going overboard on Thurmond when he's in his presence, and I don't think it has anything to do with approving of segregation. Lott's voting record certainly isn't segregationist.

So, he's not SML, he's still one of us, and no one has called him a racist.

You're not that naive. No one, liberal or conservative thinks Lott is anything but a hood-wearing, segregationist-favoring racist. That's what forcing him out of the SML position meant, and everybody knows it but you.

What am I missing?

Common sense?

Did you know Lott was referring to Dixiecrats and segregation when he made those remarks or were you informed of that by somebody else? I would hazard a guess that 99.5% of Americans would not have added Lott's remarks together and come up with Dixiecrat/segregationist absent Sidney and Carville's push in that direction.

Not one person in attendance at that affair took umbrage at the remarks contemperaneously including loads of journalists, including Armstrong Williams, and members of both parties.

But here is the kicker for me, why would Lott go on National TV with a coterie of media jackals in attendance and declare his undying love of American apartheid?