Replies

Actually, this was recognized, thus dealt with. Had Lott stepped aside as Leader at his first press conference he could have spared his reputation a bit.

And admitted he was a racist when he wasn't?

How would that have helped his reputation? He should have told the race pimps to stuff it up their ample asses, and told the long-knived conservatives that he was not going to step down. Period.

And admitted he was a racist when he wasn't?

It was clear by his first press conference that his continuing presence as leader in the Senate was not going to be an asset to the republicans. A simple statement that his continuation in the role would only serve as a distraction would have sufficed.

How would that have helped his reputation?

Why one would hope he would not have made his disastrous appearance on BET, and thus salvaged whatever lingering respect amongst his supporters was left. More than one Lott staffer and supporter has acknowledged that interview was not helpful.

And admitted he was a racist when he wasn't?

How would that have helped his reputation? He should have told the race pimps to stuff it up their ample asses, and told the long-knived conservatives that he was not going to step down. Period.

Bingo. Bump to the top. (But, alas. No one is listening in the "new, more moderate Republican Party." They are too busy meeting with Al Sharpton planning more concessions.)

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?