His first problem:  He can't come up with a new line regarding Thurmond in twentysome years.
Second:  This has gotten big, fast, and looks like his words are going to be damaging to his own party.

[b]Lott Remarks on Thurmond Echoed 1980 Words[/b]

Twenty-two years ago, Trent Lott, then a House member from Mississippi, told a home state political gathering that if the country had elected segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond to the presidency "30 years ago, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today." The phrasing is very similar to incoming Senate Majority Leader Lott's controversial remarks at a 100th birthday party for Thurmond last week.

[url=www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37288-2002Dec10.html]Rest of Article[/url]

Lott is the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.  If you're conservative or republican he might be the political weakest link.  As majority leader that man needs to go.

Lott is a good an example of the Peter Principal.  He has risen to his maximum level of incompetence.

I agree, he has stepped right in it, and his opponents, on both sides of the fence, are going to make a much bigger deal of it than it is.
I did find it intersting that NPR had some jewish professor from Boston telling the history of the Dixie-crats, with no one else to debate his twisted version of history.  Oh well, what else is new, the North gets to tell the South what it was we were/are thinking.

I wouldn't call Lott a "conservative". He needs to go......

I never cared for Senator Lott as a Majority Leader, as I think he lacks backbone.  However, he is entitled to his beliefs and as an American has a right to espouse them.  In my opinion, his constituents should decide - on their own - whether or not his words, taken in context, represent them.  If so, he's fine where he is.  If not, they may choose to elect someone else next time.  

I for one am tired of the media telling us who should resign from what.  For once, I'd like to see a politician grow a set of balls, look Tom Daschle in the eye, and say, "blow me". [soapbox]

Bring back Newt!

[b]Big 'Effin' Deal![/b]

I got news for you!

The country would have been better off if the Dixiecrats had won!

And Goldwater in 1964, as well!

There would have been no Vietnam, as it was faintly played out by the Johnson Administration!

F*** political correctness!

It's politically correct to say that Republicans want to cut back your grandmother's Social Security to where she has just enough money to buy one can of dog food per day, they love dirty water and dirty air, and they haven't cut school lunch programs nearly as much as they want!

In the meanwhile, the rest of us have to shut our mouths about the LOVE THAT DARES NOT SPEAK ITS NAME!

The costs of treating AIDS is astronomical, and any research aimed at easing the pain and suffering of AIDS sufferers gets a rocket FDA approval, while drugs combating other ailments have to go by the book in being approved!

But we shall not dare mention that this disease, for the greatest amount of sufferers, is totally, 100%, preventable!

BULLSHIT, I say!

BULLSHIT!

Eric The(Straighter'nMoses)Hun[>]:)]

So the fuck what?  He likes Strom.  Big deal.  Get over it.

The coment certainly isn't racist on it's own.

Scott

You know, this whole debate over Lott has pissed me off - know why?  Because NO ONE has gotten it right.

Lott never said "We wish Strom had been elected President because of his stand on Segregation!"  - what he and many others were in favor of was Strom's views on STATES RIGHTS!  It had nothing to do with segregation, racial issues, etc.  It had everything to do with a number of men who saw the onerous federalism that was starting to rev up and take away many rights of the states guaranteed by the 10th amendment.  You know, things like gun control laws, public school policy, health care, pensions, work rules, highways, etc.

Hell, I thought at least SOME of you all here were in favor of a more strict and constitutionalist interpretation our Constitution.  Was I wrong?

On a personal note, I never did care for Lott myself, but that had everything to do with his lack of backbone, not his views on issues.  We need someone who isn't afraid to tell it like it is on our core values, including the 2nd Amendment.  Unfortunately, I see exactly what is happening here.  The Demos can't attack Bush because he is likable and popular.  So they've been lying in wait for someone to do something or say something that they can grab onto and use against the Republican Part.  And due to misinterpration and mis-reporting of his words, Lott is now the new "Newt Gingrich" - the new enemy.  Unfortunately, Lott is NO Newt Gingrich.  At least Gingrich had balls and wouldn't back down.  I predict Lott will resign as Majority Senate Leader - if not, be prepared for a constant stream of invective to be launched against him over the next 2 years.  And that will keep him hogtied and afraid to push a conservative agenda, which will include him probably caving on the AWB sunset.

[cyndielaupervoice] I see your true colors shining through [/cyndielaupervoice]

Lott certainly has a constitutional right to say what he thinks.  His opponents have the right to make a big deal about it.  And his constituents have the right to vote his ass out for being stupid.

Boy, the Republicans sure know how to do a number on their own folks, all right!

[b]And so do we![/b]

By even saying that what Lott said might be wrong, we play into the DEMO's hands!

Just a verse from the Good Book for this phenomenon:

[b]Zechariah 13:6[/b]

And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, [b]Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.[/b]

Not bad, eh?

Eric The(Scriptural)Hun[>]:)]

Much ado about nothing.

Srom Thurmond was about segregation. His party, the Dixiecrats was about segregation. His quotes about blacks at the time are on record. Most of his supporters were white hooded thugs & terrorists. To pretend that Trent Lott was speaking about anything other than segregation is disingenous at the very least.

Fortunately there are only a few more thousand weak, irregular heartbeats and Mr. Thurmond starts his ride to hell.

This is where you are wrong. Senators are NOT national leaders. They are representatives of a state. His consituants vote for him because he represents their feelings. The people of Mississippi feel the same way as Sen. Lott for the most part. You recall the statewide referendum on the Confederate flag? Guess what? The flag was supported by the majority. The same thing would have happened here in South Carolina if left up to the people.

First, that's 'Strom' Thurmond, you may wish to get the name correct since you are apparently sending him to hell! [:D]

Second, so what? Segregation was as much about States Rights as anything else. We see how well integration went over in South Boston, Massachusetts, and other 'sophisticated' places, when it was tried there!

[b]I love States Rights[/b], and so will you when some foolhardy state decides to recognize same-sex marriage! At least I hope you will.

If we left it up to the pinheads in Washington DC, we'd all be under the thumb of some pencil-necked geek in some gray office building somewhere inside the Beltway.

You think that POS would permit some states to have Class 3 and others not?

BULLSHIT!

[b]State Rights then, States Rights now, States Rights forever![/b]

Can I get an [i][b]Amen[/b][/i] for that, Church?

That's doubtful.

From what I understand, he's a Christian. He will be forgiven of whatever sins the Lord may hold against him, notwithstanding the prayers of the NAACP, the Urban League, and some doofus pricks scattered throughout the Country!

Eric The(Forgiven)Hun[>]:)]

Thanks for catching the typo, Too bad you missed the rest of my argument. It wasn't about States' Rights.  It was about the rights of individuals to vote, eat in certain diners, live where they want etc. You know, the things you get to do whenever you want. Ol' Strom believed that some Americans shouldn't be allowed that.  Hell I don't want my guns taken away either but I'm not ready to sacifice other Americans rights to walk on the friggin sidewalk!

Bravo!  Well said Greywolf!

So where was I wrong?  His constituents have the right to vote him out of office, no?  They may choose not to, Mississippi has done stranger things (witness voting for Strom Thurmond in a presidential election).

Typical reaction from the libs. They are expressing a whole lot of righteous indignation over Lott's comments, but there was not a peep from this crowd after Bird (D) WV a former member of the KKK used the word nigger.

ARH

Too true, but that Byrd guy is one scary looking dude.  If satan showed up on Earth, I think he would look something like him.  I wouldn't make nasty comments about him either (except for the above [;)]).

If you really meant that, you would have said:

"Fuck political correctness!"

Here is the choice.

Make Lott step down and the Dems will run campaign ads that claim the head of the Senate Republicans was a racist.  Not a good choice.

Make Lott explain over and over again his reference was to state's rights and not segregation and Dems will keep the issue in the spotlight lacking any substantive policy besides class warfare.  Not a great choice but better.

It may be that Trent Lott was referring to states rights rather than segregation and Jim Crow.

However, I doubt it.  His record seems clear:

[url]www.nationalreview.com/george/george121002.asp[/url]

I should point out that National Review is a conservative publication.

I support states' rights, but they cannot be abused to systematically oppress individuals or groups of individuals.  Yet that is exactly what was done in the Jim Crow era, using the excuse of states' rights, forcing the federal government to step in to secure the basic rights of all its citizens.  Don't like the end result?  Blame the federal government, sure, but also blame the bigots who wrapped themselves in the flag of states' rights.

Amen!  This country was founded by 13 [b]independent[/b] states that [b]agreed[/b] to form a Union.  Everyone seemed to know that until 'ol Abe Lincoln took it into his hands to change history.

------------------

For the record, I don't think anyone implied that what Lott said was wrong...but it should be agreed that what he said was [i]stupid[/i].  Like it or not, its known that any remark in favor of any white-racist or former racist is a very unwise move...[i]especially for a politician[/i].  He's paying for his stupidity now.

I wouldn't mind having someone other than Lott, it's just doing it in a way that brings credit rather than discredit.  

And look at Bush!!  What a feel-good pussy!  First his "Islam is warm and fuzzy"  speech, and now [url=http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=021212&cat=news&st=newspoliticslottdc]Bush Denounces Lott Remarks as Offensive and Wrong [/url].

He's making me sick.
Scott

Oh GASP!!  HORRORS!  He mentioned Jefferson Davis!!! AND he wrote for some publication!!!  OH NO!  WHAT a [b]RECORD!!![/b]  Two lousy points.  Is that all there is?

No, really...what trashy writing.  Here's a nice emotion-laden but totally irellevant quote from the article:

Crappy, liberal journalism at it's best.
Scott