LOTT MUST STAY, THE BORKING MUST END.

I have had serious problems with Trent Lott's leadership for quite a while. I would love to see him replaced, but not under these conditions! In 2 years I'd be quite happy to see a conservative Senate Majority Leader with some backbone. Unfortunately, I can't think of one in the Senate, maybe we could convince Dick Armey or J.C. Watts to run? We need a Leader who knows that the Socialist/Democrats cannot be trusted to keep a bargain or return a favor. It is obvious that this is not Trent Lott. However, to replace him under these conditions would be to encourage even more Borking of both our leaders and our appointments. To steal a line from one of my favorite movies (They Call Me Trinity), "It ends here. It's got to end here." Let's just say NO to Borking! It's time has passed. It is a terrorist practice that the left is very good at; when they have a willing partner in the main-line media. Once someone is accused of racism, their career is over. This prevents any real dialog on race, since if someone mis-steps; they are done this leads to a one-sided monolog, for to dissent from the current PC version is to place one's career at risk.

I could go on a rant about how Lott has bent over for the Democrat/Socialists, appeasing them, helping them for years. I won't here though; it is a side issue that only illustrates their lack of gratitude. Let's just realize that the S/D's bring new meaning to the phrase; "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile." Sadly, the Republicans never press their advantage when they have it. This may be why they only have it for short periods of time; having a Republican advantage doesn't seem to really advance the Conservative agenda very far. This is primarily because when we do have an advantage; our guys are Borked to death!

My main point here is we need to end the Borking. It's got to end here! We cannot let the enemy (yes, they are the enemy; that is how they view and treat us, that makes them our enemy) tell us who we can pick for our leaders. We can no longer allow them to pick our judges. They would allow us to do nether for them. Even when we had compelling evidence of crimes, including felonies, in the Clinton White House, Clinton beat impeachment because the D/S party stood solidly behind him. Yet, Newt was Borked to death over an affair with someone who was his own age, and didn't work for him. Nor did he commit any crimes, much less felonies. Judge Pickering was Borked almost to death over a lie of racism.

Does anyone actually think that if we just dump Lott, the Borking will end? Let's look at the history of the last 2 years. The D/S side has been struggling to find an issue that has traction, to no avail. Then, in an off year election, when they should have been gaining seats, they lost them. But, they kept a Senate seat in LA! Big news! They were energized. Then they saw a weakness they could exploit on our side. A Republican Leader said half jokingly at a Birthday Party for another Senator that if he'd have been elected in 1948 we wouldn't have had all these problems we have now. For the first two days of the wall to wall coverage of this, every report had a little addition to Lott's statement. They added an end quote, then (a former segregationist), then a quote and went back to what Lott said. When something is read to you, the quotes and parentheses are silent. Lott was by no means endorsing segragation, yet the way the "quote" was read made it sound like a slam dunk!

This is an effort by the D/S party to firstly re-assert their power over the agenda, and secondly to silence a Republican majority from any meaningful discussion of race issues. Were we to have a meaningful discussion of this issue, some interesting facts might come out about the history and agenda of the D/S party. Silence through intimidation; terrorism without the blood. Republicans have been and are terrified of being called racists. Yet it is the D/S party that seeks to destroy black families via the welfare state. It is the D/S party that looks at blacks as "useful idiots"; as long as they stay on the plantation that is. It is the D/S party that still won't allow Justice Thomas to speak publicly. It is the D/S party that uses the phrase "Uncle Tom" for any black that strays from their fold or disagrees with them.

It is well past time this lie was exposed. It is well past time that people are allowed to discuss race openly and honestly, without fear of being destroyed for their views. The forced silence on the issue feeds racists on both sides of the color line. Jessie Jackson would be nothing without the KKK, and visa versa. Yet the silence helps both. It helps to prevent a discussion of why many blacks are not progressing, or why young blacks to turn to crime, which feeds the KKK, who in turn feed Jessie Jackson. Yet, it is the D/S party, the "friend" of the blacks who perpetuate this.

To dump Lott would be to yet again concede the issue. We have a majority in both houses of Congress, and we have the White House. Should we let the other side set the agenda? I think not! We must support Mr. Lott, openly and publicly. Even most of his enemies admit he is not a racist, then go on to imply that he is one in the same breath. The only D/S who has openly called Lott a racist also claimed that Lott voted for Mr. Thurmond in "48, when he (Lott) was 7 years old. Is she (Waters) credible?

A big deal has been made of Lott's opposition to blacks in his fraternity. But let's look at this. It was the early 1960's. Much of the nation, especially the south, was segregated. Mr. Lott didn't have much chance to deal with blacks socially. Once he did start to deal with them, he realized, as did Mr. Thurmond, that blacks were people too. It was also a case of PC back then. If you were white you weren't supposed to talk with blacks. If you were white, you were supposed to consider blacks to be only part human. That was the prevailing social rule of the day. Lack of contact makes it easy to demonize groups; only one side gets heard. Who controlled the south back then? Gee, wasn't it Democrats? In fact, Mr. Thurmond ran on the DIXICRAT ticket. Dixi-CRAT? Hmmm, wouldn't that have been a split from the Democrats? Yet, it is the Republicans who are the racists? No mention in the main-line press is ever made of Sen. "Sheets" Byrd (D-WV) former leadership position in the KKK. Sen. Sheets "reformed". Well gee, didn't Sen. Thurmond and Sen. Lott? Nope, they are Republican!

Folks, we need to end the Borking of our guys over lies! "It's got to end here".

PS. Just a note here. I use the term main-line media for a reason. The standard term of main-stream does not convey the fact that these people are injecting their poision directly into the blood stream of the American public.

This is a major point that the "I Hate Lott" bunch misses.

I don't like Lott either, but I damned sure don't want a bunch of liberal racists telling me who to hire and fire in my party!

It could have been me writing your article. BTW, here is my opening salvo re: the Democratic Socialist nature of the Democrat Party.

I demand Ms. Pelosi's resignation as she is associated with International Socialism.

Of course, any day now, the media will run with this little known information in it's quest to inform the public!

Nancy Pelosi - Democratic Socialist 0cents Stamp Products

I am from the Ms gulf coast and let me tell you, there is not one racist bone in Lotts body and the dems just want anouther 'appointed' Senate leader. True, Lott may have been a little weak in the past but I think this just may be the wake up call he needed. Don'l let him be Borked out of anything.

I don't like Lott either, but I damned sure don't want a bunch of liberal racists telling me who to hire and fire in my party!

That pretty much summarizes my feelings, too. Lott should have been demoted as Majority Leader a long time ago, but not JUST for this or for the outcry. He has unfortunately created what looks like a lose/lose situation for the Pubies - but I suspect Bush can turn it into a win with the proper ingenuity.

I have no doubt that Bush can cook up a bill that average minority voters will like but their plantation owners will rail against over symbolism or technicalities. I think Bush genuinely cares about making America a better place to live and work whereas the liberal elite only want to make a place that pleases their consciences and aesthetic whims - both of which are rooted in displaying their exclusivity and superiority, not inclusiveness.

This is a major point that the "I don't like Lott either, but I damned sure don't want a bunch of liberal racists telling me who to hire and fire in my party!": they sound just like the Dems defending Clinton.

The point is not 'who is attacking him' but 'what he said'. And 'what he said' was that we would all be better off if a segregationist had won the 1948 Presidential election. That is utterly reprehensible and it doesn't become any less so if the Dems are saying it too. Even if they are being perfect hypocrites about it.

Whoops!

This is a major point that the "I don't like Lott either, but I damned sure don't want a bunch of liberal racists telling me who to hire and fire in my party!" bunch misses: they sound just like the Dems defending Clinton.

Apologies for the omission.

Let's not forget all the outrage and outcry from the main line media when Nancy Pelosi told Harold Ford to sit down, shut up, and stay in the back of the bus where he belonged....when he dared to express interest in a leadership position in Congress.

Oh, you mean no one said a word, including the black caucus. You mean Marxine Waters wasn't out there raging against Miss Nancy?

I don't like Lott either, but I damned sure don't want a bunch of liberal racists telling me who to hire and fire in my party!

That pretty much summarizes my feelings, too.

I am sick of the dims getting away with their diatribes.

The dims don't want us to mention anything said or done by their leaders. They just want to talk about Lott. Al Sharpless wants Lott to step down as MajL, because a leader should not say what has been said. I agree Lott should not be so dumb.

But what about the "white n....r" COMMENTS by Byrd? As President Pro Tempore(sp?) of the Senate, HE IS FOURTH IN LINE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE USA!!!! That is really frightening! And unfortunately in these times it could happen.

The only problem is that the calls for Lott's head started on the right.

Jackson and Daschle & Co. kicked in to high dudgeon (typically) once they saw it was safe to do so.

I want Lott gone because of what he said and did, not because Jesse Jackson wants him to step down.

It's tempting to keep Lott on just to spite the Racial Hucksters, but this guy simply is not worth it.

In the end, Lott brought it on himself. His comments were indefensible. As was his failue to issue a real apology for several days afterwards.

In the end, Lott brought it on himself. His comments were indefensible. As was his failue to issue a real apology for several days afterwards.

That's it in a nutshell. If you look at the big picture, Lott has to go. If not, 2004 will be a disaster.

”Lott has to go. If not, 2004 will be a disaster.”

Really? Is that the reason the Democrats dumped Clinton after his first term? Because if they stayed with a flawed candidate they would lose?

Oh, I forgot, he was re-elected. Never mind.

We can not allow the racist black caucus and the dems to win. Lott is a much better person than these demigods. Lott must stay, and stay as majority leader.

I think that the white house must keep it's nose out this. Bush has said too much.If we are to be concerned about the dems forwarding their agenda,then we need to be concerned with bush.

And 'what he said' was that we would all be better off if a segregationist had won the 1948 Presidential election.

Grunt, you have missquoted Lott. This is what the left is doing, and the main reason this story has leggs.

"If you look at the big picture, Lott has to go. If not, 2004 will be a disaster."

Only if Lott's pushed out and we confirm the hateful lies of the left.

Quick question for you:--Do we drop each judicial nominee the dimms attack for being a racist, or a pro-lifer because we don't want to upset the 2004 gravy train?

Conservatives should have stopped this borking when it started. Instead, conservatives fueled the fire and turned this story into a split in the Republican party.

I'm starting to believe conservatives would rather fight than govern.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.