[steve50]

All the support I've seen spoken for Lott is based on pure partisan politics. Could some of the conservatives here give a reason to support his remaining as leader based on something other than the R after his name, I can't come up with any.

[Registered]

Listen, we have to look at the *BIG* picture here.

The Dems are orchestrating this barrage against Lott so that the Senate Republicans get new leadership, not because of their superficial moral outrage.

If the next leader is a STRONG Conservative Republican, do you realize that the LIBERAL-LEANING Republicans will be wined and dined to pull a switch just like Jim Jeffords.

So the new STRONG Conservative Leader that we all WANT might only last a few weeks!!

GET IT?!

[pgkdan]

All the support I've seen spoken for Lott is based on pure partisan politics. Could some of the conservatives here give a reason to support his remaining as leader based on something other than the R after his name, I can't come up with any.

Could that be because the position of Senate Majority Leader is a PURELY political posistion. D'ya think?

[ZULU]

Based on the initial remarks he made, he stated that he wished Thurmond had won the election back in '48 and the U.S. would have been a better country. I doubt if Lott knew all the details of Thrumond's agenda beyond the fact that it was a conservative one. I'm a politically active conservative about Lott's age and I didn't even jnow Thurmond ran for office in '48. Segreation may have been a part of Thurmond's agenda, but I doubt it was all of it, and Lott isn't the first politician to develope a case of foot-in-mouth- itis. It isn't that Republicans are more prone to this, its just that the media is selective in its targets.

As for the slimeballs in the news media dragging up Lott's past and alleged segregationist activities, this was common 40 years ago with many whites and not all of them were in the south. The important thing is what Lott thinks at present, and a congrtaultory remark praising a 100 year old man is hardly indicative of a continuing pattern of racism.

If Lott is removed on this basis, that senile old bastard Byrd from West Virginia should follow him as he was an active member of the Ku Klux Klan, and Bill Clinton's $200,000 + allowance from the American people should be cut off because he gave an award to Senator Fulbright from Arkansas, a former segregationist.

I also don't particularly care for Lott as he is a poor leader and not aggressive enough with the DemocRATs. On the other hand, its time for the Republicans to unbuckle their belts, pull down their pants, and check to see if they still have a complete set of testacles.

If a Democrat had said what Lott said, the media, the NAACP and the other left-wing thought NAZIs in the country would have ignored it.

The Republicans, by dumping Lott, will lose far more votes among white southerners than they will ever gain from blacks anywhere. If the fact that black activists can make such a tempest out of teapot over this in the face of an administration which has two highly visible black Americans in positions of high and visible power no DemocRATic regime ever had them in, says a lot about the hypocracy of these groups and their hidden agenda.

[SerpentDove]

>>All the support I've seen spoken for Lott is based on pure partisan politics. Could some of the conservatives here give a reason to support his remaining as
leader based on something other than the R after his name, I can't come up with any.<<

CLINTON PLAYBOOK #14: Put party above principle.

[JohnGalt]

Southern Heritage has been adopted as a winning Republican issue. If he steps down, the Dem's will neutralize the issue by immediately starting with the "Northeast Country Clubbers telling us what's okay to think."