I wish the Republican caucus had the b***s to say they want a strong leader who'll stand UP to the Democrat Party apparatus--if he were removed for that reason, I'd support it.
But a racist he's not...I cannot support a removal for a bogus reason like that. Of course, he could now be removed for 'political' purposes, and that would be understandable. But the caucus, imho, should've come forward before and said, "Look, he's been elected leader precisely because he isn't the man the press is painting him to be. For others to paint him as a racist is to label all of us racist, and we clearly are not racist."
Just mho. RD
After the election, in which democrats lost the South, Pelosi makes a statement that republicans are extremists and that she's a moderate. Daschle soon covers the same talking points, and he says that the republicans will "move back the clock on civil rights" among other things.
Next, we have more democrats joining the chorus, talking about civil rights issues in regards to the war on terror, the status of the poor, etc.
And then? Trent Lott makes some informal comments than can be construed as somehow supporting segregation. Trent Lott lays the golden egg! The democrats now have an issue by which to gain access to the media and to push their "solution" to the new "extremist republican agenda." The media follows suit. Lott becomes the issue. Republicans become the issue. No longer are their questions concerning the democrats' policies (which would be natural given the fact that they lost an off-year election). Suddenly, the democrats are able, using a few sentences taken out of context, to deligitimize the new republican majority even before it's begun. Suddenly,the strategy gains traction.
And this is not a planned media event? Anyone who thinks this is about Lott and his stupid comments needs to consider a bit of recent political history, I think.