[GoldenEagles]

First of all, you posted the same text twice, making it look twice as big as it should of looked! Sort of a Freudian slip there to make sure people wouldn't read it?

Now, I actually read it, and there's nothing in that huge block of text that sheds any negative light on the character of Senator Lott. To infer that there is something in there that makes him look dishonorable, is simply not true.

And anyway, it proves the point of the above article. Republican operatives have many issues with Trent Lott, but racism isn't one of them. They can't win on the merits of their actual grievances, so they are using this issue to stab this guy in the back. This is sick. And the whole country will see it that way. And they will end up shooting themselves in the foot because of it.

[ontos-on]

I agree that conservatives are using this opportunity to get rid of Lott--after having been outmanuvered by Lott advancing the time of the SML election to two weeks after the 11-5-02 elections.

I don't find him to be honorable as claimed in the article. This would mean he showed traits of character that were worthy of special praise. Not Trent. Fund's article reveal him to be a legislator who is himself oportunistic and seems actuated by the agenda of the moment --ultimately loyal to himself and his interest. I think if he had any greater interest, say like his party, the president or the country, he would recognize that he had made himself a liability as the public face of the GOP. Frankly, he is not that smart to pull off a Clintonian ruse, but Lott seems to strive to doing just that. He is failing that as we speak, and only making himself appear ridiculous. This is not honor.

George Will recently called him "an ineffective mediocrity". I would settle on that as an apt characterization. But no, not an honorable man. I do not have to prove he is dishonorable or worse [I do not want to argue that] to object to him being called "an honorable man."

Sorry, I posted it twice, BTW. In fact I did remove what I guess now was a third copy of hte article. Oh well.