[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.

[GoldenEagles]

If you go out of your way to object to calling someone an honorable man, the implication is obvious that you believe he is dishonorable. And when you make such a charge, even indirectly, you are duty bound to lay out the evidence.

That huge block of text that you posted contains no evidence. Its just an opinion of somebody else, and that person doesn't claim he is dishonorable anyway.

So, I repeat, that when you make such a charge, even indirectly, you are duty bound to lay out the evidence.

What is your evidence the Senator Lott is a dishonorable man? If you don't have any evidence, then the honorable thing to do would be to withdraw your objection.