[zingzang]

This is another in the long string of black eyes for the Dems and the Media, who overplayed their hand and got exactly what they asked for. Their Issue Box has just been emptied. I don't agree. This just paves the way for the dems. The republican party has scattered like a bunch of chickens at the sight of a hawk. Bush sold out Lott and the party. They collectively showed no backbone. The witch hunt is just gathering steam. Look for a democrat in office in 2004.

[Wright is right!]

"I don't agree. This just paves the way for the dems. The republican party has scattered like a bunch of chickens at the sight of a hawk. Bush sold out Lott and the party."

You're seeing things thru the CNN Lens. It's optically distorted, which is why you're not seeing the true picture.

What you've just seen is a textbook example of a President taking lemons and making lemonade. Lott has been an ineffective leader - and, while his comments about Thurmond were unfortunate, at least they DID provide a golden opportunity to accomplish something that the GOP Senate Majority heretofore has lack the intestinal fortitude to do - dump him for someone who'll be effective and virtually bulletproof.

And the big loser here is the Media, who virtually enabled it all to happen.

Michael

[angkor]

Bush sold out Lott and the party.

Trent Lott has been a loose cannon, preening his own pompadour and ego and ignoring the GOP agenda for many years. Trent Lott's concern has been one thing and one thing only: Trent Lott.

Good riddance. It's about time.

Door, slam, butt.

[JPJones]

I don't agree. This just paves the way for the dems. The republican party has scattered like a bunch of chickens at the sight of a hawk. Bush sold out Lott and the party. They collectively showed no backbone. The witch hunt is just gathering steam. Look for a democrat in office in 2004.

Yes. Someone explain to me again why Lott had to resign? And why Clinton didn't have to...? Or algore, or Barney Frank, or Ted Kennedy....