Will We Get Rid of Lott?

So, you've all probably heard about Trent Lott's remarks on Strom Thurmond.

By "we" I mean the Republican party, so this is obviously targeted at the conservatives on the board, nonetheless, everyone's welcome.

Do you think Trent Lott should be forced out? You think he'll, then, leave the Senate (and probably hand control to the Democrats?) What do you think will happen if he's not forced out of the position?

I absolutely think he ought to go, I think he'll stay on, I'm hoping that, and I think the party will set itself back 30-40+ years in the minds of many possible, prospective Republicans, completely self-defeating. Even considering how goofy and worthless the Democrats are right now, this would, could turn into a hell of a campaign issue in 2004.

Plus, party politics aside, a pro-segregationist, in any way, isn't the right person to be anywhere near the head of our party. It's the goddamned party of Abraham Lincoln, people like Lott are stupid Democrats we picked up in the 50s and 60s. Any attachment to racism doesn't belong in the party, and should be tossed out.

Lott should've stepped down from Party Leader a long time ago; he's not very good at managing the party as it is.

If he steps down, or is forced down, I don't see him resigning from Senate. That would be utterly childish. And if he did, we'd still have a 51-49 Senate, so we'd still retain "control".

Yeah, but Lincoln Chaffee is basically a Democrat anyways - give him any good reason to switch sides (he's like Jeffords), and he'd do it.

Possibly, but Zell Miller is basically a Republican, so he could switch as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy Carter
Lott should've stepped down from Party Leader a long time ago; he's not very good at managing the party as it is.

If he steps down, or is forced down, I don't see him resigning from Senate. That would be utterly childish. And if he did, we'd still have a 51-49 Senate, so we'd still retain "control".

---

I have to agree with Mr. Carter. I personally think that too much is being made of the comments (isn't that always what happens?) but politically I can see them as being very damaging to the Party in 2004. The Bush administration did the right thing by rebuking Lott, but the party should really remove him from his post.

I don't see why Lott should resign his seat, but it wouldn't cripple the GOP if he did. He's from Mississippi, right? Which party controls Jackson?

Lott is a complete joke, always has been. The sooner he resigns from the leadership position, the better it will be for Republicans and the worse it'll be for Democrats.

Stone: when the hell did you become a Republican? I seem to remember you as more of a Democrat during the GG!/ECM days.

yeah... so uh... what did he say?

school=no time to keep up on world events

I think he should step down, if only to get rid of that horrible guy's impressions of him on SNL. What's his name? I hate that guy.

I really don't know if he's racist or not, regardelss of whether he (oh yeah, and Southern Democrats, too, for that matter) have remained kind of cozy with the lingering "State Rights" folks (i.e., separatists). Doesn't matter. He actions were (and have been) stupid. The Republican party has it bad enough without overtly stupid people at the helm. Bust him down, and quickly.

Anybody hear about Clinton's opinions on all this? From the blurb I saw on CNN today, he was saying that 'this is the type of stuff the Republicans say behind closed doors.'

Believable?

Wasn't the original remark Lott made this time just about wishing Thurmond became president back in 1948? Now segregation may have been implied, but he didn't actually say it. Democrats are just whining right now because they are in the biggest fix right now regarding their position in the senate. They want to take anybody down any way possible, even if it comes down to trying to grill somebody over a few words that didn't amount to anything.

Lott probably is a segregationist, or at least like-minded. Big deal. My state's senator is a "former" KKK member, Robert Byrd of WV. Byrd has been in office for as long as I can remember, and nobody complains at him. And also, he's a democrat. Notice nobody whining about him.

Lott isn't going anywhere over these words. If he resigns, he's a big retard.

If he resigns it'll be because of the bad press. Anybody see the spoof on SNL last week? Yeah, that's pretty hard to live down. But, I've seen lesser men do it, so...

I think he should step down as majority leader, but should retain his seat. His comment was obviously completely out of place and as a republican he should think about the effect his staying as majority leader would have. Clearly though, thinking for the party would also mean that he should stay and support them with his seat. As for the moral implications of his statement, I don't know if he really has supported segregation all these years, his comments are no worse than I have heard from Democrats (I won't even begin to comment on "black racism"..). He has made an attempt to apologize and state the views that he is against segregation so I really don't see this as a big moral issue. I am quite disappointed with his comments on his newfound support for affirmative action, I am disappointed but not suprised, this is the same man who betrayed his principles during the Clinton Impeachment (Read Sellout by David Schippers). Affirmative action is of course completely wrong as a principle, success should be based solely on merit, not government intervention for any reason, reverse discrimination especially. It does sound like most of the party is putting their support behind the movement for him to step down, clearly this is the best for the party and if he has any sense of dignity and honor he would do it so as not to hurt the issues that the republicans support. Why is it that I get the feeling that he will continue to fight the move for him to step down until it becomes even more of a painful issue?...

As for the comment about republicans being the party of lincoln, that really isn't something that should be promoted. The popular idea is that Lincoln's sole intent was to liberate the slaves and destroy slavery as an institution and that it was the sole motivating cause of the civil war, this simply isn't true. Lincoln himself was a racist as can be seen from *many* of his speeches as well as his actions (he was a lifelong advocate of colonization, that is colonization of black people into any other country other than the US). Lincoln also destroyed our concept of government as it was originally envisioned by our founding fathers and was responsible more than any other person for bringing about the birth of the Leviathan state. I prefer to take an objective look at the facts rather than hold up some glorified view of a man simply because everyone else does the same. It is time that the republican party chooses to support either the ideals of Lincoln, or the ideals of Jefferson. I cannot be both ways... (If these points are going to become a major issue of debate we can always start a new thread).

As for states rights, it is not inherently a racist platform or ideal. It just had a small, strong vocal section that advocated segregation. And as can be clearly seen in Thomas Jeffersons own statements, the statements of many other founding fathers and the notes taken from the first Federal Convention, individual states had the right to secede until the civil war.

Apparently all the major news stations are reporting that Lott is going to resign as Senate GOP leader.

Let us hope that this helps change things within the GOP.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by burgundy
I have to agree with Mr. Carter. I personally think that too much is being made of the comments (isn't that always what happens?) but politically I can see them as being very damaging to the Party in 2004. The Bush administration did the right thing by rebuking Lott, but the party should really remove him from his post.

I don't see why Lott should resign his seat, but it wouldn't cripple the GOP if he did. He's from Mississippi, right? Which party controls Jackson?

---

What Burg said - I think he said stupid things, not that he's a card-carrying Klan member. To save party face and to make sure the whole doesn't lose integrity (preceived or otherwise), he needs to go.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ginaman
Wasn't the original remark Lott made this time just about wishing Thurmond became president back in 1948? Now segregation may have been implied, but he didn't actually say it. Democrats are just whining right now because they are in the biggest fix right now regarding their position in the senate. They want to take anybody down any way possible, even if it comes down to trying to grill somebody over a few words that didn't amount to anything.

Lott probably is a segregationist, or at least like-minded. Big deal. My state's senator is a "former" KKK member, Robert Byrd of WV. Byrd has been in office for as long as I can remember, and nobody complains at him. And also, he's a democrat. Notice nobody whining about him.

Lott isn't going anywhere over these words. If he resigns, he's a big retard.

---

This is why I tend to say the media will overlook transgretions on the left... ^^U

Wait...so when did he say this remark, exactly?

And what was the remark?

It was on Strom Thurmond's birthday. I don't know the exact words, but he was trying to flatter the guy by saying we'd be better off in this world if won the Presidential election he had run for back in the day. Problem is, Strom ran on the Dixicrat ticket, a third party that was all for nationwide segregation and their party literature was pretty lame and racist. So...Lott compliments Strom, people construe it as Lott's hidden racist agenda finally showing, and they call for his resignation.

Hmm...well, if recent, while no crime, perception becomes reality, and he should go.

Personal responsability, it's the failing of this country, and I'd actually give him a begruding respect if he accepted it as such and then stood down. Of course, that's the political 3rd rail, but such is life.

BTW, what what was Thurmond, like 80 back then when he ran? He's more of a corpse than Yamauchi, and that takes some doing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Briscobold
Anybody hear about Clinton's opinions on all this? From the blurb I saw on CNN today, he was saying that 'this is the type of stuff the Republicans say behind closed doors.'

Believable?

---

Right. The guy who used to hang out on 125th St. in Harlem in the late 60's because he was so comfortable being there and it felt like home.:rolleyes: Our 'first African American president.'

Lott was stupid for saying what he said, but I think this has been way overplayed by the Democrats because they basically have nothing right now to stand on. It's always easiest to villianize your foe when you can't seem to make any headway otherwise.

Lott needs to step down from Majority Leader. But he'd be a baby to resign entirely if he has to step down.

--Scourge .

Woohoo - he stepped down, but he's not resigning. I'm pretty happy about this, overall - and the great thing is, he stepped down because of pressure from Republicans, not Democrats.

Yay!:)

Good news!

Indeed!

Has he been replaced or will they hold a vote? Not sure how that part works. I think they have to hold a vote.

--Scourge .

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ginaman
Wasn't the original remark Lott made this time just about wishing Thurmond became president back in 1948? Now segregation may have been implied, but he didn't actually say it. Democrats are just whining right now because they are in the biggest fix right now regarding their position in the senate. They want to take anybody down any way possible, even if it comes down to trying to grill somebody over a few words that didn't amount to anything.

Lott probably is a segregationist, or at least like-minded. Big deal. My state's senator is a "former" KKK member, Robert Byrd of WV. Byrd has been in office for as long as I can remember, and nobody complains at him. And also, he's a democrat. Notice nobody whining about him.

Lott isn't going anywhere over these words. If he resigns, he's a big retard.

---

Uh, no. This is what he said, at Mr. Thurmond's 100th birthday party:

"I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

The honourable Mr. Thurmond, at the time, ran on a platform demanding the strict separation of black and white in the South. Separate schools and hospitals. Blacks at the back of the bus. "On the question of social intermingling of the races, our people draw the line," Mr. Thurmond told a crowd in Jackson, Miss. "And all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches, and our places of recreation and amusement."

If you think that's "grilling over a few words that didn't amount to anything", then you need to have your head checked. This isn't the "left wing media" (a conspiracy which doesn't exist - see Murdoch, Rupert) "whining". This is a guy getting up and saying "if only everyone had voted to keep segregation and deny the black man civil rights, everything would have been fine".

I sincerely hope that's not the type of sentiment you want found at the top of your country's government.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
Uh, no. This is what he said, at Mr. Thurmond's 100th birthday party:

"I want to say this about my state. When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

The honourable Mr. Thurmond, at the time, ran on a platform demanding the strict separation of black and white in the South. Separate schools and hospitals. Blacks at the back of the bus. "On the question of social intermingling of the races, our people draw the line," Mr. Thurmond told a crowd in Jackson, Miss. "And all the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches, and our places of recreation and amusement."

If you think that's "grilling over a few words that didn't amount to anything", then you need to have your head checked. This isn't the "left wing media" (a conspiracy which doesn't exist - see Murdoch, Rupert) "whining". This is a guy getting up and saying "if only everyone had voted to keep segregation and deny the black man civil rights, everything would have been fine".

I sincerely hope that's not the type of sentiment you want found at the top of your country's government.

---

Duh... I already knew all this. I didn't mention anything of a conspiracy. I merely said the democrats are pissed that they have lost the senate majority. Misery loves company, so right now they will try to construe everything they can to bring a repubican down. There is no higher level to it.

As for people with segregationist feelings ruling our land, I live under it in my state. You can't be openly racist these days due to laws. So what is the big deal over somebody who feels that way? Our system of government keeps that line of thought in check for the most part. I certainly feel Lott is entitled to his own thoughts, right or wrong. What he said at a party, which again, he didn't actually outright say he wanted blacks seperated from whites, shouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

But he is certainly a retard for stepping down.

To say that there isn't bias in the media towards the left is simply inane. Where are the outcries in the press for Robert Byrds resignation? I would think being a member of the KKK as well as having made so many of the racist comments he has would at least bring some outrage by some major news organizations.

"There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much." - Robert Byrd (March 2001).

He wrote "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union." - Robert Byrd (Three years after he claimed he ended his ties with the KKK).

He said he joined the KKK because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values.".

He also wrote that he would never fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

He also filibustered for more than 14 hours the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. An act supported by a majority of those so called "mean-spirited" Republicans.

Classy guy eh? No wonder the majority of the press isn't coming against him, those comments are nowhere near Trent Lott's... No, really...


As has been pointed out before, "In the 1992 presidential election, a mere 43 percent of Americans voted for Bill Clinton. That same year, 89 percent of Washington bureau chiefs and reporters voted for Clinton. Only 7 percent voted for George Bush.", "A higher percentage of the Washington press corps voted for Clinton in 1992 than did this demographic category: "Registered Democrats."". That is just one point among many that illustrates the inherent bias towards liberalism that is in the news media today. It isn't a "conspiracy", it is bias.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mrbogus
Duh... I already knew all this. I didn't mention anything of a conspiracy. I merely said the democrats are pissed that they have lost the senate majority. Misery loves company, so right now they will try to construe everything they can to bring a repubican down. There is no higher level to it.

---

As much as I hate to bring this up...you mean like the Republicans did with Clinton? "OMG, he got a blow job and DIDN'T TELL THE WORLD!" They're a party in opposition. It's their job to oppose, and unlike the Clinton thing this actually has political ramifications because...

Quote:

---

]
As for people with segregationist feelings ruling our land, I live under it in my state. You can't be openly racist these days due to laws. So what is the big deal over somebody who feels that way? Our system of government keeps that line of thought in check for the most part. I certainly feel Lott is entitled to his own thoughts, right or wrong. What he said at a party, which again, he didn't actually outright say he wanted blacks seperated from whites, shouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

---

...it's more than just his "thoughts", it's affected how he's voted on issues over the years. From today's edition of the Globe and Mail:

In his early days in Washington, he worked for Rep. William Colmer, a Mississippi Democrat who had once advocated segregation and continued to oppose civil-rights legislation. In 1982, he voted against the Voting Rights Act, which gave Washington the power to monitor southern elections to avoid practices that might disenfranchise blacks. In 1999, he faced questioning over his ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a descendant of the racist White Citizens' Council of the 1960s.

This in addition to his voting against creating Martin Luther King jr. day because he "didn't fully understand" Dr. King's importance in American life".

Quote:

---

by what he said at a party, which again, he didn't actually outright say he wanted blacks seperated from whites, shouldn't amount to a hill of beans.

---

He said "I voted for a guy who ran on a platform based on segregation, and I'm proud of it." How does that somehow not count?

Quote:

---

But he is certainly a retard for stepping down.

---

I have a very strong feeling it was a save-face maneuver - he was "allowed" to step down.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Teenwolf

To say that there isn't bias in the media towards the left is simply inane. Where are the outcries in the press for Robert Byrds resignation? I would think being a member of the KKK as well as having made so many of the racist comments he has would at least bring some outrage by some major news organizations.

"There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time. I'm going to use that word. We just need to work together to make our country a better country, and I'd just as soon quit talking about it so much." - Robert Byrd (March 2001).

He wrote "The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia" and "in every state in the Union." - Robert Byrd (Three years after he claimed he ended his ties with the KKK).

He said he joined the KKK because it "offered excitement" and because the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values.".

He also wrote that he would never fight "with a Negro by my side. Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

He also filibustered for more than 14 hours the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. An act supported by a majority of those so called "mean-spirited" Republicans.

Classy guy eh? No wonder the majority of the press isn't coming against him, those comments are nowhere near Trent Lott's... No, really...

---

That's absolutely vile. On the other hand, one Robert Byrd vs. Lott, Helms and Thurmond still puts the republicans ahead in the "getting away with crypto-Nazis" category. Still, you're right. More should be said, and maybe now it will be.

Quote:

---

As has been pointed out before, "In the 1992 presidential election, a mere 43 percent of Americans voted for Bill Clinton. That same year, 89 percent of Washington bureau chiefs and reporters voted for Clinton. Only 7 percent voted for George Bush.", "A higher percentage of the Washington press corps voted for Clinton in 1992 than did this demographic category: "Registered Democrats."". That is just one point among many that illustrates the inherent bias towards liberalism that is in the news media today. It isn't a "conspiracy", it is bias.

---

1. How the hell do you accurately compile stats like that?

2. Is it impossible that they felt he had the stronger platform? Obviously the majority of voters at large did as well that election.

3. Even still, how does one election determine a widespread ongoing bias?

4. Voting patterns do not indicate an actual bias towards reporting - the political tone of major media outlets is decided more by their audience and owner's particular leanings than it is the hired help.

Well, I called it; he stepped down. How am I not surprised. Judging by his original words, I'm not sure if he's a racist of just a stupid white guy.

Let me elabortate.

There are tons of people I know who aren't racist. They've been born and bred with the anti-racism schpeel. The thing is, regardless, they end up saying some stupidly racist (whether explicitly or implicity) comments. Do they mean it? Not really. mostly because they have no clue what they've just said and can't imagine what it sounds like from the P.O.V. of the person who said it.

I'm kinda curious if Lott just fucked up, but fucked big, because of the situation. For whatever reason I can't imagine a racist making such a comment and back-peddling so quickly. But mostly, this opinion stems from the dumb-asses I know, so whatev.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by StriderKyo
As much as I hate to bring this up...you mean like the Republicans did with Clinton? "OMG, he got a blow job and DIDN'T TELL THE WORLD!" They're a party in opposition. It's their job to oppose, and unlike the Clinton thing this actually has political ramifications because...

...it's more than just his "thoughts", it's affected how he's voted on issues over the years. From today's edition of the Globe and Mail:

In his early days in Washington, he worked for Rep. William Colmer, a Mississippi Democrat who had once advocated segregation and continued to oppose civil-rights legislation. In 1982, he voted against the Voting Rights Act, which gave Washington the power to monitor southern elections to avoid practices that might disenfranchise blacks. In 1999, he faced questioning over his ties to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a descendant of the racist White Citizens' Council of the 1960s.

This in addition to his voting against creating Martin Luther King jr. day because he "didn't fully understand" Dr. King's importance in American life".

He said "I voted for a guy who ran on a platform based on segregation, and I'm proud of it." How does that somehow not count?

I have a very strong feeling it was a save-face maneuver - he was "allowed" to step down.

That's absolutely vile. On the other hand, one Robert Byrd vs. Lott, Helms and Thurmond still puts the republicans ahead in the "getting away with crypto-Nazis" category. Still, you're right. More should be said, and maybe now it will be.

1. How the hell do you accurately compile stats like that?

2. Is it impossible that they felt he had the stronger platform? Obviously the majority of voters at large did as well that election.

3. Even still, how does one election determine a widespread ongoing bias?

4. Voting patterns do not indicate an actual bias towards reporting - the political tone of major media outlets is decided more by their audience and owner's particular leanings than it is the hired help.

---

I am always amazed at leftists seeming inability to acknowledge or even understand the concept that Clinton committed perjury and suborned perjury among other things. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX. People have been convicted of committing perjury about sexual acts. Congress had the legal and moral right and duty to impeach Clinton, he degraded the office through his illegal actions and showed that he had no honor.

So he worked for a democrat that once advocated segregation and who opposed civil rights legislation? Who cares, where are the outcries against Robert Byrd from this same paper? There are none... And maybe you don't realize this but many of our current politicians have to deal with people who have differing opinions than their own. It is illogical to assume or imply that simply because he worked for someone he then took on all that persons beliefs, or that he went to work for them simply because they held similiar views to his own. The Voting Rights Act was only amended in 1982, and there were many people who had differing views on proportional voting, that doesn't make you racist... "The problem with the 1982 legislation was that a key provision fundamentally changed the purpose of the original 1965 Act from supporting equal access to the polling booth for all persons, regardless of race, to attempting to guarantee proportional racial representation among elected officials. The debate on the 1982 Amendments was essentially whether civil rights legislation should guarantee equal opportunity or equal results.". I am against the changes for the same reason I am against affirmative action, and it goes directly against what Martin Luther King Jr himself proposed. As for the creation of Martin Luther King Jr day, I would be opposed to it. There are many more people who are much more deserving of a national day of recognition. We should lose the day for Lincoln and make it a Thomas Jefferson day. He did far more for this country than MLK Jr and Lincoln combined. Who cares what Lott's intent was, it is clearly the republicans who are forcing him out and clearly it is the wishes of almost all republicans and conservatives that he do so with dignity.

Jesse Helms? Please elaborate on the racist views he has proposed or supported.. Please don't even bother responding if you are talking about his comments about homosexuality, he has the right to make those comments and he does so based on his set of beliefs.

1. The poll was a Roper poll. "Another study conducted by Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter in 1979 through 1980 surveyed the views of journalists from the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, the three commercial television networks and public television (PBS), among others. The study concluded that journalists were skeptical of "traditional American institutions" and "well to the left of business elites."".

2. The major newspapers and news organizations decide to support certain candidates. Guess how long it has been since the NYT supported a Republican candidate? Can you say 50 years?... This is the same thing that has happened all over the mass media, they support liberals/leftists because they themselves are oriented that way.

3. One election doesn't prove anything. This is the same kind of attitude against conservatives and republicans that has been displayed for at least the past 50 years though.

4. They do indicate a bias in reporting, wth do you think they are supporting the candidates on? They support them on ideological grounds. You actually think "the political tone of major media outlets is decided more by their audience and owner's particular leanings than it is the hired help."? That is quite naïve. Try reading Propaganda by Jacques Ellul and Slander by Ann Coulter.

And Kyo with the rebuttal...

What bothers me is everyone is making a big deal out of this BUT NOT making a big deal out of the fact Strom Thurmond was in our government so long.

Thanks for bringing that up IronPlant, term limits are another needed check and balances needed in our government. :D

Not letting a known racist be in office forever is another. I mean he f8cking ran on that ticket. Why is Lott getting all the heat for saying something stupid, when Strom Thurmond RAN on those beliefes.

I'm not a Republican (nor a Democrat), but one good point in all of this has been those mentioning the fact of Clinton saying how big of a believer and admirer he is of J. William Fulbright, who was a huge segregationist and made some very racist statements over his lifetime. Even as recently as last October he honored the guy, talking about the utopian values of his "mentor."

Wonder if Democrats, because of this, would act the same way towards Clinton that they currently are against Lott.

And that isn't support for or against Lott either way. I just figure if you are going to point a finger and label somebody a racist, you should do the same to other people who have done similar acts, even if in your own party. But neither party is too good about blaming their own for the things they blame others for, are they?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by IronPlant
Not letting a known racist be in office forever is another. I mean he f8cking ran on that ticket. Why is Lott getting all the heat for saying something stupid, when Strom Thurmond RAN on those beliefes.

---

Did he RUN on those beliefs in his recent years? From what I know, and I could be wrong, but he honestly had a change of heart and realized the error of his previous thinking.

If the man honestly did have a change of heart and felt bad for his earlier views, then the people still calling him a racist are the ones that bother me.

Pathetic, I was suprised that Lott stepped down without making an enormous fuss about it and now we know why. They never should have given him this.

http://www.rollcall.com/pages/news/0...ws1223aaa.html