Everyone (well, at least many in the blogosphere) is demanding that Trent Lott step down after his stupid remarks about how much better off we'd be if Strom and the Dixiecrats had won in 1948.

I agree that he should step down, but not for the reason that many are putting forth--that he's apparently an unreconstructed racist and segregationist. I don't think that he is. I suspect that what he meant was that because Thurmond later changed his stripes, the turmoil of the sixties might have been avoided, though of course this makes no sense at all, since no one knows what Thurmond would have done later had he actually won in 1948 and had his segregationist world-view confirmed and rewarded.

There's nothing new here. I believe that he should resign for the same reason that I've thought that he should resign ever since he took the post six years ago--he's a politically tone-deaf idiot, a gutless wonder who presided over and enabled the sham trial in impeachment, and let the Democrats roll him time and time again. If he stays in power, he's quite likely to continue to do and say stupid things that will lose him the Senate, or at least more likely than most of his probable replacements.

The reason for him to resign is that that's exactly what Tom Daschle & Co. don't want him to do (whatever feigned outrage they may express over the latest incident). He's been far too useful an idiot for them.

I'm with you, Rand. I was originally cheered that Lott succeeded Dole instead of whoever had the seniority at the time, but since then he's been a consistent winner of the "Leave It to Beavis" award for most buttheaded politician.

I'm with you on this, too. Makes one long for the days of at least competent "get-along-go-along" Republicans like Michael (Gingrich's predecessor) and Dole or even Gerald Ford and Howard Baker. At least they had the excuse of being in the minority.

And I find a lot of the people doing the racism whine on this are trying to shore up their "open mindeness" independent credentials on the cheap-- "Hey, look, we criticize both sides!" It's an old leftist trick to turn one stupid statement into a political death sentence, and I find it distateful that people I otherwise find thoughtful falling for it in this instance.

Yes, he should have resigned years ago, but whatever it takes to get him out is OK by me.

Well not so fast, Let's judge the democrats by their history, having been the slavery party till
1865; the segregation party, from 1868-1964;The
reason they were able to get way with it, from
1877 on; was one: the Republicans were tired of
a generation of war and garrison duty in the South; and two; the election of 1876; whose results were due in no small part to voter
"nullification" . Consider who the alternative
would have been in the year of plessy; Williams
Jenning Bryan, whose civil rights policy can be
seen in his comment on Haiti, as Secretary of State. Then there was Wilson, who could have
won the party primary in Joberg, a generation
later. There was Harry Byrd,(no relation) who
was kind a cut rate thurmond back in 60. Let's
even cut to the '60 election. Kennedy appointed
Marshall & Rowan, yet also appointed Elliot and
Cox, all members in goodstanding of the Dixiecrat
club. And of course, the Republican role in the
passage of the '64 bill, that Thurmond, Byrd, Hollings, et al; all filibustered . Besides that
don't we have bigger fish to fry. Like a campaign
in Iraq, Al Queda et al

Narciso, I don't understand your point.

I wasn't defending Democrats. I was just saying that Lott is a fool, and the Republicans would be better off with a different leader.

Thanks for summing it up, Rand. I might add that Lott was a fool before he made that statement, and my already-fervent desire to see him out of leadership was only slightly increased by his statements.