The U.S. would have been better off if then-segregationist candidate Strom Thurmond had won the presidency in 1948. "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."

Wouldn't have had all "these problems"???

Thurmond during the '48 Campaign: "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches."

Read more here.

Lott's office issued just a short statement defending the remarks -- I'm surprised they were audible -- hard to be understood with ones head and mouth covered by that little white pointy hood ...

As far as Lott cares, we're no better than kleptomaniacs. I'm sure President Thurmond would have demoted all the colored troops to cooks and drivers.

I caught Lott's remarks during Strom's 100th birthday celebration on C-Span while flipping through channels during halftime of the Colorado-Oklahoma game. What caught my attention more than Lott's remarks was the short film tribute to Ol' Strom, during which it was said that his 1948 Dixiecrat run for the presidency was in protest of "big government"--didn't have anything to do with civil rights at all!

The local media, not surprisingly, are all full of sappy tributes & hagiography, all of which completely whitewash his days as a segregationist politician, or his conniving with Richard Nixon in formulating the "Southern Strategy" in 1968 after he had supposedly seen the light on civil rights, or his days as a hanging judge during the 1930s. (Imagine being black, in S.C., in the 1930s, accused of a crime, facing an all-white jury, & your judge is Strom Thurmond!) What's really whacked about S.C. & the South--in these days, in this context, Strom Thurmond was considered relatively liberal.

Ump, Bill 1865??

where are you guys on this one?

[quote]Originally posted by SFHoya:
Ump, Bill 1865??

where are you guys on this one?

---

Probably trying to figure out how this can be Bill Clintons fault.

raze; thanks for the chuckle of my morning!!!
Seriously though, Lott is a pinhead, plain and simple.

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

I'm flattered that you all look to me for political insights and analysis. Lott's comment was obviously a dumb thing to say. I suspect he didn't really think it through. I will say, though, that if Bill Clinton had helped the Democrats field a stronger candidate against Strom in 1996, Strom might have been beaten, and this might never have happened. Thus it really is Clinton's fault, if you think about it.

Great picture from Roll Call:

Strom and Marilyn Sittin' in a Tree

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
Great picture from Roll Call:

Strom and Marilyn Sittin' in a Tree

---

I know who the relic is in the orange hair, who's the drag queen?

Who says Strom never reached out to the gay community?

How would YOU like to have your ass grabbed by Ol' Strom?

Republicans with their pants down - Strom Thurmond

This is the sort of thing we mean by what will often distinguish the failings of the Republicans vs. the failings of the Democrats. When Democrats screw up they are usually either getting blowjobs or getting drunk, saying they created the internet or something like that. Republicans are saying things like this or what Lott has said about gays or scores of other hateful, evil things that show a more sinister core than what we see in the buffoonish antics of the more idiotic Democrats. I just sort of prefer that. And, the Democrats will also almost always at least apoligize for what they do or say it seems like Republicans will usually either just be mad it was reported, say it was misquote, or refuse to comment.

In Bush's defense, I think he falls into the more dumb than evil category, but unfortunately he has some creepy associates feeding things into his ear that he just repeats. If he can pronounce it.

Last night's 60 Minutes was a good example of it. They exposed on lie after another that both Bush administrations had cooked up to whip up sentiment for a war with Iraq. The worst was when they trotted that girl who claimed to be a Kuwaiti nurse in front of Congress who said tearfully when Iraq invaded Kuwait they went into hospitals and took babies out of incubators and left them to die on the cold floor. Turns out she was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador and made it all up to garner sympathy and outrage. Yuck. The used one of those after another and would actually get people to admit they knew these things were lies, but kept repeating them anyway. Maybe that's just politics in general, but sure is sickening.

One could plausibly argue that Trent Lott is just saying out loud what most southern Republicans are thinking. Strom at least had enough sense to know when it was time to shut up.

Yes, 60 Minutes was chilling. Bush #1 created lies and propaganda in order to sell his war and Bush #2 is doing the same. Republican politics, with the right wing at its back, always needs an enemy...whether that's just those they suspect of having too much fun, or those who worship/behave/believe differently from them - they always need a devil to battle and defeat. Whereas President Clinton's devil is within (self-control), the Bushes' and Thurmonds's of our world always think that their "devil" is out there...and deserves to be hanged.

Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond are the types who'll always find someone to blame and hate for their guilt and fear.

Which, of course, is all Bill Clinton's fault.

I am a die-hard Democrat and unabashed liberal (to a point - I am a free-market economist), but please let's not misconstrue Trent Lott's statements for some kind of Republican party line. I don't like the Repubs policies, but most are not anti-black bigots. Trent Lott clearly is.

From his days as a cheerleader at Ole Miss during the height of the civil rights movement, to his membership in the veiled racist Conservative Citizens' Council (or whatever it is they call it), he has clearly never accepted that black people are equal to white people. I am very sure he thinks the country would have been better off if the segregationists had won in '48, but Lott is simply immoral on this question. He thankfully does not speak for most Republicans, who have galloped into the 20th century.

[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
I am a die-hard Democrat and unabashed liberal (to a point - I am a free-market economist), but please let's not misconstrue Trent Lott's statements for some kind of Republican party line. I don't like the Repubs policies, but most are not anti-black bigots. Trent Lott clearly is.

---

While it may be that many republicans would take offense to what he said, you don't see them on the front of the Washington Post doing so. This silence and the approval of people like Lott as political and "moral" leaders of the Republican party implies agreement with what he's saying and doing. I think many should be considered "guilty by association" unless they have the conscience to point out that he marginalizes several groups within the American population. Often the decision to say nothing can speak volumes.

[quote]Originally posted by CPT_Doom:
He thankfully does not speak for most Republicans, who have galloped into the 20th century.

---

However, as Senate Majority Leader, he actually DOES speak for the Republican Party, at least those in the Senate.

If you are saying that Trent Lott is a bigot (which I'm not, necessarily), then choosing him as a leader does not speak well for the GOP.

[quote]Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond are the types who'll always find someone to blame and hate for their guilt and fear.

Which, of course, is all Bill Clinton's fault.

---

Hey, news flash, buddy: Somebody flew jumbo jets into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, and aimed another at God-knows-where before some courageous passengers stopped them. Who did all that? Our friends? No, that was the work of the enemy - an enemy that is, by your analysis, just a figment of Trent Lott's and Strom Thurmond's imagination (you give Senator Thurmond far more credit for his mental abilities at this point than I would). Dangerous enemies are all too real in this world, and defeating them and, in the case of Iraq, stopping them before they can do real harm to our country or the world, is an admirable and honorable goal.

For what it's worth, we had enemies while Clinton was President, as well, but The Big He was far too consumed with himself and his own enemies (the poor thing!) to do anything about it.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Hey, news flash, buddy: Somebody flew jumbo jets into the Pentagon and World Trade Center, and aimed another at God-knows-where before some courageous passengers stopped them. Who did all that? Our friends? No, that was the work of the enemy -

---

The problem is that according to Lott and Thurmond, some of the people who stopped that final plane from killing more were enemies as well. In fact, on September 10, 2001, Lott probably thought that Mark Bingham was a bigger danger to this country than Al Qaeda.

Those poor Republicans (see William's post) appear to have trouble differentiating between Arabs.

"Newsflash"
9/11 - mostly Saudis, under bin Laden's direction

Bush's current war plans - Iraq (a very bad guy, no doubt, but what evidence is there that he would use WMD's against the US?)

See also Mark Friedman's column today in the NYTimes.

It's quite obvious that Al-Quaeda represents a real threat to us. They ably demonstrated as much on 9/11 and often since.

While Saddam may be a murderous violent megalomaniac and a misery for his own people, I'm just not so sure that he represents a real threat to us. Much as I would like to see him gone (largely as a benefit to the suffering populace of Iraq), I'm just not convinced that we have any business doing so or that a war will accomplish more good than it will do harm, harm most obviously to our men/women in arms and civilian populations in Iraq, but most importantly to this nation's reputation and standing in the world and ultimately our ability to fight the real battle against our very clear enemy Al-Quaeda which we can not do alone.

Tha Saudis, despite their contentions and those of this administration to the contrary, are not our friends. The regime is at best duplicitous, the people, by and large, loathe us.

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Torgauer ]

hey newsflash, william: this thread is about Lott and Thurmond's bigotry not about 9/11...but perhaps that doesn't really bother you.

[quote]Originally posted by bryan d.:
hey newsflash, william: this thread is about Lott and Thurmond's bigotry not about 9/11...but perhaps that doesn't really bother you.

---

You're the one who said America didn't have any enemies except for the ones Lott/Thurmond dream up. I'm just saying I don't agree.

[quote]Originally posted by DC_guy:


The problem is that according to Lott and Thurmond, some of the people who stopped that final plane from killing more were enemies as well. In fact, on September 10, 2001, Lott probably thought that Mark Bingham was a bigger danger to this country than Al Qaeda.

---

So? That doesn't change the fact that 1. Mark Bingham et al were heroes, and 2. al Qaeda is still the enemy.

My point was just because the good vs. evil construct may work in one case, it is hurtful and discriminatory in other cases. Remember, you and I are the enemy in the eyes of these men as well.

William...no where in my post do I say anything remotely close to "America doesn't have any enemies."

Lott and Thurmond are of the cloth who need enemies, who establish and defend their position by opposing and despising others whether that's african americans, gays, or those who don't practice their religion.

Our prospective wars aren't seperate from this dogmatic kind of thinking - from either side. Militants on both sides of the planet want to rule. BUT, America doesn't fly jets into skyscrapers, and should emphatically defend itself against Al Queda. But this administration is using this necessary war to wage and fight unneccessary wars both domestic and foreign.

If we are going to take it upon ourselves to disarm every evil leader in this world, we are in for a long, bumpy night. And if we want to take out every meglomaniac who has and is oppressing his own people we might as well reinstitute the draft because we will need everyone for the front lines as we will be having a full time job coming our way. Al Queda and Iraq are not the same thing, as much as Bush might want them to be, I think that's the bottom line. So playing the Al Queda card when discussing Iraq is simply a red herring. The link between the two that Bush has been claiming was proved by a supposed meeting, was also acknowlged as a lie by his own administration officials last night.

I just think the American public in entitled to the truth. Most especially if they are to be expected to send their children to die for something. And for Bush and company to hire a PR firm (which they did and are proud of doing) and then spread disinformation to their own people and others is reprehensible.

Here's what you wrote: "Republican politics, with the right wing at its back, always needs an enemy...whether that's just those they suspect of having too much fun, or those who worship/behave/believe differently from them - they always need a devil to battle and defeat. Whereas President Clinton's devil is within (self-control), the Bushes' and Thurmonds's of our world always think that their "devil" is out there...and deserves to be hanged."

I don't see alQ mentioned in here anywhere. Perhaps you should be more clear next time.

[quote] However, as Senate Majority Leader, he actually DOES speak for the Republican Party, at least those in the Senate.

If you are saying that Trent Lott is a bigot (which I'm not, necessarily), then choosing him as a leader does not speak well for the GOP.

---

I am not sure whether it speaks well for the GOP or not. I was appalled that no cabinet member had the guts to resign the day Clinton admitting lying to them (and whatever he may or may not have said to the American people, he most assuredly lied to his closest confidants in his administration).

I don't think the current Republican leadership is good for this country, have any idea how to run it for the long term, or have any goals for our upcoming war, other than restoring the Bush family name. However, I don't think the party is at heart bigoted, in that they believe the country would have been better had we remained segregated.

Trent Lott, however, is most assuredly a bigot, and the Republicans have rallied around him in general because he's a good politician - I'm sure he has political clout and capital, and the party is going with the guy they think can help them the most. Mayor Cianci in Providence, RI had the same type of support, even as he is embroiled in a corruption scandal (one of those real corruption scandals, not like the alleged corruption of the Clinton White House). Party faithful will always rally around a political figure, until that figure makes a huge misstep. Lott has not done that yet.

[ January 02, 2003: Message edited by: Ump25 ]

duplicate-delete

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

[quote]Originally posted by mattkorey:
When Democrats screw up they are usually either getting blowjobs or getting drunk, saying they created the internet or something like that.

---

I *never* said I invented the Internet, and you know it.

Krugman's column in the _NYT_

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: twin58 ]

After reading more about Lott's words and the occasion, I don't think he was endorsing Thurmond's early bigotry. He was using hyperbole to toast Thurmond's birthday. I think they're both nutcases but I don't think this is any big deal.

And William, read my original post. The comments you quoted were comments on Sunday's 60 minutes segment about Bush but you left that out. I know subtlety and discernment are foreign to you, but come on, my post isn't that hard to understand. Everyone else seemed to get it.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

[quote]And William, read my original post. The comments you quoted were comments on Sunday's 60 minutes segment about Bush but you left that out. I know subtlety and discernment are foreign to you, but come on, my post isn't that hard to understand. Everyone else seemed to get it.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

---

So you're saying that 60 Minutes makes up enemies? Or that 60 Minutes just says Bush makes up enemies, but that doesn't reflect your opinion? Do you think Bush makes up enemies or not? Is al Qaeda's only crime that they worship and behave differently than we do (hey, just because they flew some planes into some buildings and killed some people, all in the name of Allah, who are we to judge? They just behave differently and worship differently than we do!) Your quote was obviously an attack against the Bushes and Thurmonds of the world, as I believe you put it, and now you're just backtracking from it because you realize your rhetoric trivializes the brutal slaying of some 3,000 innocent people. And remember: There's a difference between getting something and analyzing it.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

More interesting history on the republican leader:

* In a mid '80s speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans in Biloxi, Miss., Lott declared: "The spirit of Jefferson Davis lives in the 1984 Republican platform."

* In 1998, it was revealed that Lott had spoken several times to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a "racialist," neo-white supremacist organization. Lott claimed that he didn't know about the organization's philosophy, believing it to be a benign "conservative" group. In fact, he had written a regular column for the CCC's "Citizen's Informer" publication. And members of Congress rarely write for an outside group's publication without getting an idea of what the group advocates.

And Lott's uncle popped up to say that his nephew well knew what the CCC was about. Just 10 years ago, Lott praised the CCC's philosophy. A year before it all came to light, Lott hosted the CCC in Washington.


P.S. Was Mark Bingham a kleptomanic?

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:
P.S. Was Mark Bingham a kleptomanic?

---

Lott didn't say that all gays were kleptomaniacs. He compared gay rights legislation to legislation protecting kleptos or somebody else. A faulty analogy, for sure, but he did not make a direct connection between gays and kleptomania.

For what it's worth, I don't know the first thing about Mark Bingham, other than he seemed like a nice guy and showed a great deal of courage in joining his fellow passengers in a revolt against the hijackers. For all any of us know he was the biggest SOB in the world, and maybe so was Matthew Sheppard for that matter. Clubbing people over the head with the allegedly threatened reputations of gay heroes is just useless, I can't imagine the point of it.

What Lott did in that interview was compare homosexuality with alcoholism or kleptomania, in other words, to equate it with a disease or a condition that has harmful effects on other people or on society. He was stating the conservative view that homosexuality is BEHAVIOR & nothing more, & certainly not something that should have legal protections or minority status. According to this view, homosexuality should be criminalized, repressed or (to those who profess compassionate conservatism) treated, rather than tolerated or accepted. As they say, "hate the sin & love the sinner".

This was what Trent Lott was trying to say, & it is a view in accord with a majority of the Republican Party and reflected in its party platform.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Billy ]

[quote]Originally posted by Billy:
This was what Trent Lott was trying to say, & it is a view in accord with a majority of the Republican Party and reflected in its party platform.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Billy ]

---

Hopefully we can get a Log Cabin republican apologist to explain to us what Lott REALLY meant.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Fish biting ...]

Lott's words speak for themselves in the context in which they were presented. Anything else from anyone else is irrelevant and unfounded speculation. I'll leave that to your indulgence.

BTW, "how dare you presume Log Cabin supports Lott?" Membership in our group does not equate to blind acceptance of all GOP leaders; in fact, it usually implies a loyal opposition to them, especially when they make stupid comments like Lott continues to do.

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
BTW, "how dare you presume Log Cabin supports Lott?" Membership in our group does not equate to blind acceptance of all GOP leaders; in fact, it usually implies a loyal opposition to them, especially when they make stupid comments like Lott continues to do.

---

Just curious, do you support Tom DeLay?

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Just curious, do you support Tom DeLay?

---

Glad you asked, Raze. I'm a huge fan of Tom Delay. He is not afraid to be his own man and say what he really believes, despite a media-driven culture that is ready to attack. Even if Delay hates my guts because I'm gay, he wants to cut my taxes and let me own a gun. That means, even if he is a tyrant, I will have the resources and protection to defend myself against it. (Rest assured, though, the DC goverment does more than enough to whittle away or even completely remove these advantages). So assuming Delay is homophobe, his is a homophobia with one hand tied behind its back.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

I think William has a point that none of us will probably ever be in total agreement with any politician on everything. I didn't agree with Clinton on some things and he doesn't agree with DeLay on some things, but he likes DeLay and I like Clinton, so there you go. We just have different things that we find important on which we should agree. If Clinton hated my guts because I was gay, I wouldn't support him no matter what else I liked about him, but that's just me. To each his own, I suppose.

I'm from Tom DeLay's home district and used to be a newspaper reporter there and have met and interviewed him a few times. He's very nice and charming, and nice looking for his age and all that. However, I remember at the time thinking this guy is being so charming and nice and friendly, but he would absolutely hate me if he knew I was gay. I guess I just don't like that feeling. He was giving me all that line about how we have to protect family values like "ours" and on and on. I'm all for family values believe me, I would just imagine we have different definitions of what that is, and he wouldn't even think I qualify for it.

No can do.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:


Glad you asked, Raze. I'm a huge fan of Tom Delay. He is not afraid to be his own man and say what he really believes, despite a media-driven culture that is ready to attack. Even if Delay hates my guts because I'm gay, he wants to cut my taxes and let me own a gun.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

---

Which elected official do you think doesnt want you to "own a gun?"

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

Me, personally? Because that's the only person I can speak for. I have mixed feelings about the guy. As with Wm, I admire his forthrightness, strong defense mindset and fiscal conservativism, but don't appreciate his gratuitous anti-gay remarks. That's what I think of him; others in the GOP may well differ but I don't presume to speak for them. Don't you either.

I will tell you whom I DO like: Cong. Bill Thomas, (R-Bakersfield) who is intelligent, progressive, courageous and open minded enough on gay rights to suit me and those working for change within the GOP. I'll never forget his telling Bill Simon to shut up, go home and do his homework after he was unable to answer the simple question of how he'd reduce the size and cost of CA government a few years ago at a GOP conclave just after Simon spoke. That he did it all with panache and style made him all the more admirable in my mind. Former Cong. Tom Campbell (R-Silicon Valley) is another, but he's running Cal's u-grad school of business now and has left politics.

Since you've expanded the debate, let me take it across the aisle by telling you that I cannot abide Barney Frank, nor his sister whom he comfortably installed in a White House sinecure during the last - I won't say the "C word" unless I must - administration. His personal morals and manners reflect poorly on me as a gay man, his politics are as divisive and polemical as they are ineffective, and he's nothing more than an old-line, urban machine Democrat who just happens, to the loss of the rest of us, to be gay.

[quote]Originally posted by RazorbackTX:


Which elected official do you think doesnt want you to "own a gun?"

---

Well, for starters I could post you a list of all DC elected officials. (We have a small pistol-style BB gun in our house - a relic of someone's college days - that a policeman friend of mine warns is actually illegal and could cause problems were it somehow discovered.) Then we could move on to the national level.

From Krugman:

Last week, at Strom Thurmond's 100th-birthday party, Mr. Lott recalled Mr. Thurmond's 1948 race for the presidency. "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."

What, exactly, did Mr. Lott mean by "all these problems"? Mr. Thurmond ran a one-issue campaign: "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race," declared his platform.

Is it possible that a major modern political figure has sympathy for such views? After all, the Bush administration includes figures like Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice; some of Mr. Lott's best friends . . . Yet during the 1990's he was extensively involved with the Council of Conservative Citizens — a descendant of the White Citizens Council — telling them at one point that they "stand for the right principles and the right philosophy." When this came to light in 1998, Mr. Lott declared himself ignorant of the group's aims. Was he also ignorant of the aims of the 1948 Thurmond campaign? Or was he just, in the excitement of the moment, blurting out his real views?

Lott's comments speak for themselves. He has been, is, and will remain a blatant racist, and it is very unfortunate that he is the leader of the Republican Party in the U.S. Senate. Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond are two other tumors who thankfully are no longer poisoning the senior legislative body. However, the GOP has as its TOP official the President, George W. Bush, whose politics in general I dislike, but who has shown himself repeatedly not to be a racist or to carry the racial animosities that have plagued the state he used to govern. I can't say this for his father, for Reagan, or for the virulent racist Richard Nixon, so George W. Bush, in this regard, does represent a breath of fresh air. Whatever one may say about CondoleezZa Rice and Colin Powell, they are NOT functioning as Mammy/Topsy or Uncle Tom respectively, despite Harry Belafonte's protestations, in this administration--the President does listen to and work with them, whatever his other advisors may think, feel and say.

The Democratic Party is itself hardly free of racial problems. In the last New York City mayoral election, Black and Latino voters balked at supporting the Democrat, ultraliberal Mark Green, because members of his staff attempted to use race to gain support for white voters. The result was the election of Republican Mike Bloomberg. In Maryland, Black voters offered only tepid support for Kathleen Kennedy Townsend when she bucked at picking a Black running mate (in a state that is more than a quarter African-American) while her Republican challenger did not hesitate to do so. Her attempts to paint him as an extremist failed, as did her candidacy.

The MAIN reason Mary Landrieu won in Louisiana, a U.S. state that has one of the highest percentages of Black residents (around 34% or so), is because Blacks turned out to vote for her. Yet before the runoff against a Republican fembot, she was fleeing as quickly as possible from her Black constituency, and she unfortunately is not the only Democrat to do so. Bill Clinton more than once took Black voters for granted, but given the paucity of other options, the majority still voted for him. (His recent nonsensical comments on the 2002 elections show he is totally out of touch and should shut up and let others have the limelight.) He may have been culturally simpatico with Blacks, but as with LGBT people, he also knew how to use and turn on these constituencies for his own political gain.

If the Republicans were to put economically conservative, non-racists in top leadership positions, and run someone like Colin Powell, you'd see the party get at least 40% of the Black vote easily. I mean, even L.L. Cool J supported George Pataki over his likeable but lackluster Democratic challenger, Carl McCall. Instead of the Clintonian triangulation formula, the Democrats need to get back to principles and positions that embrace the broad array of voters who make up their natural constituency.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

[ December 18, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Whoopi Goldberg said on "The View" this morning that Trent Lott "Is the face of Republicans".

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
BTW, "how dare you presume Log Cabin supports Lott?" Membership in our group does not equate to blind acceptance of all GOP leaders; in fact, it usually implies a loyal opposition to them, especially when they make stupid comments like Lott continues to do.

---

This brings to mind something I've been wondering: is there a breaking point? If someone like Lott makes these comments again and again and again and AGAIN, and if the party and its policies encourages him to continue making these comments (if not directly, then indirectly by failing to sanction him), is there a point where you see Log Cabin taking a stand and saying, "Enough is enough--if there aren't significant improvements soon you'll lose our group's support in all races no matter how much we like the candidate"?

As I mentioned before, I don't vote for any Republican candidates now. I did in the past--and for a few years I was actually registered as an independent because I was not happy with either party. But for me the rise of Newt and his gang in the '94 elections was my breaking point. I re-registered as a Democrat and haven't voted for any Republican since.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

William - Your attacks are moronic. I stand by my earlier comments regardless of your extensive effort to accuse me of not supporting the war on Al Queda. In fact, your tactics are exactly the same ones the Republican party has used for the last year to try and silence the Democrats...accusing them of being unpatriotic if they offer any resistance to pushing through war plans and military budgets. What a load of crap, William.
.