Whether they were or weren't racist isn't the issue, it probably doesn't matter. Lott lost on that one and earned the perception of being a racist (which in my humble and not really important opinion he may very well be). Regardless if I'm right or not, shaking that perception or at the very least not having it tarnish the Republican Party will be very difficult.
I felt that way too but we were talking about being leader then (I didn't want him to be in charge because of the perception and because I just wanted someone new. I remember calling Santorum's office, urging him to run 
). He'll get his name in the news for a day after this win and we'll move on.
Robert Byrd made some pretty bad comments FAR worse than Lott's. I'm not excusing Strom Thurmond either. All Lott said was the country would be better off if Strom Thurmond was President. He didn't say it was because of segregationsit policies. If that were the case, then I would put Lott in the same class as Byrd and Thurmond, but he never directly said anything. There is a very good chance Lott insinuated a rebirth of segregation, but I don't know that for sure.
I have no love for either Byrd or Lott...I'd rather not see someone who I feel is a racist in as the minority whip of the party of Lincoln.
Sorry phil, but I could care less if Lamar was openly preparing for rick's job...you might be a little jaded....but the writing was on the wall for some time...it might be polite to use a little more discretion, but Lamar did what he felt he had to do...its not like Lamar is some idiot novice...there was probably good reason for his actions.
I can perhaps understand why you prefer anyone to Lamar...but to prefer someone who will allow the media to portray the Senate GOP, or the whole party, as a bunch of segregationalist sheet wearers because someone slighted a lame duck candidate...is excessive.
