Trent Lott stuck his foot in it. Over the years many politicians have done the same. Some paid a price, some did not. I believe in paying the price for our mistakes. It is not that Senator Lott made a verbal gaffe that made myself and most other conservatives refuse to support him. It is what that gaffe revealed. Most, on the other side of the aisle claim that it revealed a deep-seated racism. They have been searching his record (vainly,IMO) for evidence of that. I would, too. The only thing they found was he voted against a national holiday on a civil rights issue. There are many reasons for voting against new National Holidays including some weighty economic issues. Maybe it was racism, maybe it was not. Not much has been made of Lott's record since he supported many other issues that benefit the minorities of this land.

We need to be very careful who we choose to set up as a National heros. I say this as a great fan of Martin Luther King, but I am very much against Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan. I am against racism no matter WHAT color it is used against. If there is anything the Conservatives do NOT need it is a majority leader who makes such a statement and then in his apology declares it was because he didn't have a script. A person should not need a script to avoid making remarks that endorse a preference for the "good old days" of racism.

What happened as a result of Lott's mistake? Exactly what SHOULD happen, in my opinion. He was criticized soundly by his own party. I have read of only one half-hearted and hurried response that in any way suggested he should regain his position as majority leader. If Senator Lott had not backed down, there would have been a meeting and he would NOT have won. He would not have won for one simple reason. The majority of comservatives are not racists. Their anti-racism stance is one of principle and they are not the party who is famous for playing the "race card" in elections NOR IN LEGISLATION, if you go by the record and not by media interpretations. That is made clear by the facts.

There are racists in this country on both sides of the aisle. There always have been and it is disingenouous to claim otherwise. If Strom Thurmond could sit in the Senate for all those years without the Republic falling apart we are probably safe from the influence of racists. What we are NOT safe from is a political party who shows no hesitation in using any tactic, any meeting (even a funeral), any unjustifiable comment to keep alive the bitterness of our past history by cheapening the deeply important issues of racism. Not because they care but because to them it is nothing but a handy, albeit unethical, tool to use in an election. Rather than a party of principle, though many Democrats are principled, the party has become one of tactics. Dirty tactics, at that. One has only to look at the record to see that.

What party recently fought and won to keep a convicted felon in office? The Democrats. What party said that his actions of having a sexual relationship in the workplace, with an intern, was only about sex and no one else's business? The Democrats. They did it in spite of laws on the book at that time that would have seen any other CEO in the country fired and disgraced for the same exact actions committed by our president at that time.

Lott was a leader who made a terrible statement and paid the cost swiftly. He apololgized, as he should have. He backed away from seeking the role of majority leader, as he should have. Clinton, on the other hand, stayed on to embarrass and equivocate and lie. It is my opinion that Wm. Clinton is so bereft of principles that he does not even comprehend the underlying concepts of ethics and morality. To him, being glib and playing with semantics was an acceptable way of dealing with an issue of vast legal and ethical importance. He wanted to win and he used cheap, dirty and ILLEGAL tactics to do so. His actions showed that he did not care what it did to the country, he only cared that he survived without paying the price he deserved to pay. He did pay a large fine for lying to a Federal judge. Some say they would have done the same thing in his place. That means that they are as lacking in ethics and morality as he is. That is all it means. It in no way justifies what he did nor how he handled it. He did all this while he held the office of chief representative of the law. He did it while under oath to support and defend the law. A nation supposedly built on laws.

Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond were Democrats who left their party to run as Republicans. Thurmond ran as a Democrat in 1948. There is nothing wrong with anyone changing parties unless they did it as an election tactic and not as a matter of principle. It does seem to indicate that Republicans might need to be more careful about whom they give leadership roles to. Lott has made some remarks that disturbed me several times in the past years.

In 1948, Thurmond's racist Dixiecrats ran on a plank of segregation. They carried four states, not just Mississippi. In the 1920's, The Republicans had a plank of anti-lynching policies. The Democrats did not. Clinton's mentors were Orval Faubus and Senator Fulbright, two of the staunchest segregationists in recent political history. Clinton himself was sued by the NAACP while he was governor of Arkansas for not enforcing voting rights laws. There are many charges of racism in Clinton's past. He did exactly what Trent Lott appears to have done, which was to "play to the room". What kind of hypocrite does a man have to be to have the past that Clinton has on using racists for political gain and then coming out with some of the statements he and his wife have in recent days about the Republicans?

There are books out on Bill and Hillary Clinton's disrespect for the law and even what is considered commonly decent behavior. What version of ethics did they believe in when they stole everything from china to linens from the White House and Air Force One as they left office? Who could defend the disrespect of graffitti scrawled on the White House walls and the deliberate sabotage of computers that were property owned by and paid for by American citizens? Many Democrats condemned and censured the behavior of the Clintons. They are ethical human beings who saw the shameful behavior for what it was and I applaud them. They are people who believe principled behavior outweighs party loyalty. The midterm elections seem to show that many Americans feel as I do about any party using the unprincipled tactics of hatred.

In the elections of 1988, when Dukakis was running againt the senior George Bush. almost everyone remembers the charges of racism levelled at the Republicans for the tv ads featuring Willie Horton. Willie Horton was a criminal who, while on a work release program of the Dukakis governorship, raped and murdered a man and woman. To me the fact that he was black and the couple was white is irrelevant. The press said nothing about racism to the man who first brought the Willie Horton case to national attention. That man was Al Gore! It was only when supporters of Bush used the info in ads that charges of racism were used.

In recent years, the Democrat party has returned to it's not so old racist policies, the only thing that changed was the race they attacked. To me, and to many people (including many African-Americans) the way to deal with racism is to ensure a level playing field and that is the ONLY role of LAW on that issue. Responsible representatives of the government can and should speak out against racism, but the law should not have any other role than making EQUAL rights and protection a FACT OF LIFE in the United States of America. To imply that any minority cannot compete on an equal basis when given EQUAL legal rights and educational opportunity is as racist an attitude as exists. The Democrats have prospered by making an entire group of people believe that they cannot make it in life without some white liberal helping them. What a terribly insulting and condescending attitude. The US Government needs to focus it's efforts and power on making sure that the LAW treats all Americans equally. We should not be a country who tries to legislate personal attitudes and beliefs. Racism is WRONG, Folks, no matter who is practicing it, but we have the right to be wrong, what we do not have the right to do is have unequal legal protections

Still, individual states have the right to send whomever they want to represent them in Washington. That is a core policy of our government. Thus we have seen states re-elect people like Barney Frank and Edward Kennedy. Thus we have someone like Senator Edward Kennedy who made a sickening endorsement of Henry Wallace's book only a couple of years ago. Henry Wallace was another radical offshoot of the Democrats in the 40's and 50's. He ran as the Progressive Party candidate on a Soviet backed agenda to promote communism in the USA.

When any person tries to smear all members of an opposing party with unsubstantiated insults they tell you more about who THEY are than they do about the people they attack. I don't want sheep leading my country. I want people who deliberate, ponder and make decisions based on principles. I don't want to sit quietly and be nice to people who use such cheap and underhanded tactics. I am tired of people trying to manipulate the emotions of others for political gain. If anyone has a charge to make based on actual actions or legislative efforts, then document it and use it. Trent Lott screwed up. He paid the price. That is as it should be and I am glad of it. Would that it always happened like that.