I was not at all happy with Lott, who had a tendency to roll over in the face of even moderate Democratic opposition. There is a school of thought (I have not checked up on this and have no opinion) that blames him for the abortive Senate Clinton trial, and certainly no one was happy with his "power sharing" compromises with a political party technically in the minority. And no one was surprised when the Democrats turned around and cut him off at the knees when they suddenly became the majority.

Frist is an opportunity for a new start, but it remains to be seen how he will function under the constant pressure from the Democrats. Assuming he survives, of course.

The command to destroy him has already gone out, and the attacks have begun. Their main weapon is to take any opposition to failed and corrupt left wing social engineering programs, and make that the equivalent to opposing civil rights if not downright racism. This, the False Dilemma fallacy, is used constantly in many areas. You support privatizing part of the Social Security program, therefore you must want old people to starve and die. You are against hate crime legislation, therefore you must support crime. You are against affirmative action and quotas, therefore you must be against minority progress. You support vouchers for schools, therefore you must be against kids getting an education.

Distressingly, most people seem to buy this stuff.

The beginnings:

NOW

Nathan Newman, Vice President of the National Lawyers Guild

The New York Times drops a little bit of innuendo