If a writer can be fired for using the word, "niggardly," regardless of the fact that the word was used correctly and had nothing whatever to do with race unless it were misinterpreted, the message that would be sent by Mr Lott's being retained seems to fit in with the idea that the rich and powerful get to write their own rules - golden parachutes for deceitful Enron executives, loss of pension funds for trusting employees. No real shock there.
I suppose it was largely bad luck for Mr Lott that this happened at a party for Mr Thurmond instead of a party for Mr Helms. Had he demonstrated a different sort of apparent insensitivity, he might not even had had to apolgize.
It is depressing that in these political times it's obligatory to make as much hay as possible out of the Enemy's real or perceived shortcomings while at the same time crying out that one isn't trying to do that, but I've no clue how that condition can be undone.
I'd want better knowledge of Mr Lott before deciding on the racist question, as well as, and probably more importantly, a reasonable working definition of the word racist, which has been pulled about like taffy until it's lost almost all its original meaning.
I'm surprised noone else has corrected Mr Strelnikov. Mr Schumer does not occupy the Moynihan Senate seat. For many years New York boasted the finest contrasting pair of Senators in the country in Mr Moynihan and Mr D'Amato. Proving that it was the infighting between Ms Ferraro and Mr Abrams rather than Mr D'Amato's perceived brilliance which had kept him afloat the cycle previous, Mr Schumer unseated Mr D'Amato by a surprisingly large margin (at least, almost all the pollsters were surprised). Mr Moynihan has been replaced by Ms Rodham Clinton, but in her defence I feel safe in asserting that, barring partisan considerations, it's almost impossible to imagine anyone who would have been an improvement on the holder.