You know Lott's in trouble when even the Wall Street Journal editorial page goes after him:

A Poor Choice of Words ... [Lott's comment at Thurmond's birthday party] is not a vague statement that can be made palatable with a few word changes. It is, indeed, the very model of clarity. The only way to take it as anything other than an expression of nostalgia for segregation is to assume that Lott was ignorant of what Strom Thurmond (and Lott's state, or rather its white citizens) stood for in 1948. That's just not plausible. ... The point is not that Lott is to blame for any of these things, only that he cannot reasonably plead ignorance. If he didn't mean what he said last week, a clearer statement of his views surely is in order. If he believes in civil rights and equality for all Americans, let him say so. He could also, as a Wall Street Journal editorial (link for WSJ.com subscribers) notes, take the opportunity to pay tribute to Thurmond--not for his 1948 views but for having the moral sense to abandon them. ...