>>>does this mean anyone who votes for one of the other politicians who were pro-segregation in the past is also supporting segregation?

That's the *opposite* of what I said. Times and people change. Politicians must change with them or be left by the wayside. Segregation was an "acceptable" position at one time. If I had been born in the wrong place and time, I might have supported it myself. A politician who supported it then and does not now, should be treated as someone who does not support segregation.

Heck, segregation and anti-civil-rights are still perfectly valid positions. Not popular ones - and, in my opinion, not noble ones - but people are free to believe what they want around here.

>>>What evidence other than interpreting his statement a certain way do you have that Lott currently holds segregationist tendencies? Legislation? Voting record? What evidence do you have that other old Southern politicians have really lost their segregationist tendencies?

Way too big a question for my poor head! I'll tell you what reasoning I used to come to my conclusion about Lott, though. His original statement could be seen as ambiguous, I agree. I was on the fence, till he "apologized". His apology did not clarify the ambiguity about what he meant by "all these problems". To me, this says that he wants his meaning to remain ambiguous. To me, this is damning.

>>>This is of course, getting silly. The whole objective of this, of course, is to render Lott useless as Majority Leader since the Democrats want to do whatever they can to ensure that the Republican Senate is a non-starter.

Yeah, it's the Democrat's fault.