>>>Just because they are arguments doesn't mean they aren't true. Or maybe you honestly think that Lott's situation has nothing to do with the fact that he just got the Majority Leader position back? That a Democratic Senator who had said the same thing under the same circumstances would currently be fighting for his career? Get serious.

For the Lott story, the only thing that people need to decide is whether Lott has given evidence that he is not fit to lead. In my opinion, the evidence is not entirely clear-cut, but highly suggestive.

1) Who raised the question first or said it the most, is irrelevant to the question of Lott's character. It is a smoke-screen argument.

2) That you can make claims that there are other racists in the world, is irrelevant to the question of Lott's character. It is another smoke-screen argument.

3) *Serious* discussions of what exactly Lott said and meant, are the only way to determine the issue of Lott's character.

Furthermore, jumping from one argument to another hurts your case. If a defense attorney argues that his client didn't commit the crime, and that the only reason the prosecution is doing so is that they don't like the defendent (hmmm, sounds familiar -- OJ defense.); and that anyway, there are much worse murderers... well, you get the idea.