Politics 101 -- political parties change their views. 100 years ago, Republicans were the working man's party and Democrats were typically rich Southerners.   Everytime someone says "Lincoln was a Republican and he ______" it's a completely moot point.

Politics 102 -- politicians may align with a politcal party, but that doesn't mean they support the platform 100%. Heck, Nader is a Democrat and only agrees with the Greesn about 70%. Didn't stop him from running on that platform.

Lott has repeatedly lobbied and voted against civil rights and voting legislation designed to improve access and fair play to women, minorities, gays, non-Christians, etc. etc. His voting record -- while not proof of racism -- is certainly backing evidence for his behavior and past comments, written and verbal.

Unfortunately, we the people don't get to vote over party leadership. Nor can I do a darn thing to affect Lott's getting re-elected, since he's not my Senator. If his views, racist or not, adequately represent his constituancy, then fine. I DO have a problem with someone whose views are so out of whack with America being responsible for the legislation that hits the Senate floor.

One more thing for that list -- We, the People, in order to form a more perfect union, should get to VOTE on salary increases for all politicians. Make 'em earn it, and prove to the taxpayers who actually pay the salaries that they deserve it. Letting them vote for and determine their own paychecks is like setting a fox to watch the proverbial hen house. Not that the salaries are really outrageous, it's the perks that burn through the tax money.

I'm not in favor of a VAT, because even if you come up with all sorts of exceptions (are potato chips and candy bars really FOOD?), it still disproportionately taxes people who are obliged to spend almost all of their salaries.   The only way you can counteract this is my levying higher capital gains taxes -- which I'm also against; they are simply INCOME, and should be taxed accordingly.

I'm in favor, instead, of a flat income tax for everyone above a pre-determined percentage above the poverty level, and poverty levels need to be based locally off the regional housing prices, not food indexes, which rise at a slower rate than inflation. Period. No exceptions, no deductions, no nothin'. Inheritance is income. Investment profits are income. Gambling winnings are just income. You make money, you pay the same tax on it no matter how you got it. I don't care how many kids you have or how many people work in your house or what your marital status is. Many folks disagree with me on this last point, but we can control that you know... and why should I pay for your kid's new pair of overpriced $130 Nikes when my property taxes pay for their schooling and public libraries and my state sales tax pays for low income medical care and other children's benefits? I don't have a problem funding public servies; I do have a problem giving people tax credits for having more kids.

Okay, rant over. Am I off topic, or what?