I think he has to go too, just not right now. The scenario you put forth would work excellently in absolving the party and Lott. But if it were done right now, the gains from 'victim' status would be offset by the appearance of weakness. The whole party would be perceived by many voters as caving in even though we knew we were right. There was some truth in part of what Clinton said: "When people feel uncertain, they'd rather have somebody who's strong and wrong than somebody who's weak and right." Sad, but true. Unfortunately, we've already selected Lott as leader. We need to fight this now, and have Lott quietly step aside later, apparently for other reasons that are non-threatening. I want him gone, too. The first break in the next congress would be perfect.
I think that is one way of stating the issue which must be finessed. True if the R's appear weak and apt to cave, it does embolden and strengthen the 'Rats. However, Lott's thick headedness has put us in that box. We can see how this plays over the next few days, but right now it looks like the longer Lott delays falling on his sword the more bilge we will take on.
Remember, the people want strong leaders BUT they are also all gaga over this "getting along" crapola.so here's what we do-- Heatedly point out the Dems are "playing politics" "Everyone knows that Trent is no more a racist that Senator Byrd or Hillary Clinton or anyone who has used a regretful phrase from time to time" BUT because the Dems play politics with this "vital issue", Trent is stepping down so that the Nation will not be distracted during these times of crisis..."We must devote full attention to the war on terror and fixing the economy"...We call upon the 'Rats to stop these diversionary games and get to work on the real issues in a bi-partisan way with our new Majority Leader Senator Nichols?...Santorum?....Frist?....Hutchinson?
Of course, this presumes old Trench-mouth Lott is man enough or smart enough to go along.