To: goldstategop
I would prefer if he did not do so until about mid 2003.
He could them gracefully say that he wanted to do something else and have time to let this settle down.
If he had to resign in disgrace, I sense that he would feel that he needed to go home. It is the natural thing to do when defeated.
The Gov. of Mississippi is a dem and you know the rest of the story. To have the Senate under new leadership now is just not worth that price.
To: wirestripper
them=then
To: wirestripper
"I sense that he would feel that he needed to go home."
According to people close to him in DC he isn't going to allow a RAT governor in MS to hand his seat to a RAT. Everyone acts like Lott holds all the cards, but in fact...HE HOLDS NONE! He has made his bed and he is fast-becoming a team player to atone for this latest blunder.
To: wirestripper
The problem with Lott resigning is this: who would be his friend at that point? He would betray everything he stood for. It would trigger an instant friendship adjustment. If he holds on as a back-bencher or gets a committee chair to content himself with until the end of his term, then he stays strong. It's ok if he flirts with the idea of leaving. That gives him leverage and sympathy. Actually resigning? He'd have to be quite an emotional and selfish creature to do that.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson