Replies

First off: I've read many of the comments on this thread, and most seem to think that Lott should, or will, step aside as majority leader. I think not.

First, if Lott steps down, he's done in the Senate. We can't afford that because the senate is so narrowly divided, and Mississippi has a Dem Governor.

Second, Bush can benefit from a weakened Lott to take the arrows for him. I was alarmed to hear some comments made by Lott in the wake of the mid-term elections. He basically said that he was going to put HIS agenda ahead of GWB's. How's that for party unity and gratitude?! Bush should woodshed Lott over this and tell him that in exchange for Bush's assistance with his political survival, he (Lott) must take his orders from the White House -- no exceptions

First, if Lott steps down, he's done in the Senate.

If he doesn't step down, he gives the Democrats a license to filibuster anything and everything, and allows them to NOT look petty and partisan while doing so. Essentially, he's just killed the entire GOP agenda for two years if he stays on.

I don't think his resignation is needed--just a swift, peremptory, SILENT removal from the leadership post.

Second, Bush can benefit from a weakened Lott to take the arrows for him.

Sorry, Bush would end up being in the position of taking arrows that are rightfully Lott's.