[Poohbah]

Where do you think the Republican agenda is going if the Republicans lose the majority in the Senate?

You are engaging in the logical fallacy of the slippery slope: "If A, then B, then C," without showing the causal chain.

If Lott is so damaged by this mess (or is so spineless, or so self-centered and egotistical) that he must resign from the Senate in addition to his post as Majority Leader, then he will be completely useless as Majority Leader anyway, and the Republican agenda goes nowhere, and we get the 2004 campaign of Trent Lott's stupid remark being played over footage from Birmingham, Little Rock, and Selma.

[aristeides]

Isn't there also a logical fallacy in thinking that, merely because Lott's removal as leader may result in his leaving the Senate, therefore it results that his staying leader has to be at least no better than having a RAT majority in the Senate? Do you really believe that we would be better off -- or at least no worse off -- if the RATs keep the Senate?