[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?

[Poohbah]

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?

Either way, the RATS effectively keep the Senate--but this presupposes that Lott actually leaves, which does not inevitably follow from your argument, unless you are saying that the Vacant Lott is far too ineffectual as it presently stands to perform his job.