[TigersEye]

You're right. You've convinced me. Let's give leadership of the Senate back to the dem's so they won't call all of us racists anymore.

(I've never wondered a minute why the pub's are called The Stupid Party.)
"Here, hold muh beer, Trent. Watch me shoot this apple off muh foot."

[No Truce With Kings]

"You're right. You've convinced me. Let's give leadership of the Senate back to the dem's so they won't call all of us racists anymore."

Unless Trent Lott is an unmitigated and unprincipled scoundrel, having him step down as Majority Leader does not affect the balance in the Senate. He remains a Senator.

On the other hand, if he would rather quit -- and give the seat to the Democrats -- rather than remain in the Senate (the only scenario likely to give the Dems control of the Senate) -- he has, in my opinion demonstrated that he is unfit to continue as Majority Leader. Senators are elected to represent their states. Lott can represent his state without being either Majority or Minority Leader, and the Republicans would have been better off with him in neither position. For any Senator resign his seat because he was deprived of a leadership position is to demonstrate that Senator puts his own prestige above the interests of either his party or his constituents.

Is that the type of person *you* want running the Republicans in the Senate? If so, what is the difference between you and all of those Democrats that backed Clinton, knowing what type of a weasel he was, because it was important that he remain as President.

Again, the difference between Dems and Reps is that to Democrats, the cult of personality is all. To Republicans, values matter, competence matters, and there are no irreplaceable office holders.