[governsleastgovernsbest]

So you would expect a man whose position has been undermined by the people of his own party to remain in a position that helps them?

The person most responsible for undermining Trent Lott's position is Trent Lott. Would I expect him to remain in his position? Yes, if he is a man of courage who sincerely believes what he has been saying: that his comments were wrong and indefensible.

[A2J]

Yes, if he is a man of courage who sincerely believes what he has been saying: that his comments were wrong and indefensible.

If his words were so "wrong and indefensible," then the courageous man would resign his seat for fear of bringing more shame to the "honored chamber."

You're just looking to save the GOP's hide, not bolster character. Lott has apologized more than once and still some Republicans refuse to stand with him. Being courageous means willing to take the heat for standing for what is right.

[SBprone]

"Would I expect him to remain in his position? Yes, if he is a man of courage who sincerely believes what he has been saying: that his comments were wrong and indefensible."

The problem with your strategy is that you expect somebody to do the the honorable thing (as you define honor) instead of the human thing. That is setting some really high expectations for a man who is not good enough to keep his job. It is a flawed approach and it will fail more often than it will succeed. Like betting against the house.