Should the GOP hold on to the Senate in 2006, could this really happen?

"On the Hill, speculation has already begun that [Trent] Lott will seek to resume his role as Senate majority leader when Frist steps down in 2006."

-- James Harding, Washington bureau chief of the Financial Times, writing for Slate.com

Setting aside the politics of impolitic comments, Lott was one of the better Senate Majority Leaders since the position since the position was created in the 1920s. In fact, pretty much every party leader since the 20s has been better than Frist. Bill Frist has been an embarrassment to his state, his party and, more detrimentally, the Senate and nation as a whole. America will be a better place when his term is up.

Lott is not nearly as bad as many make him out to be, and should he return to his party's leadership in two years, comity across the aisle will surely be reinstated -- which would unarguably be a good thing.

[Update 7:45 PM Pacific]: I'd still rather see Harry Reid as the Majority leader in 2007...