What I'm about to say - Trent Lott needs to resign his post and leave the Senate - might surprise no one who reads me.

But let me tell you why...

It isn't because the man may have held racist feelings in the past. What's past is important, but one can recognize one's failings and mistakes and work to overcome them. Let's not forget Strom Thurmond's own record, or that of Robert Byrd, for that matter.

It isn't because we must mollify the politically correct, either. Those who oppose racism have good reason to be more than a little miffed at Lott's comments. But where they might be miffed, the true PC zealots go overboard in their castigation, and that's a good deal of what's happened here.

And it isn't just because the man said something dumb. People say dumb things all the time. They should be called on those dumb things, but they don't always need to be run out because of them. If that were the case, only the truly silver of tongue should apply, which leaves us with slick snake-oil salesmen forevermore.

So what's the real reason Trent Lott should resign his post and leave the Senate?

Well, it's a simple reason, but one that - perhaps - it takes a certain detachment from high office to see. It's close to the same reason I said that James Traficant should have just resigned, prior to his expulsion from the House. It's the same reason that Richard Nixon resigned, and Bill Clinton should have resigned, when their lies started tumbling down around them.

The number one goal of any elected official is to serve his or her constituents. And an important part of being in a political party is to take stands and do things that benefit that party.

Sometimes a person of good conscience must take stands that conflict with those constituents, and some times that same person must disagree with some of the planks that party stands for. But if you're going to a public servant, you must serve the public. And if you're going to be a party member - much less a party leader - you must serve the party.

Trent Lott can no longer do either of these things, and that's why he must go.

By making those comments, he slapped a number of his constituents in their faces. They might forgive him, but he also made certain that anything he does from here on out is going to be hyper-analyzed - both by them and by the scandal vultures. His mouth's put his helmet-hairdoed head under the big microscope, and everyone's going to want to peek underneath. You can't hardly do a damn thing for anyone under those circumstances.

As for the Republican Party, this can be nothing but a slap in the face, an embarrassment and a liability. The party makes a great deal about having been the party of Lincoln, but they've been tarred - sometimes fairly, usually unfairly - over the last few decades as being a haven for racists. After all the work to get past that slander, having something like this come around is nothing short of a huge leap back to square one.

And, yes, this is a huge liability. It's a damn good thing Strom Thurmond's birthday was after the elections, rather than before it. Any operative with savvy knows this is going to be made an issue in 2004, whether Lott's still there or not. That it would be less of an issue if he were gone remains unsaid, but it can't be too far beyond many minds at this time.

Now, I don't know Trent Lott personally. I don't agree with some of his stances, but my disagreement is not vehement. I still crack up at pictures of him, Jeffords and whoever else when they perform as "the Singing Senators." He strikes me as hokey, old-fashioned and too laid back for his own good, but basically a decent fellow.

So, needless to say, I don't think he's a racist scumbag. He grew up and came of age in an uncertain time in our country's history, and he inherited a lot of racial baggage because of it. There were very few White people in Mississippi who were favor of desegregation at the time, and from the looks of things, he was not one of them.

But I would defy the scandal vultures to come up with one piece of racist legislation that Senator Lott has signed on to, or produced, since his time in high office. I don't think they'll find any; I don't think it's there to be found. I think that Lott, like many other young men of his generation, either had their views softened by time or came to see the error of their ways. This isn't David Duke's "youthful indiscretions," here.

That said, Lott made a really, really, really dumb mistake. It was about as dumb as you get: almost the equivalent of "Well, at least he went out with a bang, Mrs. Cobain." And he's going to suffer for it for the rest of his political career, along with those who have to depend on him during the prosecution of that career.

So yes: Trent Lott needs to resign his post and leave the Senate. He might not want to do it, and he might not ever be made to do it. But if he doesn't, he's going to be doing a major disservice to both the constituents he's supposed to be serving and the party he's a part of.

It's better for all involved that he just fall on his sword and go away with some dignity, than have to be the laughingstock of far too many for far too little.