Good Riddance, Trent Lott!
Long before I speculated about Trent Lott’s kleptomania, I had been eager to see Mississippi’s junior Senator leave the political scene.
It wasn’t just his comments about homosexuality. It wasn’t just his penchant for pork. It was that he had, in his 6 1/2 years helming the Senate GOP, been a largely ineffective leader. He seemed more eager to get along with the Democratic minority (when he was Majority Leader) than to advance a conservative agenda.
Thus, my face lit up in a smile when, a few minutes before my departure from Cincinnati, I heard from CNN that he was stepping down. (Side note: I wonder how much audience that left-leaning “news” network would lose if airports did not pipe in its broadcasts.)
His departure opens up the Senate Republican Whip slot to someone who has a better appreciation of conservative ideas — and advancing them — than does Mr. Lott. And removes an embarrassingly arrogant man from the GOP leadership.
All I can see is Good Riddance, Trent Lott. You won’t be missed (Via Instapundit).
34 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I agree. Lott was lame in advancing the good kind of conservatism - and a pork-sucking scumbag.
It’s not all good news. As V the K cited earlier today, Lott may be leaving so he can suck money as a lobbyist. And Jon Kyl, another ‘amnesty’ supporter, may be his successor.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 26, 2007 @ 10:39 pm - November 26, 2007
Good riddance indeed. What a sorry excuse for a Senator, not to mention Republican Leader, Lott was.
Comment by John — November 26, 2007 @ 10:41 pm - November 26, 2007
The scandal rags are attributing Lott’s early departure to a gay sex scandal.
Comment by Scott — November 26, 2007 @ 10:43 pm - November 26, 2007
I will miss Trent Lott a little less than I miss the itching after a case of poison ivy clears up. Perhaps Haley Barbour can find a Republican to replace him. Too bad that Barbour has taken his own name off the list.
Comment by heliotrope — November 26, 2007 @ 11:15 pm - November 26, 2007
I think even John Kyl eventually realized that amnesty wasn’t going to fly.
But, all the same, good riddance to Trent Lott. Is there room for Ted Stevens in your moving van?
Comment by V the K — November 27, 2007 @ 5:58 am - November 27, 2007
“I don’t do combovers”, Benjamin Nicholas.
Comment by markie — November 27, 2007 @ 8:48 am - November 27, 2007
Trent Lott has done a good thing.
Comment by Roberto — November 27, 2007 @ 10:18 am - November 27, 2007
Trent Lott has done a good thing. In spite of his failures, at least he had the party in mind knowing that his successor would be a Republican, I wish Connie Mack in Florida, who was certain to be reelected, had done the same thing. His seat went to a Democrat. I wish Warner and Domenici would´ve gotten themselves reelected to save their seats and resign afterwards for whatever reasons they have not to continue. To Trent I say as Scrooge sang in the musical, ¨Thank you very much, it´s the nicest thing you´ve ever done for us.¨
Comment by Roberto — November 27, 2007 @ 10:40 am - November 27, 2007
Plus, his shameless pandering and butt-licking he did on BET, for those non-racist-but-deemed-racist-by-the-mob-mentality-on-the-left, comments he supposedly made a few years ago. Wasn’t that at Strom Thurmond’s 300th birthday, or something?
Comment by LesbianNeoCon — November 27, 2007 @ 1:26 pm - November 27, 2007
This is OT but it has me so angry.. seething.
I’m going to find this university woman’s email and give her a piece of my mind.
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/11/university-of-florida-officially.html
November 26, 2007
To: All University Students
From: Dr. Patricia Telles-Irvin
Vice President for Student Affairs
Re: Official Response to a recent advertisement for the movie “Obsession”
Throughout our country, we have witnessed a rise in offensive behavior
and actions taken against others, which has created greater
divisiveness and misunderstandings among the various ethnic groups
residing in our communities. One of these events occurred on our
campus recently with the promotion of an event.
Advertisements for the movie “Obsession” sponsored by several student
organizations appeared during the past several weeks on campus
bulletin boards and they illustrate the importance of balancing
freedom of speech with responsibility.
The ads, which promoted a showing of the movie on Nov. 13 and a panel
discussion afterward, entitled “Radical Islam Wants You Dead,”
offended many Muslim students on campus. Regardless of its original
intent, the language reinforced a negative stereotype, created
unnecessary divisiveness and contributed to a generalization that only
furthers the misunderstanding of the religion of Islam.
We cannot speak of rights without also addressing the responsibility
associated with our actions or statements, including understanding the
potential consequences. One of our roles as a learning institution is
to teach our students to express themselves freely, and also in a fair
and conscientious manner. In an academic setting, differences of
opinions are strongly encouraged, yet such opinions must be based on
accurate information when describing other members of the community.
Unfortunately, in the case of the “Obsession” ads, that did not
happen. I believe the groups that posted them owe the campus, and
particularly campus members of the Islamic faith, an apology and a
clarification.
At the University of Florida we have embraced a set of values, one of
which is diversity. Diversity is not just about having representation
from various cultures on campus, it also is having each member
contribute to an inclusive and safe environment and collectively
enhancing our understanding and appreciation of the richness brought
by such differences. The University of Florida is committed to being
an institution of excellence, where all members are valued and feel
safe on our campus. Our role as an institution is to create
opportunities for students to learn in an open and accepting
environment; one that emphasizes respect for all. Let’s remember that
part of our mission is to prepare each other to be effective members
of a global community. With that in mind, I encourage each member of
our campus community as a start to learn more about the religion of
Islam and some of its tenets of peace, hard work, charity and compassion.
There is little room for divisiveness in our world if we are to find
peace and understanding among us. We all can win if we focus on
greater inclusion and understanding as well as the delicate balance
between our rights and responsibilities.
Comment by Vince P — November 27, 2007 @ 1:38 pm - November 27, 2007
This is her email… give her a piece of your mind.
tellesirvin@ufl.edu
I sent this crappy email:
I saw an email that you sent to the student body regarding the movie Obsession.
How dare you demand an apology from the people who showed the film. Have you actually watched the film ma’am? Do you understand the threat these people (the Jihadis) represent and the power of their movement that is growing every day?
Muslims on your campus are offended? Oh really… well they should be offended by their Radical co-religionists and not people here who have simply NOTICED them.
You said opinions should be based on accurate information… well what is more accurate than TV broadcasts and sermons made by Muslims themselves!
Radical Islam is in a perpetual war against all Non-Muslims. I will not be silent! Who do you think you are that I should be quiet about a threat to my way of life.
You owe everyone an apology.
Comment by Vince P — November 27, 2007 @ 1:38 pm - November 27, 2007
In other words, “The jihadis hate Amerika as much as us left-wing academics, let’s build on that!”
Comment by V the K — November 27, 2007 @ 1:50 pm - November 27, 2007
And what I think is ironic is that this leftist woman would say absolutely squat if it had been “Radical Christians”. Indeed, she likely would have encouraged it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 27, 2007 @ 2:15 pm - November 27, 2007
Dan, I gather that you found NOTHING of merit in Lott’s leadership over the last few years, but you have to at least admit he did carry the ol’ water bucket for the conservatives on more than a few issues… his effort to include insurance companies under anti-trust regulation, his votes on Afghanistan and Iraq and supplies for the troops, etc.
And he was loyal to his Party… opps, loyalty isn’t valued or prized by conservatives. Scratch that.
I know he wasn’t as aggressive in advancing a conservative agenda as many armchair conservatives (with 20/20 after-the-fact hindsight) would have liked, but maybe that’s because he saw the Senate as a place to find compromise in legislative achievements -while representing his constituents- instead of the current enviroment where endless sniping from the sidelines and bitching about the demerits of legislation are the hottest currency of the realm. Unfortunately, the conservatives’ penchant for blood letting and purity tests on the ellusive RINOs gave us the Democrat control in the Senate… and Lott has worked within that constraint as well as when conservatives led the Chamber.
I give Lott credit for his loyalty to the Party. He was the strongest candidate to keep that seat in the GOP without taxing campaign resources needed elsewhere. He now gives ex-RNC Chairman and Miss Gov Haley Barbour the opportunity to appoint a replacement with 5+ yrs to develop some roots… and Lott, in his announcement to retire, was strong to point to his faith, his family, and his sense of duty to the next generation as factors in his decision.
I also liked Newt Gringich’s comment that Lott is America’s smartest legislative tacticians ever. He served the forces of legislative progress by understanding something many here seem quick to ignore: legislative compromise is critical in any chamber… without it, the system quickly breaks down and the great Public is ill served. The cynics aren’t well served -they thrive on legislative logjams.
I also liked that Lott, bemoaning the loss in leadership when former-Senator Phil Graham left, recalled that Graham told him to snap out of it… someone else would carry the flag and solider on the issues. A smart lesson for any politician. Lott apllied that to himself at his announcement. Class.
As for all those oh-so-typical conservative slams about Lott leaving to escape ethics restrictions –bunk. Cheap shot dreaming. He’s probably going to return to his alma mater, Ol Miss, as Prez or/and help his conservative academic think tank, The Trent Lott Center of Excellence for Economic Development & Entrepreneurship. http://trentlottcenter.com/
I know you don’t crticize Lott for his ill-earned label as a pork barrel spender, Dan, but for those arm chair conservatives who do… they might want to check out Club 4 Growth and learn that Lott was smack dab in the middle of pack with other conservatives when it comes to being a porker… no worse, no better… and a whole lot better than the Dems.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/03/the_2006_congressional_scoreca_1.php
One other point for the angry knee-jerk pork-busters here, take a second and read conservative Ramesh Ponnuru’s National Review essay on why porkbusters keep getting it wrong… and will until conservatives get an agenda or a focus.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NzgwNzI2Y2RiMmYyYzZkMzRhMDFkZGE5NDI5MGU5Nzg=
There’s no doubt that earmarks under the conservatives controlling Congress were about as bad a mark on the institution as the all the corruption those folks brought to town… but Lott was no better/worse than lots of conservative and moderate porkers. And he sure doesn’t deserve the snide snipes from the sidelines… did he lead as well as you might have liked, Dan? Evidently not. Is he a scumbag as some here proclaim? Hell no. He’s just an average politican working for his constitutents and pressing for legislative progress.
Too bad conservatives can’t say the same thing about real scumbags like conservatives and ex-Congressmen/porkers Duke Cunningham or Tom Delay.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 27, 2007 @ 3:20 pm - November 27, 2007
What a difference a day makes.
Comment by V the K — November 27, 2007 @ 7:29 pm - November 27, 2007
#14 - Another MM agenda-fest.
I see many of his usual points:
1. Any policy he doesn’t like, is the fault of “conservatives”.
2. Any unethical conduct is the fault, not of that individual’s lack of ethics or moral vision, but of that individual’s perceived or alleged conservative philosophy.
3. The (alleged) path to electoral success for the Republican Party is for it to be more like the Democrats than it has been.
4. The words “conservative” and “conservatism” are to be used as pejoratives… as in, “loyalty isn’t valued or prized by conservatives” or whatever. Notwithstanding that:
- MM simultaneously accuses conservatives of too much focus on loyalty. (Contradictions, anyone?)
- This blog seeks to be “The Internet Home of the Gay Conservative.”
- Conservatism has a great tradition from Burke, to the Founding Fathers, to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
(Note that I don’t count big-government ‘conservatives’ as real conservatives. Big government is destructive, not conservative. But I’ll stop the digression.)
But the following point in #14 is quite new:
5. Lott is good, or at least acceptable and respectable.
It’s new, because in this thread yesterday, MM said things like:
Most everybody agreed with MM there. Today he pivots to the opposite. Coincidence?
Overall, I do and I don’t care about all this.
- I don’t care, because I am no conservative - I never have been. I have accepted labels like “right-leaning libertarian” only with reluctance.
- But I do care in the sense that I value good writing / accurate language - and as well, I value my potential conservative allies in promoting human freedom.
As for this:
Watch me. Delay and probably Cunningham were pork-sucking scumbags, like Trent Lott.
Again, I don’t count because I’m not a conservative, never have been. But I did introduce “pork-sucking scumbag” up at #1, so I must assume MM’s challenge was aimed in my direction at least in small part. I’ve met it.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 7:45 pm - November 27, 2007
And, my goodness, but if I am not mistaken, here would be GP, GPW, Average Gay Joe and V the K all slamming Delay as well for his pork-Abramoff connections, and celebrating his departure.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 10:01 pm - November 27, 2007
Congratulations for finally calling out a Republican for being anti-Gay.
Comment by Tom in Houston — November 27, 2007 @ 10:01 pm - November 27, 2007
Michigan Matt.
Haley Barbour gets to appoint Lott’s successor - but only until the next Federal election (in this case - November 2008) when an election will be held for the remainder of his term. Mississippi will have two Republican senators up for election in November 2008.
Comment by Tom in Houston — November 27, 2007 @ 10:04 pm - November 27, 2007
And here, even Bruce’s Mom gets into the Delay-bashing act.
And what did Michigan-Matt say about Lott then, like he did yesterday? I quote:
What fun!
Tom in Houston: Congratulations for your finally *NOTICING* GPW calling out a Republican for being anti-gay.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 10:10 pm - November 27, 2007
On a serious note - Re-reading your old comments MM, I can see why I used to look up to you. I’ve said this before, but the difference between “MM 2006″ and “MM 2007″, in viewpoint, in civility to fellow non-Democrats, and in quality, has left me shocked and saddened.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 27, 2007 @ 11:03 pm - November 27, 2007
For #14, are you serious? Trent Lott is one of those Republicans that sets the party back to the 60s and 70s when it was at its impotent worst. By not seriously advancing the conservative agenda, he became part of the Washington culture that led to the loss of congress in the 2006 mid-term elections. Sen. Lott was PROUD to have been in congress for 34 years. See, that is the problem. NO ONE should be in congress that long. But, not pursing a conservative or even a serious Republican agenda is what did Sen. Lott in. Not loopy comments about the late Sen. Strom Thurmond. That was just a cover for the Republicans to, rightfully, throw him overboard. By Sen. Lott leaving now, it is time for Mississippi Gov. Barbour to put in a principled conservative that will advance both the conservative and Republican agenda. Too bad Sen. Lott did not.
Comment by Mark J. Goluskin — November 28, 2007 @ 1:43 am - November 28, 2007
Between MM’s first and subsequent Trent Lott posts, he must have found out that Lott supported the Amnesty-Now-Enforcement-Later-But-Probably-Not Bill, and then decided he liked the big porker after all. That bill seems to have been MM’s “Sullivan pivot,” where, as with the FMA and Andrew Sullivan, he became rather vitriolic toward people and positions he previously supported.
Mark J in #22 I think mostly has it. I think Trent Lott was Republican as a flag-of-convenience, but mostly was just a hack politician. He was part of the problem, part of a political elite that was disconnected from the grassroots and resented it when the people demanded he work for them instead of his lobbyists. (Although there are those that would like to see the GOP back in its glory days of the Gerald Ford era, when it was an impotent minority that differed from the Democrats in name only.) Surely, Haley Barbour can find someone better.
Comment by V the K — November 28, 2007 @ 6:20 am - November 28, 2007
The last time Republicans actually reduced the size of government, Eisenhower was president. I wasn’t even born yet. It makes me laugh when small government is the mantra of so many conservatives when they vote for people who make the government larger and larger.
If you are really for smaller government, then you are a Libertarian. That’s not at all what Republicans stand for. At least not in the last 50 years.
Comment by Houndentenor — November 28, 2007 @ 12:05 pm - November 28, 2007
Did you laugh when conservatives DID NOT vote in 2006? In other words, the very thing you said they did not do… they did.
Comment by Vince P — November 28, 2007 @ 12:07 pm - November 28, 2007
Mike Huckabee must be a real problem for MM… a pro-Amnesty social con. (Not a problem for me. A guy who raised taxes 47% as governor does not get my vote, though my mom likes him.)
Comment by V the K — November 28, 2007 @ 2:58 pm - November 28, 2007
No argument here. Except, I would note that Reagan did at least *slow* the growth of government, over what Democrats wanted.
The same is true today - But just barely! For today’s Republicans, growing the size of government is “the answer” about 85% of the time. For Democrats, it’s the answer every time.
Ummm… not quite. If you use a small ‘l’, then I agree. But you went with a capital ‘L’ which I interpret as Libertarian Party. At that point, you’re in bed with a lot of moonbat anarcho-leftists who make Ron Paul look responsible. Trust me, I know. We’re talking about me here, i.e., I am really for smaller government - and really found the LP couldn’t help. (Actually, I don’t have a party. Politically, I am sort of SOL. Registered Independent.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 28, 2007 @ 3:01 pm - November 28, 2007
The problem is, the entitlement programs of the FDR and LBJ administrations make it all but impossible to truly reduce the size of government. Naturally, GWB had to add a Prescription Drug Entitlement to the list.
If I can’t get smaller government, than I am left with the lesser of two evils. If it comes to choosing between someone who wants to make Health Care a federal entitlement, and someone who doesn’t, it’s pretty clear which side I have to come down on.
Comment by V the K — November 28, 2007 @ 3:32 pm - November 28, 2007
The deeper problem is, few are willing to attack the *moral premise* of entitlements.
I mean, health care is good, right? So government should bring it about, right?
Well, no, actually. As a practical matter, the free market will always do a far superior job of creating desirable goods and services - when it is allowed to. But, as Ayn Rand always used to say, “the moral is the practical” and vice versa. The whole secret to free markets working better than socialism / government on a practical level, is that they are better on a *moral* level to begin with. They let people be free. They rest on people making their own choices. Socialism / big government is *immoral*. Socialism / big government denies people’s freedom and takes away what they earn. Socialism / big government is *socially un-just*.
That’s the argument that has to be made. But, few are willing to make it: Least of all politicians (of either party) who have a vested interest in making their own positions more “powerful” and dispensing government favors, like feudal nobles.
The Libertarian Party will make the argument - but then they get into so much other irresponsible nonsense, they undermine themselves.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 28, 2007 @ 3:54 pm - November 28, 2007
The entitlement system is based on the premise that the government takes away from person A to provide to person B. And this is the way Democrats have always worked. Under Andrew Jackson, person A was an Indian, from whom land was confiscated and given to B, a white settler. In the antebellum era, person A was a slave whose labor was confiscated and given to B, the slaveowner. Person A is now the person who works hard and lives responsibly. His income must be confiscated to support person B, who consistently makes bad lifestyle choices and gives his vote to Democrats in return for insulating him against his bad life choices.
Comment by V the K — November 28, 2007 @ 4:05 pm - November 28, 2007
Or again, it’s based on feudal noblesse.
I, Thomas Jefferson (or James Madison or all those other “populist”-but-actually-aristocratic slaveholders) know what’s best for everyone else. And how dare you, the individual, upset my applecart by creating a new technology or business! By being free!
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — November 28, 2007 @ 5:34 pm - November 28, 2007
VdaK writes: “Mike Huckabee must be a real problem for MM -a pro-Amnesty social con”.
Not at all, V. Huckabee has an overarching attribute in my book… he effectively uses humor to deflect the caustic, self-defeating cynicism that occupies the extreme fringes of the conservative movement. I give him points for standing up to all that, laughing at it, playing with it and still finding -at the end of the day- that govt service is worthy and a noble enterprise. The guy I don’t like is RonPaul who sows the seed of resentment and division in the GOP.
You know, about the only guys left who don’t think govt service is noble are the armchair red meat conservatives who foment anger against the elites. Hmmmm.
No problem with Gov Huckabee here -I’ve met him and had about a 20 minute conversation with him in the car on the way to the airport after a speech/fundraiser. He’s no Mitt Romney… but he would be a good choice for GOP Prez nominee or Veep.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 29, 2007 @ 11:57 am - November 29, 2007
I´ve been for Fred, however, Gov. Huckabee is getting my attention. Anybody who wants to simplify the tax code and get rid of the IRS just about has me convinced. The IRS is a parasitical agency the consumes a lot the federal budget. I´ve always thought of them as the collection agency for the Democrats. I suggested to the Dole campaign to make the IRS The late Senator Roth never had a chance to finish them back in the late 90´s.
Comment by Roberto — November 29, 2007 @ 8:38 pm - November 29, 2007
33 (con´t) to make the IRs the center piece of Bob Dole´s campaign. I thought that would carry Dole to the White House instead of attacking Bill Clinton´s character. The late Senator Roth never had a chance to finish them (IRS) off back in the late 90´s.
Comment by Roberto — November 29, 2007 @ 8:44 pm - November 29, 2007