Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Lott's All Folks
Raise your hand and doff your hood if you're sad about this:
Sen. Trent Lott of Mississippi, the Senate's No. 2 Republican, plans to resign his seat by the end of the year, congressional and Bush administration officials said Monday. Lott, 66, scheduled two news conferences in Pascagoula and Jackson later in the day to reveal his plans. According to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement, Lott intends to resign effective at the end of the year.
Glenn Reynolds gloats: A victory for the Porkbusters (whose site seems to be hibernating)! But they couldn't have predicted this. In 2006, John J. Pitney reviewed Lott's autobio Herding Cats, which had been notoriously delayed (and possibly lightly edited) after Lott decided against naming names and quitting politics and decided instead to run for a fourth term. If you need a refresher on how Lott fell from grace in the first place, back in 2002 Jesse Walker shamed Lott for his "Strom Thurmond shoulda been president" gaffe.
And before anyone starts beaming about the exit of a big government conservative, keep in mind: The Democratic frontrunner for Lott's open seat is Mike Moore, the ex-state attorney general and godfather of the class action lawsuits against Big Tobacco.
Elemenope|11.26.07 @ 10:21AM|#
OT a bit, but am I crazy or was there a Hugo Chavez article this morning that has since disappeared into the memory hole? I admit, it was 7:15 and I wasn't quite awake yet, but still, a Chavez hallucination (on Reason Hit & Run, no less) would be new on me.
shecky|11.26.07 @ 10:27AM|#
And before anyone starts beaming about the exit of a big
government conservative, keep in mind: The Democratic frontrunner
for Lott's open seat is Mike Moore...
Don't worry. The South shall rise again.
|11.26.07 @ 10:55AM|#
The GOP will hold onto this seat and be pleased with the change.
Lott has become a millstone around the neck of the party. I'll bet
the Democrats will bemoan not having Trent Lott to kick around
anymore.
That is my SWAG, anyway.
thoreau|11.26.07 @ 11:12AM|#
I think it would be better if one (or preferably both) of
Mississippi's Senate seats remained vacant.
Come to think of it, given how utterly worthless the Senate has
been for checks and balances lately, maybe all Senate seats should
be vacant.
R C Dean|11.26.07 @ 11:27AM|#
Yeah, I would say that whole "popular election of the Senate"
thing hasn't worked out all that well.
The Senate stopped being a check and balance when it stopped
representing the states. The Senate was never supposed to be just
another legislative check on the Executive; it was supposed to be
the state's check on the national government.
|11.26.07 @ 11:31AM|#
Another Republican is going to spend more time with his family. Maybe Lott and Santorum can get together and have a good cry.
|11.26.07 @ 11:35AM|#
Lott was old school GOP. He would talk about reducing the size and scope of government. In other words, he was a liar. The neo-cons, by contrast come right out and tell you to bend over.
T|11.26.07 @ 11:48AM|#
Damn. Now I'm gonna have to find somebody new to use in arguments with my wife (the local GOP precinct chair). He's been such a sterling example of what's wrong with the GOP. I have a sneaking suspicion I won't have to look far.
Syloson of Samos|11.26.07 @ 11:53AM|#
R.C. Dean,
In practice prior to the 17th Amendment it was a party/sectional
run body. So it was much a body which pitted section against
section as anything.
Anyway, it has been a check on the Executive since at least the
Chase impeachment in 1804.
|11.26.07 @ 11:55AM|#
Nothing surprising about someone addicted to power bailing out
when most of his power has been stripped away. Lots of Republicans
retiring because they're now in the minority.
My only concern is that this exodus may lead to the Democrats
running the tables, leading to a different form of the same
wretched excess we had when the Republicans weren't checked and
balanced. Socialized medicine, anyone?
Elemenope|11.26.07 @ 11:55AM|#
R C Dean:
But the old (pre-popular) Senate wasn't so hot at that task,
either, IIRC. Sure, it was *supposed* to be a state check on the
fed, but in reality it worked about as well as the electoral
college (another "check" that malfunctioned almost right out of the
gate.)
Syloson of Samos|11.26.07 @ 12:01PM|#
R.C. Dean, robc, etc.,
BTW, by the time of the 17th Amendment's ratification the majority
of states already had some sort of direct election of Senators.
rho|11.26.07 @ 12:18PM|#
The GOP will hold onto this seat and be pleased with the
change. Lott has become a millstone around the neck of the party.
I'll bet the Democrats will bemoan not having Trent Lott to kick
around anymore.
As a local, I can say that Mike Moore can win. He's well-liked.
|11.26.07 @ 12:49PM|#
As a local, I can say that Mike Moore can win. He's
well-liked.
It's been 20 tears since I lived in Pascagoula (actually Gautier)
so I'll have to give credence to your take on the senate race. But
they LOVED Trent Lott on the gulf coast back then.
R C Dean|11.26.07 @ 1:20PM|#
In practice prior to the 17th Amendment it was a
party/sectional run body.
Well, that hasn't changed.
BTW, by the time of the 17th Amendment's ratification the
majority of states already had some sort of direct election of
Senators.
Didn't know that. Too bad somebody (yeah, I'm looking at you,
SCOTUS) didn't step in and say that a Constitutional amendment was
required before any state had direct election.
|11.26.07 @ 1:22PM|#
Let that be a lesson to you all: don't give idle compliments to
a controversial centenarian at his birthday party.
I've little love lost for Trent Lott, or any other slimy
politician, but the way Bush and the rest of the Congressional Rs
threw him under the bus after that manufactured "scandal" was
disgusting. The Bushites simply wanted to get their own man in the
majority leader position, rather than the guy who'd been there
since '94.
Elemenope|11.26.07 @ 1:27PM|#
Didn't know that. Too bad somebody (yeah, I'm looking at
you, SCOTUS) didn't step in and say that a Constitutional amendment
was required before any state had direct election.
Why? If a state took it upon itself to use direct election as its
method of choice in selecting its own two senators, how is
that a violation of the Constitution (pre 17th), so long (as I'm
assuming) the legislature still had to endorse/sign off on the
results (thus satisfying I, 3)? Or even if not, could it not be
inferred that by a legislature passing a law making the senator
directly elected, the law causes that legislature to be thereby
"selecting" the senators, with the law merely illustrating the
insturment?
|11.26.07 @ 1:32PM|#
The only reason he is retiring is due to the Lobbying law
changes that go into affect beginning in 2008 that require a 2 year
away period before you can be a lobbiest lobbying your old comrades
in Congress. As of right now it is a 1 year wait.
He wants out before the end of the year so he can get one of those
cushy lobbiest deals as payoff for all his votes over the last 35
years. He just doesn't want to have to wait 2 years.
the law should say that at no time will any former Congress member
be allowed to lobby congress, period end of story, go home and get
a real job.
Fucking crook just like the rest of them, now its just time for him
to collect.
Syloson of Samos|11.26.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Anyway, I don't think that the direct or indirect election of
Senators has changed the body all that much at least as the body
existed post-Reconstruction.
R.C. Dean,
Didn't know that. Too bad somebody (yeah, I'm looking at you,
SCOTUS) didn't step in and say that a Constitutional amendment was
required before any state had direct election.
Well,under the old regime presumably a state legislature has a lot
of leeway regarding the means it uses to choose a Senator.
Kolohe|11.26.07 @ 1:43PM|#
I've little love lost for Trent Lott, or any other slimy
politician, but the way Bush and the rest of the Congressional Rs
threw him under the bus after that manufactured "scandal" was
disgusting.
I feel about about as bad about Lott losing his position of power
due to a malapropism as I do Capone going to jail for tax
evasion.
Which is to say, not very.
|11.26.07 @ 2:02PM|#
Didn't know that. Too bad somebody (yeah, I'm looking at
you, SCOTUS) didn't step in and say that a Constitutional amendment
was required before any state had direct election.
Unfortunately, there's nothing the SCOTUS could have done. It can't
specify how the legislature chooses, only that they
chose.
rho|11.26.07 @ 2:16PM|#
It's been 20 tears since I lived in Pascagoula (actually
Gautier) so I'll have to give credence to your take on the senate
race. But they LOVED Trent Lott on the gulf coast back
then.
Oh no, don't misunderstand. In a matchup between Lott and Moore,
Lott walks away handily. I've heard a couple of names bandied
about, more hopefully than authoritatively, and all of them are
susceptible to a Mike Moore candidacy, especially if the DNC really
gets behind Moore.
|11.26.07 @ 2:24PM|#
What's kinda suprising about this is that the announcement came
on a Monday morning, rather than buried in a Friday holiday weekend
release has been the norm for this sort of thing.
I think the implication of this is obvious: the Republican
Establishment now fears the Friday H&R political thread.
|11.26.07 @ 4:16PM|#
I'm sorry, I forgot to mention that, in the world of
politics;
"Spending more time with your family" = get a cushy lobbyist gig
and feather the nest you started in Congress with $100 bills. OK,
got it.
|11.26.07 @ 4:47PM|#
Raise your hand and doff your hood if you're sad about
this:
Seriously, Weigel, shouldn't you be saving that line for the day
Robert Byrd retires? You know, the Senator who actually was a
Klansman, rather than the one who gave an ambiguous compliment to a
guy at his 100th birthday party?
R C Dean|11.26.07 @ 6:09PM|#
Article I Section Three read:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature
thereof
I suppose if your state Legislature pusses out and says they'll
rubberstamp whoever the Unwashed Masses designate in some sort of
grubby plebiscite, that would still satisfy this language. Still,
it rankles.
Syloson of Samos|11.26.07 @ 8:09PM|#
R.C. Dean,
Keep on reading:
Art. I, Section 4. The times, places and manner of holding
elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in
each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any
time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places
of choosing Senators.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245