Bye bye, Senator Lott:
PASCAGOULA, Miss. (AP) – Mississippi Sen. Trent Lott, the Senate’s No. 2 Republican, announced Monday he will retire from the Senate before January, ending a 35-year career in Congress in which he rose to his party’s top Senate job only to lose it over a remark interpreted as support for segregation.
“It’s time for us to do something else,” Lott said, speaking for himself and his wife Tricia at a news conference.Lott, 66, said he had notified President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour on Sunday about his plans. Barbour, a Republican, will name someone to temporarily replace Lott.
Hmmm…too afraid to stay and fight for his principles? Or is Lott immunizing himself against “tougher restrictions in a new lobbying law that takes effect at the end of the year. That law would require Senators to wait two years before entering the lucrative world of lobbying Congress.”
Was the lobbying law a subtle way to ease a lot of Republicans out of their seats? Very funny if that turns out to be side effect. I believe Lott brings the number of Republican retirements from Congress up to 24.
Lott still can’t lobby for one year under current law. The two year thing is a compromise (some had suggested 5 years) extension. It’s not like he’s gonna have a job the day after he resigns from the Senate. I don’t know if one year vs two makes that much of a difference in this context, but I tend to agree with some of the other comments here: there’s something else…
Politico is reporting that Lott is resigning to pusure those ubiquitous ‘other private sector opportunities’ – sort of like Tom Finneran, Tom Birmingham, Bob Traviglini…..
<
p>And, with Haley Barbour as Governor, there will be an electable Republican appointed to the seat!
there just might be a Democrat with widespread positives who will want that seat… Mike Moore (no, not that one).
Otherwise I would have given you a 6.
stomv for his fondness for 5s
Right, Porcupine, all sucking up the milk of their labors; after Katrina, he is whole again and able to screw the country through the private sector; the law should be: if you ever received pay for government service (enlisted military service excepted), you can never work for a company that does government work nor lobby Congress in any way or form.
….someone who spent a year after law school clerking for a federal district or circuit judge can never work for a company that does “government work”? Whatever that means exactly. Same for a pastry chef who spent two years working in the white house kitchen or someone who worked seasonally as census taker or an accountant who spent two years working for the IRS or an auditor who worked for five years for the FDIC? I understand being frustrated with the reality of lobbying in congress but telling a LOT (no pun intended) of people where they can and cannot work will have net zero effect on the situation.
…John Aravosis’s web site, there may be evidence that Lott had also procured the services of a male prostitute. If true (and I’m not saying it is) that may be another reason for his leaving at this point in time.
<
p>Quite frankly, a Republican leaving for a lobbying career on K Street at this point in time doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. The Dems are in the majority and will likely increase their majority in the next election. So what lobbyist would want to take up a washed-up Republican at this point in time?
<
p>I am not particularly familiar with the laws regarding lobbying, but IIRC the laws do not provide for a lifetime ban on lobbying, at least for executive branch employees. Maybe a year or two, and then only in regards the agency for which they worked. There is something strange going on with Lott, just as there was something strange with Livingston’s sudden resignation from the House just before he was slated to replace Gingrich as Speaker.
Following one of John’s links we arrive at Dan Savage’s site. (The good Savage, not the evil one.)
<
p>The story is that Larry Flynt, about a month ago, crowed that he was about to release a big story in two weeks. Atrios, the promise enforcer of the Left Blogosphere, seems to have noted this on his calendar and wondered about it yesterday. Savage’s point seems to be that despite trying really hard to ensnare a wingnut social conservative, Flynt may not have succeeded and making insinuations about Lott just covers tracks.
<
p>At this point, without any facts, this is the sort of thing that really does degrade our civil discourse. To liberals and communitarians (trying to find a slot for Raj), such gossiping should be anathema.
…he of Blogactive.com, had made mention of it, I’d be more willing to believe the rumor. But he apparently did not. Rogers had a pretty good track record (he identified Larry Craig, for example, as well as others), but as far as I can tell, he made no mention of Lott.
<
p>NB: I have told you, I am not a liberal/progressive. A communitarian? I’m not so sure. We are all living in a community. I prefer to consider myself a pragmatist (what is the issue? how do you propose to resolve the issue? and is the “getting there” according to your tactic worth the money?), and to some extent being a pragmatist requires that we acknowledge that we are part of a community.
<
p>Daniel Boone is gone forever.
When this news first broke it was a head scratcher. It just did not ring true for the reasons he gave. Money! Please dear Jesus tell this moron when enough money is enough. The under the radar reason of illicit sex sounds more like it. Who are these skuls?
…but really – sex isn’t everything.
<
p>We’re Republicans. It’s the money.
some republicans would beg (on hands and knees, in a studded leather blindfold) to differ with you.
Lucre would seem to be more expensive than a cold shower.
reported today that Lott is worth about $1 million, and is in his early 60s. He isn’t poor, but he sure isn’t exactly rich.
<
p>Sounds to me like the extra year was important. He probably wants to make some money so he can rebuild his house, or finish paying for the rebuild, and retire comfortably while young enough to enjoy it.
<
p>The question at play, however, is ‘why so abruptly’? He seems to have taken more than a few people by surprise. What’s more, his Senate career had seemed to recover from this ill-advised admiring remarks for Strom Thurmond as he had, just this year, regained a Senate leadership position… It makes less sense the closer you look at it…
Next door, The Angelic One celebrates Lott’s departure because Lott compromised too much with Democrats.
Is this a common opinion on the right?
<
p>I think the reason Lott lost the leadership in the Senate was precisely because he lauded Thurmond. Although I will grant that, absent a willingness to actually be a Senator (read: compromise when necessary), he might have mounted an effective campaign to keep Bush on his side and thus keep his job.
…but that was what was reported at the time. The Thurmond event was a precipitating event (in other words, the excuse), but the party’s dissatisfaction with Lott’s leadership was the primary cause.
Do you have time to find a citation?