Patterico's Pontifications

11/26/2007

Trent Lott to Resign

Filed under: Government,Politics — DRJ @ 1:05 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Trent Lott, the senior Senator from Mississippi and GOP Whip, announced today he will resign at the end of the year or in early January:

“Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) announced Monday that he will retire from the Senate effective late next month or early January, stunning Republicans who had only last year reinstated Lott to their leadership ranks.

“It’s time for us to do something else,” he said at a press conference in his hometown of Pascagoula, Miss.

Lott, 66, made the decision over the Thanksgiving weekend at home with his family, saying that his state’s recovery from Hurricane Katrina had improved sufficiently so that he felt he could pass “the flag” to a younger generation of Mississippians. Lott’s move shocked Republicans on Capitol Hill, who have seen a wave of veterans announce their decision to retire next year as the GOP looks increasingly certain to remain in the minority.

But Lott is the most senior Republican to announce he is leaving office, and his decision comes barely a year after he won re-election to a six-year term.”

I’m a cynic when it comes to Lott. I think he’s ready to move into a lobbyist position and wants to avoid the 2-year waiting period:

“Lott’s departure is equally stunning because, after cruising to his re-election last year, he completed a political rehabilitation from allegations of racial insensitivity because of remarks he made at a 100th birthday party for Strom Thurmond in December 2002, which led to his banishment from GOP leadership. Last November, after four years as a back-bench Republican who burnished his image as a deal-maker, Lott won a narrow race to become GOP whip, the No. 2 post in leadership.

Lott said that he was going to move into the private sector after 35 years in Congress, but denied that he was getting out before a new two-year “cooling-off” restriction takes effect on Jan. 1. The restriction bars lawmakers from taking lobbying jobs for two years after they leave public service. Lott also denied that health issues were the cause. “Let me make it clear: There are no problems, I feel fine,” he said.”

Lott was an effective GOP Whip and he brought many skills to the Senate that benefited Republicans and Mississippians. But he’s an old-style, earmark-entrenched politician and I’m glad to see him move on.

— DRJ

91 Responses to “Trent Lott to Resign”

  1. Personally, I’d like to see everyone elected pre-1994 lose their seats in Congress. It would do wonders for this nation. Lott’s leaving because his hand keeps getting smacked when he dips it in the cookie jar.

    Why not leave before the 08 election that will ring the death toll for the GOP and its hopes of regaining the majority (since its pretty damn obvious they learned nothing in 06).

    Gabriel (13408c)

  2. As I recall, with his open border sympathies, Lott wanted to surrender to Mexico and turn the USA into a 3rd world nation. Good riddance.

    Perfect Sense (b6ec8c)

  3. Amen #2.

    DLTDHYOTWO, Senator Lott.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  4. I will certainly not be sad to see him go.

    JD (33beff)

  5. And Boy Howdy is there a humdinger of a story as regards why he’s going. Go HERE for all the details.

    It’s as the saying goes “not a pretty picture” — though the hustler sure is pretty.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  6. Could you be any more predictable and/or pathetic, David? Were I to meet Lott and shake his hand, I’d be sure to count my fingers to make sure I got them all back. And then I’d be overwhelmed with a desire to scrape something off my shoe.

    But really, you and your twisted little friend are just plain nuts. And I’m going to have to say it: self loathing gays.

    Your bubble seems to be already burst. See Update III:

    JMG commenter McMorris directs us to a damning and well-researched accusation that Benjamin Nicolas has been plagiarizing the works of well known writers and posting them verbatim on his blog as his own. And the likelihood of this Trent Lott business being true becomes a lot dimmer.

    There’s a big dark hole where your soul ought to be, David.

    Pablo (99243e)

  7. Pablo, Trent Lott is a married Republican who has consistently voted against gay rights.

    You do the math.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  8. The story is crap, David, and yet you’re giddy with the notion that Lott is a dirty closeted gay man. A failed man, because he really like the boys. In fact, you’re trying to trumpet just that. You do the math.

    Pablo (99243e)

  9. In the immortal words of Stephen Sondheim, there won’t be trumpets, Pablo. Just the stench of Republican hypocrisy.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  10. David, with respect to your “stench” there is an old saying about he who smelt it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  11. SPQR it’s like that old Smiths standard —

    “Punctured bicycle
    On a hillside desolate
    Could nature make a man of me yet?

    Then in this charming car
    This charming man

    Why pamper life’s complexities
    When the leather runs smooth
    On the passenger seat?

    I would go out tonight
    But I haven’t got a stitch to wear
    This man said “it’s grusome
    That someone so handsome should care”

    A jumped-up pantry boy
    Who never knew his place
    He said “return the ring”
    He knows so much about these things
    He knows so much about these things

    I would go out tonight
    But I haven’t got a stitch to wear
    This man said “it’s grusome
    That someone so handsome should care”

    La, la-la, la-la, la-la, this charming man …
    La, la-la, la-la, la-la, this charming man …

    A jumped-up pantry boy
    Who never knew his place
    He said “return the ring”
    He knows so much about these things
    He knows so much about these things”

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  12. Just the stench of Republican hypocrisy.

    Let me fix that for you, David:

    In the nose of my mind, just the stench of Republican hypocrisy.

    Paul (36cd46)

  13. I have it on good authority that David Ehrenstein voted for George Bush. Twice.

    Pablo (99243e)

  14. I have it on good authority that David Ehrenstein voted for George Bush. Twice.

    I also suspect David likes gay Repubicans, Pablo.

    Paul (36cd46)

  15. David,

    This story is not thin gruel. It’s sewer water.

    nk (09a321)

  16. I have never to my knowledge had carnal knowledge of a gay Republican.

    But then things were wild out on the West Side piers back in the 70’s, so perhaps I did.

    An old Gay Activists Alliance comrade of mine ended up as Roy Cohn’s chauffeur.

    Yep, he’s dead too.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  17. David E.,

    Does the accuracy of the story matter?

    Or is the only important thing whether it portrays Trent Lott as a hypocrite — even if the story is 100% fabricated?

    Just curious.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  18. Patterico, I suspect the story is “fake, but accurate.”

    Paul (36cd46)

  19. I’m more interested in whether or not Sen. Lott is capable of keeping his word (to resign) any better that Sen. Craig?

    Could we ask him to take Larry with him?

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  20. It has nothing to do with the credibility of the evidence, Patterico. It is all about the seriousness of the charges.

    JD (33beff)

  21. The story is still “in process,” Patterico. We shall see where it leads.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  22. Even if we accept this as being “in process”, funny how you were way out in front cheerleading this, David. Assuming, arguendo, that this rumor is true (despite all evidence to the contrary), why would this bother you? Would it be some kind of bad thing if Senator Lott was gay? Or, is that only bad when you are a Republican? Gay Dems – good. Gay Republicans – bad. If you weren’t so consistent and predictable, you would be sad.

    JD (33beff)

  23. It’s “in process.”

    Meaning there isn’t a shred of evidence to support it, but you like it, so you’re going to promote it as though there is something to it.

    Do I have that about right?

    Patterico (faeccf)

  24. If I have that wrong, David — i.e., if there is a shred of evidence — then could you provide it, please?

    So far, you haven’t.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  25. By the way, your comments appear to be showing up — finally — without the need to be approved.

    The Akismet filter claims it learns from comments you approve — but this is the first I’ve seen any evidence of it.

    Approving all your comments by hand was getting old, so I’m pleased to see you’re finally getting automatically approved.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  26. And I’m delighted that my comments are appearing so quickly too, patterico — especially with a story like this.

    Your invocation of the word “proof” amuses me greatly. Being a prosecutor you deal on a daily basis with proof as an eminiently measurable entity. But we are not in a court of law. We are in the ever-famous Court of Public Opinion. And as everyone in the LGBT community knows in that court “proof” is perpetually demanded by what Christopher Isherwood so aptly called The Heterosexual Dictatorship in quite a different form than the one you deal with. For the bar for said “proof” has until quite recently been almost invariably been sky high.

    As I point out in my book Open Secret I learned that Rock Hudson was gay before I knew that I was. Yet the culture persisted in promulgating the lie that “nobody knew” until his AIDS diagnosis was made public on his deathbed.

    The Republican record on closeted gay hypocrites is so overwhelming as to take even my jaded breath away. Consequently when this story surfaced the “burden of proof” falls on those Republicans who still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

    “Would it be some kind of bad thing if Senator Lott was gay?”

    Well Senator Lott would certainly think so. Why don’t you ask him about it?

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  27. Is there a more debased and degraded condition than male prostitute? And are we so deficient in judgment and values that innuendo by such a creature can be the basis of an accusation against a United States Senator?

    nk (09a321)

  28. can be the basis of an accusation against a United States Senator

    Accusations? Sure.

    Prove or judgement of guilt? Not hardly.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  29. I meant an accusation by us, not him.

    nk (09a321)

  30. Benjamin Nicholas is calling the “story” of his relationship with Lott a “complete fabrication.”

    “I have not, nor have I ever seen or had contact with Senator Trent Lott.”

    That answers the question of proof for me.

    EHeavenlyGads (5ac5e3)

  31. “Is there a more debased and degraded condition than male prostitute?”

    Mrs. Larry Craig.

    “That answers the question of proof for me.”

    Then you’ve set the bar really low. This all began with a posting by the hustler on a website that almost immediately crashed. Since then he has been taking it all back, first claimign “out of context” and now a full denial.

    We shall see what we shall see.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  32. Is there a more debased and degraded condition than male prostitute?

    I would have to guess that it would be shill for a male prostitute.

    Just a guess…

    Then you’ve set the bar really low. This all began with a posting by the hustler on a website that almost immediately crashed. Since then he has been taking it all back, first claimign “out of context” and now a full denial.

    We shall see what we shall see.

    So which version, exactly, of his words shall we believe?

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  33. With David E. you’ve got to remember, sexual orientation comes before anything else in terms of priorities. It’s all about teh butseks with David. All other characteristics that define a person are secondary to sexual preference.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  34. Spoken like a true Republican.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  35. And you have zero facts for your case, David…

    So I suppose you’re speaking like a true Democrat…

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  36. I’m not a Democrat.

    The facts have yet to be established. All we have so far is “a story that’s out there.” We’ll see where it goes.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  37. I’m not a Democrat.

    Oh bullshit. Look, I don’t care if you lie to the people you see every day, but don’t say things like “Just the stench of Republican hypocrisy” and expect us to believe you aren’t voting straight democrat like you have for years.

    Seriously, who the hell do you think you’re fooling? Do you think we’re morons?

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  38. The facts have yet to be established. All we have so far is “a story that’s out there.” We’ll see where it goes.

    And another thing, oh Lord of Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh:

    You proclaimed, firmly, that what you reported (Lott in a ghey sex scandal) was true. Your evidence was votes there were counter to your myopic view of the world, and a “funny” timing to his departure.

    Oh, and words from a guy in a place they could easily taken him out-of-context/made stuff up, and which have been publicly refuted. He has said it never happened.

    So what “legs” do you think this story has, huh?

    The dead don’t walk, genius. This is only a story in your quizling mind. It is only “out there” in the sense that you have to be a freaking loon to give it any credability.

    Scott Jacobs (425810)

  39. ” Do you think we’re morons?”

    Do you really want me to answer that question?

    And how do you know how I’ve voted? Do you work for the FBI or something?

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  40. “You proclaimed, firmly, that what you reported (Lott in a ghey sex scandal) was true.”

    I “proclaimed firmly” that, given the history of Republican politicians over the last two decades,
    that I had very reason to believe that it was true.

    “So what “legs” do you think this story has, huh?”

    Ben’s legs are quite fetching.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  41. David E. is a Gay American. That is all that is important.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  42. Well, I’ve yet to see anything from Ehrenstein that contradicts my earlier observation about his conduct.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  43. I “proclaimed firmly” that, given the history of Republican politicians over the last two decades,
    that I had very reason to believe that it was true.

    Fake, but accurate.

    Told you, Patterico.

    Paul (36cd46)

  44. Told him what?

    “Well, I’ve yet to see anything from Ehrenstein that contradicts my earlier observation about his conduct.”

    What “conduct”?

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  45. How you conduct yourself in this forum, David. You know, what you write, here. Not high class.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  46. Gift for Ehrenstein – now see if you can find a higher road.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  47. I’m curious, David E. Do gay issues matter so much to you that you consider yourself a single-issue voter, or is that one of several issues you use to evaluate politicians?

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  48. Told him what?

    Fake, but accurate.

    I see that because you cannot provide any evidence of what you assert, you have resorted to subtle ad hominem attacks.

    Written and linked like a true Democrat.

    Paul (36cd46)

  49. Paul – He’s hardly subtle.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  50. No I don’t consider myself to be “single issue” at all. I have many issues

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  51. I have many issues

    I’ll say.

    Paul (36cd46)

  52. He’s hardly subtle.

    I was being sarcastic, daleyrocks.

    Paul (36cd46)

  53. So David, are you going to post a shred of evidence?

    Or continue to evade?

    Paul (36cd46)

  54. Here are some shreds for you.

    I’ve no doubt you’ll consider them to be a an “evasion.”

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  55. Congratulations, David,

    From being practically banned you have gone to turning this site into a forum for your own Truther movement. Not that I blame you, entirely. My blog friends here were wrong to attack you personally instead of pointing out the paucity of evidence (for lack of a better term) for your conclusions.

    nk (09a321)

  56. Paul – David E. is mimicking the Mike Rogers slime routine except that David isn’t doing the dirty work himself. He’s having a grand old time spreading the manure.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  57. “From being practically banned you have gone to turning this site into a forum for your own Truther movement.”

    I call it Swift Hustlers for Truth

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  58. I’ve no doubt you’ll consider them to be a an “evasion.”

    Actually, what I consider your “shreds of evidence” to be is anything but.

    From your own link:

    There’s no telling whether or not Capriccioso fabricated the aforementioned emails, for they’re nothing more than typed up text, rather than screen snaps.

    Like I’ve been saying all along…fake, but accurate.

    Paul (36cd46)

  59. Paul – David E. is mimicking the Mike Rogers slime routine except that David isn’t doing the dirty work himself. He’s having a grand old time spreading the manure.

    And I’m having a grand old time mocking him.

    Paul (36cd46)

  60. David Ehrenstein:

    I call it Swift Hustlers for Truth

    More like ACLU: All-Creative Liars Union.

    Paul (36cd46)

  61. Paul – If there was any “evidence” in that link, it was evidence that there is no relationship. Oh, fuck. I cannot believe we are even having this discussion. To David, and his ilk, a person is defined by where they choose to insert their dick. It is the same thing as Sullivan going all batshit crazy over same sex marriage. It leads to patent dishonesty, and grade school gotcha crap like what that ass on David’s link was trying to do, collect Flynt’s money. I see that David has learned to characterize the contents of a link at the Gren Gleenwald School of Advanced Bald Faced Lying.

    JD (33beff)

  62. You guys don’t know by now that David is totally off the wall on gay issues???? But, to lend him one of my testimonials, he is extremely erudite and otherwise amusing.

    nk (09a321)

  63. I have many issues

    I’ll say.

    Comment by Paul

    He walked right into that one, didn’t he?

    I guess the joyboy’s denial isn’t enough for him.

    I call it Swift Hustlers for Truth

    Thing is, the Swift Boat vets had facts.

    Try it some time. It’s fun.

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  64. The whole idea that Rogers, and now David, are willing to throw their own onto a fire simply because of their political affiliation is repulsive. Apparently, to the authentic homosexuals, anyone that does not share their political philosophy must be expelled. No diversity of thought or belief is accepted.

    Ironically, it is people like Rogers, David, and Gavin Newsom that will keep the gay community from advancing their agenda. And they do not understand why.

    JD (33beff)

  65. Oh, fuck. I cannot believe we are even having this discussion.

    You just had one of “those” moments, didn’t you…

    🙂

    Scott Jacobs (a1de9d)

  66. JD, I know that. I simply think it’s fun to point out when libruls are lying, and mockingly leave their arguments in tatters.

    I haven’t had this much fun since Staunch Brayer was banned.

    Paul (36cd46)

  67. Astroglide for everyone.

    Makes STP look like glue!

    daleyrocks (906622)

  68. Paul – I know. I know. I am shocked that I even bothered to click on the link that David provided. I feel dirty after having read that. The fact that BigHeadDC and David are willing to just, literally, make shit up, should no longer be surprising, but nonetheless, it is. I feel kind of dirty, kind of slimy, just for even having this discussion at all. Not dirty because we are talking about homosexuality, but dirty because of the mental midgets that care more about their own cause and their own identity group, that they are willing to pander in lies. And what do they gain? What do they win? Nothing.

    The most ironic part is that I could not give a flying fuck if Trent Lott is Gavin Newsom’s human butt plug. It has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that he was a less than stellar Republican Senator. He would have been no less than stellar if he was more queer than a $3 bill, and no less stellar if he is straight. Who really cares, other than David, King of the Gays?

    JD (33beff)

  69. What’s with this “their own” business? Was Roy Cohn one of “my own”?

    “The most ironic part is that I could not give a flying fuck if Trent Lott is Gavin Newsom’s human butt plug.”

    In the immortal words of Auntie Mame, “How vivid.”

    Clearly you do.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  70. Who really cares, other than David, King of the Gays?

    …who salivates at the opportunity to bash someone over the notion that he might be gay. Facts be damned, he’s got a queer to smear. With the gayhood!

    “Ohh! Look! Trent Lott did teh butsexs! What a bad, bad man he is!”

    Pablo (99243e)

  71. We have fifty Trent Lotts in the Chicago city council and another fifteen on the Cook County board of commissioners. In the words of the immortal Mike Royko, their motto is “ubi est mea” — “where’s my cut”.

    There was an amusing story a few years ago about Trent Lott’s son. He wanted to have his dog in the passenger compartment of a Southwest airlines flight and threatened the airline with “daddy” if he didn’t get his way. The founder was still CEO, I believe, and told him to take [another flying option].

    nk (09a321)

  72. Hey, I thought I was Queen of the Gays!

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  73. David, you’re not the king or queen of anything, just another faggot who throws their sexual identity in everybody’s face at each opportunity. You seem to be the only gay commenter on this board with this trait. Seek help.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  74. daleyrocks #75,

    You should not have said that.

    nk (09a321)

  75. OH, I am SO offended!!!!! I am reduced to a puddle of salty sissy tears!

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  76. nk – Is that prohibited? It looks so different in print than spoken. Should I have said queer, homosexual or something much more colorful?

    I think David’s desperate attention-seeking behavior is significant.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  77. David is more than a little bit cracked on gay issues and that’s a fact. I bet that we could not get him to admit that 9/11 was not a plot to kill all the gays in the Twin Towers if we threatened him with hot irons on the one hand and promised him seventy-two virgins and fountains flowing with Zinfandel and frozen Margharitas on the other. But he does not deserve to be called names.

    nk (09a321)

  78. On my visits to New York I used to get the bus to Newark Airport (so much more convenient than JFK) right in front of the WTC.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  79. I still don’t see any screen shots, David.

    Fake, but accurate.

    Paul (36cd46)

  80. Paul – That’s probably the wrong thing to ask for from David. There’s no telling what kind of shot he may provide.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  81. Just the mental picture that daleyrocks conjured up is enough to ruin my appetite.

    JD (33beff)

  82. All right, daleyrocks, I’ll revise the comment:

    I still don’t see any screen shots of the scandalous e-mails, David.

    Fake, but accurate.

    Paul (36cd46)

  83. David, you’re not the king or queen of anything, just another faggot who throws their sexual identity in everybody’s face at each opportunity.

    This language is not permitted on this site.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  84. Screen shots? You mean like THIS?

    You know what I meant, David.

    To repeat the quote from your own link provided in #56:

    There’s no telling whether or not Capriccioso fabricated the aforementioned emails, for they’re nothing more than typed up text, rather than screen snaps.

    Your own link in #81, An Update from Dan (conflict of interest) Savage, also fails to provide the the scandalous e-mail screen caps.

    I’ll say it again:

    Fake, but accurate.

    Paul (36cd46)

  85. Now, I’ll repeat #55:

    So David, are you going to post a shred of evidence?

    Or continue to evade?

    Paul (36cd46)

  86. Admit it, David. You’ve got nothing.

    For your sake, I hope you don’t consider what you’ve written so far on this thread your ‘A’ game.

    Paul (36cd46)

  87. Sorry Patterico. In context, I thought it would be OK, but I was a little excited.

    daleyrocks (906622)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1030 secs.