Mississippi Senator Trent Lott is is retiring from the Senate before the year is out to cash in on a lobbying career. A new ethics law would prevent him from working as a paid advocate for special interests for two years if he waited. Why should someone have to wait that long to jump on the gravy train of pork barrel projects, special interest corruption and big bucks? I suppose Lott simply couldn't stem the temptation.
Lott, as you might recall, was forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader after getting caught on tape lamenting the bad old days of segregation and lynching in his Deep South. Yes, those Mississippi hatreds just don't seem to die off do they?
He was just reelected last year. I wonder why he's bagging out. Could Larry Flynt have something to do with it? I heard a great snark earlier today on this. Someone said that Lott is resigning before a picture gets out of him being nice to an African-American.
Posted by: Ghost of Tom Joad | November 26, 2007 at 07:31 PM
The chances of a picture like that existing are slim and none.
"I wonder why he's bagging out" He'$ ca$hing out.
Posted by: John Morgan | November 26, 2007 at 08:00 PM
Dont let the door hit you where the good Lord split you, Trent.
Lott, Hastert and Frist were in charge of the legislative agenda during the republican controlled congress where they started spending like...well, democrats.
They were one of many reasons my side lost control in 04. So no tears here about his departure.
However, when Chris Dodd and his praise of former Klansman Robert Byrd get 1/2 of 1% of the press that Lott took over his praise of Strom Thrumond...but I am not holding my breath.
have a great day :)
Posted by: tyler | November 27, 2007 at 08:27 AM
You love to beat up on Byrd without admitting the man saw the error of his ways and reformed. Something Southern Republicans have yet to do. Lott is a prime example.
The GOP is filled with much worse examples than Robert Byrd. Give the man credit for reforming.
Posted by: John Morgan | November 27, 2007 at 09:43 AM
My comments should not be taken as beating up Byrd. And I will be the first to say that he reformed and if it's genuine, then I applaud his change of heart (even though he did drop the N bomb in an interview in 2000 or 2001...imagine the outrage if it was say...Spectre.)
What I like to point out that if he was a republican...and you know in your heart of hearts its true...that he wouldn't have been given the chance to reform. The Congressional Black Caucus would have rightly boycotted everything until he/she was gone. A former klansman as a senior senator is ok for the dems, but would be unforgivable sin if he was a GOP. The Klan and all the mental associations that go with it...burning crosses..white robes...nooses.
I;m not really mad at Byrd, I just see a double standard.
Posted by: tyler | November 27, 2007 at 12:14 PM
That double standard exists because the GOP continues to be such a racist Party. Your entire slate of presidential candidates is running on a racist immigration policy. Tancredo, Paul and Hunter are a disgrace to the principles of tolerance, understanding and racial harmony.
Posted by: John Morgan | November 27, 2007 at 01:11 PM
OK, I'll go with the change in direction...
What race is my party against when it comes to illegal immigration? Illegal is a term to described and act as forbidden by law or statute.
So if I am against illegal immigration from Canada, China, Mexico, Poland, Great Britian, Norway, Ireland, Sudan, Morocco, and even Andorra (small country between France and Spain) and it's the illegal act I am against rather than the country the person is from...
What race am I against? What race am I discriminating against? What race am I oppressing?
Or are you stero-typing a group...so when I say "illegal" you automatically think a certain ethnic group? Much like a while back I said "drunken Kennedy" and you thought Teddy when I really was referring to Patrick.
Are you sterotyping John? Hmmmm....I say illegal, you think race...
telling, very telling.
:)
Posted by: tyler | November 27, 2007 at 03:30 PM
I don't see any of these people demanding we build a wall on the Canadian border. I don't hear any of them b*tching about the undocumented Irish, or the use of French by Canadians visiting here. I do see them stereotyping all Latinos as criminals and undesirables. I do see them condemning Spanish and only Spanish.
Immigration has always been an issue with racism at its core. Always. This is an attempt for all the racists, again, to couch their prejudices in the wrapper of security, the issue racism is always married to.
You aren't fooling anyone by saying this issue doesn't involve racism, just ask any Hispanic person.
Posted by: John Morgan | November 27, 2007 at 04:16 PM
Canadian wall? I'm all for it.
Undocumented Irish? I'm against them until they are documented.
French speaking canadians? Makes me hate them twice as much...one for being canadian, one for speaking french. :)
I think the reason people focus on our south of the border friends is because they make up the vast majority of illegal population. But it doest make us racist.
But again, illegal is illegal regardless of race. I have no problems with hispanics or latinos or whatever the politically correc term is these days...i have a problem with illegals from all nationalities.
I think we agree the country need to aggressively go after the companies that hire and hide the illegals with heavy fines and penalties.
Have a great day :)
Posted by: tyler | November 28, 2007 at 10:50 AM