A Bad Beginning
By Charles Bird Posted in Congress | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (54) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Four years ago, Trent Lott didn't step down as Majority Leader because of his stupid and racially insensitive remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday party. He was forced to step down because those remarks were the last straw. Lott was an ineffective leader, too willing to accommodate obstructionist Daschle-led Democrats in the Senate, and too unwilling to fight for conservative issues such as judicial nominations.
During his time in leadership exile, Lott did little to distinguish himself. Captain Ed:
Read on . . .
One of the major legislative reforms that came out of the last session of Congress was the Coburn-Obama spending database. Bill Frist managed to expertly get that through in the last days of the legislative calendar. However, that dextrous performance only became necessary because Trent Lott used an arcane Senate rule to kill the database back in March. Tom Coburn and Barack Obama offered the database in an amendment to a lobbying reform bill under consideration, and he invoked Rule 22, which stripped the amendment from the bill for its supposed irrelevance to lobbying reform.
This naturally inspired a lot of criticism from the blogosphere, which has focused on earmarks (especially secret earmarks) as a point of entry for corruption in Congress. In response to this criticism, Lott told an AP reporter that "I'll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I'm getting damn tired of hearing from them."
Memo to Senator Lott: porkbusters are taxpayers, and we have every right to question how our money gets spent. The fact that the question came in response to a $700 million project to relocate rail tracks in Mississippi that we had just spent $300 million repairing makes the point even more clear. Lott belongs to a generation of politicians that believe that they are above the criticism of their constituents, and that we should just shut up and let our betters decide what to do with us.
Now here we are, four years after Lott's last ineffectual stint in leadership, and it looks like Republican Senators have learned next to nothing. From CNN:
Sen. Trent Lott, ousted from the top Senate Republican leadership job four years ago because of remarks considered racially insensitive, won election to the No. 2 post Wednesday for the minority GOP in the next Congress.
Lott returned to the center of power by getting the position of vote-counting GOP whip, nosing out Sen. Lamar Alexander. Sen. Rick Santorum told reporters that Lott beat Alexander by a 25-24 vote.
This is a bad beginning. The Republicans got drubbed earlier this month in part because of profligate pork-barrel spending yet, before the dust has even settled on the abysmal election results just over a week ago, the caucus elected to leadership one of the biggest pigs in the federal trough. More from Captain Ed:
Republicans need to show that they have learned a lesson from their midterm drubbing. They lost their majorities because voters perceived that they had lost touch with the electorate on policy as well as attitude. We sent Republicans to clean up Congress, not to clean up for themselves in porkfests that rival anything that came before them. Trent Lott represents the worst of that class, and the mere idea that he remains in consideration for a leadership position after his commentary this year proves that the GOP hasn't listened hard enough.
If the Senate Republicans want us to take them seriously, then they need to send Trent Lott to the back bench where he belongs. Any Republican Senator who supports Lott in leadership needs to have their head examined.
Sadly, they didn't learn their lesson. Putting Lott back into leadership isn't quite as bad as Democrats electing Murtha to House majority leader, but it's still bad, and Redstaters need to make their views known.
um...no. That was Bill Frist. Lott practically walked all over Daschel.
...filibustering Democrats, it was Frist who made the stand on judicial nominations. The result was the Gang of 14, which has worked more in Republicans' favor than for the Dems. Not that I'm endorsing Frist or that I particularly favor him, but you have to give him credit for that.
We got Roberts and Alito through, and it ended the logjam. We didn't get everything we wanted, but it worked out much better for the R's than the D's because we got seven moderate Democrats who would break with the obstructionist Dem leadership and not join the filibusters. The Kossacks hated it because it foiled their obstructionist tactics.
1. Roberts and Alito would have passed anyway. After the hearings, there was no way they could not have passed. G14 did NOTHING, absolutely nothing, to get either of these men to SCOTUS.
2. I believe we are now up to 7 judges and still counting who've been thrown under the Senate Comity Bus by these brain dead, self serving bas***ds. (I'm referring to the R Senators on G14, and especially McCain & Graham.)
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
It failed because the ability to filibuster judicial nominations still exists. That is a flagrant abrogation of the Constitution and a perfect example of failed, weak leadership. You can't put that on Lott.
I will wait to see if Lott gets religion on pork barrel spending. But in fairness, where is Alexander in this whole discussion? The “lets attack the new leaders” nonsense is getting old real fast.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Now that we lost Congress, and so far the prospects of regaining it is not great (see: Lott victory), combined with the possibility of a Democratic president, perhaps maintaining the filibuster tradition isn't such a bad thing for us...the worm, sooner or later, always turns.
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. - Alan Greenspan
The thing is that Republican leader Frist was only going to ban the filibuster for nominations -- all other filibusters would still be allowed. So unless we are going to filibuster president Bush's nominations, the "nuclear option" would have hurt us for at least two years.
Not even if the Whig Party was in charge. That is outside the Constitution and a power that was never intended to be in the hands of our legislative branch.
Don’t forget, we took a principled stand on that (remember that part of philosophy that has grounded conservatives). Judicial filibusters are a hallmark of people who care nothing for the Constitution and only care about parochial minority pursuits. That would be the Democrat Party, not us.
This is what really burns my biscuits because I truly believe it is a big part of why we are the minority today. That is, the penchant desire to do anything to win, even adopting Democrats extra Constitutional behavior. Don’t go there, it is why we are the minority today.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
Should have broken the filibuster while we had the chance!
the election turned out, be careful what you wish for, as the filibuster is the second best weapon available to the Republicans at the moment.
Neither party should have the option to filibuster nominees. Any nominees, not just judicial. Elections have consequences and just because we may not like the result does not mitigate the fact that "the people" elected Democrats to control both houses of Congress.
Two other points. First, just how will a filibuster help Republicans? Last time I looked, Bush still gets to nominate the judges/justices. Are you afraid he's going to nominate the head of the ACLU and we'll need to filibuster him? This argument makes NO sense.
Second, if you are referring to the possibility that a Democrat President might nominate a judge/justice the Republicans don't like - you don't actually think s/he would be filibustered do you? Republicans don't do that. It hurts comity and isn't bipartisan.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I agree with everything in this post and just add that I believe if we have a democratic president and a democratic senate, and if the democrats can't get enough RINO's to avoid filibusters, then I believe the democrats will change the senate rules to have majority rule for everything, not just nominations. The democrats always choose to win, and to heck with the technical details.
...just like they did for Ginsburg and Breyer. So that particular argument does not hold up as a reason to oppose the nuclear/constitutional option. In point of fact, only a handful of Republican Senators bothered to vote against them for confirmation, and while it wouldn't have mattered if they did anyway, at least the Left/Dems/Media would not have those lop-sided votes point to as false proof that those two were moderates.
Now of course its all moot, as Samuel Alito may go down in history as the last conservative ever confirmed to the Sup Court.
What do I base that on? Well, first of all, my belief that the Democrats will filibuster any conservative nominee should Bush get another opening; and secondly, on my distrust of frontrunners McCain and Giuliani even if the GOP were to retake the Senate in 2008, and thirdly, on my belief that the Dems would continue to filibuster conservative nominees even if the GOP retakes the Senate, and elects a conservative President in 2008.
I'd rather that stain be on the hands of the Democrats.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
If the filibuster had been broken, it would not be available for the use of those who oppose the Democrats today. The filibuster has obviously been misused on a number of occasions, but it is often a good barometer on whether or not there is consensus on a difficult issue.
But I think he is going to be better than Lamar Alexander.
Now, if Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, John Cornyn, or Jon Kyl been in the running, I would have preferred any one of them over either Lott or Alexander. But, they didn't throw their hats in the ring, and we vote with the candidates that we have. I think that Trent Lott was a better choice.
Right now, I think that the Senate has a pretty powerhouse leadership team in terms of capability. Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott are going to be definite forces to be reckoned with. And John Ensign is going to get a lot more Republicans elected in 2008.
Things are looking good in the Senate from my perspective.
Hopefully the House will get its act together, too, now and electe Minority Leader Mike Pence and Minority Whip John Shadegg. Maybe Jeb Hensarling or Jeff Flake can be the Chairman of the RNCC for 2008, too.
"Mitch McConnell and Trent Lott are going to be definite forces to be reckoned with." Are you kidding me? Next you are going to tell me that Ted Stevens is going to lead the charge to eliminate wasteful spending.
And he is going to skewer the Democrats. I understand that Trent Lott likes pork. I do. But he's going to be better than Lamar Alexander.
If Tom Coburn, John Cornyn, Jon Kyl, or Jim DeMint had thrown their names into the pot, then okay...I'd have pulled for any one of them to win over Trent Lott. But those were not our choices. Our choices were Lamar Alexander and Trent Lott. I'm not aware of Lamar Alexander coming out and being some big enemy of pork spending, and when it comes to leadership qualities, he is vastly inferior to Trent Lott.
McConnell is a crusading conservative and he is the leader. He will chart the course and lay the path. Trent Lott will get the votes, and they are both masters of senate parliamentary procedure.
Trent Lott is no Ted Stevens. I think that it's possible to bring him on board for meaningful reform on a number of issues.
Earmark Reform is going to have to come out of the House, though, led my Mike Pence as Minority Leader and John Shadegg as Minority Whip. If they do, I think that the Senate GOP will take it up, if to do nothing other than score political points running up to 2008. And it will definitely have its vocal supporters in the Senate - led by Tom Coburn.
McConnel when Frist became leader, I wish they had put McConnell there.
I don't care much for Lott, but I don't care much for Alexander either, it would have been nice to have seen somebody more new and not a dinosaur in the position.
I never thought Lott was that effective, but with McConnell in the #1 spot, maybe he will do a better job.
The whole Strom Thurmond thing will bite us again though, and in the end will mute the stupidity of the Democrats in the house in their attempts to create the most "ethical congress ever" by appointing people with ethical problems to important positions.
this is not bad. Paul at Powerline makes the same point:
By reputation and prior experience, though, few can match Lott when it comes to mastery of the ways of the Senate. And that is a core qualification for the job.
McConnell and Lott are masters of the game. We have a good leadership team forming.
I also think the whining over the House is overblown. I love Mike Pence (and would support him for President if he ran), but I have no problem with Boehner either.
From a policy perspective this is a defeat because he's certainly old school when it comes to transparency, and it isn't great for public relations, since every story will reference the Strom Thurmond comments.
However, Lott will make a good whip because he can use the rules of the Senate to tie the Democrats in knots. Plus, he can count votes, as his come from behind win of getting the whip job showed. McConnell and Lott should both be better than Frist at keeping a relatively unified caucus and should be at least at par or even one step ahead of Reid and Durbin when it comes to legislative chess matches.
And at tactics, he's pretty good. Lamar, as his presidential campaigns show, not so much.
And McConnell will run the operation anyway.
This is OK. Too much huffing and puffing from conservatives, I think.
Lott was effective at Majority Leader before his Strom Thurmond comments, whereas Frist had a larger majority to work with, but valuable time was lost by Frist not keeping the GOP caucus together. Under Frist, by the time all the mavericks were appeased after dissenting in public, the Dems had demagogued the issue in the press, and very little got done.
Lott as Minority Leader now would be bad PR, but the Whip is not a PR position, but a behind-the-scenes arm-twisting and deal-making position. As Hoyasaxa pointed out, Lott is good at counting votes and "herding cats", keeping all Republicans on the same page. If he's really good, he might be able to peel off a few Democrats on some issues (James Webb, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu in neighboring LA, Mark Pryor in neighboring AR, Joementum), while Lott will be out of the public eye and the Dixiecrat comment will be forgotten.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
I agree with Charlie Bird that Republican pork needs to be confronted and it is not just Trent Lott. Here in Montana, one of the talking points of Conrad Burns failed re-election was that because of his 18 year tenure in the Senate, he was able to "deliver for Montana." This was partially an appeal to independent voters that he can bring us the pork. I have to admit that many of us bit-the-bullet and quietly groaned. After all aside from that, Burns is a strong conservative with a great record on the issues. My point is that if we are ever going to have another Republican Revolution, we have to change the people and the party's mind regarding pork. Everyone except conservatives expects the government to foot the bill for as much as it can. This type of thinking needs to be challenged and changed. We need that type of thinking in our leadership as well.
------------
"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
I'm much more concerned about the size and scope of government and entitlements.
"Pork" accounts for about 1% of the budget. We spend 99% of our time railing about it.
The very idea that any government program would be referred to as an "entitlement" just boggles the mind. We should be entitled to live in a country where government intervention in our lives is minimal.
What we should be demanding that congress do is to sunset every department and program in the government. Even the military. Make congress debate the rationale for every program before it can be funded and make them cite Constitutional authority before it can be passed.
For starters, I would eliminate the Departments of Education, Agriculture, HUD and Commerce. I would require a plan to privatize social security and medicare. Guess why I'm not President.
Frankly, if congress would do the above, I'd be pleased to double the pork.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
As far as I am concerned pork is more than projects added on to bills, etc. Pork is just waste. It includes unnecessary agencies and programs that are funded with the peoples money. The whole attitude that government is the solution to your problems needs to go.
------------
"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
Sounds like the start to A Series of Unfortunate Events. Who will we get to cast in the leading roles? Any nominations for Count Olaf?
And Murtha starring in Book Two, the Reptilian Smoke-Filled Caucus Room. I was almost going to write a Snicket-like opening, warning readers not read this post if they liked stories about flowers and puppies and smiling children.
Poeple who mainly want power gravitate to positions of power.
Sincerely,
Bob Miller
Indianapolis, IN
Apparently the last roadblock blocking passage of a bill mandating electronic filing of all Senate FEC reports, just as the House, presidential candidates, parties and PACS do now. RedState and DailyKos have both supported the bill.
There may have been other factors contributing to Lott's resignation as Majority Leader, but I saw the reaction to his remarks about Thermond as one in a long list of examples of Republicans failing to stand up to manufactured scandals and unquestioningly letting the media and left define an issue.
With Byrd, Rangel, Dean, Murtha, Levin and others routinely saying awful things and never getting called on it, saying that we'd not have had "all these problems" if Thurmond had been President is pretty ambiguous lightweight stuff. It was hardly, as it was spun, a racist remark.
Republicans let their Majority Leader be taken down over an ambiguous remark that could have meant MANY other things, and it only emboldened Democrats and the media to do the same thing with Bush and countless other Republicans.
the manufacturing started over at National Review on that one. While it's certainly the case that the Republicans get a lot more stuff stuck to them than is really fair, there's a lot to be said, under those conditions, for avoiding the appearance of impropriety as much as possible.
fair. What matters is what is done.
Wanna see how things should work on our side of the aisle? Watch how the Dem's handle Harry Reid's association with Jack Abramoff and the pathetic life that Jack Murtha has led since he turned his back on being an honorable man.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
And I mean the only good thing, is that the Republicans in general, and Trent Lott in particular, are much better gameplayers when they are in the Minority than when they are in the Majority.
With 49 Senators at their disposal (way more than the 40 needed), McConnell & Lott should be able to tie the Democrat Congress in *knots*.
That said, I wouldn't want to see Lott anywhere near the leadership if the GOP recaptures the Majority, as he was little more competent than the wholly ineffective Bill Frist when he was running the Big Time Show back in the day...
minority position is probably easier than it is from the majority, since at the very least the party knows they are fighting the guys in charge.
I also think discipline for the GOP may be easier in both houses, because some of the squishy middle are gone.
I think it was no accident that the Democrats picked up both the House and Sentate after our leadership in both chambers were decapitated as a result of highly questionable "scandals."
To quote Lott, if DeLay and Lott had stayed in place, "we wouldn't have had all these problems."
Lott knows the rules and knows how to tie up the Dems in knots. Whether you like what he has done in the past, he will be good for us in the future by getting us leverage because he knows how to derail the trains.
to the railroad to nowhere.....
Lott is certainly better than either Frist was or Lamar would have been.
That the author thinks the gang of 14 was somehow a good thing (as he states in a post under the article) puts him in with the likes of Lindsy Graham, Mike Dewine, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Linc Chafee, Arlen Spectre, etc. The filibuster of judicial nominees is not proper, and the gang threw many good people overboard that we would have had with the option.
That the author also attributes to Lott's remarks the riduculous and manufactured outrage that liberals attached is also telling.
If it wasn't front page I'd say it was written by a troll.
"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe
Lott's remarks received a lot of play from the Left, but it was the lack of support from the conservative wing that caused him to step down, and with good reason. It wasn't just National Review who was dissatisfied with his performance in leadership. And with his pork-barreling ways since, he has done nothing to earn his slot back.
ABC News sent out a breaking news story that Harry Reid appears to be at the center of the ongoing Abramoff probe... Seems that the Democrats honeymoon will be short lived...
If there were other reasons to oust Lott at the time, then fine, but the fact that it was those innocent comments, taken way out of context, (even the shamelss Bill Clinton didn't take the chance to scored cheap points on that one) that did him in was a disgraceful and craven surrender to PC sensibilities.
I am truly surprised to make that statement. However, with respect to you and Mr. Bird, this is what gets promoted to the front page? I am a firm proponent of debate and open discussion, but the second guessing and attacks based on parochial past issues is somewhat specious and counterintuitive. This is especially true after the leadership is elected. What’s the point here; to pressure Lott on staying true to his principals? I believe there are better ways
We could use this tactic on almost anyone. For example Mr. Pence who you folks (rightfully) have led the charge for. Ever read his past statements on immigration? Why don’t we promote a diary based on that? Who cares if he has disavowed those statements, its just political posturing; get my point?
Its time to forge leadership for the future. That certainly does not begin with this type of publishing. How about calling up Mr. Lott, interviewing him and expressing your concerns, perhaps even blogging? Surely, based on past interviews here at RS that is at least plausible.
I make this plea in the interest of restoring our majority, not as some misguided complaint. Let the other party eat their young and let’s not adopt their tactics. Heck, I will call him up myself. Just send me an email.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
This is exactly the type of debate Redstaters should be having, and it comes down to a fundamental choice: are we conservatives first, or establishment Republicans first? Last I checked, the establishment Republicans went down in flames, and Lott--by his record as majority leader and big-time spender--is on that side. This post isn't an appeal for him to adhere to conservative principles. It's an appeal to conservatives to reject his election as minority whip.
One other thing. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Lott has a history of sidling too close to racists and racist organizations. Like it or not, the man is tainted, and his being brought back to leadership sends the wrong message to black voters who might have been thinking favorably toward the GOP. We simply don't need this kind of crap.
What's more, Lott proved to have a political tin ear the last time he was in leadership, and there's no reason to believe the metallic structure of his audio inputs have changed. The message from the November 7th elections should have been clear. The GOP in the House and Senate need new leaders, not retreads.
In today's opinionjournal, Newt asked this pertinent question: which bipartisanship do we choose? The kind that forces moderate and conservative Democrats to make hard choices, or the kind that impels Republicans to go along to get along? I suggest that Lott has all too often been in that latter camp. In fact, since the Bush White House wasn't too kind to him the last time around, Lott may very well work against Bush just to stick it to him.
Hardly, and I am by far not an establishment Republican. That said, what is your objective, to have him removed now he is in leadership? With all due respect Sir, that is counter productive to what we are trying to accomplish in building a new majority. I say we give him a chance to show if he can truly work for conservatives before focusing on the past as some sort of prescient gauge of the future. Appropriately, I will lead the charge if he goes astray; For I like the rest of our party am not in the mood for a continuation of unprincipled, fatuous leadership.
Secondarily, race is absolutely an issue for our party. Anyone reading my last diary would realize I personally feel it should be one of our party’s top priorities. With the exception of a few brave souls, the paltry response shows we still as a party are not comfortable with that discussion.
Accordingly, I will not make any excuse for his past statements including Thurmond, Bob Jones, ACU, etc. But Lott continues to win in elections in a state having an African American population above the national average. He also pulled in over 60% of the total vote in the last two elections? Does that make everyone voting in the GE or leadership for him racist by extension? That is a ridiculous and specious assertion.
Furthermore, I would not disagree that over his last few years Lott lost the way on pork. Spending absolutely need to be a top priority if we are going to return to the majority. This is one of the paramount issues that turned swing voters and party conservatives off to the current crop of representatives. However, I would like to believe Lott could find his way home. After all, Lott was there at the beginning and still maintains good ratings with relevant groups (2005 NTU 70%, 2005 AFTR 90%, 2006 NFIB 100%).
By the way, I am not in the mood to get along in Congress. That attitude is a primary factor why we are now the minority. We collectively failed to distinguish ourselves from the pedestrian politicians. If the party is smart, they will devote substantial time to this endeavor. If Lott does not ride that wave, I suspect you will have plenty of anti-Lott company, including me.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
...involved with this weblog who helped out in the Great Bipartisan Blogospheric Trent Lott Shiv of 2002*. I don't think that he's in a mood to return our calls; particularly since he also has a mad-on for Porkbusters...
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
*Weird times, those were. Did you know that Kos wan't... well, Kos... back then? No, really.
What is it with the surfing nomenclature? First Ben, now you. Next thing you know surfers will be calling people sophists. Proof the whole world is in a tailspin.
I am trying to get a direct answer. Let's see what that yields.
By the way, I never read KOS. Why read someone when you can predict how they will speak on every issue. Besides, communism already had it's chance and failed.
"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"
dixie68
There is no better vote counter in Washington than Trent Lott and I was always disgusted that the Republicans picked Frist instead of McConnell for majority leader. When Lott was lelader I often thought he gave in too easily to Daschle, but Frist seemed to do even worse.
Especially in the minority, we need strong and aggressive leadership. Only Lott and Alexander were even aggressive enough to declare for the open Whip slot.
So who else would you put in it?
One of the several reasons conservatives aren't doing better than we are is the high percentage of back-biting, sniveling, whiny complainers among us, who seem to believe their own peculiar set of positions is the "only true conservatism."
Too many little Patzi Buchanans.
I don't know how many here pay attention to the liberal boards but they are dancing in the streets over the selections of McConnell and Lott. The Democrats made a strong move toward the middle in the recent elections, with centrists winning key Senate seats (people like Webb & Tester) and a host of House Seats.
One of the hopes of liberals was that with the defeat of so many Republican moderates, that the Republican power base would swing to the right and south. Thus allowing the Democrats to portray Republicans as a regional party that is moving away from the American mainstream.
The selections of McConnell and Lott are exactly what the Democrats were hoping for. Not only are they southern conservatives, but they even come with tainted reputations. These are the people they want on the evening news representing the Republican perspective.
As much as there is some joy here over the Democrat leadership in the House, the other side is thrilled with what is happening in the Republican Senate.
untainted, and well respected among the GOP and the democrats in the senate. He is tenacious but I haven't heard of anything unethical regarding him. I think his post was pretty much a given-and I think had the GOP held on to the senate the conventional wisdom was that McConnel would replace Frist.
Lott definitely comes with a tainted reputation, although is it anymore or less deserved than Robert Byrd's? Byrd was just elected Pro Tem of the senate, that means he is line for the presidency right after Pelosi. I would say that cancel each other out.
Lott is not my favorite, but there weren't any non Southerners interested. I agree with the opinion that Lott was chosen as much for his knowledge of the senate rules than whether he had a tainted reputation, being in the minority, knowing how to use the senate rules to advantage is a good thing, and from what I understand Lott understands them better than anyone.
I don't know that this is the celebration among the left that it needs to be, but I also admit they GOP should have and could have done better.
Before Nov. 7th I felt as if my party had turned it's back to it's constituents, but I voted for them still. I now believe they are outright mooning us!
And that's just rude.