Redstate

He hasn't been great on pork, but (1) he can't go further than his caucus will go and (2) sometimes, you gotta spend pork to buy cohesion on priority issues.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

HTML Help for Red Staters

And the minority part's club to hit them with.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

The Democrats have a real chance to make this competitive. Former AG Mike Moore and Rep. Gene Taylor would both be very strong candidates. The most likely Republican is Rep. Chip Pickering, whom most think was waiting to see if Sen. Thad Cochran, who is running for reelection, would retire. Don't be surprised, though, if the Club for Growth tries to field a candidate, as Pickering and Moore, Wicker, the other Republican Congressman from the state, have 2% ratings from the organization.

www.republicansenate.org

Remember that MS is 37% black (and becoming relatively more black over time). There is a large Democratic base in the state. The House seats are 2R, 2D. Gov. Barbour (R) has successfully moved the state in an R direction (helping Rs win most statewide races) but the state legislature is still D.

AG Mike Moore is the likely D candidate. He started the whole tobacco lawsuit class actions and thus has a populist following. Rep. Taylor would be the strongest candidate, but he likely won't run.

Since this is a retirement mid-term, (I assume) Barbour will appoint a replacement before a special election. Barbour is a former RNC head and a true partisan, so I expect he will appoint someone he thinks will keep the seat rather than someone he owes a favor to.

Barbour has also reached out to the black community in his re-election bid this year. It would be smart to consult with any allies in the black community before making a final decision. MS is the type of state with a large, conservative black population where Rs should be making a long term effort to win over black voters.

I don't think there are any black Rs in position to be appointed to the SEN seat. But if there is a candidate who Barbour allies like and can support, that can be a step in the right direction.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Barbour has been a very good Governor, and fortunately ignored by the MSM.

If freshmen were going to be considered, I'd be all for Tom Coburn, but alas, the Senate is an old boys network. Our best realistic shot is probably Sen. Kyl, with whom I'd be perfectly happy.

www.republicansenate.org

head with this "We need fighters, not salesmen." Having victory on some issue within reach, only to watch these "statesmen" sell us out just about every single time has become beyond frustrating.

And I liked the rest of your comment as well.

I think Kyl is next in line. So a McConnell/Kyl leadership is very likely. That is a solid two-some and puts Kyl in position to be Minority Leader eventually.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

But I'm figuring it will be someone like Specter.

The Dems won't be on top forever :-)

Oz

Read my most recent story, "No speech from Romney is a reason to avoid him" on First Cut Politics

The Conference Chair (Kyl) is considered the number 3. I don't know how they treat Policy Chair (KBH) vs. Conference Secretary (Cornyn) in terms of 4/5. But I would think that KBH, since she has already signaled her "imminent" (in Senate terms) departure, would pass - she didn't run for it at the start of the session.

I suppose we also need to keep Lamar! in mind, since he did run for it against Lott - I seem to remember that the vote was fairly close, so Alexander could come in with a base of support.

Much could be decided by Mitch - if he gives any hints as to a preference, it likely will go that way - I'm sure the caucus is not interested in creating a leadership feud by bucking what the Leader wants.

Personally, I think Kyl would be a good choice. He just won re-election, and so won't have to face the electorate as "the face of Senate Republicans" for a while, and also will not have to do any campaigning next year (Cornyn is up in 2008, and even in TX, it's best if he has the time to go home and raise money and win votes as needed rather than worrying about what's going on on the floor).

On Sessions - no. I like him where he is. He and Coburn can be wrench-throwers. A leader - especially the number 2 - cannot sit and be difficult about his pet peeve. Sessions would lose his edge as Whip as he would have to constantly insure that he kept the support and respect of the caucus. Sessions is in a position similar to what Scalia was in when the CJ spot opened up - he'd have been great, but he would have lost a little of what made him Scalia if he had to keep the group cohesive.

He's a squishy one. If there's a controversial issue up for a vote, he always waits to see what the consensus is before he announces his position. The times I have called his office(s) to ask for his postion on the illegal immigration debate and then L.O.S.T., his staff's postion was the same both times Senator Alexander has not announced his position at this time." Both times I called the day of or the day before the debate.

Give me someone with less of an eye to political calculation for his own sake and more for the sake of his country and party.

I didn't say I liked him, but I suspect he is already working to gather up his supporters from last time and win over new folks. While we sit and talk, the caucus is already making the decisions. That's the way it works. By the time we get the public information about the race, it will be practically over. I expect that their will be a presumptive winner before Christmas.

And I don't know that this decision is as susceptible to constituent pressure as legislative issues. How many Senators really think they will meet a successful primary challenge or lose significant support over their vote for Whip? And they'd probably be right. None of them will lose their job over a vote for Lamar! or KBH - assuming they pay attention to the people on the issues.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Lott has been pretty good. He was treated shabbily. He is now openly ridiculed. We were fortunate to have him, and will be lucky to get someone with his skills on our side in the future. In listening to conservative blogs a fair amount, I see a trend of destructively chasing ideological purity. By the standards I hear people set today, Reagan would not be an acceptable candidate if he was running now. I think pursuing purity at the expense of effectiveness and broad areas of agreement is destructive. For me at least, Lott is an example of this concept.

HTML Help for Red Staters

And not trying to disrespect the thread. I thought the issue was getting a good replacement for Lott. In my experience it is good to analyze the problem before offering a corrective solution. Would someone more conservative than Lott was be better? Yes. But getting someone who can contiue to trip up Reid's pitiful rendition of "The Brain" is more important than an ideological test. As big a joke Reid has made the Senate, it is only funny because he is getting nothing done. If he and Pinky strat connecting their efforts agaisnt America into actual legislation, they could lose this war and hurt the national interest tremendously.

There is a difference between talking about who is the best candidate to field for a Senate seat in Maine, and the question of who should lead the party.

I don't mind Susan Collins in Maine - she's probably the best we can get for where she is. But that doesn't mean I want her to be the caucus leader.

When people here say they want someone more conservative, they really mean that they want someone who will be fighting for the kinds of things that the core of the party want. Lott is a porker (something that is a pet peeve of many), and worse, looked with disdain on those who disapproved of that habit as if we were ruining the country. I believe he is also on record saying that talk radio was ruining America. That the guy that should be a point man for the party's priorities?

The earlier comments said it - we're not in the 80s anymore. 25 years ago Democrats had some statesmen left - people like Pat Moynihan and Tip O'Neill - willing to work with Reagan and Republicans to get things done - a little of what each side wanted and something that would move things forward. Today we have a bunch of Republicans with that mentality, but all the Democrats do is run around and use it to get what they want while giving nothing in return.

A Whip's job is to line up the votes, to keep the caucus in line with the "program" and to insure that the Leader isn't going to have egg on his face at the end of the day (Durbin luckily isn't very good at that). That means that he needs to be on-board with "the program" himself and needs to know some of the procedural intricacies - but mostly he just needs to count. The rest is the leader's job. Lott was good at what he did - but it's not unfair for us to want his replacement to not only have some skills, but to have the policy preferences that the rest of us have.

comments, Lott is also a big boy and has been around for long enough to know Republicans shoot their own rather than having walking wounded.

He should have retired after he resigned as senate leader (whether immediately or by not running in the next election doesn't much matter to me). He didn't, and he got more bitter and more focused on getting his share of pork for his state. And the piggish preoccupation of Congress is what voters hate most in any elected official but their own. So he contributed to the downfall of Republicans in the last election as much as anyone who was indicted. And in the end, this is all about winning elections.