« The End of the Tax Revolt? | Main | Judy Held Out for THIS? Plus, a Bonus MoDo Letter »

November 09, 2005


The fissures opening in the GOP are interesting. As Matt Yglesias says at TAPPED this morning, after yesterday's election results GOP legislators are going to have to ask themselves what upside there is for them in trying to keep the lid on the Great Bush Iraq Coverup. Why ally yourself with Cheney and torture and manipulation of intel to sell a war that is going badly and won't get any better?

As Bush digs himself in ever more deeply, much of the rest of the GOP has got to start thinking about survival. Without their edge on national security and with the voters having second thoughts about tax cuts, what, exactly, can this party of corruption and incompetence really offer?

I don't have a clear sense of what is driving Lott. Does he have presidential ambitions? Is it possible that Katrina had an effect on him?

I'm from Arkansas (though I've been in NY and CT since graduating from college), so I feel like I have some sense of where Lott is coming from. His dissatisfaction with media-circus tricks like the one Frist just tried to pull may represent some kind of shift in the Mississippi-Arkansas-Louisiana area toward common sense.

Note that Mike Huckabee (Arkansas governor) has presidential ambitions, and has already made trips to Iowa and NH. He's a bible-thumping holy roller, but he has common sense and a certain flair. I would think he has a real chance of galvanizing the millions of good people in the evangelical movement behind him. Fakes like Frist will find it tough sledding against the likes of him.

Lott is still pissed that Bush threw him overboard as Majority Leader. Consider the others for whom Bush has stepped up to the plate and offered unwavering support: John Bolton, Harriet Miers, Bernie Kerik, Mike Brown, the list goes on and on. All pretty plainly scumbags and/or sycophants. But where was Bush when the rather more accomplished Majority Leader of the Senate was in trouble over his remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday celebration?


Bush used the opportunity to install the empty-headed Frist as his hand-picked Majority Leader -- precisely because he was empty-headed, and his inexperience would hand control of the Senate to the White House political machine that installed him.

Lott hasn't forgiven Bush or Frist for this, and he takes every opportunity afforded him to show whatever part of the world might be watching that Frist is a moron, and that the president has bitten off more than he can chew.

Does he have his own presidential ambitions? Maybe. But there's no doubting what he's up to here, and that's taking back de facto control of the Senate by relocating the Republican center of gravity.


Still revenge for getting ousted from the Senate Majority spot, pure and simple.

On top of that, Lott is enough of an old bull that he's going to fight to keep Senate prerogatives in the face of an executive privilege onslaught.

Still, mostly petty revenge.

Mmmm. A pub with a grudge.

This would be a good opportunity for Trent to piss off Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al. But is Lott really that self-interested? (Possibly.)

Lott is up for re-election again in 2006. I suspect his calculus will be not to rock the boat too much by siding with the Dems in Sissy Six, because he won't want to risk being tarred with the RINO (Republican In Name Only) brush that's been applied to McCain and other pubs who reach to the other side of the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship -- Snow, Collins, Chafee, etc.

Whereas those senators can gain support from their constituencies for their independence, that won't work for Lott. Lott is hard-right. Working bipartisanly with the Dems to honestly investigate WH intelligence manipulation could get him in trouble with his base, and probably wouldn't gain him any traction with the moderates or the left.

Much as I'd like to think the irascible old motherfucker would get cranky on the White House's ass, I don't see how it helps Lott politically -- the wingnuts would brand him a traitor. He's already in trouble with some of the moderates for his comments in support of Strom Thurmond, and it's likely the next election will be a close one for Lott. And I doubt he's thinking of retiring; he's only 64.

On the other hand, he has been acting a little gleeful and shiv-happy lately. One can only hope....

Hmm, I guess that's right about Lott. I had forgotten about the Thurmond-fest remarks.

I'm biased, I know, but I still think something is going on in the heart of the South, those desperately underdeveloped parts of Alabama, Missisippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana where the music (and the evangelical movement)comes from. Katrina may be the catalyst, but it was starting before that. Those places have more in common with dysfunctional cities like Detroit or Newark than they do with the country-club South of the Atlantic coast. Do you think Frist or any of those rich kids from Maryland to Georgia has ever been to a Revival in a tent?

If Lott wants to remain the go-to guy when Frist falls, he's not going to side with the Dems on a torture or intelligence investigation. His desire to undercut Frist will put him on our side of the brick wall sometimes, but the enemy of our enemy is not our friend. I trust your judgment in these matters more than my own, ~wheel, and I hope you're right -- we'll see when we see.

If I were asked for nickel consulting though I might not bother trying to figure out how to get the committee to go my way and instead start trying to think of how to capitalize on a committee stalemate. Hopefully Reid's already got plans in place for that likely event.

Revenge....definitely yes! But....
Frist isn't running for the Senate again 2006 so a new Republican leader will be needed.
Lott's been there, done that as both a Majority and Minority leader of the Senate. Lott as the next Minority leader is a better choice than some of the alternatives.

I suspect is already counting his votes and moving a little more to the center.

I seriously doubt whether he is concerned about his base back home.

Was I imagining this, or didn't I hear some thought that Lott was going to retire? If so, it could explain his "nothing to lose" approach to dealing with the Bushies -- who, as most here have already explained, failed to back him in his hour of need.

On recalling Susan Ralston for more testimony, TalkLeft points out that she's be called to testify about a July 11, 2003 between Rove & Cooper, and that on the same day, Condi said:

RICE: But I will tell you that, for instance, on Ambassador Wilson's going out to Niger, I learned of that when I was sitting on whatever TV show it was, because that mission was not known to anybody in the White House. And you should ask the Agency at what level it was known in the Agency.

Yeah, there were rumors of retirement. But, as Steve points out, he's probably not worried about the voters at home in any case (unless Haley Barbour carries out a full-scale revenge campaign against Lott at the orders of Rove/Bush, and even then...).

Actually, I think the "side with Dems on torture" is a safe vote. Not least because it's primarily "side with McCain on torture, even though the Dems happen to come along for the ride." The "side with Dems on intelligence" is more costly. I doubt he'd capitulate to Levin's goals (Levin knows his parliamentary trickiness, but so does Lott). Rather, I'd expect him to craft a moderate compromise (remember, he tried to play broker on gang of 14 compromise) that accomplishes some good without sacrificing the party.

Arrivederci Ms. Run Amok


Does McConnell have the 2006 leadership race sewn up? Are there any real contenders besides maybe Lott? Let's continue assuming that Santorum loses.

Very nice analysis. I agree about the importance of Lott in all of this (and the ineptitude of Frist for allowing him a potential "swing vote" -- hell hath no fury like a leader scorned).

One question: the "sissy six" group is presumably a Reid/Rockefeller/etc. brainchild, or close to one--i.e. they must have known, going into the closed session last week, that a bipartisan committee was the best that they could hope for. Given the large amount of planning that went into the Rule 21 play, I'd think that this next stage would also have been considered well in advance. And Reid/Rockefeller/etc. couldn't have been counting on Lott to be on that committee, or on his "cooperation." (right?)

Meaning, I suspect, that Reid/Rockefeller/etc. probably have additional maneuvers up their sleeves w.r.t. this committee. But I have no idea what these could be. Any ideas?

dismayed republicans may, just like us, be looking for a leader...someone whose positions on so many many things does not make them cringe. their illusions are being not shattered but squished slowly by a very heavy foot.

it's possible that trent lott could see a way to redeem himself...hey, byrd did it...by taking point on righteous revelations on the torture and the war, and by helping the rebuilding back home. a statesman born of national tragedy, a leader arising from the chaos of bad government...hey, everyone has fantasies...but how many have lott's opportunity...i can't do a question mark...i've lost the power to shift key. i know not why.

Hey 'wheel,
Hate to be a one-note wonder here, but there seems to be no end of contradictory fog out there on the meta-story (the "What Republican Senator Leaked the Black Sites Story" story) -- with TNR's the Plank saying it's McCain (and Atrios jumping the gun a bit by endorsing the still-unproved McCain-might-have-fibbed-on-CNN theory) and with Laura Rozen saying that she has sources placing it with one of the nine pro-torture Senators.
There sure is a lot of fog -- to say nothing of possible smoke -- out there. What do you make of this? I still think that Lott's whole premise (that the story was essentially dictated to the Post by a Republican Senator and/or staffer and whipped into its polished form within hours of the luncheon) is quite unlikely -- at least in it's strongest form. To quote Tom Waits "What's he *building* in there?"

Nice analysis on Lott here. The GOP schism -- paleocon v. neocon -- is certainly headed toward a boil, with the heat cranked up another notch after yesterday's elections.

Lott went down in a hail of neocon bullets, post-Thurmond. The entire neocon establishment went for his head. National Review led the charge, with the WH hot on its tail.

Lott's only defenders were the paleocons -- folks like Robert Novak, Pat Buchanan and Jesse Helms.

No doubt Lott has been biding time for likely moments to shiskebab his former friends. And he's more than savvy enough to achieve the desired effects, whenever he should desire to effect them. As the WH surely knows. Antacids, anyone?

With the neocons now running for their lives, expect a lot more of this kind of thing. They stomped quite a few GOP toes on their climb to power, and many such favors shall be returned on the downslope.

If it goes far enough, the neocons may end up deciding to head back to where they came from, i.e. the Democratic Party. What sort of welcome might they receive?

Steve: "Lott as the next Minority leader is a better choice than some of the alternatives."

Steve, there's no chance of Lott ever regaining the Senate Republican Leadership, Minority or Majority.

Lott's permanently tainted by his Thurmond remarks, and subsequently being forced out of the Leadership by Rove, Frist, Bush. It would paint the GOP as racist all over again and the last thing the pubs want to do on that score is make themselves an easy target.

With Bush polling at two percent amongst blacks, with a three percent margin of error, it's theoretically possible that Bush's actual approval rating is -1 percent. The pubs simply have too many problems with African-Americans to even remotely consider provoking another controversy over Lott.

Cheap Cialis
Cheap Cialis
Cheap Viagra
Generic Viagra
Generic Viagra
Firstly, Cialis can be taken with or without food about 30 minutes to 1 hour prior to sexual activity. Thus, you have minimum chance of missing a dose. Secondly, once you have had a Cialis pill, its effect lasts for around 36 hours which is 4 times longer than Viagra or any other erectile dysfunction pill. That's why its been often funnily referred to as the "weekend pill" meaning if you have a pill on Friday you will go as strongly through Saturday and Sunday. One more thing, when I stated that Cialis is user friendly it doesn't mean that you can have it as and when you like, at your own sweet will. It's a prescribed drug and should
Generic Viagra
Generic Viagra
Generic Viagra
Generic Viagra
Generic Viagra

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad