Trent Lott announced his resignation today, only one year into a new term. Now, what will the varied stories be over the next several months? What investigations were going on and what did they find? What skeletons have been unearthed? Or, was the loss of his home from Katrina, and the toll it has taken trying to put things back together, simply too much to attempt while also trying to conduct the nation's business?

It will be interesting to see how this all unfolds and who is selected to replace him by the Mississippi Governor.

While I like much about the man, I hold an almost equal amount of disdain for the way he abused his office and ripped off the American tax-payer. I hope his "retirement" brings some peace, knowing how he really was impacted by Katrina.

I see alot of the old Republican guard "retiring" and I wondered much the same Byl.

Are the new powers that be exacting revenge and cleaning out house inorder to set up a longer than 40 year regime of Democratic rule?

Good riddance.

He dismissed it as not playing a large part in his decision making, but new lobbying rules coming into effect on January 1st would prevent him from becoming a lobbyist for two years. By retiring before that date, he follows looser guidelines pursuing that career (possibly able to start up immediately -- not sure what the current strictures are).

I agree with good riddance btw.

Now if the Dem's would get rid of the need for lobbyists EVER I'd start to look harder at their other projects.

Or maybe it was a gay escort (http://bigheaddc.com/2007/11/26/trent-lott-fallout-the-gay-escort-who-knew-too-much/). Which I doubt, but Larry Flint has claimed to be sitting on some world-shaking revelation about a senator (likely GOP). Perhaps this is it?

My money is still on the lobbying, which -- unfortunately -- seems unlikely to go away any time soon. January 1st some new rules go into effect, but that will hardly end the greasing of palms.

Perhaps there should be a "Shoot on Site" rule for lobbists....
They rank lower than lawyers on my Hate-O-Meter.

Perhaps there should be a "Shoot on Site" rule for lobbists....
They rank lower than lawyers on my Hate-O-Meter.

Unfortunately, it is not the lobbyists that are the problem, but the corrupt political system that created them.

Politicians who realized that they could not only have the power of being an elected representative, but also gain wealth by selling their votes, are the reason lobbyists exist. Then, companies and organizations seeking the ear of those politicians sought out the people who had the best chance of getting the message to the right ears, which in turn created the next rung on the ladder for politicians who still wanted wealth and status but no longer cared for the "rigors" of elected office.

Baby steps are being taken to clean up this corrupt system, but I doubt it will ever be seriously addressed, as it would mean cutting off the hand that feeds them, essentially.


Damn, that was a good first cup of coffee this morning. :D

Unfortunately, it is not the lobbyists that are the problem, but the corrupt political system that created them. Yes!

It's really not a lack of accountability though. Yeah, it would be nice to know where all the money is going and who is profiting from it... but even when we do know, nothing is done about it.

We're enablers by not doing anything...in fact, we do the opposite generally. These guys are in office for tens of years for a reason.

Politicians rank lower than lobbists, however....
;)

Its easy to bash lobbying but keep in mind the original reason for the job. Lobbying our legislators is in the constitution and is every citizen's right. Over the years it has been taken advantage of and been corrupted but say your family member develops some disease shouldn't you have a right to petition your lawmakers? Everyone can wear the lobbiest hat. And you can't say you can't make money lobbying because businesses should be able to petition their lawmakers too. And if an organization like AARP or American Lung Association wants to have hired staff who can dedicate their full time to representing their member base in Congress I don't see why they shouldn't.

The problems arise from the purchasing of votes. Gifts to our representatives shouldn't exist ... and that leads into campaign finance reform and so on.

We need to organize, raise funds, and send representatives to Congress to persuade them of the correctness of our viewpoint.

Heh, got this quote by email just now.

To look is one thing.

To see what you look at is another.

To understand what you see is still something else.

But to act on what you learn is what really matters.

Or maybe something to do with Lott's brother-in-law being indicted (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1107/Lotts_brother_in_law_Scruggs_indicted_on_bribery_c harges.html)? Probably not that.

Oh god, thats this board's first Politico link. Do you read that regularly? My best friend and past radio show co-host is Josh Kraushaar, one of their writers.

I read it a bit when they first got going, but several stories of the "Why does the media pay so much attention to John Edwards' haircuts? We'll find out why over the next two weeks!" sort turned me off.

Haha. I don't read it at all but I'll never tell Josh that. Esquire ripped them a big one over that whole haircut thing back in August too.