Trent Lott resigning from Senate

If Barbour wanted a spot in the Senate, this would be the time. It's pretty unlikely an interim Republican governor would lose if he stood for re-election, thus why I think Barbour may take a chance now.

 

Times had a story yesterday saying as much, that the Dems have such a huge fundraising advantage right now, the GOP is searching for "extremely wealthy" candidates to run for open seats who are also willing to spend their own money on campaigns, since the funds are stretched so thin.

I just pray, for the sake of democracy, some wealthy ambitious Republicans can be found. Somewhere.

 

Oh, let's not play that game, please.
This, from the Wiki:
"In the ... NAACP['s] Congressional Report Card for the 108th Congress ..., Byrd was awarded with an approval rating of 100% for favoring the NAACP's position in all 33 bills presented to the United States Senate regarding issues of their concern. ... In June 2005, Byrd[45] proposed an additional $10 million in federal funding for the Martin Luther King memorial in Washington, D.C., remarking that 'With the passage of time, we have come to learn that his Dream was the American Dream, and few ever expressed it more eloquently.'"

At the same time, Lott was pining for the good old days of Strom Thurmond and talking to the CCC, which is the direct descendant of the White Citizens Councils.

 

From your lips to a fundamentalist God's ears, DD.

Indeed.

 

I just find it amusing that the board's resident hater of all people of color refers to someone else as a "KKKracker."

Hi-fucking-larious.

 

This passage here is the one that should have had the NYT editors going, "Yeah, right."

"He said he doesn't have a new job lined up and that new restrictions on lobbying that take effect after Dec. 31, 2007 ''didn't have a big role'' in his decision to retire. The regulations extend the ''cooling off'' period for lobbying by former members of Congress from one to two years."

Is there anyone who thinks that Trent Lott doesn't already have a seven-figure lobbying job lined up and that the new regs aren't at least a part of why he's bailing?
I know about objectivity and all that, but is the NYT required to print such obvious horseshit?

 

or he's getting out before something comes out, like he molested a collie or something

 

Who says they weren't?

It shows that they asked the question but they don't have any other proof at the moment other than his word.

You have to put his response in now, so when he does do a 180 you have it in print.

 

It's the newsy thing to do. Objectivity -- live it, love it, sometimes even hide behind it.

 

Yeah. They should have printed it straight like that but had a big refer to an online poll asking readers if they think Lott is full or crap or lying through his teeth.