Redstate

I guess this isn't too surprising given that the appointment comes from the governor, right? A governor clearly wants federal money flowing back to the state, so promoting someone who has a long history of bringing pork home to the state makes sense.

Bad for the GOP, but good for MS porkers I suppose.

which will ensure money wasted on this race that could be better spent elsewhere.

Wicker is a prohibitive favorite.

With Cochran on Approp. and Wicker's lack of seniority, this appointment should not do much damage for at least two years. And who knows? Maybe Wicker will choose to make a fresh start.

and dumping on Sen. Lott is one of the stupidest and naive things we have done in a long time.

but as far as amnesty goes, Lott was one of the cheerleaders of the so-called immigration compromise which Wicker opposed.

Majority In Mississippi

....he could have been a conservative in the Senate for many years due to his young age.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Wicker is the best possible option for Republicans in Mississippi. He has prior experience as a Congressman, and he has some appeal with the swing Democrats in his district/the state. It looks like it will be him versus Musgrove, with Wicker a solid (but not overwhelming) favorite, as 1) this is an experienced GOPer, 2) in a Republican leaning state, 3) in a Presidential year, 4) being opposed by a Democrat already rejected by the state.

I can't imagine the Club would get involved with this race, but they may just be foolish enough to do so. They tend to think that fiscal conservatism plays well in all states, at all times. But they, and we, should know better. (I, like most people on redstate, am an economic conservative.) Most voters, even conservatives, do not think ideologically, especially about fiscal issues, and vote based on things such as the ability to bring home the bacon. And even those that do claim to vote for fiscal conservatives, when push comes to shove i.e., the local project money is in jeopardy, they end up voting for the guy that can provide the money. Based on what we know, Wicker has that ability, and assuming he is not a stiff, he should be a good candidate.

I know it is fashionable to say that voters really did oppose the GOP in 2006 because they were fiscally liberal, and no one wants two Democratic Parties. But unfortunately, this just isn't true. The GOP lost because of: 1) Iraq, 2) corruption (maybe) and 3) because the American people normally favor the out party in one party government after many years of one party rulership. I am afraid that fiscal stewardship had almost nothing to do with it.

The Senate was just one vote away from having enough votes to override the President's veto on unethical and, we now find out, totally unnecessary embryonic stem-cell research. Wicker voted against the override in the House while Lott voted for it in the Senate. In the (what I consider to be) unlikely event that Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Fred Thompson, or Ron Paul wins White House, they too would veto the legislation. Now with the Senate outlook being what it is now, that vote could determine whether the forces of death win in 2009.

Before Lott resigned, there were 34 votes for the override. Now there are 35. As to the seats that will change hands, Mark Warner will win in Virginia, but John Warner supported the override, so that's a wash. In New Mexico, Tom Udall is definitely favored to take over for Pete Domenici, which means we're down to 34 votes. If we hold two out of three among Colorado, Minnesota, and New Hampshire (a real possibility, but certainly not a likelihood) and defeat Mary Landrieu with someone who opposes federal funding for ESCR, we will once again be able to defeat an override by a single vote.

www.republicansenate.org