Trent Lott
Posted at 2:58pm on Dec. 31, 2007 Is Roger Wicker an Improvement Over Trent Lott?
Another appropriator joins the Senate GOP
By Bluey
Sen. Trent Lott's resignation gave Republicans an opportunity to make a clean break from the big-spending and earmark-loving lawmaker. Unfortunately, I'm not sure things will change all that much with the appointment of Rep. Roger Wicker to fill Lott's seat.
Wicker deserves to be congratulated on the appointment, the latest step in a congressional career that some might say began when he was a House page in 1967. He's clearly a talented lawmaker, serving as chairman of the House freshman class in 1995, and a strong social conservative, illustrated by his high marks from Family Research Council.
But he's also a long-time appropriator who has a penchant for bringing home pork to his Mississippi district. I compared his ratings from taxpayer groups to Lott's, and I'm not impressed.
• American Conservative Union (lifetime): Wicker = 91.5%; Lott = 92.4%
• Club for Growth (2006): Wicker = 52%; Lott = 71%
• National Taxpayers Union (2006): Wicker = 56% (C+); Lott = 76% (B+)
Continued on the jump ...
Posted in Congress | Earmarks | Mississippi | Roger Wicker | senate | Trent Lott — Comments (10)/ Email this page » / Read More »
Posted at 2:24pm on Oct. 25, 2007 Horse Trading
By Dan McLaughlin
[R]eports have suggested that Southwick's confirmation was the result of political dealmaking. Roll Call reported that in return for Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) not aggressively rallying against Southwick's nomination, Republicans, led by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MI), agreed to help Democrats in negotiations with the White House over spending measures. Lott didn't dispute that account, telling Roll Call, "Good-faith efforts on one side beget good-faith efforts on the other side." A spokesman for Reid disputed the suggestion of a deal: "The fact is that Senator Reid opposed the nominee from the start."
Thoughts, assuming this report is correct:
1. I know we all hate compromises, but at least this time Lott was (1) getting something in return for supporting more spending, rather than doing it for its own sake, and (2) trading a short-term loss (on spending) for a long-term benefit (a life-tenured judgeship).
2. Reid was willing to play to the peanut gallery on the Left by playing the vilest sort of race card on Southwick (even invoking Jena, thus impliedly comparing Southwick to...a white kid who was kicked into unconsciousness by a mob of black teenagers...um, let's scratch that analogy), but at the end of the day saw nothing at all wrong in trading that away as just another bargaining chip.
3. Lott didn't feel there was any benefit to denying a deal; Reid did. That should say something, no?
