Posted on 05/09/2005 10:22:27 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Senator Trent Lott expects to be majority leader of the Senate in January 2007, if not sooner, according to a Rules Committee staffer. Lott, who chairs that committee, has been using his chairmanship as the launching pad for the political comeback, most recently in his back door attempt to broker a non-nuclear-option-proliferation agreement with Democrats.
"Different things motivate different people," says the Rules staffer. "In the case of Lott, it's anger over the way he was treated by both his fellow Republicans and the media after the Strom Thurmond dustup. He wants his old job back, and he wants to see the look on the faces of people like President Bush and Sen. George Allen when he gets it back."
Lott is known to harbor resentment toward both the President and Allen. The onetime leader believes the former pulled his support for him during the Thurmond kerfuffle; the latter worked behind the scenes against Lott to push the candidacy of Sen. Bill Frist for the leadership post.
Currently, Lott has been exchanging e-mails with Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, a moderate to conservative from Nebraska, who is not seeking re-election in 2006. Nelson has been viewed by Republicans as critical to gaining simple majority votes on some Bush judicial and political nominees should Republicans successfully put in place a parliamentary procedure that prevents a Democratic filibuster on judicial nominees.
"Assuming we lose a couple of Republican votes after we make the switch, a guy like Nelson would be important to have on our side," says a Senate Republican staffer.
Words of Lott's attempting to negotiate around his leadership has been circulating on Capitol Hill for several weeks. When Republican colleagues approached Lott about the gossip, he downplayed it, saying that Nelson had approached him and that he had not initiated the discussions.
Lott staffers on Monday were encouraging leaks to Capitol papers that Lott was close to a deal with Nelson, and five other Republicans and five additional Democrats, that would involve the dozen pols signing a memorandum of understanding to resolve the judicial filibuster impasse.
"The deal is basically structured this way," says a Senate staffer familiar with the negotiations. "The Republicans are promising to block the nuclear option, and the Dems are promising to vote for four of the seven federal court nominees who are currently being held back. The other three would remain blocked."
The three held over from the 108th Congress who would remain filibustered are believed to be Bill Pryor, Priscilla Owen, and Janice Rogers Brown. (If so, what stigma would attach itself to Lott this time for his unwillingness to fight for Justice Brown, an African American?)
As well, Nelson and his fellow Democrats would promise to vote for cloture to end filibuster attempts on all other Bush judicial nominees, including Supreme Court picks.
Late Monday, Lott staffers were desperately trying to tamp down talk of their boss's dealmaking. In one conversation, a Lott staffer insisted that Lott did not have the five additional Republicans needed to swing a deal. Nelson, however, was telling others in the Senate that he did have at least five other Democrats to back his and Lott's proposal, though he confirmed that Lott did not have the five Republican votes. If the two men are able to broker a deal, it will deal a blow to Frist and other conservatives in the Senate who have been able to hold the so-called "nuclear option" over the head Democrats for weeks.
"What's troublesome to some of us is that Lott and his Republican cohorts would willingly take four judges and sell another three down the river," said a Senate GOP leadership staffer, who spoke earlier Monday before Lott and his staff began backpedaling. "We've been fighting to get all of them a vote and to get them on the bench. Then our own turn around and cut the legs out from underneath us."
According to Senate insiders, Lott has lately been walking around the Capitol like the cat who devoured the canary. Not only is he creating headaches for Republican leaders and the White House, he is doing it in a way that would place him firmly in the middle of the biggest legislative fight to come along in years.
"Lott doesn't care about the nominees that are being filibustered," says the leadership staffer. "He cares about being able to crow about getting the President and Senate leaders clearance for the Supreme Court nominees. All of a sudden he has brokered a deal that current leadership on either side was unable to broker. He'd be insufferable."
And he'd be in a great position to attempt to take back his leadership position if Bill Frist does retire after the 2006 election cycle. Lott has made it clear he wants to get back into leadership in the worst way, though undercutting conservatives to broker a deal with moderates may not be the best way to show he still has juice.
His uncle, a Mississippi state senator, is an official of the "Conservative" Citizens' Council which used to be the White Citizens' Council.
His years in leadership demonstrated his utter unwillingness to advance principle. His only interest seems to be power and the ability to farm special interests financially. His senatorial motto ought to be "Let's Make a Deal." He is as courageous a Senator as Gerald Ford was as a Congresscritter.
Oh, yes he could and he did do a lot worse than Frist.
I think he's really an old woman.
Lott assumed the position a long time ago. He's the very model of a "useful idiot." Too bad his replacement suffers from the same lack of essential anatomy to deal the the Dhimmicrats and their MSM mascots.
I never trusted Lott when he was leader and I still don't trust him. To me he is just another RINO. Amen.
>> "He couldn't do any worse than the arch-wuss, Frist." <<
Oh my goodness. How soon we forget. No matter what you think of Frist, Lott was 10 times worse.
That is why he lost Repub support when his out of control mouth got him in trouble the last time.
My first thought, too. Unless of course he's planning to switch and is counting on a Dem majority . . . ;-)
Wrong! The voters voted for Nixon in 1972--beat McGovern in a landslide. When he resigned with the threat of impeachment, he was villified by the (Democrat-controlled) press. Admittedly the press is still Democrat-controlled, but the word began getting out on the internet before and during the Clinton impeachment. I believe that had the impeachment been successful in booting (the less-than-majority-elected) Clinton from office, the voters would have been ambivalent about it, not outraged. I and almost everyone I know would have been overjoyed.
There is something smarmy about Lott that I never have liked.
Yes, we would. I understand and share your frustration with the Pubs, but the RATS don't give one damn about this country and would run it straight into the ground, enjoying every minute of it.
You have a point. This story about Lott and his compromise offer was de-bunked yesterday I thought.
Trent Lott and Jim Jeffords.......2 of a kind. I've had it w/self-centered politicos who just want to be loved.
Get real! Is your memory so short that you can't recall the way "Panty-Waist Lott" sold out to the RATS in 2001?
Sent this to him last night:
Senator,
Please do NOT attempt any clever, self-serving negotiation with the Democrats.
The filibuster against the President’s Judicial nominees MUST STOP NOW!
I actively and financially supported John Thune even though I’m in Colorado.
I will provide stronger support against Republicans who oppose the removal of the filibuster against Judicial nominee.
And when the Dems brake their deal what will Lott do?
Back down, just like last time...
[Page: S8337] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, in 1985, when we had a conservative Republican in the White House by the name of Ronald Reagan, we had a Senate that was dominated by the Democrats. At that time, the Senate majority leader was a very distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator BOB BYRD.
We found Ronald Reagan was violating the Constitution with recess appointments. Let me go back and give a little background of this. In the history of this country, back when we were in session for a few weeks and then they got on their horse and buggy and went for several days back to wherever they came from, if some opening occurred during the course of a recess, such as the Secretary of State dying, the Constitution provides that a President can go ahead and make a recess appointment and not rely on the prerogative of the Senate to confirm, for confirmation purposes. This is understandable at that time.
[Page: S8338] GPO's PDF
Since then, Republicans and Democrats in the White House have, when they were philosophically opposed to the philosophy of the prevailing philosophy in the Senate, made recess appointments.
Ronald Reagan was doing this. I loved him, but he was violating the Constitution.
Senator BYRD read and studied the Constitution. He sent a letter to the White House that said: If you continue to do this, then I can assure you we will put holds on all of your nominations. It wasn't just judicial nominations but all of them. I read from Senator BYRD:
In the future, prior to any recess breaks, the White House will inform the majority leader and (the minority leader) of any recess appointments which might be contemplated in the recess. They would do so in such advance time to sufficiently allow the leadership on both sides to perhaps take action to fill whatever vacancies might take place during such a break.
Those were for anticipated vacancies.
President Reagan agreed with this and sent a letter back to Senator BYRD saying he would do it.
In June of 1999, the President made a recess appointment of someone who had not even gone through the committee process, had not given all their information to the appropriate committee in order to become an ambassador. He went in and appointed him anyway. I felt that was a violation every bit as egregious as anything Ronald Reagan had done.
I took the same letter that Senator BYRD had sent to Ronald Reagan, and I sent it to President Clinton.
I got no response until finally he realized I was putting holds on all these nominations. On June 15, 1999, President Clinton wrote a letter saying:
I share your opinion that the understanding reached in 1985 between President Reagan and Senator Byrd cited in your letter remains a fair and constructive framework which my administration will follow.
I wrote a letter back thanking him and was very complimentary to him for taking this action.
A short while later--we were going into recess--along with 16 other Senators, I sent a letter to the President because we had heard rumors he was going to make several appointments, recess appointments. In fact, that is exactly what happened.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD all this in more detail.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Recess Appointments--Chronology
1985 Byrd-Reagan Agreement: ``In the future, prior to any recess breaks, the White House would inform the majority leader and (the minority leader) of any recess appointment which might be contemplated during such recess. They would do so in advance sufficiently to allow the leadership on both sides to perhaps take action to fill whatever vacancies that might be imperative during such a break.'' (Emphasis added)--Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), 10/18/85.
June 4, 1999 Recess Appointment: Without sufficient notice in advance of the recess, President Clinton, on the last day of the brief 5-day Memorial Day recess, granted a recess appointment to controversial political and social activist James Hormel to be U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg.
June 7, 1999 Inhofe Places Holds: Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) announced ``holds'' on all non-military nominees, demanding Clinton's promise to abide by the Byrd-Reagan agreement on all future recess appointments.
June 15, 1999 Clinton Letter to Lott: ``I share your opinion that the understanding reached in 1985 between President Reagan and Senator Byrd cited in your letter remains a fair and constructive framework, which my administration will follow.''
June 16, 1999 Inhofe Lifts Holds: Inhofe lifted his holds on nominees, praising the President for agreeing to abide by the Byrd-Reagan agreement in the future.
Nov. 10, 1999 Senators' Letter to Clinton: ``If you do make recess appointments during the upcoming recess which violate the spirit of our agreement, then we will respond by placing holds on all judicial nominees. The result would be a complete breakdown in cooperation between our two branches of government on this issue which could prevent the confirmation of any such nominees next year. We do not want this to happen. We urge you to cooperate in good faith with the Majority Leader concerning all contemplated recess appointments.''--Inhofe and 16 senators.
Nov. 17, 1999 Inhofe Floor Speech: ``I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding and that we don't go into a recess with the President not understanding that we are very serious ..... It is not just me putting a hold on all judicial nominees for the remaining year of his term, but 16 other senators have agreed to do that ..... I want to make sure it is abundantly clear without any doubt in anyone's mind in the White House--I will refer back to this document I am talking about right now--that in the event the President makes recess appointments, we will put holds on all judicial nominations for the remainder of his term. It is very fair for me to sand here and eliminate any doubt in the President's mind of what we will do.''
Nov. 19, 1999 Clinton Notifies Senate of Contemplated Recess Appointments: In compliance with the Byrd-Reagan agreement, Clinton provides a list--prior to the recess--of 13 possible recess appointments under consideration for the Nov. 20-Jan. 24 intersession recess. Inhofe and others object to five on the list who have holds or prospective holds on their nominations. Eight are considered acceptable.
Nov. 19, 1999 Inhofe Floor Speech 10 Minutes Before Adjournment: ``If anyone other than these eight individuals is recess appointed, we will put a hold on every single judicial nonimee of this President for the remainder of his term in office ..... I reemphasize, if there is some other interpretation as to the meaning of the (Nov. 10) letter, it does not make any difference, we are still going to put holds on them. I want to make sure there is a very clear understanding: If these nominees come in, if he does violate the intent (of the agreement) as we interpret it, then we will have holds on these nominees.''
Nov. 23, 1999 Inhofe Letter to Clinton: In a spirit of cooperation, Inhofe acknowledges one additional acceptable appointment has been added to the list. ``I hope this makes our position clear. Any recess appointment other than the nine listed above would constitute a violation of the spirit of our agreement and trigger multiple holds on judicial nominees.''
Dec. 7, 1999 Inhofe Privately Urges White House Not to Violate Agreement: Notified by the Majority Leader's office that the President was contemplating at least two recess appointments (Weisberg and Fox) which were not included on the list submitted in advance of the recess, Inhofe reiterated that making these appointments would trigger a hold on all judicial nominees.
Dec. 9, 1999 Clinton Violates Agreement--Appoints Stuart Weisberg to OSHA Review Commission: Name was not included on list submitted in advance of the recess. Weisberg appointment was strongly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Weisberg is a liberal advocate of expanded regulatory authority who had compiled a controversial record of decisions consistently unfavorable to employers.
Dec. 17, 1999 Clinton Violates Agreement--Appoints Sarah Fox to NLRB: Name was not included on list submitted in advance of the recess. Fox is a stridently pro-labor former Ted Kennedy staffer whose policy decisions were consistently pro-union on such key issues as striker replacements, Davis-Bacon wage laws and the Beck decision of compulsory union dues.
Dec. 20, 1999 Inhofe Responds by Announcing Effort to Block Judges: ``I am announcing today that I will do exactly what I said I would do if the President deliberately violated our agreement.''
Jan. 25, 2000 Inhofe Places Hold on All Judicial Nominees: ``It is in anticipation of just such defiance that I and my colleagues warned the President on at least five separate occasions exactly what our response would be if he violated the agreement. We would put on hold on all judicial nominees. So today it will come as no surprise to the President that we are putting a hold on all judicial nominees. We are simply doing what we said we would do to uphold Constitutional respect for the Senate's proper role in the confirmation process.''
Feb. 10, 2000 Inhofe Hold is Overruled by Majority Leader Trent Lott: Inhofe thanked the 19 Republican senators who, in a key procedural vote, supported his effort to demand presidential accountability. Those Senators were: Shelby (Ala.), Murkowski (Alaska), Allard (Colo.), Craig (Idaho), Crapo (Idaho), Grassley (Iowa), McConnell (Ky.), Bunning (Ky), Grams (Minn.), Burns (Mont.), Smith (N.H.), Gregg, (N.H.), Domenici (N.M.), Helms (N.C.), Ihofe (Okla.), Thurmond (S.C.), Gramm (Texas), Thomas (Wy.), and Enzi (Wy.).
August 3-31, 2000 Clinton Grants 17 Recess Appointments in Defiance of the Senate: Rejecting his commitment to cooperate with the Senate, Clinton grants appointments to Bill Lann Lee and other whom the Senate specifically said were unacceptable as recess appointments. Clinton's action was a deliberate affront to the Senate, a violation of the spirit of the Byrd-Reagan agreement and an abuse of power undermining the ``advice and consent'' clause of the Constitution.
Mr. INHOFE. I would like to say we made it very clear to this President on two of the recesses since that time, that if he did not live up to the standards as were put in the letter by Ronald Reagan and to which he agreed, that we would put holds on all these nominations.
Obviously, I had holds on these nominations. I have to admit it was not the Democrats; Republicans were not a lot of help to me at that time. They voted and overruled the hold that I had.
I would say the Senators who voted with me at that time to uphold the Constitution were Senators SHELBY,
[Page: S8339] GPO's PDF
In spite of the fact that that happened, they went ahead, the President went ahead and has continued to make recess appointments. The last time he did was during our August recess between the 3rd and 31st. He granted 17 recess appointments in just an arrogant defiance of the Senate's prerogative of advice and consent for confirmation purposes.
Even though it is kind of an empty threat now, I will do it --I am announcing tonight I am going to put a hold on all judicial nominations for the rest of his term, not that there are that many, because if we stopped right now, there would still be fewer vacancies than were there at the end of the Bush administration. But when we took office, we swore to uphold the Constitution and the Constitution is very specific. Today I am making this announcement that we are going to hold up all judicial nominations. I am doing exactly what Senator BYRD would do under the same circumstances. I yield the floor.
Same old jackass Lott thinking he's picking a foursome for a senate golf tournament. The man has not a clue. If the Republicans bring him back, it will be another disaster for Republicans in the senate.
Yeah, and thanks to the Senate we lost our chance to pay down any part of the debt.
Term Limits
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.