TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
26.11.2007
Just Speculating About a Hypothesis

It looks as though someone in Trent Lott's office may have complained to NBC News about the way they initially framed his announcement that he intends to retire by the end of the year. In an early version of the story linked to by Balloon Juice, NBC noted:

While the exactly reason Lott is stepping down before he finishes his term is unknown, the general speculation is that a quick departure immunizes Lott against tougher restrictions in a new lobbying law that takes effect at the end of the year. That law would require Senators to wait two-years before entering the lucrative world of lobbying Congress.

The current version of the piece, however, skips the speculation over Lott's departure, leaving just his non-explanation explanation:

"It's time for us to do something else," Lott said, speaking for himself and his wife Tricia at a news conference...."There are no problems. I feel fine," Lott said. 

So is Trent Lott insufficiently venal to quit his term early to avoid lobbying restrictions? Or is he venal enough to do just that and then complain when anyone takes note of it? You be the judge. For my part, I enjoy envisioning him paraphrase Homer Simpson on the subject of handgun waiting periods: "Two years? But I'm greedy now."

--Christopher Orr

Posted: Monday, November 26, 2007 1:05 PM with 2 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

newdex said:

As for the truth of the matter, I vote for the second option. But even though I have no problem believing the "general speculation", the story really should be considered crappy journalism.  I wish people would complain whenever it happens.  Assuming it really is the "general speculation" they should tell us who is doing the speculating.  They don't even have to name names: Democratic and/or Republican staffers, for example, or maybe, "the other journalists I had lunch with today", whatever.  

November 26, 2007 4:34 PM

boneill said:

I agree with newdex.  I can breezily believe the worst about Trent Lott, but that is mrere gossip-page claptrap.  

November 26, 2007 4:48 PM