Trent Lott Wants to Woo Joe Lieberman

31.10.2008

Trent Lott urges the GOP to quit its mere fooling around with Joe Lieberman and pop the question:

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) says Senate Republicans should pull out the stops to persuade Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) to join their ranks.
“They should aggressively pursue him,” Lott told The Hill, offering advice to his former colleagues in leadership and those close to the former Democrat-turned-Independent.

Trent Lott knows something about being abandoned by one's own party, having had the rug pulled out from under him by other GOPers after his unfortunate remarks at Strom Thurmond's birthday bash in 2002. Indeed, he suggests that bitterness is a perfectly legit reason for Lieberman to leave the Democratic caucus for good:

“If the Democrats take away his credentials or they take away his committee, why would he want to make them a majority?” Lott asked.

Earth to Lott: Joe's days as a powerbroker are nearly up. The Democrats will be a majority whether Lieberman sticks with them or not.

--Eve Fairbanks

Posted: Friday, October 31, 2008 11:36 AM with 10 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!

Jason1977 said:

Can't imagine why a Connecticut Senator wouldn't want that (R) next to his name, maybe I'll ask Christopher Shays.

October 31, 2008 12:14 PM

ratnerstar said:

Trent Lott + Joe Lieberman + Disturbing sexual undertones = Halloween fun for the whole family!

October 31, 2008 2:10 PM

jcooney said:

importunate is not improper and unfortunate.

October 31, 2008 2:12 PM

damysts said:

Eve, I think this has more to do with Lott's experience with Jim Jefford's defection. True, it wouldn't give the GOP a majority, but it might feel like karma to Lott.

October 31, 2008 2:23 PM

fougasseu said:

Please, the idea of Trent Lott "wooing"? I just had lunch.

October 31, 2008 2:49 PM

cspencef said:

ratnerstar: erg, I just threw up in my mouth a little...

I can only think that Lott wants Lieberman to convert, er, change parties before any lame-duck session that might happen in November or December. Otherwise, what's the point?

October 31, 2008 3:06 PM

lsernoff said:

The only good think I can think of about the possibility of 59 "other" Democratic senators is the thought of them lining up to kiss poor old Joe's behind. Take away his perks? They'd be falling over themselves to see what else he wants.

October 31, 2008 3:33 PM

prnoonan said:

Color me crazy, but I feel like Reid should make a deal here. I want vengence, but I want EFCA more. Will Lieberman turn his back on the unions who have supported him for 25 yrs? Sadly, I don't put the flip-flop past him at this point. Ditto other domestic priorities like healthcare and education.

Here's the pitch: you get to keep your seniority and chair a lousy committee or a good sub-comm. Sorry, we cant give you investigative powers at Govt Affairs after your campaign against the incoming President. Consequences and repurcussions. Moreover, you can vote however you want on the merits of upcoming legislation. However, you may never, NEVER vote against cloture on our bills. The second you do, you're out on your ass.

October 31, 2008 4:41 PM

AlanSP said:

lsernoff,

The number of Democrats doesn't matter for the 60 threshold. While 51 seats makes you officially the majority party (with attending perks), 60 seats doesn't officially do anything. It won't matter a bit who Lieberman chooses to caucus with, but it matters a great deal how he votes on the Democrats' domestic agenda. He's still on their side there, and I doubt that he's so small a man as to vote against his own ideals out of spite because he feels slighted.

October 31, 2008 7:57 PM

AlanSP: I agree entirely with your characterization of Sen. Lieberman's ideals and likely future voting patterns. Consider, however, this hypothetical: Ms. Pelosi rams through the House her revival of the "fairness doctrine" to cripple conservative talk radio. It comes down to a party-line vote in the Senate. The Rs try to filibuster it to death. Is Joe more or less likely to swallow hard, and vote to shut down the filibuster, if the Ds strip him of his perks? Sure wish I felt as sure about Joe's vote on a filibuster over the union "no secret ballot" issue.

November 1, 2008 6:06 PM