http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/03/395253.aspx

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299214,00.html



Domenici
Hagel
Allard
Warner
Craig (durrrr)

and now Lott (presumeably because he wants to be a lobbyist. I'm sure he'll make a fine one.)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07331/837038-176.stm



[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 3:43 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/27/2007 3:40:41 AM

Just out of curiosity, how old are some of these guys? Obviously retirement isn't a factor for Craig and Lott, and granted some senators try to stay in office until they die, but it could still point to non-political factors.

11/27/2007 4:21:04 AM

Demenici 75
Hagel 61
Allard 63
Warner 80
Craig 62


So most are really not all that old except for Warner and possibly Demenici. Though many senators hang around until they die.

11/27/2007 7:19:44 AM

The average age of Members of both houses, at the convening of the 109
th Congress, was 56 years; of Representatives, 55 years; and of Senators, 60 years. The
overwhelming majority of Members has a college education. The dominant profession
of Members continues to be law, followed by public service/politics and business.

11/27/2007 8:20:22 AM

When you consider there are 49 Republican senators total, and 6 retire within in the same Congress, that's a huge number and pretty much signals a coming generational shift in the chamber for the party.

I saw yesterday that Jon Kyl of Arizona was politicking to take Lott's Minority Whip spot.

11/27/2007 8:45:34 AM

I know this sounds idiotic, but don't count on Craig not to run for re-election. The sad thing is, he could probably win in Idaho. There are like 6 registered Dems total.

11/27/2007 9:19:13 AM

^ He would get defeated in the Republican primary. Think early-1900s Southern politics.

Also, former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has officially resigned from Congress.

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 9:28 AM. Reason : /]

11/27/2007 9:28:26 AM

they mentioned on Morning Edition this morning that if Lott resigns before the end of the year, new Senate Ethics rules that go into effect December 31 do not apply to him, mainly the "cooling down period", the amount of time a Senator has to wait before being hired by a lobbyist, being increased from 1 to 2 years. If he resigns in the next month, he can start collecting paychecks by the end of next year, instead of waiting into 2010

11/27/2007 9:33:01 AM

^ That's what they're speculating that is the causation behind his early resignation. Apparently he's not doing well financially, and only waiting a year is a much better scenario for him.

11/27/2007 9:43:57 AM

Maybe he should have taken less bribes and he wouldn't have had such a grand lifestyle to begin with.

11/27/2007 9:53:00 AM

^^ they said he was valued at "only 1.6 million". So, maybe by senate standards, he's not living it up, but i doubt he's about to go into peril. If that's the reason he's doing it, though, maybe it would be nice to get some honesty out of him. Otherwise, any other reason for quitting "before the end of the year" really falls flat and sounds dishonest

11/27/2007 10:01:32 AM

Quote :

"Otherwise, any other reason for quitting "before the end of the year" really falls flat and sounds dishonest"

You're really expecting better from a politician?

11/27/2007 10:03:41 AM

that can include a bunch of non-liquid assets, and probably includes a life insurance policy, a house, etc., i know he lost his house in katrina/rita, or had it severely damaged anyways...it's not like they were like hey Lott go log into your online bank account and tell me how many zeros come after the 1

if youre that old and you've only got $1.6M in total assets, you're hurtin'

11/27/2007 10:04:51 AM

Quote :

"Sen. Arlen Specter yesterday said it was his understanding that new regulations on lobbying by ex-lawmakers played a significant role in Sen. Trent Lott's decision to retire, contradicting what the Mississippi senator told reporters in his home state. If he steps down at the end of the year, Mr. Lott, a Republican, will be able to begin lobbying after just a year's wait, rather than two. Mr. Specter suggested Mr. Lott has been experiencing "financial problems" since Hurricane Katrina destroyed his beachfront home in Pascagoula, Miss., in 2005. Soon after, he involved himself in a class-action legal dispute with State Farm Insurance, claiming the wreckage was caused primarily by the high winds and not by flooding. Many homeowner's policies don't cover flood damage but will cover wind damage. Mr. Specter said the early retirement would allow Mr. Lott to make more money than he does now, and even said that it's not easy for a senator to make ends meet on the $165,000 base salary, noting that most of them have to keep two homes -- one in their home states and one in or near Washington, D.C."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07331/837038-176.stm

11/27/2007 10:05:08 AM

Quote :

"Mr. Specter suggested Mr. Lott has been experiencing "financial problems" since Hurricane Katrina destroyed his beachfront home in Pascagoula, Miss., in 2005."

oh im so sad that one of his houses got destroyed and now he has money problems

but really i am glad that the insurance company fucked someone that fucks the country

11/27/2007 10:06:57 AM

that's really an ignorant way of looking at it...

11/27/2007 10:08:22 AM

i have a tough time feeling bad for senators

it is the 3rd most exclusive club in the country and the one that arguably yields the most power

11/27/2007 10:12:38 AM

Quote :

"The average age of Members of both houses, at the convening of the 109 th Congress, was 56 years; of Representatives, 55 years; and of Senators, 60 years."

what about average age of a dem and average age of repub?

11/27/2007 11:46:21 AM

yeah i do not feel bad at all that his beach house got washed away. What about the 1000's of families whose primary residence got destroyed

11/27/2007 12:06:31 PM

it was his primary residence

the same thing happened to Gene Taylor (D-MS).

11/27/2007 12:10:26 PM

Opens up the opportunity for Bill Richardson to take Domenici's seat if he is left out (or opts out) of the Pres/VP/Cabinet shuffle.

11/27/2007 12:39:02 PM

i really dont think that Richardson is going to go from an executive position to a legislative position.... even if it is the US Senate

11/27/2007 12:42:38 PM

yeah it would pretty much screw any chance he might have had of becoming a president in a later election

11/27/2007 1:13:48 PM

plus i think he'd much rather do the whole secretary of state thing if he had the opportunity.

11/27/2007 1:15:07 PM

he has a better chance to win that seat than to win president

[Edited on November 27, 2007 at 1:16 PM. Reason : ^thats true]

11/27/2007 1:15:39 PM

Politicians get into the game for power and control.

The GOP lost their leadership status in the previous election. With little or no power any longer, perhaps many GOPers are thinking "What's the Point" and getting out.

11/27/2007 1:20:40 PM

It would great to be rid of Dole, especially since she failed to step up to protect the citizens of Eastern NC against the OLF.

11/27/2007 2:18:25 PM

Kay Hagan for Senate '08

11/27/2007 2:26:35 PM

Im sad to see Chuck Hagel go. he always seemed like he was a decent feller, and a fair moderate. Definitely no rubber stamper for Bush Admin.

im worried he might get replaced by some religious social-conservative nutjob

11/27/2007 2:42:13 PM

^Agree wholeheartedly.... Hagel and Warner were actually two of my favorite republicans...

11/27/2007 4:52:10 PM

Warner's seat will likely be filled by Mark Warner, VA's last governor (D). On a related note, Virginia has a one term limit for governors.

11/27/2007 5:10:55 PM

Yea, he's a decent dem. With who the republicans are putting up against him (ie, Jim Gilmore) VA will have 2 dem senators for the first time in a long time.... (yea i'm too lazy to look up the exact years)

11/27/2007 5:12:23 PM

this is one of the reasons why i'm going to miss hagel.....

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) – Sen. Chuck Hagel, a leading Republican lawmaker who has come out against the Iraq war, had some harsh words for the Bush White House Wednesday, calling it "one of the most arrogant" administrations he's ever seen. "I would rate this one the lowest in capacity, in capability, in policy, in consensus — almost every area, I would give it the lowest grade," Hagel said during an event at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Hagel supported the 2002 congressional resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq the following year, but earlier this year he called Bush's plan to send thousands of additional U.S. troops to Iraq "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam." The two-term Nebraska senator flirted with a presidential bid last spring, but ultimately announced in September he has no plans to seek the White House and intends to leave the Senate when his term ends in 2009. Speaking Wednesday, Hagel said the administration "squandered" opportunities following the attacks on 9/11. "I think of this administration, what they could have done after 9/11, what was within their grasp," he said. "Every poll in the world showed 90 percent of the world for us. Iran had some of the first spontaneous demonstrations on the streets of Tehran supporting America." "There's where they have failed the country," Hagel continued. "They've squandered the time and the opportunity that they had, and the next president is going to take four years to not only dig out from under that.""

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

11/29/2007 4:37:35 PM

^ yeah, need more like him. apparently, there used to be more
http://salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/26/gop74/

Quote :

"The Republicans who would've impeached Bush? Not so long ago, members of Congress put the rule of law above partisan politics and loyalty to the White House. Nov. 26, 2007 | During the past six years, leading Republicans in Congress have prioritized allegiance to a Republican president above all other governmental and constitutional concerns. But there was a time when U.S. lawmakers, regardless of party affiliation, actually voted the way of their conscience. There was a time when a president could not break the law or ignore a summons from Congress with impunity. Indeed, by the height of Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal, a number of congressmen -- including Republicans staunchly loyal to their party -- acted to uphold the law and make Nixon accountable. Today, the main concern of lawmakers seems to be the preservation of power and the entitlements that come with it. Republican allies of the White House have blocked congressional investigations into the Bush administration's alleged misdeeds, including illegal spying on Americans' phone calls. In 2006, the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Pat Roberts, R-Kan., thwarted an investigation into warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency. While serving as chairman of the Judiciary Committee prior to the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006, Arlen Specter, R-Pa., though a vocal critic of the spying, failed to initiate any investigations into Bush's wiretapping program, despite ample evidence that it violated the existing FISA laws. Meanwhile, top Democrats, including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Dianne Feinstein of California, have shown a willingness to cave into Bush's demands, including retroactive immunity for American telecom companies that assisted the government's spying. The Bush era has drawn various comparisons with the Nixon era, but what seems forgotten from that time is the courage exhibited by a handful of lawmakers, once fiercely loyal to the president, who ultimately decided to impeach him. In recent interviews with Salon, some of those former congressmen spoke about their reasons for risking their political career and taking a principled stand, the kind that seems so unlikely on Capitol Hill today. ....... "

11/29/2007 5:05:53 PM

it's really depressing. McCain was pretty right on last night on the debate when he said that "they went to washington to change it, and it changed them"

11/29/2007 5:08:35 PM

Lott lost his VACATION home in Katrina...

he was rich enough to have a very nice vacation home, i doubt he is hurting.

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 12:50 AM. Reason : w]

11/30/2007 12:49:39 AM

The republican party is dying!

11/30/2007 1:34:48 AM

^^ my understanding is that it was his primary residence (unless you want to consider his place in Washington his primary residence. either way, it's pretty normal for a Senator to keep a residence both at home and in DC). Also, I recall seeing somewhere that his net worth was only $1.6 million (and that may or may not have included life insurance). That really isn't that much when you're his age.

I'm definitely no fan of Senator Lott (although I have flown airplanes in and out of the Trent Lott airport in Pascagoula, MS ), and I can't imagine how he hasn't accumulated far more wealth than that, but if that figure is accurate, I wouldn't call him "rich".


^ i think it'll have to be destroyed before it's rebuilt

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 3:50 AM. Reason : asdf]

11/30/2007 3:44:23 AM

honestly when i had heard he was going to retire, and then katrina fucked up his house so he stayed, i just figured he wanted 1 or 2 more years salary to help with his house

Quote :

"they went to washington to change it, and it changed them"

this is fucking deep, and true imo

11/30/2007 3:48:04 AM

Quote :

"I'm definitely no fan of Senator Lott (although I have flown airplanes in and out of the Trent Lott airport in Pascagoula, MS ), and I can't imagine how he hasn't accumulated far more wealth than that, but if that figure is accurate, I wouldn't call him "rich"."

a lot of his wealth is probably in offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes

11/30/2007 10:26:05 AM

Now, if we could just get 94 other senators to do the same thing...

11/30/2007 6:46:42 PM