ULTIMATE GOAL - Trent Lott

Much has been made of the resurrection of Trent Lott's career insofar as it pertains to his reattaining a leadership position in the Senate minority. As I've noted previously, the reasons for all the huffing and puffing on the left (and in some quarters on the right) seem somewhat dated and overblown. Yes, Lott said some things that could be considered insensitive and even probably racist. Lott paid a price for those remarks by losing his leadership position. Four years later and here we are - Lott is the number two Republican in the Senate. Some might see this as yet another Republican lemon. I view this as an opportunity to make some lemonade.

John Dickerson at The Nation explains:

Unlike in the House, where the majority can make the minority hand over its lunch money, Lott and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will have a lot of power in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to get anything done. Lott will relish using his tricks and collaborating with his longtime friend McConnell to thwart Democrats. But he may also help pass more legislation than he kills. Lott is a conservative, but he's also a dealmaker. Three weeks after he took over for Bob Dole in 1996, he summoned his colleagues into the Senate chamber to criticize them at length for refusing to pass laws. He told Democrats and Republicans alike that the Senate had gotten "all balled up here." In the last days of that session, he surprised Washington by taking the initiative to produce a variety of compromises with the Clinton White House on health-care portability, budget cuts, and welfare.

A few quick achievements would help recast Lott as a competent legislator and bury the blight of his remarks four years ago. When bipartisanship serves his self-interest, Lott can be a Democrat's best friend[.]

Ultimately, this may come down to how we as opinion people on the left want this Congress to operate. Are we going to be a group that sounds the trumpets of bipartisanship in an effort to work with the other side of the aisle for the good of America? Or are we going to attempt to stick it to the GOP as early and as often as we possibly can, given how the Dems were treated during our years in the minority? Do we continue the tradition of partisan politics and pointless gridlock or do we attempt to return to a time before the so-called Republican Revolution, where a political party would win some and lose some, but at the end of the day, compromise was king? For all his faults, Lott appears to be a politician of the latter stripe. And if we truly want to change things and make life better for the average American and return our nation to a semblance of its former (pre-Bush) days, there are certainly worse people to reach across the aisle and shake hands with.

IMPORTANT WORK

Much of the blogosphere is up in arms today over the election of Trent Lott as Minority Whip in the Senate. A quick refresher - Lott made racially insensitive remarks four years ago at Strom Thurmond's birthday party, opining that America would be in a better place if then-segregationist Thurmond had been elected president. The remark ultimately cost Lott his Majority Leader position. Fast forward four years, and he has again attained a leadership position in the new minority caucus.

To all of this, I give a big yawn.

Eight days ago, if this had occurred, I more than likely would have joined my fellow bloggers in spotlighting the outrage of such an occurence. Today, not so much. I am reminded of a Bugs Bunny cartoon from during the 1940s when Bugs is facing off against one of his antagonists (I believe Elmer Fudd) when suddenly word hits that America is at war. Bugs promptly stops the shenanigans and says something to the effect of, "Sorry, doc. I can't play with you no more; I've got important work to do," at which point he grabs a gun and heads off to fight the Axis.

I look at this tempest in a teapot on two levels. The first one being, Lott said this four years ago, he apologized for it and paid a political price for his remark. Four years later, he chose to have another go at it. His logic for running appears sound (from ABC News):

[Lott and Lamar Alexander (R-TN)] spent the night before intensely lobbying colleagues on the Senate floor with Lott, also a former whip, casting himself as the candidate more adept at dealmaking and Alexander pledging to be a morale-booster to a caucus still smarting over the midterm elections.

As recently as Tuesday night, Alexander's office predicted he had the support of as many as 30 Republicans senators. But Lott peeled off Alexander's supporters in part by arguing that in a Senate split by one vote, dealmaking expertise could mean the difference between Republicans passing legislation to tout in he next campaign in 2008 or risk being branded as do-nothing lawmakers.

Ultimately, one more Senator than the other guy agreed with Lott's approach.

The second level I view this on is a sort of detached one. This is the minority party hashing out their leadership. I see no reason for to carry around torches and pitchforks while railing against this over on our side. The Democrats are now the majority party; we now face the business of governance. Let us get to work while the minority party continues its missteps (and, as to the entire point of the post, I don't think it's that big of a misstep, but the media can and will latch on to this for the next newscycle). The Dems will be able to shine in the light as the party that works hard for the middle class while the minority party bumbles in the dark. Let us do the important work while the minority party continues to make the mistakes.