Lotts of Smoke

One of last year's political loose ends--the sudden, unexplained resignation of the Senate Minority leader after only a year in his new term--is beginning to unravel today with Trent Lott's announcement that he is not a target of a judicial bribery investigation involving his brother-in-law.

Lott said FBI agents interviewed him earlier this year. "I may be called as a witness," Lott said, "but I've been assured that I'm not under investigation, and rightly so because nothing was done to justify that."

The Justice Department is investigating his brother-in-law, Mississippi attorney Richard Scruggs, for an attempt to get a lifetime appointment to the federal bench, with Lott's help, for a Circuit Court Judge in return for a favorable ruling in a lawsuit against Scruggs by another attorney over legal fees.

Lott admits talking to the judge about recommending his appointment but offers no further details because the case is still pending.

When Lott surprisingly gave up his job as the second most powerful Republican in the US Senate last November, there was speculation that his motive was to beat the new two-year limitation on lobbying that went into effect at year's end.

But the Scruggs case suggests a more plausible motive. Lott's preemptive attempt now to minimize his role will only add fuel to the speculation that it figured in his sudden decision to retire.

The Near-Defection of John McCain

George W. Bush and Karl Rove apparently accomplished something the North Vietnamese in five years of captivity could not do--get John McCain to consider switching loyalties.

The story surfaces, just before Super Tuesday, in The Hill today, of McCain's temptation to leave the Republican Party after being savagely smeared by the Bush campaign in the 2000 primaries.

In persuasive detail, it reports the approach of a McCain aide to Congressional Democratic leaders about the possibility of the Arizona Senator emulating Vermont's Jim Jeffords in becoming an Independent and aligning himself with their party.

McCain's disaffection in 2001 was no secret. Fellow Republican Trent Lott criticized him publicly then for keeping "unusual company."

But why does the story surface now? The cui bono is obvious as Mitt Romney tries to persuade Republicans that he is the party's legitimate standard bearer, and Ann Coulter reflects the weird vote by announcing she would back Hillary Clinton before McCain.

There must be déjà vu in all this for the Republican front runner. The rabid Right hated him back then, still does and will stop at nothing to derail him. But Romney, Coulter, Rush Limbaugh et al are no Karl Roves in the art of demonizing those they oppose.

When McCain gets the nomination, rational Republicans and Independents may be drawn to him by what these attacks reveal about his character.

Happy Holidays, Senators

Before leaving for Thanksgiving, Congressional Democrats promised not to give President Bush more money for Iraq without deadlines for withdrawal.

Now they are slinking out of Washington for Christmas after providing $70 billion in unrestricted funds for Iraq and Afghanistan.

"When is enough enough?" asked Ted Kennedy, who supported an amendment to require troop withdrawal from Iraq and a cutoff of combat funds within nine months. "I urge my colleagues to vote against this gigantic blank check." By a vote of 76-17, they didn't.

Russ Feingold's troop-withdrawal amendment failed by 74-21. None of the Democratic Presidential candidates was there to support it.

On his way out the door, Trent Lott, the Republican whip, insisted "we're doing the right thing here for our men and women in uniform," handing in his resignation to do the right thing for Trent Lott before lobbying restrictions on former Senators get tougher.

For the American people who voted last November to end the war, they leave behind stockings stuffed with lumps of coal. If we're really good next year, maybe we can get our own President for Christmas.

New Clue to Lott's Leaving?

Another shoe may be dropping in the twisty tale of why Trent Lott surprisingly gave up his job as the second most powerful Republican in the US Senate.

Originally, there was speculation that Lott's motive was to beat the new two-year limitation on lobbying that goes into effect at year's end.

But a more provocative possibility surfaced today with the indictment of Lott's brother-in-law, Richard Scruggs, for trying to bribe a judge in a case involving a fee dispute with another lawyer following his negotiated settlements worth more than $100 million this year with insurers from damage by Hurricane Katrina.

Scruggs represented Sen. Lott in a settlement with State Farm after the insurer refused to pay a claim for loss of his home and Sen. Lott, according to the New York Times, "pushed through federal legislation to investigate the claims handling of State Farm and other insurers." The investigation is still going on.

All this may be coincidence, but Washington history suggests some cause and effect in looking for a possible answer to Lott's sudden departure from his powerful position. Stay tuned.

The Rumors About Trent Lott's Retirement

This could be a case study of the difference in news values between the Mainstream Media and blogs.

After Trent Lott's surprising announcement yesterday that he would retire from the Senate at the end of the year, there was puzzlement about his motives and timing. Why would the second most powerful Republican resign after two decades with five years left in his current term to "pursue something else"?

Then, lo and behold, a questionable D.C.-based blog last night offers a gay-sex scandal to explain it all. This morning, the young man involved denies it all and the whole story pulses through the blogosphere in a tizzy of titillation and disappointment.

Unless the arbiter of Washington sleaze, Larry Flynt, comes forward with evidence, file it under "Sex Scandals That Never Happened" with yesterday's Drudge Report of a British rumor about Hillary Clinton's affair with a female aide.

This post will self-destruct in 30 seconds.

Bush Makes Republicans French Toast

He did it this morning, without comment or news coverage, an act that proves George Bush to be, depending on your politics, either the most steadfast or stubborn, the most principled or heartless of American Presidents in memory.

But there is common agreement in Congress that, by vetoing the bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children's health insurance, a lame duck Head of State has committed the most politically selfish act since Louis XV proclaimed, “Apres moi, le deluge” before the French Revolution.

Now Congressional Republicans, facing a guillotine at the ballot box in 2008, are scrambling to limit the damage. Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott talks bravely about a “compromise” with an Administration that takes no prisoners.

The Senate has enough votes to override, but House Minority Whip Roy Blunt is "absolutely confident" that the House will be able to sustain Bush's veto as Democrats keep trying to convince more than a dozen members on the other side of the aisle to switch their position.

If not, Nancy Pelosi can start practicing her knitting for the role of Madame DeFarge, as Republican incumbents go by on their way to the tumbrel in the George Bush revival of “A Tale of Two Cities” next fall.

Book-Contract Baksheesh

On the eve of another Rupert Murdoch mongoose act, this time swallowing the Wall Street Journal, he gets a review from the New York Times that required legwork by no less than four reporters and, in the end, reflects both shock and awe at the Australian who is eating the media world.

America’s “paper of record” narrates Murdoch’s unique skills at getting politicians to act as enablers in his addictive expansion of an information empire.

In addition to the time-honored methods, Murdoch has perfected new variations for buying them, not least of which is bribery by book advance.

As Congress was preparing to redraw the media ownership rules, Murdoch’s book publishing arm, HarperCollins, gave House Speaker Newt Gingrich a $4.5 million contract. In the Senate, Trent Lott got a $250,000 advance for a memoir.

Other Senators came at bargain prices. Arlen Specter, received $24,506 for “Passion for Truth,” Kay Bailey Hutchison $141,666 for “American Heroines.” Chuck Hagel has a book deal for next year.

Unless things have changed drastically since my time as a publisher, books by politicians, unless they involve scandal, are not best-sellers. Trent Lott’s quarter-of-a-million-dollar tome sold 12,000 copies.

But Murdoch got his money’s worth, as he no doubt will from the $1 million advance to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Book publishing is an odd business that has never been just about money.