Trent Lott lives! And his fanny-kicking odyssey continues

I was getting worried about Sen. Lott — he had pledged that he would kick insurance company "fanny" till the day his ticket gets punched for a ride on the pine box express out of this vale of tears.  But since that time, it seems Lott went dark — perhaps he was continuing his ritual of revenge in some stealthy, ninja-like way, perhaps all his talk was just so much hurricane-force wind or . . . perhaps that mighty kicking foot had been stilled.  But as this news item reveals, Lott is still  around, still slinging it, still reminding us why we keep those hip-waders in the garage, still talkin’ trash like he’d be right at home at a soccer riot — although I couldn’t help but notice the item was a little long on blah blah blah and a little short on specifically how’s he’s going to walk the walk: 

“They don’t think we’re going to get them, but someday they’re going to wake up and we’re going to nail them,” the Mississippi Republican said in an interview. “The last day I’m in Congress and the last day I’m alive I will continue to pressure them.”

Could someone close to Lott please let him know he’s sounding like a real weirdo? Holy Cow, it’s getting deep in here, and no, that ain’t storm surge.



Filed under Industry Developments

12 Responses to Trent Lott lives! And his fanny-kicking odyssey continues

  1. pbpike

    Lott sounds just like G.W. Bush talking the talk about al Qaeda or “the evildoers” or whoever we’re supposed to be afraid of: just as much faux-machismo, equally short on any sensible specifics. I agree Senator Lott sounds silly, but it hardly sets him apart.

  2. Hey, maybe you haven’t been keeping up with current events. You ever hear of the Twin Towers? Don’t you think al Qaeda is made up of evildoers? I hope next time a Richard Reid tries to light his shoes, for the sake of the other passengers, you’re not the person sitting next to him.

  3. Jason Barney

    Let’s say you “blog-slapped” him.
    Good job, David.

  4. Scott Jonsson

    Unlike Lott’s fanny air kicks that do not amount to a hill of beans, our proud military is taking the war to the evildoers with some serious kick ass results. No attacks, no second twin towers have occurred. We all sleep better since 9-11 thanks to them. I agree with David, PBPike does not ride on any planes with me.

  5. pbpike

    My goodness. I am surprised you misssed the fact that my analogy makes no judgment at all about the terrorism threat per se; it merely criticizes the president for using simplistic rhetoric without enacting good policy, that’s all. That some disagree with the substance of that opinion does not make mine an illegitimate one, nor does it mean I don’t care about the threats we face. It certainly does not warrant such a sarcastic and rotely jingoistic response. I am surprised you think that insulting me — indeed, speaking down to me — is appropriate or becoming. You might have simply disagreed with me, and said why.
    I’ve enjoyed your blog up to this point because it more or less met those criteria of good blogging that you recently listed in trumpeting the “high honor” you received. No longer. Your decision to insult me falls well beneath those standards.

  6. I don’t think it’s talking down to someone to argue a point about whether al Qaeda is evil. I take that as a given — they cut people’s heads off and make videos of it for the internet. Your original comment suggests to me that talk of being afraid of al Qaeda is merely some deranged fantasy of Bush. He has many faults and certainly I have no great love for the man, but failing to see the danger of these throat-cutters is not one of his shortcomings. They would certainly kill both me and you with pleasure, if they had the opportunity. I considered your point about whether this is insulting, perhaps, and I could have made the point differently. I see no commonality between the foolish posturing of Trent Lott and threats posed by fascist terrorists. It demeans the deaths of victims of al Qaeda to suggest such a link. If I misread your comments, let me know. They seemed clear to me.

  7. Cato

    The comparison is not between the foolish posturing of Trent Lott and threats posed by facist terrorists. It is between the foolish posturing of Trent Lott and the foolish dangerous posturing of a President who says ” they hate us for our freedom ” and then proceeds to implement policies that seek to deny American citizens of those very freedoms. Roosevelt said ” we have nothing to fear but fear itself”. Bush/ Chaney say fear is good politics. In his wildest, Bin Ladin could not have imagined how succesful his murder would be in changing America. I am proud ex-military and am proud of our military. I am not proud of politicians who hide behind them. Any fear of al Queada is not worth the loss of a single freedom.

  8. Jason Barney

    How could anyone possibly talk down to someone so learned as you, who used the word “jingoistic” to make a point? (And, yes, I had to look it up).
    Via Google —>
    chauvinistic: fanatically patriotic
    Jingoism is chauvinistic patriotism, usually associated with a War Hawk political stance. In practice, it refers to sections of the general public who advocate bullying other countries or using whatever means necessary (usually military force) to safeguard a country’s national interests.
    *** *** ***
    I wouldn’t say I’m “fanatically patriotic” but I am patriotic. And I hope and pray our country’s national interests are protected, although I’m not sure “bullying” is the right word I would use to describe the method I would prefer to accomplish this.

  9. pbpike

    You misread my comment. I suggested no commonality between Lott’s posturing and threats posed by fascist terrorists. I suggested commonality between the Senator’s posturing and the President’s posturing — both much more talk than walk, in my opinion. On that basis, I said, Lott’s rhetoric “hardly sets him apart.” That’s all I said. The speakers and their manner of speaking are the comparisons in my analogy. Nothing I wrote suggests that the subject of their rhetoric (insurance companies and terrorists) have any “link,” as you put it. Indeed, I agree that any such comparison would be offensive.
    Mr. Rossmiller, I responded to your response because it was a very disappointing departure from the tone you ordinarily take in your responses. It dripped with sarcasm from beginning to end, apparently because I have the audacity to criticize what I perceive to be a gap between the President’s words and his actions. Even your second response, while more tempered, adopts the language of a partisan hack — “some deranged fantasy of Bush,” etc. (On that score, let me say that continuous talk from a political leader about being afraid of al Qaeda is evidence that he wants us to be afraid of al Qaeda. A political leader’s reasons for wanting us in constant fear ought to be self-evident.) This is the response of someone who, faced with an opinion that challenges an idee fixe, reacts first, reads when it’s too late: This man doubts the President? I must destroy him! Again, this has not been the prevailing tone from the author of this blog.
    Yes, I just used French. Everybody breathe before shattering the key pad.
    When I wrote my original post, I paused before making the analogy because there are, unfortunately, countless sites on the internet where criticism of the President is automatically equated with cowardice, stupidity, sympathy with the enemy and so on. There I would expect to receive the kind of response you and others have given me here. I paused, but I went ahead with the analogy because I didn’t think this was one of those places. I am re-thinking that opinion.

  10. I have little interest in talking about George Bush, either for or against, and for today I’ve used up my quotient of caring about him one way or the other, so with that I will bow out of this discussion and say adieu to you and you and you. Rants about Dick Cheney are even more boring to me, unless we’re talking about whether he’s able to get liability insurance for when he goes hunting. I realize there are many people who just can’t hold it in when it comes to talking about Bush or Hillary or fascist Amerika or whatever political issue is being talked about on Daily Kos or Red State, but for good or ill, I am not one of those people, nor do I want my blog to be a forum for the discussion of the benevolence or evil of Cheneyism. Comments about insurance or the topic I am talking about, however, are quite welcome.

  11. Anthony F. Willard

    Well, Dave, if you don’t want your commenters to get into political discussions, you shouldn’t post about politics.

  12. Anthony, when FISA, military tribunals, George Bush’s and Dick Cheney’s statements on al Qaeda, Hillary Clinton’s votes on Iraq, Obama’s foreign policy and the like become relevant to Katrina, insurance and so forth, or even further, when I become perhaps even the slightest bit interested in turning this blog into another one of the several million sites that traffics in such discourse, I suppose I might write about those things or welcome comments on them. As it is, that’s not my gig. I see somewhat of a difference between talking about Trent Lott’s statements on insurance legislation and, say, how much people hate Cheney. For example, if I talk about the race for Mississippi Insurance Commissioner, does that mean I want to talk about Bush’s position on stem cell research? The answer to that, I can say with a great deal of assurance, is no. I think the closest I come to talking about politics that is not connected directly to insurance is writing about Jim Hood, and that is only because he’s one of the central characters of the Katrina saga. So, after some deliberation, I would have to say I don’t accept your premise. Politics per se is not something I write about here.