Trent Lott - As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them

[Anti Federalist]

They don't even pretend any more.

Buried in an article about how "tea party" candidates could cause consternation for the hidebound GOP is this remark from Trent Lott.


Former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), now a D.C. lobbyist, warned that a robust bloc of rabble-rousers spells further Senate dysfunction. "We don't need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples," Lott said in an interview. "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/17/AR2010071702375.html?hpid=topnews

They don't even bother to cover it up any more.

Anybody you send to DC will be co-opted.

[pacelli]

What's the solution? Either there is a solution to being co-opted , or there is not a solution to being co-opted. Either choice has consequences.

[erowe1]

The historical record suggests that Lott's side will win this battle. I don't know what the exact numbers are. But I'd say in all previous contests between the establishment and anti-establishment idealists, the establishment has succeeded at controlling the idealists at a rate of somewhere in the order of 50:1. And pretending that Jim Demint is one of those anti-establishment idealists is pretty generous to begin with.

[fisharmor]

What's the solution? Either there is a solution to being co-opted , or there is not a solution to being co-opted. Either choice has consequences.

I think dropping the minarchist nonsense might be a start.
If there's no power, there's no reason to co-opt, hoodwink, vilify, rabble-rouse, bribe, or promise.

[erowe1]

I think dropping the minarchist nonsense might be a start.
If there's no power, there's no reason to co-opt, hoodwink, vilify, rabble-rouse, bribe, or promise.

So if a handful of minarchists drop their nonsense, politicians won't have power any more?

[ClayTrainor]

The historical record suggests that Lott's side will win this battle. I don't know what the exact numbers are. But I'd say in all previous contests between the establishment and anti-establishment idealists, the establishment has succeeded at controlling the idealists at a rate of somewhere in the order of 50:1. And pretending that Jim Demint is one of those anti-establishment idealists is pretty generous to begin with.

This!

[pacelli]

I think dropping the minarchist nonsense might be a start.
If there's no power, there's no reason to co-opt, hoodwink, vilify, rabble-rouse, bribe, or promise.

What is "minarchist nonsense"? The tea party or Lott's comment?

[Elwar]

Ungodly amounts of money and power can change someone's mind easily.

[low preference guy]

Anybody you send to DC will be co-opted.

Another "All is lost, just give up" type comment by AF.

You're basically saying that Rand Paul will do whatever Lott tells him. There is no reason to believe Rand Paul will give in to that. It makes no sense to interrupt a successful medical practice to kowtow to the good old boy network, so your claim is very unlikely.

[fisharmor]

If we accept as axiomatic the notion that the state ought to exist, then there will always be those looking to coopt the majority in order to exercise power and gain privileges.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The position of the Tea Party seems to be this: we see the absolute corruption that absolute power has brought us, so now we want to dial it back to just regular corruption levels.

[sarahgop]

rush is blasting them

[IPSecure]

I am confident that the criminal investigative arms of the government will stop the corruption... :rolleyes:

[erowe1]

If we accept as axiomatic the notion that the state ought to exist, then there will always be those looking to coopt the majority in order to exercise power and gain privileges.


But it appears that "we" (which by definition includes the person saying it, i.e. you) don't accept that as axiomatic. So what's the issue?

[fisharmor]

But it appears that "we" (which by definition includes the person saying it, i.e. you) don't accept that as axiomatic. So what's the issue?

The issue is that it doesn't matter whether the TP is coopted or not coopted.
Either eventuality has its consequences - and both of those consequences are statism.
The point I'm trying to make is that it truly doesn't matter how brazen Lott is in talking about coopting them, or whether he's successful.

When there is a movement or sea change in this country where people start discussing Molyneux's gun in the room, when they talk about the monopoly on violence, and when they start to wonder whether or not the rape dungeon is really an appropriate answer for the heinous crime of bartering, then it might make a difference whether or not that movement is coopted.

[erowe1]

The issue is that it doesn't matter whether the TP is coopted or not coopted.
Either eventuality has its consequences - and both of those consequences are statism.
The point I'm trying to make is that it truly doesn't matter how brazen Lott is in talking about coopting them, or whether he's successful.

When there is a movement or sea change in this country where people start discussing Molyneux's gun in the room, when they talk about the monopoly on violence, and when they start to wonder whether or not the rape dungeon is really an appropriate answer for the heinous crime of bartering, then it might make a difference whether or not that movement is coopted.

I guess I'm still unclear as to your recipe. There already are a few Molyneaux types who those things (maybe 1% of the population), and their existence doesn't seem to have much of an affect on things. There also are a few so-called minarchists (maybe another 1% of the population), and their existence doesn't seem to have much of an affect on things either. Are you saying that if those minarchists became anarchists then the government would disappear, all because the number of anarchists crossed the magic 2% threshold?

[fisharmor]

I guess I'm still unclear as to your recipe.

I have no recipe. I only know that if you took a dump in a cheap brownie mix, I'm not going to have a lot of desire to bake those brownies, let alone eat them.

Trent Lott can have the plate. All I can suggest is maybe we should try to convince some of the Tea Partiers that it doesn't matter if you upgrade to a Ghirardelli mix, and it certainly doesn't matter if you switch who's doing the honors before baking.

[TNforPaul45]

Another "All is lost, just give up" type comment by AF.

You're basically saying that Rand Paul will do whatever Lott tells him. There is no reason to believe Rand Paul will give in to that. It makes no sense to interrupt a successful medical practice to kowtow to the good old boy network, so your claim is very unlikely.

AF is not being a defeatist with his comment, he is being a realist. His comment is aimed at the general knowledge that all politicians lie to us and say anything they can to get elected, then they tow the party line once they get to DC in order to repay the REAL people that elected him.

Now how this will affect Rand Paul, we don't know yet. Rand is being smart in that to win the primary, he had to run towards the GOP/Tea Party, and not be too extreme in his views. I have been a bit disappointed with his behavior since the primary, but I don't think that he will "tow the line" once he gets to DC.

At the worst, I think that he will be ostracized and marginalized by his fellow GOP senators.

Everyone in here should feel as despondent and aggravated at our loving politicians, as the lying and scummy actions they engage in both before and after they get elected is the reason that we are all here, right?

[TheTyke]

Everyone in here should feel as despondent and aggravated at our loving politicians, as the lying and scummy actions they engage in both before and after they get elected is the reason that we are all here, right?

Actually, I'm here because I'm inspired by one who DOES keep his word - Ron Paul - and because his example shows us the what an influence a few good people can have in office.

We have to find such candidates, and give them the support they need to win - not act like they're all a lost cause. Many great liberty candidates are still lacking funds and support.

[Anti Federalist]

Another "All is lost, just give up" type comment by AF.

There, that better? :rolleyes:

YouTube - Sunshine lollipops and rainbows (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2sKH8yjVsM&feature=related)


You're basically saying that Rand Paul will do whatever Lott tells him. There is no reason to believe Rand Paul will give in to that. It makes no sense to interrupt a successful medical practice to kowtow to the good old boy network, so your claim is very unlikely.

No, I'm not saying that, Trent Lott, a very powerful figure within the DC establishment is saying that.

And what, Rand is the only person to give up a business to get into politics?

All those other folks are untouchable as well?

Your lost liberty is not going to be found in a voting booth.

[michaelwise]

If you sleep with dogs, you get flees.

[low preference guy]

There, that better?

No, saying everything is fine and we'll all be happy forever is nonsense, just like saying all is lost and we should just give up is nonsense.



No, I'm not saying that, Trent Lott, a very powerful figure within the DC establishment is saying that.


I get it now. I thought the statement


Anybody you send to DC will be co-opted.

without any quotation marks to indicate it was from Trent Lott, meant it was you saying that.

[Anti Federalist]

I get it now. I thought the statement

without any quotation marks to indicate it was from Trent Lott meant it was you saying that.

"As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" - Trent Lott

Them means anybody, everybody, the entire freshman class.

He didn't say, "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them, Rand Paul excepted".

[low preference guy]

"As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them" - Trent Lott

Them means anybody, everybody, the entire freshman class.

He didn't say, "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them, Rand Paul excepted".

I get it. I just clarified that I thought the statement in your post was yours, because it didn't have any quotation marks around it, and it also wasn't in the article you posted.

[Anti Federalist]

No, saying everything is fine and we'll all be happy forever is nonsense, just like saying all is lost and we should just give up is nonsense.

Just the opposite.

"Giving up" to me, means looking toward the system that is enslaving us for the means to achieve our liberty.

Crazy.

I'm at the "alter or abolish" stage, leaning heavily toward the "abolish" part.

I think the system is broken beyond repair, and what makes that true, more than all the other times in the past that doomsayers have said the same thing, is that in every case before that, the nation, as a whole, still made stuff and was not terribly in debt.

[Anti Federalist]

I get it. I just clarified that I thought the statement in your post was yours, because it didn't have any quotation marks around it, and it also wasn't in the article you posted.

Late posting, on my part, I understand.

[Matt Collins]

This goes into the Lott / DeMint adversarial relationship:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703579804575441331350216628.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[Mini-Me]

All I can say is, "What a smug piece of trash."