Disclosure: at an early point in my observations of Trent Lott, I formed the opinion that he just wasn't very bright. That point probably occurred during one of his rambling defenses of Richard Nixon during the televised Watergate proceedings, when he was an obscure young Congressman and Nixon's complicity in the infamous break-in looked almost as certain as Barry Bonds' use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs. This undoubtedly colors my respect for the Senator, though he has hardly done anything in the intervening 30 years to change my mind. For example, while I argued that the criticism he took for his overly enthusiastic praise of the late Senator Strom Thurmond on his 100^th birthday was excessive and unfair, it also seems clear that making the statement, which Lott knew would be broadcast on radio and cable, that it was a shame Thurmond didn't get elected president (when everyone, including Lott, knows that Thurmond ran for the White House on a pro-segregation platform) was proof positive that the man is a little light in the cranium.

But Lott is apparently not a complete dummy: he is shrewd enough to know that if he resigns his seat as U.S. Senator now, before new ethics prohibitions go into effect next year, he can pick up a lucrative lobbying job immediately instead of having to endure a waiting period of two years. Never mind that the good voters of his state sent him to the Senator based on his implicit commitment to serve out his full six year term. There's lobbying money to be made, and Lott's good friend and soon-to-be fellow lobbyist John Breaux is forming a new firm that will have special interests paying big bucks for its connections in high places. Lott is smart enough to put two and two together, and so is the American public.

What it should see is a supposed public servant who can't wait to sell out. The Scoreboard won't miss having Trent Lott in the Senate or on the public scene, nor will the country. But he made a commitment when he ran for office, and that commitment necessarily included a personal representation that he was running to do something for the nation, not for his own wallet. Deserting his elected duties five years before his term expires in pursuit of riches is, quite simply, unethical, disgraceful and indefensible. The last time Lott left the Senate, it was because of good intentions misapplied. This time, it is for good intentions abandoned.

The Scoreboard's verdict: an unethical exit, but good riddance nonetheless.