Stop the Government Takeover of Farming!

Stop government spending! Stop wasteful spending! Stop spending!

Its a chorus we've been hearing for months now from the Republicans. Government can't create jobs. Government spending is wasteful! Blah blah blah. What all that really means, according to my Republican-to-English dictionary is "we only like it when the government spends on things WE like, such as agriculture subsidies". From RedState:

The ethanol mandates are one of the most regressive socialist interventions into the free market that have been peddled by the progressives. Unfortunately, many Republicans, red state ones at that, are signing onto the extension of these backdoor taxes on food and fuel....

According to analysts at Goldman Sachs, the ethanol industry consumes 41% of the domestic corn crop. Corn is at the top of the food chain, so by creating an artificial shortage in supply of corn, the feds have caused a spike in the cost of meat and chicken as well. In addition, it costs much more to produce a barrel of ethanol than it does a barrel of oil.

Yet, 6 Republicans joined seven Democrats in penning a letter to Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell demanding that the subsidies be renewed before the end of this congress.

Here is a list of the Republicans who signed the letter together with their socialist compatriots.

Chuck Grassley 

Kit Bond

Sam Brownback

John Thune

Mike Johanns

Mark Kirk 

Mark Kirk is no surprise. He has wasted no time in voting with the democrats on virtually every issue since the minute he took office. The rest of these guys are from red states. Did we gain anything from the midterm elections, or did it never take place? Kit Bond and Sam Brownback are retiring and it remains to be seen if Moran and Blunt will be any better on this issue. Chuck Grassley? Well, he is …. Chuck Grassley after all. Johanns and Thune are really upsetting. Is this the best we can do from ruby red states? John Thune should kiss his bid for the presidency goodbye.

It really isn't shocking. But someone needs to call them on their BS. How can you support $7.7 BILLION DOLLARS in wasteful government spending on Ethanol subsidies and call yourself a fiscal conservative? How can you support that when you can't extend unemployment insurance? How can you support that and be against real stimulus projects like high speed rail?

Now, look, I don't blame them. If I were a Senator from an Ag state, you would bet your sweet ass I would vote for every single subsidy I could think of. Its what Senators are supposed to do. What I do have a problem with, and apparently the True Believers (tm) over at RedState do too, is that if you are against government waste, spending, and stupid subsidies, than at least be consistent in your opposition. Stand on principle and end this waste.

Again, this is why this blog exists. The rift between the pragmatic wing of the Republican Party (can't call them the establishment anymore because the lines are too blurry) who realize that you can get some pretty good stuff from the government and teh crazy wing of True Believers (tm) who demand ideological purity. There are only two outcomes: the pragmatists keep doing what they are doing and get primaried in 2012 (or whenever) or completely capitulate to teh crazy.

RedState.

Trivia Time

Trivia question: how much did members of the Tea Party Caucus ask for in earmarks last year?

Did you guess zero? If you did, you would be incorrect (surprising, I know!).

The real answer is...wait for it...one billion dollars! I'll just let the list speak for itself.

NAME                EARMARKS        AMOUNT

Aderholt (R-AL)        69        $78,263,000
Akin (R-MO)             9        $14,709,000
Alexander (R-LA)       41        $65,395,000
Bachmann (R-MN)         0                  0
Barton (R-TX)          14        $12,269,400
Bartlett (R-MD)        19        $43,060,650
Bilirakis (R-FL)       14        $13,600,000
R. Bishop (R-UT)       47        $93,980,000
Burgess (R-TX)         15        $15,804,400
Broun (R-GA)            0                  0
Burton (R-IN)           0                  0
Carter (R-TX)          26        $42,232,000
Coble (R-NC)           19        $18,755,000
Coffman (R-CO)          0                  0
Crenshaw (R-FL)        37        $54,424,000
Culberson (R-TX)       22        $33,792,000
Fleming (R-LA)         10        $31,489,000
Franks (R-AZ)           8        $14,300,000
Gingrey (R-GA)         19        $16,100,000
Gohmert (R-TX)         15         $7,099,000
S. Graves (R-MO)       11         $8,331,000
R. Hall (R-TX)         16        $12,232,000
Harper (R-MS)          25        $80,402,000
Herger (R-CA)           5         $5,946,000
Hoekstra (R-MI)         9         $6,392,000
Jenkins (R-KS)         12        $24,628,000
S. King (R-IA)         13         $6,650,000
Lamborn (R-CO)          6        $16,020,000
Luetkemeyer (R-MO)      0                  0
Lummis (R-WY)           0                  0
Marchant (R-TX)         0                  0
McClintock (R-CA)       0                  0
Gary Miller (R-CA)     15        $19,627,500
Jerry Moran (R-KS)     22        $19,400,000
Myrick (R-NC)           0                  0
Neugebauer (R-TX)       0                  0
Pence (R-IN)            0                  0
Poe (R-TX)             12         $7,913,000
T. Price (R-GA)         0                  0
Rehberg (R-MT)         88       $100,514,200
Roe (R-TN)              0                  0
Royce (R-CA)            7         $6,545,000
Scalise (R-LA)         20        $17,388,000
P. Sessions (R-TX)      0                  0
Shadegg (R-AZ)          0                  0
Adrian Smith (R-NE)     1           $350,000
L. Smith (R-TX)        18        $14,078,000
Stearns (R-FL)         17        $15,472,000
Tiahrt (R-KS)          39        $63,400,000
Wamp (R-TN)            14        $34,544,000
Westmoreland (R-GA)     0                  0
Wilson (R-SC)          15        $23,334,000

TOTAL                 764     $1,049,783,150
h/t Reid Wilson.

Is the War Over?

Dave Weigel certainly thinks so. I disagree. I think the War will continue with battle lines currently being drawn. Just wait until the freshman actually take their seats and start voting on things. Thats where all the campaign slogans in the world and pie-in-the-sky promises actually hit the sausage maker that is the US Congress. Decisions will have to be made.

A few points:

Weigel wrote a piece this morning on Slate about how there is no "civil war" in the Republican party. As evidence he says:

"The incoming Republican majority in the House and the Tea-stained Republican caucus in the Senate are being portrayed as large and unwieldy, ready to be split by debates over foreign policy and social issues. It's an irresistible story. It's just not true yet. Not even the people who spark the debates think they're setting off a massive intraconservative battle." 

Well, first of all these Representative-Elects have not been seated yet, therefore they have not yet been asked to vote on anything and/or make any hard decisions which may require compromise. As I have said before, one thing that I think will define the Tea Party Congress is their lack of ability to compromise because they are "true believers", not just in a religious sense (which they are) but also in a dogmatic sense. They are fundamentalists and one thing that is true about fundamentalists of all stripes is that they know the truth, they are right and you are wrong so there is no middle ground. That is what is going to happen when the Tea Party comes to Congress.

Weigel also goes on to claim that the Tea Party Congress will not focus on social issues. This is the biggest bunch of malarkey I think I have ever read. There is no way this is true. Tea Party is just the rebranding of the conservative wing of the party. They may claim that social issues will not be a big deal, but don't you think social issues are a big deal to the voters who put the Tea Party in power? The Republican establishment may want to gloss over the social stuff, but I think the activists on the Right are going to push social issues hard, just like they always have. Even Weigel quotes the granddady of the Tea Party, Senatory DeMint, as saying "[Y]ou can't be a fiscal conservative and not a social conservative". And he doesn't think this will be used as ammunition to the legions of activists DeMint helped recruit?

Now, I may be reading Weigel too closely. Subsequently, I saw this tweet from him:

In March, Olympia Snowe voted against an earmark ban. Today, she voted for it. Tea Party FTW. http://slate.me/hI48JD

To which I responded:

@daveweigel no civil war, re: snowe and earmarks? or has one side (tea party) already won?

And his follow-up:

@Poster_Nutbag Yep, the Tea Party won already.

Now, that could be sarcasm from Weigel, but I don't think so. It does, however, contradict his article from earlier in the day about how there is no civil war and there never was, that both sides of the Republican Party are and will be getting along splendidly. I think Snowe's flip-flow is proof positive that is not true. And you will see more and more of this as the Tea Party takes control, but don't believe for a moment that there will be no pushback from the establishment who realize that governing, policy, and winning elections are more than Tea Party slogans and insane platforms.

Weigel on Slate here. You can also follow him on Twitter @daveweigel.

The Weekly Standard on "Sarah Palin's Alaska"

There is a link to this piece in the complete David Frum article that I posted about previously, but this is something that must be read to be believed. This is THE WEEKLY STANDARD absolutely CRUSHING Sarah Palin. If you don't think the establishment is scared to death of this woman, this is all the proof you need. The Weekly Standard created her, for gods sake!

Article here.

Frum Hits It on the Head

How do you kill the monster you created? What if you can't? In the Terminator movies, it was man who created SkyNet which eventually became self-aware and launched the nukes on its own, creating the post-apocalyptic world where machines, not man ruled the earth. Ditto for the Matrix. So what will happen with Sarah Palin? How can the Republican Party kill her (killer her politically, not actually kill her. I feel I need to make that distinction so some Palinista doesn't find this blog and claim that I actually think the Republican Party will literally kill Sarah Palin) with the least amount of bloodshed? If you go for the jugular (again, figurative) and try to take her out vicious and quick, you risk alienating her most ardent supporters who make up most of the Republican base. If you take the long-view and try to bleed her over time, you run the risk of not finishing the job and letting her live to fight another day. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Either way: this battle will be a lot of fun to watch. As Frum says:

But in Palin’s case, the myth rings true. There really is a GOP party establishment. That establishment took up Palin as a useful tool in 2008, deployed Palin as an edged anti-Obama weapon in 2009 – and is now horrified to see that they may have set in motion a force possibly too powerful to halt when its time has ended. The story of the behind-the-scenes struggle to squelch Palin – and her ferocious determination not to be squelched – will be the big GOP-side story of the coming year.

His full piece here.

Who Will Blink First: Boehner or the Newbies?

Here is a good test for you, newly elected, first-term Republican House members. Will you a) do as your leader (Boehner) commands or b) stick to your guns and not vote to increase the debt ceiling? Now, I understand you ran against this sort of "reckless Federal spending", but do you realize what would happen if you voted against raising the debt ceiling? Actually, I think you do know what would happen and part of me, correct that - most of me, thinks you would be really happy to vote against the debt ceiling and have the United States default on its debt, because that wouldn't create any problems at all.

So there you have it. You can fulfill your wet dream of having the US default on its debt or you can cave into the demands of party leadership and do the right thing. Either way, you are screwed. Good luck with that. My favorite part is when Boehner asks them to act like adults. Ha!

“I’ve made it pretty clear to them that as we get into next year, it’s pretty clear that Congress is going to have to deal with this,” Mr. Boehner, who is slated to become House speaker in January, told reporters.

“We’re going to have to deal with it as adults,” he said, in what apparently are his most explicit comments to date. “Whether we like it or not, the federal government has obligations and we have obligations on our part.”

From the Wall Street Journal.

Just Remember What Happened to Bennett

I have to give it to Orrin Hatch (aside from being much bigger in person than I imagined. Dude is 6' and solid). He had an up close and personal look at how his colleague, Bob Bennett was taken out in the Republican primary this year because he had the audacity (!) to actually work with Democrats to find a solution to health care reform. But, as is the M.O. of the Republican Party today, the price for acting like an adult, more of then than not, is being cast as a heretic and/or apostate. It remains to be seen if the Party will extract the same revenge on Hatch for acting in a similar manner. His crime:

This morning, Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.) introduced the “Empowering States to Innovate Act.” The legislation would allow states to develop their own health-care reform proposals that would preempt the federal government’s effort. If a state can think of a plan that covers as many people, with as comprehensive insurance, at as low a cost, without adding to the deficit, the state can get the money the federal government would’ve given it for health-care reform but be freed from the individual mandate, the exchanges, the insurance requirements, the subsidy scheme and pretty much everything else in the bill.

Wyden, with the help of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was able to build a version of this exemption into the original health-care reform bill, but for various reasons, was forced to accept a starting date of 2017 -- three years after the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act goes into effect. The Wyden/Brown legislation would allow states to propose their alternatives now and start implementing them in 2014, rather than wasting time and money setting up a federal structure that they don’t plan to use.

In general, giving the states a freer hand is an approach associated with conservatives. On Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) sent a letter to the Republican Governors Association advocating exactly that. “The most effective path to sustainable health care reform runs through the states, not Washington,” he wrote. If it’s really the case that the states can do health reform better, Wyden and Brown are giving them a chance to prove it.

If the past teaches us anything about the future, Hatch better watch his rear (or, more accurately, his right).

Ezra Klein here.

Miller vs. Murkowski vs. Fox

Two great tweets from Josh Marshall that I would like to share regarding Lisa Murkowski's apparent victory over Joe Miller and Miller's (and Fox's) resistance to acknowledging reality. Just a little food for thought:

Murkowski must have won because i think only Fox is letting the Miller guy come on to say he wants a recount.

Followed by:

also, in case like Miller vs. Murkowski does Fox have to hold executive level meeting to determine who to be biased for?

There have already been articles written about the role Fox will play in the upcoming 2012 Dancing with the Republican Presidential Candidates, soon to be airing in prime time on your television. A number of potential Next Greatest Republican President Stars have contracts on Fox (Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich) while some (actually only Romney and the current elected officials like Pence, Christie, and Pawlenty) don't. How will Fox decide who, as Josh says, to be biased for? If its not Palin, god help them. The Palinistas will be out with knives drawn. With their "you're either with us or against us" ideology, it'll be tough when "against us" is themselves.

When Is an Earmark Not an Earmark? When its in Michelle Bachmann's District, Natch!

Is consistency too much to ask from these people? I mean, really. You don't like earmarks. Dumb position, but OK, whatever. You are entitled to that position. But this? I don't know if it's "teh crazy" or "teh st00pid". More like "I think that the people that believe this shit are all st00pid, except for me because I get to decide the rules because I am Michelle Bachmann". To wit:

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) hates earmarks. Despises them. On her website, she calls the earmark system "little more than a political favor factory at taxpayer expense." But when it comes to her own district, she's in favor of a little earmark "redefinition." Because what isan earmark, after all?

"Advocating for transportation projects for one's district in my mind does not equate to an earmark," Bachmann told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune yesterday.

"I don't believe that building roads and bridges and interchanges should be considered an earmark," Bachmann continued. "There's a big difference between funding a tea pot museum and a bridge over a vital waterway."

Yes, there could be no viable economic reason for a Congresscritter to want a "tea pot museum" (subliminal shot at the Tea Party, perhaps?) in their district. But highways, which as we all know are free and pay for themselves, as opposed to wasteful spending on silly things like rail and other forms of public transportation which have zero economic valuel, are exempt from the definition of an earmark because...well, because!

Consistency, people, consistency. Is that too much to ask?

TPM.

Only Sarah Palin Could Endear Me To Lisa Murkowski

From the horses mouth (sorry, Lisa. I had to take the shot):

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) doesn't have much faith in Sarah Palin's ability to be president, and said as much to known Palin nemesis Katie Couric on CBS last night. "I just do not think that she has those leadership qualities, that intellectual curiosity that allows for building good and great policies," Murkowski said. She added: "I don't think that she enjoyed governing."

"She would not be my choice for president," Murkowski said.

Fortunately for Lisa, Palin should be but a distant memory six years from now. Unfortunately for Lisa, this, combined with her defeat of Joe Miller, will make for a long six years thanks to the predictable backlash from the Palinistas.

Video here.

Baby Wants His Ba-Ba

I don't really know who Andy Harris is, the newly elected Republican representative for Maryland's First Congressional district, but by all accounts he is some sort of whiny baby who wants what he wants and he wants it now, no matter what.

It appears that the Honorable Gentleman from Maryland wants his health care - his GOVERNMENT health care - and he wants it NOW. What is so unusual (but not entirely unexpected) about this is that Mr. Harris is an anti-health care Republican and won his election by campaigning on his opposition to government run health care. Here's how it all went down:

A conservative Maryland physician elected to Congress on an anti-Obamacare platform surprised fellow freshmen at a Monday orientation session by demanding to know why his government-subsidized health care plan takes a month to kick in.

Republican Andy Harris, an anesthesiologist who defeated freshman Democrat Frank Kratovil on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, reacted incredulously when informed that federal law mandated that his government-subsidized health care policy would take effect on Feb. 1 – 28 days after his Jan. 3rd swearing-in.

“He stood up and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care,” said a congressional staffer who saw the exchange. The benefits session, held behind closed doors, drew about 250 freshman members, staffers and family members to the Capitol Visitors Center auditorium late Monday morning,”.

“Harris then asked if he could purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap,” added the aide, who was struck by the similarity to Harris’s request and the public option he denounced as a gateway to socialized medicine.

Harris, a Maryland state senator who works at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and several hospitals on the Eastern Shore, also told the audience, “This is the only employer I’ve ever worked for where you don’t get coverage the first day you are employed,” his spokeswoman Anna Nix told POLITICO.

Actually, Mr. Harris, most employers WILL make you wait a predetermined amount of time before your health care kicks in. Maybe if you had just spent more time in the private sector, instead of in a government job (which as we all know, isn't a real job at all, according to most Republicans) you would know this. This, however, is my favorite quote:

Nix said Harris, who is the father of five, wasn’t being hypocritical – he was just pointing out the inefficiency of government-run health care.

Actually, that's not what it points out at all. A waiting period for health care has absolutely nothing to do with any real or imagined inefficiencies with health care. What it does point out is a) how the MARKET determines when health coverage kicks in (most employers want to wait a bit to see if you are going to stay at the job long-term, so there is a grace period before you get your health care) and b) Andy Harris is a a hypocrite of the first order and a moron, taboot. The next thing you know, Mr. Harris will be screaming about keeping the government out of Medicare.

Soylent Green is people!

Read all about Mr. Harris in Politico and TPM.

Ezra Klein Nails My Thesis Exactly

One gripe. He says this could either be a Civil War or a complete capitulation by the establishment. Either way its the same thing: it will tear the party apart.

Last week, Politico reported that Mitch McConnell was quietly meeting with incoming senators to talk them out of banning earmarks. "Eliminating earmarks would effectively cede Congress’ spending authority to the White House while not making a real dent in the $1 trillion-plus budget deficit," he argued. That pitted him in opposition to Jim DeMint and the Tea Parties, both of whom had made the elimination of earmarks a central priority. 

Yesterday, McConnell waved the white flag. "Make no mistake," he said. "I know the good that has come from the projects I have helped support throughout my state. I don’t apologize for them." But "unless people like me show the American people that we’re willing to follow through on small or even symbolic things, we risk losing them on our broader efforts to cut spending and rein in government."

The big news here is not earmarks, however, which are, as McConnell says, "small or even symbolic things," but the glimpse into the dynamics of the incoming Republican legislators. Jim DeMint and the conservative base hold a lot of influence. At this point, it's not yet clear that McConnell and the Republican establishment -- many of whom were defeated in primaries over the course of the election -- can counter them. Some have warned that will lead to civil war in the Republican Party, but it could also lead to an exhausted capitulation by the old guard -- much as we saw from McConnell yesterday. If that happens, if the moderating influence of the veterans is not just rejected but actively extinguished, we're going to see a much more ideologically hardline and legislatively unpredictable Republican Conference than most have been predicting.

If you don't read Ezra on a regular basis, you should.

That Was Fast. Tea Party 1, Establishment 0

Well, Mitch McConnell read the writing on the wall and caved into the anti-earmark demands of the Tea Party. Chalk this one up to a victory for the Tea Party. Give them an inch...

McCain v. Paul (Rand)

This should be good. You have establishment (McCain) v. insurgent (Paul) challenging one another over the sacred cow of Republican politics: the defense budget. Who will win? Only time will tell:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) sounded an alarm about some of the Republicans joining him in Congress next year, warning that they could affect the consensus on the war in Afghanistan and might pose challenges to free trade agreements and the defense budget.

"Rand Paul, he's already talked about withdrawals, cuts in defense," said McCain. "I worry a lot about rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party."

He talks earmarks too. If only he had mentioned Medicare/Social Security/Health Care it would have been a trifecta!

Original here.

Tea Party Reaction to the Deficit Commission

Sometimes this blog just writes itself. How do YOU think the Tea Party reacted to the draft of the Deficit Commission report? Sure, it may call for some tax increases (it is still unclear what the net result of the tax increases taken with some tax cuts and spending cuts will be, but in Teabonics a tax increase is a tax increase), but it does offer proposals to "shrink" government, so both the Tea Party and the Republican establishment should be on board, right? WRONG.

...Republicans face intense pressure from their conservative base and the Tea Party movement to reject any deal that includes tax increases, leaving their leaders with little room to maneuver in any negotiation and at risk of being blamed by voters for not doing their part.

And just how will they deal with the heretics that are in office?

Republicans would also be looking over their shoulders at the growing ranks of the Tea Party. Ryan Hecker, from the Houston chapter, said it would be “a big mistake” for Republicans to go along with tax increases. “I think that is something that would not sit well with members of the Tea Party,” he said.

Emboldened by their victories, Tea Party members are mobilizing for 2012 to work against any Republican who shows signs of compromising. Among Republicans who may well face rivals in the 2012 party primaries are Senators Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Orrin G. Hatch of Utah.

Mr. Lugar, who began his long Senate career as indisputably conservative but is now seen by many as a moderate as the party has turned further right, said the Tea Party was no “irresponsible fringe” in an essay this week for a publication of the Ripon Society, a moderate Republican group. But, he added, Republicans must not reflexively oppose everything Democrats propose.

“Opposing unsound administration policies remains important,” Mr. Lugar wrote, adding, “But simple, unadorned ‘opposition’ is mistaken, from both the policy and political perspectives.”

See ya later, Dick Lugar. We all know what the price to pay is if you are a sensible Republican. Just look in the dictonary next to Bennett, Senator Robert F. and Inglis, Representative Robert Durden.

Full NYT here.

This Should Endear the Tea Party to the Folks In Washington

Imagine you are a newly elected Representative, or better yet imagine you ran for Congress as a Republican and didn't win. Then imagine if your PERSONAL cell phone started blowing up with calls from enraged Tea Partiers demanding...well...demanding something (they are always demanding something and demanding someone "listen to them"). Do you think after something like this the Republican establishment and elected representatives in DC will give these people ANY freedom to accomplish...well...whatever it is they want to accomplish?

In the wake of their big election "victory," the Tea Party Patriots (TPP) hastily organized an orientation session for newly elected members of Congress in DC. The national tea party umbrella group rented space at the swank Ronald Reagan building, arranged for more than 100 of its local coordinators to be flown in for the event, and even pulled Reagan-era attorney general Ed Meese out of the mothballs and signed him on as a keynote speaker. After shelling out more than $100,000, the group discovered that it wasn't the only one interested in getting to those newly elected freshmen. The Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank, had also organized a similar event. Worse still, it was scheduled for the same day and time as the tea party orientation. 

The tea partiers responded by lobbying the newly elected lawmakers to come to their event instead of the one organized by the Claremont Institute. TPP sent out an indignant email blast suggesting that Claremont was simply hosting a GOP event in disguise, and that the competing "orientation" was an attempt by lobbyists to get first crack at the freshman class. "DC insiders, the RNC, and lobbyists are already trying to push the Tea Party aside and co-opt the incoming Congressmen," the group wrote. TPP even asked its members to call the soon-to-be members of Congress and lobby them personally to come to the tea party event. This turned out to be a pretty bad idea. The email TPP circulated contained the personal cell phone numbers of some of the freshmen, who for a 24-hour stretch, received non-stop calls from tea partiers. Those calls did not, of course, go over well with their intended targets. On Friday, TPP sent out another email to activists urging them to stop calling the freshman, writing:

We listed the contact information we had for these freshmen and we now know that some of it was personal cell phone numbers or fax numbers. This list was the best information we had at the time. We also understand that sometimes members of Congress find it annoying to receive numerous calls from voters. But we encourage them to remember it is part of the job and they asked to be hired. This will not be the last time.

Not only that, but TPP included a few people on its list who hadn't actually won their elections, so the likes of Virginia's Keith Fimian and a few others also got assaulted with phone calls, prompting the group to acknowledge its bungling:

We need to offer our sincere apologies to a John Koster, Jesse Kelly, and Keith Fimian who ran for office and did not get elected but we had them listed on our list of people to call. These are people who stepped up and were willing to serve the public. They lost their elections and need to be able to get back to their lives. We offer our most sincere apologies to you for having melted your phone lines.

Whoopsie.

Mother Jones (above) here. TPM here.

The War On Earmarks

One of the most interesting battles that will be fought between the establishment and Tea Party is over earmarks. Earmarks, aka "pork", aka "wasteful spending", aka "wasteful spending when a project is in someone elses district...if its in my district I love it and we are just getting our 'fair share'", only consume 1% of the US budget, yet to Tea Partiers, earmarks are the Greatest Threat To Our Liberty Ever (until the next greatest threat to our liberty ever arises).

Well, this battle has been brewing for some time now. The two main opponents are the anti-earmark and Tea Party favorite Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and the pro-earmark, but equally batshit crazy Senator James Inhofe (R-OK). It seems that Sen. Inhofe loves his pork so much that he wrote a manifesto "The Secret About Earmarks" and distributed it to one of the main Tea Party groups for its approval. Can you guess what happened next?

Tea party activists are stepping up their involvement in an internal Senate GOP battle over whether to ban earmarks — and Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe is pushing back aggressively.

Inhofe has engaged in a behind-the-scenes effort aimed at convincing tea party groups of the value of earmarks, including circulating a 20-page document that makes the case that it’s Congress’s job to appropriate money and that a number of projects are rooted in the national and local interest.

Continue Reading

The 75-year-old, four-term lawmaker, who boasts of being the most conservative senator, has been relentless, according to several accounts.

Moments after the Tea Party Patriots issued a missive to 200,000 members backing the earmarks ban, Inhofe tried to reach one of the group’s leaders on her cell phone. When he couldn’t connect, he tried again. When that was unsuccessful, his staff sent text messages urging her to call him back.

Finally, one of the group’s co-founders, Mark Meckler, returned Inhofe’s phone call Wednesday. It was a brief conversation, in which Inhofe said he wanted to provide Meckler’s group with an essay titled “The Secret About Earmarks.” It argues that eliminating them “won’t save taxpayers a single dime.” And he urged Meckler to give the essay to former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, chairman of the tea-party-aligned FreedomWorks.

Meckler said in an interview that the phone call was “bizarre,” adding that “we normally don’t have a lot of direct contact with senators.”

Brillant. Now THAT is the way to treat a sitting Senator. Make him call you. And leave a voicemail. And a text message. Then he wrote on his Facebook wall. And MySpace. Friendster too. Keep it up. 

And it appears that Inhofe feels the same way about his brethren as they feel about him:

With voters angry over Washington spending, proponents of earmarks have an uphill climb to convince skeptics of their value for projects ranging from military installations to medical research that are constantly derided as pork. But Inhofe said he can change the minds of people who have been “brainwashed.”

But that wasn't even the most revealing part:

With a vote coming Tuesday on the ban on earmarks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s opposition was seen as enough to defeat the plan — especially since it was proposed by South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, who is deeply unpopular with many of his colleagues.

But one thing McConnell can’t control: the sway of tea party activists, who are beginning to mount an aggressive lobbying push to demand that wobbly Republican senators take a firm line and publicly announce their support for the two-year earmark moratorium.

Politico article here. Inhofe's letter here.

Voter Fraud, Hot Republican-On-Republican Action!

"Voter fraud", as we are normally familiar with the term, refers to Republican accusations that poor, darker-skinned people voting in urban areas, but now, thanks to Joe Miller, we now know that "voter fraud" can also apply to Republicans. 

In a press release sent out last night, the campaign announced that it had established a voter fraud hotline to handle the "many reports of possible voter fraud" that they've gotten, including "serious allegations of fraud, voter intimidation and voter bullying." Brown continued: "To facilitate collection of this material for law enforcement or legal review, we thought it best to establish a centralized number where people could call, anonymously if need be, and leave information. We encourage any citizen who has a concern to call this number."

The release also says that the campaign intends to sue for copies of voter registers from the Division of Elections so they can compare the number of voters who signed in with the number of ballots. According to Brown, the DOE said it was "too busy" to provide copies, so "the Campaign will be forced to ask a judge in Juneau to order the state to produce these registers."

Murkowski campaign manager Kevin Sweeney dismissed the claims, saying that "for the Miller campaign, it's become desperate time."

"He's making accusations without giving any meat to those accusations," Sweeney said.

Isn't it great when Republicans turn their tactics on their own? You see, in the Republican vocabulary, voter fraud means not only poor, darker-skinned people voting, but it also means "when a Republican loses, I will cry 'voter fraud' because I know the Republican should have won". The only problem with that is since both candidates are Republicans, neither could have lost, and if one did lose, it was certainly because of "voter fraud" on the side. And it goes 'round and 'round. 

Keep it up Joe. There is no rift in the Republican Party.

Full story here.

The RNC Race: Lines Are Drawn

As I mentioned earlier, winning isn't enough for Michael Steele and his Republican counterparts. Granted, Steele is a buffoon and isn't competent enough to run anything, let alone the Republican Party, but I think the next race to become RNC chair will become a microcosm of what will play out within the Republican caucus and in the 2012 race. It will be interesting to see how hard to the right Anuzis tacts. Rarely does winning expose such deep divides. Said Anuzis:

My agenda is very straightforward. I have no interest in running for office. I won’t be writing a book.  It is not my goal to be famous. However, you’ll be hard pressed to find anyone who will work harder, more diligently and be more committed to electing Republicans from the top to every township and city across this great country of ours.

Full story here.

The Early Repubican Presidential Primary Prognositcation

Things won't really heat up in the Republican Civil War until the primaries start in earnest. Right now we are seeing the battle lines being drawn, but the major battles won't happen until the campaigning gets started.

Some are calling Romney the frontrunner. I say "no way". The teabag wing of the party would never stand for Romney, but as long as he has frontrunner status there will be a big bulls-eye on his back and the rifts within the party will continue to be exposed. But, don't underestimate the establishment wing of the party if a Huckabee or Palin looks especially strong early on.

The most important thing to remember though is that it is still WAY too early to know anything about how the 2012 field will be put together and which way the winds will blow once the balloting (or caucusing) starts. We have some ideas, but it will take a while to shake out.

More read here, here, and here.

From The "Yeah, That'll Happen" Files

Republicans cutting the defense budget? Some Tea Party members like the idea, will the rest of the party? How hard will they push this one (my guess: not much)? Will there be brush-back from the "establishment" (my guess: yes)?

More and more figures on the right — especially some darlings of the all-important tea party movement — are coming forward to utter a conservative heresy: that the Pentagon budget cow perhaps should not be so sacred after all.

Full story here.

Hispanic Republican=Log Cabin Republican

I think it is a good idea for Republicans to continue their War on Mexicans, because, you know, no people of Hispanic decent vote Republican. Or do they? The odds that the perfectly sane and reasonable position that this group of Hispanic Republicans are articulating is listened to hovers somewhere in the vicinity 0.0%, plus or minus 1%.

From the aforementioned letter:

As we are already looking toward the 2012 Presidential Elections, we respectfully ask you to take heed to our request out of concern for our nation. Congressmen Smith and King have repeatedly engaged in rhetoric that is aimed negatively toward Hispanics. Steve King has used defamatory language that is extremely offensive to Hispanics, which is found in numerous congressional records. We believe Steve King’s behavior is not appropriate for a high-level elected Republican who might be in charge of a committee that handles immigration rules. Steve King and Lamar Smith have adopted extreme positions on birthright citizenship, and promise legislation that would undermine the 14th amendment of the constitution, which both swore an oath to uphold. 

Yes, I expect the Republican Party to listen to their concerns.

Full letter here.

He Who Counts The Votes Matters

Is this a vote for Lisa Murkowski?

Should this count as a vote for Senator Lisa?

Shortly after the second day of write-in ballot counting began in the race, a Miller observer challenged a vote for Murkowski that appeared to have her name spelled and printed correctly, though the "L" in "Lisa" was in cursive handwriting.

Remember, this isn't a Bush (R) v. Gore (D) or a Franken (D) v. Coleman (R) situation. This is Miller (R) v. Murkowski (R).

Read more here and here.

Republican Underpants Gnomes

That is how Republicans do math:

Step 1: Cut programs that don't exist and/or have already expired
Step 2: ....
Step 3: Eliminate the budget deficit!

From the New York Times:

Note to the incoming Republican majority in the House: Eliminating government programs that do not exist does not save money. 

Of the few specific cuts that Congressional Republicans have proposed in their promised assault on annual budget deficits, one of the biggest by far would save $25 billion over 10 years, they claim, by ending an emergency welfare fund.

The Republican Study Committee, which includes more than 100 of the most conservative House Republicans, promoted the idea in a statement this week, saying, “With the national debt quickly approaching $14 trillion, Washington needs to get serious about cutting spending.”

Well, seriously, the fund expired Sept. 30.

Full story here.

One Would Think the Chairman's Job Would Be Safe, Right?

I mean, he IS the chairman of the RNC and the Republicans DID win big, so Michael Steele should be OK, right?

WRONG!

Nothing like a victory to encourage infighting.

From TPM:

While most Republicans are jockeying for promotions in the new leadership structure in the wake of massive electoral victories, RNC chair Michael Steele is facing down a bunch of his fellow Republicans who want to see him start collecting unemployment. Steele hasn't committed to running for a second term as the head of the party, but already Republicans embarrassed by his first year in office are lining up to stop him if he tries.

Full story here.

Is Government Spending Wasteful? Not When Its In MY District (or State)

I thought spending on rail projects was waste? Scott Walker (R-WI) and Chris Christie (R-NJ) certainly think so. I'm sure a common-sense conservative like Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA) would CERTAINLY think so too!

Over on Peach Pundit, one of their commentators suggested a couple days back that though new Republican governors in other states, like Wisconsin and Ohio, say they’re planning on rejecting hundreds of millions in already-awarded high-speed rail stimulus, lately Georgia Republicans have been singing a slightly different tune when it comes to some Georgia “rail projects”.

The post points specifically to recent Republican comments regarding a potential transit hub in “the Gulch” downtown.

U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland of Coweta County said he expects a highway bill next year “that will be able to authorize funds to beneficial projects, like this one, and I encourage GDOT to work to secure funding for this project in this bill.”

Previous transit critics also have come around, including DOT board member David Doss, who chairs the committee overseeing the hub’s development.

Though he still calls commuter trains “choo-choos,” he likes buses and high-speed rail for their potential to transform Georgia, and a transit hub would be a central location for those.

What’s pushing Georgia Republicans out of lock-step with their more traditional brethren?

Full story here.