You might have thought that we vanquished Dick Lugar from the levers of power a few weeks ago.  But if nothing is done to stop the impending 5-year Farm Bill, he might harm us with his regressive policies long past his time in Washington.

Last month, the Senate Agriculture Committee passed a 5-year farm bill that continues to serve as one of the most potent anti-free-market vehicles in the statist arsenal.  There is nothing more vital to American consumers than fuel and food, yet the farm bill is loaded up with subsidies for farming, biofuels, and other inefficacious “fuel” sources that distort those markets, engendering regressive price increases on everyone.  While supporters of the bill are touting the $23 billion in cuts to direct subsidies, they also plan to expand the crop insurance program.  In fact, the only thing holding up the bill at this point is a food fight between different special interests battling at the trough over subsidy levels for various types of crops.  The most insidious aspect of the bill is that it serves as a means to entrench dependency in some of our most conservative states.

For all the talk of acerbic partisanship in DC, nothing brings the parties together like a farm bill.  As each member clamors for his/her own special interest handouts, the parties become indistinguishable; taking on a striking semblance of a same-sex marriage.  The best illustration is the $800 million Lugar-Conrad amendment, which would continue to shove ethanol down our throats.  On April 26, Lugar and Conrad submitted an amendment that would authorize mandatory spending for his special interest biofuels industry.  The amendment passed by voice vote, and because it provides mandatory authority, the funding would not be subject to annual appropriations.

Thomas Pyle of US News and World Report has the key details of the amendment:

Read More →

“I have said at nearly every climate change hearing that for me I don’t dispute the science.  Right or wrong, the debate over the modeling and science appears to be over.”

Guess who said that?  While those comments appear similar to the sentiments expressed by the likes of Al Gore, it was actually Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton who said it during a 2009 hearing before an E&C subcommittee hearing.

Throughout the past few years, we have bemoaned the fact that so many liberals fill the ranks of the Republican Conference.  Incumbents are supposedly unpopular, and Congress as a whole has an 8% approval rating.  Yet, almost every single incumbent has breezed through the primary season thus far.  There is no better individual to start with than Fred Upton.  To that end, we will be launching a new series, “Dump Upton,” to shed light on individual votes cast by Upton throughout his 25-year liberal special interest career.

Here is our first installment.  On May 13, 2009, Upton was one of only 19 Republicans to vote with the Pelosi Democrats to create a new “green schools advisory council” within the Department of Education for the purpose of studying how to build green schools.

Fred Upton helped shut the lights off on American households; it’s time to shut the lights off on his special interest congressional career.  I’m sure he’ll find a nice job lobbying for green energy and global warming regulations. Let’s just keep him away from the committee charged with overseeing those policies.

Let’s help Jack Hoogendyk overcome the special interest money from the energy sector that is being thrown at him.

Today is the calm before the storm of next week when conservatives will be involved in the marque fight of the cycle; Ted Cruz vs. David Dewhurst in Texas.  Nonetheless, there are primary elections in Arkansas and Kentucky today that will provide us with a couple pickup opportunities.

Arkansas-4 

Blue Dog Mike Ross is headed back to the Democrat kennel, creating a prime pickup opportunity for us in November.  However, it is vital that we pick the best candidate in the primary to secure at least one conservative seat in this rapidly conservative-trending state.  At present, the Republican delegation stinks:

We need to build a conservative bench in this state if we ever hope to win a conservative majority.  Tom Cotton is the man.  He was the first candidate endorsed by Red State. He is also supported by the Club for Growth and the Madison Project.  Cotton is committed to fighting the liberals in both parties.  His opponent, Beth Anne Rankin, who is supported by Mike Huckabee, will represent more of the same in this mediocre populist delegation.

Read More →

Read More →

The liberal cycle of statism, at its core, originates from a government-induced problem.  When nobody is paying attention to an issue, liberals swoop in and impose a pernicious regulation or mandate on a private industry.  That regulation lays dormant for a number of years like a ticking time bomb.  Then, many years later, it blows up the industry.  Liberals summarily swoop in to accuse private enterprise of raising costs on the poor, and demand that their “solutions” be enacted.

Nowhere is this cycle more evident than with the health insurance industry.  During the 40s, Congress imposed wage controls on private employers, limiting the pay raises that could be doled out to employees.  This destructive and unconstitutional act led employers to look for other means of compensation to attract talent and reward productive employees.  This gave rise to the tax exemption for employer-provided health insurance officially created in 1954.

In short order, most employers began paying for the health insurance of their workers.  This in turn distorted the market and tilted the playing field away from the individual. It also dramatically spiked the cost of health insurance by providing too much coverage and generating artificially increased demand.  This system also shielded consumers from the real cost of the coverage.  Hence, we are now stuck with a situation where those who don’t enjoy employer-provided coverage are holding the bag of higher costs – all brought to you by government’s infringement on the free market.

Conservative healthcare policy expert Avik Roy offers an insightful presentation on the inimical effects of government’s tendentious treatment of employer-based coverage at Forbes online.  Here is the thrust of his argument:

Read More →

When it comes to free-market fiscal policy, Republicans are always manufacturing excuses to exempt themselves from their own doctrine on numerous issues.  There are always excuses why specific industries must be recipients of government interventions.  They say that exporters cannot function without the Ex-Im Bank; farmers cannot subsist without government welfare despite record high prices; the financial markets cannot survive without bailouts.  The latest exception to free-market doctrine that is being considered in Congress is the flood insurance program.

The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was created in 1968 to provide insurance to those living in flood-risk areas.  Ever since the last long-term NFIP reauthorization expired, Congress has passed 17 stop-gap extensions.  Not surprisingly, the program has racked up $18 billion in debt during that tumultuous time.  The latest extension expires at the end of May.  There will be a need for another short-term extension, but Congress must not pass a long-term extension that does not contain significant reforms.

We must understand that there is an imbalance of power in the political system of any democracy in that the forces of statism have an innate advantage over the defenders of freedom. It takes but one legislative or administrative victory for statism to succeed in guiding society on an indelible path towards dependency.  We cannot perpetuate the free-market, but we can perpetuate statism by creating inveterate dependency constituencies.  Statism enjoys the inherent advantage of self-perpetuation through its own pernicious activities that engender a continued need for the government programs.

Decades’ worth of government incentives to live in flood-prone regions have enticed thousands of homeowners into purchasing houses in areas that will forever necessitate more subsidies.  80 years’ worth of farm subsidies and crop insurance have created near-immutable levels of dependency in our farming communities.  Decades’ worth of housing subsidies have created a reality in which 90% of all mortgages are backed by Fannie and Freddie.

Read More →

Many of us have taken it for granted that all Republicans would work for full repeal of Obamacare.  After all, not a single Republican voted for it.  However, it is always important to understand the reasons why politicians support or oppose a piece of legislation.

When you listen to many prominent Republicans voicing their disdain for Obamacare, you generally hear the following complaints: it raises taxes, it cuts Medicare, it contains death panels, it is 2,700 pages long – and most notably – the individual mandate.

The problem is that these are all ancillary to the crux of what is so offensive about Obamacare.  The overarching concern about Obamacare is that it harnesses the factors that have already driven up the cost of healthcare and health insurance, most prominently, the mandates and subsidies, and multiplies them to the nth degree.  The tax increases, Medicare cuts, and individual mandate are merely tools to fund those interventions.  Many Republicans never had a problem with them.  This is why they were never repulsed by Romneycare, which doesn’t contain tax hikes and Medicare cuts.  As for the individual mandate of MassCare, they contend that there is nothing wrong with a state mandate.

As such, it comes as no surprise to read these tidbits in Politico:

Read More →

Well, that didn’t take long.  Just one week into the conference committee on the highway bill, Republicans are showing signs of caving on their insistence that the Keystone pipeline be approved as part of the deal.

Throughout the past few months, we have been chronicling how Republicans have been apathetic to the underlying vices of the highway bill (S. 1813).  They basically told the Democrats in committee that they have every intention of passing the Senate bill; they just want a provision approving the Keystone pipeline as part of the agreement.  As any negotiator that lacks the credulousness of a toddler understands, once you take your bargaining chip off the table, the other side has no reason to give in.  Since Republicans have guaranteed Democrats that the tax and spend highway bill is too big to fail, Democrats will wait them out until they agree to jettison the Keystone provision.  And that is exactly what is happening.

Take a look at these quotes from The Hill:

Republicans are pressing for approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in a final House-Senate transportation bill but appear unlikely to draw a line in the sand that jeopardizes the infrastructure legislation.

While the proposed Alberta-to-Texas pipeline is a top GOP and oil-industry priority, Republicans might have incentive to keep the matter unresolved, enabling them to continue using Keystone as a political weapon during the campaign season. [...]

“The overall Republican conference position is not to sink the conference report over [Keystone XL], however, as keeping that issue alive through the elections is also acceptable,” an oil industry source told The Hill.

Read More →

People often ask me what can be done to move the elected officials within the Republican Party rightward.  Well, for one thing, we need to elect more conservatives.  But more importantly, we need those conservatives to obtain positions of power, such as chairmanships of the committees that set our domestic policy agenda.

Not surprisingly, all the relevant committee chairmen are either conduits for leadership or are even more liberal than leadership.  Here is a list of the chairmen along with their respective 2011 scores from Heritage Action:

Read More →

There is much hullabaloo in the media about John Boehner’s shot across the bow in the upcoming battle over the debt ceiling this fall.  Specifically, Boehner warned that he “will again insist” on the” simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase.”

The question is what Boehner means by insisting “again” on spending cuts greater than the debt ceiling increase.  Does he view the failed Budget Control Act (BCA), super committee, and sequester of defense spending as a success?  He has yet to denounce last year’s failure, so why should we look forward to a repeat performance?

The first step in remedying our debt ceiling strategy is to acknowledge the failures of the past.  When Republicans caved on raising the debt limit last year, we referred to the final Boehner proposal as a ground ball into a double play.  Not only did Boehner fail to secure any transformational downsizing of government in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, he actually stymied our leverage in future budget battles.  As we’ve noted, Mitch McConnell and House appropriators have already signaled that they will never cut one cent below the discretionary budget caps established in the BCA.  Hence, the BCA served only to lock in the record spending levels of the Obama-era.  The only real cuts that originated from that deal were the sequester cuts to the military that Boehner agrees we should now vitiate.  So how would he do things differently this time?

In retrospect, it would have been better to pass a clean increase of the debt ceiling and live another day to fight in future spending battles than to pass the BCA.  The BCA ruined our leverage for the next ten years as Democrats and Republicans alike refuse to spend below those statist levels.  Moreover, it has engendered a gratuitous schism in the conservative coalition by pitting spending hawks against defense hawks and forcing Republicans to go through the embarrassment of undoing their own scheme.  Finally, the deal failed to achieve the primary objectives of averting a credit downgrade and slowing the national debt.  The debt has increased another $1.3 trillion in the 9 ½ months since the debt ceiling was raised.  That’s about $5 billion per day.  After the hyped dollar-for-dollar cuts, there is not a single major program or agency that has been eliminated.

The irony is that the debt has increased so rapidly following last summer’s deal that we are already talking about the next debt ceiling battle.  Do we really want a repeat performance?

Read More →

It’s hard to think of a more liberal Republican that occupies a more consequential position in Congress than Fred Upton.  It’s not just the fact that the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the most powerful House panels, is a big supporter of green energy.  It’s not just the fact that this same man was the Thomas Edison of the incandescent light bulb ban.  It’s about Republicans shedding an image of hypocrisy.

Upton is charged with oversight over Obama’s Solyndra-like loan guarantees, yet he pushed for the same type of loan for United Solar Ovonics, whose parent company recently filed for bankruptcy.  If we’ve learned anything from the past decade of congressional politics, it’s that we need a clean break from the Republican party of the past – the party that supported practically everything that we now hold against Obama and the Democrats.

Whether it was green energy venture-socialism, bailouts, stimulus, campaign finance reform, handouts to labor, expansion of government-run healthcare, price and wage controls, tax increases, funding for abortions, funding for the UN, or bloated spending bills, Upton was a leading voice for big-government and a centrally planned economy.  In fact, the only time he became a penny pincher was when it came to missile defense.  Is this the man we need running the most important domestic policy committee?

Fortunately, we are no longer stuck with a liberal in such a position of leadership.  Once again, staunch conservative former state rep. Jack Hoogendyk has stepped up to the plate for the daunting task of challenging a 26-year veteran chairman.  In 2010, he came out of nowhere to garner 43% of the vote against Upton, even though he was outspent 20-1.

His issue position statements read like a wish-list of a well-informed Tea Party conservative – from private Social Security accounts to proposed elimination of four government departments.  But in Hoogendyk’s case, he has a record to back up those commitments.  He was rated the most conservative lawmaker in the state House of Representatives for several years during his three-term tenure.  He was a leader on all social and fiscal conservative issues; from fighting affirmative action and big labor to pushing for spending cuts and government transparency.

Read More →

We are constantly told by the consultant class that the issue of marriage is a big loser for Republicans.  If you listen to the talking points from almost every elected Republican official in recent days, you will hear them say that the whole issue is a “distraction” from the real issues.  Simply put, they believe the Democrat talking points that they are on the wrong side of the issue, and desire to ignore the fight for traditional marriage altogether, lest it be an albatross around their necks.

However, beyond the public show of bravado regarding gay marriage, it is actually the Democrats who are scared about the electoral consequences of their position on the issue.  After all, North Carolina just became the 32^nd state to pass a marriage amendment, and it did so by a large margin (especially considering the inclusion of civil unions in the amendment).  As the Hill reports, Democrats outside of dark blue states aren’t exactly jumping on the “right side of history” bandwagon:

Sens. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Claire McCaskill (Mo.), the two most vulnerable Democratic senators, have declined to endorse Obama’s call for the legalization of gay marriage.

Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Bob Casey (Pa.) and Bill Nelson (Fla.), Democrats who have easier races but in states that could become more competitive by November, have also backed away from Obama’s stance.

They all represent states with constitutional amendments or laws banning same-sex marriage.

Read More →

Over the past few weeks, we’ve observed the Republican form of bipartisanship on display, particularly, with regard to Cantor’s deal to extend the Export-Import Bank.  Democrats wanted the extension with a 40% increase in the lending cap, GOP leadership wanted a 13% increase, while conservatives wanted to wind it down.  The grand bipartisan deal was finally forged, and the House voted to increase the lending cap last week by…40% over three years.  Interestingly enough, this “bipartisan” deal was so palatable for Democrats that it passed without a single Democrat nay vote, even as 93 Republicans opposed it.

This is not an isolated jog across the aisle.  We are witnessing the same thing with the student loan bill, the postal bailout, the highway bill, appropriations, and the Violence Against Women Act.

Over the weekend, Molly Hooper wrote an article in the Hill noting that Cantor’s bipartisan goals have raised the ire of conservative organizations such as Redstate.com, Heritage Foundation and Club For Growth.  The Hill also solicited responses from GOP leaders.  Here is a response from a Cantor aide:

“I get that people might be upset about the Export bank, but you can’t just end it — that’s not an option. And we are at a huge disadvantage with our local partners and competitors so you have to take a reasonable approach where you put in some of these reforms and put in place a process to wind down the bank and work in a multilateral fashion with your partners so that you are on the same page with all your foreign counterparts. If we were just to pull the plug today, our exporters would be at a huge disadvantage to our competitors and that costs jobs,” the aide explained to The Hill.

There’s one problem: the bill, passed by the House (HR 2072) and now pending before the Senate, gradually expands the scope of the bank over the next few years.  It will not wind down the bank.

Then, there is this gem from Rep. Greg Waldon:

Read More →

On Tuesday, we noted that there would be many important spending cutting amendment offered on the floor to the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill (H.R. 5326).  Well, a number of conservatives offered amendments to cut or eliminate wasteful, harmful, and unconstitutional programs.  Most notably, we focused on Mike Pompeo’s amendment to eliminate the stimulus program – Economic Development Administration.   The House defeated most of them, and in doing so, turned away about $4 billion more in spending cuts.  See how many of them were supported by your member of Congress.  Remember that those who are unwilling to eliminate these relatively small programs and agencies are not likely to have the guts to enact entitlement reform.

On Wednesday, Senator Thune told Politico:  “It’s the environment we’re living in right now. There are lots of folks who are watching every member’s voting records; you’re not only going to be attacked by your opponent on the Democrat side, but there are obviously Republicans out there who may not like when you’ve been around a few years and you got a lot of votes.”

Thune is correct.  We are spotlighting voting records, and it is clearly working.  Although most of the spending cut amendment failed this week, most of them garnered support from more than half the conference.

Here are the results from some of the key amendments:

Read More →

Update: Only 93 Republicans voted against Ex-Im.

Here is a video illustration from Heritage Action of what is wrong with the Ex-Im Bank.  The House will be voting on the bill under suspension at 2 PM.  Call your members now

Watching the House debate on CSpan, you’ll see that the problem in Washington is that there is not enough partisanship, not too much.

We had an opportunity to draw a sharp contrast with Democrats over the all important issues of crony capitalism and market distortions simply by doing nothing.  How so?  Well, the Export-Import Bank reauthorization deadline is May 31.  By simply abstaining from the reauthorization – something that can be done with control of just one-half of one-third of government – this bastion of corporate welfare would be relegated to the ash heap of history.

Unfortunately, Eric Cantor decided to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and agree to reauthorize the bank.  Worse, the bank’s lending cap will be expanded.  The funny thing is that they are calling it a compromise.  The compromise went something like this: Originally, Democrats wanted the loan cap raised from $100 billion to $140 billion.  Cantor, instead of opposing the underlying reauthorization, agreed to raise the cap to $113 billion.  So they came to an agreement to gradually raise the loan cap to $140 billion by 2014!

In a preposterous effort aimed at improving transparency, the bill contains a provision that would require the bank to solicit public comment on any transaction more than $100 million.  This will ostensibly give companies an opportunity to voice opposition to loans granted to their competitors, while supporting those that benefit their needs.  This is what happens when government is used as a tool to manipulate private enterprise.

GOP proponents of the bank claim that the interest on the loans could bring in profits to taxpayers.  But the problem is that they are using the same illusory accounting methods that have been employed to ameliorate the costs of the bailouts to Freddie/Fannie and TARP.  In fact, just three months ago House Republicans passed a law to subject all Freddie/Fannie loan guarantees to the “fair value” accounting method that is used in the private sector.  Under current law, Congress only factors in the cost of the loan itself when formulating the annual budget.  Perforce, if the money is paid back with interest, there is no cost to the government.  However, as we have learned so painfully, the loans are, all too often, never paid back.  Taxpayers have been called on to bailout a modicum of failed loan guarantees.  In the private sector, they use “fair value” accounting in calculating the costs of credit programs.  Fair value accounts for the costs of the market risk the lender incurs by issuing a loan, in addition to the actual borrowing costs.

So why are these same people supporting deceptive accounting methods for the Export-Import Bank?

Read More →

The big news of the night is that Richard Mourdock absolutely eviscerated John Kerry and Vladimir Putin’s favorite Republican 60-40%, an unprecedented feat going up against a 35-year incumbent.  On the other hand, it’s not surprising, and yet, it serves as a potent lesson for the Tea Party going forward.

Richard Mourdock wasn’t always this inexorable juggernaut.  He was way behind in the polls for most of the year.  It wasn’t until he began to show a little promise that the Club for Growth jumped in and dropped $1.5 million into the race (Erick endorsed him a long time ago).  Then, in a self-fulfilling cycle of winners and losers, Mourdock began to evince the image of a winner.  It became cool to support Mourdock.  At that point, the entire movement united behind him, as even some usual suspects who aren’t with us in other races jumped aboard the Mourdock ship.  The more Mourdock looked like a winner the more people supported him.  Thus, the margin of victory is not that surprising.

We must learn a lesson from here.  Yes, it takes a good candidate and a lot of money to win against establishment incumbents, and even challengers.  But we won’t always have the luxury of waiting until the candidate is surging to jump in.  In some races we must coalesce behind the conservative before he/she takes off, or else he will never take off.  To that end, we have unfinished business to do.

In North Carolina CD-8, the Cantor/establishment candidate, Richard Hudson, only won 32% against Scott Keadle’s 22%.  There will be a runoff.  Keep in mind that the other lesser candidates in the race, who garnered 45% of the vote in total, enjoyed a lot of Tea Party support.  Many of their supporters should go to Keadle.  However, he needs our help.  Keadle will stand with the most conservative members of Congress and lead a coalition to challenge leadership when necessary.  This is a guy who is worth as much support as a Senate candidate.

Read More →

Today, the House began debate on the first of the 12 annual appropriations bills; the Commerce, Justice, and Science bill (H.R. 5326).  So far, Republican leaders have agreed to abide by their pledge to bring these bills to the floor under an open rule.  This allows conservative members to offer amendments to cut more spending and eliminate wasteful and unconstitutional programs.  It’s the votes on these amendments that often separate the conservatives from the statists.

The underlying bill appropriates $52.94 billion for the Justice and Commerce Departments, NASA, and some other related agencies.  This is a $1.6 billion cut from last year’s spending, and is in line with the individual spending allocations established in the Ryan budget.  This is a good start, but as is that case with all these spending bills, there’s a lot more to cut.  After all, with the exception of the Census Bureau, we should be eliminating the Commerce Department altogether.

The most important amendment that has been proposed so far is Mike Pompeo’s amendment #37 to abolish the Economic Development Administration (EDA).  The EDA is a failed Great Society program that serves as a stimulus/pork slush fund for special interest communities under the guise of assistance to economically distressed areas of the country.  It’s nothing more than a fund for corporate welfare and a way of picking winners and losers in the market.  It has been as successful in creating jobs as Obama’s stimulus.  Senator DeMint wrote a great piece on the EDA last year.

Anyone who claims to oppose earmarks and stimulus must oppose the EDA.  While the underlying bill cuts funding to the EDA, it still appropriates $219 million for FY2012.  Call your members and ask them to support the Pompeo amendment to end the EDA.  If we can’t close down this failed agency, we will certainly never eliminate any major agency or full department.

Read More →

In the past, we have chronicled the cycle of capitulation that is so emblematic of Republicans in the 112^th Congress.  It goes like this: Democrats propose some odious and profligate legislative idea or budget bill and call for tax hikes as “pay-fors.”.  Conservatives advocate that we uproot the entire premise of the destructive legislation by drawing a line in the sand on the principles that got us elected.  Republican leaders eschew conservative principles and acquiesce to the premise that the Democrat legislation is a priority too big to fail.  They telegraph the message to Democrats that they will never let the proposal fail, but promise to make them pay for it with reforms or other spending offsets.  These reforms or offsets are just as offensive to Democrats as the conservative proposal.  Democrats demand tax increases to pay for them.  Ultimately, we get the reauthorization of the program without spending offsets or tax increases.

Then, Republicans unequivocally swear to stick it to the Democrats during the next budget battle by finally utilizing their leverage.  Repeat and rinse and needed.

This is what has transpired with every reauthorization battle over some big-government program.  The latest is the circuitous cycle of capitulation is the extension of the Stafford student loan interest cuts scheduled to expire June 1.

Democrats insidiously used those precious stuuudents as political human shields to push reauthorization of the subsidized interest rates on Stafford loans – a bill that was supposed to be temporary when it first passed in 2007.  Instead of going on offense and explaining how it is these very subsidies that have fueled the education bubble, engendering a need for the subsidies in the first place, Republicans ran for the hills.  “Why, of course we support the extension.”  How dare you accuse us of opposing a Nancy Pelosi-era law, they contended.  “We just want it to be paid for.”  In that vein, the House passed the $6 billion extension on April 27, along with a provision that pays for the cost by eliminating a preventative healthcare program established under Obamacare.

Today, Senate Democrats will bring their bill to the floor, and Republicans have already promised not to filibuster it.  Of course, the Senate bill contains tax increases as pay-fors instead of spending cuts.  This, from Roll Call:

Read More →

The presidential primary is ostensibly over, but there are still many primary elections taking place that should be of interest to conservatives.  We often find ourselves bemoaning the lack of conservative members in Congress during the legislative session.  Well, it is during primary season that we have the opportunity to shape the orientation of Congress.  On Tuesday, Indiana and North Carolina will be holding primaries.  Here is what is at stake for conservatives:

Indiana

Senate: The marque race is the battle for the Senate seat between Richard Lugar and Richard Mourdock.  We clearly have the momentum, but it would be nice to send an unambiguous message that we are tired of insipid pale-pastel politicians in our party.  We should all rally behind Mourdock to ensure that this is not even close.  Over the weekend, I saw an interesting story from Jack Hoogendyk, the conservative running against Fred Upton in south Michigan.  He is suspending his campaign until after Tuesday’s election, so his volunteers can cross the border into Indiana and help with GOTV for Mourdock.  This is a great idea for team play in future primary battles.

District 5: Dan Burton is retiring and a number of candidates are vying for the open seat.  David McIntosh is, by far, the most viable conservative in the race.  He has a stellar record as RSC chairman during his first time in Congress in the 90s.  He is endorsed by the Club for Growth and the Madison Project.

District 8: Freshman Republican Larry Bucshon has been a tremendous disappointment.  He ran as a Tea Party candidate, but has turned in a mediocre performance during his first year in office.  Kristi Risk, who came close to beating him in 2010, will be on the ballot again.  I have not had time to interview her, and therefore, cannot issue an official endorsement from the Madison Project, but she is clearly the better choice.

Read More →