« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Yes to Kingston. No to Upton

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  November 22nd, 2010 at 09:36 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

This is pretty simple and easy. I’m not sure whether the Republicans leaders in the House of Representatives get it.

But let’s break it down for them.

(1) There should be no waivers for Committee Chairmen. None.

(2) Consequently, Jerry Lewis should not be Appropriations Chairman and Joe Barton, as much as I like him and would prefer him to Upton, should not be Energy & Commerce Chairman.

(3) For Appropriations, that leaves Hal Rogers who is terrible and Jack Kingston who is not terrible. Therefore, Jack Kingston should be Chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

(4) On the Energy & Commerce Committee, that leaves people like Shimkus, Stearns, and Joe Pitts — all of whom would be great Chairmen, with social conservatives right now leaning toward Joe Pitts.

It really is not that hard. Let’s hope the leadership hears the grassroots.

Oh, and remember, giving a reprieve to the incandescent light bulb must be one of the first acts of Congress in the new year.

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • billinsuwanee

    No to Upton the dim bulb who wrote the legislation to outlaw incandescent light bulbs is Correct.

    Also it should be No for Kingston too. Jack Kingston is the king of earmarks and pork. See GA.’s earmark king seeks chair of House Appropriations by Jim Walls.

    http://www.atlantaunfiltered.com/2010/11/20/ga-s-earmark-king-seeks-chair-of-house-appropriations/

    Jack Kingston is caught up in the culture of corruption brought on by earmarks and pork. He should not be the chair of a committee which appropriates funds. He should be on social committee picking out napkins and maybe the wine list.

  • ningrim

    And how are chairmen and members appointed?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    What’s good about Rogers?

  • Kyle-MI

    For the next two years (at least) the appropriations committee is the most important one in the legislature. If the GOP does not show fiscal responsibility there could be third party candidates coming out the wazoo in 2012. If they do not clean up their ways, we could be heading back to the wilderness the next election. It all begins and ends with appropriations. They need to cut spending. How can they do that with the same old pigs feeding at the trough?

    I don’t care how they do it, but they need new blood on appropriations. Maybe they can lure all of the current ones off by offering chairmanships on other choice committees?

  • kestrel

    Neither Upton nor Shimkus seem to “get it” that government needs to stop throwing taxpayer money down the rathole of discredited “green energy technology”.

    Nor does Joe Pitts seem to understand this, judging by his website. While Pitts? support for nuclear power is good, he is too deferential to environmentalists, in my opinion, to lead this committee.

    Says Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, ?Republicans quake at being labeled ?anti- environment.? Rather than sell a principled energy position, they’ve found it easier to adopt ?all of the above.? They’re for oil drilling and also for government?funded renewable energy. The latter is at odds with everything they claim to believe.?

    Stearns? ACU rating is identical to that of Pitts? for the last two years (and his lifetime rating is comparable), he is endorsed by Florida?s Right to Life, and I?m not aware of anything so-cons could object to. From what I?ve read, I agree with Strassel that Stearns looks like the best man for the job. This piece is a ?must read:?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704104104575623010297791010.html

    Here’s a brief read from Pitts’ website too:
    http://www.house.gov/pitts/energy.shtml

  • Mayhem

    I feel like they will approach the chairmanship issues thusly: “Listen, base, we have made a lot of concessions to you on a lot of things. We heard the Tea Party and we are giving you so much that you want. We are even going to reform the way the House operates and votes on bills! It is not reasonable for you to expect complete acquiescence to your will on everything, though. There has to be some give and take. We’ve given you a lot of stuff that you want, now you should be willing to meet us half way on the chairmanship issue.”

    In their view, the solution to the Tea Party is to find a happy medium between the far right and the RINO right. In other words, move the median of the caucus to the right, but don’t give the base everything they want. The feel that if they give us a lot of the items on our “list” then they will have earned the right to keep the status quo in certain areas.

    The problem is, the Tea Party wasn’t demanding negotiations, they were demanding a full and complete course correction–a top to bottom flushing of the system.

  • DCTrav

    I thought that you were in favor of Joe Barton receiving the Chairmanship.

    What is meant by waivers?

    I need to be educated. Thanks.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

    Whatever was done in 1994 (which I believe TECHNICALLY did not require waivers) should be done in the case of Barton.

    And frankly, even if it DOES require a waiver, then so be it. A guy who was stuck as Ranking Member for 4 years (F-U very much, Karl Rove), gets the very inglorious, thankless job of fighting the Dems with hands tied behind his back, doing his damnedest to minimize the damage done. His reward for those 4 years (that can truly be termed “service”, in contrast to what Charlie Rangel calls his 40+ years of “service”) is that when we retake the majority in 2010, we got people like you just dismissing his fantastic leadership with the wave of a hand.

    Remember how Barton held up BambiCare in that committee for the month before the August recesses, when the Dems were desperately trying to get the bill on the floor and voted on before the recesses? That was Barton. 350 amendments offered, 54 amendments actually debated.

    That’s worth a waiver. That is a guy who earned the chairmanship of that committee for the next 4 years to fill out his 6 year opportunity.

    If you are just throwing Barton under the bus in order to keep Jerry Lewis from being in charge of Appropriations, then there is a better way to do that, and that is to oppose Jerry Lewis specifically and directly. You know that baby and bathwater analogy.

    I totally stand against you on this, Erick. 100% against you.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    WRONG, WRONG, WRONG

    Whatever was done in 1994 (which I believe TECHNICALLY did not require waivers) should be done in the case of Barton.

    And frankly, even if it DOES require a waiver, then so be it. A guy who was stuck as Ranking Member for 4 years (F-U very much, Karl Rove), gets the very inglorious, thankless job of fighting the Dems with hands tied behind his back, doing his damnedest to minimize the damage done. His reward for those 4 years (that can truly be termed “service”, in contrast to what Charlie Rangel calls his 40+ years of “service”) is that when we retake the majority in 2010, we got people like you just dismissing his fantastic leadership with the wave of a hand.

    Remember how Barton held up BambiCare in that committee for the month before the August recesses, when the Dems were desperately trying to get the bill on the floor and voted on before the recesses? That was Barton. 350 amendments offered, 54 amendments actually debated.

    That’s worth a waiver. That is a guy who earned the chairmanship of that committee for the next 4 years to fill out his 6 year opportunity.

    If you are just throwing Barton under the bus in order to keep Jerry Lewis from being in charge of Appropriations, then there is a better way to do that, and that is to oppose Jerry Lewis specifically and directly. You know that baby and bathwater analogy.

    I totally stand against you on this, Erick. 100% against you.

  • romanmoronie

    Upton is a trust fund baby that lacks anything resembling leadership skills. I don’t believe he has ever had to do any heavy lifting, much like POTUS. Its not that there is something nefarious about him, he just shouldn’t be put in any sort of leadership position because of the lack of spine. Heck, he shouldn’t even be in congress, but he has too much time time on his hands, too much family money (Whirlpool) and too much local name recognition to give him the boot (sigh).

  • Old_Dominion

    if you ever get to meet him.

    How is he more “pork-y” (for lack of a better term) than Jerry Lewis or Hal Rogers?

  • Derek

    Pitts voted no on cap and trade and has wants to increase domestic oil production. He opposes more regs on business. He is a recognized national leader on life issues and has been at the center of every life fight over the last 15 years.

    Even if there is an issue with Pitts on green tech and conservation issues, I’d gladly fight with Joe Pitts over energy than try to convince Cliff Stearns to grow the backbone to take on a tough life issue.

  • fpete13527

    I liked what he had to say.

    I like it that he didn’t say antyhing like “oh well I can only do so much and it will take time, I will have to be a progressive RINO for a few more years, blah, blah,blah.”

    He said, “I’m going to start cutting big and people at the end of whatever the cut is will hate me……and I will do it anyway.”

    Hopefully he won’t prove me wrong but I absolutely like what he said and the way he said it.

  • kestrel

    Kingston may be *Georgia’s* big porker in the U.S. House, but Hal Rogers is *way* down in Democrat-Land on the Club for Growth pork list. At least Rogers has broken out of “Charlie Rangel” porkland, rising from a score of zero percent in 2007 to 3 percent in 2009. Kingston rose from 52 to 57 percent in the same time. For reference, the average GOP score was 57 percent in 2009, with a median of 69 percent.

    For whatever it’s worth, Kingston’s conservative rating by the ACU is 96 percent in 2008, 2009, and as his “Lifetime” rating. Hal Rogers’ is 88 in ’09, up from 84 percent in ’08, and with a Lifetime score of 85 percent. Kingston has been in congress for 17 years, versus 29 for Rogers, which would favor Kingston in my view.

    I know this info is just a starting point, but I’m impressing myself here :) I had never heard of either of these guys before. If anyone doubts the effect of the awakened citizenry on our representatives, try comparing the 2007 and 2009 RePork cards. The GOP average went from 43 to 57 percent (still a dismal average, but progress). Even the Dem average climbed a point from 2 to 3 percent. clubforgrowth.org. A couple of Michigan’s conservative congressmen have rocketed up the RePork Card list, from 2 to 85 percent in one case, and from 20 to 97 percent in the other. XOXOXO, you Michigan CongressGuys. I know that you didn?t really inhale that pork in ?07, and you?re straight now. Thanks!

    Dominion, you asked about Jerry Lewis too. In 2009 his RePork Card grade was 3 percent; in 2007, zero percent, same as Rogers.

  • kestrel

    If he gets the job, we will know to keep an eye on him.

  • kestrel

    particularly for examples on Stearns, of whom I would like to know more. You may be right. Pitts is good on domestic oil as well as nuclear power, and we want a fighter, but did you read my wsj link? The whole point is that we want someone who will make the necessary distinctions (and let the free market work), not just say “yes” to all methods of domestic energy production. Voting no on cap and trade is a *minimum* requirement for the job. We are dumping subsidies — $33 billion thus far from the stimulus — into “green” technology of which “Europe has proven these subsidies destroy traditional employment, are permanent drains on state funds, and raise energy prices.” This has got to stop.

  • kestrel

    if you are right about Pitts’ pro-life credentials, then I like the idea of him leading the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health.
    http://www.redstate.com/mdannenfelser/2010/11/19/joe-pitts-for-chairman-of-energy-and-commerce-subcommittee-on-health/

    But we have to have a wind, ethanol, and batteries subsidy-chucker as the committee chair. If these energy sources were worthwhile, the private sector would fund them. They’re not, so it doesn’t, and we shouldn’t be forced to either.

    I feel the “infinite government red-ink” anger coming on, so I’ll sign off.

  • Adjoran

    for the number of consecutive terms a member can be either a Committee Chairman or Ranking Member. Theoretically, any member on the Committee can run, but in practice it tends to boil down to one of the two next in seniority, or a waiver granted to the guy over his term limit.

    The vote is the Republican Caucus. All Republicans get to vote on the Chairs/Ranking Members of each committee. In practice, it is very rare the leadership’s slate is not accepted, so the time to influence the process is now before they announce their choices.

  • Adjoran

    it’s a very small part of this committee’s workload where those issues come into play. Most of it is that Green crapola we’re force-fed in sandwiches, and it needs to stop, both for the energy and security future of our country, and because the lying drama queens need to be stopped from winning every issue just because they cry.

  • Derek

    I’d likewise be open for examples, including votes, of how you believe Pitts is too deferential to environmentalist rather than your subjective sense that his website suggests he is. I don’t believe Pitts simply says “yes” to any and all methods of domestic energy production and would agree with you that the free market should be allowed to work.

    My issue with Stearns isn’t his ACU voting record but rather his lack of leadership on life issues. That’s not a deal breaker because he votes the right way. But when it comes down to it, I can trust that Pitts will stand up to leadership and moderates in his party on the life issue (see, e.g., bankruptcy in 2002, Global AIDS bill, his leadership of the Values Action Team, etc). On the big life issues where he may be asked to toe the party line rather than do the right thing on life, I haven’t heard anything to make me believe that Stearns will stand up to party leadership on that issue.

    While introducing legislation does not necessarily mean much, Pitts has introduced at least two interesting energy bills that I can find (process for permitting new oil refineries on closed BRAC bases and streamlining of regulation for nuclear). Unless I’m missing something Stearns has not taken any similar action. Though Stearns appears to have done a bit more on tech and telecom ? also critical issues for the committee (in my opinion, more critical right now).

    Personally, I think the two (and Shimkus for that matter) are roughly even on energy, tech, and telecom. Assuming that’s true, I think it’s easier to convince Pitts to take on an energy or environment issue that he might not feel strongly about than it would be to convince Shimkus or Stearns to do the same on life.