Redstate

is a good thing.  No more bridges to nowhere in AK, no more letting the BushLied crowd get away with free shots.  Bush/Cheney have started the counterattatck, now lets go after the ultra leftists led by Pelosi and see where this country is.

"I think that there are six canons of conservative thought --

(6) Recognition that change may not be salutary reform: hasty innovation

may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress." -- Russell Kirk

Is this good for conservatives or bad for conservatives?  Because the wording makes it sound bad for conservatives.

And now I'm going to pose a question for all in the hope that it applies here:

Is it better to have an effective moderate Majority leader or an ineffective conservative Majority leader?

at Reynold's ACU rating, I see that perhaps I posted too soon.

Here's his stats:

Representative Thomas REYNOLDS (R)

New York, District 27

2004 Score - 92

Previous Year's Score - 84

Lifetime Score - 89

Years of Service - 6

Thoughts?

Just read it for yourself.

Who is this guy and what does it mean when someone deep in the "monied" side is the one looking to make the coup instead of RSC types?

I mean he lists the company earmarks by NAME:

"Reynolds won requests for $10 million for Harris RF Communications, $6 million for the Icuiti Corporation, and $4.5 million for Genencor International.  The bill must now be passed by the U.S. Senate before it can be signed into law."

I thought that wasn't legal to make a company a direct object of funds (in an Appropriations Bill) without competition? The sole sourcing is something that has to be done from the Executive Agency - not law.

This seems like EXACTLY what is wrong with the House right now - the Republicans turing into the bought and paid for Democrats of old.

The killer in this piece is wanting to reward the corrupt dims by getting rid of DeLay, arguably the most effective conservative leader left in Washington.

Anyone the media and Democrats hate that much I want in charge.  This guy's just serving their interests, not ours.

Naming companies because they're the major job providers of particular towns and regions is an activity reasonble for politicians who haven't been bought off, too.

Do you have any evidence that he is "bought," that his position has been altered by bribes or donations?

This guy helped pass NCLB and the medicare drug expansion.  He's run the House into higher and higher spending.  He's no conservative.

Alot of me wants to just let go of Rep. Delay, much like Sen. Lott, but both instances are wrong. If there is nothing wrong with the leadership-only liberal slanders-why are we retreating? My only concern is when Rep. Delay returns, will the moderate and liberal Republicans go back to falling on the party side or will they continue to act like spoiled brats?

in an economically depressed region like Buffalo.

this is not an ideological thing."

Then thanks, but no thanks.  I agree with those who have already posted that it's the libs who want DeLay out, which means he's doing a great job supporting the Conservative agenda.

This smells like a power grab, pure and simple.  I'll pass.

DeLay's nickname is not "The Feather". He is effective. You can even look at the way he is approaching this seemingly idiotic indictment... he goes after the judge, and wins. That takes something.

Now, if in his sarcastic (and i think great) pork comment, he had said: "There is no more pork to cut since nobody has brought me any to cut, oh except for Tom Reynolds." well, then I might think otherwise.

If it becomes known a couple months before it is supposed to happen.

The interesting thing is that Gingrich actually had the support of a lot of the Republican moderates who were disenchanted with the establishment "Dem lite" Republican leadership(and in fairness, Bass isn't a "liberal").  Reynolds seems to be taking the same tack.

Isn't Hastert term-limited from the speakership anyway?

the crucial element of surprise.

Reynolds voting rcord?  That's the skinney.  Disaffected moderates in the Party, bur republican moderates are always disaffected,that's what happens when you are barren of core beliefs.  Will Reynolds truckle to them,assuming he wins?  It must be remembered that moderates expect to be truckled to and if so does it matter who holds the reins.

The Conference extended his term, so he's safe to stay in as speaker through 2008.  He could of course get voted out, which I guess is what the story is speaking to.

If you're looking for a leadership race from someone who has voted AGAINST every major piece of legislation passed in the Bush years, you'll be sorely disappointed.  While I appreciate and respect the RSC, they don't have enough votes to elevate Pence to a leadership slot.

The likely candidates for any vacancies at the top of the GOP caucus in the House are (in no particular order): Reynolds, Boehner, and Blunt.  Based on the way that Blunt has handled his duites as Whip and acting Majority Leader, any Republican Member with an ounce of intelligence will realize that it's really a race between Boehner and Reynolds.  But maybe that's just the way I view it.

I'm inclined to think that one reason the house does vote as it does, is that DeLay is such an effective leader toward his agenda.

With conservative leadership, the House Republican Caucus would act more conservative.

...makes the case that DeLay should step aside, conservatives should listen.  Miniter makes a good case that DeLay's two biggest accomplishments as majority leader were redistricting in Texas (resulting in his indictment) and the big-government Medicare reform bill.  He may very well be politically neutered when it comes to pushing forward strong conservative measures.

Harris Corp's PAC gave $10K to him in the 2004 election cycle alone. Far more than any other Defense Contracting PAC. It took me 2 minutes to connect those dots.

$10K --> $10M? That's better than venture capital and quicker too.

If you wanted to be diligent on it, you would track down the executives of the above firms and then see what there individual donations were in addition to the PAC contribution.

In any case, I know this is how the game works, but to brag about it shows a real disconnect with the values I'd want to see in a Speaker.

Maybe we can get Rep. Blackburn to run? Well... probably not yet, but someone of that ilk.

From Project Vote Smart:

Tom DeLay


Tom Reynolds

Any change now will unsettle any legislative progress.

Blunt is a very effective Whip, and has been doing a great job as Leader considering his position.  

Do you seriously think that Boehner has a shot at a leadership role following his last shot?  The guy was kicked out b/c he couldn't handle the job!  No way he will have a shot.  

There is no way that Ankle Biting is serious with this garbage.  This would be a ridiculous thing for Reynolds to do, a complete disaster.  Ankle Biting's "source" has been getting things wrong lately anyhow.  

Why would Reynolds do this?  He would be shooting himself in the foot with a power grab like this.

This simply isn't going to happen...

Reynolds was Bill Paxon's hand-picked successor after Paxon had to leave Congress because he was involved in an attempt to oust Gingrich.  Must be something about NY's 26th!

No, I'm obviously not joking.  Any and all reports indicate that Boehner, Blunt, and Reynolds are the three likeliest candidates for any vacancy at the top.

Blunt's a good whip?  That's a joke.  How many close votes have we had this Congress?  How many votes have we had to hold the vote open for an hour or more since he's been the Whip?  If you were to get into an off the record conversation with pretty much any Committee Chair, I doubt you'd find 3 that think he's done a good job as whip.  he may be a nice guy, but he's ain't no good at his job.

The history of Boehner's fall from power is an interesting one, but it most certainly wasn't because of his job performance as Conference Chair.  There were a lot of machiavellian politics going on at that time with the coup against Gingrich, Dick Armey's role, and Delay's role.  

There's lots of places I could point you to, but start with Novak.  Then read The Hill.

He's as serious a candidate as Blunt or Reynolds.

Who else do you think could realistically run and get a majority vote from their colleagues?

The problem is many of us don't like to associate with such obvious losers. Especially disloyal ones. Especially ones who don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

Especially ones who associate with the likes of Charlie Bass.

I haven't been this disgusted by (most of) the GOP "leadership" since c. 1998.

They keep this up, and they can expect a dwindling rank-and-file to mutely observe their idiotic political powerplays. We will have departed for greener pastures...  

So you're just 'connecting dots' to smear this man without any evidence at all that his positions are malleable with money.

Despicable.

Believe me, I am well versed in this area. Conference under Boehner was a complete disaster.  His job as a communicator and his messaging just plain sucked.  His answer to "showing the right image for Republicans" was getting caught by Nightline strutting off the RJR lobbyist's plane with his golf clubs in hand while heading to the GOP Convention.  Right out of central casting for "In touch with America."  The guy was a horrible manager, he is arrogant and only in it for himself.  You have to give me a break here, have that many people forgotten that he was the ONLY person thrown out of leadership by a MAJORITY of his colleagues in the past decade....?

Now, I am not saying he won't run, in fact, I am sure he will.  He wants revenge on DeLay.  He has been planning this for ages.  That is what this is all about.  He got his ass kicked and wants to pin it all on DeLay.  You are dead-on with that, hit it right on the head.  

But Retro-Boehner in leadership again????  Would it be good for the IMAGE of the Party?  NO.  Would it restore lock step order of the House?  NO WAY.  Herding moderates is tough when the President is at 30%...

I'm impressed that your only two posts here are on this topic.  Makes me feel special.

But if your deference to Blunt or DeLay is based on their 'central casting' nature, you're not the guy I'd want making those decisions.

I obviously don't share your opinion of Boehner's tenure as Conference chair.  What is your evidence that he was as bad as you claim?  He was not shown the door because of his Conference duties but because he was part of, or tagged as part of, the coup against Gingrich.  But no one at the time in leadership (Armey, DeLay, or Boehner) can truthfully be said to have their hands clean in that episode.  And Newt did eventually step down because he knew that he had lost the confidence of his caucus.

Revenge is doubtful as a motive.  Folks don't want to become leaders in their parties out of revenge.  That's just petty armchair quarterbacking or roadside psychoanalyzing.  It's obvious that you have some issues that are now quite far in the past.  You might want to let go.

But, I don't think that I was advocating for Boehner, just reporting the facts that he, Blunt, and Reynolds are the three likeliest candidates.  However, Boehner's no more tainted by his association with lobbyists (or golfers) than Blunt is with his coterie of lobbyists (or his lobbyist wife--is that a problem?  She works for Altria, oh the horror [sarcasm]), Reynolds with his, or DeLay with his.  Any Leader will have deep connections with lobbyists.  Leaders have to raise money, galvanize support, deal effectively with the caucus, and successfully negotiate with the WH, the Senate, and the Dems.

Unless odd things happen it will be a race between Blunt, Boehner, and Reynolds.  Those are the facts.  Do you know of any other Member who has a broad enough coalition of supporters that would make them a serious leadership candidate?

Blunt has demonstrated his complete and utter inability to manage the House.  They've just this past hour failed to get the Labor-HHS-Ed appropriations bill passed because of 22 defections from an odd little band of conservatives and liberals within the Republican caucus.  Why would Blunt schedule it for the floor if he wasn't sure it would pass, or that it would be close and he could whip it on the floor?  If this was a job interview, or Trump's The Apprentice, Blunt would be in today's boardroom waiting for the verdict.  It wouldn't be good for him.

Or perhaps you're pushing to restore DeLay to power.  I've never advocated for his removal or defeat.  he certainly was an effective leader.  (I do find his post-indictment attack on congressional spending quite convenient, but that's a different diary.)  But there's a harsh political reality that he's facing.  If he doesn't get his name cleared before the members return in January there's a lot of interest in finding a permanent Leader.  No one wants to go into an election year with their party leader facing an indictment, however spurious the indictment certainly is.  And it definitely is, no question from me on that.  Earle should be disbarred at the least.

But I'm a realist, and I desperately want to keep the House in Republican hands.  I don't like the idea of Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Whip Emmanuel, Chairman Obey, Chairman Rangel, Chairman Waxman, etc and etc.  Unfortunately, the way things are going now, we're setting it up for them on a silver platter.  If it means changing the leadership, so be it.

Smear? I said it is the way the game works. I hate the game and don't want a leader who is an example of it.

We tossed out Dems over the same concerns. With stuff like what happened with Rep. Cunningham's ties to MZM, this is just the crap we need to be careful of.

While there is nothing illegal in supporting something that you also received contributions advocating, it really says something to sit there and rattle off company after company that you've stuck in earmarks for.

Compare Rep. Blackburn's news site. I don't see any bragging about bringing X dollars to Y company through a direct appropriation.

I don't think anybody's perfect in this, but the audacity to sit there and plug earmarks not for programs or for aid to areas but for SPECIFIC COMPANIES in SPECIFIC AMOUNTS stinks. That kind of arrogance just demands someone to question their motives when they have direct financial ties to those same companies.

It is immaterial if his positions chaged. This has nothing to do with "positions," but with the proper and ethical separation of spending taxpayer money from the specific and specialized interest of particular private concerns. Its the same reason a corporation can't decide to run a candidate and give unlimited money to that candidate to see their corporation enriched by direct line items in bills. That is protected from both the campaign side and the spending side (at least it should be).

The wall between Church and State may be something dubious, but the wall between industry and itemized appropriations from the public treasury should not.

You may call this despicable to point this out, but many would call it accountability.

While my "bought and paid for" line might have been made with too broad a brush, I expect a higher standard than what I see here. I'm willing to give the man the benefit of a doubt as to his integrity, but cannot think much of his judgment with so blatant a boast of so many suspect earmarks.

There are always temptations with power. The Republicans are not immune to this and we must be equally diligent in holding them accountable as the Democrats they replaced...

how many IP adresses here would lead us right back to the NRCC?  This Alleged Coup against Denny and Co seems to be lead by Gomer Pyle.

Zero.