Redstate

Pence just endorsed Shadegg!

"I think when it comes down to it - if you want more of the same (increased spending, bigger government, more scandals) then Blunt is your guy."

The increased spending originates in the Senate and the White House. We gain nothing by punishing Congressman for other peoples action. If you want less spending you need to change the mentality of a great many people. You are kidding yourself if you think that Blunt is somehow responsible for all the ills that plauge the Republic. This kind of overblown language is remeniscent of the Bush haters.

As for scandals - there really need to be some distinctions made here. What scandals are being talked about? I get the impression that the Abramoff scandalett is being blown up and incorporated into all sorts of other matters which are not connected to it, like junkets and the "Bridge to Nowhere".

Opposition to government waste is a good thing and should be able to stand on its own merits. Why is there this eagerness to roll up several unrelated matters and pretend they are all the same? Somebody here yesterday said that we are starting to behave like Koslings, and I'm afraid that is true.

" ..when it comes to spending and domestic policy.." leadership needs to stand up to Bush, and presumably to the Senate also, according to Shadegg.

Do a majority of members in the House of Representatives agree with this? Because if not then we will quickly find ourselves in the same situation as in the Senate, where Reid often functions as the de-facto majority leader.

"The increased spending originates in the Senate and the White House."

From Article II of the Constitution:

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

which doesn't directly address spending, but according to this House Rules site,

Although the Constitution designates the House as the House of Revenue, meaning revenue bills must originate in the House, there is no similar requirement enumerated for spending bills. However, by tradition Appropriations bills originate in the House.

As far as I am aware, this tradition has not been violated by the recent Congresses.

It's been said (by me) that the Senate is where good ideas from the House go to die, and surely there's plenty of blame to cover every member of all three branches.  And that includes the House, and its current leadership.  Just because we're not talking about fixing problems in the Senate (yet), is no a reason to avoid fixing problems in the House, now.

You are saying that No Child Left Behind and the prescription drug bill were the brainchild of Tom Delay?

The Constitution says a number of things, and it would be nice if the Federal government paid attention to it once in a while. But by and large they don't.

For God's sake, can we have some perspective on No Child Left Behind?  Republicans did not extend the reach of the federal government into education; Democrats did.  Republicans HAVE finally added some accountability to those dollars, offered flexibility with how they're spent, and given any state that wants to get out the chance to do so.  Yes, we spend more on education now than ever before.  But could we please have some perspective?  I'd LOVE it if the government only did what the constitution said it could... but that ended pretty much about the time Thomas Jefferson arranged the Louisiana Purchase.  So let's have some perspective, and realize that shrinking government will not be an overnight process.  Time and effort are required, and steps like NCLB are not steps backwards, but small steps in the right direction.

" ..when it comes to spending and domestic policy.." leadership needs to stand up to Bush, and presumably to the Senate also, according to Shadegg.

Do a majority of members in the House of Representatives agree with this? Because if not then we will quickly find ourselves in the same situation as in the Senate, where Reid often functions as the de-facto majority leader.

EXACTLY my thoughts.  I WAS quite impressed with Shaddegg until this disturbing McCain-esque maverick syndrome showed its ugly head.

Would any of us want John McCain as the Senate Majority Leader?

If not, then why is this "independence" so highly valued in the House?

And let's be honest; the Majority Leader represents all Republicans, not just his district constituents.  Just like Bush, and we DID elect him (twice--and I'd elect him again if we could).

Shaddegg just lost my interest.  COMPLETELY.

I think more accurately, Shadegg does, in fact, beleive that the President isn't always right. Sometimes the President pushes legislation or initiatives that certainly serve his purposes, and not by definition the Republican party. Having that debate is ok. Having a Republican congress that balances those interests is even better.

Having that debate out in the open for the entertainment of the opposition is BAD.  If Shadegg is willing to go toe to toe with the President on the floor or in the media, he's the wrong man for the job.  

Backroom negotiations are usually more effective anyway.  Being a maverick is selfish, just like McCain, and does "our side" no good.  Is that what we should expect from the Majority Leader?  

He's free to be a maverick representing his home district, but to do that as Majority Leader, well, you might as well kiss a Republican majority and any part of the Bush agenda goodbye.  

I'm TIRED of Republicans not knowing when to shut their mouths and keep their disagreements out of the media and the hands of the opposition.  What ever happened to acting like "gentlemen" (as they CALL each other) in conducting the business of the people?