Redstate

Delay should have remained as the Republican Whip.  He was good in this capacity.  It is when he became Majority Leader that he really started to tumble.

It would be nice to have Chris Cox or JC Watts still in the House right about now.

I think Pence should throw his name in there.  He would be great.  We have to get our party moving back to its roots or the voters will send us back to minority status again.  The GOP House majority has been totally corrupted by K Streeters/lobbyists.  When the dems are in power they get corrupted.  When we get power, we get corrupted.  Something has to give.

Powder Blue Report

From the Hotline blog, as seen in The Corner.

January 06, 2006

BREAKING NEWS: HOUSE GOPERS CALL FOR ELECTIONS

The Hotline has learned from three House sources that at least two-dozen House GOPers spanning the ideological spectrum have agreed to sign a letter to House Conference Chair Deborah Pryce (R-OH) requesting new leadership elections in an effort to block Rep. Tom DeLay from reclaiming his post as Maj Leader. A group of members and staffers held a conference call earlier today and plan to hold a second one later in the afternoon as they seek to obtain the required 50 signatures to force the vote.

The sources confirm that the effort to build the list is being led by conservative Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and moderate Rep. Charles Bass (R-NH). Flake has been tasked with lobbying his fellow conservative colleagues, while Bass is in charge of corralling other Tuesday Group moderates.

This is the first sign of what has been, since the Abramoff plea, a quickly-growing, behind-the-scenes effort to ensure that DeLay does not return to the top of the House GOP. [JONATHAN MARTIN]

From today's email:

The [Post] reported that Pence "has angered some members with what they consider grandstanding on a host of issues." In other words, some Republicans are upset that Mike made heroic efforts to steer Republicans back to limiting spending.

I've heard a lot of hype about Pence lately, but it is just that, hype.  The bottom line is Pence simply does not have the support to win an election to be majority leader.  As for Boehner, he tries to throw his name out there every single year, and never has close to enough support.

At a time when the popularity of Republicans was at one of it's lowest points in the last ten years, Roy Blunt was still able to help stem the tide of out of control spending in D.C. by pushing through a budget with meaningful spending cuts.  I think he deserves our support to remain majority leader.

Re: "The other major contender is Roy Blunt of Missouri, the acting majority leader. Mr. Blunt, likewise an establishment Republican, left his wife of 30 years for the loving embrace of a K Street lobbyist, a tobacco lobbyist no less."

Even if I leave aside the fact that Mr. Blunt's failed marriage should not disqualify him from serving in any official capacity (any more than Bill Clinton's amorous misadventures disqualified him from being President), such a vicerally personal attack on an ostensibly conservative website seriously bothers me. To attack Roy Blunt's wife for her job is demeaning to you and this forum.

In order to win the Majority leader spot, you have to have at least a majority of the Republican Caucus vote you into that spot.  Pence isn't likely to have the votes unless he declares his candidacy and actively campaigns for the job.  This isn't the Vatican, the Members won't be moved by the Holy Spirit.

The Majority leader spot is about politics (who do the Members want in front of the camera speaking for  the party, who do they want campaigning for them in their districts, who can help them fundraise), its about organization (who can help get more good policy enacted, who can get more Dems to support bills or fewer R's to oppose them), and its about personality (who do they like, who do they owe favors to, who do they want to be the boss).

As much as it may frustrate the outside activists, it's rather unlikely that such a relative newcomer as Pence would get that job.  Blunt, Boehner, Reynolds are the three likeliest candidates (you can't win if you don't run) so the likelihood of it being one of those three is rather large.

As for your rather childish insults of Blunt and Boehner, it's beneath the dialogue I think.  Both men can be justifiably criticized for various sins of orthodoxy or action, but neither Blunt's divorce nor Boehner's mis-step against the House rules are dispositive towards their ability to be Leader.

Yes, Blunt divorced his wife and married his mistress.  I'm more concerned that he's shown an utter incapability of actually running the House, his whip organization was abysmal, and his message capacity is horrific.  And Boehner did indeed pass out those checks, but he apologized for it and has comported with all the rules required of all members since then.  So for a decade he's been clean, when do you expiate guilt?

It probably is.  But how much worse will the media and Democrats spin it?  

 ... are trying to paint Republicans as unethical greedy crooks in the pockets of Jack Abramoff and his ilk ..."

Allowing for a different name other than Abramoff, this sentence could have been written at any time in the last fifty years, or any time in the coming fifty.

There may be good reasons for a leadership change, but this is not it.

DeLay has been one of the few effective leaders we have had in Congress. It is staggering to think that there is a movement to replace him, while Frist and Specter(!) retain their positions. Something is wrong with this picture.

Since I'm reading The Corner this afternoon:

Another keen Washington observer I talked to--and this is the best, most realistic analysis I've heard-- thinks it's probably going to be Blunt. He thinks House Republicans are in the mood for change, but not too much change and that probably bodes well for the acting majority leader. Blunt has benefited from acting in that capacity, but also been hurt by it, because he has had to avoid seeming to want the permanent job too much and has been dealing with difficult circumstances.

He has probably strengthened his position in recent weeks, mostly because Boehner's star has dimmed a bit. Boehner was perceived as being too pro-business in the debate over the immigration bill. But Boehner has done a good job, and strengthened his policy credentials, with the education and workforce committee that he chairs.

Between Blunt and Boehner, ultimately, it's probably a wash both politically and ideologically. Neither is clearly better politically (both would continue the shift of the congressional leadership away from its excessive tilt toward southerners), and both are conservatives.

As for the dark horses, Pence is probably identified too much as the leader of a faction to become a leader of the entire conference, and Cantor is perceived as being too unseasoned.

As for Pence being too much a factionalist to take power, I would remind Mr. Lowry of Lenin's successes in 1917.

Putting how one might feel about their respective ideologies aside for a moment, consider the following:

1) A former DeLay staffer has already pled guilty to felony corruption charges, which he committed with Mr. Abramoff (who, like it or not) was very, very close to DeLay and his senior aides for a number of years.

1b) Two former VERY HIGH LEVEL DeLay aides (Buckham and Rudy) have been alleged to have been involved in illegal corruption activities.  It's not impossible to imagine these two people trying to reach plea bargains with Federal prosecutors in the near term.  Indeed, it would appear that Mr. Buckham and Mr. Rudy are the next individuals to face questioning from these prosecutors, who are doing a good job of building a very compelling case, and they haven't even STARTED ASKING DeLay questions yet.

1c) DeLay himself has been facing difficult questions about his own doings as both Whip and MajLeader in re: 3 different foreign trips he took, some with Abramoff, and how they were financed and other similar allegations.  Yes, allegations, but still, involving Mr. Abramoff (he's obviously pled guilty to several felony crimes and pledged to cooperate with federal prosecutors).  Suggesting that these allegations are without any merit whatsoever is borderline delusional.

2. To date, nothing of the sort can be said about anyone who worked for Specter.  Or, about how Specter has complied with the Senate Rules as chairman.
   
3. Ibid, with respect to anyone who worked for Frist.  (Some questions have been raised, and will eventually be answered about Frist and his HCA stock, but those questions don't involve his senior aides).

These comments, seemingly, reflect more frustration with Frist's tenure as MajLeader and Specter's tenture as Judiciary Chair (here, ideology is the REAL issue) than a quick review of the FACTS to date, and serious allegations that have been made, which made turn into yet more PLEA BARGAINS.

Any GOPer who tries to minimize the serious of the problems facing DeLay, his staff, and K Street friends is simply lying to themselves.

And, I say all of this as a GOP here in DC for more tha 10 years.

SYA

Cleaning House

January 6, 2006

This week's plea agreement by "super-lobbyist" Jack Abramoff has Republicans either rushing to return his campaign contributions in an act of cosmetic distancing, accuse Democrats of being equally corrupt, or embrace some new "lobbying reform" that would further insulate Members of Congress from political accountability.

Here's a better strategy: Banish the Abramoff crowd from polite Republican society, and start remembering why you were elected in the first place.

Blunt does not inspire. Pence does. Our demoralized troops need someone to come in, shake things up and return the party to first principles. We need new blood. Blunt and Boehner are the old machine.

Pence is a conservative, articule, camera-friendly presence who understands the importance of sunny optimism instead of angry bitterness. Shades of Reagan.

Parties, countries, movements etc all fail when their leaders become more concerned with the trappings of power than with principle. I could give you 12,549 examples but alas I lack the time.

In so called "cuts"? Against a $2.5 Trillion budget? That's a joke.

What did they do? I think trim the growth of some parts of Medicare from 7.4 to 7.2%.

This is very depressing if this is what passes as reform.

Blunt does more than inspire, he has the knowledge, expertise, conviction and clout to get the job done.  He knows the lay of the land, and like the above contributor mentioned, kicked some ass for the Republican Party during a not-so-good time.  

I am not about to turn my back on a leader, especially when he is the best man for the job.  I am not sure why you are so Pence-happy, but it all sounds a little strange.

I have said it 81 times before, the Democrats want us to fight amongst ourselves, and you are falling into their trap.  We have a great leader that has taken the helm, and he sure as hell inspires me.

     

The facts to date are that DeLay has been an extremely effective leader and has gotten the maximum possible gain out of the slim House majority.

Frist and Specter have been disasters. You can say that this is merely an "ideological" assesment if you wish, but politicians are put in place precisely to accomplish ideological goals. And the Senate Republicans are not getting the job done, in any sphere, whether judicial, fiscal, or what have you. Unless you are a liberal, in which case they are terrific.

Regarding a Delay staffer facing prosecution - I understand that a couple of Schumer staffers are facing prosecution for obtaining SS numers and spying on Republicans. Can I expect Schumer to resign his post on the Judiciary Committee sometime soon?

The fact is that there is zero evidence of any wrongdoing by Delay. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

This whole "Dump Delay" movement is disgusting beyond words. It's "Lott, The Sequel."

Here.

January 06, 2006

Bloggers V. Insiders

Could the impending House GOP leadership election inflame a Miers-like trigger point in the ligaments connecting GOP bloggers to the party establishment?

Consider: many conservative bloggers love Rep. Mike Pence. Outspoken. Ornery. Fiscally conservative. Strong-willed. Not connected with the powers that be. A blogger himself. Outsider-ish (just like bloggers.)

The establishment might coalesce around Rep. John Boehner or Rep. Roy Blunt. Or, if they want to appear to excise the demon of K-Street, the "safe" outside choice among insiders might well be Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA).

That's not to say that Cantor wouldn't be a solid majority leader or that bloggers wouldn't support him -- just that leadership elections tend to balkanize even the most balanced, well-mannered caucuses and polarization magnifies even the slightest differences.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, many Republicans close to the White House refuse to believe that the blogger discontent over Miers' nomination was a critical factor in ginning up opposition from other conservatives.

If the party tries to split the baby and the somehow the interests of blogger-activist-outsiders diverge from the interests of the typically command-and-control insider leadership, watch the fireworks. [MARC AMBINDER]

Yes, please, do not split the fireworks, and for goodness sakes, watch the baby!

Okay, I have to say, having worked inside of DC and been involved with some of this stuff, I'm inclined to lean against both Boehner and Blunt for similar reasons...

Electing Roy Blunt leader almost guarantees that we'll have to elect another Leader sometime between now and November 2006.  He is right there with DeLay in this Abramoff mess.  If you want to jump to Blunt, why not just keep DeLay?  

John Boehner, while I think he would be super effective and a smooth operator, may be too close with the lobbying community.  However, personality wise, he's a better selection.  

I would think a more logical solution would be to elect Deborah Pryce, the current Conference Chairman to the post of Majority Leader and elect Congressman John Shaddeg or Mike Pence to the post of Majority Whip.    

In her place as Conference Chairman would be a good post for Mike Rogers of Michigan or Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee.  

Ultimately, I also believe that the Speaker of the House being at the very front of the list (in front of even DeLay) in terms of Abramoff monies received mean he needs to step aside and Congressman Jerry Lewis of California, the current Appropriations Chairman, would be a good choice for the position of Speaker.  

The bottom line that House Republicans need to understand is that they must distance themselves from the Abramoff / Congressional corruption scandal and the more they stay the same with the current leadership lineup, the closer they stay to the status quo.  

I believe he helped twist arms on the Medicare vote.  That is bad news.  We need less of that and more of the principled opposition to massive spending that Pence shows.

House Republicans will not accept a pro-choice leader. You can get to No. 4 in the caucus, but that's as high as it gets for the advocates of abortion rights.

Pence would make an exceptional Speaker. History has shown that strong House Republican leadership requires a message, vision, energy and courage of convictions. Witness that of Newt. No other present candidate can bring these attributes to the coming battle as will Pence. The Abramoff scandal is brewing and Pence has the ability to deflect. He brings a true optimism to the floor and the ability to work with all. Newt may not have been accepted by the moderates, just ask Bob Michael. Pence. like Newt, will muster the troops to engage the battle of which other candidates shy from. He'll provide the vision required and demonstrate daily his leadseship capabilities. Grandstanding in House terms means a fellow Member thinks you're getting more press than he. That charge voiced against Pence is one of sour grapes.

I would remind Mr. Lowry of Lenin's successes in 1917.

Ummm, and just what successes would those be?  War Communism?  New Economic Policy?  Collectivization?

I would remind Mr. Lowry of Lenin's successes in 1917.

Ummm, and just what successes would those be?  War Communism?  New Economic Policy?  Collectivization?

Ah yes, we I have seen this before.  We dumped Lott a few years back for better conservative leadership and ended up with the pathetic Frist Senate.  

Doing to the House what we did to the Senate by dumping Delay will make things better how?  Yoyu're right, we've seen this movie before and the first one was bad enough.

Nothing more. Just a throw-away line.

Several people have approached me to get on board the "Pence '08" movement. I didn't know much about Congressman Pence before then (and I still don't), but one thing that concerns me is that while he is with the "Republican Study Committee," he does not belong to The Liberty Committee. I know hardly anything about the former, but I love the latter, as I noted here. The constitutionalist and pro-liberty movement conservatives ought to belong to The Liberty Committee; it's work is needed now more than ever before.

While Congressman Pence did oppose the Medicare bill, I was disappointed, looking just now, to see that he supported the [unconstitutional] "CAFTA" bill, another socialist initiative.

This summer's CAFTA bill, the previous year's Medicaid bill, and our government's ongoing policy in Iraq are all examples of socialism being promoted and implemented by supposedly "conservative" Republicans (with help from their counterparts from across the aisle).

Our party - and our nation - needs new leadership... And fast. The conservative movement, and our fellow citizens, deserve no less.

... but I know almost nothing about the Liberty Committee. Since Ron Paul is a member, I'm guessing it's the Libertarian caucus.

I've heard the arguments from the protectionist/isolationist quadrant about CAFTA, but I'm unfamiliar with libertarian dogma -- can you please explain why you think CAFTA is unconstitutional?

I just checked the vote on CAFTA of Liberty Committee member Dave Weldon (R-FL). He voted Yes.

Apparently, the Liberty Committee isn't monolitically opposed to free trade.

Yeah, good one. I would be willing to bet a large amount of money that you either work for Blunt or directly with him or his staff. Anyone else wouldn't sing his praises like that.

Blunt and Boehner are tools of K Street. They are "seasoned" because they have intimate knowledge of which lobbyists to kneel before.

If the House GOP were smart (which I'm afraid they aren't) they would look to a new, principled generation to pick up Reagan's torch. Mike Pence or Paul Ryan would do the trick. DeLay, Blunt, and Boehner have done great work, but if they truly cared more about the movement and the country than they cared about themselves and/or their lobbyist friends, they would honorably pass the torch to Pence or Ryan.

Roy Blunt's entire staff is posting here on Redstate! You fellas need to get out of D.C once in a while.

Wow, that's a really good way to thank them for their service to our party and the country.  "Thanks, guys, for everything you've done, but we've decided it would be better politically if you were to step aside and let others reap the rewards of your efforts."

Tom DeLay is the best Speaker of the House I've ever seen.  The fact that Ronnie Earle is helping the Democratic Party's crusade of criminalizing politics, doesn't change that.  If we can't have DeLay in office, we need the second best thing, and that's Roy Blunt, so that we can be assured that A) DeLay's important work will continue, and B) That DeLay himself will be working behind the scenes.

Just because you don't agree with a position does not make it socialist. Much of the "socialism" you site is not socialism, unless you have come up with your own personal definition for the word.

Just the sort of thing a socialist would say!

Though I am one of his constituents from SWMO.  I have met Rep. Blunt at several candidate functions and believe him to be intelligent and well-spoken.  I have watched his votes on the hill and still support him (though I wish he had stayed with his wife).

I like Mike Pence, but I would be glad to have Blunt to replace DeLay.  I don't know all the Washington goings-on, but he must be somewhat familiar with getting legislation passed or he wouldn't be in the position he is.

Now, can I have Pence for POTUS?

All the libertarians support free trade. Some of them (those that voted for CAFTA) support it the way Republicans in general do. Some of them (those that voted against it) support it only when it is done unilateraly. This position is also held by the Libertarian Party, and it is basically that they think that the free trade agreements will lead to a world government, or bureaucracy, or something like that, and they just want the United States to lower tariffs.

so I doubt that will be a problem. And from what I know about Roy Blunt there wont be too many Dems who want to cross him with a personal attack.  He is utterly ruthless and he never forgets a slight.  Those are good qualities for a majority leader. He will get the job done.

Appreciating someone's service does not extend to commiting suicide for them. Tom recognized that today and did the right thing.

P.S. Your boy DeLay was never Speaker of the House.

Typed too fast.  I mean Majority Leader.

But appreciating someone's service does mean not throwing their allies under the bus when they haven't done anything wrong.

In other words, I still haven't heard a single good reason why Blunt is an unacceptable candidate.  Whatever misdeeds DeLay allegedly committed--and it's important to remember that he's still innocent until proven guilty--I think we can all agree that he's been a spectacular GOP leader (especially compared to his Senate counterpart).  If we have Blunt as Majority Leader, that likely means that DeLay will be advising him.  How is that not a good thing?

Of course, there is the argument that CAFTA provides for more than free trade.  I have concerns about this myself.  I tend not to like anything that creates "international boards" to play arbitrator.  Too often they are captured by anti-American forces, and results in a weakening of our position.  The practicalities of the comparitive size of our economies causes the threat of sanctions against us to become non-credible, but I still dont like it.

This is not socialism however, closer to the post-nationalism that infects our educated populace.  (Sometimes this is confluenced with socailism in the mind of their addherents, but they are two different things.)

I could see how a good conservative/libertarian might vote for a flawed CAFTA bill, agruing that the benefits of Free Trade outweigh the flaws.

Looks like we're gonna have to gin up Mike for '08 in Iowa instead...

"Because some of you have encouraged me to consider seeking a leadership position, Karen and I endeavored to give the matter the kind of prayerful consideration that such encouragement merits. I am writing to confirm that I will not be seeking any elected position in the Republican Conference at this time.

From Mike's release this am:

"While I will always aspire to be available to serve my country when called, I believe I can do more good for the conservative movement by focusing my energies within the RSC. Those of you who know me well know that my passion is to look after my young family and serve the cause I was elected to advance: limited government, a strong defense and traditional moral values. There my focus will remain."

Hear he's gonna be w Blunt as RSC sees him as the conservative in the race.