DOWNLOADS: (98)

PLAYS: (969)

Embed

(Remember this video from This Week in 2006? )

The tea party sure has screwed with Rep. John Boehner's ability to deal with the GOP caucus that he leads after a stop gap spending measure was voted down by his own people.

House Republicans return to Washington this week; a restless bunch in the wake of an embarrassing legislative defeat and months before they face primary voters in the 2012 election.

The stunning downfall of a stop-gap spending bill, which 48 Republicans rejected on Sept. 21, is a clear sign that managing the House GOP Conference in the coming months will be extremely challenging. While House Republicans were able to pass a second spending bill with only 24 defections, the flawed strategy of moving the first piece of legislation has left some battle scars.

Rohrabacher was one of Jack Abramoff's good buddies back in the day and is a big man when it comes to wingnut craziness. The congressional Republicans tried to put up a unified front to oppose Obama, but in actuality, they are fighting amongst themselves. They are all scared little boys being bullied by an unpopular wing of their party. Dana Rohrabacher admitted his voting on the measure was cowardly because his other Orange County colleagues voted against it. Awww, did he get sand kicked in his face playing with his toys?

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) told his colleagues that his original “no” vote was “chickensh--,” according to members who attended the closed-door meeting.

Rohrabacher said he changed his initial “yes” to “no” on the first CR vote because he saw that most of his fellow Orange County colleagues had opposed the measure and he didn’t want to attract Tea Party criticism. He called his action “cowardly” and promised to support the revised spending bill.

In the end, Rohrabacher and his three Orange County colleagues, Reps. John Campbell (R-Calif.), Gary Miller (R-Calif.) and Ed Royce (R-Calif.), supported the next measure, which passed easily. Royce, who is expected to face Miller in a primary, voted no on the initial measure. Miller voted yes.

Moving forward, a GOP freshman member would like to see their leadership present a more cohesive message for the rank-and-file so that members feel better able to defend their votes at home.“We ought to examine what our principles are, why we are here and stick to them. And the political strategies that are involved in these thoughts, we’ve got to make sure we are on the same wavelength. We ought to be able to beat the Democrats on the head with all these public policy issues because they are demagoguing and they are wrong, and we ought to be able to explain to people why we are right, they are wrong, our policies will work, theirs will not,” the lawmaker told The Hill.

These fools need to pass legislation that will fund the government and pass a budget for 2012 or the world markets will collapse and there's nothing Europe or the BRIC nations will be able to do. They can't even settle on what to do about the Eurozone. With an election coming up it's going to be much worse for the global economies as well as our one if they don't start acting like grownups. I know, that's asking a lot and it will never happen with the new ideological newbies from the midterms.

From Talking Points Memo

Josh Marshall

So I guess the questions on the

What is Rep. Istook's explanation for inserting the provision in the omnibus spending bill?

Subject to the quality of that explanation, will Rep. Istook face any disciplinary action, either formal or informal?

On the Senate floor, Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said that neither he nor House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young knew that provision had been inserted into the bill. Beside Istook, which members of congress and/or congressional staffers knew about the Istook Amendment prior to the matter being brought up by Senate Democrats?

Who gave the sign off to insert the provision into the bill?

These are some legitimate concerns, and it will be difficult to hammer out a consensus on some of them - especially the proposal to "means test" Medicare drug benefits. This will be a real rest of Reid's and Pelosi's leadership:

Democratic leaders in Congress did not expect much Republican support as they pressed President Obama's ambitious legislative agenda. But the pushback they are receiving from some of their own has come as an unwelcome surprise.

As the Senate inches closer to approving a $410 billion spending bill, the internal revolt has served as a warning to party leaders pursuing Obama's far-reaching plans for health-care, energy and education reform.

Those goals, spelled out in Obama's 2010 budget blueprint, continue to enjoy broad Democratic support. But as the ideas develop into detailed legislation, they will transform from abstract objectives into a tangle of difficult trade-offs. Crop subsidies, the student loan program and Medicare radiology rules are all currently niche concerns, but any one could become the next crisis for party leaders, with the potential to derail a major agenda item. One major proposal, to limit itemized deductions for wealthy taxpayers, has already raised doubts among prominent Democrats in both chambers.

Some issues that inflamed Democrats in previous years have yet to even register, including the proposal in Obama's budget plan to "means-test" the Medicare drug benefit as a way to pay for health-care reform. Doling out entitlement benefits based on income has long been anathema to most Democrats.

"There are a lot of items in the budget that would normally get a lot more attention, if we were in a normal year," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who heads the House Democrats' fundraising arm. "They've been eclipsed by the tidal wave of the economy." But Van Hollen added: "They are waiting in the wings."

• Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) was furious over a provision that would allow travel and imports to Cuba, saying that making such a major policy change in a spending bill was "undemocratic."

• Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NB) is upset about a provision that overhauls the student loan program and ends federal support for private lending. One of the major lenders is a company based in Nebraska, and Nelson says it will cost his state 1,000 jobs.

• Nelson also objects to changes Obama has proposed in the farm subsidy system that would stop direct payments to farms with annual sales of more than $500,000. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.) also opposes it.

C&Ler Jim sent this response to Kudlow after he blamed " Liberal guilt consciences" for the mortgage meltdown.

Cudlow, Cudlow, Cudlow [sic]... you are not stupid. You are, however, a conservative, republican hack. You know good and g*damn well that this crisis was precipitated by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, pounded through by Senator Phil Gramm, that was tucked into an omnibus spending bill at the end of Clinton's last term that included, amongst other things, a treasury authorization and Medicare/Medicaid bill that could not be vetoed. This Act excluded any swap transaction from the reach of the CEA and also amended the Securities Act to exclude swap agreements as being defined as securities.

Therefore, these instruments were left unregulated. Hence, we are now reaping the whirlwind. You have put yourself on record as blaming liberal guilt and poor people for this crisis. This is not just intellectually dishonest, it is a factual lie. As a member of the f*&king intellectual elite (I have a law degree, a guitar, and a car) I challenge YOU to bring McCain and Palin on your show and have them explain their version of these events. I bet you won't... Love, Jim.

P.S. I might also add that the notion that the sub-prime crisis was caused by liberals wanting to put poor, first-time buyers into homes is disproved by the fact that most of these loans (over 60%) were not first time home buyers, but refinances. This is because investment firms and banks were selling the idea that people should treat their primary residence as an investment like a stock: borrow on the equity (leverage) like any other asset and bet on the value to rise. This is contrary to traditional conservative thought that the homestead is not to be put at risk. But you guys never thought about that because you were too single-mindedly interested in the up-side. It never occurred to you that the downside was families without homes. Therefore you put unsophisticated folks with children in the same boat with Ivy league 20 something geniuses who walked away with millions, while the families walked away with a trailer. It truly is sickening.

Once again, Love, Jim

(Just a reminder. I will print emails from C&L's massive inbox)

Cenk Uygur at TYT speaks to Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) about Congress's recent caving to the Bush administration on the budget spending bills.

I'm sure that Rep. Israel is a very well-intentioned congressperson, but it's clear that He. Just. Doesn't. Get. It. I can't think of a better recent example demonstrating how the Stockholm Syndrome has infected the majority party in Washington D.C.

Rep. Israel agreed with everything Cenk said--in principle. But he's lacking the spine to do anything more, as are the leadership "above his pay grade." That's where you MUST come in. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz told Ed Schultz weeks ago that she doesn't hear about these things from her constituents. I put in a call to my congresscritter and had much the same thing confirmed. They're asked about local interests like protecting local businesses and expediting government bureaucracy for their constituents, like passport facilitation. They get their share of angry calls, but what they don't get are calls of support for standing up against the Bush administration and their Republican counterparts. No one is telling them "if you play tough, we will have your back."

In a perfect world, they would not need us to do so. I have been guilty of making the angry calls--I told DiFi's office I would do everything I could to oppose any future re-election campaign she would choose to start. And I will. But I realized talking to my congressperson that I had to also say "I need you to represent us better. I will back you up if you do. I will write letters to the editor, whatever is needed to show that you have my support by acting like the majority party."

They are cowering after 25 years of Republican majority. They fear the Republican noise machine within their insulated Beltway Bubble. We have seen just this week how empowering we can be when we make our voices heard in a positive yet forceful way. So during this holiday break in Congress, please make a point of calling your representative's local office and let them know that we have their back, IF they represent us.

It's the only way we'll see any change.

Oink, oink.

The Hill:

Senior Republican appropriators in the Senate have collected more money in earmarks than any other members of Congress, even though President Bush and GOP leaders have forcefully criticized "pork-barrel spending."

Not only have these lawmakers defied their leaders, they have also taken a much greater share of the pot set aside for rank-and-file Republicans than have senior Democrats. As a result, some on the Hill are grumbling privately that GOP appropriators are "not only the kings of pork, they're outright hogs," in the words of one Senate Republican aide.

But Republican appropriators argue they are following the rules, that their work is open to public scrutiny, and that they are taking care of their constituents' needs. They also say that Bush is holding them to a double standard by submitting to Congress specific spending requests while deriding lawmakers' spending priorities as wasteful earmarks.

Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.), ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, has collected $774 million worth of earmarks in 12 spending bills. After Cochran, Sen. Ted Stevens (Alaska), the second-ranking Republican on Appropriations, secured more money for special projects than any other member of Congress: $502 million.

Rep. Bill Young (Fla.), the ranking Republican on the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, is the second-biggest recipient of earmarked funds in the House, securing $161 million. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the subcommittee's chairman, secured $162 million in funds.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group that tracks earmarks and federal spending, compiled the figures.

The Republicans' status as the biggest earmark winners in Congress is surprising because they no longer enjoy majority control. As a result, they have seen their share of the federal spending pie sliced by a third.

Hi, This is Bob Morris from Politics in the Zeros guest blogging this week. My blog covers antiwar, global warming, peak oil, and the political intersections thereof. All the causes are linked, it seems to me. If we stop spending billions on wars, then we can spend it here to create clean, renewable energy. Send tips and links to bob at polizeros dot com.

The CEO of a Houston investment bank says Peak Oil is real and happening now.

Michigan doctor Catherine Wilkerson goes on trial tomorrow for felony assault for attempting to give medical aid to a protester rendered unconscious by police at a protest. Defend Wilkerson.

Kevin Rudd, the just-elected new leader of Australia, says global warming will be a main priority. Are you listening, US presidential candidates?

Britain has denied asylum to Uzbek dissident Jahongir Sidikov and plans to send him back where he will face torture. Former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray is trying to mobilize support for Sidikov before it's too late.

Psst, there's a Liberal Conspiracy in Britain now.

Send tips this week to bob (DOT) morris (AT) gmail (DOT) com. (Hint: it does not have to be from your own blog. If you see something great, pass it on...)

Via The Times Picayune:

Sen. David Vitter, R-La., earmarked $100,000 in a spending bill for a Louisiana Christian group that has challenged the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the public school system and to which he has political ties.

The money is included in the labor, health and education financing bill for fiscal 2008 and specifies payment to the Louisiana Family Forum "to develop a plan to promote better science education."

The earmark appears to be the latest salvo in a decades-long battle over science education in Louisiana, in which some Christian groups have opposed the teaching of evolution and, more recently, have pushed to have it prominently labeled as a theory with other alternatives presented. Educators and others have decried the movement as a backdoor effort to inject religious teachings into the classroom.

The nonprofit Louisiana Family Forum, launched in Baton Rouge in 1999 by former state Rep. Tony Perkins, has in recent years taken the lead in promoting "origins science," which includes the possibility of divine intervention in the creation of the universe.

The group's stated mission is to "persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking." Until recently, its Web site contained a "battle plan to combat evolution," which called the theory a "dangerous" concept that "has no place in the classroom." The document was removed after a reporter's inquiry. Read full article here...

The Republican senator may have the support of the majority of his hypocritical party, but he isn't out of the woods yet. Please contact your Senators and tell them to say no to Vitter's intentional violation of the separation between Church and State and demand the earmark be removed from the bill. Remember to be polite.

Fred Thompson’s reaction to today’s Osama bin Laden tape:

“Bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else,” he said.

Mitt Romney on bin Laden:

[Romney] said the country would be safer by only “a small percentage” and would see “a very insignificant increase in safety” if al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden was caught because another terrorist would rise to power. “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person,” Romney said.

Bush on bin Laden:

“I truly am not that concerned about him.”

At what point did the GOP decide that bin Laden no longer matters? And how would the right respond if Dems made similar comments?