Peggy Noonan today examines Barack Obama’s beliefs and concludes that there is no there there, other than the fact that he believes himself to be one of the “destiny boys”:

He doesn’t have an issue, he has a thousand issues, which is the same as having none, in the sense that a speech about everything is a speech about nothing. And on those issues he seems not so much to be guided by philosophy as by impulses, sentiments. From “The Audacity of Hope,” his latest book: “[O]ur democracy might work a bit better if we recognized that all of us possess values that are worthy of respect.” “I value good manners.” When not attempting to elevate the bromidic to the profound, he lapses into the language of political consultants–”our message,” “wedge issues,” “moral language.” Ronald Reagan had “a durable narrative.” Parts of the book, the best parts, are warm, anecdotal, human. But much of it pretends to a seriousness that is not borne out. When speaking of the political past he presents false balance and faux fairness. (Reagan, again, despite his “John Wayne, Father Knows Best pose, his policy by anecdote and his gratuitous assaults on the poor” had an “appeal” Sen. Obama “understood.” Ronnie would be so pleased.)…But again, what does he believe? From reading his book, I would say he believes in his destiny. He believes in his charisma. He has the confidence of the anointed. He has faith in the magic of the man who meets his moment.

He also believes in the power of good nature, the need for compromise, and the possibility of comprehensive, multitiered, sensible solutions achieved through good-faith negotiations.

But mostly it seems to be about him, his sense of destiny, and his appreciation of his own particular gifts. Which leaves me thinking Oh dear, we have been here before. It’s not as if we haven’t already had a few of the destiny boys. It’s not as if we don’t have a few more in the wings.

Who knew that CSPAN exectives had such a good sense of political timing?

The Hill reports:

Noting that Democrats have pledged to increase transparency and accountability in government, C-SPAN Thursday called on House Speaker-in-waiting Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to give television viewers the same real-time access to views of the House floor as anyone sitting in the gallery would have.

In a Dec. 14 letter, C-SPAN CEO and Chairman Brian Lamb asked Pelosi to roll back the three-decade old practice that put the House Speaker in charge of the cameras. C-SPAN and the House reached the current agreement in 1979 when cameras were first introduced to the chamber. He wrote that he sought a similar agreement in 1994 when Republicans captured control of the House, but he did not get it.

More:

Rules and established practices prevent cameras from taking individual reaction shots or from panning the chamber, leaving viewers with an incomplete picture of what’s happening in the House,” he added.

In addition, Lamb asked Pelosi to immediately post how individual lawmakers voted on a piece of legislation. Currently, the parties’ totals appear on screen, but the individual tallies are not posted until hours later.

Providing viewers real-time access to who votes how and when would indeed be revealing. So often moderates in both parties vote last while they wait to see which way the tide goes or to see what is possibly in it for them when their vote becomes very valuable at the end. Establishing that trend on the record would be very illuminating.

UPDATE: And then there is this semi-related note from National Journal this morning…

Although Democrats have vowed a return to ‘regular order’ in the legislative process, along with more openness and accountability, many of the decisions about their first-100-hours agenda are being made privately by party leaders and a handful of committee leaders.

Senator Tim Johnson is said to have good chances of recovering. That is indeed good news.

All the speculation surrounding Senator Johnson’s health has led to a beltway media feeding frenzy. But the Washington Post’s Al Kamen reminds us of another evenly divided Senate that was even more tumultous:

But the unsettled situation pales when compared with the bizarre 83rd Congress in 1953 and 1954, during which nine of the then-96 senators died, including one who committed suicide, and one resigned.

When the Senate convened on Jan. 3, 1953, the GOP was in charge 48 to 47, plus one former Republican, Sen. Wayne L. Morse– an independent so independent that he moved his seat to the Senate aisle and would not vote with the Democrats to organize.

By Aug. 3 of that year, when the first session adjourned, three members — including Majority Leader Robert A. Taft (R-Ohio) — had died. When the next session began in January 1954, the Democrats had become the majority, 48-47-1, but they did not assume control. At one point during that session, as various members died, the D’s even had a two-vote lead, but they never challenged Republican control of the body. The Senate adjourned Aug. 20 back where it had started, with the GOP holding a one-vote majority.

Charlie Rangel is the gift that keeps giving for Republicans.

Now that the “favor factory” has been shut down for fiscal year 2007, there is a lot of confusion here in DC.

Roll Call reports:

The announcement this week that the new Democratic Congress will eliminate all 2007 spending earmarks and instead pass a stopgap measure to keep the government funded for the entirety of this fiscal year has caused widespread confusion and anxiety, both within the Bush administration and on K Street, as lobbyists scramble to figure out how their clients will be affected.

“We don’t know what that means,” said Sean Kevelighan, spokesman for Office of Management and Budget Director Rob Portman. He added, “There’s no real clarity above and beyond the statement that was released.”

Senator Mitch McConnell today announced the Republican Senate committee assignments. McConnell’s press release with the assignments is in the extended section. Read the rest of this entry »

Democrats are talking about including war spending in the federal budget. This is a good idea, the “emergency” supplemental spending procedure has gotten way out of hand.

The New York Times reports:

In interviews, the incoming Democratic chairmen of the House and Senate Budget Committees said they would demand a better accounting of the war’s cost and move toward integrating the spending into the regular federal budget, a signal of their intention to use the Congressional power of the purse more assertively to influence the White House’s management of the war.

The lawmakers, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, said the administration’s approach of paying for extended military operations and related activities through a series of emergency requests had inhibited Congressional scrutiny of the spending and obscured the true price of the war.

“They have been playing hide-the-ball,” Mr. Conrad said, “and that does not serve the Congress well nor the country well, and we are not going to continue that practice.”

While Dems certainly have some anti-war alterior motives here, from a fiscal standpoint this makes sense.

Make no mistake about it, there is indeed a void right now in the prospective 2008 field that is begging to be filled by a candidate that conservatives can wholeheartedly embrace. Is former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore that candidate?

Jonathan Martin reports:

“There is a need for a conservative who’s electable,” Gilmore argues emphatically in a conversation with National Review Online at his Georgetown law office.

And Gilmore has somebody in mind who could fit that bill.

Jim Gilmore.

“I’m considering a national candidacy,” he says bluntly.

He’s been to Iowa four times, South Carolina twice in just the last month, and was in California in August to speak to their state party’s convention. He’s also reached out to longtime GOP activists in some of these key states, sounding them out about a potential White House bid.

To Gilmore, nobody else in the presidential mix has his credentials: Army intelligence officer, local prosecutor, state attorney general, governor, national party leader, and chairman of a terrorism and homeland-security commission that predated 9/11.

And, to the point, Gilmore notes that, “as governor, I governed as a conservative.” While the other top candidates in the field have “to move” to the Right to get right with the base, he’s already there.

Now this is hillarious…

The New York Times:

Mike Allen, a reporter who covers the White House for Time magazine, and Roger Simon, the chief political correspondent for Bloomberg News, are joining the new multimedia political news venture being overseen by two former Washington Post journalists.

That new enterprise now has a name — The Politico, which is its newspaper, and thepolitico.com, its Web site. The name supplants The Capitol Leader, which had been its working title until it broadened in scope.

Both the newspaper and Web site are to begin publication on Jan. 23, the date of the president’s State of the Union address, one of the most-covered rituals on the Washington political calendar. In addition to writing about Congress, The Politico will focus on the 2008 presidential campaign.

The moves by Mr. Allen, 42, and Mr. Simon, 58, mark another step by traditional “old media” journalists toward a “new media” venture that is largely online, although both are writing or have written for the Web, and Mr. Allen will stay in Time magazine’s print version with a new column about the White House. The Politico is being financed by the deep pockets of Allbritton Communications and overseen by John Harris, the former political editor of The Washington Post, and Jim VandeHei, a former national political reporter for The Post.

EDITOR’s NOTE: The following post was written by a Heritage Foundation colleague Alex Adrianson who attended a meeting yesterday with other bloggers (including myself) and Tom DeLay. Alex, who is the editor of The Insider Online, gives his take on DeLay and provides a good synopsis of the issues covered in yesterday’s meeting. I write briefly about the meeting here. Robert Bluey covers it extensively here. If you would like to email Alex regarding his post, send me a note and I will forward it on.

Yesterday at The Heritage Foundation, Former Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) told to a weekly meeting of bloggers that conservatives need to rethink how they advance a small-government agenda. Calling the proliferation of congressional earmarks disgusting and in need of reform, DeLay nevertheless said that the focus should be less on the amount of money the federal government spends than on redefining government based on conservative principles. DeLay argued for an agenda of entitlement reform and eliminating whole departments such as Energy, Education, Commerce, and significantly downsizing the Department of Agriculture.

DeLay came to the group in order to promote his new political Web site (TomDeLay.com) and its affiliated Grass-roots Action and Information Network (GAIN). In addition to the usual political fare (calling Barrack-Obama a Marxist-Leninist), DeLay made a vigorous case for small government as a matter of political principle, not just as a budgetary imperative.

For example, DeLay defended his vote for the prescription drug entitlement (something which other conservative groups, including The Heritage Foundation, have criticized) even though it increased spending. He said it was the right thing to do because it applied conservative principles to a socialist welfare program. Noting that the new program uses choice and competition to update a program created before prescription drugs were a major part of health care, DeLay said greater use of prescription drugs could make Americans healthier and save money in the long run. He also said that Health Savings Accounts, part of the same political package, are a major innovation that moves health care away from first-dollar insurance coverage. That problem is cited by many conservative policy analysts as the major factor driving health care expenditures up. The ultimate goal, said DeLay, should be to repeal Medicare altogether and get government out of the health care sector.

DeLay responded specifically to questions about the proliferation of budgetary earmarks during the era of united Republican government. He said it had gotten out of hand under Bush, and that it was partly his (DeLay’s) fault for letting it get out of hand. But he also argued that earmarks played a legitimate role as an institutional check on the power of the President. President Clinton, he noted, didn’t want to spend money in Republican districts. (By this standard, one supposes that Democrats are now being politically foolish in forswearing earmarks for the next year, since they face a President of the other party.)

DeLay also took a shot at the Coburn-Obama spending transparency law, saying it wouldn’t do much except help members show how much they had done for their constituents. DeLay does propose, however, his own version of earmark reform. He wants Congress, as part of redesigning the appropriations process, to set criteria by which earmarks can be judged. He also proposes that Congress bring entitlement spending into the annual budget process.

DeLay says that government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product is the most meaningful measure by which to judge Congress’s budgetary performance. And by that measure, he said, things weren’t all that bad. Federal spending has increased slightly since declining to 18.4 percent of GDP right before Bush became President, but then, noted DeLay, a war happened. DeLay said he was actually very miffed at Sen. John McCain for saying that Congress was spending money like a drunken sailor.

Unlike many others who have diagnosed the Republican defeat, DeLay does not believe that Republicans lost because they stopped being conservative. He believes Republicans were not effective at explaining what they were doing, and he said he includes himself in that indictment. He cited two other factors: the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform, which he says gave all power to the shadow party of George Soros; and the fact that he had to resign from House leadership because of indictments brought against him by his political opponents. The replacement leadership, he said, was slow to get a campaign strategy up and running, and when they did they made mistakes like having President Bush talk up the war in September.

On McCain-Feingold, DeLay said: “I don’t think there is enough money in politics,” noting that this year Americans spent more money on potato chips than was spent on the midterm elections.

All in all, an interesting session with a man many conservatives blame for the Republican loss in November. While I don’t agree with his pooh-poohing of earmarks, he is right when he says that the argument for small government should come from conservative principles, not green eye shades.

Democrats keep promising new programs: cutting rates on college loans is one of the latest.

Congressional Democrats say when they take the gavel from Republicans next month, they will put money in the pockets of college students and closely examine a law reforming elementary and secondary schools. How they will pay for their plans isn’t clear.
Democrats, who won the House and Senate in last month’s elections, say they will quickly move to slash interest rates on need-based college loans in half - from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent.

“That will be done almost immediately, certainly within the first couple of weeks of the new session,” California Democratic Rep. George Miller, the incoming chairman of the House education committee, said in an interview.

But, as this article points out, where the money will come from is anyone’s guess:

Democrats haven’t spelled out how they’ll pay for their promises, which may run head-on into another pledge: to require any new spending to be offset with cuts elsewhere or new taxes to avoid increasing the deficit.

The “other pledge” mentioned above is a policy called PAYGO, or pay as you go. Democrats envision a PAYGO program in which future tax cuts must be offset by some other item in the federal budget while entitlement spending is alowed to remain on autopilot without any offsets. This version of PAYGO is a complete sham designed to rip off the taxpayer and prop up big government liberalism.

When Democrats try to enact PAYGO next year, conservatives will do their best to amend the new rule so that it applies equally to tax policy and social programs.

This is disconcerting to say the least:

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Rep. Silvestre Reyes of Texas, who incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tapped to head the Intelligence Committee when the Democrats take over in January, failed a quiz of basic questions about al Qaeda and Hezbollah, two of the key terrorist organizations the intelligence community has focused on since the September 11, 2001 attacks.

When asked by CQ National Security Editor Jeff Stein whether al Qaeda is one or the other of the two major branches of Islam — Sunni or Shiite — Reyes answered “they are probably both,” then ventured “Predominantly — probably Shiite.”

That is wrong. Al Qaeda was founded by Osama bin Laden as a Sunni organization and views Shiites as heretics.

Reyes could also not answer questions put by Stein about Hezbollah, a Shiite group on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations that is based in Southern Lebanon.

In an OpEd today on National Review Online Rick Santorum says that our leaders have failed us with respect to Iran. Iran, says Santorum, must be confronted if the war against Islamic fascism is to be won. According to Santorum, the Gates nomination signals an unwillingness on the part of the Administration and Congress to address the growing threat:

The president is not unaware of the situation in Iran, but his view of the country is informed by the advisers who surround him, a collection of people from the various sectors of the foreign-policy establishment. His intelligence team, led by the director of National Intelligence, will advise him that the opposition in Iran is weak and divided and that there is no legitimate exile community; thus we have no real alternative to either bombing the country or establishing by diplomacy a modus vivendi.  The Pentagon will advise the president that our already stretched forces are unable to engage in another conflict. The State Department and our new secretary of Defense do not think that there is a casus belli and that our best hope for mitigating the many crises of that region is to negotiate with Iran.

So, if we should not expect the president to explain why we must confront Iran, what of the Congress?

The Democrats of course would never confront Iran because they attribute their wins in November to America’s growing dissatisfaction with Iraq. If continued instability in Iraq works to their political benefit, why would they change the subject to Iran, particularly when they have no solution to propose and have always been skeptical that military force will do anything to stop Islamic terrorism?

Many Republicans understand the problems that Iran is causing in Iraq, but they have no wish to be portrayed as warmongers by the media and the Democratic party. If Americans have had enough with Iraq, it would be only too easy to characterize any confrontation with Iran as the United States becoming hopelessly and dangerously entangled in a region whose ills defy remedy.

Yet another columnist warning about the impending mass exodus of libertarians from the GOP…

Louisiana Democrat William Jefferson’s reelection is just the most recent headache for Nancy Pelosi. Again she finds herself in the position of having to deal with a member of her own party over ethics issues only weeks after winning the midterms by promising a more ethical Congress. Reportedly, Pelosi is considering either not placing Jefferson on any committee at all, or at least placing him on a low profile committee where he cannot be seen.

But if/when she does this, she will have for the second time in a month, given the cold shoulder to a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who are sure to raise a ruckus eventually.

Democrats and some appropriators in Congress are still reeling from last week’s conservative victory with regards to earmark spending. According to Congress Daily PM, they have thrown in the towell on the earmarks/pork projects game for now by agreeing to pass a year-long continuing resolution:

Democrats announced this afternoon they plan to enact a continuing resolution for the duration of FY07, after Republicans gave up on passing individually the nine appropriations bills covering the domestic portion of the federal budget. In its final hours Friday, Congress passed a stopgap measure running through Feb. 15, and the incoming chairmen of the House and Senate Appropriations committees said they would simply extend the measure out rather than attempting to pass the leftover FY07 spending bills. President Bush is expected to submit his FY08 budget and a new supplemental spending request for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in early February. “It is important that we clear the decks quickly so that we can get to work on the American people’s priorities, the president’s anticipated war funding request, and a new budget,” incoming House Appropriations Chairman Obey and Senate Appropriations Chairman Byrd said in a joint statement. “After discussions with our colleagues, we have decided to dispose of the Republican budget leftovers by passing a year-long joint resolution … we must turn the page on the Republican failures and work together in the best interests of the American people.”

Obey and Byrd said they would make “limited adjustments” in that GOP-written CR to address important policy priorities, but that the extended version would have none of the earmarks contained in the remaining FY07 spending bills. The Democrats said they were placing a “moratorium” on all earmarks until reforms are put in place. “We will work to restore an accountable, above-board, transparent process for funding decisions and put an end to the abuses that have harmed the credibility of Congress,” they said. Only two FY07 spending bills have been signed into law, the Defense and Homeland Security measures. That leaves about $463 billion in unfinished agency budgets that will be funded under a yearlong CR. Obey and Byrd noted the last time all the spending bills were completed separately and on time was 1994 — the last year of Democratic control of Congress.

And here is more from the Washington Post:

The announcement appears to be a victory for conservative budget reformers, such as Reps. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.), who circulated a petition last week calling for a resolution that would extend funding through the rest of the year, but without earmarks. That petition, however, called for all domestic programs to be funded at the lowest levels called for in either the House or Senate versions.

In contrast, Obey and Byrd indicated that they would seek adjustments in spending levels to satisfy Democrats and moderate Republicans who were upset by the austere funding bills passed by the House Appropriations Committee. In particular, the measure to fund labor, health and education programs fell billions of dollars short of the Senate-approved levels, and the levels that even many House Republicans said were acceptable.

The biggest victory would be for those lawmakers who have crusaded against earmarks, or home-district pet projects. Virtually all of the bills that pass the Senate and House appropriations committees contain such projects. For the fiscal year that began in October and will end Sept. 30, the slate will be wiped clean.

UPDATE: This story is from yesterday’s edition of Roll Call:

As arguably the Senate’s new leading conservative, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) is hoping to position his party’s right wing as a potential swing bloc in the chamber — even reaching out to incoming Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

After hearing that Reid is considering curbing earmarks as well as thinking about keeping spending levels flat for the rest of fiscal 2007, DeMint — who was just elected chairman of the conservative Senate Republican Steering Committee — called Reid last Thursday to offer his help.

“I just called him up to tell him that I’ve got a bunch of guys over here who will vote for” keeping spending levels flat by passing a continuing resolution until the beginning of fiscal 2008. Additionally, he said, “If they did something on earmark reform and transparency in spending, they might be in the majority for a long time. It’s something I couldn’t get my own guys to do.”

…DeMint said he was ready to help Reid finalize those decisions, saying, “I just let him know that I don’t care who gets the credit. If we get the right thing done and it makes them look good, I’m fine with it.”

In an odd twist, then, a man known more for fiercely defending conservative ideals is saying he’d rather work with the new Democratic majority than against them. Still, true to form, DeMint warned that Democrats must consult with conservatives before measures come to the floor if they want optimum cooperation, especially on appropriations bills.

“We’re not trying to clog them up, but if they want to continue earmarks, we will clog them,” he said, referring to the conservatives’ chief complaint about the Congressional appropriations process — targeted spending provisions, or earmarks, that have not been vetted by committee.

Over at the Club for Growth, where I will be occassionally guest-blogging this week, David Keating cites a recent Rasmussen poll that shows that Americans, by a 2-1 margin, say Social Security needs to be fixed.

On one hand, that is good news because the old entitlement program is headed for big problems, but conservatives are rightly worried about how the program will be “fixed.”

Congressional conservatives fought hard at the end of the 109th Congress to ensure that Congress did not leave town with thousands of pork projects in their back pockets. But now, as the nation waits for the gavelling in of the 110th Democrat-led Congress, the reality is that this issue is now up to the Dems.

Robert Novak reports:

The issue of spending reform is now in Democratic hands. Emanuel, the newly elected House Democratic Caucus chairman, on Nov. 17 e-mailed colleagues with a call for reform. The takeover of the House that he led as Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman, Emanuel said, sent a message that “it’s time for a change, and change starts by cleaning up Washington.” But in reiterating the Democratic campaign’s promises to “reform lobbying and ethics rules,” Emanuel did not mention the corrupting influence of earmarks.

Witness the Democrats’ Christmas wish-list:

WASHINGTON — After being out of power for 12 years, Democrats will take control of Congress next month with a wish list of new programs, including more money for college student aid, the No Child Left Behind schools initiative and Medicare prescription drug benefits — plus tax relief for middle-income Americans.

But there’s a hitch: The Democrats also have promised to restore fiscal responsibility and not increase the federal deficit.

So how will liberals in Congress make this happen? I think you know the answer.

Scandalized Congressman William Jefferson’s reelection this weekend is yet another headache for Nancy Pelosi who has promised to lead the most open and ethical Congress ever.

John Hawkins announces this year’s warblogger awards which include many categories. Andrew Sullivan has the proud distinction of being voted “most annoying right-of-center blogger.”

HA!

• Richard Dawkins as a Theologian (Part II, Part III)
• No mystery in Litvinenko’s demise
• Three new iPods
• Jeane Kirkpatrick, RIP
• Blog bits
• New feature for gmail
• Weekend caption contest
• Betting on 2008
• Bolton’s successor
• YouTube test tube

The Washington Post runs a late-breaking story today about plans for secret Senate meetings in the 110th Congress. The Post article characterizes the meetings as “secret” and says they will help speed up the Senate because members can find consensus behind closed doors that they may not be able to find on the Senate floor out in the open:

WASHINGTON — New Democratic and Republican leaders, trying to break Senate gridlock, are planning a secret “bipartisan caucus” to speed up business. The plans were disclosed Friday, even as a Congress still under Republican control was being accused by Democrats of being a “do-nothing” institution. It would establish a precedent expanding the kinds of “executive sessions” that up to now have been relatively rare, so that lawmakers can work better together.

It’s the brainchild of incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and has been endorsed by his Republican counterpart, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

The rules governing any such meetings have not been finalized, according to Reid spokesman Jim Manley. He added in a subsequent interview that only one meeting was being planned and was expected to be closed to the public.

While I think the desire for bipartisan cooperation and a toning down of the rhetoric is commendable, I instinctively don’t trust these off-line meetings. The assumption supporting the need for the meetings, of course, is that members behave differently when the cameras are on than they would in private. And while that is certainly true, I don’t think it is a good idea to encourage that behavior by officially creating two different arenas in which members operate: the secret, and the public.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think everything members of Congress do needs to be public and to be out in the open. I acknowledge that these guys need their space to breath sometimes. They need to be able to have private conversations with colleagues with the assurance that not everything they say will show up in the NY Times the next morning. But that type of privacy is different than the type that seems to be suggested in this article.

The article goes on to quote Heritage Foundation colleague Brian Darling:

Others say that any meeting of 100 senators with rules of any kind is by definition a meeting of the Senate.

“It would be a de facto meeting of the Senate and although they want to call it something else, it is,” said Brian Darling, director of Senate relations for the Heritage Foundation.

“To set up something and to plan something between the leaders is very unusual and should be subject to open government rules,” Darling added. “Their intentions are good but the results of what they’re doing will be not good for the American people.”

Also worth considering is what kind of precedent this would set in the Senate. It is possible that secret meetings like this would become gatherings in which debates that both sides of aisle would rather not have in public are aired and in which consensus is reached. But why exactly that consensus was reached is left for outside observers to take wild guesses at. I am not sure we want a Senate that would take certain debates off-line while leaving other debates on-line.

Perhaps I am a little too worried about this. It is possible that these meetings are rare and turn out to be harmless, or even helpful to an institution that has seen its fair share of partisan food fights lately. But one has to admit, the idea of secret Senate sessions wherein the entire Senate is gathered behind closed doors conjures up the images of smoke-filled rooms filled with deal-makers and influence-peddlers that both sides of the aisle want to stay away from.

In the closing hours of the 109th Congress and the 12 year Republican House majority, Majority Leader John Boehner has distributed a memo to his colleagues in which he lays out the mission ahead for Republicans. Among other things, Boehner suggest to his colleagues that the “the Contract with America is alive and well - perhaps more now than it has been at any other time in recent years.”

Read Boehner’s entire memo in the extended section. Read the rest of this entry »

This story from the New York Times is the kind of story that Democrats, pre-2006 midterms, would have used in campaign commercials if it were about Republicans. But now, after the election, the story is about Democrats for the most part, and it shows that the overblown Dem campaign rhetoric about a “culture of corruption” was just political talk:

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who is to become speaker of the House, has promised new lobbying and ethics rules to end “the culture of corruption” that she says has infected Congress under Republican control. But lobbyists attending fund-raisers this week said they did not expect radical changes.

“There will be some changes on the margins that will be relatively short-lived,” said Erick R. Gustafson, a vice president of the Mortgage Bankers Association.

Of the effort to purge politics of special-interest money and influence, Mr. Gustafson said: “It’s like trying to keep water out of your basement. It’s a structural problem. You may find a temporary solution, but the water will find a way in. Influence is like water. Money is just a means of influence.”

Many lobbyists stopped by three or four events on Wednesday evening. At a fund-raiser for Democrats newly elected to the House, Portia Reddick White, a lobbyist for the Transport Workers Union, said: “There’s a mood of euphoria, of excitement here. We sense that change is coming, that Congress might actually do something on a bipartisan basis for the working people of America.”

Dan Glickman, formerly a Democratic congressman from Kansas and now chairman of the Motion Picture Association of America, hobnobbed with Representative-elect Paul W. Hodes, Democrat of New Hampshire, who is an entertainment lawyer, songwriter and champion of the arts. Mr. Hodes said the event would help him retire his campaign debt, which he estimated at $100,000.

Today in my column I profile the efforts of conservatives in the Senate who have succeeded in blocking a raft of last-minute prok projects. Led by Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, these conservatives have taken away the appropriators’ usually dependable Christmas list.

Yesterday the Senate confirmed Robert Gates as the new Defense Secretary by a 95-2 vote. Rick Santorum voted no, and in the floor speech in the extended section he gives his reasons which are worth reading.  People will criticize Santorum for this speech and they will continue to say he is using scare tactics and that he is a warmonger. But unfortunately, I don’t think history’s judgement will be so harsh. I fear history’s judgement made prove Santorum right. He should keep giving these speeches…someone has too. Read the rest of this entry »

Jonathan Perkins wonders if the recent outbreak of broken Democratic campaign promises is a sign of things to come.

Word on the hill is that the young up and comer Paul Ryan was just selected by the steering committee to be the next top ranking GOP member on the House Budget Committee. I mentioned earlier in the week that this choice between Ryan and Ander Crenshaw was one to watch. Ryan ranked 13th on the committee, while Crenshaw was next in line. This was improbable to say the least.

Ryan’s selection suggests House GOP leadership backed Ryan who was seen as the more conservative candidate (a good sign). This comes a day after Jeb Hensarling was elected to succeed Mike Pence at the RSC.

Conservatives are giddy to say the least.

Ryan has made a name for himself as being a champion on social security reform and budget issues like the line item veto.

Newly-elected Republican Study Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling is thinking about the future of the RSC. According to RSC staff, he is kicking things off on an open note.

Throughout the afternoon Hensarling’s office will be open to all members of the RSC who have an opinion on where the body of 100-plus conservatives should go from here.

This afternoon will serve as “a come-and-go listening session to solicit counsel on the future of the Republican Study Committee,” said Hensarling’s Communications Director Brad Dayspring.

“The meeting will take place in his office for several hours. This will be the first in a series of listening sessions that Congressman Hensarling will host to seek guidance from Members on ways to improve the RSC and to discuss the role that the RSC should play in the 110th Congress.”

UPDATE: Writing for the WSJ Opinion Journal Political Diary email Stephen Moore notes:

One problem for the RSC going forward is its size. What was once a small, dedicated caucus for unwavering conservatives, of which there are now only about 30 in the entire Congress, expanded to 100 members and lost its hard edge. Members routinely began to wander from RSC positions. Smaller and more principled is probably a better approach for the Study Committee. If there are only 25-30 ideologically committed conservatives, so be it. One of the Hensarling supporters tells me: “Jeb should understand that it’s better not to thin the soup by adding marginal members who don’t believe in half the policy positions we take. Somebody has to take on Nancy Pelosi.” Yes, and at times, Messrs. Boehner and Blunt too.

Stop the presses! The NY Times editorial board is going after Dems for cherry picking campaign promises:

Weeks before they take majority control of the Capitol, the Democrats are reported to be wriggling out of one of their most important campaign vows: to repair Congressional oversight of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Congress was found to be nothing less than “dysfunctional” on this duty by the Sept. 11 commission, which wisely recommended a full-scale revamping of the committee structure.

This necessarily means a wrenching change in the budget powers over intelligence exercised by the bulls of the defense appropriations process — a monopoly that reduces the intelligence committees to secondary lap dogs. When the Republican-controlled Congress showed no appetite for a turf fight, Democrats eagerly made a campaign vow to promptly enact all of the panel’s recommendations.

Now that they can taste power again, however, the victors seem to be having second thoughts. Instead of attempting wholesale committee reform in the first weeks of Congress, Democratic leaders may punt the idea toward oblivion in some sort of a study panel, according to The Washington Post. Nothing could be more disappointing to voters.

The Sept. 11 commission report was not sacred writ. And Democrats still vow to enact major commission recommendations to bolster port security and screen airport cargo. But the lawmakers cannot ignore the fact that they were found to be an organic part of the problem. Surely, the leaders of the new Congress know they will be risking the nation’s security, far more than their credibility, if they retreat from the vow to do a stronger job of oversight.

Here is a good post about yesterday’s flap regarding Senator-elect Bob Corker and the Republican Main Street Partnership.

H/T Andy Roth