The GOP Commandments

Released yesterday by the GOP, the ten commandments of Republican purity:

According to the resolution, any Republican candidate who broke with the party on three or more of these issues– in votes cast, public statements made or answering a questionnaire – would be penalized by being denied party funds or the party endorsement.

Wonderful:

(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;

(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;

(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;

(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;

(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;

(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;

(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;

(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;

(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and

(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

This initially struck me as odd.  These seem to be nothing more than  a tactical, knee-jerk reaction to the politics of the moment, rather than a long-strategy for electoral relevance, and for future majorities.

I have a problem with the GOP issuing a list of directives that its candidates must follow—and that 8 of 10 is the minimum they must follow, lest they get no financial support from the party apparatus.  It all seems so clinical.  And the Steele-led RNC is an inept and brain-dead operation right now—I can’t imagine them making any headway with this.

Specifically, I have issues with a few of the 10—namely the DOMA requirement.  It’s bad enough that conservatives need the Republican party as a vehicle to elect true conservatives into office.  Do we really need more of the Bush-era “compassionate” conservatism, where the federal government somehow can dictate conservative ideals on the population?  Why can’t issues like gay-marriage be left to the states where it belongs?  I don’t think this is a road the Republican party wants to follow after the last eight six years.

Also, number six—-We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges ??

Crikey!  Talk about painting yourself into a corner.  I understand the end-game here, but this needs to be clarified a bit more.  Actually, a LOT more.  

It makes it sound like that the party’s policy decisions in Af-Pak and Iraq are solely at the behest of the military.  No room for debate?  Not sure I’d want to sign up for that without all the facts, especially with regards to Afghanistan.   And wasn’t there already a surge in Iraq? 

Again, this all appears to be strictly off the cuff rather than anything well thought out.

WSJ: Paul Ryan is dreamy

The WSJ prostrates itself before the faux conservative temple of Paul Ryan.  The paper opens its piece entitled “Wisconsin Lawmaker Emerges as GOP Seeks New Voices” as follows:

WASHINGTON — As Republicans search for messengers to reintroduce the beleaguered party to disaffected voters, they could do worse than Rep. Paul Ryan.

The 39-year-old from Wisconsin, who is the top Republican on the House Budget Committee, cruised to re-election last year in a district that voted for Barack Obama for president. The 6-foot-2, blue-eyed lawmaker was recently named one of the “50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill” by the Hill newspaper, and his shock of black hair stands out in Congress’s sea of gray

The piece goes on along the usual narrative of younger, fresher voices of the party, new blood, etc., and then this sticks out:

As Republicans search for a path to power, Mr. Ryan says the GOP must re-establish itself as the party of economic common sense, rather than a group seen as overly focused on rewarding its supporters and contributors.

I’ve been reading the Journal for years, and it’s reporting is still insightful and credible.  But let’s be clear—this was a fluff piece on Paul Ryan.  It mentions a Wisconsin Democratic party leader refuting the point of the piece, that Ryan represents a fresh face of conservatism.  But that’s it.  Nowhere in the article does it mention that Paul Ryan voted for the original TARP, the use of TARP funds to bail out the auto industry and the 90% tax on AIG bonuses.

 If it was trying to publish a fair and credible debate on the merits of Paul Ryan as a conservative, then the Journal does its readers a disservice by failing to note any of these votes.  Anyone voting for any of these measures is not voting for “economic common sense”, let alone committing to tenets of fiscal conservatism.

What a great idea

It’s no big surprise that the House GOP are having a hard time dealing with Barney Frank when it comes to proposing legislation and bringing them to debate and votes.  The House Financial Services ranking minority member Spencer Bachus, hasn’t exactly been a bastion of leadership over the past 12 months anyway.  But this is interesting and amusing at the same time:

Bachus said he enlisted his deputy ranking member, Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), to organize weekly meetings with the subcommittee’s top minority members to “make sure that we have a message as to what we’re for and what we’re against and that we’re smart and have a coordinated effort to what we bring to the hearings.”

Neugebauer said, “We all recognize, particularly [with] what happened in the markets in the fall and in the spring right now, that the Financial Services Committee is in the eye of the hurricane, and I think it’s important that we step up.”

It might be to late to stop the liberal assault on limited government going on in the halls of Congress under Democrat leadership right now.  Nevertheless, this might be an inkling of a sign that congressional Republicans might be making a decent attempt to get their act together.  A coherent message articulated by a unified party?  It’s a miracle it took them this long to realize this.  Let’s just hope the  message doesn’t include calling Democrats socialists but rather a debate on the issues.

Specter Remains a Democrat

Arlen Specter last month:

“I’m staying a Republican because I think I have a more important role to play there,” he said. “I think the United States very desperately needs a two-party system. … And I’m afraid that we’re becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party.”

Michael Steele issues a statement, with some welcome chutzpah for a change (via Crittenden/via Gateway Pundit):

Some in the Republican Party are happy about this. I am not. Let’s be honest-Senator Specter didn’t leave the GOP based on principles of any kind. He left to further his personal political interests because he knew that he was going to lose a Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record. Republicans look forward to beating Sen. Specter in 2010, assuming the Democrats don’t do it first.

Why the backtracking?  Political reality.  But, as Steele alludes to, expect the Democrats to be flush with big labor money to primary a real liberal against Specter in the 2010, which essentially leaves a true liberal vs a true conservative in the 2010 general election.  But for now, with liberal degenerate Franken’s seating as senator just about inevitable, the Democrats will have their filibuster-proof, magic number of 60 in the Senate.  Which means….no more blaming the GOP for anything.  One could argue, that with Specter switching sides, the Democrats officially own and take tutelage over the government, the economy, etc.  No more excuses.  But then again, these are Democrats—whining is their specialty.  As the economy begins its descent into Obama collectivism, expect a lot of whining to come down the pike.   

And oh yeah, great job by the NRSC for backing Specter in 2010.  As if we needed more proof that the establishment GOP is clueless.

(UPDATE)

Via AmSpec’s blog, Specter wasn’t too happy when Jim Jeffords switched to an Independent back in 2001.

Tea Party (UPDATE)

Just a note about these Tea Party protests taking place today.  Apparently, Paul Ryan feels a bit left out of today’s taxpayer protests and wants in at the Tea Parties.  Feeling a bit irrelevant and left out perhaps?  He deserves it.  These are the type of “conservatives” that real conservatives should steer clear of right now.

UPDATE:  It’s not just about Democrats (via):

In Madison, Wisconsin, GOP Rep. Paul Ryan – hyped as a conservative “rockstar” – was well-received. But I heard from staunch fiscal conservative constituents who refused to be silent about Ryan’s complicity. He gave one of the most hysterical speeches in the rush to pass TARP last fall; voted for the auto bailout; and voted with the Barney Frank/Nancy Pelosi AIG bonus-bashing stampede. Milwaukee blogger Nick Schweitzer wrote: “He ought to be apologizing for his previous votes, not pretending he was being responsible the entire time, but I don’t see one bit of regret for what he did previously. And I’ll be damned if I’m going to let him get away with it.”

Other Tea Party participants pointed out that Newt Gingrich, who jumped aboard the bandwagon, flip-flopped on TARP in the space of a week last September and made common cause with Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi in ads calling for immediate action on “climate change.”

That Paul Ryan felt the need to show his face at the Tea Parties is a disgrace.  Why is it such a disgrace?  See my previous reasons here, here, here and here. 

The fact that he’s still welcome as a “rising star” of conservatism only alludes to the dearth of real conservative leaders in the Republican party right now.  There is a significant rot in the GOP establishment right now and for that to be torn down, conservatives need to retake the party from the Beltway crowd.  The Tea Parties appear to have been a good start, but what’s important is what happens today, tomorrow, next month and in the next year or so, to build a true grassroots movement and for it to be sustainable.  We don’t need the Ryans and the Gingriches of the world to show up for a photo-op, and then stab the movement in the back when nobody’s looking.   

GOP Is In No Position To Take Advantage of Dodd’s Weakness

AIG bonuses and VIP loans from Countrywide are apparently weighing down on Senator Chris Dodd, on the eve of his run for re-election in 2010.  This, naturally has the GOP giggling over the prospects of being able to get a Republican elected to the Senate in next year’s midterms.  Not so fast.  Via Phillip Klein:

While Republicans are no doubt salivating at their oppourtunity here, they shouldn’t get too far ahead of themselves. If things continue to look this bad for Dodd, he’ll most likely be challenged in the Democratic primaries, perhaps by Ned Lamont, who of course won the 2006 Democratic primary against Joe Lieberman before Lieberman became an independent. And in an overwhelmingly Democratic state, a Democrat without Dodd’s baggage would have a good chance of holding the seat, especially because ads will Rebulicanize somebody like Simmons in a general election. 

Republicans are in no position to assume that they have the political strength and capital to take advantage of situations like this.  Politics has a lot to do with perception, and right now, the public’s perception of Republicans is not so great, in case anyone forgot.  Michael Steele hasn’t exactly fortified the party (a little over two months into his tenure at the RNC is still a short period of time, but he doesn’t inspire any confidence for the future).  Congressional Republicans are stumbling out of the gate so far in terms of giving the voters an alternative to rampant liberalism from the White House. 

As Klein alludes to, Dodd will most likely be primaried by a stronger Democrat who will most likely beat anyone the GOP puts out there.  It’s a matter of organization.  The Democrats have such a well-oiled machine at state party level all across the country (albeit, there are some cracks, there always will be) that this result is inevitable, barring any extraordinary events.  If the President’s popularity continues into next year, expect Democrats to retain that Senate seat. 

The RNC  shouldn’t ignore the regional politics at play either.  If Republicans are not already extinct in the Northeast, then they’re an endangered species.  Take Tuesday’s election to replace Kirsten Gillibrand in New York’s 20thCongressional District.  About a month ago, Republican Jim Tedisco was leading by about 12 points in local polls, with the lead beginning to shrink.   Democrats sprang into action, with ads and a plug by Obama, with  Democrat Scott Murphy pulling ahead down the stretch.  As of today, the election is too close to call, with absentee ballots expected to claim a winner.  For Republicans, it probably never should have been that close.  The fact that it is, pretty much confirms what I’d thought about the GOP in the region—that it’s been completely vanquished. 

In past election cycles, in past mid-terms, the GOP had the organization and the message to take advantage of political aberrations like the Dodd situation and New York’s 20-CD special election, and capitalize on them.  Unfortunately for Republicans and conservatives, the GOP has neither an organization nor a credible message.

(UPDATE)

As the vote-count settles, Tedisco has pulled ahead of Murphy by about 12 votes (via Ace).    Daniel Larison comments on the GOP’s “strategy”:

Honestly, I don’t understand the electoral strategy over the last couple of cycles. Instead of localizing all of the House races and focusing on the virtues of their own candidates, national Republicans have repeatedly, unsuccessfully tried to link everyone from Jim Webb to Heath Shuler to Travis Childers with liberal wine-and-cheesers from San Francisco and, of course, with Nancy Pelosi. This was never a credible line of attack, and in pretty much every case it backfired. I sometimes wonder whether these folks ever leave Washington and its vicinity, outside of which most people don’t know much about Pelosi if they know anything at all. Nonetheless, time and again they try to paint Blue Dog recruits as Pelosi’s lapdogs, as if this has any significance for people in the rest of the country.

[...]

One of the interesting things about this race, then, is the degree to which economic issues have completely overwhelmed the old politics of national security and terrorism on which the GOP relied since ‘02, and they have done so even in one of the more culturally conservative districts in that part of the country.

 Even if the Tedisco pulls this one out, the GOP still loses.  To be sure, a Tedisco victory is already being hailed by some as “good news” or a triumph.  But they would be mistaken, if only for the reasons that Larison points out in his post.  A not-so-strong showing by the GOP by any stretch, to be kind.

House GOP Soils Itself (UPDATE)

Last week at this time, the imbeciles in congress were falling all over themselves trying to voice their share of fake populist angst over the AIG bonus debacle.  Even the President, after learning of the bonuses which he effectively signed into law, took the bold and courageous step of flying off to LA, and voice his concern on the Jay Leno show.  Congress immediately hastily made an attempt to wipe themselves with the US Constitution, passing a confiscatory tax bill in the House, which would levy a 90% tax to recoup the bonuses.  After that initial dry-heave, the fever for banana-republicanism has apparently died down:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid vowed on Monday to push to recoup millions of dollars in executive bonuses at taxpayer-funded insurer American International Group, but the legislation appeared to be losing momentum in the Senate.

In fact, most of the bonus money has been returned, albeit under the veiled threats of current New York AG and gubenatorial-wannabe, Andrew Cuomo.

The good news for Republicans is that bonuses were allowed under a provision of the hastily-rushed-through-Congress stimulus bill back in February, where not a single House Republican voted “aye” and all but 3 Senate Republicans voted “nay”.  The embarrassingly frustrating wall-punching bad news is that about 85 House Republicans voted FOR the AIG bonus-tax bill last week.  These included Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan, two of the alleged future “leaders” of the GOP (see the roll call here). 

With leaders like this, the GOP might as well fold up the tent and sign on for a second Obama term, because that’s where this is headed.  There’s a reason why conservatives leave the establishment, beltway-entrenched Republican party, and its because of pathetic displays of rudderless and weak-willed actions like the vote AIG bonus bill.  

Republicans in Washington seem to forget that they are the minority party and that their party is in shambles, both politically and philosophically.  I’ve noted several times how Paul Ryan has a similar voting record to most Democrats in the House, for example, despite being touted in various media outlets as “rising star” of the party.  If that is the case, I want no part of the Republican party.  And Eric Cantor? A major misstep in voting for this bonus tax bill, as far as I’m concerned.  As House whip, he obviously didn’t feel the need to show a united front in this mess, as leader Boehner voted against the bill.  So much for unity.   And so much for differentiation.   One of the ways you sell your agenda to American voters is to explain—not with words, but with ACTION—how you’re party benefits them versus Democrats, you know, the differences between the two.  With this pathetic display of faux populist outrage, the Republican party failed to even that—again.

(UPDATE)

Glenn Thrush’s piece in Politico goes further on the Eric Cantor issue:

Cantor, of course, is a victim of his own success. This was the guy who took the back-slaps in mustering unanimous GOP opposition to the stimulus bill and anything that falls short of that performance is bound to raise questions about his effectiveness.

That’s why the unseemly rift among House Republicans over the AIG bonus tax — with Cantor voting “yes” and a grouchy Minority Leader John Boehner voting against — was widely viewed as a Cantor setback.

I’ve said it several times—the GOP rot runs deep—and this is evident on the AIG tax bill vote.  Split between populists (including members in tough re-election bids) and free-marketeers, the DC Republicans don’t even know what they stand for.  And even if they did, there doesn’t appear to be anyone who can lead them.

Tell Paul Ryan What You Really Think

Ed Morrissey speaks with the lover-of-government-bailouts this afternoon.  Tell him what you think about his hypocritical opposition to the stimulus bill, while selling out conservative ideals on using TARP money for auto bailouts and for supporting the original financial bailout plan to begin with.  

Paul Ryan has yet to make himself relevant again.    As a matter of fact, Democratic congressman Heath Shuler has a better record on bailout votes than Paul Ryan does.   The “rebuilding” road for the GOP is longer than I thought.

Republicans Are Wrong On Tom Daschle (UPDATE)

I’m getting tired of listening to Senate Republicans bitch about Tom Daschle’s tax issues.  Quite frankly, they’ve lost any credibility in bringing up this argument when they barely said a thing about Tim Geithner’s tax problems instead  and I’m tired of asking myself when the GOP will learn, that in order to effectively stand for something—you have to stand for something.  Letting Geithner pass with some under-the-breath mumblings about the insanity of not knowing that you’re supposed to pay taxes on ALL income, when you’re auditioning to be the head of the IRS, set a bad precedent.  What they should have done was focus more on Geithner’s participation (as president of the NY Federal Reserve Bank) in the TARP disaster, and his connections to Wall Street bankers (his chief of staff was a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs).  When more than one Democrat on the Finance committee expressed concerns, the Republicans should have been more forceful on the issue. 

Looks like they’re making the same mistake with Tom Daschle.  With the Republicans harping about Daschle’s tax problems, it casts them in a foolish light, less than two weeks after the Geithner episode.  What they should be focusing on is Daschle’s gluttonous health-care industry connections:

Another client paying for his policy advice was UnitedHealth, a giant insurance company with many issues pending before the Department of Health and Human Services. About a third of its $81 billion in revenue last year came from federally regulated sales of Medicare Advantage and Medicare supplement and prescription drug plans.

The company boasted in its annual report that “one in five Medicare recipients participates in a UnitedHealth Group Medicare program.” (Mr. Daschle has said he will recuse himself from matters involving former clients.)

Two of the clients Mr. Daschle disclosed involved Indian tribes: the Great Plains Indian Gaming Association, and the law firm Fredericks Peebles & Morgan, which represents Indian tribes in legal and government-relations matters involving gambling, health care and other issues.

Another was Perry Capital, a firm that specialized in handicapping the completion of mergers, many of which required federal approvals.

 And, via WaPo:

In recent months, Daschle has advocated for changes to the U.S. health system that are unpopular with sizable portions of the industry, including some physicians, drugmakers and insurance companies. Daschle has nonetheless prospered from a stream of income from the health sector, including $220,000 in speaking fees in the past two years, according to the ethics filing.

He also has been a trustee of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. For part of the $2 million he received from the law firm Alston & Bird over the past two years, Daschle also reported that he gave “policy advice” to United Health, a conglomerate that sells insurance, helps the government administer Medicaid, advises drug companies and physicians and dispenses prescriptions.

The 12 organizations or companies that paid Daschle speaking fees, ranging from $12,000 to $30,000, included the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy and America’s Health Insurance Plans, an influential trade group.

The Health Industry Distributors Association, a trade association representing medical product distributors, wrote to Daschle last week to express concerns about proposed Medicare changes and reminded him of the $14,000 speech he delivered at its conference last year.

“As you may recall from speaking to some of our members during HIDA’s 2008 Executive Conference in Miami, where you were the keynote speaker, a competitive bidding program will undermine access to quality care for millions of beneficiaries,” said the letter, which was posted on the group’s Web site.

This is the kind of nonsense the GOP should be focused on–like a friggin laser beam, from day one, right out of the gate.  Let me just say that this doesn’t make paying taxes (or not) is something to turn a blind eye towards, especially at the highest levels of government.  But like I said, the Republicans took that argument away from themselves with the Geithner nomination.  But they should be pounding away on the real problem with Daschle’s nomination.

Oh, and this just in…Tom Daschle says: “I’m Sorry” and of course, from the White House….”Nobody’s perfect” 

(H/T: Hot Air)

More from Gateway Pundit

(UPDATE)

Allahpundit with the news that Obama’s “Chief Performance Officer” doesn’t pay her taxes either.  Yet another issue the Republicans can’t say a word about.

Does anyone know how to pay taxes in the Obama White House?

Geez, people! Limbaugh is not a god! (UPDATE)

Last week, President Obama singled out Rush Limbaugh as the lightning rod for voter angst on the stimulus bill debate.  Congressional Republicans, the president said, needed to ignore Limbaugh if they wanted to get things done in Obama’sadministration.  Limbaugh quickly, and correctly, pointed out that a) Republicans have really not been listening to the ideals of fiscal conservatism that the talk show host believes in anyway, and b) Obama, the community organizing agitator that he inherently is, took a page from Saul Alinsky’s book (almost literally), that one needs to marginalize your opponent:  Pick the target, me, isolate it, polarize it. 

I agree with Limbaugh’s take on this.  Obama needs an enemy–during the campaign, it was George Bush and/or John McCain–now, it’s Limbaugh.  I understand Obama’s motivations, because that’s exactly what it was, but quite frankly, it’s extremely petty for the President of the USA to demonize a radio talk show host. 

But now, this story has taken a strange turn.  Yesterday, Congressman Phil Gingrey had issues with Limbaugh’s assertion that Obama fears him more than the GOP congressional leadership (which is not entirely surprising for what its worth):

“I think that our leadership, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, are taking the right approach,” Gingrey said. “I mean, it’s easy if you’re Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh or even sometimes Newt Gingrich to stand back and throw bricks. You don’t have to try to do what’s best for your people and your party. You know you’re just on these talk shows and you’re living well and plus you stir up a bit of controversy and gin the base and that sort of that thing. But when it comes to true leadership, not that these people couldn’t be or wouldn’t be good leaders, they’re not in that position of John Boehner or Mitch McConnell

OK.  Fair enough.  I don’t particulary agree with Gingrey’s statement, but he can say whatever the hell he wants.  Today (via Hot Air), I’m reading this:

Because of the high volume of phone calls and correspondence received by my office since the Politico article ran, I wanted to take a moment to speak directly to grassroots conservatives. Let me assure you, I am one of you. I believe I was sent to Washington to fight for and defend our traditional values of smaller government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, and the lives of the unborn. In my six years in Washington, I have led the charge on many of these issues. In fact, in 2008 The National Journal ranked me the #1 most conservative Member of the House of Representatives.

As long as I am in the Congress, I will continue to fight for and defend our sacred values. I have actively opposed every bailout, every rebate check, every so called “stimulus.” And on so many of these things, I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of what yesterday’s headline may have read, I never told Rush to back off. I regret and apologize for the fact that my comments have offended and upset my fellow conservatives-that was not my intent. I am also sorry to see that my comments in defense of our Republican Leadership read much harsher than they actually were intended, but I recognize it is my responsibility to clarify my own comments.

Congressman Gingrey–he’s A TALK SHOW HOST!!   This is pathetic.  Look, Rush Limbaugh is a true conservative, no doubt about it–and if the GOP had actually listened to what Limbaugh and other conservatives have been saying the past eight years, Republicans wouldn’t be in the position they are in right now.  That being said, he is not a god–yes, you ARE allowed to disagree with him.  Doesn’t make you any more or less of a conservative, and it certainly is no reason for you to genuflect and kiss his ring run back with your tail between your legs and apologize, just because you received angry phone calls from some ditto-heads.  Your weak posturing is just as petty and ludicrous as the President singling him out in the first place.

If Republicans can’t muster up the strength to speak against a talk show host, what chance do they have against Democrats and the President??

(UPDATE)

No surprise here.  Of course most of the mainstream media outlets and the nutroots in the blogosphere are picking up on this Limbaugh-is-evil-GOP-grand-poobah narrative and running with it–demagoguery at its liberal finest.  Via Hot Air, you can see clips of two seperate MSNBCprograms broadcast this evening alone, asking the same question regarding Limbaugh.  Of course Chris Matthews had to chime in–I’m sure bonehead and resident bitter liberal Olbermann had something to say as well (I don’t watch).  (Speaking of Olbermann, et al, over at MSNBC–how’s that “place for politics” faring for their 401(k) plans?) 

So much for post-partisan utopia–the left is still up to old tricks, the dogs that they are.  But the point here, is that they will milk this non-story for all it’s worth and it all would have went away if some friggin Republican congressman had a pair and didn’t feel the need to go groveling to El Rushbo for forgiveness.  Like I said above, it’s pathetic.   Can the Republicans do anything without shooting themselves in the foot?

(UPDATE II)

Great.  I was hoping this nonsense would end sooner rather than later.  Liberals are showing their true colors…once again.  They’ve now resorted to demonizing Rush Limbaugh even further.  The usual suspects are cueing up the hope and change by using Rush’s comments and targeting GOP senators:

Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won – Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada – with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

“Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,” says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant’s declaration that he hopes Obama “fails.”

“Every Republican voted with Limbaugh – and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail – but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That’s another matter. Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate, and the question is: Will our Senator”-here the ad is tailored by state to name George Voinovich in Ohio, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and John Ensign in Nevada-”side with Rush Limbaugh too?”

 ”Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice”—OK—That’s not exactly what happened, but if that’s the narrative that the Democrats figure will play in the sticks, then so be it. Republicans are no geniuses, but it looks like the Democrats are still up to their old tricks-demagoguery and scare tactics–dogs that they are.

The fact of the matter is that this “stimulus” bill is a pork-laden, Ted Stevens-John Murtha-earmark-voting-politician’s-wet dream. There’s no stimulus in it.   OK-so Obama throws the Republicans a bone by not including landscaping the Washington Mall as “stimulus”, and that’s considered “bi-partisan”?   When politicians tell us to go along with some proposal because “time is running out”-that’s the time to slow down and watch your wallets.

It’s too bad the Republicans didn’t realize they were suppposed to be fiscal conservatives for the past eight years.  But that shouldn’t stop the GOP from letting the same old Democrats from forcing a crap sandwich down our throats because our government suddenly has the urge ”to do something”…