Kick a Dog One Too Many Times and They Will Bite! "Blue Dog" Turn on Nancy Pelosi With a Vengence.

Less than a year ago, Nancy Pelosi still appeared to be untouchable as the top Democratic leader in the House.  Now she has found herself facing stiff opposition to her attempts to retain a position of power in the Democratic caucus.  Many of these "Blue Dogs" are still angry over being forced into unpopular votes over issues such as stimulus spending, healthcare reform, Cap and Trade, and the subsequent pounding their ranks took from voters over these votes.  "Blue Dog" Democrats are now doing all they can to either defeat her efforts to win Minority Leader or severly curtail her power should she win the position. This should be an interesting struggle that will be publicly played out over the next couple of months between Pelosi, her liberal supporters and the remaining "Blue Dogs."  Despite who wins this internal power struggle, it will leave the House Democratic Caucus divided, embittered, and in disarray for at least the next year or two.  The moral of the story here is that if you kick a dog one too many times and they will bite.  Apparently Nancy Pelosi hasn't learned that lesson, yet.

 

Here are just a sampling of articles talking about the stiff resistence that Nancy Pelosi is facing regarding her attempt to become the Minority Leader in the House:

Nancy Pelosi faces new resistance from Democrats  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44969.html

Top Blue Dog calls for Pelosi to quit  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44710.html

Anti-Pelosi lawmakers target DCCC    http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=3CBA06AE-D646-97A9-49791FB86BA5E0EA

Democrats pressing Pelosi to step aside  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111105582.html

Term limits for Pelosi's allies?  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/11/AR2010111107834.html

Democrat Not Supporting Pelosi For Minority Leader  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/08/democrat_not_supporting_pelosi_for_minority_leader.html

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Should the Elite of Republican Party Worry About Tea Party Victories in November as Much as the Democratic Elite? I Would Be.

This is just another example of voter frustration.  One party doesn’t listen to what the voters want and then demean them when they get upset.  And the other makes big claims and then, upon gaining power, loses its nerve when attacked by their opponents and their media lapdogs.  The common view is that these new faces may actually have the fire to do what the voters want regardless of the uproar from the elitists and their allies demanding to go down a road that this country was never intended to be on in the first place.  The liberal democratic leadership will be no longer in control and I suspect that many of the current Republican minority leadership will be in for a fight for control of the caucus and its agenda.  The established elite of both parties are not well liked by voters and may find themselves looking in from the cold come 2011 when the tea party victors arrive in D.C.  This is one of the most interesting election cycles since 1994 when the Republican Revolution and Contract for America propelled Republicans into control of the House of Representatives and cleared the way for more Republican victories to come.  Let’s just hope that this one doesn’t crash and burn like the 1994 group did.

Republican New School Flexes Clout Ahead of November

By Judson Berger

Published September 05, 2010 | FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/05/republican-new-school-flexes-clout-ahead-november/

Democrats aren't the only incumbents in trouble this November. With a crop of feisty, fresh-faced conservatives making noise in the House and a wave of Tea Party-backed newcomers determined to join them, senior Republicans could have a mutiny on their hands. 

The gap between the old and new schools of the GOP has become apparent as Election Day nears and polls show Republicans increasingly likely to pick up seats -- lots of seats. 

Election guru Larry Sabato, at the University of Virginia, released new projections showing a possible 47-seat GOP pickup in the House. Gallup's latest generic poll showed Republicans with a 10-point lead over Democrats in the fall, the largest gap in 68 years. 

The opportunity for a shakeup is ripe, but so is the opportunity for a makeover of the Republican Party itself. 

"The Republican caucuses in the Senate and the House will change," Democratic strategist Kiki McLean said. "A dangerous place for Republicans to be is establishment leadership." 

Establishment leadership likely were not thrilled to read about the contents this past week of the upcoming book being published by self-proclaimed "Young Guns" Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan and Kevin McCarthy -- three ambitious young members of Congress who've been heading up recruitment of other like-minded wunderkinds for the party. 

Their book, "Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative Leaders," is due out Sept. 14 -- a blueprint for America in the same vein as the policy book then-Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released in 2008, only with the opposite prescriptions. 

A summary in Politico.com based on an advance copy said House Republican Leader John Boehner is mentioned just three times in the book. House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence, R-Ind., is not mentioned at all, and other heavyweights like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell are similarly disregarded. 

A promotional video paid for by Cantor's political committee, set to inspiring music, looks like an introduction for the starting lineup of an Olympics dream team. The video bluntly depicts the authors as a different kind of dream team -- the future of the Republican Party. 

"There is a better way and a new team is ready to bring America back," the narrator says. 

Ryan, R-Wis., has attracted considerable attention in the Obama years as the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee. He's considered the policy wonk of the lot and played a big role laying out the economic argument against the health care overhaul at the height of that debate. He's also put out his own economic recovery blueprint, which he calls "A Roadmap for America's Future." 

Both he and McCarthy, R-Calif., were named in a recent list of the top five most powerful House Republicans compiled by GQ magazine. (The list intentionally excluded those in leadership positions.) The list also included Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the oversight committee Republican notorious for pursuing investigations into whatever bothers him -- and more importantly, bothers Democrats. 

The three "Young Guns" lawmakers lead a program of the same name through the Republican National Congressional Committee that identifies and supports select conservative candidates. 

Boehner and Cantor, the House GOP whip, denied friction between them in an interview with Fox News in July following a report that suggested Cantor posed an upstart challenge to Boehner's command. 

"This is nothing but high school gossip kind of reporting," Cantor said at the time. 

"We work very well together," Boehner said, acknowledging differences. 

Cantor also has said publicly that he would support Boehner for speaker if Republicans seize the majority. 

A GOP leadership aide said Boehner is not worried. 

The Republican leader has stayed consistently visible and relevant in recent weeks, driving debate during the congressional recess and challenging the Obama administration. 

When Vice President Biden delivered a speech touting the stimulus last month, Boehner used his address that day to call for President Obama to fire his economic team. Other Republicans have since echoed that demand. 

And before Obama delivered his Oval Office address Tuesday marking the end of combat operations in Iraq, Boehner delivered an Iraq war address before the American Legion convention in Milwaukee. He called for the president to avoid "arbitrary deadlines" for withdrawal in Afghanistan, something other Republicans repeated after Obama delivered his speech. 

But sitting lawmakers aren't the only ones who could be waiting in the wings. 

Some of the most prominent voices in the Republican Party this season are on the campaign trail, several on the Senate side -- Republican Senate nominee Marco Rubio in Florida, Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul in Kentucky and Republican Senate nominee Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania. 

Chip Saltsman, former campaign manager for 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, cited all three conservatives in describing the new face of the GOP. 

"We're seeing a different type of candidate," he said, noting that the resounding theme of their campaigns is fiscal conservatism, government restraint and job creation. "The country's just about had enough and I think that's why you're going to see a new face of Republican politics out there, and it's one of fiscal control." 

He said candidates like Paul and Rubio would "lead that charge" in November. 

Dozens of new Republicans could enter on the House side. McLean said the changing makeup could pose a serious problem for sitting Republican leaders. 

"The most endangered incumbent this year is really John Boehner, the House Republican leaders, because I think as you see a lot more of the Tea Party candidates come into their caucus, when they go to their leadership elections, they're not going to stand with establishment leadership," she said.

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

The Gathering Revolt Against Government Spending (from the Washington Examiner)

By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
May 23, 2010

This month three members of Congress have been beaten in their bids for re-election -- a Republican senator from Utah, a Democratic congressman from West Virginia and a Republican-turned-Democrat senator from Pennsylvania. Their records and their curricula vitae are different. But they all have one thing in common: They are members of an Appropriations Committee.Like most appropriators, they have based much of their careers on bringing money to their states and districts. There is an old saying on Capitol Hill that there are three parties -- Democrats, Republicans and appropriators. One reason that it has been hard to hold down government spending is that appropriators of both parties have an institutional and political interest in spending.

Their defeats are an indication that spending is not popular this year.

House Republican Letter to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Opposing the VAT Tax Option

The last thing America needs right now is more economic recovery killing taxation.  154 Republicans signed the letter sent to the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform opposing the VAT Tax. Kudos to these Republican members of the House who signed onto this letter.

"In a depressed economy, the number one priority of government should be to stimulate job growth.  With unemployment at nearly 10 percent, Americans cannot afford the burden of a new job killing tax.  But this is exactly what a VAT will do.  A VAT will increase the cost of goods and services for all Americans, including the lower and middle classes.  It will tax our manufacturers, sending even more jobs overseas.  And, it will decrease consumption, which will deepen the recession and suppress entrepreneurialism.  This is exactly what has happened in Europe where increased government spending and taxation has led to consistently high unemployment and suppressed economic activity."

“Disappointingly, some in Washington still believe that we must grow our government and the tax base to fix the debt crisis.  Recently the President’s own advisors have suggested that a VAT could be good for America.  Not even a 19 percent VAT was able to save Greece from a full-blown crisis.  We should not expect different results in America.”

http://www.house.gov/pitts/documents/PittsLettertoDebtCommission.pdf

Posted via email from Conservative Dynamics

Repealing the 17th Amendment or Imposing Term Limits?

Here in Idaho there has been a recent dustup regarding the 17th Amendment and comments made by two Republican candidates for Congress. (Idaho Press-Tribune article, editorial) This made me realize here was one area of the Constitution that I was not familiar with the original intent of.  So I did some research on the topic and decided that the time had come to seriously look at repealing the 17^th Amendment or, at the very least, constitutionally mandating term limits.

H4892/S3081 Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, & Prosecution Act. A Congressional Bill That Should Raise Concerns.

This legislation sets forth the parameters in which suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents can be held and interrogated. The bill allows for both U.S. Citizens and non-citizens to fall under the provisions of this legislation. Attacks or the purposeful and material support of such attacks that occur in either a domestic or foreign location against American interests, or American coalition partners, are covered by this bill. The definitions of a terrorist act, terrorist, and unprivileged enemy belligerent are also laid out.  The legislation is aimed at “high value” detainees but the definition of a “high value” detainee can be construed to cover a large swath of detainees both current and future.  Also included is a provision for the detention without trial or charges until the ceasing of hostilities in which the detainee was involved or materially supported. 

Thus this legislation relates to both domestic and foreign individuals.  If I am reading the bill right, a citizen who is accused of either committing or supporting an act of violence against the United States or its coalition partners can be held indefinitely without charges or trial.  Therefore, there is a potential conflict with current Constitutional protections and due process.  The section about purposefully and materially supporting such actions is not well spelled out and could be potentially construed to be a variety of activities, including political positions, statements, speeches, etc.  Despite this bill being pushed in increase the security of Americans, the provisions within it have the potential to be used to quash political opposition in the name of controlling/fighting domestic terrorists.  I know it sounds conspiratorial, but that possibility remains due to the legislation’s language.

Both House and Senate bills are virtually identical leaving little need for a conference committee, should they pass their respective chambers as is, so the bill has a better chance of sliding straight through with little in the way of resistance or speed bumps. This piece of legislation will be passed in the name of protecting America from terrorists. However, in my opinion, the justifiable actions to invoke the use of this legislation are a bit sketchy and left intentionally vague.  The big question is whether Obama would sign such a piece of legislation into law should it reach his desk.