Where have all the appropriators gone?
By Soren Dayton Posted in 2008 | Appropriations Committee | Mitt Romney — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Former Democratic Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn famously said, "Son, Republicans aren't the enemy. The Senate is the enemy." For conservatives interested in small government and familiar with Congress, there might be a different formulation: "Son, Democrats aren't the enemy. Appropriators are the enemy." Along similar lines, Americans' for Prosperity Phil Kerpen says, "It is often said, and largely true, that Washington has three political parties — the Democrats, the Republicans, and the Appropriators." Today, Bob Novak calls the appropriators (and leadership) the "Business as usual GOP."
Given that this is a "change election," it strikes me as fair to ask who the appropriators support. The answer is clear: Mitt Romney.
Read on.
Of his 37 Congressional endorsements (the list is not complete. It misses Rep. John Carter (R-TX), an appropriator ), 14 of them are appropriators, including, yesterday, Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS), the Senate Republican Appropriator-in-Chief. Someone recently off the list is former Speaker Dennis Hastert, also no inspiring hero of conservatives interested in small government.
John McCain has 4 out of 33 congressional endorsements. That number would go to 5 if Jeff Flake, a small government hero, is appointed to appropriations. But, as Novak points out, don't count on it. And Rudy Giuliani has 4 out of 25.
Here's my question. If Mitt Romney is the "change" candidate who will fix Washington, what did he tell the business as usual crowd to make them so happy with him?
This is more about the appropriators hatred for McCain than their love of Mitt. McCain, to his credit, has been sticking it to the appropriators for years and they are looking for someone else who is viable in the election.
But don't forget that Mitt has the backing of some major porkbusters as well, including DeMint.
But to Dvash's point, I too would very much like to see Mitt sign such a pledge. Who cares if he loses the support of a few appropriators.
Romney was the first to address earmarks in the omnibus, I believe:
http://www.mittromney.com/News/Press-Releases/Earmarks_Omnibus
McCain's been fighting earmarks since before Romney was pro-choice.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
He's been fighting a pretty bad fight then, since he's been unsuccessful in ever eliminating an earmark.
Could it just be possible that Romney has so many endorsements because he is perceived as the only legitimate tax cutter running, whereas McCain was the only Republican in 2001 (if we ignore Lincoln Chafee) who voted against the Bush tax cuts.
Like our party's mascot, perhaps these endorsers have long memories.
But I can't tell from Mitt's statement if he is counting on the line-item veto. If so, that's setting up a false condition for his being able to thwart earmarks.
I would like to see him commit to using an executive order to prohibit federal agencies from honoring earmarks. He could do that his first day in office.
I am all for taking out wasteful earmarks, but it would seem silly for Romney to say he'd sign an executive order to eliminate earmarks when not a single one has been requested yet for the upcoming year.
He says he'd use every available method to eliminate earmarks, which would include an executive order. Naturally he'd talk about line item veto since as Governor, he had it and used it.
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/007174.html
Val Prieta wonders if the 'small government' Flake is a hero for is Castro in Cuba.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
On spending, pork, earmarks, and corruption, Sens. Coburn and McCain have been mavericks. They have poked the eyes of the Business-As-Usual crowd earning enemies like Tom Delay (Mr. There is No Spending Left to Cut").
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
This is one of more absurd posts that I've ever read. Jeff Flake and John Shadegg have only endorsed Romney because of the home state connection - they are basically forced too. Although Flake is openly for amnesty, so he would probably be pro-McCain on immigration.
Romney has the support of Jim DeMint, probably the most ferocious anti-earmark crusader, (along with Tom Coburn, who has endorsed McCain). I'm not sure what endorsements have to do with anything. Do you think John McCain would turn down the support of Thad Cochran? Of course not.
This is an utterly pointless post, and is just the latest example of this writer's bizarre hatred of Mitt Romney. It'd be nice if someone tried to be objective.
Would you like some cheese with that whine? Give me a break. Of course Mitt wouldn't sign any pledge, then he might have to hold the same position for more than one election cycle.
Assuming he told them anything at all, of course.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I know the answer: He told them whatever they wanted him to tell them, just like he does with every other American!! Too easy Soren.
Alright I'll tell the truth-Mitt has their votes because he is personally paying the appropriators from the his secret LDS account that he keeps overseas in his illegal immigrant landscapers name. Let's all ignore his endorsement by Sen Demint, the main porkbuster in the Senate, because after all Mitt doesn't really care about conservatives-he's going to be happy to lose re election just so he can keep running the partial birth abortion clinic he's going to set up in the Oval Office.
If you ever find that you only have an hour to live,spend it with a liberal and it will seem like a year."-Rush Limbaugh
Romney has the most congressional endorsements. Congress is full of appropriators. Therefore he has the most appropriator endorsements. QED.
I'm not fond of our appropriators, but I don't think we need to treat them with McCarthyism:
"Are you now or have you ever associated with someone who earmarked?"
"I can say - not as a patriotic bromide...that the United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and...the only moral country in the history of the world. - Ayn Rand
Have to say I didn't see that one coming.
and I would like to see Mitt given an opportunity to sign a pledge to issue an executive order prohibiting the honoring or earmarks. If Mitt were to hesitate at all on that, I would withdraw my current reluctant support for him.
Is there anyone on this site in the Romney campaign who can get an answer on this?