Redstate

(A conference call with Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina.)

By Mark Kilmer Posted in Congress — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Senate today approved a measure, "A bill to provide greater transparency in the legislative process," 83-14. It was a vote to pass the House version of the bill, one with provisions to shed light on pork spending stripped from it; in fact, the measure makes it easier. But the Dems will trumpet that they kept their promise, most ethical Congress in history, etc. Really, it was just another political stunt.

The reformers amongst the Republicans had tried to block cloture on the measure, sponsored by Harry Reid of Nevada, but that received only 17 votes.

This afternoon, Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) held a conference call to discuss his efforts to stop this farce and pass a real bill. (Senator Coburn of Oklahoma was in on the call briefly, but he left to vote on something or other.) DeMint was enthused that his move to block cloture received seventeen votes. It is the promise of a start.

Read More…

DeMint told us that the ethics bill had been "gutted, and that some Republicans supported it. Yeah, Mitch voted with the Dems for the farce, but DeMint pointed out that such as Senators Lott and Ensign were with the reformers, as was Bob Bennett of Utah. (For the record, the usual suspects – Collins, Hagel, Lugar, Snowe, Specter, Stevens, and Warner – voted with the Democrats. And, yes, I've expanded the list of "usual suspects" by a few names.)

Someone asked where do they go from here? DeMint had already said that they planned to "continue to fight that fight." I think it was Tom Coburn who said that battles like this are not won in Washington; the American public has to be told about and disgusted by what is going on: "This is pure deception. It's not pretence; it's deception."

Someone asked the Senators about Ted Stevens, why the Republican Senators hadn't yet lynched him. DeMint pointed out that he hasn't been charged with anything, and Coburn stipulated that Stevens was entitled to the presumption of innocence.

Coincidentally, DeMint was asked if he felt "thrown under a bus" by the leadership on this ethics thing. Well, Mitch had offered him encouragement and then supported the Reid-sponsored House version, but DeMint hinted that if one wants to reform, he must be prepared for such things.

One questioner, whose name I will not disclose, blamed the federal government for the bridge collapse in Minnesota, suggesting that money sent in earmarks to new projects could be better spent for maintenance. I expected a Brownie voodoo doll, but I couldn't see one over the telephone.

It's a novel approach, how best to spend earmark money: on new projects or a maintaining old ones. Like someone pointed out, the Framers of our Constitution considered that our lawmakers would be too busy with other endeavors to sit around and plot which chunk of money goes to what district for which project.

Senator DeMint talked about how hard it was to reform earmarks; remember, members have to vote for earmarks lest they risk offending the Chairman who will take away their earmarks.

"It's going to be a battle." Oh, indeed. If I wore a cap, it would be off to Senators DeMint and Coburn, and Senators Wayne Allard of Colorado, Bob Bennett of Utah, Sam Brownback of Kansas, Jim Bunning of Kentucky, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Thad Cochran and Trent Lott of Mississippi, John Cornyn of Texas, Larry Craig and Mike Crapo of Idaho, John Ensign of Nevada, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and John Kyl and John McCain of Arizona. (I think that is the honor roll of those who voted no on cloture. The rest, at least on this important issue, behaved like "Democrats Lite."

Senator DeMint promises that the reformers will fight on.