Redstate

my keyboard.  Shadegg is a wonderful choice.  He has experience and is a certifiable conservative.

As a resident of Arizona my hope is that when McCain goes away his replacement will be Shadegg.

"Shadegg is a past leader of the Republican Study Committee"

The RSC is the only group on capitol hill from either party that is serious about pork politics and overspending.  We need that leadership.  We need it now.

The House operates more like a union shop than a meritocracy. That's not going to change anytime soon.

With Blunt, we get DeLay running things from behind the scenes.  I have yet to hear a compelling reason why this isn't a good thing, other than unfounded fears that if we don't do a total 180, voters will kick us out of Congress for being "corrupt."

Under Delay, the House Republicans haven't been all that conservative.

The Delay House has been good about getting a majority in their votes.  But that majority has expanded spending, passed out pork in every major spending bill, created the largest increase in federal entitlements since Carter, and claimed that there was "an ongoing victory" in the fight to cut spending.  That's plenty of reason to want new leadership.

I'm looking for Pence, Shadegg, or any other actual conservative who has stood up against the pork-barreling and Borrow-And-Spend climate in Washington.

And how much is Delay. I bet the administration is almost all of it.

When Delay gets to twistin' arms and makin' deals it is to get adminsitration priorities passed. It just happens that alot of those priorities are really bad. We do want a majority leader to do whatever he has to to get the votes for administration priorities... the real problem is what the administration decides to do with that power.

Some administration folks really need to be gone. I would put Card and Rove on that list for starters. Maybe they'll still get a chance to cut Rove loose... Card should've got the axe after the HM debacle.

Why Rove?  I've got no beef with him.  He seems to be a good strategist, which is his job.

I would like to see a Majority Leader who would stand up to the administration if they push more spending, more pork (which is not really an admin problem), and more entitlement enlargement.

Congressmen are elected officials.  They can't blame the admin for their own follies.

That is enough reason right there to give him his walking papers. It's hard to say whose fingerprints are on every admin proposal but I think his are on a few of them. Immigration, signing CFR, Medicare drug plan, etc. These were positions that had a lot of political motivation and calculation behind them.

If you think the Administration has been dictating policy to the House, then Delay has to go.

The Congress is a separate Constitutional body.  It is not a rubber-stamp for the President's policy initiatives.  So while some partisan cooperation is great, there's no duty to pass every bill the President asks for.

If Delay has been guiding the House away from the spirit of '94 and toward the 'compassionate conservatism' of the President, then that's his fault, and I'll be glad when he's no longer in power in the House.

at PENCE, When you are a conservative who runs for office you have to grow a pair, and you have to provide some leadership. He had a good chance of winning and he abandons his cause and whimps out.

  We have had way too much of this.

Re: We do want a majority leader to do whatever he has to to get the votes for administration priorities

Why? Seems to me that if the administration wants something really dumb, it would be a good idea for the Congressional wing of the GOP to say No. Or at least to make only a half-hearted effort at the proposal and then let it quietly die.

I think Pence will ultimately support him.  Even Pence cannot say he refuses earmarks for his district (although he did bravely refuse them this term).  Boehner has also voted against the last highway bill.  He is instrumental in curbing farm subsidies.  His ACU ratings have been just above Blunts.  I think the only place you have an argument is with NCLB.  That being said...I also know he is strong supporter of vouchers (publicly).

I highly suggest taking a look at Boehner's record and stances before dismissing him as more of the same.  

Check out George Will and the WSJ this morning.    

www.elliswyattstorch.blogspot.com

Do we, as the conservative base, have the fortitute to VOTE THESE CLOWNS OUT OF OFFICE and get some REAL (Reaganesqe) REPUBLICANS in there? So long as we continue to support the incumbents who call themselves Republicans (and then vote like Democrats) we'll never make any progress on issues we care about, like:

Wasteful Government Spending (P*O*R*K)

Illegal Immigration

Terrorism (at least we're making some progress there - if we can keep the Patriot Act alive)

Free Speech

Property Rights

etc....

Pence could have been Majority Leader if he wanted.All he would of had to do is make a deal with a few moderates and personal power would have been his.Instead of compromising to big government, Pence held his ground and now the moderates(Boehner,Blunt) will have to MAKE A DEAL WiTH HIM(pence),on the side of conservatism.Pence once again put the interests of the conservative movement above his own.NOW we(conservatives) have the leverage.Expect the next year to be great on the side of conservatism.BUDGET REFORM is first up,no more increased discretionary spending above the rate of inflation.PENCE IS BEST LEFT IN THE RSC....FOR NOW

I was very disappointed to see Mike Pence drop out of contention for the speaker position. I would also be disappointed if Blunt is appointed by his fellow GOP Congressman to this position. If John Boehner was elected it would be better than Blount but still I do not believe he has the "persona" to change the culture of "pork" spending.

All that being said, the above article written by Blanton expressed my sentiments exactly. Conservatives have a real chance to change the leadership but in all likelihood the status quo will reign and Blunt will be appointed majority leader.

Is the leader of the GOP and is was elected in a nationwide election... so his priorities do (and should) carry a lot of weight. They shouldn't be ignored. Sure, in practice some of GWs initiatives are pretty bad... but no matter who is in the slot, we are not going to have a majority leader that ignores the POTUS and doesn't try to give him what he asks for.

Re: POTUS Is the leader of the GOP and is was elected in a nationwide election

I'm afraid you have our system of government confused with that of England. We are not a parliamentary democracy. Under our system of government the president is the head of the executive branch of government only. He does not head the legislature, and indeed the Founders intended for there to be a certain amount of rivalry and conflict between the President and Congress. And since we can't get rid of a president by a no-confidence vote the way the Brits can turn out a prime minister, suggesting that the Congress must necessarily rubber-stamp every whim a president has is a recipe for turning Congress into a body as effectless as the old Supreme Soviet, or the House of Lords.

I am well aware how our system of government works.

There is much Presidential input into the legislative process. He doesn't create legislation and budget proposals because he has a lot of spare time on his hands and nothing better to do. The congress still has a right to vote however they want on anything they want, but it would be incredibly stupid for us as a party to neuter the President's and render him unable to complete any of his priorities. That is the other party's job... and they don't need our help.

So no, I am not interested in a leadership that fights the President at every turn. And we are never going to see that anyway, so it is a moot point.

I couldn't agree more on having Congressman Shadegg in a leadership position in the House.  He is a man that has stuck by his convictions from start to finish, never wavering.  He would be a true conservative leader for Republicans and one that we can be very proud to call our own here in Arizona.

Re: but it would be incredibly stupid for us as a party to neuter the President's and render him unable to complete any of his priorities.

I certainly did not say the Congress should prevent the President from achieving any and all of his priorities. However if the President goes off the rails and starts proposing liberal spending programs (and yes, he has done so!) it would be nice if the Congress would dump them right into the legislative trash can. And likewise if Congress wants to spend like proverbial drunken sailors it would be nice if the President remembered where he left his veto pen. This is how the system is supposed to work! Neither branch of the government is supposed to be a rubber stamp for the other.

They both like to spend like drunken sailors. No new majority leader is going to change that. I would say the character of the administration proposals isn't any worse than the character of the stuff congress comes up with on their own. It's all bad.

Sure, I would like to see individual congressmen stand up and vote against the President's proposal if it is bad, but it's not the majority leader's job to stand in the way. He is a cheerleader for the official party position, which is always the same as the WH position when we control it.