The Principled Senator from Arizona

John McCain has had a long, distinguished career in government service, and while I disagree with the vast majority of his political views, I believe he has represented the interests of the Republican Party well in the Senate.  But like most politicians, he does tend to make a fool out of himself from time to time.   The frequency hit its peak when he was fighting for the presidency, but is now once again on the upswing, likely a result of his struggle to be crowned the new leader of the GOP.

Yesterday was one of those foolish days for Senator McCain.

In Senate hearings yesterday, McCain threatened his opposition to President Obama's nominee for Deputy Secretary of the Interior, David Hayes.  What reason could the Senator have for his "principled opposition?"  In 2006, David Hayes wrote an article that McCain found "deeply offensive" towards Ronald Reagan.

From the "controversial" article:

The conservative political agenda in the West is grounded in hoary stereotypes about the region and its people...Out of this conservative world view emerges the stereotypical Western man (and it is unquestionably a “he”)—a rugged, gun-toting individualist who fiercely guards every man’s right to drill, mine, log, or do whatever he damn well pleases on the land; he hates government, taxes, regulations, environmentalists, and anyone or anything else that tries to tell him what to do (provided, of course, that federal subsidies for mining, logging, grazing, and the like continue unabated).

Like Ronald Reagan before him, President Bush has embraced the Western stereotype to the point of adopting some of itsaffectations—the boots, brush-clearing, and get-the-government-off-our-backs bravado.

It was this passage that caused McCain to umbrage, and question "You had to throw Reagan in there?"  Strangely, McCain expressed no discomfort about Hayes' comments about Bush.  McCain's final opinion on the matter: 

I will be considering seriously whether I can support your nomination or not.

I find it exceptionally odd that Senator McCain believes a prerequisite for this office is adoration of Reagan, while Bush-mocking is entirely okay.

Specter (D - PA)?

Great article over at WhoRunsGov.com today about Arlen Specter, the Employee Free Choice Act, and his chances at getting re-elected next year.

Back in 2004, Specter was barely able to hold onto the GOP nomination for the Senate seat he's held since 1981, even with the help of W., who was then still popular at least among Republicans.  With him being one of three Republicans to break the party line and vote for cloture for the stimulus bill, he hasn't won any additional supporters on that side of the aisle.  The same conservative opponent Specter was barely able to beat in the 2004 primary is challenging him once again in 2010.  Although Specter would be a strong favorite in the general election, surviving the Republican primary seems exceptionally unlikely.

But there may be hope for Senator Specter...According to Greg Sargent, both AFL-CIO and SEIU union leaders have strongly suggested that if Specter votes for the Employee Free Choice Act, he will receive their union's official endorsement.  EFCA makes it easier for employees to unionize and is vehemently opposed by the GOP, and any support Specter provides would certainly be the final nail in the coffin of his Republican career.  The possibility of support from labor in 2010 make re-election look likely, but not within the Republican Party.  Even less so as Michael Steele has been flipping back and forth as to whether or not the RNC will withhold financial support from him for his support of the stimulus package.

If Specter is hoping to stay in the Senate beyond next year, he had better decide quickly. If he decides to try to get the GOP nomination and fails, Pennsylvania law forbids him from running in the general election as an Independent or a Democrat.

While it seems exceptionally unlikely and he may simply retire, it seems his best option is to switch to the Democratic Party!  The Republican talking heads love to bash him now, but if he comes over to the Democratic side, perhaps they will fall in love with him just as they have with Lieberman.  

Republicans Hate Pork! Unless it's their own.

Stop wasteful spending!  Unless it's Republican wasteful spending!  From McClatchy:

Republicans are expected to deliver a daylong rant Wednesday against Democratic spending legislation, yet the bill is loaded with thousands of pet projects that Republican lawmakers inserted.

Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, included $142,500 for emergency repairs to the Sam Rayburn Library and Museum in Austin, Texas. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., joined state colleagues to include $1.425 million for Nevada "statewide bus facilities." The top two Republicans on Congress' money committees also inserted local projects.

FOX News Cuts & Pastes from Republican Memos...

MediaMatters caught FOX lifting their stories directly from the Senate Republicans, typos included...FOX aired a list of facts and figures exploring the history of the stimulus package this morning and by pure coincidence, I'm sure, ALL of those same facts and figures appeared in the Senate Republican memo!  

I know!  What a weird coincidence!

But wait, it gets weirder!  There was a typo in the Republican memo saying that an article from the Wall Street Journal was published on December 19th, 2009.  Somehow, that exact same typo made it into the FOX on-screen graphics!

What a world we live in, eh?

New Stimulus Provides Fewer Jobs! Yay!

If there's one thing I think a stimulus plan should definitely NOT do, it's create jobs.  That would just be terrible.  Thanks to the "centrists" in the Senate, Paul Krugman thinks this bill will leave about 600,000 fewer people without jobs.

Speaking of Krugman, loved his performance on Morning Joe the other day...

Joe Scarborough: ...George Bush over the past eight years had the most disastrous spending policy.  They decided to cut taxes, they decided to increase the deficit.  They decided to increase entitlement spending while they were fighting two wars.  They made no tough decisions whatsoever.  You can't say that that's the traditional conservative approach to economics.  It was a disaster and I think we can all agree with that, can we not?

Paul Krugman:  You've got some mythical image of what a modern conservative is.  Reagan increased spending while cutting taxes.  Bush increased spending while cutting taxes.  Who is your ideal here?

Norm Coleman cuts a new ad?!

Hoping that the campaign ads were over for a couple years? Well, not in Minnesota.  In spite of the fact that the election is over and no one will be able to cast any more votes, the Minnesota Republican Party has cut another anti-Franken ad.  Even more exciting is the fact that it attacks Franken's ethics, comparing his tax problems to several of Obama's cabinet nominations:

Why is that exciting?!  Perhaps the funniest reason is that if Coleman were to be declared the victor in this Senate race, he would certainly face a Senate Ethics investigation for not paying the utility bill of his apartment, for getting sweetheart rent deals, for not reporting $75,000 in gifts, and of course, the infamous suits:

Most importantly, Al Franken's tax problems have been remedied.  He's filed appropriately in the other states where he earned money, and because he originally only paid taxes in states that he resided in, he overpaid those two states significantly.  Odd that the GOP is attacking a mistake that has been remedied while their candidate refuses to even answer questions about his problems, let alone resolve them.

Stimulate Without the Stimulation, Please.

While her jokes are more often miss than they are hit, I believe that Rachel Maddow is likely the most informed political pundit on television.  Whether you agree or disagree with her conclusions, Rachel provides solid data and examples explaining her position.  Her response to the debate in the Senate tonight over Obama's stimulus package is no exception.  While it runs a bit long at 8 minutes, it's definitely worth the time:

Rachel does a wonderful job of illustrating the cost/benefit analysis of something like infrastructure spending compared to the Republican idea of tax rebates.  While rebates are barely stimulative at all (at roughly $1.02 put back into the economy for every $1 the government spends), infrastructure spending yields $1.59 for every  buck the government throws at it.  That is precisely what we are trying to accomplish with this package.  To STIMULATE the economy.

The Republicans, however, are being entirely foolish.  

Even though food stamps are the single most effective way the federal government can stimulate the economy, they pouted and threw tantrums until it was removed.  

Even though there is a mountain of evidence suggesting that the impact of tax cuts on stimulating the economy is negligible, Republicans were able to get a whopping 42% of the bill to be dedicated to them.  While Karl Rove claims no Republicans wanted nothing but tax cuts, 36 of the 41 Senate Republicans voted for just that.

Republicans are putting their party loyalty over their desire to actually address the problems facing America.  

Therefore, they are boneheads.