The Club for Growth blog has a copy of the Senate pork request form. My favorite part is where it asks the requester to “be realistic” when listing the project priorities.

A realistic Senator? What next, we should believe in the Easter Bunny?

Human Events chose to release their list of Top 10 RINOs over the holidays, so it didn’t seem to get much attention. But it is important to keep track of these liberals in conservative clothing:

1. Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.)

2. Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
3. Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.)
4. Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
5. Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.)
6. Gov. George Pataki (N.Y.)
7. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (N.Y.)
8. Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.)
9. Rep. Michael Castle (Del.)
10. Rep. Jim Leach (Iowa)

HT to Club for Growth Blog

Technorati Tags: RINO.

The Club for Growth has decided to back Steve Laffey in his bid to unseat RINO Senator Lincoln Chafee. The Wall Street Journal wrote an opinion piece questioning Laffey’s commitment to smaller government
given that while mayor of Cranston, RI he raised taxes and said that they may have to be raised again in 2007.

Yesterday I said that Club for Growth president Pat Toomey had some explaining to do and today he did just that. I participated in a conference call with bloggers that Pat Toomey hosted, which lasted just under 30 minutes. Not having a voice recorder I had to type fast, but I believe I’ve accurately recorded some of the highlights below. [I'm using block quotes to indicate what Pat said, but almost everything is paraphrased — I'm not that good of a typist.]

The Club for Growth thinks that the blogging community can have an impressive impact on the political process.

The Laffey/Chafee contest will be the highest profile Republican race this cycle and will be a defining race for the Republican party. The party is in grave danger of losing its commitment to smaller government. The core issue is “what does the Republican party stand for, if anything.”

Lincoln Chafee is the most liberal Republican in the Senate. He cites concerns about the deficit but consistently votes for and cosponsors legislation that massively increases spending. He is tied to unions, is against education reform and is “bad on pro-growth and economic freedom issues.”

Steve Laffey, on the other hand, has signed the Americans for Tax Reform pledge. He not only supports the Bush tax cuts but supports making them permanent, including elimination of the Death Tax. He is for free trade and school choice.

Moreover, he shows a willingness to rock the boat and will shake up the establishment in Washington. Pat can see him standing on the senate floor with Tom Coburn to block wasteful spending.

Pat wrapped up his presentation by saying that in his senate race in 2005 bloggers played a key role in energizing the base across the country, raising consciousness and helping to raise funds.

Leon Wolf (from RedState, I assume?) questioned the wisdom of putting up a strong challenger in a liberal state like Rhode Island. “Can Laffey win in Rhode Island and won’t a Democrat be infinitely worse?”

Pat responded that the Club is absolutely convinced that Steve Laffey can win. They have done extensive polling and it must be remembered that Laffey won the mayor’s race in a city in which only 14% of the voters are registered as Republican.

In addition, they believe that Chafee will lose in the next general election, partly because of the NRSC’s attack ads on Laffey. Polling indicates that the negative campaigning on the part of the national Republican party against another Republican has backfired by making Republican voters less likely to support Chafee.

Another blogger (I didn’t catch the name) noted that if we lose, we will have a Democrat that votes the way that Chafee does and lose the times that Chafee votes with the caucus.

Pat responded that Chafee does not always vote with his party and, considering Chafee’s positions, the damage will be minimal. Moreover, taking down Chafee would send a vital message to the rest of the Republicans and will have a positive impact on the party and the voting as a whole.

Another asked Pat to respond to the Opinion Journal piece which said that Laffey had increased taxes.

Pat said that the Club didn’t cut candidates any slack in this area and had taken a close look at Laffey’s tax increases. They came to the conclusion that Laffey had come into office within weeks of city defaulting on its debts. The city couldn’t borrow any more money because it basically had no credit. The only other option was to go into receivership and allow the state to take over management of the city’s finances, at which time taxes would have been increased anyway. By stepping in, Laffey was able to prevent the city from going bankrupt, exposed union corruption and got spending under control.

Pat also noted that when Chafee was mayor, he raised taxes without his city being under threat of bankruptcy.

Pat concluded by urging supporters and bloggers to take a swing at the NRSC so that maybe they’ll spend time bashing Democrats instead of Republicans. He said that Club for Growth membership is free and members can donate to Steve Laffey through the Club. He also noted that only a candidate and a PAC has full First Amendment rights during a political race.

Overall, I’d say that Pat did a pretty good job.

On the subject of raising taxes, Laffey’s campaign site echoes what Pat said:

When he stepped into office in January, 2003 the City had the lowest bond rating in the country and was near bankruptcy. The City was borrowing at 8.25% , triple tax free for 3 month notes (a tax equivalent rate of 15%). The Market has taken note of Mayor Laffey’s actions to restore financial stability to the City, and in less than 6 months from the Mayor’s taking office, the rates were reduced to less than 1% – an 85% decrease saving taxpayers $1 million in borrowing costs. Even more notable was the bond rating which went from the lowest in America in January of 2003 back to investment grade in less than two years!

In the two and one-half years since taking office, Mayor Laffey has led Cranston forward by leaps and bounds. He had his proposed 2003/2004and 2005/2006 budgets approved unanimously and his 2004/2005 budget approved 8-1 by the City Council. Furthermore, he trimmed the City costs by several million dollars and was able to propose a tax freeze for the 05/06 fiscal year.

On the subject of campaign contributions to Democrats (the other of the concerns raised by the Opinion Journal column), my research indicates that this was minimal. A token $200 contribution to Jesse Jackson (link) could easily be explained as a business decision, as Laffey was president of the half-billion dollar financial services firm Morgan Keegan which is headquartered in the majority black city of Memphis. The 1994 $250 contribution to a Democrat senatorial candidate could be explained in much the same way

In 1995, Laffey gave $1,000 to presidential candidate Lamar Alexander and added another $500 in 1999 (link). In 2001, he gave another $1,000 to the Rhode Island Republican Party and supported president Bush in 2004 with yet another $1,000 (link). Heck, he even supported Chafee in 2002 with a $200 contribution.

In my lifetime I’ve seen how good organizations go bad after a period of time. Examples include unions, AARP and, to some extent, the NRA. So I am naturally suspicious of organizations like the Club for Growth.

However, after listening to Pat Toomey and taking a quick poke around the internet, I remain a staunch supporter of the Club for Growth. I believe that they remain true to their mission and will join in their support of Steve Laffey. And I’ll ask that you do the same.

More at Ankle Biting Pundits.

HT to Lawyer Ken for sending me the original Opinion Journal article yesterday.

Update: RightWing Nation was also on the call and tells us why it is important to support Laffey:

It would send a strong, clear message to the national party, that we are sick of big government Republicans who are nearly indistinguishable from Democrats. No GOP challenger has beaten a GOP incumbent in a primary for twenty-five years, so even a strong showing in the primary would be a wake-up call to the Washington establishment.

Damn fine reasoning.

Update 2: Leon at RedState finally gets his post up. It’s a thoughtful piece that disagrees with the Club. I disagree with Leon and will support the Club in this matter, but Leon’s reasoning deserves a careful read.

Regular readers know that I am a huge supporter of the Club for Growth, a PAC that hand-picks fiscal conservatives and backs them. The Club has been greatly successful, making a difference in several key races.

But now the conservative Wall Street Journal writes this:

The Club for Growth, a political action committee with a reputation for backing conservative challengers against liberal Republicans, endorsed Steve Laffey over incumbent Senator Lincoln Chafee in the Rhode Island Republican primary. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Pat Toomey, the Club’s president, explained the main reasons for the endorsement. Mr. Chafee is among the most liberal Republicans in the Senate, wrote Mr. Toomey. He consistently opposes tax cuts, citing the growing fiscal deficit, but then votes to increase federal spending. By contrast, the Club sees Mr. Laffey as a Reagan conservative who will support making the Bush tax cuts permanent, cut wasteful spending, expand trade, reform insolvent entitlements and fix the tort system.

But if Mr. Laffey hopes to win the hearts of conservatives nationwide by unseating Senator Chafee, he’ll first have to explain a few things about his own record. As mayor of Cranston for the past three years, Mr. Laffey has increased taxes three times. The city now has one of the highest property tax rates in the state, and Mr. Laffey has said Cranston may “need” an additional tax hike in 2007. And while living in Tennessee in the 1990s, he gave money to Democratic senatorial candidates who ran against former Republican Sen. Fred Thompson and the current Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. He even made a campaign contribution to Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.

So far there has been no response by Club president Pat Toomey on the Club’s blog or in a letter to the editor.

Dick Armey asks, “Why are Republican leaders governing like Democrats?“

In all my years in politics, I’ve never sensed such anger and frustration from our volunteers–those who do the hard work of door-to-door mobilization that Republican candidates depend on to get elected. Across the nation, wherever I go to speak with them, their refrain is the same: “I can’t tell a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats.” Our base rightly expects Republicans to govern by the principles–lower taxes, less government and more freedom–that got them elected. Today, with Republicans controlling both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, there is a widening credibility gap between their political rhetoric and their public policies. …

To succeed in the future, the Republican Party must get back to basics. We need, in effect, another Republican takeover of Congress, reaffirming a commitment to less government, lower taxes and more freedom. As in 1994, this revolution will be driven by the Young Turks of the party–the brave backbenchers more inspired by Reagan than the possibility of a glowing editorial on the pages of the New York Times.

I’ve spoken many times on the importance of electing true conservatives, not just someone who wears the “Republican” label. The fiscal conservatives in congress are frustrated by the defection of RINOs who are more interested in politics that good policy.

Support the candidate, not the party. My political contributions, such as they are, will not go to a national party. They will go to individuals that are endorsed by organizations like the Club for Growth. I highly recommend that you do the same.

John Fund gives us an interesting statistic: Federal largesse now exceeds $22,000 per household.

Every citizen believes federal spending is out of control. Conservatives are outraged that their party has the majority and continue to “spend like drunken sailors”. Liberals are outraged that cuts being proposed are for domestic programs rather than decreasing military spending.

Of the recent House legislation to reduce the budget by $51 billion dollars, the Libertarian think tank CATO sent this out in their Daily Dispatch:

Only by the pretzel logic of Washington can this bill be considered a “cut.” Here’s what’s really going to happen: Spending will still grow, but only slightly slower. Instead of spending a total of $7.8 trillion in entitlement programs over the next five years, the GOP proposes to spend $7.75 trillion. That’s a total difference of 0.6 percent. This is not starving the beast. This isn’t even a tummy rumble.

But CATO ignores the difficulties involved. Just because Republicans have a majority does not mean that conservatives are in control. This case was eloquently made by Representative Marsha Blackburn in her weekly newsletter just before the vote:

We’re just about to begin debate on the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. I will tell you that this will be a very tight vote. We have 20 or so Republicans who have not supported these very reasonable reductions in government growth and spending and almost every single Democrat has opposed them. Some have called our effort to slow the growth of Medicaid in this bill from 7.3% to 7.0% a cut — so you can see what we’re up against. Only in Washington would a 0.3% reduction in growth be called a cut!

We’re talking about $53.9 billion in reductions over several years in a yearly budget of $2.4 trillion. I believe we should go even further in reducing spending, but we’ll find out shortly if there is any support from across the aisle to join us in that effort.

I’m including both some background information on the legislation, and an article I wrote with Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina asking the Democratic Blue Dog Coalition to support the bill. The Blue Dogs are House members who talk a lot about fiscal responsibility, but have done little to demonstrate they mean what they say. We hope they’ll support this bill.

Note that the Blue Dogs did not support the spending reductions and a number of “Republicans” voted against it!

It is not enough to put a Republican in office, we must elect conservatives. Conservatives that know about fiscal responsibility. Conservatives that will take the side of the taxpayer and not side with the Democrat party.

Give up on the GOP if you wish — Republican is a meaningless label. But do not give up on conservatives. Support and vote the man, not the party.

As an aside, I’ll make another endorsement of the Club for Growth, an organization that identifies fiscal conservatives and asks members to support them. Marsha Blackburn was endorsed by the Club and she has done us proud.

Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with the Club for Growth or CATO other than being a member of both organizations.

BTW, Marsha does a bang-up job of utilizing electronic media to communicate to her constituency (and the rest of the world). In addition to her frequent newsletters, she has blogged at RedState.org and is a guest blogger at Bill Hobbs place this week (in spite of a bad case of bronchitis!).

Don’t get excited about when you hear that the infamous Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska has been defunded, because Alaska still gets to keep the pork but is allowed to spend it any way they wish.

The Agitator puts it well:

This is smoke and mirrors. It’s a cheap stunt by the GOP to deflect public criticism that doesn’t really change much of anything. All the conference committee did was remove the earmark for the bridges. Alaska will still be getting the same obscene amount of money from the federal government, it’s just that the state won’t be required to use it to build those two particular bridges. It’ll be up to the executive and the state legislature to decide how to spend it.

HT to Club for Growth Blog.

First the Gang of 16 undermined Frist on judicial nominations, but the excuse was that half of them were Democrats. Not so with the Traitorous 25 that played politics with energy:

Twenty-five Republicans, led by Rep. Charles Bass of New Hampshire, signed a letter asking GOP leaders to strike the Alaskan drilling provision from the broader $54 billion budget cut bill. …

The moderates knew they had leverage, given the narrow margin of GOP control of the House. It only takes 14 Republican defections to scuttle a bill, assuming every Democrat opposes it.

Just how RINO (Republican In Name Only) are these RINOs? Michelle Malkin informs us that all 25 are members of the GOP Main Street Partnership, a group of “moderate” Republicans backed by, among others, billionaire socialist George Soros.

Looking at the list of all the members of the organization reveals few no real surprises. Lincoln Chafee, Norm Coleman and John McCain are all members. What is revolting is that Arlen Specter is a member, the same Arlen Specter that Bush chose to back in 2004 against true conservative Pat Toomey.

Which is why I will not send another dime to the National Republican Committee. I will continue to give my money directly to candidates that are backed by groups such as the Club for Growth (which backed Toomey, who is now President and CEO of the Club).

But back to the Traitorous 25. Here is a list of 24 of them, culled from anwr.org:

Anwr.org also has a copy of the letter sent by the traitors.

And if you are concerned about the impact on Alaskan wildlife, check out these graphics that I excerpted from the original:

First, how big is the ANWR? Answer: about the size of South Carolina.

See that little green spot at the top of the ANWR? That’s the 8% of the 30,000 square mile ANWR that Congress set aside in 1980 for future oil development.

But wait! Only 2,300 acres are needed for oil equipment. That’s less than four square miles, represented by the tiny red dot in the green area of the coastal plain below.

I’m fairly certain we can do this without upsetting a few caribou. Now if we could only get Republicans to rule like they were the party in charge . . .

More fun facts! To equal the energy produced by the estimated one million barrels of oil per day from the ANWR, you would need:

• 1700 square miles of windmills, which is larger than Rhode Island!
• 250 sunny acres (i.e., not in Alaska) covered with solar panels

Now, if only solar power wasn’t five times more expensive to produce than electricity from oil, and if only we didn’t have those pesky cloudy days. Or winter.

Some GOP politicians are finding pointed questions a little too uncomfortable when they go in front of groups like the Heritage Foundation:

In a speech to a group of conservative academics and policy experts, DeLay blamed the runaway spending of recent years on minority Democrats. When he took questions, the first came from a senior official at the American Conservative Union, who asked DeLay, “How large does the Republican majority in the House and Senate need to be before Republicans act like the fiscal conservative I thought we were?“

Bless him, those are the kinds of questions our free-spending politicians need to be asked!

The Club for Growth, a conservative group that funds like-minded candidates for Congress, has turned the highway legislation into a bumper sticker for the GOP’s fiscal failings. “Too many Congressional Republicans have veered away from the limited government agenda that got them elected to the majority in Congress. They have approved pork-barrel highway bills worse than the Democrats used to give us,” says one appeal to supporters.

My congressman, Marsha Blackburn, was a Club for Growth candidate and shows it by fighting for reigning in fiscal spending.

Which is why my money now goes to organizations like Club for Growth and the Heritage Foundation, and not one cent goes to the national Republican Party.

Courtesy of the Club for Growth blog comes these figures from Chris Edwards’ new book, Downsizing the Federal Government:

Meanwhile, President Bush travels to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and compares himself to Reagan.

I’m sorry, Mr. President, but while your foreign policy has been exactly right your domestic policy proves that you are no Ronald Reagan.