GOP leadership changes?

I've asked a lot of my more politically connected friends what the chances are of a change in the top leadership for Republicans in the House and Senate when they caucus next month. Most of them tell me "Not much." Boehner has no real opposition for majority leader, though at least Pence is in the running for conference chair.


On the Senate side, I've been exceptionally surprised at the lack of chatter about replacing McConnell. Here's a guy who is only 214 votes and a run-off away having the filibuster lost on his watch and who nearly lost his own bid for reelection in Kentucky. Why would the GOP want to keep him in a leadership position?


Finally I've found at least one voice who agrees with me on this, in an opinion piece today from the DC Examiner.

In 2006 you settled on Mitch McConnell as your leader and quite frankly, the Republicans in the Senate and across the country have very little to show for that decision. We're down six seats in the Senate -- and they're still counting.

Moreover, Mitch McConnell, who supported the Bridge to Nowhere twice, who led you into a disastrous fight on illegal immigration, and who did little to strike back against the Democrats who were slandering the GOP on an almost daily basis, actually campaigned on bringing home pork to Kentucky.

Republican Senators, in their choice for minority leader, get to pick their chief spokesman for their legislative agenda and for the principles they wish to advance....or, in this case, defend. If the GOP really wants to begin the long climb back, it has to stick to principles. My hope - and the hope of so many disallusioned conservatives - is that they will use those principles to pick their leader rather than vice versa.

Diane missing opportunity for free money

Diane Feinstein (D-CA) is upset that people would have the audacity to hope that they could sell their inauguration viewing tickets for a profit (are we still allowed to say that word or is it profane now?).

Diane, dear, don't be mad just because you missed an opportunity to make the government entrepreneurial. If the government had sold those tickets, it could have gained a few extra pennies for the coffers - instead of coming after us in taxes later.

Let's say Congress sold the 250,000 tickets in the viewing area like airline tickets, so the first people get them for cheaper and the later sign-ups pay more. If you can average the ticket prices at $1,000, that's $250 million for Diane and the Congress to play with. Some tickets are going for as much as $40,000 on eBay - sell them all at that price and you're talking $10 billion - that's real money! Hey, you could give that to your friends at GM!

It's not too late! You still have those tickets in a secure location. No one will be surprised by the bait-and-switch on the "free" tickets - though if you're still uncomfortable with it, go ask Hank Paulson. He'll tell you how easy it can be.

Last picked for prom

Turns out Congress is not nearly as popular as its boyfriend SCHIP - 75% of Americans disapprove of Congress's handling of its job, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll. 22 of every 100 people think they're doing a good job (versus about a 33% approval for Bush at the moment).

This quote from the CNN article about the poll intrigued me, though:

The big issues of the day just don't seem to be being addressed," said Sarah Binder, a political science professor at George Washington University who studies Congress. "The issues that matter most to people -- the economy, health care, the environment and the larger war in Iraq -- it is so difficult for Congress to move on those issues that I believe the public looks and says, 'Why aren't they doing anything?'"

Are those the issues that matter most to people? I found a site that synthesises a lot of recent polls. Economy? Yes, that's generally in the top three. Health care? Yup, that one's up there. The "larger war in Iraq" (an odd characterization, since the "larger war" is generally thought to be the war on terror, whereas the war in Iraq happens to be the single largest and most well-known theater of that war) is, without fail, the number 1 issue sited as being important in each of the polls here.

Environment? Irrelevant. The most recent CBS poll listed has 2% of people saying it's the most important issue for presidential candidates. Doesn't merit a mention in the next poll down about the "most important problem facing this country today." Poll after poll shows it to be way down on the list of priorities.

In the next week or so, Congress will begin marking up a new global warming bill that would have disastrous effects on the economy with marginal-to-zero impact on the state of our biosphere. Real People get it, whether or not they can articulate it. Why must the politicians and academics like Ms. Binder continue to force an issue that the American public does not want the government dealing with?