The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza has the scoop.  This should be solid pickup for the GOP.
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14683

---

Member Comments (1)

The indispensable Jennifer Rubin at Right Turns has a good post today laying out the path to victory for each of the several prospective 2012 Republican presidential candidates.  As always, Rubin is on point and worth reading. 

I do have one quibble, though.  Rubin says about the potential candidacy of Indiana Congressman Mike Pence: “If he does run for president, his problem is similar to Thune's: it's hard to see how he wins Iowa.”

Seriously?  I have no dog in this hunt yet, and have my own questions about a congressman’s viability in a national election.  But still, I think it’s kind of easy to see how Pence could win the Iowa caucuses. 

If Pence gets into a field – especially the Palin-less field Rubin seems to be projecting – he probably becomes the undisputed Tea Party candidate.  He would also join Huckabee as the most outspoken social conservative in the field.  Pence could neutralize most – if not all – of Huckabee’s natural advantage on social issues, while presenting base voters instead a choice between his own rock-solid economic record and Huckabee’s big-spending, tax-hiking record in Arkansas.

It's not a slam dunk, sure.  And anything can happen in New Hampshire and beyond.  But if Mike Pence entered the presidential race tomorrow, I think you can make a pretty good case he’d be the outright favorite to win Iowa.

Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14678

---

Member Comments (3)

Here's the roll call vote.  And below are the 19 Democrats who didn't vote for Nancy Pelosi along with the people they chose instead:

Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) voted "present." Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14649

---

Member Comments (3)

The new members of Congress will be sworn in today.  Throughout the afternoon, we'll be updating their profiles on the Club's Power Ranking.  Stay tuned. Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14648

---

Member Comments (3)

WASHINGTON – Club for Growth PAC today welcomed former Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman into the 2012 U.S. Senate race against incumbent Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill. 

“Sarah Steelman’s entry into the Missouri Senate race is a welcome sign for pro-growth conservatives,” said Club President Chris Chocola.  “Sarah Steelman is the kind of candidate who can provide a clear contrast to pro-bailout, pro-ObamaCare Sen. McCaskill.  We welcome her to the race and look forward to learning more about her candidacy in the coming months.”

Notably, former Senator Jim Talent is also reportedly considering running for U.S. Senate in Missouri in 2012.  In his previous time in the Senate, prior to losing to McCaskill in 2006, Talent voted to raid the Social Security Trust Fund, for the infamous Bridge to Nowhere earmark, and for other pork-laden budget busters.

Chocola added, “With a record of support for government expansion and outrageous earmark spending, it would be more difficult for Jim Talent to successfully contrast his record with Claire McCaskill’s.  If the 2010 election showed us anything, it is that voters are in no mood to elect Republicans who are only half-hearted at best in their efforts to boost our economy and stop Washington’s out-of-control spending.”

In the just-completed 2010 election cycle, Club for Growth PAC bundled $6 million in direct contributions from Club members to endorsed candidates’ congressional campaigns.  Among those who received substantial support from the Club PAC in 2010 included Senators-elect Pat Toomey, Marco Rubio, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee, as well as incumbent Senators Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint.

###

PAID FOR BY CLUB FOR GROWTH PAC AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY ANY CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATE'S COMMITTEE. 202-955-5500.

Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14543

---

Member Comments (1)

They finished counting all the ballots in Alaska and Lisa Murkowski won.  The Associated Press called it for her yesterday.

Even if you accept all of the Joe Miller campaign's challenges, Murkowski would have 92,715 votes to Miller's 90,740.

Miller has not yet conceded, citing some possibilities of vote counting or casting irregularities that his campaign is investigating.  If they find anything, it still may not change the result.



Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14504

---

Member Comments (3)

Everywhere I go, I hear people dismissing the 2012 Republican presidential field as weak.  I’m not sure what they could be talking about.

Don’t get me wrong.  I have my own qualms with all of the names that have been bandied about.  But by any objective measure, the 2012 Republican field seems to me the strongest either party has cobbled together in a long time.

Who, exactly, are the cream puffs here? 

Mitt Romney was a right-of-center governor in a very liberal state.  Before that, he was one of the most successful business executives of his generation, who made a fortune turning around failing businesses.

Sarah Palin is the most charismatic political leader in the country, and the most electrifying political celebrity since Ronald Reagan.

Mike Huckabee is perhaps the party’s only natural-born politician and a dynamic communicator of conservative ideas.  (Whether he actually adheres to those ideas is another question, of course.)

Tim Pawlenty was twice elected governor in one of the bluest states in the country, cut taxes and spending, and reformed education, health care, and union pensions in his state.

Mitch Daniels makes op-ed writers swoon for good reason.  He’s a serious policy thinker, and a bold executive willing to make tough decisions that, despite their unpopularity at the time, have almost all been vindicated over time.

Haley Barbour is one of the most successful politicians in the country – a legendary party chairman, an other-worldly fundraiser, and was for good reason the only elected official who came out of the Hurricane Katrina fiasco better then he went in.

Newt Gingrich is one of the most creative policy minds in the Republican Party, one of the best think-on-his-feet debaters in politics today, a natural leader and movement organizer, and – for all his faults – really and truly did create a national Republican majority in 1994, almost out of thin air.

Mike Pence and Jim DeMint’s names have been mentioned, and who can argue with the potential candidacies of the conservative movement’s leading spokesmen and most successful legislators in Washington?

Of all the names bandied around, only Sen. John Thune seems to lack a resume full of substantive accomplishment or conservative leadership.  And yet, even Thune’s thin resume compares favorably to, say, John Edwards’ in 2004 or Barack Obama’s in 2008.

Yes, all of the above candidates have glaring weaknesses, too, but that’s just to say they are human.  Sorting out strengths and weaknesses is what presidential primaries are for.

But to say that the prospective 2012 Republican presidential field is “weak” is like saying middleweight boxing in the 1980s was “weak,” because Roberto Duran, Ray Leonard, Marvin Haggler, and Tommy Hearns were evenly matched.

Has it occurred to anyone that the 2012 Republican nomination is wide open not because the contenders are so weak, but because they are all, in their own ways, very strong?
Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14503

---

Member Comments (7)

Boehner isn't Speaker until the full House votes for him early next year, but the Conference has officially blessed it.  From the House Republican Conference:

• Speaker of the House: John A. Boehner of Ohio
• Republican Leader: Eric Cantor of Virginia
• Republican Whip: Kevin McCarthy of California
• Republican Conference Chairman: Jeb Hensarling of Texas 
• National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman: Pete Sessions of Texas 
• Republican Policy Committee Chairman: Tom Price of Georgia 
• Republican Conference Vice-Chair: Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington 
• Republican Conference Secretary: John Carter of Texas 
• Freshman Elected Leadership Representative: Kristi Noem of South Dakota
• Freshman Elected Leadership Representative: Tim Scott of South Carolina

Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14501

---

Member Comments (2)

Unfortunately, things are looking pretty good for Lisa Murkowski.  Miller continued to gain in absentee ballots, cutting the gap behind "write in" by another 264 votes, but Murkowski's write in campaign did a good job getting voters to fill in the oval and spell her name.

Currently 89.23% of all write in ballots are completely unchallenged for her by Miller's observers.  If that pace were to continue, and the absentee and other ballot margin remains, she would win by 785 votes even if Miller's interpretation of the law and his observer's application of that standard were to prevail.

I think Miller does have the law on his side and I suspect his campaign's observers are being very strict in applying it, as they should be.  So it is likely that a more neutral arbiter who still applies the strict legal standard would allow more than the 89.23% currently going unchallenged to Murkowski.

Additionally, an earlier news report indicated that absentee ballots from rural areas are likely to be counted last, and those areas went strongly for Murkowski.  It is not clear whether Miller will continue to gain votes from the absentee, early and questioned ballots.

Finally, a federal judge did not grant the Miller campaign's request for a preliminary injunction.  I have not been able to read the order, but this is not a surprise.  The ballots are being placed into piles, so I doubted the Court would rule before it was clear whether there would be a genuine controversy.  I don't see this ruling as a set back as he was very unlikely to get a favorable ruling at this stage.  

From the Court's perspective, it does not want to rule unless it has to.  If enough write in ballots go to Murkowski to win, even after all of Miller's challenges are asserted, then there is no controversy and no reason for the Court to weigh in.

Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14460

---

Member Comments (2)

From the POLITICO:

Permalink: http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14456

---

Member Comments (4)