Can the GOP get it together?

The Fox News Sunday panel discusses...note the bipartisan agreement that a ban on earmarks and a return to fiscal restraint is in order for the GOP.

Earmarks for Israel?

What complete and utter nonsense:

John McCain will make an exception for at least one category of spending in his pledge to "veto every bill with earmarks": aid to Israel.

ThinkProgress pointed out earlier that military and other assistance to Israel is included in definition McCain's aides say they're using of the term, to the tune of about $2.9 billion, about 5% of the total, depending on how you count.

"Senator McCain will bring wasteful spending under control, and he will ensure America remains committed to the security of Israel, including maintaining America’s assistance levels," emails spokesman Brian Rogers.

That's one thing about spending cuts: Much harder when you get to the details.

UPDATE: DNC Spokesman Damian LaVera emails, "Once again John McCain is trying to have it both ways. Rather than playing rhetorical games McCain should say which is his priority: maintaining our miliary and economic assistance to Israel, or his promise to veto the earmark that provides that support?"

In no way does this provision meet either the House or Senate definition of an earmark. Democrats are reaching here by combining their increasing hostility to our best ally in the Middle East with their insatiable desire to knock McCain down a peg or two on one of his best issues. Nice try...

Hypocrisy charge leveled against McCain

McCain can be called a lot of things, but I think hypocrite is not one of them. Nevertheless, a reporter from National Journal is trying to stir up a hypocrisy controversy that does not exist. We all know that McCain has been the leading critic of pork-barrel spending in Congress. We also all know that while the Dems are tearing themselves apart, he is on his bio-tour reintroducing himself to the American people.

Today National Journal's Hotline Blog smells a hypocrite:

John McCain has railed against earmarks in Washington and on the campaign trail, but tomorrow his week-long bio tour heads to Jacksonville's Naval Air Station Cecil Field, a big-time beneficiary of pork. Between 2001 and 2005, Cecil Field received almost $10M in earmarked funds, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

Here's the skinny:

$1M in 2005 for operation and maintenance

$1.2M in 2004 for operation and maintenance

$2.5M in 2003 for operation and maintenance

$2M in 2002 for operation and maintenance

$3M in 2001 for operation and maintenance

$215K in 2001 for an economic development initiative

One assumes that Cecil Field is somehow a part of John McCain's bio, and that -- not the fact that it has been a federal earmark recipient -- is the reason for stopping there. And given McCain's age, Cecil Field would likely not have been receiving federal earmarks at the time because the practice had yet to infect Congress.

Even if Cecil Field has absolutely nothing to do with McCain's past, he did not earmark these funds. Finally, there is hardly a military installation in this country that has not received federal earmarks. Should the would-be Commander in Chief not visit any of these facilities that house those who he wishes to command?

Status quo 1, Change 0

Senate old bulls late last night successfully blocked a reform measure that would have banned earmarks for a year. The vote was a setback for reformers and more importantly the American people.

By blocking the ban, the Senate's powerful old guard scored a victory for the status quo. Those who have desired change in the way the Senate conducts business lost.

Still, all is not entirely gloomy. The fact that the measure drew the support of all three Presidential contenders is a good sign. It is a signal that the issue has arrived with the public. Of course the Senate is always the last to realize these things, so it makes sense that reformers will have to continue pushing the issue to get it through the thick skulls of senators that America wants change.

The "cooling saucer" still works in that the Senate remains the most insulated. But sometimes as in this case, it is a real pain in the rear.

The Republicans who voted "no" on this measure read off as a who's who of the Senate porkers:

Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; Domenici, N.M.; Gregg, N.H.; Hagel, Neb.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Lugar, Ind.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.; Wicker, Miss.

It was nice to see GOP Leader and long time appropriator Mitch McConnell vote with the reform caucus for once. But some actual leadership would be nice as well, considering the man did not say one word in favor of the measure leading up to the vote. As our hero Braveheart says, "men don't follow titles, they follow courage." But then again, this is the Senate, not the fields of Falkirk. Baby steps I guess...

(Editor's note: The picture top right depicts Reid, Durbin and Schumer. They got top billing because they were the most vocal opponents. But the GOP had plenty of their own who hated the measure as you see in the roll call above. They were just more quiet about their position leading up to the vote. Their silence was mostly because this issue -- while it has bipartisan appeal -- is more important to a vocal section of the conservative base than it is to the liberal base. GOP anti-reformers were scared to be vocal about this so they waited in the shadows, cast their vote "nay" and then slunk away. Lame. Cowardly.)