Our last national generic ballot poll found the Republicans ahead 45-42 despite the fact that Congressional Republicans had a 24/61 approval rating. Even among respondents who said they were going to vote Republican the Congressional GOP could muster only a 44/35 approval.

John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are going to claim a mandate when their party does well at the polls this fall but they don’t even have much of one with the people who are going to vote Republican this fall, much less with the population at large. If they keep on doing what they’re doing the GOP may well take control of the House this fall and then lose it right back in 2012.

To be honest I’m not at all surprised by PPP’s findings, first American’s aren’t terribly happy with of Congress in general. Second grassroots conservatives still haven’t forgiven the Congressional Republicans for their big spending, big government bender during the Bush years.  And third I suspect if you asked American’s what they really think of Congress they’d say both parties pretty much suck… The current generation of Congressional Democrats only seem to care about expanding the size and intrusiveness of government while spending us into bankruptcy. While Congressional Republicans only seem to care about… To be blunt I don’t know the hell Congressional Republicans care about these days.

Yeah, sure, they’re paying lip service about returning to commonsense conservative principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense and vibrant free markets, but given their big spending, big government bender during the Bush years they don’t have much credibility there…

Anyway, despite their credibility problems Republicans appear to be headed for significant gains November’s mid-term elections… The question will they hold true to commonsense conservative principles or will they go another big spending, big government bender?

Sen. Dodd’s wife Jackie Clegg Dodd sits on the boards of four pharmaceutical companies, Javelin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Cardiome Pharma Corp., Brookdale Senior Living and Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals.

Mrs. Dodd last year was one of the most highly compensated non-employee members of the Javelin Pharmaceuticals Inc. board, on which she has served since 2004. She earned $32,000 in fees and $109,587 in stock option awards last year, according to the company’s SEC filings.

Mrs. Dodd earned $79,063 in fees from Cardiome in its last fiscal year, while Brookdale Senior Living gave her $122,231 in stock awards in 2008, their SEC filings show. She earned no income from her post as a director for Pear Tree Pharmaceuticals but holds up to $15,000 in stock in Pear Tree, which describes itself as a development-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the needs of aging women.

The annual financial disclosure reports for members of Congress are less precise. They only require that assets and liabilities be listed in ranges of values.

Dodd sought a 90-day extension to file his report covering last year, giving him until mid-August to submit his report, but released his report Friday to The Associated Press.

Bryan DeAngelis, Dodd’s spokesman, said, “Jackie Clegg Dodd’s career is her own; absolutely independent of Senator Dodd, as it was when they married 10 years ago. The senator has worked to reform our health care system for decades, and nothing about his wife’s career is relevant at all to his leadership of that effort.”

DeAngelis said that Mrs. Dodd has hired a personal ethics lawyer to avoid any conflicts of interest and is not a lobbyist.

In addition to Sen Dodd. Democrats Jay Rockefeller and Tom Harkin and Republicans Tom Coburn, Judd Gregg, John Kyl and Orrin Hatchn are mentioned in the AP story.

I’m not going not to draw any conclusions, my advice is to read the entire article and draw your own conclusions… I have fundamental problem with Sen Dodd, or any Senator for that matter,  authoring legislation that may directly effect companies on whose boards their spouse sits.

The the bigger story within the story may be the APs passing mention of Sen. Dodd’s magically appreciating Irish Cottage… Michelle Malkin has the deatails on that here.

When Democrats made their case during the 2006 elections about why they should control Congress, they offered up Republican lawmakers like Mark Foley and Rick Renzi as examples of the “culture of corruption” they wanted to rid from Washington.

Mr. Foley of Florida resigned after being accused of sending inappropriate e-mails to a 16-year-old congressional page. Mr. Renzi of Arizona faced questions about land deals and accusations that he helped a defense contractor that employed his father.

Convinced that many members of Congress had lost their moral compass, voters sided with Democrats and thrust Republicans from power.

But when the limelight faded, the controversies took an unexpected twist: Democrats, now in control, sought to block or limit prosecutors from gathering certain evidence of corruption against members of Congress on constitutional grounds, complicating the criminal cases against the two Republicans.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California and the Democratic leadership joined with top Republicans to continue a years-long tradition authorizing the House general counsel’s office to intervene in outside investigations of its members.

Through court filings, the bipartisan coalition sought the exclusion of evidence it said was obtained in violation of Article 1, Section 6, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution. The clause protects the legislative branch from meddling by the other two branches, declaring that “for any Speech or Debate in either House, [senators and representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.”

Many see use of the clause as an effort by Congress to protect its own.

“I think the House as well as the Senate tries to overexpand that right,” said Washington lawyer Robert S. Bennett, a prominent white-collar defense lawyer who has served as special counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in several major cases.

Mr. Bennett said the clause should be used “narrowly” and not “to cover things up.”

“Congress is largely unaccountable. … Ethics enforcement in Congress is largely a joke,” he said.

The problem is not Republicans or Democrats it’s the Washington political culture… A culture that holds itself above the law and that tolerates corruption until it become an embarrassment that can’t be ignored. If we want real, lasting change in Washington we have to change the culture not simply the party that’s in charge.

I’m a firm believer in Congressional term limits they may not be the best answer but they’re a start.

1) Do you think the GOP will gain or lose seats in the House in 2010?

They’ll pick up a handful of seats.

2) Do you think the GOP will gain or lose seats in the Senate in 2010?

Ditto above… They’ll pick a seat or two.

3) Colin Powell said the following, “Americans do want to pay taxes for services. Americans are looking for more government in their life, not less.” Do you agree?

Yes and no… On the first point no one likes paying taxes but we do it willingly for the most part. On the second point I think a great many Americans want it, or think they can have it, both ways… they want more government services, lower taxes and less regulation and as long as someone else is paying the bill they’re happy. But when the bill comes due and it has their name on it as just happened in California they scream bloody murder and blame everyone but themselves.

4) Whose views do you think are more representative of your personal opinion: David Frum, Meghan McCain, John McCain, & Colin Powell or Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Tom Coburn, & Newt Gingrich?

Overall, I agree with Limbaugh, Levin, Coburn and Gingrich more often than I do either of the either of the McCains, Frum or Powell. That said I do agree with Cassandra… many of the folks I agree with (and many I disagree with) are needlessly snotty and divisive.

5) Do you support the NRSC’s decision to endorse Charlie Crist in Florida’s Republican primary?

No, the NRSC should keep it’s nose out of the primarys.

6) Do you think Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or elsewhere?

Hasn’t this bit of silliness been settled? Absent proof otherwise he’s a citizen.

7) Do you think that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed?

Yes, she’ll face some moderately tough questioning from Republicans during her confirmation hearing but she’ll be confirmed.

From the Washington Post:

Intelligence officials released documents this evening saying that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was briefed in September 2002 about the use of harsh interrogation tactics against al-Qaeda prisoners, seemingly contradicting her repeated statements over the past 18 months that she was never told that these techniques were actually being used.

In a 10-page memo outlining an almost seven-year history of classified briefings, intelligence officials said that Pelosi and then-Rep. Porter Goss (R-Fla.) were the first two members of Congress ever briefed on the interrogation tactics. Then the ranking member and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, respectively, Pelosi and Goss were briefed Sept. 4, 2002, one week before the first anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The memo, issued by the Director of National Intelligence and the Central Intelligence Agency to Capitol Hill, notes the Pelosi-Goss briefing covered “EITs including the use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah.” EIT is an acronym for enhanced interrogation technique. Zubaydah was one of the earliest valuable al-Qaeda members captured and the first to have the controversial tactic known as water boarding used against him.

ABC News adds:

On Feb. 4, 2003, a briefing on “enhanced interrogation techniques” for Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, D-W.Va., revealed that interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri were taped.

In addition, that briefing “described in considerable details” the techniques used, including “how the water board was used.”

A similar briefing the following day included Goss and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., who by that time had become the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, when Pelosi moved on to become minority leader.

The report is accompanied by a letter from CIA Director Leon Panetta to intelligence committee leaders that describes the way it was compiled: “This letter presents the most thorough information we have on dates, locations, and names of all Members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA on enhanced interrogation techniques. This information, however, is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents [memorandums for the record] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of those individuals. In the end, you and the Committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened. We can make the MFRs available at CIA for staff review.

Someone has some explaining to do… Madam Speaker is either an outright liar or she has very bad memory. Either it seems pretty clear that the CIA has decided not to take the heat on enhanced interrogations alone. I suspect by now Barack Obama realizes what monumentally foolish mistake it was to release the Office of Legal Counsel memos on Enhanced Interrogations Techniques… As this leak shows top members of Congress were apparently briefed on the techniques and their use, and apparently didn’t raise objections their use.

Human Events has the list of briefings including names, dates and times, here.

For the second time in two years, a provision to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages died in the Senate today, handing the Obama administration a significant defeat in its plans for arresting the foreclosure crisis.

Supporters argued the measure would keep 1.7 million borrowers in their homes, but it ultimately foundered in the face of fierce financial industry and Republican opposition. The bankruptcy modification provision, which was offered an amendment to a broader housing bill, failed by a vote of 45 to 51.

“I’ll be back. I’m not going to quit on this,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), who sponsored the measure. He noted that estimated foreclosures during the housing crisis has ballooned from 2 million to 8 million since his campaign for the change to the bankruptcy code began.

< … >

“Instead of encouraging homeowners who are at risk of foreclosure to file for bankruptcy, the federal government should continue to encourage lenders to work with owners to modify loans where it is economically viable for homeowners to remain in their homes,” Republican Whip Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said. “While it is regrettable that not all homeowners are eligible for a loan modification, Congress should not incentivize bankruptcy by making it the only means to save one’s home.”

Sen. Kyl is right on the mark… If bankruptcy judges can arbitrarily reset principal values, then there’s no incentive for people to honor the contract they willingly signed.

The Democrats who joined Republicans in opposing this ill conceived bill are:

• Max Baucus (MT)
• Michael Bennett (CO)
• Robert Byrd (WV)
• Thomas Carper (DE)
• Byron Dorgan (ND)
• Tim Johnson (SD)
• Mary Landrieu (LA)
• Blanche Lincoln (AR)
• Ben Nelson (NE)
• Mark Pryor (AR)
• Arlen Specter (PA)
• Jon Tester (MT)

Senators Ted Kennedy and Jay Rockefeller missed the vote.

Durbin and his allies will be back though this isn’t about help people who are underwater on their mortgages… It’s about ending the principle that contracts mean what they say. Instead of being binding agreements, if Durbin and his allies get their way contracts would become something that can be twisted to mean whatever a court wants it to.

Specter, was one of three Republicans to vote from Pres. Obama’s pork laden stimulus plan and was expected to face a tough primary challenge from Pat Toomey next year.

Here’s Specter statement:

I have been a Republican since 1966. I have been working extremely hard for the Party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my Party has not defined who I am. I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.

When I supported the stimulus package, I knew that it would not be popular with the Republican Party. But, I saw the stimulus as necessary to lessen the risk of a far more serious recession than we are now experiencing.

Since then, I have traveled the State, talked to Republican leaders and office-holders and my supporters and I have carefully examined public opinion. It has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable. On this state of the record, I am unwilling to have my twenty-nine year Senate record judged by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate. I have not represented the Republican Party. I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.

I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary.

I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.

I deeply regret that I will be disappointing many friends and supporters. I can understand their disappointment. I am also disappointed that so many in the Party I have worked for for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides. I thank specially Senators McConnell and Cornyn for their forbearance.

I am not making this decision because there are no important and interesting opportunities outside the Senate. I take on this complicated run for re-election because I am deeply concerned about the future of our country and I believe I have a significant contribution to make on many of the key issues of the day, especially medical research. NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done. And my seniority is very important to continue to bring important projects vital to Pennsylvania’s economy.

I am taking this action now because there are fewer than thirteen months to the 2010 Pennsylvania Primary and there is much to be done in preparation for that election. Upon request, I will return campaign contributions contributed during this cycle.

While each member of the Senate caucuses with his Party, what each of us hopes to accomplish is distinct from his party affiliation. The American people do not care which Party solves the problems confronting our nation. And no Senator, no matter how loyal he is to his Party, should or would put party loyalty above his duty to the state and nation.

My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans. Unlike Senator Jeffords’ switch which changed party control, I will not be an automatic 60th vote for cloture. For example, my position on Employees Free Choice (Card Check) will not change.

Whatever my party affiliation, I will continue to be guided by President Kennedy’s statement that sometimes Party asks too much. When it does, I will continue my independent voting and follow my conscience on what I think is best for Pennsylvania and America.

First, so long Arlen, don’t let the door hit you where the good Lord split you. Second I disagree vehemently with Specter’s notion that the party has moved to the far right. If anything, except for hamfisted attempts to pander to social conservatives the party moved to the left during the Bush years.

Arlen Specter’s departure has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with his own personal political ambitions. Regardless of what he may believe, the Republican Party is still a Big Tent party… We may disagree on how best to achieve objectives but we are united by certain principles among them a belief fiscal responsibility and limited government. Sen. Specter’s support for the President’s pork laden stimulus plan betrayed those principles and he faced a grassroots backlash because of it. I have no doubt that he’d happily run as a Republican in 2010 if wasn’t for Pat Toomey getting into the race and jumping out to a 21 point lead. Specter knows he can’t win the Republican primary so he’s jumping ship to avoid it. This is politics not principle.

Related

• GOP’s Specter Plans to Switch Parties – Wall Street Journal
• Specter To Switch Parties – Washington Post
• Arlen Specter Switching Parties Today -Human Events
• Specter had disavowed a switch – The Hill

From the Wall Street Journal:

Mark down the date. Tuesday, April 21, 2009, is the moment that any chance of a new era of bipartisan respect in Washington ended. By inviting the prosecution of Bush officials for their antiterror legal advice, President Obama has injected a poison into our politics that he and the country will live to regret.

Policy disputes, often bitter, are the stuff of democratic politics. Elections settle those battles, at least for a time, and Mr. Obama’s victory in November has given him the right to change policies on interrogations, Guantanamo, or anything on which he can muster enough support. But at least until now, the U.S. political system has avoided the spectacle of a new Administration prosecuting its predecessor for policy disagreements. This is what happens in Argentina, Malaysia or Peru, countries where the law is treated merely as an extension of political power.

Pres. Obama would do well to back-off of the dangerous precedent he set on Tuesday, he has already banned the use of the interrogation techniques in question and declared the CIA personnel who used them will not be charged. Investigating and attempting to criminalize the actions of Bush administration lawyers who advised the CIA will only undermine the ability of this president and his successors to obtain candid advice, as lawyers fear they may in turn by scapegoated by a future administration.

Realted

• Congress Knew About the Interrogations – Wall Street Journal
• Torture Cases Would Face Legal Hurdles- Wall Street Journal
• Top legislators knew of interrogations – Washington Times
• Congress Debates Fresh Investigation Of Interrogations – Washington Post

PHOENIX — The co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps in Arizona will challenge Sen. John McCain in the 2010 Republican primary.

Chris Simcox — who rose seven years ago from an obscure newspaper publisher in Tombstone to a national figure in the debate over how to control the U.S.-Mexican border — is scheduled to appear today at a press conference outside the state Capitol, where he will announce he is stepping down from his position with the Minutemen to challenge McCain.

I have a great deal of respect for Senator McCain and the sacrifices he made in the service of this country but he’s part of the problem in Washington and it’s time for him to go.

That said I’m not sure how much of challenge Simcox will be… If the Obama Administration and Democrats in the House and Senate push hard for amnesty this year and it becomes a galvanizing issue for the base, McCain’s in trouble. If not, Simcox will be stuck between a rock and political hard place. He won’t be able to tact to the right on immigration in primaries without alienating a sizable chuck of the electorate he’ll need to win in the general.

Related

• Simcox bid will rely on GOP grassroots, but support might be thin – Arizona Capitol Times
• McCain Gets a Primary Challenger in Arizona – CQ Politics
• Oh my: Minuteman founder to challenge McCain in Arizona primary – Hot Air
• Simcox for Senate
• Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

Bravo Zulu to Connecticut’s Republican Legislators for standing up for fiscal responsibility.

WTNH TV has more on the story.