Posted on 06/25/2006 4:22:45 PM PDT by calcowgirl
WASHINGTON – Oh, for a honeymoon that had lasted two weeks.
Brian Bilbray got no such break. Sworn in to Congress just seven days before, the newly elected lawmaker on Tuesday found himself going head to head with budget-cutting conservatives who questioned his support for congressional “earmarks” and his vote for a congressional pay raise.
The conflict – played out for San Diegans last week on local radio – demonstrated that Bilbray may have to walk a political tightrope as he faces a November election for a full two-year seat.
“I find it interesting that conservatives are already critiquing Bilbray negatively,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a University of Southern California political scientist. “I think what they're doing is sending Bilbray a message: Shape up or ship out.”
Bilbray, 55, recently elected to finish the term of imprisoned former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, was sworn in June 13. The next day, the Carlsbad Republican joined a majority of House members in voting against an attempt to remove earmarks from a large spending bill, including some for the San Diego area.
The long-standing practice of earmarking has been under scrutiny since its abuse led to an eight-year prison term for Cunningham, who admitted taking bribes from defense contractors. Earmarks also played a role in the investigation that led to a guilty plea from lobbyist Jack Abramoff for influence peddling and investigations into other Republican lawmakers.
Earmarks are money for pet projects that congressional members slip into bills, often without public scrutiny or hearings.
The same day as the vote on earmarks, Bilbray joined 248 other House members who rejected an attempt to force a vote on the $3,300 cost-of-living adjustment that will raise congressional pay Jan. 1 to $168,500. Congressional pay raises happen automatically each year, unless House members vote to block the increases.
Andrew Roth, governmental affairs director for the conservative Club for Growth, took aim at those votes on Roger Hedgecock's radio show.
“How many congressmen need to be put into jail, investigated or indicted for this earmarking process?” said Roth, whose seven-year-old organization represents 35,000 members who want Washington to cut federal spending.
Bilbray retorted: “I wouldn't impugn your reputation. You've got items in (the earmarks) I definitely didn't like, but you also had items I did like.”
Roth, in a subsequent interview, said Bilbray's support for the earmarks was objectionable “because during his campaign he said he was against hidden earmarks, then days after he's elected, he voted for a bill with over 1,500 earmarks, most of which were hidden.”
During his campaign for Cunningham's seat against Democrat Francine Busby, Bilbray said he supported earmarks as long as they weren't negotiated behind closed doors. He proposed a ban on such secrecy.
While Roth said that Bilbray abandoned that campaign stand with last week's vote, the congressman said he objected to earmarks that lawmakers tuck into bills during conference negotiations – the process during which lawmakers iron out differences between the House and Senate versions of a spending bill.
A conference report rarely goes through a congressional committee hearing or a public airing. Appropriations bills – such as the one Bilbray voted on last week – get more public scrutiny.
Among the earmarked items in the Transportation-Treasury-Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill that Bilbray voted on were $500,000 for a college athletic facility in Yucaipa and $1.5 million to build a William Faulkner museum in Oxford, Miss.
“I said I was going to fight to change the system,” said Bilbray, noting that voting to remove the earmarks also would have cost San Diego money for key highway projects. “But you still have the responsibility to provide some kind of budget to the president to sign into law. It's a judgment call. It's always a judgment call.”
On May 3, the House passed a Republican ethics reform plan requiring members to put their names on earmarks. A tougher Democratic plan would have banned lobbyists from paying for lawmakers' trips, meals and gifts, but it failed. Bilbray called the GOP plan a “step in the right direction” during his campaign and has said he and his staff won't take gifts from lobbyists.
The 50th Congressional District that Bilbray will represent for the next six months, and for which he will compete again in November's election, is far more conservative than the more urban district he represented from 1995-2001. During his recent campaign, Bilbray sided with conservatives in calling for tighter border controls, and many believe his election victory hinged on that stand.
But Bilbray is far from a conservative's dream, and the right wing of his party seems determined to drum that into voters' minds.
In the past, Bilbray has supported a ban on assault weapons and has said he doesn't believe in overturning the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. Last week's confrontation between Bilbray and the Club for Growth raised questions about whether continued conservative attacks on the new congressman might hurt the Republican Party in the fall election by persuading right-wing voters to stay away from the polls.
That dynamic appeared to hurt Bilbray in the April 11 special election, when he competed against other Republicans, but perhaps not so much against Democrat Busby in the June 6 runoff.
While many observers believe Bilbray will do well in November in a rematch against Busby, political observer Jack Pitney said Bilbray's “advantage isn't so enormous that he can take the seat for granted.”
“There's still a chance there could be a big downdraft in November,” said Pitney, a professor of government at Claremont McKenna College. “Bush's popularity plummets, more bad things happen in Iraq, the economy goes south – the possibilities are endless.”
That's nice.
Now, everyone raise their hands that didn't know he was Liberal? Okay, everyone with your hands in the air? Try doing your homework next time.
I knew he was a Liberal. He's Liberal on social issues too, so don't be shocked at those votes either. I said it during the race.
The ONLY reason he won and got my support was to send a message to D.C. about illegal immigration. Otherwise those 5% of votes they lost would have been likely around 10% with Busby squeaking out the edge.
I frankly don't give a damn what other votes he casts. I supported his hiring for one reason, if he stays true on that issue I'll support him for two years.
Then, I want all the outraged conservatives that had an opportunity to choose a conservative ON earmarks, social isues as well as illegal immigration and did NOT in the first primary race to challenge him in the primary in 2008. Don't whine about his votes, line someone up that's a legit contender that will make him sweat. That's how you knock a Congressman into line.
BTW, It's doubtful I'll be supporting him in 2008 whether or not he has a primary challenger. Not that I'm a voter, but I do contribute money. I'm through with Liberals in either party, except on rare occasion when strategically they help advance a right issue. This single candidate helped send a nice little message to other House Republicans so it was worth it.
Chafee? DeWine? I say Dump them.
Well .. it's so easy to figure this out .. those who voted for him didn't want to see a dimwitted dem win - but now that's he's won .. the people have every right to hold his feet to the fire.
He pretends to be more of a conservative than he really is .. so why are people really surprised.
Not part of the Kaloogian choir, I supported Bill Morrow, a perfectly real conservative. The real problem was another one of those rich candidates looking to add "congressman" to their list of acquisitions: Eric Roach. He ran as a "conservative" (like his fellow spoiler Bill Hauf) which split the vote many ways. Between that conservative split with those self-financed and the party machine shoving Bilbray down our throats, it was almost sure what would happen as soon the slate of candidates was decided.
Mr. Mush Goes To Washington.
The *only* thing going for Bilbray is his genuine hard-nose record on illegal immigration. Otherwise there's little difference between him and Ms. Busby.
I would've thought that (combined) "conservative" candidates easily out polled him in the primary would have given him a wake-up. Seems I gave him too much credit to notice the difference in one pile of constituents over another.
Because, during his campaign he said he would oppose earmarks and therefore has already acted in direct contradiction to his own campaign promises. I hope he doesn't do the same on immigration.
Candidate Brian Bilbray had been to Congress before, and he looked back on that time fondly, claiming to have been on the right side in 1995. "There's still more to do," he clarified in his recent campaign. He went so far as to offer a specific: "not allowing members of congress to put in private so-called earmarks for funding."
(See post 17 for link and remainder of article)
Hopefully the conservatives will unite and narrow the field for 2008.
Well .. write to him. He will reply. However, you will not always be happy with the reply.
{snicker}
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.