Despite unanimous opposition from House Republicans to the Democrats’ $787 billion economic stimulus plan, members of the GOP are now cheering certain elements of the bill that will benefit their districts, The New York Times reports today.

Just hours after voting against the bill on the House floor last week, Representative John L. Mica of Florida issued news releases lauding the inclusion of $8 billion for high-speed rail projects around the nation. Mr. Mica said the bill would also help pay for a commuter train project in his Central Florida district.

“If we could put a man on the moon, we should be able to move people from city to city quickly instead of wasting time on a congested highway,” said Mr. Mica, the ranking Republican on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “I applaud President Obama’s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America’s future.”

This is no surprise. A bill like the stimulus puts Republicans in a pickle, as their political instinct to decry the federal spending runs smack into the reality that the money pays for services their constituents need, particularly in the middle of a disastrous economic environment. Nor can GOP leaders fall back on the tired line that the stimulus represents another case of the Democrats’ “tax-and-spend” tendencies — not with $287 billion in tax rebates included in the package.

Instead, you get “small-government” Republicans like Rep. Don Young (Alaska) cheering the enormous spending bill as “a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners,” The Times reports.

The Republicans defend this inconsistency with the claim that they can support certain elements of the stimulus without having voted for the package as a whole.

A spokeswoman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Jennifer Crider, characterized the trend more accurately. It is, she told The Times, “the height of hypocrisy.”

Murkowski, appointed to the Senate in 2002 by her father when he took office as governor of Alaska, is up for re-election in 2010. (Murkowski won her seat the old-fashioned way in 2004.) In an interview with Politico, Murkowski warned Palin that she shouldn’t even consider a short stop in the Senate as a means to the White House. But what if Palin does anyway?

“I can guarantee it would be a very tough election,” Murkowski said in an interview.

Murkowski isn’t kidding. The two arctic pols have a turbulent history. In 2006, Palin knocked Murkowksi’s father out of the Republican primary by essentially accusing then-sitting Gov. Frank Murkowski of corruption, lumping him in with more dubious characters in the state legislature. The message was appealing to voters who were sick of Murkowski’s tone-deaf moves, including appointing his own daughter to his Senate seat and flying around the state in a private jet.

While Lisa Murkowski might have beef with Palin, Palin’s got her own problems with Murkowski. When Lisa got the nod from her father to take his Senate seat, Palin was reportedly miffed.

But who would win in a match up?

Both women have high approval ratings in Alaska. Murkowski is particularly popular in rural parts of the state, while Palin has done well in the more highly-populated area surrounding Wasilla, her hometown.

The race would be close, one Republican consultant told Politico.

A key factor to keep in mind: seniority. Alaska depends on federal money to survive. That money tends to come easier the longer you’re representatives have been around Capitol Hill.  Stevens and Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska) are famous at home and infamous nationally for their incredible ability to bring home billions worth of bacon.

With Stevens out, Alaskans might not want to replace Murkowski with Palin, knowing that Palin would likely be eager to move on in just a few years:

“My feeling is that Alaskans wouldn’t respond to that very well, especially Republicans, if she takes on Lisa and she starts seniority all over again,” [David} Dittman, [a Republican pollster] said. “I think it would be tough for Sarah to do that and justify it.”

Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who was convicted in Washington last month on seven felony counts of failing to disclose gifts on Senate disclosure forms, trailed his challenger, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich, by as many as 22 points, according to polls taken just last week. The latest tally from Tuesday’s voting has him ahead by 1.5 percent.

Rep. Don Young is another possible example of the Stevens effect. Young is under federal investigation and has spent about $1 million on legal fees last year. Just a week before Tuesday’s elections, Young was behind in the polls by 9 points. He won his race by a solid margin.

Nate Silver notes that my theory is conventional wisdom these days. He disagrees, though, pointing out that if you take the presidential race into account, the theory doesn’t add up. The McCain-Palin ticket outperformed poll expectations by 12.4 points, about the same margins as Young and Stevens tallies.

That polling discrepancy isn’t explained by the Stevens effect. Silver has a few more thoughts here on what might have happened.

Still, I’m not convinced that many voters didn’t pull a switch-a-roo on pollsters once they got into the voting booth.

During the session, she declined to say whether she will endorse indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens or Rep. Don Young. Jury selection in Stevens’ corruption trial finished yesterday in Washington. Young himself is under federal investigation for corruption as well.

“Ted Stevens’ trial started a couple days ago. We’ll see where that goes,” she told reporters in what amounted to her first press conference since accepting the Republican vice presidential nomination.

She ignored a follow-up question on whether she would vote for Stevens and Young and wouldn’t say whether she would have done anything differently than the Bush administration in its war on terror.

“I agree with the Bush administration that we take the fight to them,” she said. “We never again let them come onto our soil and try to destroy not only our democracy, but communities like the community of New York. Never again. So yes, I do agree with taking the fight to the terrorists and stopping them over there.”

She deflected a follow-up question about whether she felt the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan have inflamed Islamic extremists.

“I think our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to further security of our nation, again, because the mission is to take the fight over there. Do not let them come over here and attempt again what they accomplished here, and that was some destruction, terrible destruction on that day. But since September 11, Americans are uniting and rebuilding and committing to never letting that happen again.”

Palin also withheld her support for the Washington bailout package being negotiated in Washington “until the provisions that Sen. McCain has offered are implemented in Paulson’s proposals.”

On the bright side, the McCain campaign appears to have finally succumbed to pressure to allow Palin to talk to the reporters assigned to cover her — now all they need to do is get her to offer substantive answers to their questions.

But Silver appears to have additional ties that could further undercut Palin’s image as a squeaky-clean reformer. According to Senate lobbying disclosure reports examined by TPMmuckraker, from 2002 to 2004 Silver listed as a client Jack Abramoff’s lobbying firm, Greenberg Traurig.

Nice.

The muckrakers also note that this is not the first time Abramoff’s ties have made their way up here:

Last year, Mark Zachares, a former aide to [Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska)], pleaded guilty to accepting tens of thousands of dollars in gifts from Abramoff in return for using his position to advance Abramoff’s goals.

So far, though, Young has stayed two steps away from that scandal.