“For me, the right to life has never been political,” Boehner said.

Boehner, the first political leader to take the stage at the three-day conservative Christian conference, began speaking about jobs and the economy, telling the room of flag-T-shirt-wearers that it is time to “liberate our economy from the shackles of this government.”

But he switched gears to abortion politics soon after, eliciting strong reactions from the crowd when he accused the administration of using taxpayer dollars to fund elective abortions, a policy that is prohibited by the longstanding Hyde Amendment. Still Boehner called for the end of publicly funding abortions and said the House GOP was working on a bill to make permanent the Hyde Amendment.

“Beyond the life issue, we must defend the Defense of Marriage Act,” Boehner said, censuring the president for ignoring the “law of the land” and promising to take money away from the Department of Justice for refusing to defend DOMA.

This week, Boehner’s office announced it is raising a $750,000 spending cap to $1.5 million to former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who is defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Senate Minority Leader Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) speech followed the same blueprint as Boehner’s – jobs, abortion, same-sex marriage. He announced that a bill would be introduced next week to Congress that would “ensure no taxpayer dollars to abortion” and that would broaden so-called “conscience rights” to health care workers and pharmacists, to allow them to refuse abortion services and emergency contraception to women based on religious objections.

But what ultimately won Cantor a standing ovation was a proposal to “eliminate government funding for any and all organizations that perform abortions.” This effort – largely aimed at defunding Planned Parenthood, which receives more than $300 million annually for its family planning and reproductive health services – has already begun with the House’s recent introduction of a controversial Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies appropriations bill (PDF).

Abortion has already proved to be a star in this year’s summit, with every speaker addressing it in some form. Members of Susan B Anthony List are stationed throughout the Omni Shoreham Hotel handing out a joint voter guide introduced Friday by the SBA List and the National Organization for Marriage that list the anti-abortion/anti-same-sex marriage rights of the presidential hopefuls based on pledges they have signed.

Boehner and Cantor followed Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council Action, the lead sponsor of the Values Voter Summit. In his speech, Perkins introduced a theme that is likely to pervade the conference and how presidential candidates campaign for the support of the Christian voters in attendance.

Referring to a recent speech the President Barack Obama gave about values before the LGBT lobby the Human Rights Campaign, Perkins challenged the current president in his absence.

“Mr. President, you’re right, this is a contest of values. And I tell you what, this Marine has never backed away from a contest. … This election is too important to elect a Republican. We need to elect a conservative …”

The rest of his sentence was drowned out by roaring applause.

Stay tuned for more Values Voter Summit coverage from The American Independent.

The Nov. 2 gala, to be held at the Newseum in Washington D.C., is intended to celebrate AUL’s 40th anniversary in the presence of about 80 federal lawmakers.

Co-chairing the event with Perry are U.S. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.); the keynote speaker has yet to be confirmed.

AUL has listed as “honorary hosts” 16 U.S. senators — all Republicans — including Sens. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), John McCain (Ariz.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.). Among the 63 U.S. House representatives listed as “honorary hosts” are 2012 GOP presidential contenders Reps. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.). Other attending GOP representatives influential in the anti-abortion rights movement include Reps. Trent Franks (Ariz.), Mike Pence (Ind.), Joe Pitts (Pa.), Paul Ryan (Wis.), Cliff Stearns (Fla.) and Allen West (Fla.).

Reps. Renee Ellmers (N.C.), Bill Huizenga (Mich.), Randy Hultgren (Ill.) and Chris Smith (N.J.) all participated in last month’s press conference about the report AUL drafted to encourage Congress to investigate — and then defund — Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

AUL’s gala is a pricey affair: The organization is asking supporters to become sponsors — for $5,000, $10,000 or $25,000 in order to offset the costs of the event.

In a recent lengthy profile on Charmaine Yoest, president and CEO of Americans United for Life, the Christian Science Monitor describes how Yoest — who is not a physician, attorney nor lawmaker, though she has a doctorate of philosophy in government — has become “Public Enemy No. 1″ for abortion-rights advocates. In November, the group will celebrate its influence on select laws, such as defending the Hyde Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court and establishing the “intellectual groundwork” for the fetal homicide legislation that has passed in 38 states.

Despite four decades of lobbying and drafting model legislation to enact abortion restrictions throughout the country, much of the national recognition AUL has earned has come in 2011. Yoest’s group has taken credit for 22 of 86 anti-abortion laws enacted this year, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

In February, Mother Jones blamed AUL for controversial laws cropping up in Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota that, if interpreted in a certain way, would have allegedly legalized the killing of abortion providers. AUL denied the accusation, claiming that however lawmakers might have adapted AUL’s model “Pregnant Woman Protection Act” was out of the organization’s control.

Ten days after the AUL gala, Yoest will set sail as a guest speaker on a National Review-sponsored cruise.

As of yet, Perry has not signed the Susan B. Anthony List’s highly-publicized anti-abortion pledge, but in other ways, Perry has already presented himself as an ardent abortion opponent and dedicated evangelical Christian. Perry’s relationship with AUL has been positive since he became governor of Texas in 2000. When AUL released its annual “Defending Life” publication of model legislation, Perry’s testimony was used to promote the publication:

This state-by-state scorecard of progress in the effort to defend life lets elected officials, grassroots activists and citizens know exactly where we are on our shared priority. I am proud that the report reflects the sweeping reforms we have enacted in Texas, saving thousands of lives in the process. This is not a book you leave on the shelf to collect dust. This information is ammunition in a fight that is far from over. I know you will find this guide informative and useful as you continue to promote and protect life in your state.

In AUL’s latest “State of the States” report card, Texas ranked fifth — making it one of the most restrictive states regarding abortion rights.

In May, Perry signed a controversial Texas bill into law requiring women seeking abortions to wait 24 hours after seeing a sonogram of their fetus. The law is facing litigation. He also signed into law a bill making “Choose Life” license plates available to Texas drivers, directing the revenue from those plates to state crisis pregnancy centers.

According to a recent analysis by NARAL Pro-Choice America about Perry’s abortion-related legislative record, “many of the laws he signed inject political interference into women’s private decision-making.”

Among the highlights of Perry’s record, NARAL noted that the governor signed a proclamation declaring April 2009 “Abortion Recovery Awareness Month” in Texas.

The campaign, which largely targets states where Republicans won control of legislatures or governorships, has garnered the support of Republican political superstars such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Jon Kyl (Ariz.), and Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.). The groups intend to pass anti-gay marriage amendments, curtail abortion rights and, in at least one case, ban “transgender bathrooms.”

Family policy councils — a creation of Focus on the Family in the 1980s — have launched the Ignite plan in 15 states. Each family policy council has a three-prong plan to achieve their legislative goals over the next two years: lobbying for legislation, mobilizing pastors and social conservatives and supporting candidates that have backed their initiatives. Each group has used a stock brochure containing nearly identical wording to explain their plan and to solicit funds. In many cases, an Ignite plan was launched with an anonymous matching-grant donor.

Requests for information from many of the policy councils were denied, and Focus on the Family told The American Independent that they have no involvement, declining to offer information on any organization that might back the plan.

Focus on the Family says that while the groups are “fully associated” with FoF, they “are independent entities with no corporate or financial relationship to each other or to Focus on the Family.”

While Form 990s — revenue and expense documents that nonprofits file with the IRS — don’t provide detailed information on political organizing expenditures, The American Independent has provided each group’s average yearly revenues for comparison to their two-year spending under the Ignite plan.

Already, the groups are seeing success in their respective states.

The South Dakota Family Policy Council is spending $72,600 in the next two years as part of the Ignite campaign (PDF), specifically to pass legislation that would force women seeking an abortion to speak to counselors at religious-based crisis pregnancy centers.

SDFPC lobbied heavily for the bill in the media, testified before the South Dakota legislature and organized a pastor’s day at the state Capitol in Pierre in February to advocate for the bill. It passed the legislature and was signed into law in late-March.

The SDFPC is also pushing legislation that would ban surrogate mothers, but thus far the bill has yet to get out of committee. The group lists “Defeat Equality-SD’s radical gay-rights legislation,” as a goal of the Ignite campaign.

All told, SDFPC plans to spend $72,600 under the campaign, a small chunk of the average $304,000 the group took in as normal operating revenue each year over the last 5 years.

SDFPC did not return a request for information about the campaign.

Anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot in 2012

In several states — such as Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia — Ignite plans seems to be targeted at getting anti-gay marriage amendments passed.

The Family Policy Council of West Virginia (FPCWV) plans to spend $168,000 through 2012  (it’s average yearly budget is $132,000) during its two-year Ignite campaign to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and civil unions, and also to defeat laws that would prevent discrimination against gays and lesbians.

In West Virginia, both houses of the legislature are overwhelmingly held by Democrats, and Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin is a Democrat. The planned anti-gay marriage amendment there was voted down in the House of Delegates in February, even though many of the Democrats in the state oppose gay marriage.

FPCWV did not return a request for information about the Ignite campaign.

The Pennsylvania Family Institute plans to spend $1.5 million through 2012 on anti-abortion rights measures as well as a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage in the state. The average yearly revenue for the group over the last three years was $1.4 million.

The group also received a matching donation of $7,500 at the end of 2010.

On Tuesday, Pennsylvania Republicans introduced the anti-gay marriage amendment that PFI says they’ll push over the next two years.

“Ignite may well be the most important plan we’ve ever undertaken,” wrote PFI president Michael Geer in a message to supporters about the plan. “We want to ensure that Pennsylvania’s pro-family citizens don’t ‘go home’ thinking election results alone will stop those who undermine the timeless values you and I share. Our plan is designed to take back lost ground in the areas of life, liberty, marriage, and the family.”

Indiana Family Institute plans (PDF) to spend $498,000 to defund Planned Parenthood and to pass an anti-gay marriage amendment. IFI’s revenues have averaged $313,896 over the past three years.

The IFI did not respond to a request for comment on the Ignite plan.

In Minnesota, the Ignite plan calls for adding an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution banning gay marriage; the Minnesota Family Council is planning to spend $4.71 million in the next two years. The group averaged $832,000 in revenue over the last three years between the Council and it’s affiliate, the Minnesota Family Institute. If the Ignite campaign goes according to plan, the group will spend more than twice its historical average in working to abolish gay marriage in the state.

Big endorsements

Family Foundation of Virginia plans to spend $1,170,277 over the next two years to push legislation on “wrongful death for the unborn,” school choice and religious liberty protections.

The group’s revenues over the last four years have averaged $510,000. They did not return a request for information on the campaign and increased spending.

Like many of the family policy councils, the Family Foundation got a year-end bump from a matching grant:

“In order to get us off to a strong start in implementing this plan, a small group of The Family Foundation’s donors have offered to match every contribution The Family Foundation receives before December 31 — up to $25,000!” the group said in a recent fundraising pitch.

And the group has been busy this year. It’s former executive director, Martin Brown, was tapped by Gov. Bob McDonnell to head Virginia’s Social Services Department. Under Brown’s leadership, the state social services board has tightened adoption rules so that agencies may discriminate against gay and lesbian couples.

The Family Foundation lobbied heavily for the pro-discrimination policies.

Its plan (PDF), which was sent to donors, includes this endorsement from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: “It is difficult to imagine how Virginia would look today without The Family Foundation’s vigilant grassroots programs and the dedicated men and women who are the heart and soul of this proud institution.”

The Massachusetts Family Institute also had a message to its supporters last fall: “We must ensure Massachusetts’s pro-family movement doesn’t ‘go home’ after a tough election. We must work to ensure the “moment” that was the 2010 elections, both the January Special Election and the general in November, becomes a “movement” that takes back lost ground in the areas of life, liberty, marriage, and the family.”

MFI plans to spend $148,000 to defeat a “transgender bathroom bill,” to pass a student religious freedom bill and to pass anti-abortion rights initiatives, all uphill battles in a heavily progressive state.

The group’s website includes an endorsement of their Ignite plan from presidential candidate Mitt Romney. “MFI has a track record of getting things done on behalf of Massachusetts families and is uniquely positioned to accomplish even more in the years to come.”

The Louisiana Family Forum got a big endorsement from Gov. Bobby Jindal, a rumored candidate for president in 2012. “LFF had another great year, scoring an impressive 31 legislative victories,” Jindal wrote in support of LFF’s Ignite plan (PDF). “[LFF president Gene Mills] and his entire group do a great a job day after day, month after month, year after year showing up on behalf of Louisiana’s families. We look forward to many more pro-life, pro-family victories in the years ahead.”

LFF plans to spend $225,000 under its Ignite plan to defeat “homosexual adoption and marriage” and to “shrink the size and scope of government.” The group’s average revenue over the last two years was $600,000. The group received a $50,000 matching grant from an anonymous donor to launch the plan.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida loaned his name to the Florida Family Policy Council’s Ignite plan, which calls for spending $300,000 to mandate that women view an ultrasound before having an abortion and to “defeat the radical homosexual agenda.”

The group averaged revenues of $384,000 over the last three years.

FFPC president John Stemberger told his supporters that their plan was meant to stave off victories by “non-religious right friendly legislators.”

“The people who work to undermine the values you and I share may have suffered a historic defeat in this year’s election, but both you and I know they won’t just go home,” he wrote. “As a matter of fact, they’re already planning how to turn things around in the next election. The “Ignite Plan” that I’m working on right now… is focused on making sure that doesn’t happen.”

Sen. Rubio wrote in support of the the group’s Ignite plan (PDF), saying, “FFPC’s successes in education, legislation and accountability have made them an indispensable asset in promoting and defending traditional values.”

The Center for Arizona Policy’s Ignite plan (PDF) has the endorsements of Rep. Trent Franks and Sen. Jon Kyl.

“With all the external challenges that we face in this country, the internal one is the greatest,” Franks wrote in support of the plan. “And I believe that a few people can make the vital difference. Center for Arizona Policy is the flagship of that effort here in Arizona.”

Sen. Kyl added, “It is very clear that Center for Arizona Policy has become an important force to influence public policy here in the state of Arizona.”

CAP doesn’t list its legislative goals on its website. CAP did get an anonymous donor to provide a matching grant for $115,000 for the plan. The group did not return a request for information about the plan.

Activity in other states

Other state groups include the New Jersey Family Policy Council, which is spending $1.326 million to defeat any same-sex marriage laws and to pass a parental notification law for minors seeking an abortion. The group’s average yearly revenue has been $864,000 over the last three years.

Cornerstone Family Council of Idaho is also using the Ignite plan, and got a matching grant from an anonymous donor for $6,300. Cornerstone did not return a request for comment. Neither did Wisconsin Family Action, which got a $13,000 matching grant.

Family Action Council of Tennessee and the Kansas Family Policy Council both have adopted the Ignite strategy.

“From a partisan point of view, I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a shutdown,” the former DNC chairman said. “I know who’s going to get blamed. We’ve been down this road before.”

Dean clarified that during the government shutdowns of 1995 and 1996, it was the Republican Party that took the blame, which Dean believes, improved former President Bill Clinton’s reelection chances.

“All these tea party people who are dependent on Social Security and Medicare and all these other things, when those checks stop coming, believe me, their constituency’s going to go even lower than it has been after the fiasco in Wisconsin,” Dean said, before he was reminded that Social Security checks will not stop coming in the event of a shutdown.

“Yes,” he countered. “But there’s going to be a lot of talk about it and there’s going to be a lot of nervousness and there are going to be some things that do stop and who knows what’s going to stop?”

Panelists Steve Elmendorf, top aide to former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, former Republican Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia and former Republican Rep. Vin Weber of Minnesota, disagreed with Dean on all points, saying a shutdown would be bad for the American people and would not assist either party politically.

Dean said he wouldn’t like a shutdown from a statesman point of view.

Meanwhile, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) announced Tuesday that the House will not pass another short-term federal funding bill if Congress cannot finalize a 2011 spending agreement by April 8, according to the Boston Globe.

Here’s video of Dean speaking on the National Journal Insider’s Conference panel:

Making the case as to why she should be considered for the 2012 Republican nomination for president, the Minnesota representative told Fox News last week, “I have been able to raise more money than any member of the House of Representatives in the history of the United States Congress,” according to The Washington Post’s ‘Fact Checker blog.

The Post found that Bachmann raised more money in the 2009-2010 election cycle than any other House member, bringing in $13.5 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics; her contributions came mostly from individuals, 50 percent of whom contributed $200 or less.

“Bachmann is a prodigious fundraiser, but once again her talent for hyperbole has stretched the truth a bit,” writes the Post’s Glenn Kessler. ”Her statement would have been accurate if she had added the words ‘in an election cycle.’ But instead she choose to make a sweeping statement that, as of yet, is not quite true.”

Using CRP data, the Post found that Bachmann is in fourth place in terms of total fundraising by current House members, though those figures do not include money raised from leadership Political Action Committees:

• Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio): $26.4 million
• Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.): $21.7 million
• Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.): $20.5 million
• Bachmann: $19.6 million
• Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.): $18.5 million
• Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.): $17.6 million
• Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): $12.5 million.

And now they have one more link: They are victims of sting videos created to discredit the organizations.

Activist James O’Keefe, responsible for defaming ACORN, recently released an undercover video showing former NPR executive Ron Schiller lunching with men posing as representatives of a fake Muslim group claiming affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood and offering to give $5 million to the network. Schiller was caught on tape making inflammatory statements, among them that the tea party supporters are fanatic and xenophobic and that liberals are more intelligent and informed than conservatives.

The story, broken by The Daily Caller on Tuesday, fueled anti-NPR sentiment, particularly from House Majority Leader Eric Cantor:

“As we continue to identify ways to cut spending and save valuable resources, this disturbing video makes clear that taxpayer dollars should no longer be appropriated to NPR. Not only have top public broadcasting executives finally admitted that they do not need taxpayer dollars to survive, it is also clear that without federal funds, public broadcasting stations self-admittedly would become eligible for more private dollars on top of the multi-million dollar donations these organizations already receive.

“At a time when our government borrows 40 cents of every dollar that it spends, we must find ways to cut spending and live within our means. This video clearly highlights the fact that public broadcasting doesn’t need taxpayer funding to thrive, and I hope that admission will lead to a bipartisan consensus to end these unnecessary federal subsidies.”

According to CBSNews, NPR said it refused the offer from the phony group and that Schiller left NPR last week for another job; though, NPR officials told CBS the decision was unrelated to O’Keefe’s video.

“NPR Muslim Brotherhood Investigation Part 1″ video:

Far from Tallahassee, Gov. Rick Scott offered up his first state budget to a crowd of 1,000 tea partiers tightly packed into the First Baptist Church of Eustis, who wildly applauded his $66 million “jobs budget,” which calls for more than $7 million in cuts and widespread restructuring over the next two years: #

“I bet you we’re going to like 95 percent of it, because he’s one of us,” said tea party activist Billie Tucker before the governor released his plan. “We’re going to support the deep cuts.” #

Scott got the positive reinforcement he may have been seeking by leaving skeptical Tallahassee for the roll-out. #

“This is the budget you asked for,” Scott said to applause. #

Monday’s budget announcement reinforced Scott’s ties to the movement that helped get him through the Republican primary and into office. Before rolling out his budget, Scott met privately with tea party members at a luncheon at the Eustis civic center. During the public session at the church, Scott reiterated his gratitude before getting into his budget numbers. #

“I started running last April 9th,” Scott said after being introduced. “Winning in November was because of what you all did. Thank you very much.” #

State Reps. Mike Weinstein of Jacksonville and Larry Metz of Yalaha, two Republican legislators who supported Scott’s transformation from former embattled health care CEO to viable gubernatorial candidate last spring, announced to the crowd that they would be forming a Tea Party Caucus within the Florida legislature. #

They noted that 18 House members were expected to join at the outset, and that Gov. Scott is “on board.” #

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Allen West, R-Fort Lauderdale, another political newcomer who was elected under the mantle of the tea party, announced his intention to join House Tea Party Caucus founded and chaired by Minnesota Republican Michele Bachmann, who claims the group is informal and will focus on policy issues. West said through a spokesman that his decision to accept the caucus’ invitation was due to its alignment with many of the values espoused throughout his campaign, such as limited government. #

In a move to further legitimize the movement and move it beyond the grassroots level, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., recently announced the formation of a Senate Tea Party Caucus, which aligns itself with Bachmann’s group and together with the Tea Party Express will tonight be holding a first-of-its-kind interactive Tea Party Town Hall at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. #

Paul outlined the necessity of a formal caucus to represent the tea party movement in a statement last month: #

“Republicans in the Senate have already made a pledge to end earmarks and fight for a balanced-budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution,” Paul said in the statement. “By joining with my fellow Senators, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Mike Lee of Utah, as well as grassroots groups who see the need for government reform, the caucus will work to enact real change to protect our country and its taxpayers from an ever-expanding government.” #

Lee described the tea party movement as “a movement of everyday Americans who have grown tired of Washington playing by their own set of rules.” #

“Americans have elected us to be responsible caretakers of their hard-earned money and freedom, and the formation of this caucus gives us the opportunity to listen to the American people and do what they elected us to do,” he added. #

Not all tea party favorites see the formation of formal caucuses as a wise or necessary move. Rising GOP star Marco Rubio told reporters late last month that he didn’t see the need for a Tea Party Caucus: #

“Really what I think the strength of the tea party is that it comes from the grass-roots,” Rubio told a group of Florida reporters in an interview in his temporary Senate office. “That it is not a political organization, it’s not something run by politicians or people seeking higher office, but rather it is a movement of every day citizens from all walks of life. That’s the strength of the tea party: that it’s not a political organization run by people out of Washington. My concern is a tea party caucus could intrude on that.” #

He said he does plan to join the Republican Steering Committee, a conservative group that has been long established and meets to talk policy. He noted the group has staffers and has the “infrastructure in place to provide resources that those of us who believe in center right limited government, free enterprise can rely on.” #

He noted his attendance on his Facebook page, noting the committee — formed in 1974 and chaired by South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who is also a member of the tea party Caucus, “is a forum for senators to work together to discuss and promote conservative legislation and policies.” #

“The fundamental question I have — and there might be a good reason for it — is what’s the difference between the tea party caucus and what already exists in the steering committee?” said Rubio, who first questioned the need for a separate tea party caucus during a CNN interview last July. #

As Think Progress reported yesterday, Rubio is now dismissing the Caucus as a “little club” that, if led by Washington politicians, will cause the movement to “lose its energy”: #

Now, specifically about the Tea Party Caucus, the concern that I’ve expressed, is that what I think gives the tea party its strength and its legitimacy in the American political process is that it’s a grassroots movement of everyday Americans. … My fear has always been that if you start creating these little clubs or organizations in Washington run by politicians, the movement starts to lose its energy. Basically, the media will jump on that and start paying attention to that instead of the grass roots movement which is really what has given the tea party its voice. … I don’t want us to do anything that kind of changes its grassroots nature. #

In the other chamber of Congress, a number of leading House Republicans have criticized Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) for founding the House Tea Party Caucus (which inspired the Senate version). House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) refused to join the caucus, saying the tea party movement is “certainly not of Washington and in that respect it’s better left with the people.” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), who also refused to join despite his closeness to the tea party, said the movement “should be kept outside Congress.” “The more you try to put structure around the tea party, the more compromised it will be,” Chaffetz wrote warned. #

Listen to the audio of Rubio’s interview, which appeared on “The Tray Radel Show” last Friday:

#

#

“It’s my view that Americans are no more interested in a Republican platform for using government to re-engineer society than they were in the Democratic plan to do so,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in a speech to the Heritage Foundation yesterday. “Republicans will focus on doing a few things and doing them well.”

Apart from job creation, reducing the deficit and repealing health care reform, it’s hard to discern much else in the way of an agenda from the Republican brass — but even those items don’t hint at much legislative action. Republicans have consistently argued that, apart from cutting taxes, there’s little else government can or should do to promote job growth. Repealing health reform will be limited to a large, symbolic vote to undo the whole thing and several minor scuffles over funding for implementation.

The likely second-in-command in the House, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), hinted at a similarly light legislative approach in a 16-page document he released yesterday called “Delivering On Our Commitment: A Majority to Limit Government and Create Jobs.”

“I believe we need to return to a committee-driven legislature that investigates problems, listens intently to the citizenry, and proposes well thought-out solutions when necessary,” the proposal reads. “Just because we’re in session, does not mean the House floor needs to be utilized. Repetitive floor votes and filling time with half-baked legislative proposals – as is currently done by the Democrat majority – is not a suitable answer.”

On the surface, a proposal to do next to nothing might seem like a risky strategy. The Congress that’s wrapping up had one of the most productive legislative sessions in the last several decades, yet most Americans still believed that it was either lazy, mired in partisan gridlock or ineffectual. But as The New Republic’s Jonathan Chait points out, if any cooperation with President Obama on policy issues will inevitably boost his stature, the GOP’s strategy makes sense as the most logical — albeit cynical — approach:

It’s probably always been true that the fundamental role of the minority is to oppose the majority and pave the way to winning reelection. America’s long history of ideologically amorphous parties, a relic of Southern Apartheid policies, created a tradition of cross-party cooperation. Those social norms persist, and both Washington elites and many Americans expect the two parties to work together as if they aren’t engaged in zero-sum political conflict.

But the truth is that, when the minority party cooperates with the majority party president, it generally makes the president and his policies more popular. The difference is that the Republican Party of 2009-10 is probably the first opposition party to fully recognize the dynamic and make this the core of its legislative strategy from the very outset. [...]

In the media you’re seeing a lot of familiar claims that the two parties need to work together. There is no incentive for the Republicans to do so. Even on issues where they can get a pure win, handing a win to Obama reduces their ability to gain the presidency in 2012. So why would they pursue an ancillary part of their agenda and reduce the chance to achieve the core elements of that agenda?

The trouble, of course, is that our political system isn’t set up to handle this reality. It was not designed with parties in mind. That’s another reason we have strong social norms dictating that elected officials ignore their political interests, at least for some period after elections. But that norm is dead. Meanwhile, we’re left with a political system that doesn’t work.

He said his action wasn’t contradictory with his “don’t vote” message because he skipped over voting for Congress — his district is represented by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who is favored to win. “When you look at the substance of the ad, the website, when you look at the press release, we are very clear,” de Posada told TBD. “Go vote for governor or whoever, just don’t vote for those who betray you.”

Of course, that wasn’t the message he put in his ad. “Clearly, the Democratic leadership betrayed us,” the ad states. “And now, when they need our votes, they are at it again with more empty promises. Aren’t you tired of politicians playing games with your future?”

When DePosada tried to explain why the ad wasn’t strictly anti-Democrat after Univision announced it would not run it, he also failed to mention he only wanted Latinos to skip voting for Congress. “Immigration reform is not a Republican or Democratic issue: Both parties have failed the Latino people on this issue,” he said. “Don’t just give your vote away because it’s expected.”

So far, GOP leaders are attempting to stay mum on the issue. Having gotten a lot of mileage out of decrying the ethics cases surrounding Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), repeatedly accusing Pelosi of not actually “draining the swamp” in Washington as she had promised, Republicans are attempting to avoid headlines that they would seek to loosen up ethics scrutiny in Washington should they take power:

Boehner’s spokesman tried to change the topic when asked whether his boss would keep the OCE if Boehner has the Speaker’s gavel in 2011.

“We are listening to the American people, who are focused on jobs and spending,” said Michael Steel. “This sort of hypothetical hasn’t come up.”

Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) spokesman responded similarly.

“Eric is focused on cutting spending and bringing an end to the cloud of uncertainty that continues to hang over job creators, families, and investors so that people can get back to work,” said Brad Dayspring.

While Boehner and Cantor won’t say anything for certain at present, they both opposed the OCE’s creation and tried to block the measure in March of 2008. The bill passed by a single vote (207-206), and requires reauthorization at the beginning of each congress. Many House Democrats, as well, are hardly pleased with the new office, especially members who faced a recent investigation into their conduct on the eve of the financial reform vote in December, as well as members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC):

CBC members have introduced legislation that would curtail the powers of the OCE, but those proposed modifications were swiftly lambasted by watchdog groups, including Democracy 21 and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington.

Republicans and Democrats in recent weeks have openly ripped the OCE’s investigative tactics amid an investigation into the fundraising activities of a bipartisan group of eight members during the Wall Street reform debate.

Last week, the OCE recommended that the House ethics committee further review Reps. John Campbell (R-Calif.), Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.) for fundraisers they held in the days leading up to the House financial reform vote last December. The OCE recommended dismissal of the probes against the five other members.

An ethics office that has roused the ire of both parties would appear to be living up faithfully to its independent watchdog mission. Unfortunately, it serves at the pleasure of the Congress it is tasked with investigating, putting it in a perilous spot come the beginning of the next session.