Broun backs Hensarling over Bachmann

While the House Republican Caucus in the Georgia House is picking its leaders for the upcoming session, members of Congress will soon be doing the same. And in the race for chair of the House Republican Conference, Rep. Paul Broun has made his pick between Rep. Jeb Hensarling and Rep. Michele Bachmann:

Conservative Georgia Rep. Paul Broun is backing Rep. Jeb Hensarling over Rep. Michele Bachmann for House Republican Conference chairman.

The endorsement is another sign of the conservative support Hensarling is garnering – Reps. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Spencer Bachus of Alabama have all thrown their support behind the Texan.

“Jeb has been an outspoken advocate for constitutionally-limited government and fiscal restraint long before it was popular in Washington,” Broun said in a statement. “ As a principled conservative and articulate communicator, Jeb has the energy, will, and ability to effectively communicate House Republicans’ policies with the American people.”

It’s a direct brush-back against Bachmann, who is running a campaign based on being a “constitutional conservative.”

I’m not sure how other Republicans in Georgia’s delegation are voting, but I would be surprised if they didn’t back Hensarling, who is more serious about policy and setting forth an actionable agenda for the next two years and has the better record on fiscal issues.

48 comments

  1. Gerald says:

    Establishment uses Tea Party to win back the House and make huge gains in the Senate. And establishment ignores the Tea Party when it comes to real power and policy. So, the Tea Party (small government conservatives) has become what the social conservatives have always been: used, deluded, diluted and thrown away by the Wall Street types (Nelson Rockefeller, Prescott Bush et al) that have always run the GOP.

      • Good post, good point Jason. Jeb is well proven. This has nothing to do with “disrespecting the Tea Party.” While I also respect Bachman, I believe she is more for herself than the movement. Truth be told, she is the one “using” the Tea Party to get the leadership post.

    • Nathan says:

      ….because Paul Broun is one of those “Wall Street types”. I would rather have someone with the proof that they can get things done than someone who makes speeches about how we need to get things done. No disrespect to Rep. Bachmann, but I’ll take Mr. Hensarling’s experience and record over Ms. Bachmann’s firebrand.

    • macho says:

      Bachmann is an idiot with no intention of accomplishing anything, other than giving inane quotes for talk shows. Hensarling is a much better choice to effectively advance the Tea Party’s agenda.

  2. Tiberius says:

    Blackburn, Bacchus and Ryan are a good start.

    You can be a constitutional conservative without being a television hog. Talk about someone who loves the sound of her own voice…

    If a someone gets between her and a camera, God help them.

  3. TheEiger says:

    Jeb will do a great job. And he is arguably more conservative that Bachmann. The quote below is from a story that was on Politico last week. I think both would do a good job, but I think Jeb has the ability to be both taken seriously and get things done.

    “Hensarling will argue that he’s the true conservative. Citizens Against Government Waste, a spending watchdog group, rates him higher than Bachmann. The group gives him a lifetime rating of 96 to her 91. Club for Growth gives Bachmann an 88, compared with Hensarling, who is tied for No. 1 with the top score of 100.”

  4. MSBassSinger says:

    I am not saying the premise is wrong, but my BS-Radar went off when reading the links to Reason.com. I think both people would do better than a any of a host of squishy Rockefeller Republicans.

    I am still fuzzy on exactly what votes show Bachmann as less conservative than Hensarling. I read where her family farm takes the same subsidies other farmers do (subsidies I would like to see gone), and Hensarling voted for Bush’s big Medicare giveaway. The latter being considerably more of a financial impact on the budget.

    What set off my BS-Radar was criticizing her as a “loon” because she described her marriage and career in mainstream, Biblically-correct terms. I get the impression that all criticism in other areas, whether accurate or not, stems from that great faux pas – not being silent about living out a Christian faith.

    I would like to see a side-by-side comparison of their stands on the relevant fiscal and security issues (areas of supposed agreement). My area of concern is that now that the Rockefeller Republicans have control of the House, they will now seek to marginalize (i.e. silence and send to the back of the bus) practicing Christian conservatives, who are active in the Republican Party and the Tea Party.

    If we go through this “Rockefeller Republican ascendency” again, 2012 will be a repeat of 2006. I understand there are 2-legged conservatives that want to feel free to not push the conservative social agenda. And they should be free to not support those issues. But just as 3-legged conservatives should support the 2-legged conservatives on the fiscal and security issues they agree on, the 2-legged conservatives should at least have the decency to accept 3-legged conservatives as peers and not actively work against them or try to marginalize them.

    Republicans cannot win without both.

    • TheEiger says:

      Who are these “Rockefeller Republicans” you speak of. Which ones are going to be in leadership positions or chairmen of important committees?

    • Tiberius says:

      You will drive yourself crazy trying to find out who is more conservative between two or more Congressmen who have a 94.5 vs. 94.4 ACU rating.

      My point is that she does not have the standing, the respect or simply put the intellect to handle a leadership position. She is great at screaming into a bullhorn to a group of activists/protestors from the Capitol steps or speaking on Hannity to people who are looking for little more beyond passionate cliches. Her negotiating with Steny Hoyer or Harry Reid in a conference committee or at a White House meeting where cliches are not needed? Overmatched?

      • MSBassSinger says:

        How do you know she doesn’t have the intellect? Do you know the IQs of both people?

        The narrow time demands of TV (and Hannity’s short attention span and inability to grasp complex concepts) explains the clichés and soundbites that most all conservatives on TV use.

          • MSBassSinger says:

            I beleive in creation, can justify it as a viable theory (and debunk evolution), from a purely scientific perspective, and my IQ is in the upper 1%.

            I have no problem with those who accept evolution and an”old earth” as a theory. I have a problem with those who say it is settled science and no longer a theory.

            Enough said.

            • griftdrift says:

              Then you obviously do not understand what a theory is in a scientific context and it doesn’t matter in percentile you IQ resides. Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

              • DoubleDawg3 says:

                Well, I would support Hensarling over Bachmann, but I think your argument against Bachmann is entirely irrelevant. First, I’d imagine that Hensarling, along with most Republican members of Congress, would publicly espouse their belief that God created man & Earth and, second, most of the US public agrees with them, if so. Check out the annual Gallup Poll on the issue…the numbers haven’t really changed a whole lot from 1982-2008 (the last poll I saw).

              • MSBassSinger says:

                Of course I know what a theory is. I made straight As in college in physics, chemistry, biology, nuclear physics, calculus, etc.

                From Random House:
                theorya proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

                Nothing can be both theory and fact. Once established as fact, it cannot be a theory. No process of the creation of the universe, or of the evolution of species, has been established as scientific fact.

                Further, neither evolution/”old earth” nor creation meet the requirements for being provable via the scientific method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html):
                1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
                2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
                3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
                4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

                Step 4 is not doable with respect to origins. Nor are the processes in either theory observable.

                The most famous attempt at Step 4 (within the context of this topic) was the Miller-Urey experiment, which was a failure in that as soon as the amino acids formed, they were destroyed by the same environment in which they were created.

                I suspect we are drifting outside the topic scope of this post. Perhaps we can jump back in (n a friendly, respectful way, of course) when a FPP makes a post relative to this topic.

                You can have the last word. And thanks for helping us challenge our comfort zones.

                • griftdrift says:

                  A. We are not talking about origins, therefore the Miller-Urey experiment (which by the way was not a failure) is not relevant. Evolution says nothing about the origin of life. It says a lot about life after it already exists.

                  B. Is gravity a theory or a fact?

                  C. As much fun as it is to argue evolution (been there, done that, ad nauseum), we are completely off topic. And also, I don’t argue with people who think the world might be 10,000 years old.

        • Tiberius says:

          I’ve listened to her on talk shows, interview, speeches and panel discussions enough to know she does not have an intellect that could lead a group of 240 or so high achieving adults.

          As an adult, are you telling me you can not listen to someone speak for 30 minutes or so and tell if he/she has a keen intellect, a deductive mind or an erudite commentator?

          We are talking a pyramid here. By getting elected she is at the top, but she is trying to get to next, smaller stage where she represents the GOP Conference. 240 leaders to 7 leaders. Like I said, she is good with a bullhorn and a TV, but behind closed doors?

          • MSBassSinger says:

            Newt Gingrich has a keen intellect, but he is a great example of being a Rockefeller Republican (believes in global warming, “We are beyond the era of Reagan”, etc.). I don’t want him in charge of anything in government.

            I am not passing judgment either way on her intellect. I am simply asking for something to go on (other than being a Christian) that shows she is not intellectually up to the task.

            I suspect most people who are successful in politics are not there for their intellect, but for their ability to motivate people. I am less confident in Sarah Palin’s intellectual abilities than Bachmann’s at this point, but only because I have heard and read Sarah Palin more. Palin seems quite likable, but I haven’t really seen any evidence of complex thought. Same for a lot of male Republican office holders, too. That is why I am simply asking Bachmann’s detractors to provide something that supports their opinions so I can learn something.

            • DoubleDawg3 says:

              I could be wrong, but I think there is very little difference in their voting history or their Conservative “credentials.” I think the difference comes in experience (Jeb has more of it) and approach to governing/leading.

              Hensarling appears to be more of the nose to the grind, know the facts in and out, type of Representative that has spent his time in Congress trying to develop the best knowledge and understanding of his committee issues, rather than making a public “name” for himself. Descriptions show him as studious, but reserved, in his approach…while Bachmann seems to have more of a “fiery,” public approach to espousing her viewpoints.

              I’d argue that it’s probably a choice of which approach do you favor – the quiet one that probably spends more actual time studying and developing limited government principles, or the more outgoing one that takes the approach of advancing those principles by garnering public support & momentum for the overall “cause.” Maybe it’s a “policy” or “publicity” argument too?

            • macho says:

              You mean Newt “Dee Dee Scozzafava” Gingrich, who has decided to go back to pretending he’s a conservative by embracing the Tea Party movement?

          • AlanR says:

            It’s her ego. To run that committee will require a committment of time and attention she would rather use traveling to events and doing talk shows. She’s very good at that, and I suspect Henserling is probably not.

            Henserling will be the better chair and be more attentive to the nuts and bolts of the conference’s business.

  5. Tiberius says:

    After reading all these messages, I am reminded of that overused phrase used in direct mail:

    “A Workhorse, not a Showhorse.”

  6. Charlie says:

    Whether she lacks intellect or intellectual integrity, I’m not sure. But she must lack one or the other.

    Last week, she was all over Anderson Cooper (Erick was on, so I watched, but it probably makes me a “Rockefeller Republican”). She was quoting Drudge who was quoting some foreign dubious news source about the cost of Obama’s trip to India. To be sure, there were some points that could be considered excess. Her problem, however, was that she seemed totally unburdened by actual facts. It seemed to be enough to her that she read on Drudge that she should be outraged, and told Cooper essentially that it didn’t matter that the “facts” she was spouting were provably wrong, because she knew her outrage was justified somehow.

    Our country faces perhaps the greatest structural economic problems in our history. Hensarling and Bachman have nearly identical voting records. One is serious, hardworking, and pragmatic in his approach to use real data in search of real conserative solutions. The other should be a fill in host on the View if Elizabeth is ever out sick.

    We need someone who knows the actual facts we should all be outraged about, and be working on solutions; not trumping up reasons to be outraged in order to get another 15 minutes on cable news.

  7. debbie0040 says:

    It is not a slap at the tea party. Either one would do a good job and are fine people. I think to determine who would be best, you have to look at the job description of the position..

  8. Holly says:

    I can’t comment on the actual race between the two, but… does anyone else remember how much fun it was to poke fun at liberals when they rebranded themselves as “progressives”? It’s come full circle, folks. Now conservatives are “Tea-Party candidates”. If we call this what it is, it’s two very conservative Republicans running for the same position, and I don’t see one as being able to “out-conservative” the other. 🙂

Comments are closed.