“Tea partiers” in the 5th against Eric Cantor before they were for him?

Last week, the various far-righters in the 5th Congressional District were incensed that Eric Cantor would dare to contribute $7,000 (through his campaign committee and his personal funds) to the Congressional campaign of State Senator Robert Hurt. These little tirades included throwing around words like “RINO” and whatnot with allegations that Cantor was not a ‘true conservative’ and so on and so forth (for an example, check out the 5th District blog).

Then came news today that certain “tea party” leaders were attempting to recruit former Representative Virgil Goode to run against Perriello, notwithstanding Goode’s lost to Perriello in 2008.

Now, I’m far from a fan of Eric Cantor (and there are posts to prove that), but maybe these “tea party” folks should go take a look at Virgil Goode’s own campaign contributions. According to Virgil Goode’s campaign finance reports (through September 30, 2009), Virgil Goode’s campaign committee has contributed a total of $1,500 to Cantor for Congress ($500 to Cantor for Congress on March 31, 2009, and an additional $1,000 on July 21, 2009).

So, what’s worse, receiving money from Cantor or giving Cantor money?

Cross-posted at On The Right and Virginia Virtucon.

Gee, thanks Eric: Cantor opposes privatization of interstate rest stops.

Delegate Bob Marshall has been on the frontlines of this issue and has been keeping his mailing list up-to-date on it:

Congressional Efforts
Congressman Frank Wolf offered an amendment to the Transportation Appropriations Act to keep Virginia rest stops open by allowing Virginia, like other states, to contract with private restaurants to operate the rest stops and provide motorists services.  The Wolf Amendment narrowly failed in the Appropriations Committee 32 nays -26 yeas.

The Wolf Amendment would cost not one dime of tax money! This amendment may come up this week on the House Floor when the Transportation Appropriations Bill is considered on Thursday, July 23 and possibly another bill!  AAA has said that closing these stops will contribute to more interstate traffic accidents.

Eric Cantor Opposes Wolf Amendment
I was interviewed by WRVA’s Jimmy Barrett (7-16-09) who informed me that Rep. Eric Cantor OPPOSED the Wolf Amendment because it would lead to competition with existing businesses just off the interstates.  I received a call (7-21-09) from an authoritative Congressional source that Congressman Eric Cantor actively worked to defeat the Wolf Amendment for the reasons that existing business near interstates OPPOSE commercial ventures at these  eighteen Interstate Safety Rest stops.

I emailed a letter to Rep. Cantor (7-20-09) and also spoke to his Chief of Staff about this and left my phone number with her.  I have received NO answer to my inquiry from Rep. Cantor or his staff.  (Gov. Kaine supports the Wolf Amendment.)

Stifling business competition is a normal Republican policy.  IF WRVA Radio and my congressional source are accurate, the bottom line is that protecting businesses is apparently more important than protecting lives on the Interstates.

Contact Congressman Cantor today and ask him to support the Wolf Amendment to allow Virginia to contract with private vendors at Interstate Safety Rest Stops to keep them open.
Richmond:  p: (804) 747-4073 | (800) 438-3793 | f: (804) 747-5308
Culpeper: p: (540) 825-8960 | f: (540) 825-8964
Washington:  p: (202) 225-2815 | f: (202) 225-0011

Eric Cantor votes to give a company (which he owns stock in) a government-enforced majority control of their market until the end of time.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention that my idiot brother (shameless plug: check out his two hate-blogs, On The Right and Orange, VA Independence Day Tea Party) brought Cantor’s vote to my attention.

I speak of the recently passed bill that will give the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory authority over tobacco products. Ironically, the bill was supported by the biggest cigarette maker out there: Philip Morris. Why? Well, check out what National Review Online had to say:

Last week, overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, authorizing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products. The New York Times proclaimed the bill an “enormous victory for public health.” President Obama, himself a sometime smoker who reportedly struggles with nicotine addiction, declared that the legislation “will protect our kids and improve our public health” and is expected to sign it later this week. The bill grants the FDA expansive new regulatory authority, but more regulation does not guarantee greater protection of public health — or the public good.

Anti-smoking groups, such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, have long sought FDA regulation of tobacco products and called passage of the bill a “historic victory.” Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Henry Waxman, the bill’s primary sponsors, have sought greater tobacco controls for years. Sen. Dick Durbin proclaimed that the legislation will “protect children and protect America” from the scourge of cigarettes and nicotine addiction. Interestingly enough, the bill also had support of the nation’s largest cigarette manufacturer, Philip Morris, and its parent company, Altria. That alone should clear away some of the euphoric haze surrounding its passage.


Manufacturers will be required to place expanded warning labels on their products and to provide the government with more detailed information about cigarette contents and smoking by-products. The law also bars flavored cigarettes — save for menthol. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Menthol cigarettes are initially exempt from the ban because of demands from the Congressional Black Caucus. About 75 percent of African-American smokers buy menthol brands.” The leading maker of menthols is Philip Morris.


Limiting tobacco advertising and stalling the development of new tobacco products won’t help public health, but it will certainly benefit the nation’s largest cigarette manufacturer. Government regulation is the most tried-and-true way for incumbent firms to squelch smaller competitors, which helps explain why Philip Morris supports the bill and smaller tobacco companies oppose it. Harder to fathom is why public-health advocates who should know better celebrate the law as a major advance.

The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act is revealed as yet another Beltway deal for Big Government and Big Business. Those who proclaim it a victory for public health and the public good are blowing smoke.

And here’s what Forbes had to say about the bill:

Their [Philip Morris’] reasons for cheering aren’t all so high minded. The bill, already passed by the House of Representatives, will change the face of the tobacco industry by giving the FDA the authority to restrict tobacco product ingredients, impose nicotine caps and limit advertising campaigns. It solidifies the position of the producer with the greatest market share–Altria–which makes 50% of all cigarettes in the U.S.

Because the domestic cigarette market is shrinking every year, manufacturers are competing fiercely for customers. Companies like R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard Tobacco argue that under FDA regulation, they’ll have trouble convincing people to switch to their brands because of stringent advertising restrictions. That means no more sponsorship of sports and entertainment events, color or photo ads in publications with significant teen readership, or free gifts with tobacco products.

“Bringing new products to market will be extremely difficult,” says Maura Payne, a spokeswoman for Reynolds America, which owns R.J. Reynolds, maker of Camel, Winston, Doral and other cigarette brands.

Anyway, to get to the the point of my post, check out these two pages of Eric Cantor’s most recent personal finance disclosure form available via OpenSecrets.org (PDF):



Yeah folks, he owns between $15,001 and $50,000 in stock of Philip Morris and between $1,000 and $15,000 of stock in their parent company Altria Group. So, Eric Cantor voted to give a government enforced majority market share to a company that he has a financial interest in. Isn’t that a violation of the House’s ethics rule? If it isn’t, it sure as heck should be.

And here’s a bigger issue. A couple weeks ago Cantor was at the Republican Party of Virginia convention talking about how he wanted smaller and less intrusive government and blah blah blah, but when it comes down to an vote that will increase the size and scope of government and benefit a company that he has a financial desire to do well, that goes out the door.

And if cigarettes are so dangerous and so bad that they need to regulated by the government, why is he making money off their production and sales? Isn’t that like accepting blood money?

Up Next: Let’s correlate campaign contributions and how politicians vote…

Why you shouldn’t vote for Republicans anymore: House Republicans strip earmark moratorium from caucus rules.

CQ Politics:

Minority Leader John A. Boehner of Ohio and Eric Cantor of Virginia had unveiled late Wednesday a moratorium on GOP earmark requests through Feb. 16 while a new panel of Republicans comes up with proposals for permanent restrictions and disclosure requirements for earmarks.

But Todd Tiahrt of Kansas, an appropriator, offered an amendment to strip the requirement for an earmark moratorium. And Tiahrt’s moratorium-killing proposal was approved by the full caucus, said several GOP aides. The amended rules package was then adopted.

H/t: Hot Air

Heartache: Eric Cantor* supporting bailout-palooza as well.

I must say, I like Eric Cantor*. I agree with him in most situations. But this time, he’s just plain wrong:

During an election season when many Republicans had tried to distance themselves from Bush, Cantor[*] said most lawmakers were taking cues from Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and were eager to act quickly on the plan.

“We have to do something to make sure our capital markets remain viable and remain robust,” said Rep. Eric I. Cantor[*], R-7th.

*The Democratic National Committee would like me to remind you that Eric Cantor (7th-VA) is a Jew, just like Jack Abramoff.

Those Democrats sure are obsessed with people of Jewish faith.

In fact, the Democratic National Committee points out that Representative Eric Cantor (R-7th VA) is Jewish five times in a 665 word hit piece on their website:

Abramoff said that Cantor would be “the party’s most visible liaison to Jewish groups and in my view will be an important liaison to conservatives and religious Christians.”


According to the Times Picayune, Rep. Eric Cantor was “the marquee guest” at the event which sought to raise money from the Jewish community. Both Abramoff and Cantor are Jewish.


Abramoff unveiled the Eric Cantor sandwich, ‘a tuna-based stacker,’ which, lamentably, was ‘not quite [the] power lunch befitting’ the only Jewish Republican in the House. Hence a request by Cantor … to switch his eponymous sandwich to roast beef on challah, ‘a deli special that exudes Jewish power.'”

Do the Dems think that there was a conspiracy invovling people of Jewish faith?

That sounds something from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Or Hitler.

They also have a fascination with “Jewish groups” and the “Jewish community”.

What other conclusion can you draw since they pointed out that both Jack Abramoff and Eric Cantor are Jewish?

Seriously, give me one reason why that’s important to the content of the article other than to imply a conspiracy among Jews.

Is anyone else sick of this crap?

If the Jews aren’t hell bent on world domination, they’re trying to take over the Caroline County Church Softball League as people on FredTalk have insinuated.

Take, for example, posts by Susan Sili (alias: “oharascarlett”):

Why make inflamatory statements in the press?

Because it helps to build the overall case for damages aka settlement.


and according to those interviews, he has done this before, but I don’t believe everything I read.


I would imagine the way in which this was done and subsequent misrepresentation in the newspapers is enough to have the sign up pulled down. The desired effect was achieved.

Hate everywhere…

Does anyone else have problem with the fact this woman is on the Board of Directors for Caroline’s Promise?

H/t: Virginia Virtucon on the Cantor stuf

UPDATE: Ace of Spades HQ sums it up pretty well: “In six paragraphs denigrating Cantor, they rack up five points in a game of Pin the Tail on the Hebe.”

Republicans support $290,000,000,000 corporate welfare bill.

The WaPo:

The House yesterday passed a final version of a new five-year farm bill by a vote of 318 to 106, a margin large enough to override President Bush’s promised veto of the nearly $300 billion measure.


Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer released a statement saying the vote “sends the wrong message to the rest of the country who are not experiencing the boom of the agriculture sector,” and, “This bill is loaded with taxpayer funded pet projects at a time when Americans are struggling to buy groceries and afford gas to get to work.”

Bush has charged that the bill allows payments to wealthy individuals. He has also criticized restrictions on the use of food aid dollars in the midst of food shortages abroad, and he said that protectionist provisions, including “an egregious new sugar subsidy program,” could worsen trade relations.

The United Nations and the World Trade Organization have increasingly gotten annoyed at the massive subsidies provided by the United States Government (The WaPo, different link).

Vote round-up provided by James Atticus Bowden at his blog:

Democrats — Boucher, Y; Moran, Y; Scott, Y.

Republicans — Drake, Y; Forbes, Y; Goodlatte, Y; Wittman, Y;

Fiscal Conservative Republicans – Goode, N;Cantor, N; Davis, Tom, N; Wolf, N.

Wolf, Goode and Cantor have farmers in their districts, yet they voted “No”. Good job, guys.

And the corporate welfare aspect:

Continues to subsidize millionaires. Cur­rently, all full-time farmers may be eligible for farm subsidies regardless of income (part-time farmers must earn less than $2.5 million annu­ally). President Bush reasonably proposed lim­iting farm subsidies to those who earn less than $200,000 a year.

Rather than follow that commonsense approach, the conference agreement reportedly rejects all farmer income tests for the countercyclical and marketing loan subsidy programs and includes only a weak net farm income cap for direct pay­ments ($750,000 for single farmers and $1.5 million for married farmers after all business de­ductions). Direct payments would also be re­stricted to singles with non-farm incomes under $500,000 ($1 million for married couples).

That is not reform. Farmers with incomes in the millions of dollars would still be eligible for permanent subsidies. Farm subsidies would remain America’s largest corporate welfare pro­gram: Most subsidies would continue to go to large agribusinesses. President Bush is right to insist that farmers earning more than $200,000 per year no longer be eligible for subsidies.

What hypocrisy: Wittman condemns Speaker Nancy Pelosi for “rejecting” earmark moratorium while requesting $132,500,000.00 in earmarks.

File under: Chutzpah.

He also has yet to publish his requested earmarks on his website as he has promised.

First, one of Wittman’s press releases dated February 7, 2008:

Congressman Rob Wittman (R-VA) released the following statement after today’s procedural motion to force a vote on an immediate earmark moratorium.

“I am disappointed that Speaker Pelosi has rejected a Republican invitation to place an immediate moratorium on all government funded earmarks. I believe this is an issue that we must find common ground on, and that we must do so immediately. Unfortunately, congressional Democrats do not feel the same way.

Wittman’s views on “Wasteful Spending”:

I am committed to fight against wasteful spending and expose the fraud and abuse in Washington. We need to get back to the conservative principles of controlling spending, particularly when it comes to federal earmarks, commonly referred to as “pork barrel” projects.

From The Daily Press via the “VA GOP Network”:

About 65 people crammed into 40 seats and stood along the walls of a meeting room at the Holiday Inn Hotel and Suites in Newport News for about two hours. What they heard was U.S. Representative Rob Wittman and state Delegates G. Glenn Oder and Brenda Pogge discuss their legislative agendas while railing against excessive governmental spending and, frequently, the Democratic Party.


Wittman spoke of reforming the tax code and legislative earmarking, extending tax cuts and curtailing entitlement programs — particularly Medicaid, Medicare and defense spending, that he said would in five years account for 96 percent of federal government discretionary spending.

“If we don’t get our arms around these particular issues we’re going to have trouble, Wittman said. “We have to find ways of doing things without spending ourselves into oblivion.”

Uh…he wants to cut defense spending in the middle of two wars? Aren’t there five military bases in his Congressional District, as he is so happy to point out?


And from a document distributed by the Stafford County Republican Committee (.DOC file) touting Wittman’s “conservative record” (snort):

Rep. Wittman has joined the members of the Republican Conference to demand reform of earmarks by calling for a Joint Select Committee on Earmark Reform and an earmark moratorium until additional guidelines are recommended.

And now, from the Media General News Service:

As his colleagues debated a moratorium on congressionally-directed budget earmarks this month, Rep. Rob Wittman, R-Va., requested $132.5 million for local projects.


In his first budget cycle, Wittman sought funding for 52 projects. The largest is $17.5 million to replace a 40-year-old missile support facility at the Navy’s Dahlgren Division in King George Co.

Uh…didn’t he just say he was going to cut defense spending?

Did he vote for it before he voted against it?


Side-stepping the intra-party debate over new House earmark policies, Wittman said he made sure his requests were supported by local agencies, contained non-federal funding, and pledged to publish his requests on his Web site.

“What we try to do is step out in front and develop our own policy and be sure we are transparent,” Wittman said.

Funny, he hasn’t posted the information on either of his websites yet (Google search of his official website and his campaign website). I guess the media gets a list of his earmarks, but us lowly serfs in the First Congressional District don’t. And how exactly would a federal earmark not contain federal funding? Continued:

But critics said it would have been better for him to not participate in the earmark process at all.
“He’s not starting off very well,” said Paige. “If he’s already climbing on the runaway train that is the earmark culture in Congress, he’s going in the wrong direction.”

Critics also say the earmark process increases spending, because lawmakers support each other’s pet projects.

Wittman said he will suggest “spending reductions in other places to offset spending for (his) earmarks.”

Um, yeah, sure, I believe that. Apparently he’s going to reduce spending by increasing spending to pay for people’s health insurance in the tune of $5,000,000 in FY09 and 10, increasing to $10,000,000 in FY11 and 12, and hitting $20,000,000 in FY13 as a cosponsor of H.R.5405. (I must have missed the part of the United States Constitution that includes the provision to pay for people’s health insurance.) Continued:

[Eric] Cantor [R-7th CD] made no appropriation requests for the second year in a row and has called on lawmakers to follow suit while Congress considers reforms to the earmark process.

In closing, to quote P. J. O’Rourke: “Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

And: “The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.

Props to Eric Cantor

From the AP via NBC4: Only 18 Lawmakers Shun Pet Projects:

A new report from a budget watchdog group said that an overwhelming majority of lawmakers asked for billions of dollars for pet projects last year.

The group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, said only 12 members of the house and six members of the Senate opted not to seek so-called “earmarks.” But the rest of Congress racked up $18 billion work of pork barrel spending.

That would be $18,000,000,000.


The lawmakers who decided not to ask for money for pet projects include Virginia Republican U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor.

Eric Cantor (R-7th CD) has a challenger.

Fred2Blue: Hartke Running Against Cantor in the 7th

Raising Kaine: We Have a Candidate Against Eric Cantor

Analysis: Anita Hartke is going to have a hard time in a run against Eric Cantor. The 7th Congressional District went 61.05% for Bush in 2004, 56.71% for Allen in 2006, and 56.59% for the Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage.

She’s going to have to do more than “galvanize Democrats early through an energetic campaign” if she hopes to win.