(Washington, DC) – The Club for Growth is unveiling a new website named “PrimaryMyCongressman.com” targeting current Republican members of Congress who do not march in 100% lockstep with the Club’s agenda.  In response, former U.S. Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH) released the following statement on behalf of the Main Street Advocacy Fund:

“The Club for Growth is a cancer that has attached itself to the Republican Party.  The only thing that grows when the Club for Growth gets involved is the number of Democrats in office.

“Thanks to the work of the Club for Growth, Harry Reid not only remains the Majority Leader in the Senate – he enjoys an even larger Democratic majority.  The Club has consistently advanced Manchurian candidates – candidates who claim to fight for conservative for policies, but in fact serve no other functional purpose than to guarantee that a Democrat wins in November.

“For a group that claims to be focused on conservative economic policies the Club repeatedly backs candidates who espouse bizarre views on rape, incest, immigrants and even witchcraft.  These candidates have no only cost us seats in the races where they were nominated – they have hurt other Republican candidates across the country and done unbelievable damage to the Republican brand.

“The left wants to caricature the Republican Party as out-of-touch and extremist and the Club spends millions to help them do this.

“This new effort by the Club is their latest attempt to intimidate members who do what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents, instead of marching in 100% lockstep with the Club for Growth.  Interestingly enough, the Club’s own President and my former colleague, former U.S. Rep. Chris Chocola (R-IN), has overseen the public flogging of sitting Republicans like U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) for taking positions, on issues like trade with China, that Chocola himself took while in the House.

“Calling the Club for Growth’s new website counterproductive would be generous.  It’s time the Club and its donors rip off the mask and come clean with voters about what they are really doing.  Perhaps a name change to the Club for Democratic Growth is in order.”

###

Main Street Advocacy
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
PO Box 4096
Washington, DC 20004-2403

www.www.mainstreetadvocacy.com

(Washington, DC) – Today, Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-OH), released the following statement on behalf of the Main Street Advocacy Fund:

“Over the last few days, there has been a lot of talk about the consequences for Republican Senators and members of the House if they vote for any ‘grand bargain’ that helps us avoid the impending fiscal cliff and begins to put us on a path to fiscal solvency.

“The saber-rattling by the special interests is intended to intimidate members into not doing what they know is in the best interest of the people they represent.  We want those members to know that we will stand with them and defend them if they show the political courage necessary to avert the looming fiscal crisis we are facing.

“If any of these ridiculous threats about well-funded primary challenges to members who have the courage to put their country first actually occurs – such challenges will be met dollar for dollar.

“The most important pledges a member of Congress takes are the Oath of Office, promising to support and defend our Constitution, and the pledge that is foundational to our representative style of government – to do what is in the best interests of the men and women who elected them.  They should be rewarded, not punished, for honoring and respecting these pledges.”

###

]]> http://www.mainstreetadvocacy.com/centrist-group-pledges-to-defend-members-of-congress-who-vote-for-a-grand-bargain/feed/ 0 http://www.mainstreetadvocacy.com/rep-dave-camp-r-mi-statement-on-the-fiscal-cliff/ http://www.mainstreetadvocacy.com/rep-dave-camp-r-mi-statement-on-the-fiscal-cliff/#comments Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:29:18 +0000 admin http://mainstreetadvocacy.com/?p=297 Washington, DC – Today, Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) released the following statement on the looming fiscal cliff.

“After the election, we only had 55 days to steer clear of the fiscal cliff.  The President has now finished at least his third press conference on the matter but is still two days away from meeting with congressional leadership.  After that, he will leave for Southeast Asia, which will bring us to Thanksgiving.  Time is running short, and, frankly, we don’t have time to waste on offers that are going nowhere.  Speaker Boehner, on the very first day after the election, took the responsible approach and offered a compromise that included tax revenues in exchange for entitlement reforms.  Unfortunately, the President has only responded with his same old demand that we raise taxes on nearly 1 million small businesses.  Raising taxes will not create jobs.  Tax reform, however, will not only create jobs but it can produce more revenues – something the President wants.  I urge the President to begin serious and substantive negotiations with Congress.  We are ready.”

###

Ways and Means Press Office

www.WaysandMeans.House.gov

The Senate’s ‘Manchurian candidates’

by US Rep Steve LaTourette (R-OH)

In the 1962 film “The Manchurian Candidate,” Staff Sergeant Raymond Shaw is brainwashed into becoming an unwitting accomplice for an international communist conspiracy. Shaw, a good man and a patriot, is conditioned into taking actions that advance a cause that he does not support.

Over the past two election cycles, Republican primary voters in several states have been subject to the Manchurian Candidate treatment — helping to hand at least five U.S. Senate seats, and control of the Senate, to the Democratic Party.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83703.html#ixzz2C1KaUgA4

(Washington, DC) – Today, the Main Street Advocacy Fund released the results of a ground breaking election night poll conducted for the group by Frank Luntz:

MEMORANDUM

From:     Frank Luntz

To:         Interested Parties

Yes, Americans voted for gridlock and divided government in 2012.   But they did it as a means and not an end. 

Let us explain.

In cooperation with Main Street Advocacy, Luntz Global, LLC. fielded a one of a kind Election Night survey of 1,300 American voters to identify not just who they voted for, but also to explain:

–         Why Americans voted the way they did,

–         What they want Washington to do next, and

–         How politicians should go about carrying out the will of the people.

The bottom line:

Even as the American people voted for divided government Tuesday night, they sent a clear message: it’s time for a spirit of compromise and a result of real solutions in Washington. 

It’s not that they voted for gridlock because they can’t decide which party to trust.  They did it because they can’t trust either party to govern alone.  The American people want both parties to hold each other accountable to avoid extremism and work together to come together on common sense solutions.

Many are asking today: “what’s the mandate from this election?” Observers should understand that Americans are done with “comprehensive, sweeping change.”  They know it’s just not possible in Washington’s poisoned environment.   They’ve had enough empty promises; now they want real, achievable, and measurable solutions.

The evidence is clear.

A commanding majority of all American voters (62%) said that Washington was in need of leaders with “willingness to compromise to get things done,” compared to just 38% who want leaders with the “courage to stand up for their principles.”  Swing voters want compromise by even wider margins (67% to 33%).

And Americans’ desire for bipartisan compromise isn’t merely a collection of platitudes; it extends to a real policy agenda.

Americans are more divided than ever—but they do agree on one thing: balancing the budget is MORE important than preventing tax increases. And it’s not even close. Fully 69% of Republicans and 68% of Democrats say that balancing thebudget is the more important priority. If it will really reduce the deficit, the American people are willing to put revenue of the table.

There’s broad bipartisan support for the Simpson-Bowles plan. Fully 54% of Republicans, 49% of swing voters, and 50% of Democrats support the Simpson-Bowles plan, while only 10% of Republicans, 11% of swing voters, and 12% of Democrats oppose it. All told, 50% of voters support the plan, with just 11% opposed and 22% neutral.

There’s no doubt that these numbers will change as the American people become more informed of this plan or onelike it.  However, policymakers would be wise to embrace the general tenants of the plan if they hope to gain the backing of the majority of Americans.

Conventional wisdom says that revenue increases of all kinds are off the table for Republicans. Indeed, according to our survey, 69% of Republicans support a “No New Taxes” pledge like that proposed by Americans for Tax Reform, while 30% oppose it.  So it’s true that Republicans generally support the idea of the pledge (though Republican support is by no means monolithic).

However, rank and file Republicans are not as anti-tax-increases-at-all-costs as most believe.  They are willing to consider raising revenue—if it’s part of a serious plan to reduce the deficit.

Fully 35% of Republicans says they would be MORE likely to vote for a member of Congress who breaks a tax pledge to for a compromised that produces a long-term solution to the debt crisis, while only 31% say it would make them less likely.

Even strong Republicans wouldn’t hold it against that member. Fully 33% say it makes them more likely and 33% say it makes them less likely to vote for that member.

Quite simply, it is not the political death some have predicted for Republicans to vote for a tax increase – so long as it is part of a real solution to the debt crisis.

The bottom line is this – and lets us be TOTALLY clear.  Republican voters do strongly oppose tax increases, but they are willing to consider certain tax increases if – and only if – they are part of a more comprehensive definict solution.

Both parties have room to change if they want to truly govern with a mandate from the majority.  Look at how swing voters – those who typically vote for a mix of Republicans and Democrats and who control the electoral outcome – rate the parties.  Let them, as unaffiliated voters, be the referees as to which party most needs to change.

Fully 56% of swing voters want the Republican Party to be more moderate, compared to just 24% who think the party is fine where it is. And the margin is even larger for the Democrats. A resounding 60% of swing voters want to see a more moderate Democratic Party, compared to just 20% who think the party is in the right place.  Conclusion: both parties need to come to the middle.

As the Republican Party considers its future, it would do well to heed the results of this poll.  Voters were asked “which do you believe the Republican Party is MOST interested in helping?” (Top 2).  The results:

The longer Republicans fight against tax increases on the wealthy at all costs, the longer they will suffer the cost of being labeled “the party of the rich.”

The evidence of this is abundant.  When asked to choose from a list of 9 reasons (top) who voters might not vote Republican more often, the clear winner (30%) was “they too often favor tax cuts and policies that benefit the rich at the expense of the rest of us,” followed by “they are out of touch with people like me” (21%) and “they don’t care about working and middle class people” (21%).  

             Only 15% said it was because “they are too conservative on social issueslike gay marriage and abortion,” and only 11% chose “they want to undermine social security and voucherize Medicare.” 

Only one in four voters (27%) favorbalancing the budget “entirely with spending cuts,” with the rest supporting some mix of spending cuts and taxincreases.  The margins are wide even among Republicans, of whom only 36% say the budget should be balanced only with spending cuts.

The American people have set for a mandate in this election, even while they have voted for divided government.  The message is clear:

            “Democrats and Republicans: we don’t trust either of you to do it alone.  So work together, cooperate, and get it done together.   And begin by proposing a common-sense, middle-ground solution to America’s broken budget.”

###

Methodology:  Luntz Global, LLC, in cooperation with Main Street Advocacy, fielded this survey on the evening of November 6, 2012.  The survey was conducted online with 900 actual Election Day voters plus an oversample of 400 Republican voters.  The margin of error is 3.27% for the 900 voter sample and 4.9% for the 400 Republican oversample.

###

DENVER—President Obama didn’t have many good moments in this week’s first presidential debate. But it was telling that the few came when he was raising objections to Mitt Romney’s tax, spending, and Medicare plans. The president had much less to say about his own ideas for the next four years.

In that way, the debate spotlighted the biggest hole in Obama’s reelection effort: the paucity of specifics he has offered about his second-term agenda. To a remarkable extent for an incumbent, Obama and his team have redirected this campaign into a referendum on the challenger—a reversal of roles that Romney has facilitated with a monthlong series of gaffes and missteps. (Until Wednesday night, pretty much nothing good had happened for Romney since the minute Clint Eastwood inexplicably lugged that chair onstage on the final evening of the Republican convention.)

But the 90-minute expanse of Wednesday night’s debate proved too long a stretch for Obama to keep the focus on Romney. And when the spotlight shifted back to the president—either his record or his plans—he often seemed diffuse, if not listless. As one undecided woman in a Las Vegas focus group of “Walmart moms” put it, the president seemed “defeated, a little bit.”

The debate is unlikely to solve all of Romney’s problems. He still faces a strong perception, especially in battleground states bombarded by Obama’s advertising, that he favors the rich over the middle class; that perception particularly appears to have taken root in Ohio, a state that Romney almost certainly needs to win. And although this debate didn’t highlight any of the issues that have caused the problems, Romney’s weakness among Hispanics and socially liberal upscale white women still requires him to win a dauntingly (though not impossibly) large percentage of all other white voters to overtake the president.

But the debate did two very important things for the challenger. First, it arrested the rush to judgment in much of the political community that Obama had effectively sealed the race. “This is exactly what Romney needed to stop everybody from declaring this race, and they were on the verge of it,” noted Floyd Ciruli, an independentColorado pollster.

Second, the evening delivered a powerful reminder of Obama’s inherent vulnerabilities. All of Romney’s difficulties in recent weeks have provided ample testimony to his own challenges. But they have obscured the parallel reality that Obama is seeking reelection with elevated unemployment rates, low levels of growth, a massive federal deficit, and an approval rating that, while getting better, rarely peeks above 50 percent. This debate ensures that the campaign discussion, after weeks of being focused on Romney’s troubles, will now also highlight Obama’s weaknesses, and that itself is an important victory for  Romney.

One of those vulnerabilities is Obama’s inability so far to enlighten voters about his second-term agenda. To the extent the president outlined goals during the debate, they were largely defensive. He wants to restore the tax rates for upper-income earners established under President Clinton, protect Medicare and Medicaid in their current form—and, above all, implement his health care plan. He didn’t talk nearly as much about what he might do in a second term to accelerate job growth. “You didn’t hear anything about how he is going to get the economy going,” jibed Stuart Stevens, Romney’s chief strategist, after the debate. Other than blocking the GOP’s initiatives, Obama didn’t seem to be burning to accomplish much of anything over the next four years.

Romney didn’t display unbridled confidence in his ability to sell his agenda, either. The challenger was more forthcoming than Obama about his plans, but he also made a series of questionable assertions about his proposals—in particular, when he again declared he could cut tax rates by 20 percent without reducing taxes on the rich, increasing the deficit, or raising taxes on the middle class. Independent analysts disagree. Romney also promised bipartisanship while effectively precluding it by unequivocally rejecting more taxes in any budget deal. In that way, he gave Obama some postdebate openings to counterpunch. But that was the modest extent of the comfort for the president’s campaign after such a sluggish performance.

It’s not unprecedented for incumbents to stumble in their first debate: Think Ronald Reagan in 1984, George W. Bush in 2004, or, in a slightly different way, Al Gore in 2000. Presidents aren’t accustomed to someone pressing them as forcefully as a challenger does. By the time the two men meet again on Oct. 16, Obama will surely be more aggressive in making a case against Romney. But even if the president makes a more effective argument against his opponent, he will still face the challenge of convincing Americans that he has a plan to make their lives better.

At times in the past two months, it seemed that Obama might be able to make it through Nov. 6 without having to get over that basic hurdle. After this week’s debate, that looks much less likely.

BOSTON — Massachusetts has 10 congressional districts, all of which are occupied by Democratic members, and in its quest to retake Congress and re-install Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House, the party hadn’t worried that it might lose one of them.

But that’s exactly the situation with less than five weeks till Election Day, as Rep. John Tierney (pictured, at right) trails Richard Tisei, a social liberal — and openly gay — Republican challenger. Tisei (pictured, at left) is a seasoned state legislator, but what put the race in Massachusetts’ 6th District in play was a Tierney family gambling scandal. The congressman wasn’t implicated, but his wife spent a month in prison for covering up for her brothers’ involvement.

The chance that voters would reverse Republicans’ huge 2010 midterm win always seemed improbable, even to Democratic Party officials. But as in any closely contended election, the picture of the unfolding stretch run is muddled because it involves an uncertain combination of local and national politics.

And so it goes in the handful of competitive House races across the country. Here in Boston, the wisdom of local legend Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill is still invoked often. “All politics is local,” the former House speaker was fond of saying. But in a presidential year, all politics are simultaneously national.

In Northeast Ohio, a debate is taking place over whether the 2009 “Cash for Clunkers” program enacted by the federal government helped consumers or hurt them. On one side of the issue is Betty Sutton, a Democratic congresswoman who co-sponsored the enabling legislation for the $3 billion program. Sutton says that taking old cars off the market jump-started the economy and helped create some 60,000 auto industry jobs in her state.

Her opponent, Republican Rep. Jim Renacci, begs to differ. Renacci, who had owned automobile dealerships himself, insists that Cash for Clunkers took too many used vehicles out of the market too rapidly. The upshot, he says, was higher prices for used cars, which hit the pocketbooks of the working poor.

Voters in Ohio’s 16th Congressional District will have to sort this particular dispute out on Nov. 6, just as voters in Massachusetts’ 6th District will have to decide whether the transgressions of John Tierney’s brothers-in-law will push them to vote Republican.

Voters in the Buckeye State, particularly, will have plenty of help in the form of negative attack ads from both parties. President Obama’s prospects seem to have been buoyed in Ohio, a place that both he and Mitt Romney know to be an important battleground.

In some ways, the race between Sutton and Renacci is a microcosm of the presidential contest: It is perhaps the swingiest district in the state, and closely tied to the auto industry bailout, which is clearly bolstering Obama’s effort there. Ohio lost two congressional seats (and two Electoral College votes) this year as a result of slower population growth. Reapportionment eliminated Sutton’s seat and pushed her into this Northeast Ohio district centered on Stark County — a more conservative area full of working-class voters.

“Personality, policy position, how they go about their jobs — they really are polar opposites. I think the important dynamic is the redraw of the district,” says David Cohen, a political science professor at the University of Akron. “Both members have to reintroduce themselves to a whole new population. There is a tremendous amount of confusion.”

Polling shows the two candidates tied, and their respective victory or defeat may be closely linked to the top of the ticket. Democratic National Committee Chairman Steve Israel identified this race as a “tipping point” in determining whether his party wins the speaker’s gavel. Sutton faces a more challenging climb here than her Republican opponent. But Obama’s expanded lead in Ohio has Democrats feeling more optimistic about this seat.

“Romney’s performance in Ohio so far, and Obama’s, has been the surprise in the presidential,” says Dave Wasserman, a House campaign analyst for the Cook Political Report. “It’s altered the landscape in Ohio’s House race . . . which is looking at dead even between Renacci and Sutton, but [one] would have thought Obama would be a drag.”

The president may be considered a drag on several congressional races, but he has also opened up leads over Romney in battleground states ranging from Iowa to Florida, and in all of them, key House races are also taking place. There is rarely a one-to-one correlation between a national party’s success and that of the candidates on the undercard, however, and that appears to be true in 2012: In several of the important districts in which Obama is running ahead of Romney, the GOP congressional candidate also leads in the polls.

A variety of factors could be contributing to this development, including Romney’s weaknesses, the level of campaign spending, the relative quality of the respective candidates, and hyper-local issues such as the extracurricular work of a congressman’s brother-in-law or the fact that another congressman happened to own car dealerships.

For those doing early handicapping on what the 113th Congress might look like, here is a small sampling of other highly contested battleground races:

Iowa’s 3rd District: Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell vs. Republican Rep. Tom Latham

Latham, who has close ties to Republican leadership, is being painted by Democrats as a John Boehner “clone.” The stalled farm bill reauthorization is a point of contention, as Boswell has been charging Boehner — and Latham — for the failure to advance the legislation.

In turn, Latham ties Boswell to Pelosi. This might be a stretch: Boswell, attempting to distance himself from the House leadership as well as the president, voted with Republicans in favor of holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the “Fast and Furious” scandal.

Boswell has the uphill climb here. This once reliably Democratic seat is now a swing, says Dennis J. Goldford of Drake University.

Iowa’s 4th District: Republican Rep. Steve King vs. Democrat Christie Vilsak

King is trying to hold onto his seat. Vilsak, wife of the former governor and current agriculture secretary, has found her stride and is aggressively pushing King on the farm bill; Democrats are blaming King’s Tea Party affiliations for his opposition to the spending built into the legislation.

Same-sex marriage is also an issue in this race. Republicans in the state hope to not only defeat Obama and Democrats down the ballot here, but also claim control of the state Senate and overturn Iowa’s gay-marriage law, which is a motivating factor for Republican turnout, Goldford says.

King has a supportive conservative evangelical constituency here, and the key for Republican success is mobilizing them to turn out not only for him but for Romney as well. King can give Romney coattails here, says Goldford.

Nevada’s 3rd District: Republican Rep. Joe Heck vs. Democrat John Oceguera

This is a key swing district outside of Las Vegas. In this contest, it appears that the outcome will largely be determined by the presidential race. Right now, incumbent Heck is leading, but he faces a headwind in the form of an aggressive Democratic Party turnout aimed at duplicating Obama’s 2008 success in the state.

On the other hand, this district is among the hardest hit by the home foreclosure crisis, which is as bad in Nevada as anywhere in the country — and that is where Heck hopes to make his mark. Oceguera is not a strong candidate, says Jon Ralston, a top political analyst in the Silver State, noting, “He’s not well versed on the issues.” But Obama beat John McCain by 12 points here in 2008, and if he reproduces a similar result this time, Joe Heck could prove to be a one-term congressman.

Pennsylvania’s 12th District: Democratic Rep. Mark Critz vs. Republican Keith Rothfus

Critz has only served one full term in Congress, but he is no stranger to congressional elections. After serving as a top aide to legendary pork-barrel spender Rep. Jack Murtha, Critz won a much watched special election to fill his late boss’ seat in 2009, then won again in 2010. The redistricting process threw Critz and his Democratic colleague, Rep. Jason Altmire, into the same district and a divisive primary contest. Critz emerged victorious, thanks in large part to unions, which were upset by Altmire’s vote against the health care law.

Now, Critz faces a tough challenge in the form of Republican Keith Rothfus in this western Pennsylvania, white working-class district full of Catholics — demographics with which Obama struggles, though the district is also a stronghold for organized labor.

National Republicans have been eying this seat as a prime pickup, as Obama lost this district in 2008. Rothfus has been tying Critz to the president and Democrats in Congress, hitting him for the health care law, among other policies — though Critz has said he would not have voted for the law. Republicans pursued a similar tactic two years ago, and Critz prevailed by running as a moderate. Critz has advocated making changes to the reform law while preserving some elements, including the provision requiring coverage for pre-existing conditions. The Democrat is also maintaining some distance from his party, touting his pro-life and pro-Second Amendment beliefs.

But this race is also taking place near Coal Country, and Rothfus hopes his fight against Environmental Protection Agency regulations plays well. While it appears Obama will carry Pennsylvania again, this district race is proving to be expensive and hard fought.

By Editorial Board,

ON TUESDAY, President Obama’s Jobs Council reminded the nation that it is still hooked on fossil fuels, and will be for a long time. “Continuing to deliver inexpensive and reliable energy,” the council reported, “is going to require the United States to optimize all of its natural resources and construct pathways (pipelines, transmission and distribution) to deliver electricity and fuel.”

It added that regulatory “and permitting obstacles that could threaten the development of some energy projects, negatively impact jobs and weaken our energy infrastructure need to be addressed.”

Mr. Obama’s Jobs Council could start by calling out the Obama administration.

On Wednesday, the State Department announced that it recommended rejecting the application of TransCanada Corp. to build the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and Mr. Obama concurred. The project would have transported heavy, oil-like bitumen from Alberta — and, potentially, from unconventional oil deposits in states such as Montana — to U.S. refineries on the Gulf of Mexico coast.

Environmentalists have fought Keystone XL furiously. In November, the State Department tried to put off the politically dangerous issue until after this year’s election, saying that the project, which had undergone several years of vetting, required further study. But Republicans in Congress unwisely upped the political gamesmanship by mandating that State make a decision by Feb. 21. Following Wednesday’s rejection, TransCanada promised to reapply — so the administration has again punted the final decision until after the election.

We almost hope this was a political call because, on the substance, there should be no question. Without the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen — with long-term trends in the global market, it’s far too valuable to keep in the ground — but it would go to China. And, as a State Department report found, U.S. refineries would still import low-quality crude — just from the Middle East. Stopping the pipeline, then, wouldn’t do anything to reduce global warming, but it would almost certainly require more oil to be transported across oceans in tankers.

Environmentalists and Nebraska politicians say that the route TransCanada proposed might threaten the state’s ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region. But TransCanada has been willing to tweak the route, in consultation with Nebraska officials, even though a government analysis last year concluded that the original one would have “limited adverse environmental impacts.” Surely the Obama administration didn’t have to declare the whole project contrary to the national interest — that’s the standard State was supposed to apply — and force the company to start all over again.

Environmentalists go on to argue that some of the fuel U.S. refineries produce from Canada’s bitumen might be exported elsewhere. But even if that’s true, why force those refineries to obtain their crude from farther away? Anti-Keystone activists insist that building the pipeline will raise gas prices in the Midwest. But shouldn’t environmentalists want that? Finally, pipeline skeptics dispute the estimates of the number of jobs that the project would create. But, clearly, constructing the pipeline would still result in job gains during a sluggish economic recovery.

There are far fairer, far more rational ways to discourage oil use in America, the first of which is establishing higher gasoline taxes. Environmentalists should fight for policies that might actually do substantial good instead of tilting against Keystone XL, and President Obama should have the courage to say so.

House Republican leaders had an extremely difficult time uniting their members in 2011, but some were far more exasperating than most.

But surprisingly, the most consistent GOP defectors during the last year were not freshmen, according to an analysis conducted by The Hill.

Veteran rank-and-file Republicans, not members of the historic class of 2010, have proven to be a greater challenge to keep in line.

The Hill’s review found that only two of the 12 biggest defectors in the House Republican Conference are freshmen: Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.) and Jeff Duncan (S.C.).

The other 10 are Reps. Ron Paul (Texas), Timothy Johnson (Ill.), Connie Mack (Fla.), Tom McClintock (Calif.), Tom Graves (Ga.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Jason Chaffetz (Utah), Steve King (Iowa), Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Joe Wilson (S.C.). All 12 legislators consistently opposed their leaders at key moments during the House GOP’s first year back in the majority since 2006.

While dealing with a Democratic-controlled White House and Senate, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has repeatedly told his 242-member conference that he needs the strongest vote possible on major legislation in order to strengthen his hand in bicameral negotiations.

This summer, Boehner personally lobbied GOP members to support his initial deficit-reduction measure. Despite the personal appeals, he couldn’t get the votes. The next morning, Boehner told his colleagues, ““I love you all … I love some of you a little more than others today.”

A revised version of the legislation (the Budget Control Act of 2011, or BCA) subsequently passed the House.

The bills reviewed in The Hill’s analysis included: An eleventh-hour temporary funding measure to stave off a government shutdown, the enacted fiscal 2011 spending bill, the BCA, the enacted BCA of 2011, two separate 2012 appropriations conference reports, the payroll tax cut/unemployment extension/doc fix House bill, extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), reauthorizations of certain provisions of the Patriot Act and patent reform.

A breakdown of the 12 defectors follows.

• Timothy Johnson (Ill.). The Illinois lawmaker, who is facing a challenging reelection, broke with his leadership on nine of the 10 measures studied. (He voted yes on patent reform.) The six-term lawmaker, rarely seen without a phone to his ear or dialing up a constituent in his district, said he is proud of his record of “independence.”

Johnson cited his communication with constituents when asked about the defections. He told The Hill that both parties have a problem that “they talk to each other with Beltway talk. They have their own lingo. They don’t communicate … with the people back on Main Street.”

• Connie Mack (Fla.). The Sunshine State Republican isn’t shy about voting against GOP leaders. He was a firm no on Boehner’s initial deficit-reduction plan, despite intense whipping on that bill. The Senate hopeful only supported his leadership on the payroll tax extension measure that included a provision requiring President Obama to make a decision on the Keystone pipeline by Feb. 21.

• Tom McClintock (Calif.). McClintock backed the bill that averted a government shutdown last spring. Otherwise, the fiscal hawk resisted attempts to win his support for legislation to raise the debt ceiling and extend the payroll tax cut.

• Ron Paul (Texas). The libertarian presidential contender has missed a fair amount of votes while on the hustings, including three of the votes measured in The Hill review. Paul did not vote on the 2011 continuing resolution, the first of two 2012 appropriations conference reports and the payroll tax cut measure. He refused to budge on intensely whipped items, including the BCA, FISA surveillance law extension and the bill to prevent a government shutdown. Paul’s inclusion on this list is not surprising. Republican leaders don’t even bother whipping him, assuming he will vote no.

• Justin Amash (Mich.). The freshman from Michigan, who is a big fan of Paul, routinely votes against leadership. Amash is a vocal critic of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On the eve of a tense House vote on Boehner’s debt bill, Amash told his followers, “I cannot support an increase in the debt limit without the passage of a major structural reform to government, such as a well-structured balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution.”

•Paul Broun (Ga.). With the exception of voting for the payroll tax cut, the lawmaker opposed his leadership on nine of the 10 votes. Broun is facing a primary against former Rep. Mac Collins (R-Ga.).

• Tom Graves (Ga.). Graves, who won a special election in 2010 before the November wave, joined Broun and Mack in opposing nine of the 10 bills, with the exception of the payroll tax cut extension. Graves, who was appointed to the powerful Appropriations Committee, bucked his committee chairman on spending measures.

•Jason Chaffetz (Utah). The ambitious Chaffetz opposed his leaders on eight of the 10 bills, supporting only the payroll tax cut extension and the extension of FISA surveillance laws.

• Steve King (Iowa). The Tea Party favorite voted against all but two of the 10 items included in the study. King supported extending the FISA provisions and portions of the Patriot Act.

• Michele Bachmann (Minn.). Joining Paul on the presidential campaign trail, Bachmann missed votes on the first of two 2012 spending conference reports and the payroll tax cut measure, but when she did vote, it was decisively against her leaders. The exceptions were national security measures (FISA and Patriot Act) on which the Intelligence Committee member voted “aye.” There are more than a few Republican members who wouldn’t be disappointed if Bachmann opts not to run for reelection.

•Jeff Duncan (S.C.). The freshman lawmaker supported his leadership in extending FISA and the payroll tax cut. He opposed them on the other eight items.

Duncan told The Hill that “at the end of the day, I have to stop and consider: Did I do everything I could to lessen the negative impact of big government for my children? … That’s why I have consistently had to oppose bills that continued to spend ever greater amounts of borrowed money.”

• Joe Wilson (S.C.). He opposed his leaders at important junctures throughout the year, primarily on fiscal matters. The ardent defense hawk supported the extension of FISA and the Patriot Act, but opposed them on the other items, including trade legislation.