According to National Journal, many of those insiders “questioned [Rick Perry's] ability to win over independent voters.”  But what did those Beltway insiders think of Romney?  “Insiders identified Romney’s business background, his veteran campaign team, and his appeal to moderate voters as key general election strengths.”  It should come as no surprise that those who have been on Romney’s payroll (or made the payroll possible) are supportive of his campaign.  And it should come as no surprise that Romney’s veteran campaign staffers think they are awesome, even though they lost in 2008.

Insiders polled by National Journal include current Romney campaign pollster Neil Newhouse, as well as three current high-dollar fundraisers:  Wayne Berman, David Tamasi, and Eric Rosenblatt — all lobbyists.  The 26 other Romney insiders polled by National Journal, including spokesman Kevin Madden, political director Carl Forti, and deputy campaign manager Jason Roe, all held high-ranking positions during Romney’s 2008 presidential run.

Are these individuals at fault for likely supporting someone who hired them?  Absolutely not (disclosure: there is no proof that these individuals told National Journal that they thought Romney was a better candidate than Perry, but it is not at all a stretch to assume that the past or current affiliations of these 30 individuals might be a factor in their answers, significantly skewing the overall results, especially when only one obvious Perry supporter is included on National Journal’s list).

The real fault lies with National Journal for failing to disclose any of the 30 potential conflicts-of-interest to its readers.  Why would it refuse to be transparent about the biases or underlying motivations of its polled insiders?  It’s pretty simple:  National Journal and its Beltway-centric competitors thrive on access to current establishment insiders.  It is no secret that many publications provide puff pieces and helpful story lines in exchange for access to plugged-in sources.

The real news in this latest poll is not that powerful Republicans think Romney is the best candidate, but that Romney appears to be the best hope Beltway lobbyists and has-been Hill leadership staffers have of retaining their easy access to the halls of power in Washington.

The full list of easily identifiable past and present Romney partisans included in the insiders poll can be found below.

Two examples of this principle, according to Sen. Bennett, are Projects Constellation and Ares, Utah-based NASA space programs on the chopping block in the administration’s proposed NASA budget. To the senior congressional appropriator, the elimination of these programs is a perfect demonstration of what happens when unelected bureaucrats are granted too much power. What Sen. Bennett has not told his constituents is that when it came time for him to question the president’s nominee to lead NASA, the Utah Republican was nowhere to be found. Instead, he allowed the top NASA nominee to sail through the Senate by unanimous consent with zero debate about how the new administrator’s spending priorities might affect Utah.

While many lifelong appropriators instinctively point to Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution as proof that they are required by the Founders to appropriate a chicken in every pot and a Bridge to Nowhere in every state, they rarely mention Article II, Section 2, which gives them the authority and duty to question and confirm or reject presidential nominees. To the Founding Fathers, this was a major legislative check on the kind of runaway executive power decried by congressional appropriators. Unfortunately, many lawmakers ignore this clear constitutional duty in favor of an activity that gives them the opportunity to present friends and campaign donors with oversized novelty checks paid for by American taxpayers.

By all accounts, Maj. Gen Charles Frank Bolden, Jr. is supremely qualified to head NASA. He is a former astronaut and a highly decorated Marine. But given Sen. Bennett’s expressed desire to demand spending accountability from the legion of so-called unelected bureaucrats, it is all the more striking that he was missing in action when he had a clear opportunity to question the nominee about his views on certain ongoing NASA programs. Administrator Bolden was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on July 15, 2009, as was Deputy NASA Administrator Lori Garver. Only two lawmakers that day made floor statements about the administrators’ confirmations; Sen. Bennett was not one of them.

However, eight months after Administrator Bolden was confirmed without a peep from the Utah Senate delegation, Sen. Bennett informed the Deseret News that he “plans to push for earmarks” to save the Constellation and Ares programs.

“The president’s decision to cut these programs is a perfect example of what would happen if Congress gave up its constitutional authority to appropriate federal funding,” Bennett told the newspaper. He did not mention that it is also a perfect example of what would happen if a lawmaker abdicated his authority to question presidential nominees charged with developing the budgets of federal agencies.

Despite his complete absence from the NASA nomination proceedings, Sen. Bennett is no stranger to the tactic of blocking a nominee over his views on hot-button issues. For example, in June 2009 – just a month before the NASA administrator’s confirmation – Sen. Bennett blocked a Department of Interior nominee over Utah oil and gas leases. A search on the senator’s website for press releases about the top NASA nominee comes up short, and the senator released no statements upon the nomination or confirmation of Administrator Bolden.

You may be wondering what Sen. Bennett was up to when he chose to stay silent on the appointment of a man who had the power to shut down Utah-based space programs. It’s hard to say. But what is known is that Sen. Bennett collected $15,600 in campaign cash in the week leading up to Administrator Bolden’s confirmation according to a tally from OpenSecrets.org.

Of the 14 individual donations made to his campaign that week, only one came from somebody in Utah.

“The inconvenient truth is that we do have a problem with earmarks in America,” he warned Monday from the Senate floor.  “But it’s not congressional earmarks.”  Sen. Inhofe believes the real crime is so-called presidential earmarking, perpetrated by “unelected bureaucrats” throughout the federal government who recklessly throw money away with no supervision or accountability.  He may well be right.  But where do those bureaucrats get the authority to spend the money in the first place?

According to Sen. Inhofe, the authority for unelected bureaucrats to waste money on “presidential earmarks” comes directly from – you guessed it – Congress.

“We’re supposed to do the appropriations and spend the money that comes in,” said Inhofe.  “That’s what we’re supposed to do.  That’s our constitutional responsibility.”

With one hand, Sen. Inhofe scolds the executive branch for spending money on projects he approved, while with the other he writes and approves billions in earmarked spending.  For example, when given a chance after Hurricane Katrina to divert funding from the wasteful Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska to the devastated Twin Spans Bridge in New Orleans, Sen. Inhofe sided with the $230 million Bridge to Nowhere and the 50 inhabitants on the island it would serve.

As is the case with many of those addicted to political pork, runaway spending is always somebody else’s fault.  If the executive branch is wasting money, it’s not because poor Congress just hasn’t done enough earmarking; it’s because Congress gave up on real oversight in order to focus on more earmarking.

But Sen. Inhofe didn’t just use rhetoric in his broadside against earmark opponents, he also appealed to the authority of the Founding Fathers.  Sen. Inhofe’s floor speech referenced the writings of an unlikely ally:  James Madison, the fourth president of the U.S. who is often referred to as the father of the U.S. Constitution.  While Madison did refer to the congressional “power over the purse” as “the most complete and effectual weapon,” he most certainly never endorsed anything that resembles the modern earmarking process.  In fact, in 1817 Madison vetoed a public works bill – the very type of bill that Sen. Inhofe himself used to write as chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works – precisely because it was loaded with local projects that were unrelated to the national interest.

“I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States,” President Madison wrote in his veto message.  “The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the 8th section of the first article of the Constitution; and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers[.]”

Notwithstanding his current crusade to save earmarks from extinction, the Oklahoma Republican who was first elected to public office in 1966 has not always been such a rabid earmarxist.  Just two years ago, when he was running for re-election, he fully supported an even more expansive earmark moratorium than the one just adopted by House Republicans.  For all his current caterwauling against earmarks, Sen. Inhofe proudly co-sponsored a year-long, Congress-wide earmark moratorium in 2008 offered by Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina.

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in 1841, “With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.”  If Emerson was correct, when it comes to earmarks, Jim Inhofe’s soul will never be in search of work.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has continued his war of words against the bill.  Unfortunately for the vast majority of Americans who overwhelmingly oppose the government-run health care plan and the future generations who will have to pay for it, actions speak louder than words, and in that department Sen. McConnell has come up woefully short yet again.

Recall that from the outset, Sen. McConnell and his merry band of lieutenants settled on a “messaging” strategy with regard to the health care bill.  Under this strategy, Sen. McConnell used feckless amendments and nothing else to demonstrate that the bill was bad, as if voters across the country hadn’t already demanded that he kill the bill.  While Sen. McConnell fiddled, Reid happily chipped away at dissent within his own ranks and adopted amendment after amendment after amendment that bought Reid extra time and improved the bill in the eyes of his holdouts.

Today is the culmination of Sen. McConnell’s strategy.  And before anyone is tempted to absolve him of any blame, recall the following hagiographic article that was placed and circulated by Sen. McConnell’s press staff nearly two weeks ago: Skillful McConnell leads GOP opposition to health bill.

If McConnell’s history of having filibustered hundreds of measures over the years and the GOP’s voting pattern in the 111th Congress are any indications of what to expect during the health care debate, Kentucky’s senior senator will use every weapon in his arsenal to draw out the process as long as possible.

If only.  To date, the only parliamentary tactics the minority leader has used are those that cannot affect the outcome.  Take, for example, today’s forced reading of Reid’s newest package of amendments to the health care legislation.  If in theory it took 10 years to read every word of the recently introduced amendment, it would do nothing to stop the health care bill because Reid has already “started the clock” on a series of cloture motions.  These motions will ripen and take precedence over all pending business, including the forced reading of the Reid amendment.  Sen. McConnell’s “tactic” is form over substance, and nothing more than a desperate attempt to get credit for doing something at the last minute to prevent passage of the bill.

I have zero doubt that in the coming days, the minority leader will say that he did all he could.  That it was a moral victory to hold all Republicans (if a few don’t bail once the outcome is certain).  Coaches should not be praised as brilliant tacticians just because their players didn’t kick the ball into their own goal.  Such talk is the talk of losers.  It is akin to claiming a moral victory for beating the spread, but not beating the opponent.  Americans do not send their representatives to Washington to beat the spread.  They send them to Washington to preserve their freedom and liberty, both of which will be significantly limited upon passage of the current legislation.

I hesitate to single out the minority leader, especially given his work in the past to require continued funding of our troops overseas, but a time for reckoning has come.  Under his watch, the number of Senate Republicans has dwindled from 55 to 40.  The Senate GOP campaign arm has taken to endorsing liberals like Charlie Crist and Arlen Specter over proven conservatives like Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey who have demonstrated an ability to win elections in tough states.  And today, it appears as though Reid and his colleagues have finally figured out how to take complete control of our economy and our relationships with our doctors.

It is time for Republican lawmakers in Washington and Republican voters all over America to ask themselves the following question:  when it comes to legislative leadership, is this the best we can do?

Instead of using every trick in the book to defeat Sen. Harry Reid’s government-run health plan, Senate GOP leadership is idly sitting by while Democrats tweak the bill to buy off votes.  Instead of doing everything in its power to block a bill that is solidly opposed by more voters than not, Senate GOP leadership is allowing Sen. Reid to process amendments and move the trains as if this bill, the largest government takeover of the private sector in American history, represented nothing out of the ordinary.  With each passing amendment, Democrats become closer and closer to buying off the all-important 60th vote.

To fully grasp the near-criminal ineffectiveness of the party’s current strategy, just peruse the following news stories and ask yourself, “Do narratives like these increase or decrease the likelihood of Senate approval of government-run health care?”

• AP:  “The 61-39 roll call Thursday by which the Senate adopted an amendment to safeguard coverage of mammograms and preventive screening tests for women under a revamped health care system.”

• Reuters:  “U.S. Senate bolsters preventive care for women”

• Bloomberg:  Senate Approves Plan to Boost U.S. Mammogram Testing

Top GOP leaders have mistakenly convinced themselves that the key to defeating the bill is to process a number of Republican “messaging” amendments while letting Democrats offer whatever amendments are necessary to buy 60 votes.

There are three fatal problems with this strategy: 1) leadership insists on pushing its own too-clever-by-half “message” instead of listening to the clear message faxed, e-mailed and phoned to every elected official in Washington (“KILL THE BILL!”), 2) as evidenced by the articles above, the current “messaging strategy” is an abysmal failure, and 3) by allowing amendments to be processed at no cost to the majority party, GOP leaders are merely greasing the skids for government-run health care.

In the movie “Braveheart,” William Wallace tells Robert the Bruce, a noble who had the desire but not the guts to do the right thing, “Men don’t follow titles; they follow courage.” It would be refreshing to see more of the latter from those with the former in the United States Senate.

Kettle, meet Pot. Or, as he’s known in South Carolina, Adam Fogle.  In a poorly sourced and potentially libelous attack on a professor at Clemson University , little-known blogger Adam Fogle demonstrates once again that Hell hath no wrath like a paid hack scorned.

At PalmettoScoop.com, a thinly trafficked blog that follows South Carolina Politics, Fogle this morning accused Clemson professor James David Woodard of taking bribes in exchange for praising Sen. Jim DeMint and bashing Sen. Lindsey Graham.  “Professor May Be Running ‘Quotes for Hire’ Racket at Clemson University,” Fogle blared.  Woodard co-authored a book with Sen. DeMint and previously served as a consultant for several South Carolina lawmakers, including DeMint in 1998, Lindsey Graham in 1994, and Rep. Gresham Barrett in 2002.  Something must be amiss when a so-called conservative like Fogel frets that academia is just too darn supportive of conservatives.

Fogle’s proof of Woodard’s guilt in a seedy “pay-to-say” consists of the fact that…Woodard used to work as a consultant for DeMint.  In 1998.  But how would that explain Woodard’s attacks on Graham?  “[W]hen Graham stopped paying [Woodard] as a consultant, Woodard suddenly became his biggest and harshest critic,” answers Fogle.  Unfortunately for Fogel, Woodard’s praise for DeMint continued long after his work for him ended, suggesting that Woodard’s real crime against Graham isn’t that he’s on the take; it’s that he didn’t stay bought.  And staying bought is something Adam Fogle knows a lot about.

Enter Richard Quinn, the father of former South Carolina House Majority Leader Rick Quinn and a long-time political consultant of Sen. Lindsey Graham.  Quinn also owns Mail Marketing Strategies (MMS) in Columbia, S.C. While Adam Fogle would like his ones of readers to believe his day job consists of running Palmetto Scoop, he actually works for Quinn, the Graham confidante.  According to an October 2007 online archive entry for Newsweek , “Adam Fogle is a 23-year-old account for Mail Marketing Strategies [...] where he works in a Web-based capacity to assist the firm’s state and local clients in developing Websites [sic], utilizing multimedia content and achieving other Internet-oriented goals.” Palmetto Scoop is also rumored throughout the state to be owned and operated by Quinn, which would explain why candidates currently paying Quinn (Graham, McMaster, Wilson) receive glowing coverage from the site, while those who refuse to grease Quinn’s palm (DeMint, Barrett) receive only scorn.

Fogle’s main problem thus lies not in professor Dave Woodard or his beliefs about Lindsey Graham, but in the fact that he is the junior web lackey for one of Graham’s top consultants, a consultant with a laundry list of past offenses that would make even the most unprincipled hack blush.  People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones (or use the bathroom), and untalented hacks-on-the-take like Fogle most certainly shouldn’t invent stories or feign outrage about others doing the same.  Hypocrisy, thy name is Fogle.

“The president was clearly frustrated with what was going on, but there was little he could do at this late hour. He went up to take a nap, saying he was beat. He looked it. I’d never seen him more exhausted. His hair was out of place and shaggy. His face looked drained and pale. Most alarming of all, he was wearing Crocs.”

So reads former presidential speechwriter Matt Latimer’s tongue-in-cheek description of President Bush hours before giving a national address to explain his Treasury secretary’s plan to save the country’s economy and banking sector from total collapse.  Crocs cracks aside, that the president had no idea how the financial plan actually worked is even more disturbing.  “Why did I sign on to this proposal if I don’t understand what it does?” Bush asked.  Good question.  Unfortunately, many of the former aides named in Latimer’s book have proven themselves far more likely to attack the book and its author than provide any real answers.

Released last week by Crown Publishing, Speech-Less details the rise of a native of Flint, Michigan (the inspiration for Michael Moore’s Roger and Me)  to the floor of a national political convention, to the halls of Congress, to the Pentagon, and, finally, to the Oval Office.  Latimer pulls no punches.  And although less than half the book centers around his time in the White House, the bulk of the rage directed toward the book has come from former White House staffers aghast at the audacity of someone airing their antics.

“I’m pretty sure that almost everyone who worked in the White House could not pick Matt [Latimer] out of a lineup,” wrote Dana Perino, a former White House press secretary known primarily for not being as good as Ari Fleischer and being just marginally less awful than Scott McClellan.  And so began the parade of personal attacks bereft of any substantive challenge to Latimer’s rendering of events.

“He needs to read his Dante,” author and radio commentator Bill Bennett told CNN.  “The lowest circle of Hell [is] for people who are disloyal in the way this guy is disloyal and [at] the very lowest point Satan chews on their bodies.”  According to Dante, Bennett, a gambler who admittedly lost millions in Las Vegas and Atlantic City, would end up in the fourth circle of Hell with the other squanderers and hoarders of wealth (I greatly admire Bennett and his many contributions to the conservative cause, but his comments were indefensible).  Bennett’s remarks on CNN were circulated online by Peter Wehner, another former Bush administration alumnus.

I spoke with Latimer last Wednesday evening to get his response to the attacks against him and his book.  “I like the president, I respect him, he did a lot of good things, and I never said otherwise,” Latimer told me.   “The fact is that appallingly bad communications strategies crippled the president, and the people attacking me were the ones responsible for it.”

Latimer’s book, which just earned a spot on the New York Times best-seller list, also confirmed a long-held suspicion I developed as a congressional staffer during Bush’s tenure – that blind loyalty to Bush the person compromised the ability of many of his staff to counsel and challenge Bush the president.  Unlike the loyalty toward Reagan, which was based almost entirely on his vision for limited government and a strong national defense, the loyalty reportedly demanded by President Bush was personal and not based on an over-arching vision of governance.

“The self-appointed loyalty enforcers don’t like that I had any principled criticisms of the White House from the Right,” Latimer said.  “It’s not helpful to any party to have a bunch of personal groupies running the country.”  His point is amplified by the fact that the only oath sworn by senior presidential staffers is to the United States Constitution, not to the president or any other individual.

More than anything, the kerfuffle over Speech-Less represents just the latest battle in an ongoing war for the soul of the G.O.P.  As Latimer told me, “These people still want to run the party and will run it into the ground again if given another chance.”

It is hard to quibble with his assertion.  Before Bush became president, Republicans held solid majorities in both houses of Congress.  By the time he left, Democrats had crushed the Republican revolution and taken complete control of Congress and the White House.  When Bush took office, the Republican party was known as the party of limited government.  When he left, it was the party of earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere.

Can the party save itself from extinction?  If its “self-appointed loyalty enforcers” continue to marginalize the dissent of those like Latimer who believe the Bush administration represented a departure from, and not a return to, Reagan’s legacy of limited government, then probably not.

Cross-published at the Wharton Journal .