, , , , , ,

I am sure that I am not the only person who is puzzled by Tea Partier Liz Lauber’s primary challenge against Todd Akin, who is, after all, ranked by the National Journal as the 11th most conservative member of the House of Representatives. Makes you wonder what Lauber is really all about.

Well wonder no more. According to an article in the rightwing rag, The Washington Times, Lauber decided to run for Congress after her representative voted for the TARP bailout.  Of course, she is either confused or her representative at the time was someone other than Akin, since he was one of the Republicans to vote against the bailout. Hasn’t stopped her from giving him a primary challenge though.

Lauber is, it seems, anxious that nobody regard her candidacy as simply an exercise in anti-government bile. She is at pains to show that she wants “not just to stand against government, but to stand for something.”  To that end she and fellow Tea Partier, Phil Troyer, who is running for office in Indiana, have decided to copy Newt Gringrich and present voters with a Tea Party flavored Compact with America, the principles of which are about what one would expect:

-Passing real tax reform, such as a flat tax or fair tax.

-Requiring a vote of Congress to approve each federal agency regulation.

.-Banning earmark recipients from making campaign donations

-Prohibiting federal ownership interests in private companies.

-Requiring bills to be posted online five days in advance of a vote.

-Performing a federalism and constitutionality analysis of all bills.

-Voting for appropriations bills that reduce spending by at least 5 percent.

-Prohibiting federal funding of abortion.

-Offering a constitutional amendment for term limits.

All Mostly questionable provisions that should be very popular with Tea Party zealots – and nothing that Todd Akin would have a problem signing onto, with the exception of the term limits requirement. So the question remains, why would fringers in the 2nd district vote for Liz Lauber? Anti-government bile?

Update – having 2nd thoughts: As I look at the “compact” again, it strikes me that the third provision above – banning earmark recipients from making campaign donations – might be the source of difference between Lauber and Akin. Could it be that a group, initiated by astroturfers to fight health care reform and rational energy policy, has actually taken on its own life – apart from serving as an outlet for every variety of right-wing battiness, that is?  In spite of their silly rhetoric and “constitutional” craziness, do they actually get it when it comes to corruption?  If so, it could be really bad news for the Republicans who hope to march to victory in the Tea Party parade.