Conservatives Applaud Debt Panel Republicans For Opposing Tax Hikes

By Mike Hothi

Conservative activists applauded Republicans on the congressional ‘super committee’ today for opposing Democratic attempts to raise taxes.

The group held a press conference Tuesday morning to praise the six GOP lawmkers on the debt panel for not caving in to “disastrous tax increases.”

“Raising taxes is absolutely unacceptable,” stated Brent Bozell, Chairman of ForAmerica. “The media and the White House want you to believe the Super Committee failed, but in a very real way that is untrue.”

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council went as far as to say that the Committee succeeded.

“It succeeded in showing Americans the vast ideological divide that stands between the two main political parties in this town” he said. “There is the party that believes we can sustain spending levels that have doubled in the last decade.”

Talks between members on the committee broke down over the weekend after both sides rejected a twin of proposals. Republicans, led by Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) proposed generating $300 billion in new revenues mainly through eliminating tax loopholes and deductions. In return, the GOP asked Democrats to go further on cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Democrats countered by saying they would agree to the steeper entitlement cuts if Republicans would support $1 trillion in new revenues over the next decade.

When Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the two leaders on the panel, realized yesterday that they had reached an insurmountable impasse, they released a joint statement officially announcing the committee’s failure.

Following the joint statement, Senate Foregin Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) blamed anti-tax lobbyist Grover Norquist for standing in the way of an agreement. Kerry, a key Democratic member of the committee, called Norquist’s famous anti-tax pledge signed by most of the current Republicans in Congress the “one hang-up” that prevented a deal from being reached.

Norquist responded by accusing Kerry and other Democrats of signing “secret” pledges to unions and progressive special interest groups.

Conservatives who spoke at today’s presser told reporters that they would’ve revolted had Republicans agreed to large tax hikes. They said that they will continue to lean on GOP lawmakers to hold the line.

“If Republicans ultimately cave to liberal Democrats and support tax increases, the results in 2012 will be devastating,” said Bozell.

Geoff Holtzman contributed to this report.

Accuser Confronted Cain About Harassment at Tea Party Meet in October

 A woman who alleges Herman Cain sexually harassed her 14 years ago says she confronted him about the incident before a Tea Party event last month.

 In a press conference with her attorney Gloria Allred today in New York, Sharon Bialek told reporters Cain made inappropriate sexual advances after she asked him for help finding a new job in 1997. 

 Bialek says she got a chance to confront Cain about the incident almost a month ago, before an appearance at a Tea Party Conference event sponsored by WIND Chicago radio.

“I didn’t actually know he would be there but the night before, when my girlfriend told me, I went up to him and asked him: “ Do you remember me?”…I guess I wanted to see if he was going to be man enough to own up to what he had done some 14 years ago. He acknowledged that he remembered me from the Foundation, but he kind of looked uncomfortable and he said nothing as he was whisked away for his speech by his handlers.”

 “During his speech, he had that same infectious presence that we had come to know and command that he did when I heard him speak 14 years ago at the NRA. As I sat there in the audience I kept wondering to myself, had he done to other women what he had done to me and wether anyone was going to speak out about it.”

Bialek, a one time employee at the Educational Foundation of the National Restaurant Association,told reporters she first met Cain at the National Restaurant Association’s 1997 convention in Chicago, where she sat next to him during several luncheons and dinners. 

 Bialek says she had become friendly with Cain over the course of the 5 day convention and after seeing one of his “inspirational” keynote address at an event, even asked him when he would be running for President. Bialek says her and her boyfriend at the time sat at Cain’s table during the convention’s closing diner and joined him for an after-party in his hotel suite.

 Bialek says she was fired from the NRA Educational Foundation a month after the convention. She says she was never told why she was let go but that her boyfriend suggested she talk to Cain to see if he could help her get a new job.

Bialek says she called Cain’s office to schedule a meeting for coffee while she visited DC.  After making the plans, her boyfriend booked her a room at the capital Hilton and she let Cain know of her arrival dates.

“When I checked into the room I was shocked, I had a palatial suite and I said to the bellman there has to be some mistake but he insisted there was no mistake”.  Bialek said she initially thought her boyfriend had tried to surprise her, but when she met Cain at the hotel bar later that night, he told her he had gotten her an upgrade. 

 After drinks at the bar, she says they drove to an Italian restaurant for dinner.

 “During dinner Mr Cain looked at me and said “ Why are you here?” I said: “Actually Herman my boyfriend whom you met suggested that I meet with you, he though you could help me because I really need a job.” 

Bialek says that on the drive back to the hotel, Cain decided he would take her on a tour of the National Restaurant Association office.

“I thought we were going to go into on of the offices so he could show me around.”

Bialek says that in the car outside the National Restaurant Association offices, Cain tried to reach under her skirt for her genitals and then grabbed her head and tried to push it down towards his crotch.

“I was very very surprised and very very shocked. I said what are you doing? You know I have a boyfriend, this isn’t what I came her for. Mr Cain said: “You want a job right?“. I asked him to stop and he did. I asked him to take me back to my hotel room and he did right away.”

Bialek says that when she returned home to New Jersey, she told her boyfriend about Cain’s inappropriate behavior and later told another friend. 

 Her attorney Gloria Allred showed reporters two statements written under oath by the former boyfriend and friend, acknowledging that she had told them separately of the incident shortly after it had happened.

“I didn’t tell them the details because frankly I was very embarrassed that Mr. Cain had been sexually inappropriate to me.” Bialek said. “I didn’t file a complaint against Mr. Cain as some of the other women did, because I wasn’t employed by the foundation when this occurred” 

“But now I’m coming forward to give a face and a voice to those who maybe cannot or for whatever reasons do not wish to come forwards, and on behalf of all women who are sexually harassed in the work place but do not come out in fear of retaliation or public humiliation.”

 Allred said her client had no plans to file a lawsuit.

 “She is not filing any law suits, any claim against Mr. Cain or the Restaurant Association. She could have sold the story, she did not try and do so, she is not interested in doing so. She was interested in giving a voice to what happened to her.” 

Bialek, a registered Republican, says she wants Cain to admit to the charges, so the race for Presidential nomination could move forward without distractions. 

“I want you, Mr Cain, to come clean. Just admit what you did, admit you were inappropriate to people and then move forward. America is in a horrible turmoil as we all know. We need a leader who can set an example, which exemplifies the standards of a good person and moral character. Mr. Cain I implore you. Make this right, so that you and the country can move forward and focus on the real issues at hand.”

Live Blog: Republicans Square Off In Tampa

TAMPA — Good evening, politics fans. I’m in hot, sunny Tampa, Florida where tonight, the eight Republican candidates for President will face each other in what promises to be an interesting debate. Most eyes will be on presumptive frontrunner, Texas Governor Rick Perry, who will certainly be in the spotlight thanks to his solid poll numbers of late.

(Click here to see photos from the debate)

Perry’s primary challenger, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, will likely attempt to launch attacks against Perry’s position on Social Security, which he modified this week to ease the minds of older voters, concerned about Perry’s remarks in his book, “Fed Up!,” in which he labeled the program “an illegal ponzi scheme.” Perry now insists that he’s against doing away with the popular entitlement, and would rather work to preserve it for future generations. Social Security is a huge issue here in the state of Florida, where almost a fifth of the total population is comprised of seniors.

Romney, meanwhile, may have earned some momentum today by picking up a key endorsement from former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who dropped out of the race after a poor showing in Iowa last month.

The others participating in tonight’s debate include Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and businessman Herman Cain. With President Obama just having sent Congress his jobs plan, look for moderator Wolf Blitzer to give the candidates plenty of opportunities to respond.

The debate is being co-sponsored by CNN and the Tea Party Express, and you can watch all the action live on CNN starting at 8:00 pm eastern. However, if you really want to be cool, you should keep your web browser open to this page, as I’ll be posting updates all night long.

Update on Monday, September 12, 2011 at 7:59PM by Geoff Holtzman

Candidates are first introduced. Standing left to right, we have Huntsman, Cain, Bachmann, Romney, Perry, Paul, Gingrich and Santorum (Perry and Romney in the middle). Next comes the National Anthem.

And we’re underway with opening statements from candidates — Bachmann gets specific, noting her bills to repeal Obama’s healthcare and financial reg laws. Perry says he wants to reduce the size of government, also gives shout-out to Tea Party Express. Santorum says he’ll vote with his heart if elected.

First question from First Coast Tea Party member — how do you convince seniors to support reforming entitlements?

Bachmann goes first, says Obama has already cut Medicare to fund his healthcare law, and says the government estimates that Social Security is going broke — says she understands how to fix both programs. Perry is next, Wolf asks him about his latest op-ed on Social Security. Perry says SS will be around for a long time — says politicans must have the “courage” to convince Americans that the system is broken. Says many others — not just him — have called SS a “ponzi scheme.” Says he’ll shoot straight with voters about the need to fix SS. Romney calls Perry’s use of “ponzi scheme” over the top. Is asked whether Perry is capable of beating Obama. Romney asks Perry whether he thinks SS is unconstitutional. Perry says he’s not gonna end SS since it’s been around for 70 years. Romney asks him directly whether SS should be handled by the states — Perry calls for a “thoughtful conversation with America” about how to fix SS, accuses Romney of scaring seniors. Romney says the term “ponzi scheme” scares seniors. Turns to audience and calls SS an “essential program.”

Wolf asks Paul about whether SS is a ponzi scheme. Paul calls for transitioning SS into a program where young people can opt-out. Wolf asks Cain whether he agrees with Perry. Cain says it doesn’t matter what you call it, SS is going bankrupt. Cain calls for opt-outs and allowing younger workers to have private savings accounts. Reminds audience that under that plan, current seniors would not be impacted. Repeats his call for US to follow Chile on SS. Hunstman goes next, takes a centrist tone and says both Romney and Perry are wrong to frighten seniors. Huntsman says he supports the Paul Ryan plan to reform SS. Gingrich is next, says forget about Romney and Perry scaring seniors, Obama scares them every day (huge applause). Gingrich then reminds that if you have 4% unemployment, SS would fix itself (more revenue to fund it). Sums things up by calling for a plan that lets voters opt-out. Santorum says he’s been warning voters about the need to reform SS for the last 17 years. Says he’d support raising the retirement age, says PA voters liked that idea. Says he’s got a better track record on how to deal with SS than anyone else.

Next question from Pleasanton/Norcal Tea Party member: What is your plan to balance the budget and get spending under control?

Gingrich goes first — says Washington wastes too much, calls for a full-scale audit of the federal government, notes that he was Speaker during a balanced budget, says it’s a myth that entitlements or defense must be cut to reign in the budget. Says government wastes hundreds of billions in Medicaid and Medicare waste. Santorum is asked about his vote in favor of Medicare Part D (perscription drug benefit), which added a ton to the deficit. Santorum says he’d keep the plan, but fix it. Perry is next, says he would keep Medicare Part D. Romney says he’d reform all entitlements — says you have to cut spending, in addition to fighting waste — to balance the budget — says you have to grow the economy, too. More jobs = more taxpayers = more revenue, he says. Paul goes in a completely different direction, says Medicare Part D should never have been signed. Paul says the way to balance the budget is to end wars, bring home troops, and invest domestically. Says cutting Department of Education would help, too (mild applause). Bachmann is next, calls for individual responsibility, which draws applause, but offers no specifics. To be fair, she doesn’t get much time for her response, as Wolf says it’s time to go to a commercial. Stay tuned…..

Update on Monday, September 12, 2011 at 8:52PM by Geoff Holtzman

First question out of the break comes from Sandra Jones in Yorktown, Va: What would you do to get the economy going and create jobs?

Huntsman gets the first crack, laments all the people out of work right now. Next, pivots to his jobs plan, which includes reforming the nation’s tax code (ending loopholes and corporate welfare), regulatory reform. Perry is asked whether he supports President Obama’s plan, which includes a series of tax cuts. Perry says no, because the President’s will pay for it by proposing tax increases, says the plan won’t create any jobs. Instead, Perry says, Congress should lower tax rates for businesses to encourage companies to invest and hire. Also calls for deregulation. Perry suggests that Congress should balance tax cuts with spending cuts — draws mild applause. Bachmann is next, says the debt is a byproduct of out of control spending with no offsets. She says she would not have raised the nation’s debt ceiling — “you gotta draw a line in the sand somewhere,” she says. Calls for lowering the corporate tax rate to 0%, so that businesses would re-patriate $1.2 trillion that they’ve been sheltering offshore. Cain is next, says the nation needs a bold solution — calls for replacing current tax code with his “9-9-9” plan. Rips off a great line about how Washington doesn’t work (you know it’s funny if the press is laughing). Romeny asked about Perry’s record of creating jobs in Texas — Romney ties energy jobs in Texas to his plan to produce more energy on a national level. Pivots to his seven-point plan to jumpstart the economy — increase trade, crack down on regs, balance the budget among the proposals. Romney is then asked if Perry deserves credit for creating more than 1 million jobs in Texas — AWKWARD —  basically says anyone could’ve done it since Texas is a fruitful state for job growth. Perry gets to respond — points to the 1 million jobs created figure. Says passing tort reform helped his state grow, calls for tort reform on a national level. Paul, a fellow Texan, goes next. Says he pays taxes in Texas and taxes have gone up under Perry. Perry responds by saying that he’s cut taxes greatly, says his state is ranked year after year as a top place to do business. Gingrich is then asked if he would compromise with Dems on creating jobs — says he created more jobs as Speaker than any of his fellow candidates have as Governors. Says “American people create jobs, not government.”

Next question is about whether the pro-business candidates can be pro-worker at the same time? Cain starts off by pointing to his time as CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and managing employers’ and employees’ interests. “The two are not mutually exclusive,” he says. Huntsman asked by Wolf why he’d be better at creating jobs — Huntsman says he knows how to “create the environment in which the private sector can work its magic.” Says Perry talks a good game, but he had better numbers when he ran Utah. Looks like we’re going to a break, Wolf hints that there will be a question or two about national security after the break. Stay tuned….

Update on Monday, September 12, 2011 at 9:22PM by Geoff Holtzman

First question is whether the Federal Reserve should be audited or held accountable to the public?

Santorum is first — calls for reforming the Federal Reserve, but then goes into his response to the last series of questions about jobs (he was ignored). Cain says yes, audit the Fed, but don’t end it. (Cain used to run the Fed Reserve Bank of Kansas City). Says current Fed policies have led to devaluation of the US dollar. Bachmann is asked whether she agrees with Perry, who came close to accusing Fed President Ben Bernanke of treason. She dodges the question but says he wouldn’t re-appoint Bernanke. Says she worked “behind the scenes” against the 2008 bank bailout. She calls for an audit and for reducing the size of the Fed. Perry stands by his earlier comments, calls it a “travesty” that the value of the dollar has shrunk over the years. Romney says of course there should be proper oversight of the Fed, but distances himself from Perry and says the Fed should exist. If not the Fed, who is going to control our money? Congress?

Next question is, “how much of each dollar I make should I get to keep?” (great question, I must say).

Huntsman goes first, says he would lower and simplify individual tax rates, as well as corporate tax rates, while reducing corporate welfare. Says the problem is the nation’s growing debt. Gingrich is asked whether it’s fair for companies to get tax breaks? Gingrich rants against tax breaks for oil and gas — says it’s lamentable that the US imports so much energy from the Middle East — calls for more energy production here at home. Gingrich then asked whether ending a tax break equals raising taxes? Responds that it’s a bad idea to raise taxes right now on anyone (that presumably includes ending tax breaks for businesses).

Next question is whether any candidates would support a Fair Tax?

Romney goes first, says it’s not a terrible plan, but says his plan to lower taxes would be a better alternative.

Next question is about the President’s authority to use executive orders.

Paul goes first, says it’s a power that’s been abused — says it should never be used to legislate. Perry asked about his decision to use executive order to require young girls in Texas to get the HPV vaccine. Responds that cervical cancer (which HPV causes) “is a terrible way to die.” However, he says he made a mistake by not going to the state legislature. Bachmann is next, says it’s “flat-out wrong” to require young girls to get shots. Says that’s why she fought so hard against Obama’s healthcare law, says it will lead to government controlling healthcare. Perry says his law was not a mandate because it contained an opt-out clause. Says he knows he’ll be criticized for the decision, but says he “erred on the side of caution.” Bachmann responds that big drug companies stand to profit off laws like the one Perry signed in Texas. Perry gets a chance to responds, says the company was Merk, says they gave him $5,000 during his campaign — turns to Bachmann and says if you think I can be bought for $5 grand, you’re wrong. Santorum goes next, says there is no purpose ever for the government to force girls to get shots — calls it “big government run amock.” Perry gets one last chance to respond — says he was trying to save lives.

Next question is what the candidates would do to lower healthcare costs?

Cain goes first, says he’d repeal Obama’s healthcare law, pass “loser-pays” laws, restructure Medicare allow association health plans. Romney asked about the perpetual elephant in the room — his decision to pass an individual healthcare mandate as Governor of MA. Says healthcare is so expensive because people lack health savings accounts. Says he’d order HHS to grant a healthcare waiver to anyone on his first day as President. Perry says we wouldn’t have Obama’s healthcare law if not for Romney’s that preceeded it. Calls the Romney plan wrong for the country and wrong for the state of MA. Says states should be allowed to craft their own health plans. Romney gets to respond — says his plan was way different than Obama’s. Said what Obama did “was simply wrong.” Adds that majority of people in MA supported Romney’s plan back then. Paul, a physician, is asked to weigh in — says under his plan, people would take care of themselves when they get sick, or churches. “Freedom is about taking your own risks.” Calls for legalizing alternative healthcare. Bachmann goes next, takes a swipe at Romney by saying that issuing an executive order won’t be enough to undo the Obama healthcare law. She says it must be repealed legislatively. Says “this is the election that is going to decide if we have socialized medicine or not.” Bachmann, sounding fired up, says Romney is not committed to repealing Obama’s healthcare law. Gets decent applause.

And it’s time for another break, stay tuned…

Update on Monday, September 12, 2011 at 9:46PM by Geoff Holtzman

First question out of the break: What would candidates do to rid the country of illegal immigrants?

Santorum is first, says legal immigration is fine, but we must secure the border, enforce existing laws on the books. Says once you secure the border, you can begin to address the issue of what to do with the millions of illegals. Perry goes next, says federal government has failed badly on this issue — says he supports strategic fencing, but building an entire wall is not plausible. Says he knows how to secure the border.

Next question is what are the candidates doing to attract Latino voters? Santorum slams Perry, says he’s doing it by offering illegals in-state college tuition. Santorum says Hispanic voters should learn English. Perry responds by clarifying his law, which affords illegals the in-state tuition if they are working and making progress academically. Says his plan enables illegals to become “contributing members of society.” Bachmann disagrees, says Perry’s plan awards people who break the law. Don’t give taxpayer benefits to those who enter the country illegally, she says. Perry responds, says the DREAM Act is amnesty, and his plan was different. Says the idea behind his plan was to tell people, regardless of citizenship, that the government believed in them. Huntsman gets another turn and slams Perry by saying it’s ridiculous to suggest that the nation can’t fully secure its border. Romney asked to identify problems with how both Perry and Huntsman dealt with the issue as Governors. Romney says he wants Latinos to know that they are welcome in the GOP — says employers must be cracked down on. Doing so would take away an incentive for illegals to come here. “This is the party that believes in enforcing the law,” Romney says. Perry goes again, says for him the choice is giving illegals a chance to succeed on their own or forcing them to live off the government. Back to Huntsman, says fixing the nation’s homeland security efforts would help foreigners in this country.

Next question is about making the US energy independent:

Cain goes first, says he’d start by reducing regs for every agency, starting with the EPA. Says he’d appoint people to an anti-reg commisison who have been hurt by regs.

Next question goes to Gingrich: Do you believe it is necessary to spend a lot in order to maintain the nation’s defense capabilities? Gingrich says the US is facing serious threats from Mexico, the middle east and China. Ron Paul goes next, says there’s a difference between military and defense spending, Says the problem is that the US “occupies” too many other countries. Paul accuses the US of trying to be the world’s policeman. Santorum turns to Paul and accuses him of posting a blog yesterday that blamed the US for 9/11. Calls that irresponsible. Says US was not attacked because of anything it did — says we shouldn’t feel ashamed for standing for freedom around the world. Paul responds, says it’s not true to say that we weren’t attacked because of our actions. Says the US is not fair to Palestinians, and has been bombing innocent Iraqis for ten years. Gets booed slightly.

Next question comes from an Afghani-American: Asks candidates what they would do to secure the Afghan people from radical Islamists?

Hunstman starts off by saying that it’s time for the US to get out of Afghanistan and focus more on fixing problems here at home. Perry says he agrees with Huntsman on bringing home the troops — says US must reexamine how it spends on aid to other nations, including Afghanistan. Says US must finish the transition in Afghanistan. Wolf announces that it’s time for another break. Stay tuned….

Update on Monday, September 12, 2011 at 9:52PM by Geoff Holtzman

We’re back for one final round, a chance for the candidates to familiarize themselves with the audience on a personal level.

Santorum says he’d add a bedroom to the White House (he has 7 kids). Gingrich says he’d have more music. Paul says he’d bring a “bushel basket in common sense,” and a book on economics. Perry says he’d bring his “beautiful, thoughtful” wife. Romney says he’d bring back the bust of Winston Churchill. Bachmann would bring a copy of the Declaration of Independende, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Cain nails it, says he’d bring a sense of humor since Washington is too uptight. Huntsman finishes it off by saying that he’d bring his Harley Davidson.

And that’s it.

Goodnight!

Tea Party Underwhelmed By Current GOP Field

TAMPA — Conservatives will be paying particularly close attention to tonight’s Republican debate, the second of three scheduled for this month and the first ever to be co-hosted by the Tea Party.

At a pre-debate luncheon sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, voters listened to analysts explain what candidates must do to win the support of the Tea Party crowd. Most of the 150 or so in attendance raised their hands when CNN’s John King, who moderated the panel discussion, asked them whether they were satisfied with the current field. Moreover, only a handful said they wanted former Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin to enter the race.

That would appear to be good news for the current crop of contenders. Except that there are still some out there who question whether the candidates will truly represent the Tea Party’s interests.

For example, ever heard of Agenda 21? Probably not. But ask members of the Sutter Buttes Tea Party based in Yuba City, California. These folks argue that the plan, adopted by 178 nations at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) back in 1992, is allowing governments worldwide to force “green” lifestyles upon citizens. The issue most recently came up during a townhall event hosted by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who downplayed concerns over Agenda 21 after being confronted about it. Larry Virga, Coordinator of the Sutter Buttes Tea Party Patriots, told me that even the most conservative of candidates this cycle have not paid enough attention to the issue. He doubted that any of them have even heard about the program.

It’s extremely unlikely that the topic of Agenda 21 will surface either at tonight’s debate or any others that will follow. Candidates will instead be asked about their plans to grow the economy, strengthen America’s safety net programs and manage the nation’s wars abroad. In the end, the vast majority of those who align with the Tea Party will vote for a Republican — whether it’s Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin or anyone else — against President Obama next year.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll feel comfortable with their choice.

Larry Calabretta, who made the roughly one-hour trip down I-4 from Orlando, told me today that he doubts whether Republican leaders in Washington “get” the Tea Party. “I don’t know,” he said. “That remains to be seen.”

“Absolutely not,” added Billie Tucker, a leader in the First Coast Tea Party based in Jacksonville, Florida.

When I asked Calabretta about Perry, the presumptive frontrunner who leads the rest of the field according to recent polls, he sounded skeptical.

“I think a lot of [Perry’s success] is media driven,” he said. “Rush [Limbaugh] is right…you listen to what the media is saying and that’s who you want to steer away from.”

Murkowski Losing Clout In GOP After Announcing Write-In Candidacy

After having lost to Tea Party-backed Joe Miller in Alaska’s GOP Senate primary, Lisa Murkowski’s decision to run in November as a write-in candidate is taking its toll on her current status on Capitol Hill. 

CNN is reporting that Senate Republicans plan to relieve Murkowski as ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee. Members of the GOP are said to vote soon on an acting ranking member for the committee who will then be ratified by a GOP conference vote. 

The ousting comes on the heels of Murkowski’s recent resignation from her post as vice chair of the Senate GOP conference all seemingly rooted at her write-in bid for Alaska’s Senate race against Miller and Democrat Scott McAdams.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) defended Murkowski’s removal saying it was “the appropriate thing to do.” 

“When you chose not to accept the judgment of the primary voters and run as a write-in, it has its consequences,” Cornyn said.

Murkowski recently released her first television ad where she justified her write-in candidacy saying Alaskans “can not accept the extreme views of Joe Miller nor the inexperience of Scott McAdams, they want a choice.”

A recent Rasmussen poll has Miller leading the pack, holding 42% of the vote. Murkowski and McAdams trail the Palin-backed candidate by double-digit margins, holding 27% and 25% of the vote, respectively.