Earlier this week I saw this article explaining how Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson are seeking $105 million in federal funds to deepen the Savannah harbor.

A few questions went through my mind when I saw that – questions like “Why is the Savannah harbor suddenly not deep enough?” and “How deep does a harbor need to be?”  The article mentions that deeper harbors can bring in larger ships, but I’ll not even get into whether or not we should be deepening the Savannah harbor with federal money we don’t have.

I’m more interested in the last line of that article, which said:

Chambliss defends his use of earmarks, saying it’s pennies compared to the federal deficit.

Saxby Chambliss says we should spend this money because it’s such a small part of the federal deficit.  Is this really one of the two Georgia Senators who recently said we need to balance the budget?”

If the Senators who want to curb spending would, you know, actually curb spending, we could start to make progress on a balanced budget. Little projects all add up to be one big deficit.

Maybe we should get rid of Senator Chambliss.  After all, he is only 1% of the Senate.

Well, I don’t know that we should have expected anything else.  Our allegedly-not-running-again Senator Chambliss and our can’t-run-again-(thank-you-Jesus) Governor Perdue will be hosting a fundraiser for Charlie Crist here in Georgia.

As this Peach Pundit post mentions, Perdue certainly doesn’t have anything to lose with this move, and if Chambliss really isn’t going to run again, he’s got nothing to lose either.

There’s one real conservative in that Florida Senate race, and it’s not Crist.  Then again, why would Saxby support the conservative?

If Lindsey Graham has an idea, it’s probably a bad one.  I know it’s not always the case, but usually, if you hear Senator Graham say we should go North, we’re likely much better off heading due South.  But when Saxby Chambliss agrees with Lindsey Graham, well, if that doesn’t send up red flags for you, nothing will.

I recently saw an interview on youtube with these two Senators, and it’s a really interesting one.  Basically, the argument is that we should attack Iran so Israel doesn’t have to.  Then the world can be angry at us instead of being angry at Iran.

Senator Graham says:

I think an Israeli attack on Iran is a nightmare for the world, because it will rally the Arab world around Iran and theyre not aligned now. Its too much pressure to put on Israel.

Seems to me like that would put all of that pressure on the US.  Is that really what he wants?

Graham continues:

If we use military action against Iran, we should not only go after their nuclear facilities. We should destroy their ability to make conventional war. They should have no planes that can fly and no ships that can float.

Wow.  That’s saying a lot.  So what does Saxby Chambliss say of this idea?

The problem with military action also is that youre probably not going to be able to stop the production of uranium by just a simple airstrike. Lindsey’s right. Its an all or nothing deal.

“It’s an all or nothing deal.” Given those options, I’d take nothing.

Here’s the youtube video for your viewing pleasure:

This morning I found this post by Michael Naragon that breaks apart the canned response from Saxby Chambliss that so many of us have received.

I got the same email and have been working on a draft of a post that would have been very similar to the one Michael.  Instead of rehashing the same stuff, I decided to just link to him and let you read it there.

My biggest problem with the response from Chambliss was his automatic acceptance of the need for climate change legislation. Quoting Naragon’s post:

…he implies that such climate change is man-made, despite the growing consensus among scientists that the entire movement has been a myth as temperatures have leveled since 2001 and have begun to drop.

Chambliss’ approach is that government has the answer – that we really do need the legislation, but we just have to figure out what it will say and how it will say it.

Senator, maybe sometimes more government isn’t the answer.  I know it’s a tough concept to grasp, but it’s one that could rescue your political career if you’d let it.

Here’s the canned response Saxby is sending those who contacted him about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 1, the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.” It is good to hear from you.

On January 28, 2009, the House of Representatives voted along party lines to pass this bill and send it to the Senate. As lawmakers worked to amend the legislation, the majority repeatedly discouraged efforts to find solutions that would truly stimulate the economy.

Instead of focusing on creating jobs, boosting the housing sector and lending a hand to Americans who have lost jobs through no fault of their own, this massive bill morphed into a bloated government giveaway. It is one of the most expensive pieces of spending legislation ever created. It also expands an already enormous deficit.

Therefore, I voted against cutting off debate on the legislation, and against its passage in the Senate. However, the bill passed by a vote of 61-37. On February 13, 2009, I also voted against the conference report of the bill, which ultimately passed by a vote of 60-38.

The majority in Congress has been in runaway mode when it comes to spending taxpayer dollars. This legislation is yet another sign that Washington is more concerned with pet projects than with taxpayers’ concerns.

If we do not get a handle on federal spending – including both discretionary and entitlement programs – and make reforms now, we will pass this burden to our children and grandchildren. We must reform our budget process, put an end to wasteful spending and implement the fiscal responsibility that taxpayers demand and deserve.

I read that, and all I really saw was “Now that there’s a Democrat in the White House, we need to get a handle on spending.”

Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad that both of our Georgia Senators voted against the bill.  The problem I have is that neither of them seemed to have a problem with spending when it was a Republican pushing the insane spending bills.

I’ve heard that Saxby got the message after his and that he’s going to be a real conservative going forward.  I haven’t heard it from him, but I’ve heard it a lot.  I hope that’s the case, but so far I’m not convinced we’ve got anything more than a couple of RINOs representing Georgia in the Senate.

Well, this is interesting.  Reader Chris just forwarded an email from Bob Barr (apparently mine didn’t get delivered).  Bob Barr is encouraging his supporters to vote for Saxby in the runoff election tomorrow.

Quoting the email from Barr:

In Tuesday December 2nd’s runoff election we have a choice between incumbent Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and Democratic challenger Jim Martin.

I urge you to vote for Saxby Chambliss.

Sen. Chambliss is closer to the Libertarian position on a number of key issues including: shrinking the size of government, less government spending, abolishing the IRS, replacing the income tax with a consumption tax and ending the government bailouts.

And there is one other major consideration: the Legislative branch of our government should not be a rubber stamp for the Executive branch.

There should be a check and balance between the two. The Democrats are close to obtaining a majority of 60 members of the Senate which means the opposition party, the Republicans in this case, will have very few opportunities to have meaningful input on legislative actions.

To me, one party rule in both the Legislative and Executive branches is a prescription for bad public policy decisions.

Please join me in voting for Saxby Chambliss in the US Senate runoff election.

Well, tomorrow brings Sarah Palin to Georgia.  That should be interesting.

I’ll be at home though.  I went to see McCain when he was in town, and though he did say a few things that sounded nice, it appeared to me that it was more of the same old stuff from the liberal Republican Party we’ve come to know.

So I’ll be at home, trying to figure out what to do on Tuesday.  The options just aren’t good, folks.  Our options, as I see them:

• Vote for the liberal who claims to be a conservative.
• Vote for the liberal who can’t wait to sign up for all Obama has planned for us.
• Stay at home and don’t vote.

I’m leaning away from not voting, but I’m still really very torn with the other two options.  On one hand, Jim Martin scares me.  His problem with the bailout rescue was that it didn’t do enough!  Yikes!  And on the other hand, Saxby Chambliss is a big government RINO who has proved he’s got the best interests of the special interest groups at heart.

So while I don’t want to vote for the open liberal, I don’t want to vote for the guy who is lying about not being a liberal.  Certainly I can’t be in this position alone.

Am I?

Fresh from the Buckley camp:

LIBERTARIAN PARTY’S  U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE BUCKLEY ISSUES ENDORSEMENT COMMITMENT LIST TO CHAMBLISS AND MARTIN

ATLANTA, GEORGIA, November 14, 2008 Allen Buckley, the Libertarian Party’s U.S. Senate candidate in the 2008 Georgia U.S. Senate race, has issued a commitment statement to both the Chambliss and Martin campaigns. If one of the two men but not both sign the statement, Buckley will endorse the one who signs. If both men sign or neither man signs, Buckley will reanalyze the situation.The statement emphasizes financial responsibility. The statement is attached, along with related materials.

On Wednesday, November 12, 2008, the Buckley Campaign provided a draft of the commitment statement to both the Chambliss campaign and the Martin campaign, along with an invitation for comment. Although communications have existed, no comments have been received.

Buckley said: “With one exception relating to ballot access, all of the items in the commitment list were covered by my campaign. I believe that all of the items are reasonable. I’ll wait until the end of the day on Tuesday, November 18th, for replies. I will not tell one side whether the other has or has not signed.”

Mr. Buckley can be reached for comment at (404) 962-1042.

Commitment PDF is here.

I got an email from the Saxby guy in Paulding County that I met over the weekend.  The Republicans are bringing in the big guns on Thursday.  Scheduled to be in attendance with Senator Chambliss:

• Johnny Isakson
• Sonny Perdue
• Case Cagle
• Karen Handel
• John Oxendine
• Kathy Cox
• Paul Broun
• Nathan Deal
• Phil Gingrey
• John Linder
• Jack Kingston
• Tom Price
• Lynn Westmoreland

I’m planning on being in attendance.  I’d like to hear what they have to say.  Plus, I’d like the opportunity to shake Phil Gingrey’s hand and thank him for voting against that wretched bailout rescue bill.

The hour-long event is at the Cobb Energy Performing Arts Center this Thursday from 4:30-5:30.

Dear Saxby,

Thanks for nothing.

Sincerely,
Betrayed Georgians