U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis plans to vote for legislation mandating a one-year moratorium on congressional earmarks, you know, those little spending add-ons that helped Republicans go from the majority to the minority in 2006, forcibly retiring a bunch of them along the way.

But, the Travelers Rest Republican says if the bill fails, he won ‘t be joining fellow Republican Joe Wilson of Lexington in swearing off earmarks for a year anyway.

“I’m very supportive of the earmark moratorium and will vote for it,” Inglis says, describing the plan as a needed reform on the road to abolishing the practice.

“But in the meantime, there will be some requests this year from South Carolina” that need to be addressed if they meet his criteria of economic development, local matching funds and serving the national interest.

The Greenville News

What I read here is political posturing in an election year. How can Inglis expect anyone to take him seriously as a fiscal reformer when he says he’ll still stick his hand in the cookie jar if the rules don’t change? Yeah, we hear you, Bob. Earmarks are bad and all, but you’re going to make sure you still get your share of slop from the community trough all the same. Apparently some Republicans are adapting to life in the Minority rather well.

Cross posted at Carolina Politics Online

This isn’t on YouTube as far as I can see, and I can’t embed code for the site this video comes from, but you should go here and watch the entire excellent speech Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) gave today on the Senate floor.

UPDATE: Ace noticed that NewsBusters has more.

Go here to view an ABC “Political Sex Scandals Redux” slideshow following the recent discovery of NY Gov. Spitzer’s shenanigans.

What do you notice? Well, I’ll tell you what I did, for each of the politicians covered:

“New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer…“

Never identified as a Democrat, and given some slight praise as a hard-on-crime AG.

“Former Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla…”

There you have it, the “R-Fla.” is mentioned immediately.

“In 2003, then-Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham, R-Calif…”

Ah, again.

“Sen. David Vitter, R-La…”

This is fun.

“Then-Deputy Secretary of State Randall Tobias…”

Surprisingly not identified as a Republican in the first sentence, but it was made clear that he was in the Bush administration a few sentences in.

“Monica Lewinsky’s “relations” with President Clinton famously produced a scandal that shook the White House and Clinton’s presidency.”

Actually what you just read is all they have to say about Pres. Clinton. What party was he again?

“Former New Jersey Gov. James E. McGreevey…”

Hmm, strange. His party affiliation wasn’t ever identified either!

“Photos released by the Metropolitan Airports Commission Police Department show Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho….”

Whew, thank goodness they started noting the political party again, I was dumbfounded and wondering what was up. Must’ve just been editorial error for a bit.

“In 2005, Spokane, Wash., Mayor James E. West…”

Actually surprisingly, they never identify this guy, who was actually a former conservative Republican State Senate majority leader in Washington.

“Rep. Bob Livingston of Louisianna succeeded Newt Gingrich as house speaker in 1998, telling fellow Republicans…”

Ah, there we go again. I guess since Rep. Livingston is more known nationally it’s important to remind people he’s a Republican. But what about President Clinton and the other party-less well-known people? I’m still trying to figure out what party they are in.

“Rep. Daniel Crane, R-Ill…”

Ah, back to form.

“Rep. Gerry E. Studds, D-Mass., was censured on the House floor in 1983…”

Wow! They identified this Democrat right away! Well, it was all the way back in 1983, and the guy is deceased now, so I guess the journalist geniuses at ABC decided they might as well throw the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy a bone here without much harm to the Democratic cause.

“Rep. Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas…”

Strangely this guy’s party isn’t ever named. According to a quick Google search he was a Democrat. I don’t believe it, because ABC didn’t say so! He must’ve been independent or something!

Silly liberals, good journalism is for, uh, real journalists!

David Mamet of the Village Voice has had a revelation. As do many liberals he had a particular worldview.

As a child of the ’60s, I accepted as an article of faith that government is corrupt, that business is exploitative, and that people are generally good at heart.

These cherished precepts had, over the years, become ingrained as increasingly impracticable prejudices. Why do I say impracticable? Because although I still held these beliefs, I no longer applied them in my life. How do I know? My wife informed me. We were riding along and listening to NPR. I felt my facial muscles tightening, and the words beginning to form in my mind: Shut the f%&# up. “?” she prompted. And her terse, elegant summation, as always, awakened me to a deeper truth: I had been listening to NPR and reading various organs of national opinion for years, wonder and rage contending for pride of place. Further: I found I had been—rather charmingly, I thought—referring to myself for years as “a brain-dead liberal,” and to NPR as “National Palestinian Radio.”

This is, to me, the synthesis of this worldview with which I now found myself disenchanted: that everything is always wrong.
- Profanity removed

But after 40 years of writing and commentary he has come to a realization.

And, I wondered, how could I have spent decades thinking that I thought everything was always wrong at the same time that I thought I thought that people were basically good at heart? Which was it? I began to question what I actually thought and found that I do not think that people are basically good at heart; indeed, that view of human nature has both prompted and informed my writing for the last 40 years. I think that people, in circumstances of stress, can behave like swine, and that this, indeed, is not only a fit subject, but the only subject, of drama.

Mamet goes on to describe the beauty of the Constitution. Our Founders knew the faults of men and used them against each other. They depended on it when forming our Republic.

The Constitution, written by men with some experience of actual government, assumes that the chief executive will work to be king, the Parliament will scheme to sell off the silverware, and the judiciary will consider itself Olympian and do everything it can to much improve (destroy) the work of the other two branches. So the Constitution pits them against each other, in the attempt not to achieve stasis, but rather to allow for the constant corrections necessary to prevent one branch from getting too much power for too long.

But Mamet really sees the light in comparing the Bush Presidency to one of his heroes. John F. Kennedy

Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.

Now I disagree that Bush stole the election, he prevented Gore from stealing it. and we all know Bush was not the source who outed Valerie Plame but lets give this avowed Liberal some credit. In conclusion Mamet understands that his view that government intervention is paramount to individual success is flawed at best.

What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.

But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?

I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to.

Thats right, we just seem to. Whether the government helps us or not.