Sure, Parnes story may seem for all the world like gossipy drivel but think about it: A major national political site has devoted a story to the TV watching schedule and kitchen habits of the spokesperson for the member of Congress in the hottest swing district in the country. No way this is just an overly long story about chicken stir fry and cabbage!

Politico:

Ben Marter spent most of last week working late and eating out. So, this weekend, the communications director for Rep. Betsy Markey was craving some home-cooking.

Who cooked? He did.

We asked Marter–who enjoys playing the role of the sometimes-chef–what showed up on his dietary dossier this weekend.

On Friday night, at home with his girlfriend, Marter cooked up a spicy chicken stir-fry with broccoli, cabbage, mushrooms, green beans, peanuts and onions, and seasoned with with ginger and lemongrass.

“I recommend it,” he said.

Saturday morning, he took some of the leftover broccoli, onions and mushrooms, added jalapenos, and made omlettes for a zingy breakfast.

The story goes on and on like that. Really it does. There must be a code. It simply can’t be about what it’s about. Marter beware: Politico’s on to you and the Colorado Independent isn’t far behind!

[Photo of Ben "jus an ole stir fry guy" Marter via Politico courtesy Ben Marter ]

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The piece breaks the undecideds into three categories: The Retirees, The Nail-Biters, The Besieged, The Misfits. Politico places Colorado Rep. Betsy Markey, even though she confirmed Thursday she would vote yay on the bill, into The Besieged bracket.

Besieged Betsy

Here’s an example of the pressures [The Besieged] face on the health care vote: When Rep. Betsy Markey (D-Colo.) revealed Thursday that she would vote yes on the measure, she was immediately greeted by the National Republican Congressional Committee with a derisive press release referring to her as “Betsy Margolies-Mezvinsky” — a reference to Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, the freshman congresswoman from Pennsylvania who her lost her seat in 1994 after biting the bullet for her party and casting an especially tough vote in favor of President Bill Clinton’s budget.

Here’s the intro, laying out the story:

While the varying whip counts remain inexact and the outcome unknown, one thing is certain as the health care reform drama hurtles toward its conclusion: The last two dozen or so votes for the bill will come at considerable cost to the undecided House members who cast them.

Some of those currently uncommitted lawmakers have serious philosophical and moral concerns about the measure. But for many — almost none of whom can admit it publicly — the political calculus is undeniably playing a role in their decision-making process.

The trick, then, to understanding where these members will end up is to understand where they are coming from, because their malleability in the final hours will almost certainly be proportional to the precariousness of their political situation.

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

One way and another, the presentation made predictably its way to Politico. Ben Smith did the write up:

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

“What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate…?” it asks.

The answer: “Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”

The presentation divides fundraising into two traditional categories, direct marketing and major donors, and lays out the details of how to approach each group.

The small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”

Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”

Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”

The presentation makes it clear that the Republican party is increasingly reliant on small “visceral giving”– the kind its finance department at least believes is motivated by reactionary fear. The presentation included the fact that the party’s average contribution in 2009 was $40, a “grassroots level contribution” that Smith says might help explain RNC Chairman Michael Steele’s increasingly strident tone toward the Obama Administration.

The presentation included images of the top members of what it called the “Evil Empire,” Obama appears as the sardonic joker of the Tea Party signs and Nancy Pelosi as Cruella DeVille, the Disney villain of 1001 Dalmatians. Harry Reid appears as Scooby Doo.

To many observers these kind of caricatures will come across as comic. To great masses of others, however, it’s $40 worth of scary. At least that’s how the RNC fundraisers are cynically betting.

Some choice slides:

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

In the wake of these recent revelations, the president should suspend any further appointments of so-called czars until Congress has an opportunity to examine the background and responsibilities of these individuals and to determine the constitutionality of such appointments.

Here’s the problem: Some of the people whom conservatives and mainstream media voices alike have labeled “czars” have been confirmed by the Senate. Some of them, and others, hold jobs that were created by previous presidents.

Take a look at Politico’s list of 31 “czars,” which shrinks to 30 without Van Jones. Republican strategists like Ed Rollins have used that “31″ number to allege that there’s a problem here. But perhaps the most controversial people labeled “czars” by Beck and by reporters have gone through Senate confirmations. Cass Sunstein, whom Politico labels the “regulatory czar,” is waiting for the end of a Republican filibuster so he can lead the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, an office created in 1980. John Holdren, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, was confirmed by the Senate, unanimously, six months ago. But none of that seems to matter to their critics. Michelle Malkin, whom, again, Politico credited for making this an issue, relentlessly refers to Holdren as the “Science Czar” as if it was his actual title.

Let’s just go down the Politico list.

Pre-exisiting jobs:

“AIDS Czar” – Actually the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy, created in 2001 by George W. Bush.

“Border Czar” – Actually the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs, created in 2003 by George W. Bush.

“California Water Czar” – Actually the Deputy Secretary of the Interior, who was given this extra portfolio by Secretary Ken Salazar in June.

“Central Region Czar” – The Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the “Central Region,” on the Nation Security Council.

“Drug Czar” – Actually the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, created in 1989 by George H.W. Bush.

“Faith-Based Czar” – Head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, created in 2001 by George W. Bush.

“Intelligence Czar” – This is actually the Director of National Intelligence, a position created in 2005.

“TARP Czar” – Actually the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability of the United States Herb Allison, who was confirmed by the Senate in June.

“Weapons Czar” – Not actually an executive branch position, but the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

New jobs held by eminent people or people previously confirmed by the Senate:

“Afghanistan Czar” – Actually the United States Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the man holding that job, Richard Holbrooke went through a Senate confirmation hearing in 1999 when he became Bill Clinton’s U.N. ambassador.

“Economic Czar” – Actually the President’s Economic Recovery Board, chaired by Paul Volcker, the deeply uncontroversial former chairman of the Federal Reserve.

“Energy and Environment Czar” – This is Carol Browner, the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, who was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1993 to run the Environmental Protection Agency under Bill Clinton.

“Guantanamo Closure Czar” – Actually the Special Envoy to Guantanamo, Daniel Fried, who was the final Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs in the Bush administration.

There are other problems with the list. The so-called “International Climate Czar,” Todd Stern, is actually a special envoy who works in the State Department; several other “czars” were appointed to previously-existing institutions, like John Brennan, given a new portfolio in the 56-year-old National Security Council. But let’s read the list this way, and stop calling “czars” the people who were confirmed by the Senate at one point or given previously-existing jobs. That scary Politico list of 30 names is down to 15 names. It’s down to people like Lynn Rosenthal, the White House Adviser on Violence Against Women.

Now, President Obama has created several new offices and institutions: the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry, the President’s Economic Recovery Board, White House Office of Health Reform, and the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board, to name some. But when Pence says Congress must “examine the background and responsibilities of these individuals” and “determine the constitutionality,” what is he suggesting? Should Herb Allison and John Holdren, who were confirmed by the Senate, resign and go through hearings again, just to be safe? Does he wonder whether the job of Director of National Intelligence is constitutional? That would be a shame, because Pence voted for the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which created the DNI.

A debate about the power of the executive branch and the collapsing trust between the president and the Senate — it’s the constant filibusters of presidential nominees that really started this process of end-runs around confirmation hearings — would be healthy. But so far this “czars” debate seems like a witch hunt egged on by sloppy reporting.

–

Got a tip? Freelance story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

But it didn’t do that. Instead, it spent not a dollar in simply telling Politico it was going to do that and Politico wrote all about it.

NRCC nasty work done. And dirt cheap, too!

Politico’s Jonathan Martin and Alex Isenstadt, in their double-bylined story, reported that Republicans believed vulnerable Democrats like Markey had cast potentially “career-ending” votes Friday for the Clean Energy Act, and a major NRCC campaign would aim to “seal the fate” of these mostly newbie lawmakers.

Republicans believe a handful of junior House Democrats may have taken a career-ending vote by supporting the controversial energy bill last week and are planning to launch an ad campaign in targeted districts to try to seal their fate.

The National Republican Congressional Committee is planning to air TV and radio commercials and unleash robocalls against Democrats who hail from districts that could be adversely affected by the narrowly passed legislation, are GOP-leaning or both.

Those likely to find themselves with targets on their back after the 219-212 vote: freshman Reps. Harry Teague of New Mexico, Betsy Markey of Colorado, John Boccieri of Ohio, Thomas Perriello of Virginia and Alan Grayson of Florida and second-termer Zack Space of Ohio.

No surprise that the House Republican Conference daily email played the Politico story up high and included the entire lead, which they probably thought they couldn’t have written any better themselves!

What’s up Today….

Politico looks at the House Democrats who “may have taken a career-ending vote” by supporting cap-and-tax.

Republicans believe a handful of junior House Democrats may have taken a career-ending vote by supporting the controversial energy bill last week and are planning to launch an ad campaign in targeted districts to try to seal their fate .

Turns out that there is no expensive campaign. The “seal her fate” NRCC attack on Markey will include a Web ad and robocalls to residents in her district. Not exactly a game-changing strategy. Classic press release journalism? Seems more likely.

That and some flat-out Inside-the-Beltway cluelessness on the goings on in “fly-over country.” Take this bit on Markey, for example:

[R]unning against a weak incumbent, former Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, Markey rode President Barack Obama’s coattails to victory last year.

[...]

Markey didn’t respond to a request for comment about her vote.

In beating Musgrave, Markey ran way ahead of Obama’s numbers in the 4th Congressional District. If anything, it was the other way around, Obama riding the coattails. Markey trounced the unpopular Musgrave, 57 percent to 43 percent of the vote.

What’s more, in response to an attack by state GOP leader Dick Wadhams, Markey put out a press release early this week describing the reasons for her vote. Her defense wasn’t the least bit hedging.

The release is available here.

Hat tip to the Coloradoan’s Bob Moore.