DES MOINES, Iowa -- Republicans in Congress who took the politically risky step of voting this week to raise taxes now find themselves trying to fend off potential primary challenges next year from angry conservatives.

These lawmakers wasted little time in attempting to deliver an explanation that would be acceptable to the tea party and the GOP's right flank, and, perhaps, insulate themselves from a re-election battle against a fellow Republican. They've started defending the vote as one that preserves tax cuts for most Americans, while promising to fight for spending cuts in upcoming legislative debates over raising the nation's borrowing limit.

"In the end, he ensured that over 99 percent of Kentuckians will not pay higher income taxes," Mitch McConnell's campaign wrote in an email message to Kentucky voters the day after the Senate Republican leader supported the measure.

It was the first time in two decades that a significant number of Republicans voted for a tax increase; 33 Senate Republicans did so and 85 House members who broke with their GOP majority to support the bill that avoided the nation going over the so-called fiscal cliff but that also raises taxes on upper incomes.

"The ones that voted for it, I think they will rue the day," Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby proclaimed after opposing the bill. And Amy Kremer, chairman of the Tea Party Express, put it this way: "It's not too early to be looking at 2014. I think there are going to be a lot of primary challenges. People are fed up."

Most if not all of these Republicans who voted to raise taxes are likely mindful of their party's recent history of nasty primary battles that have pitted incumbents against tea party-backed insurgents. And none of them is likely to be immune to the scrutiny – rising stars, powerful committee chairmen and Republicans in reliably Republican seats – expected to confront them when they return to their districts to stand for re-election in November 2014.

The vote was a dilemma for Republicans, who have pledged for decades not to raise taxes, but faced being blamed with raising taxes on all Americans, had Congress and the White House not reached a deal on legislative to avert the scheduled increases on most Americans. The party got some cover from Grover Norquist, a leading anti-tax figure who described the bill, which preserved a series of tax cuts for most incomes, as "clearly a tax cut."

Even so, the tea party wasn't on board. Neither were many of the party's most conservative lawmakers in Washington.

"It's a really tough vote. And it's a really tough vote to explain to Republicans," Michigan Republican consultant Stu Sandler said.

Lawmakers who could be vulnerable to a challenge include Michigan Rep. Dan Benishek and South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem, who bucked her tea party base and backed the bill, calling it "damage control."

"This makes her vulnerable and there will be discussion that she should have a primary challenge," former South Dakota Republican chairman Joel Rosenthal said. "Whether it materializes depends on votes down the road."

Some Democrats who opposed the deal also might be called to account by their own liberal bases for voting for spurning President Barack Obama and refusing to go along with his election-year pledge to raise taxes on America's top earners.

Among those who voted "nay," were liberals like Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin. He sharply criticized the bill as overly generous to wealthy Americans, and had supported Obama's original proposal to raise taxes on people earning at least $250,000 a year.

Harkin has not ruled out seeking a sixth term in 2014. And while his vote would likely prevent a primary challenge, it could be tricky for him in a general election.

Republicans – and specifically in the House, where tea party fervor is strong – seem more vulnerable.

While House Republican delegations, such as New York's and Pennsylvania's voted for the bill, they did so likely with impunity because the GOP bases in their states aren't nearly as ideologically conservative as those in other parts of the country.

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice presidential nominee, also voted for the measure. It won't likely be an obstacle to his re-election in his swing-voting district, but it could cause him trouble with conservative primary voters, should he run for president in 2016.

Rep. Steve Womack, in just his second term representing heavily conservative northwest Arkansas, could be forced to answer to tea party concerns over his yes vote if he seeks a third term. And he will almost certainly face questions about it should he run for U.S. Senate or governor, the subject of GOP speculation on which Womack has been silent.

Michigan Rep. Fred Upton's backing of the measure might rile up conservatives enough in his right-leaning district in the western part of the state that he could face a challenger. But his stature may be enough to prevent a serious one: he has easily fought off recent primary opponents and, as chairman of the Energy and Commerce commission, would likely have the fundraising edge.

Upton's Michigan colleague, Benishek, also voted for the bill and could have a bigger concern. He eked out re-election to a second term in November, carrying less than 50 percent of the vote in his northern district, and spurning tea party activists there could invite a threat from an opponent.

Among Senate Republicans, Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia backed the measure and may have further agitated conservatives who were already cranky with him over his participation last year in the so-called "Gang of Six," a bipartisan group that discussed fiscal plans including tax increases and changes to entitlement programs.

After the vote, Chambliss pointed quickly to the next phase of the fiscal fight as the place for redemption for what he called a flawed but necessary measure.

Chambliss and others say they will press for tying dramatically lower spending to support for raising the nation's debt limit.

"This is just the first step in a major, major fight," Chambliss' senior adviser Tom Perdue said.

The swift defense from those who backed the increases is a response to GOP primary challenges from conservatives last year that proved costly to Republican members seen as dealmakers. Six-term Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar lost his primary to tea party favorite Richard Mourdock, and House Republicans Jeanne Schmidt of Ohio and John Sullivan of Oklahoma lost in primaries last year, attacked in part for voting to raise the debt ceiling.

___

Associated Press writers Bill Barrow in Atlanta and Alan Fram in Washington contributed to this report.

FreedomWorks, the national conservative group that helped launch the tea party movement, sells itself as a genuine grassroots operation, and for years, it has battled accusations of "astroturfing"--posing as a populist organization while doing the bidding of big-money donors. Yet internal documents obtained by Mother Jones show that FreedomWorks has indeed become dependent on wealthy individual donors to finance its growing operation.

TAMPA -- Florida's congressional delegation split along political lines, but not strictly party lines, in the vote on the "fiscal cliff" budget compromise.

At least some Florida Republicans may have cast their votes with an eye to the 2014 election, hoping to avoid either a primary challenge from the right or a tough general election battle with a Democrat, political experts say.

All six Florida Democratic House members, including Kathy Castor of Tampa, voted for the deal backed by President Barack Obama and by Senate and House leaders of both parties.

They were joined by Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson and five House Republicans, including C.W. Bill Young of Indian Shores and Vern Buchanan of Sarasota.

Among Republicans, 14 Florida House members voted against the deal, bucking their party's leadership. So did GOP Sen. Marco Rubio. The House members included Gus Bilirakis of Palm Harbor, Richard Nugent of Brooksville and Dennis Ross of Lakeland.

Democrats and the yes-voting Republicans focused on tax fairness for the middle class, while no-voters focused on a need to cut government spending.

Young, in a statement, called the measure "a less than perfect solution," but said it "avoided a pending fiscal cliff that would have raised federal income taxes on millions of American families and small businesses," and "temporarily delays the across-the-board sequestration that would harm our national defense."

Castor called it "a balanced plan" and said, "Greater tax fairness is the hallmark of the bipartisan compromise."

Ross, on the other hand, said in a release, "Our country is going bankrupt ... This proposal does nothing to address our biggest problem, which is the out-of-control spending that runs rampant in Washington."

Bilirakis said the bill "did not include the spending reforms our country desperately needs" to fix a debt that "places a heavier burden on our children and grandchildren."

Retired University of South Florida political scientist Darryl Paulson, a Republican, said the legislators may also have been keeping an eye on demographics and the 2014 election.

The no-voting Republicans, he said, are more likely to be from rural or suburban districts, and could fear a primary challenge from a tea party-style conservative.

Outgoing Rep. Cliff Stearns of Ocala, with a rural-suburban district stretching north from Leesburg to Interstate 10, is leaving office because he lost such a challenge to tea party-backed challenger Ted Yoho in this year's primary, Paulson noted.

The yes-voting Republicans "all represent primarily big-city districts," Paulson said. "In the 2012 election, all the big urban counties voted for Obama."

They may have more to fear from a Democrat in the general election, Paulson said.

University of Florida political scientist Stephen Craig, who's politically neutral, said primary challenges pose the greatest threat to most Florida Republican legislators.

"Some (Congress members) might have been willing to support this deal," Craig said, "but the environment of Republican primaries has become frightening if you are not on board with the conservative wing of the party."

Craig said Rubio, who ran and won in 2010 as a tea party champion, has been taking "baby steps" toward moderation with an eye to a 2016 run for president, but probably viewed the debt ceiling vote with an eye to a Republican presidential primary.

"It's a balancing act for him -- maybe what it takes to win the nomination isn't what it takes to win in November," Craig said. "He may be willing to go so far toward moderation, but no further."

Here's how the vote went among Florida's 25 House members:

* Yes-voting Republicans: Ander Crenshaw of Jacksonville; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart of Miami; Buchanan and Young.

* No-voting Republicans: Sandy Adams of Orlando; Connie Mack IV of Fort Myers; Jeff Miller of Chumuckla; John Mica of Winter Park; Bill Posey of Rockledge; David Rivera of Miami; Tom Rooney of Tequesta; Steve Southerland of Panama City; Dan Webster of Winter Garden; Allen West of Palm Beach Gardens; Bilirakis, Nugent, Ross and Stearns.

* Democrats, all voting yes: Corinne Brown of Jacksonville, Ted Deutch of Boca Raton, Alcee Hastings of Miramar, Debbie Wasserman Schulz of Weston; Frederica Wilson of Miami; Castor. ___

* "Fiscal cliff" fight proved wrenching for Republicans

* Next fight ahead - the debt limit

By Richard Cowan

WASHINGTON, Jan 2 (Reuters) - In the wake of bruising fights in their own ranks over the "fiscal cliff" and aid for victims of superstorm Sandy - Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives open a new Congress on Thursday more divided than ever.

While their leader, Speaker John Boehner, seems in no danger of losing his position because of the divisions, his ability to speak for his membership in the House appears greatly diminished.

That could not come at a worse time for Republicans as they prepare for their next attempt to get more spending cuts out of President Barack Obama. They will try to use the debt ceiling - and Obama's request to raise it - as leverage, as they did in 2011.

But if the final days of this Congress were indicative of things to come, Republicans will have a rough time effectively using their majority in the House against Obama, who even Republicans acknowledge is at the top of his game following the Democrat's re-election in November.

The fiscal cliff battle to avert steep tax hikes and spending cuts that were due to kick in at the start of this year proved gut-wrenching for Republicans.

Obama's demand for a tax hike on the rich challenged a core principle that has guided Republicans for decades: No new taxes. Ever.

Yet, late on New Year's night, 85 Republicans in the House did just that, voting to raise income taxes on household income of more than $450,000 a year.

Some of the Republican Party's biggest stars were among the 85 - including Boehner and Paul Ryan, the 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate, who is seen as a conservative anchor.

But 151 House Republicans stood in defiance, leaving Boehner in the unenviable position of having to rely on opposition Democrats to pass major legislation.

Earlier in the fiscal cliff fight, Boehner suffered a humiliating defeat when his "Plan B" solution - which would have limited the tax hikes to income of $1 million a year or more, got so little support he had to cancel the vote.

No sooner had the fiscal cliff battle ended than Boehner found himself in trouble with other Republicans over aid for victims of Sandy, the second costliest storm in U.S. history, which smashed New York and New Jersey coastal communities in late October.

Legislation providing disaster relief to New York, New Jersey and other East Coast states was delayed. A House Republican aide said that given Republicans' frustration with the fiscal cliff bill and its lack of significant spending cuts, "it was not a good time to immediately vote on $60 billion in new spending."

"I don't enjoy saying this. I consider myself a personal friend of John Boehner's," said Republican Representative Peter King of New York. "It pains me to say this, but the fact is that the dismissive attitude that was shown ... toward New York, New Jersey and Connecticut typifies, I believe, a strain in the Republican Party."

Earlier, King had condemned House inaction on Sandy as a "knife in the back."

Republican Representative Michael Grimm, also of New York, said of Boehner's refusal to bring the disaster bill to a vote: "There was a betrayal. There was an arrogant judgment that is going to cost I think the trust of the American people."

Ironically, Grimm first won his seat in Congress in 2010 with the help of conservative Tea Party activists who sometimes show displeasure with disaster aid spending.

By midday on Wednesday, Boehner had changed course, promising a House vote by week's end on a $9 billion down payment in storm assistance, with a second bill providing $51 billion to be voted on Jan. 15.


TEA PARTY EFFECT

Paul Light, a New York University professor and a specialist on Congress, said the vote on the fiscal cliff bill could mark the start of a "major realignment" in the run-up to the 2014 congressional elections and the 2016 presidential race.

Republicans who voted for the legislation "are going to have to find a home. They're not going to find it with the Tea Party," Light said.

He said that Republicans who were uncomfortable with the Tea Party could begin aligning themselves more closely with a dwindling band of centrist Democrats.

Congressional Republicans, especially in the House, have been buffeted for two years by the Tea Party, which helped them win control of the House in 2010.

Boehner had to navigate Tea Party demands throughout the 2011 fight over raising U.S. borrowing authority or risking a historic government default.

In rapid succession, Tea Party-fueled battles were waged over infrastructure investments, farm subsidies, payroll tax cuts and the fiscal cliff.

At the core of the disputes was whether the government should be made smaller, forcing Boehner to balance that demand with the need to govern and keep the federal government operating in an orderly way.

For all the heartache over the past several weeks as Republicans fought with one another over whether to let taxes on the rich go up, many see better days ahead.

"By and large, people are probably happy to have it behind them. This was obviously the worst part of the fiscal debate," said one House Republican staffer, referring to the tax hikes.

The staffer added, "Republicans get to point out that we still have a $1 trillion deficit and ask Democrats what kind of spending cuts, entitlement reforms they are willing to do to fix it."

Republicans feel that will be an easier lift for them - one that they can sell to the American public as they move on to the fight over the debt ceiling. (Editing by Fred Barbash and Peter Cooney)

The day after Labor Day, just as campaign season was entering its final frenzy, FreedomWorks, the Washington-based tea party organization, went into free fall.

The Tea Party might not be over, but it is increasingly clear that the election last month significantly weakened the once-surging movement, which nearly captured control of the Republican Party through a potent combination of populism and fury.

The Tea Party might not be over, but it is increasingly clear that the election last month significantly weakened the once-surging movement, which nearly captured control of the Republican Party through a potent combination of populism and fury.

A legal probe is launched, and FreedomWorks' president accuses ex-chairman Dick Armey of trying to subvert the group.

BOSTON -- In the city where a protest over tax policy sparked a revolution, modern day tea party activists are cheering the recent Republican revolt in Washington that embarrassed House Speaker John Boehner and pushed the country closer to a "fiscal cliff" that forces tax increases and massive spending cuts on virtually every American.

"I want conservatives to stay strong," says Christine Morabito, president of the Greater Boston Tea Party. "Sometimes things have to get a lot worse before they get better."

Anti-tax conservatives from every corner of the nation echo her sentiment.

In more than a dozen interviews with The Associated Press, activists said they would rather fall off the cliff than agree to a compromise that includes tax increases for any Americans, no matter how high their income. They dismiss economists' warnings that the automatic tax increases and deep spending cuts set to take effect Jan. 1 could trigger a fresh recession, and they overlook the fact that most people would see their taxes increase if President Barack Obama and Boehner, R-Ohio, fail to reach a year-end agreement.

The strong opposition among tea party activists and Republican leaders from New Hampshire to Wyoming and South Carolina highlights divisions within the GOP as well as the challenge that Obama and Boehner face in trying to get a deal done.

On Capitol Hill, some Republicans worry about the practical and political implications should the GOP block a compromise designed to avoid tax increases for most Americans and cut the nation's deficit.

"It weakens the entire Republican Party, the Republican majority," Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio, said Thursday night shortly after rank-and-file Republicans rejected Boehner's "Plan B" – a measure that would have prevented tax increases on all Americans but million-dollar earners.

"I mean it's the continuing dumbing down of the Republican Party and we are going to be seen more and more as a bunch of extremists that can't even get a majority of our own people to support policies that we're putting forward," LaTourette said. "If you're not a governing majority, you're not going to be a majority very long."

It's a concern that does not seem to resonate with conservatives such as tea party activist Frank Smith of Cheyenne, Wyo. He cheered Boehner's failure as a victory for anti-tax conservatives and a setback for Obama, just six weeks after the president won re-election on a promise to cut the deficit in part by raising taxes on incomes exceeding $250,000.

Smith said his "hat's off" to those Republicans in Congress who rejected their own leader's plan.

"Let's go over the cliff and see what's on the other side," the blacksmith said. "On the other side" are tax increases for most Americans, not just the top earners, though that point seemed lost on Smith, who added: "We have a day of reckoning coming, whether it's next week or next year. Sooner or later the chickens are coming home to roost. Let's let them roost next week."

It's not just tea party activists who want Republicans in Washington to stand firm.

In conservative states such as South Carolina and Louisiana, party leaders are encouraging members of their congressional delegations to oppose any deal that includes tax increases. Elected officials from those states have little political incentive to cooperate with the Democratic president, given that most of their constituents voted for Obama's Republican opponent, Mitt Romney.

"If it takes us going off a cliff to convince people we're in a mess, then so be it," South Carolina GOP Chairman Chad Connelly said. "We have a president who is a whiner. He has done nothing but blame President Bush. It's time to make President Obama own this economy."

In Louisiana, state GOP Chairman Roger Villere said that "people are frustrated with Speaker Boehner. They hear people run as conservatives, run against tax hikes. They want them to keep their word."

Jack Kimball, a former New Hampshire GOP chairman, said he was "elated" that conservatives thwarted Boehner. He called the looming deadline a political creation. "The Republicans really need to stand on their principles. They have to hold firm."

Conservative opposition to compromise with Obama does not reflect the view of most Americans, according to recent public opinion polls.

A CBS News survey conducted this month found that 81 percent of adults wanted Republicans in Congress to compromise in the current budget negotiations to get a deal done rather than "stick to their positions even if it means not coming to an agreement." The vast majority of Republicans and independent voters agreed.

Overall, 47 percent in the poll said they blamed Republicans in Congress more than Obama and Democrats for recent "difficulties in reaching agreements and passing legislation in Congress." About one-quarter placed more blame on the Democrats and 21 percent said both were responsible.

Although negotiations broke down last week, Obama still hopes to broker a larger debt-reduction deal that includes tax increases on high earners and Republican-favored cuts to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. If a compromise continues to prove elusive, lawmakers could pass a temporary extension that delays the cliff's most onerous provisions and gives Congress more time to work out a longer-term solution.

That's becoming the favored path by some Republicans leery of going over the cliff.

Mississippi Republican Chairman Joe Nosef shares his Southern colleagues' disdain for tax increases. But he stopped short of taking an absolute position.

"I really, really feel like the only way that Republicans can mess up badly is if they come away with nothing on spending or something that's the same old thing where they hope a Congress in 10 years will have the intestinal fortitude to do it," he said.

Matt Kibbe, president of the national organization and tea party ally, FreedomWorks, says that going over the cliff would be "a fiscal disaster." He says "the only rational thing to do" is approve a temporary extension that prevents widespread tax increases.

But his message doesn't seem to resonate with conservative activists in the states.

"If we have to endure the pain of the cliff then so be it," said Mark Anders, a Republican committeeman for Washington state's Lewis County. "While it may spell the end of the Republican Party ... at least we will force the government to cut and cut deep into actual spending."

Back where the Boston Tea Party protest took place in 1773, Morabito wonders whether Boehner will survive the internal political upheaval and says Republicans need to unite against Obama.

"It looked like from the very beginning they were just going to cave to what President Obama wanted," she said of the GOP. "I didn't want that to happen. Now I'm hopeful that they're standing up for taxpaying Americans."

___

Associated Press writers Bill Barrow in Atlanta, Rachel La Corte and Michael Baker in Washington state, Thomas Beaumont in Iowa, and AP Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta in Washington contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) failed to muscle a controversial fiscal cliff
fallback plan through the House Thursday night, suddenly pulling the bill after spending almost week on a plan that Democrats called a waste of time.

"The House did not take up the tax measure today because it did not have sufficient support from our members to pass," Boehner said in a statement. "Now it is up to the president to work with Senator Reid on legislation to avert the fiscal cliff. The House has already passed legislation to stop all of the January 1 tax rate increases and replace the sequester with responsible spending cuts that will begin to address our nation's crippling debt. The Senate must now act."

The failure to bring the measure to a vote marks a defeat for Boehner, who was unable to marshal enough of his fractious, Tea Party-inspired members. Meanwhile, the nation moves closer to the so-called fiscal cliff, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared earlier Thursday that the Senate will recess Friday until two days after Christmas.

That would leave less than five full days to find a way around the cliff, which Congress itself created by mandating in last year's debt-ceiling agreement that some $1 trillion in budget cuts start kicking in after Jan. 1. That's also when Congress has mandated that all of the Bush-era tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 expire.

Boehner's bill aimed to keep all the tax cuts for those earning less than $1 million a year -- a scheme similar to what Democrats had backed two years ago, when they were unable to get the GOP to budge at all on taxes.

Democrats opposed Boehner's plan because it did not include many provisions that were included in their version. They argued that the Plan B bill would end some tax cuts for the middle class -- worth on average about $1,000 a year -- while it actually preserved some tax breaks for millionaires worth approximately $50,000. On top that, Democrats campaigned -- and won -- on keeping taxes lower for those with incomes of less than $250,000.

The House did pass one part of Boehner's fallback -- a bill to cut spending by $200 billion, mostly by slashing domestic programs, including favorite GOP targets such as health care and food stamps.

Democratic leaders said the whole effort was a futile display that drew the nation closer to the fiscal cliff. They argued that Boehner should work more closely with Obama on a real solution.

"The reason we're here is because our Republican colleagues refuse to compromise," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "We are wasting the people's time."

Boehner stood by his strategy as recently as Thursday afternoon, insisting that the Senate would have to give his bill a vote.

If Boehner's bill had passed, it would have marked a shift in the GOP's absolute opposition of all tax hikes, and offering a ray of hope that the two sides could come together. With time running out, however, it would be difficult for Democrats and Republicans to agree on a plan that Boehner could get his stalwart Tea Party members to sign.

Still, the attempt was strongly opposed by Democrats, and Republicans can tell their anti-tax base that holding the purist line on taxes is impossible because of the utter rejection of Plan B by the other party.

"We're showing that we don't have a partner in the White House and we don't have a partner in this body," said Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.).

Republicans have admitted that the whole equation changes after Jan. 1, when tax rates default back to the Clinton era. The debate then would no longer be about raising taxes, but about lowering them, and the GOP would have few options to stop Democrats from passing their middle class tax break. Then, cutting a deal on taxes -- if not spending -- becomes relatively easy, and likely would be accomplished quickly.

"If we go over the fiscal cliff, the president just comes back and says, 'Ok, we're going to give tax cuts to everybody under 250,000.' Who's going to vote against that? Everybody'll vote for that. Everybody," Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) said shortly before the votes. "It will be just a fait accompli. You won't be voting on whether you're going to do away with a tax cut, you're going to be reimposing tax cuts for everybody under 250,000. So the Republicans are in an untenable situation."

Ryan Grim contributed.

John Farmer, NJ Star-Ledger
As it approaches its rendezvous with the fiscal cliff, the Republican Party in Washington shows all the signs of a national nervous breakdown.Its majority in the House of Representatives acts like an outnumbered, already-beaten rabble, with would-be moderates and tea party conservatives pointing rhetorical fingers at one another and exchanging charges akin to treason on the issue of taxes.

WASHINGTON -- The House voted on Wednesday to strike the word "lunatic" from all federal laws and only one lawmaker voted against the measure: Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).

It was unclear initially why the Tea Party favorite opposed the change, and a Gohmert spokeswoman did not return a request for comment. The point of the bill, which cleared the Senate in May with no opposition, is to strike language from current law that contributes to the stigmatization of mental health conditions.

But during a rant on the House floor later in the day, about the need for a flat tax, Gohmert shed some light on why the word needs to stay.

"To keep spending and not pay the price, that is immoral," Gohmert said. "That's why we shouldn't eliminate the word 'lunatic.' It really has application around this town."

The Texas Republican complained about President Barack Obama's push to extend the Bush middle-class tax cuts, but not the rest of the tax cuts, and decried the fact that wealthy people like Warren Buffett can use loopholes to get out of paying certain taxes while others who make less than him can't do that.

"We want to eliminate the word 'lunatic' from the federal code?" Gohmert asked. "That's lunacy."

As elected officials from both sides of the partisan aisle embed themselves in fiscal cliff negotiations, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist remains at the center of the conversation.

In a Sunday roundtable discussion on NBC's "Meet The Press," Norquist issued a warning to President Barack Obama.

"Tea party two is going to dwarf tea party one if Obama pushes us off the cliff," Norquist said. "Let's not pretend who's pushing us over the cliff."

Thanks to his anti-tax pledge, Norquist has been a prime target since fiscal cliff discussions picked up steam in November. Democrats have gone so far as to create an online petition against Norquist.

Several Republicans, headed by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have broken away from Norquist's pledge. Despite those movements, Norquist vowed last Monday that "nobody is turning on me."

President Obama had lunch today with Mitt Romney and one of the topics they discussed was Romney's plan for making "government more efficient."

Obama has praised Romney for his work in running the Olympics and for his skills that could lend themselves to making the government work better, said Jay Carney, White House spokesman.

Certainly Romney has great passion and experience for restructuring and downsizing inefficient companies.

If any organization is dysfunctional and outrageously expensive for what we get in return, it is the Department of Defense... a Mitt Romney, when not catering to right-wing Tea Party zealots, surely recognizes that. Maybe Romney could outsource some of these defensive duties to our erstwhile allies overseas.

Does the Pentagon really need to keep up 234 golf courses around the world?

Do we really need more than a 1,000 foreign military bases ?

Does the U.S. need to spend as much on its military as the next 14 powers combined?

Who is our significant enemy -- a few thousand terrorists, a couple of feeble outlaw nations -- and, more critically: are our 14 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers the right way to protect ourselves?

Are increased drone strikes the best way to retaliate against terrorists, or are they creating more animosity and terror against the United States in the long-run?

Romney is a numbers guy and a great businessman; he should be able to figure out what we need, what we don't need, and how to trim the fat. These business skills could be put to great use at the Department of Defense.

Traditionally, the best secretaries of defense have come from a business background. Think Charles Erwin Wilson and Robert McNamara. Moreover, Romney has some credibility in the Republican Party. His appointment to defense secretary would be a step toward fusing the bipartisan rift that has been growing for years, and now gapes ever wider after our last election.

Another added benefit, if Obama names Romney instead of frontrunner Senator John Kerry, is keeping Kerry in the Senate -- (and keeping wannabe-Republican Senator Scott Brown out.)

We know that Obama has great admiration for Lincoln's "team of rivals," and in this contentious age, when so much needs to be done and everything is stalled, a Romney appointment might be just the move to break out of this gridlock.

If a cabinet post is not in the offing, perhaps Romney could head a commission examining our two most expensive and bloated programs, defense and health. Ex-presidents have had valuable public service roles, (how about Bill Clinton for the next secretary of state?) but we should not overlook the role that competent ex-presidential candidates can play. It might just make governing a little easier.

Wouldn't this be a more fitting final chapter for Mitt Romney than a life of downsizing companies, jet skiing around Lake Winnipesaukee, or fighting with his California neighbors about the size of his car elevators?

Write to Jfleetwood@aol.com

Robert Solow, The New Republic
JUST AS I WAS wondering how to start this review, along came the Sunday New York Times Magazine with a short article by Adam Davidson with the title “Made in Austria: Will Friedrich von Hayek be the Tea Party’s Karl Marx?” One Tea Party activist reported that his group’s goal is to fill Congress with Hayekians. This project is unlikely to go smoothly if the price of admission includes an extensive reading of Hayek’s writings. As Davidson remarks, some of Hayek’s ideas would not go down well at all with the American far right: among...

WASHINGTON -- Republican losses in the 2012 elections were not a progressive leap for America or a repudiation of conservatives and the Tea Party -- it was just proof the right ran bad candidates, according to two Republican senators with ties to some of races where their side fell short.

The most remarkable losses were in Indiana and Missouri, where the GOP had been looking at near-certain wins until their right-leaning standard bearers both took controversial positions on abortion. Missouri Rep. Todd Akin declared women don't get pregnant from "legitimate rape." Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock proclaimed that pregnancy from rape is "something God intended to happen."

Republicans also fell short in other states that had looked like reliable pick-ups for them back at the start of the election cycle, losing races to Democrats in North Dakota, Montana and Wisconsin.

Many analysts, especially those leaning Democratic, declared the country was moving left, especially with the passage of same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization initiatives in some states.

But asked what message the GOP should take from their losses, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Dan Coats (R-Ind.), argued that the Democrats didn't win on the issues, but rather individual candidates had failed Republicans.

"I think we were a unique situation in which our candidate twice said things that he either didn't intend to say or were very well used by the opposition," Coats said, referring to Mourdock, who -- before weighing in on on rape -- had argued against bipartisanship soon after he trounced long-time Sen. Richard Lugar in the GOP primary.

Mourdock "alienated himself with some supporters of Sen. Lugar," Coats said. "Then there was a statement toward the end that dramatically changed the outcome of the race. I think those two together. But I think that's a unique situation that happened in Indiana."

DeMint, whose PAC, Senate Conservatives Fund, backed both Akin and Mourdock, echoed Coats, saying both failed Senate candidates blew their talking points and allowed the media to portray them as extremists.

"We've got to be disciplined as candidates and talk about federal issues in terms of policy," said DeMint, whose goal is to make his party's contingent in the Senate more conservative.

"When we can get baited by reporters to talk about something that's a personal opinion, it really is not something we'd be debating at the federal level. We haven't even decided at the federal level the personhood issue of the child," DeMint said, referring to efforts in many states to confer full constitutional rights on fetuses. "To go from there to exceptions to rape is just not something we need to be discussing. It's basically opinion."

DeMint saw evidence for his view in the Senate wins of Rep. Jeff Flake in Arizona and Ted Cruz in Texas, although only Flake faced a strong challenge from a Democrat. He also cited the losses of three other Republicans: Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Rep. Rick Berg in North Dakota and Rep. Denny Rehberg in Montana.

"What I learned is the people who are still out running on bold ideas -- good candidates like Jeff Flake, Ted Cruz running on balancing the budget, repealing Obamacare, cutting spending; [Nebraska's] Deb Fischer did the same thing -- [those] conservatives won," said DeMint. "In the cases of Rehberg, Berg and Tommy Thompson -- having a moderate candidate does not win races for Republicans."

DeMint suggested what his side really needs to do is express itself better.

"We had problems nationwide as Republicans, I think," he said. "We have not communicated in a positive way a vision of where we're taking the country. I think that many thought that Republicans just needed to stand on the sidelines and make Obama the issue. But people need to know what we stand for, what we're going to do, and I don't think we did a good enough job telling people that."

When 2014 rolls around -- another year in which Republicans would seem to have the edge with just 13 senators up for reelection, compared to 20 Democrats -- they have to speak more carefully as well, DeMint said.

"We know the other side talks in sanitized soundbites for a reason, and they don't offer any plans for a reason. If you don't say anything you can't get criticized," DeMint said. "Republicans -- I think it's a good characteristic -- want to explain where they are, but any little soundbite can be used against you. Mourdock was simply trying to say every child is important to God, but the way he said it allowed folks to pound on him."

Democrats certainly disagreed that the election's outcome was an argument for running to the right. But so did Lugar, who fired off a blistering statement after his loss, saying Mourdock's "embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance."

Lugar had no doubts his party should be paying better attention.

"I believe there is a message there," Lugar told HuffPost. He declined to elaborate, but pointed to his stinging concession statement and its denunciation of extreme partisanship.

"I still believe what I had to say," Lugar said.

His fellow Republicans don't see it that way, casting the remarks that brought down Akin and Mourdock as essentially irrelevant.

"I think it's just a matter of focus and discipline and letting people know what it is we're planning to do and not [being] carried off in all these other tangent issues" said DeMint. "That's just a gotcha game, and Republicans have to got to be better at not falling for it."

Michael McAuliff covers Congress and politics for The Huffington Post. Talk to him on Facebook.

You would think, reading the plaintive petitions of secessionists, that they were an embattled minority saving the last vestiges of America -- and, by extension, the English language -- from imminent extinction.

Sure, by last Friday morning there were just 863,000 or so signatories -- around 0.27 percent of the population -- on petitions from all fifty states. Research by Neil Caren, assistant professor of sociology at the University of North Carolina suggests that there are closer to 300,000 actual individuals, with many signing multiple petitions.

But, while small in number, petitioners almost certainly belong to a majority demographic. Caren's data shows petition signers as predominantly male; it is a fair punt that they are mostly white and speakers of English. It's perhaps easy to dismiss petitioners as fringe cranks wearing three-cornered tin-foil hats. Perturbingly, however, the undercurrents of American secessionist movements run deeper.

Separatist movements worldwide are usually smaller populations who, for one (usually bloody) reason or another, have been annexed by a larger nation. They seek to forge distinct political and cultural identities: to be Welsh or Quebecois, for example, and not British or Canadian.

Language is a potent catalyst for the crystallization of these identities. Separatist movements often coalesce around protecting a distinct minority language, such as Breton or Taiwanese, from a more powerful one, such as French or Mandarin. Having a common language is almost the litmus test for whether separatists have a prima facie case for recognition.

The curious aspect of U.S. state secession is that the agitation is not to become more Floridian, Tennessean, or Alabamian. Instead, secessionists define their states as more American than America itself. By seceding, they wish to preserve America against the encroachment of, well, America.

Couched in the Cold War paranoia of Texan movement leader Daniel Miller -- who believes the majority of U.S. states "esteem the principles of Karl Marx" -- is the subtext that secessionists are dissatisfied with a democratic process that reelected a black president. By extension, President Obama's popularity among ethnic minorities and socio-economically disadvantaged groups reinforces the bunker mentality. Secessionists seem to view themselves as the only sector of society who can deservedly call themselves "American."

It's not been made explicit what the emblematic language -- if any -- of American secessionists might be. A good guess, however, would be English. An unashamed link between American-ness and English was made by former Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo, during the opening speech of the Tea Party's 2010 convention:

People who could not spell the word 'vote' or say it in English put a committed socialist ideologue in the White House. His name is Barack Hussein Obama.

Tancredo's attitude appears to be that simply being a citizen and voting is not enough to be American. Instead, it requires homogenization toward the dominant language and culture, as well as voting "correctly": hardly the epitome of liberty, democracy and rights.

Secessionists and the Tea Party are not necessarily coterminous, but their political positions seem closely aligned. In right-wing discourses, including that of the Tea Party more broadly, the majority language -- like the majority demographic -- is falsely portrayed as being under attack. According to U.S. Census data, just 19.6 percent of the population speak a "language other than English at home"; less than half of those -- 8.6 percent -- report speaking English "less than very well".

Census data can be tricky regarding language -- people tend to over-report English ability precisely because of attitudes like Tancredo's -- but the picture is broadly accurate. As the linguist Geoffrey Pullum quipped, making English the official language of the U.S. is "about as urgently called for as making hotdogs the official food at baseball games." But language is a convenient cipher for bigotry which would be unacceptable if cast in other terms.

Various groups worldwide have quite legitimate separatist claims due to historical experiences of colonization, exploitation and domination. Carefully managed, separatism can be a productive force in liberating minority groups from the clutches of oppressive, and more muscular, regimes. But, by definition, U.S. secessionists do not belong to this category. They claim beleaguered minority status despite being in a demographic majority, and despite their underlying rationale being an exclusive, homogenous nationalism that actively denigrates minorities.

Secession itself is almost entirely unrealistic. But brushing off secessionist sentiments as the harmless, if misguided, grumblings of a handful of malcontents is risky. The more virulent symptoms of nationalism which underpin it -- xenophobia, racism and an obsession with linguistic and cultural homogeneity -- can quickly become catastrophic, especially when turned inward.

E.J. Dionne, Washington Post
DENVER -- Human nature and politics being what they are, Republicans will underestimate the trouble they're in, and Democrats will be eager to overestimate the strength of their post-2012 position.Begin with the GOP: As Republicans dig out from a defeat that their poll-deniers said was impossible, they need to acknowledge many large failures.Their attempts to demonize President Obama and undercut him by obstructing his agenda didn't work. Their assumption that the conservative side would vote in larger numbers than Democrats was wrong. The tea party was less the wave of the future...

Nine Republican members of the Wisconsin Legislature say they would back a bill to arrest any federal officials who attempt to implement President Obama's signature health care law in the state.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that the nine state lawmakers told the Tea Party-aligned Campaign For Liberty that they support authorizing "state and local law enforcement to arrest federal officials attempting to implement the unconstitutional health scheme known as Obamacare."

One of the nine lawmakers backing Campaign for Liberty's proposal is state representative Chris Kapenga (R-Delafield), who told the Journal Sentinel that he believes the health care law is unconstitutional.

"Just because Obama was reelected does not mean he's above the constitution," he said.

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker (R) has until Friday to notify the federal government if he plans to set up a state-run health care exchange. The governor has received pressure from both sides of the aisle, with Democrats urging Walker to establish a state-run system, while conservative group press him to continue to oppose the law.

Walker is expected to announce his decision later this week.

While governors have had over two years to decide whether or not to implement their own exchanges, many Republican governors like Walker delayed making a decision, holding on to hopes that the Supreme Court would overturn the legislation or that the law would be repealed if Obama lost his reelection bid. However, Obama's victory has reapplied pressure to Walker and others to submit their final plans.

On Tuesday, Ohio became the latest state to opt out of implementing its own exchange.

“We still think it’s best at this time to let the federal government run the exchange," Republican lieutenant governor Mary Taylor said.

Two groups promoting charter schools and vouchers poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into state and local political races this year and wrote some of their biggest checks last month as they pushed to fill state House and Senate chambers with supporters.

StudentsFirst, the anti-union group started by former Washington D.C. chancellor Michelle Rhee, has handed out $427,000 through its Tennessee PAC so far this year, including $66,000 in October, according to the latest filings with the Tennessee Registry of Election Finance.

The American Federation for Children, which moved into Tennessee last spring, has given $276,000 through its PAC, including $145,300 in the four weeks leading up to the election.

"We want to ensure that folks in clearly contested races are secure in their ability to get re-elected," Malcom Glenn, the Federation's national spokesman, said Monday.

"We want to build the largest majority as possible," he said for positions the Federation supports, including opportunity scholarships (vouchers) that children in public schools could use to attend private schools and charter schools."

StudentsFirst, based in Sacramento, Calif., is interested in promoting vouchers and other school choice options, including strengthening a parent trigger law currently on the books that allows parents to petition to turn chronically underperforming schools into charter schools.

If 60 percent of a school's parents sign the petition, the school board must consider the change.

"But the school board gets the final say. We'd like to see parents in Tennessee have more power," said Brent Easley, state spokesman.

The Governor's Opportunity Scholarship Task Force will meet Tuesday to approve final recommendations of what it wants a voucher program in Tennessee to be.

Both groups decided where they would invest after polling candidates in surveys they do not share with the public.

Two years ago, neither existed in Tennessee. Their entry has raised the ante for the Tennessee Education Association. Its PAC has given $343,238 this year, up from the $284,357 it invested in political races in 2010.

"You have to follow the money," said TEA lobbyist Jerry Winters. "Groups funded by big business are something that teacher organizations are going to have a very difficult time competing with," he said.

"We did not give any contributions to any candidate who was part of what we consider the attack on collective bargaining, who voted to repeal a law that was in place for 35 years," Winters said.

The TEA PAC is funded from teacher dues, although teachers may indicate they do not want to support the PAC. "Fortunately, very few want their money redirected to other activities," Winters said. "Teachers see the impact politics has on their lives."

But with a declining membership, Winters says raising money is harder. (In 2010 TEA membership was 52,000; today it is 46,000.)

StudentsFirst, which has associations in 17 states, characterized its expenditures in Tennessee as "middle of the pack" compared to other states.

American Federation, based in Washington, invested in 100 legislative races in nine states.

"Our involvement varies from state to state, but Tennessee is among the states where we see the most potential for enacting high-quality education reform in the upcoming election," Glenn said Tuesday, characterizing it as "one of several states at the top of our list."

Both groups transfer money from national fundraising efforts to their state chapters. Under the rules of their nonprofit organization, they do not have to report their donors. ___

(c)2012 The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, Tenn.)

Visit The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, Tenn.) at www.commercialappeal.com

Distributed by MCT Information Services

Nick Gillespie, Reason
Last weekend, I went to see Hating Breitbart, the new documentary about the late online impresario Andrew Breitbart, who died unexpectedly earlier this year. Although released in time for the election and filled with familiar political faces and subjects (Barack Obama, ACORN, Anthony Weiner, the Tea Party, and more), the movie is stunningly post-partisan and should be watched by anybody with an interest in the future of media. (Disclosure: I was interviewed for Hating Breitbart a couple of years back and appear briefly in it as a talking head.)log in or register to reply

The Republican nominee for Ohio's U.S. Senate seat, state Treasurer Josh Mandel, is being criticized by his wife's cousins, who bought an ad in a Cleveland newspaper opposing his candidacy.

In the full page ad in the Cleveland Jewish News, eight members of the Ratner family -- including real estate developer Bruce Ratner and human rights attorney Michael Ratner -- signed a letter criticizing Mandel's opposition to same-sex marriage. Mandel's wife, Ilana Shafran Mandel, is a member of the wealthy Ratner family.

In the ad, the Ratners write that Mrs. Mandel's cousin, Ellen Ratner, was married eight years ago in Massachusetts to Cholene Espinoza. The letter notes that Espinoza is an Air Force veteran, and criticizes Mandel, a Marine Corps veteran, for his opposition to allowing gays to serve openly in the military.

The letter says:

We are equally distressed by your belief that gay men and women should not be allowed to serve openly in the military. Like you, Cholene spent many years in the armed forces. A graduate of the Air Force Academy and an accomplished pilot, she became the second woman in history to fly the U-2 reconnaissance plane. And yet, you have argued that she, like many gay and lesbian soldiers, should be forced to live a life of secrecy and lies.

Josh, as you know, our roots are deep in the Cleveland area and we have friends and family we love throughout Ohio. This family is sprawling and diverse, but it has always believed strongly in the values of equality and inclusiveness. Your discriminatory stance violates these core values of our family. Nevertheless we hope that over time, as you advance in years and wisdom, you will come to embrace the values of inclusiveness and equality as well.

Several of the Ratners, including Bruce, have donated to the campaign of Mandel's opponent, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D).

Mandel discussed his opposition to same-sex marriage during an Oct. 18 debate with Brown, who supports same-sex marriage. At the time, Mandel said that while he opposed same-sex marriage and the repeal of the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, he does not condone discrimination.

"I will represent all of the people of Ohio, regardless of their background," Mandel said in the debate. "I don't care if you are a Democrat, a Republican, a Libertarian or a vegetarian, I will be blind to race, religion or any kind of orientation."

Ontheissues.org reports that Mandel backed same-sex domestic partner benefits while student government president at Ohio State University in 2000, but has since reversed his stance.

Mandel campaign spokesman Travis Considine did not respond to a request for comment from The Huffington Post, but told the Columbus Dispatch that Mandel did not even know the Ratners in the ad.

"Josh has never met any of those 'cousins' who signed that letter and has no idea who they are," Considine told the Dispatch. "He looks forward to having the opportunity to meet them someday -- if they ever come to Ohio."

Brown's spokesman, Justin Barasky, was quick to tie the Mandel/Ratner feud to the backing Mandel has received from various outside groups that have spent close to $30 million to oppose Brown.

"Aside from the secretly funded special interests who have spent roughly $31 million dollars on his behalf, it seems there's almost no one who doesn't find Josh Mandel's anti-middle class positions offensive," Barasky told HuffPost.

The ad comes one day after Mandel debuted an ad that included people describing him as having integrity and being "well-mannered."

What follows should not be necessary. If our mainstream media were able to report, rather than just re-publish what others have said no matter how ridiculous, no matter how untrue, then political campaigns would not have to take on this burden.

Or, if Walter Cronkite were still with us, and reporting the news. Sadly, he is not.

Yes, it is close to the election. And, yes, it is unseemly to 'exploit' a natural or personal disaster for political purposes. Worse than unseemly... downright tasteless, crass and crude.

Even in hotly contested elections, I would never consider it and, when others do it, I recoil.

But, there is a critical distinction in this election.

The Republican Party (incredibly) would either eliminate FEMA or reduce it dramatically. The 2010 Tea Party Congress cut funding for natural disaster monitoring to reduce the deficit without having to raise taxes on the wealthy because who cares about little things like earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis and hurricanes, right? They wanted to reduce FEMA's funding.

Do not even entertain the "we do not have the money" argument. That is only true if any increase in tax revenues, any elimination of subsidies for oil companies, any recalibration of the estate tax... everything is off the table.

If the Republicans had had their way, this disaster would have been much worse -- in case you forget, perhaps, more like Katrina when Bush put a former Arabian Horse Show organizer was in charge of FEMA. [In a statement that could only be cruel satire, Brownie himself said that the president "moved too fast" to get preparations in place! That endorsement alone should win the election for the president.]

Mitt Romney would send it back to the states -- and, one supposes, tell these gosh-darn natural disasters not to cross state lines.

Or, he would privatize it... just imagine, FEMA, Inc.! Think of how safe and warm one would feel knowing that a profit-maximizer was calculating the cost of rescuing someone from his rooftop versus the CEO's next yacht payment, or the earnings per share in their next quarterly report. Corporations are people are they not? Just warms the cockles of one's heart.

It may feel very good for (some) souls to rail against "big government" as if it were the absolute monarchy of King George III and not a representative democracy where we do things together for the common good. It feels good to cast off one's burdens onto something distant and amorphous, the louder and the angrier the better.

Truth? Who cares?

Everyone, when reality actually bites.

It does not feel so good when your roof is blown off, or your home is flooded, or your power is gone, or you take your dusky-looking 4-year-old to an Emergency Room to save her life from an asthma attack because you could not afford her medications to prevent it.

And, here's the problem: If we do not invest in advance -- in FEMA preparations and training, in education, in our roads and bridges, in providing security for people in their old age so they know they have a least a little bit of a pension (Social Security) and guaranteed health care, in research and development to feed future economic growth, in maintaining our air, ground and water quality, in ensuring the safety of the food we eat, the gadgets we use, the medications we take, the planes we fly, and so forth... it will not be there when we need it.

FEMA and FDA and roads and bridges and the FAA and a child's education require more than six days to create and build, at least for us mortals.

And, here's the other problem: Because the media is, as Sarah Palin so aptly described it, so lame, if the Democrats do not talk about it in real time, Romney and the right-wing will remain silent. They will not answer reporters' questions.

And, as the Romneyoids hope, the silence will not penetrate peoples' consciousness.

Of course, their silence should speak a million words -- just as it should, for example, on equal pay for equal work. [Their paymasters just want cheaper labor. So, the 'excuse' they invented that equal pay laws will just feather trial lawyers' nests can be easily handled -- just propose that paying unequally for the same work is a crime with mandatory six-year jail sentences for the CEO, without parole or the right to plea bargain. Then, that excuse is gone -- trial lawyers make no money (prosecutors bring the cases), but women are protected in the workplace. See how they like dem apples!]

But, if Romney's statements, Ryan's budget, and the budget actually passed by the House Tea Party are not exposed and commented upon, the silent treatment will work. How many times, and for how long, can a news broadcast or newspaper say that Romney "ain't sayin'"? And, engage the viewer with a proposed analysis -- even when the skies have fallen, heaven forbid they should do any hard thinking!

The Democrats can handle the awkwardness by making their case not about voting for the president or some particular Senate candidate, but by talking about the grand choice between the parties that Sandy illustrates -- the party whose philosophy from a Russian novelist not only exalts an individual but describes any collective action as corrupting versus the party that believes we need to build a common foundation so that each of us may enjoy maximum opportunities if we care to take it; the party that believes that the person who makes your hotel bed is a "taker" or that party that values the work and contribution of everyone.

Or else, none of this will be there when we all need it.

Allowing that to happen is more base, more crude, more immoral, more unforgivable than exposing the truth about the Republicans, even as we are still going through this natural disaster and beginning the long slog of cleaning it up with the intent that people really understand what they are voting for and against.

As the 2012 election calendar rolls toward its final week of campaigning, several Tea Party favorites find themselves in races that are too close for comfort.

A series of Public Policy Polling (PPP) surveys conducted from Oct. 25-26 and released on Sunday show four GOP freshmen -- Reps. Allen West (R-Fla.), Joe Walsh (R-Ill.), Chip Cravaack (R-Minn.) and Frank Guinta (R-N.H.) -- facing trouble in the polls. Veteran Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.) is also in a battle for his electoral life.

PPP's survey of 631 likely voters in Florida's 18th congressional district shows West trailing Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy, 48 to 47 percent, with a 3.9 percent margin of error. The pair has engaged in a heated campaign, capped by a series of nasty ads attacking histories ranging from West's military record to Murphy's college arrest.

Walsh appears to be in the midst of an even more uphill battle. Of 500 likely voters in Illinois' 8th congressional district, 54 percent favored Democrat Tammy Duckworth, compared to 40 percent for Walsh, with a 4.4 percent margin of error. The Tea Party freshman turned heads in July when he accused Duckworth, a double-amputee Iraq War veteran, of not being a "true hero."

Cravaack is embedded in a tight race with former Democratic Congressman Rick Nolan (1975-81), who is giving Washington another go-run. PPP's poll of 1,020 likely voters in Minnesota's 8th congressional district found Nolan ahead 48 to 44 percent, with a 3.1 percent margin of error. The GOP incumbent drew criticism in June over a residency controversy tied to a health issue with his 10-year-old son.

Guinta is embroiled in a rematch with former Rep. Carol Shea-Porter (D-N.H.), whose seat he took during the 2010 Midterm Elections. PPP's findings among 654 likely voters in New Hampshire's 1st congressional district show Guinta holding a 48-to-47 percent edge, with a 3.8 percent margin of error. Guinta's women's rights record has been a prime target.

Lungren's bid for a 10th congressional term is in jeopardy, thanks to a strong bid from Indian-American Democratic challenger Ami Bera. PPP's data from 792 likely voters in California's 7th district shows Lungren and Bera knotted at 46 percent apiece, with a 3.5 percent margin of error. Boiling points during Lungren's 2012 campaign include August town hall protests against his tenure.

"This election is the first real referendum on the Tea Party and their fringe anti-choice views," said Becky Bond, president of CREDO, a super PAC aimed at taking down Tea Party candidates. "After witnessing their homophobic, anti-women and downright crazy views, their constituents are going up against their billionaire backers and are determined to do whatever it takes to kick them out of office."