If you read Politico's Morning Score (and I do), you will have noticed this morning that there is * big news * in the RNC Chairman's race.

Saul Anuzis got the endorsement of the founder of the Tea Party Nation.

Ann Wagner has garnered the endorsement of Phyllis Schlafly.

Reince Priebus seems to be being talked up and defended big-time by Henry Barbour.

Let's be clear about this: While these are fun stories to write about, two of these bits of news will have little to no positive impact on the contender-in-question's chances of winning the job of RNC Chairman. One of them, and potentially two, could actually have a negative impact on the contender-in-question's chances of coming out on top.

Let's start with Anuzis' news. First off, it bears mentioning that Judson Phillips (the Tea Party Nation founder in question) is not a member of the RNC, so while his views will no doubt be of interest to people who like the Tea Party Nation and what they stand for, he doesn't actually get a vote. Moreover, I seriously doubt that any of the 168 people who do get a vote will say "ah, I'm going to vote for Saul because Judson Phillips said so." Those are primary reasons why I doubt this endorsement will do little to nothing for Anuzis, other than get the media to write about his campaign (an apparently successful gambit, since I'm writing about said endorsement right now)....

Nancy Pelosi today:

House passed middle class tax cuts 234-188, helping all Americans w/o adding 700B to deficit or giveaways to millionaires.

Wow.  Really?  According to Democrats' own logic, all tax cuts amount to spending.  And since we already have a big fat budget deficit, all spending right now amounts to deficit spending. So, since the middle class tax cuts are worth $3.2 trillion over ten years, I guess Nancy's right.  She and her buds didn't just add $700 billion to the deficit.  They added a lot more than that.

I'm bad at math, but even I'm not that bad at it. [intro]

Over recent months, speculation amongst the pundit class has increased regarding the true philosophy of self-indentified Tea Partiers and-- arguably more importantly-- the public figures who have associated themselves with the Tea Party and (in some cases) attempted quite blatantly to leverage it to advance their own causes.

One name I have of late heard mentioned and joined with extensive praise with great frequency from hardcore fiscal conservative, libertarianish Tea Partiers is that of Mike Pence, who they associate with rock-ribbed fiscal conservatism, and with fair cause-- Pence has a pretty conservative fiscal record, apart from (as of a few years ago, at least) on some matters linked to agricultural spending (he is, after all, from Indiana). This is, it has been noted by a number of liberal critics of the Tea Party, one area where supposed Tea Party candidates (Marlin Stutzman would be another example from Indiana) deviate from their normally hardcore fiscal conservative line, leaving them with a profile a bit different from that publicly transmitted.

But here is another, in terms of tone and emphasis, courtesy of Pence. Yesterday, he gave a speech to the Detroit Economic Club (which has some members of the punditocracy chattering that Pence can't really be running for Indiana governor, he must be running for President-- something I'm not really convinced by). Here is how the Detroit Free Press wrote it up:...