But on the East Coast, outside of MSM circles, the folks who follow conservative politics expect the same forces that brought down Cantor to target McCarthy.

These powerful groups and individuals disliked Cantor for far more than his advocacy of cheap labor via “comprehensive immigration reform.” They saw him as a K Street crony capitalist far more concerned about Wall Street than Main Street.

McCarthy seen as a Cantor clone

Guess what? That’s their take on McCarthy, too, according to Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner, who understands the conservative movement way better than Politico or the Los Angeles Times. Here’s some of Klein’s analysis:

“Whether it was on immigration or fighting to shrink the size and scope of government, Cantor was increasingly at odds with conservatives and far too cozy with business interests.

“His defeat presents House Republicans with an opportunity to signal — ahead of the 2014 midterm elections — that they’re listening to conservatives. But by elevating McCarthy, who is next in line as whip, they’d be sending the opposite message — that they’re determined to crush conservatives.

“Several groups placed McCarthy’s voting record well to the left of Cantor’s for 2013. The American Conservative Union rated McCarthy at 72 percent compared with 84 percent for Cantor; Heritage Action ratings place Cantor at 53 percent and McCarthy at 42 percent; and Club for Growth had Cantor at 68 percent and McCarthy at 53 percent. Moving away from conservative groups, the National Journal rated Cantor the 80th most conservative member of the House while McCarthy was 170th.

“McCarthy voted for a Hurricane Sandy relief bill that included spending that was unrelated to providing emergency aid, fought for the farm and food stamp bill, fought reforms to the federal sugar program, and backed an extension of the corporate welfare agency known as the Export-Import Bank.”

Depicted as cozy with unions

Some Republicans and conservatives are comfortable with McCarthy’s moderate and/or squishy views on immigration. But I doubt few if any will like this depiction of the affable former deli owner as cozy with union interests. More from Klein:

“As Red State’s Erick Erickson pointed out, McCarthy even participated in a retreat for liberal Republicans at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla. The event was hosted by the Republican Main Street Partnership, which is a group run by representative-turned-lobbyist Steve LaTourette aimed at defeating conservatives. The organization includes big labor unions among its donors.”

So it’s more than a little premature to assume McCarthy will end up as the second Californian to be House speaker this century, an assumption that many have because of recurring rumors that John Boehner is tired of the job. There’s no doubt in my mind that McCarthy would be better than the last California pol in that role.

But there’s a populist, anti-Washington wave building out there in Conservativeland, and its ideal candidate isn’t someone remotely like Kevin McCarthy.

To that point, this was the headline on Klein’s analysis:

“The absurdity of electing Kevin McCarthy to replace Eric Cantor as House majority leader”

A new report published by the GOP congressional candidate identified 102 members of Congress that receive public pensions on top of their congressional salaries. That’s nearly one in five members of Congress that double, and in some cases, triple-dip from taxpayer funds.

“I’m perfectly fine being the skunk at the party,” DeMaio, a frequent critic of government waste, told the Wall Street Journal.

The report, Congressional Pension Double-Dippers Club, was first published by the Wall Street Journal today and immediately sparked controversy inside and outside the Beltway. The single biggest recipient of a government pension on top of a congressional salary is Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, who takes home a whopping $253,323 per year from the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System.

California politicians named in report

Unsurprisingly, with the largest congressional delegation, California topped the country with 19 members on the list, including both of California’s Democratic U.S. Senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. Boxer receives a meager $4,445 pension a year from the Marin County Employees Retirement Association, while Feinstein collects $54,925 every year from the city and county of San Francisco.

Of the 17 Democrats and two Republicans on the list, Rep. John Garamendi, D-Solano, received the highest pension — $88,000 per year. He is a former state legislator (vested before their pensions were canceled with Proposition 140 in 1990), lieutenant governor and insurance commissioner.

“Garamendi’s multiple government pensions tally up to over $88,800 a year,” the report notes. “It’s hard to be a double-dipper, but even harder to be a triple and quadruple dipper!”

Other notable California politicians that collect pensions on top of their salary are Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Elk Grove; Rep. Mike Honda, D-San Jose; and Rep. Lois Capps, D-Santa Barbara, all of whom are locked in competitive races in June.

Rep. Scott Peters donates pension to charity

DeMaio’s report also singled out his congressional opponent, Rep. Scott Peters, a first-term incumbent that represents the 52nd Congressional District.

“Rep. Scott Peters is a multi-millionaire and the 6th wealthiest member of Congress,” the report states. “Despite the fact that the City of San Diego’s Pension System is billions in debt, Peters took his pension early – and has received over $100,000 since he turned 50.”

The Peters campaign immediately shot back that the Democrat has donated his pension to local charities.

“Mr. DeMaio is well aware that Scott does not keep a penny of his city pension but rather donates it – and then some – right back to the city to fund the public library system,” said Kate Lyon, Peters’ deputy campaign manager, in a Monday morning press release. “Yet in his most recent attack, he failed to reveal this in a shameful attempt to hoodwink the press and deceive the voters.”

DeMaio says the purpose of the report is to “take Pension Reform to the national level – starting with major reforms to the pensions received by Members of Congress.” The GOP candidate is proposing that 1) any government pension be deducted from the regular congressional salary and 2) members of Congress be moved from the lavish Congressional Pension Program to a combination of Social Security and a 401(k) system.

Controversy: McCain excluded, copied from National Journal report

As with all pension reform proposals, the report was accompanied by controversy. One complaint: DeMaio’s report excluded Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain.

“McCain received more than $70,000 in pension benefits from the U.S. Navy in 2012, according to a financial disclosure obtained by National Journal,” the UT San Diego’s Joel Hoffmann reports. “DeMaio left McCain off his similar list of pension-receiving legislators, saying in a footnote that military pensions are excluded.”

Since the report was published, DeMaio apologized to National Journal, a publication for Capitol Hill insiders, after portions of the report were taken without attribution from a 2013 report on congressional pensions.

“[H]is ‘report’ looks like little more than a copied-and-pasted version of a National Journal database that accompanied a cover story last June on congressional double-dipping,” National Journal’s Shane Goldmacher wrote. “National Journal reviewed the financial disclosure forms of every member of the House and Senate to create the database and reveal that nearly one in five members of Congress are collecting taxpayer-funded retirements atop their $174,000 salaries.”

Dave McCulloch, a spokesman for DeMaio’s campaign, said that the candidate has been drawing from publicly available databases and news reports ever since he began fighting for pension reform in 2004.

“As Carl takes his pension-reform efforts national, the campaign expanded his list to include members of Congress, using publicly available data including Member Financial Interest Disclosures and the previous reporting done by National Journal,” McCulloch said.

California Politicians on the Pension Double-Dip List

“Obama, for instance, has called for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to be safe and carefully monitored, but has never pushed for federal restrictions on it.”

You follow?

Obama. Never. Pushed. For. Federal. Restrictions. On. Fracking.

But the Sac Bee’s Tom Knudson won a Pulitzer, so let’s defer to him if he doesn’t think the view of the greenest president of all time is relevant to his opus on California and fracking.

Hey, Tom: How do you sleep at night? Pravda would be proud of you.

Far less green posturing, alarmism in Keystone State

But back to the National Journal article, which discusses the potential for a split among Democrats nationally over fracking. This passage makes we wish we could trade California’s dominant political class for Pennsylvania’s:

“At first glance, Pennsylvania’s Democratic gubernatorial primary next year looks like a prime opportunity for the party to swing left on natural gas. Fracking is a major issue in the state’s politics. Primaries are driven by the party’s base, which is friendly to environmental causes. And many of those voters live in or near Philadelphia, the one region of the state that hasn’t benefited economically from the natural-gas boom. On top of all that, two of the candidates, John Hanger and Katie McGinty, are former heads of the Pennsylvania Environmental Protection Department.

“But operatives connected to many of the campaigns predict the campaigns won’t veer left on natural gas. The politics of opposing fracking are complicated, even within the Democratic Party, they say, because most Democrats believe it brings jobs that are worth the environmental risk. ‘The flip side to appeasing the environmental lobby is that you open yourself up to getting roasted on killing jobs in Pennsylvania,’ said one Democrat working one of the campaigns.

“The front-runner in the race, Rep. Allyson Schwartz, has already publicly opposed the state party’s moratorium resolution. Few expect other contenders for the nomination, including Hanger, McGinty, State Treasurer Rob McCord, or businessman Tom Wolf, to take a stand in sharp opposition to the industry. The Democratic contenders will talk a lot about being sure to regulate the industry and levying larger taxes on it, said Chris Borick, a professor and pollster at Muhlenberg, but they won’t go further.”

High unemployment in CA = vast misery

That’s what Democrats who believe job creation is a good thing sound and act like.  But as I wrote Monday, the contrast with California’s Democrats could not be more pronounced:

“Nearly one in five adults in California who wants to work full time can’t find such a job. The state’s unemployment rate has been among the highest in the nation for four years. And just Friday, a new report said it had gone up to 8.7 percent in July, going against the broader U.S. trend.

“Why don’t these grim facts create a sense of urgency in Sacramento? Don’t Brown, Steinberg and Pérez understand how much human misery is reflected in these numbers? How this vast joblessness is very much linked to the fact that California has the highest poverty rate of any state?

“The Golden State’s unemployed do not deserve this cruel indifference. In the capitals of other megastates, there is a bipartisan desire to create jobs. In Albany, many Democrats seek to help New York’s banking, finance, manufacturing and garment companies. In Austin, many Democrats work to boost Texas’ energy, aeronautics, cattle and farming interests. In Tallahassee, many Democrats look to assist Florida’s tourism, international export and agriculture industries.”

And in Harrisburg, many Democrats back fracking, knowing it’s doing great things for Pennsylvania’s economy.

In California, alas, we’ve got very different priorities.

“Democrats are passionate only about preserving union jobs and creating subsidized jobs in ‘green’ industries.

“Why? How can a party that is supposed to be devoted to helping the downtrodden be so indifferent to the millions of Californians who want and need jobs? It’s mystifying — and sad.”