Earlier this month, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) held an America Speaks Out town hall at the Elberton Civic Center in Elberton, Georgia to discuss various issues with constituents. At one point, Broun made the wild claim to his constituents that the federal government, through the Centers for Disease Control, would be calling Americans every single day to make sure they eat their fruits and vegetables. Broun called this “socialism of the highest order”:

BROUN: I tell ya, we’ve got some new problems in Washington. Big problems. Just today, Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta said people in America are not eating enough fruits and vegetables. They want to give all the power to the federal government to force you to eat more fruits and vegetables. This is what the federal, CDC, they gonna be calling you to make sure you eat fruits and vegetables, every day. This is socialism of the highest order!

Watch it:

Needless to say, the federal government is not going to deploy the doctors and scientists of the CDC to call every American in the country every single day to make sure they eat their fruits and vegetables. But the CDC is running a public awareness campaign highlighting the various benefits to a healthier diet, and has even assembled a convenient list of recipies that Americans can use to take advantage of fruits and vegetables in their diet. Given that September is Fruits and Veggies More Matters month, perhaps Broun — who is a medical doctor by trade — should be giving his constituents tips about eating healthier instead of scaring them about the nonexistent threat of the federal government forcing them to eat their vegetables.

Speaking at an event hosted by the Center for American Progress Action Fund this week, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) warned that Senate obstructionism has become so severe that it is hollowing out the other branches of government:

It’s absolutely impossible to make the Senate any less deliberative than it is at this moment . … I want to add that this isn’t just about the Senate and legislation.  This is about the judiciary and the executive branches, because we are unable to confirm the nominations for the courts.  We’re unable to confirm the nominations for the President’s team, and that is outrageous that the Senate, in its role of consulting and confirming, is basically damaging the other two branches of government.

Watch it:

Merkley is right. Although Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) megolomaniacal decision to block all bills that he has not personally approved may be the most dramatic example of widespread Senate obstructionism, conservatives began sabotaging the Senate the minute that President Obama took office.  As Attorney General Eric Holder noted yesterday, judicial confirmations have slowed to such a glacial pace that fully half of all federal judgeships will be vacant by 2020 unless the pace improves.

Such obstructionism works because the Senate Rules allow the minority to delay all Senate business by up to 30 hours every time the Senate votes to confirm just one nominee.  A new president must fill approximately one thousand Senate confirmed jobs over the course of their first term.  So when you multiply the 30 hours of wasted time across all one thousand nominees, it adds up to more time than the Senate is in session for two entire presidential terms:

In Wall Street Journal news article, political reporter Jonathan Weisman claims that “loyalty to Obama costs Democrats,” blaming votes for President Obama’s signature legislative accomplishments. Citing votes on health care, the recovery act, financial regulation, and climate change, Weisman relates the electoral chances of Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) — a “loyal backer of President Barack Obama’s agenda” — and Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA) — who is “running away from the president.” Both were elected in 2006, but Murphy is now “facing the fight of his life” and Altmire is “running away” with his race:

In their contrasting fates lie broader lessons for the coming midterms: Live by the president and you could die by the president. Democrats who have been thorns in the president’s side are doing well in some of the toughest districts for their party, from Alabama to the steel belt of western Pennsylvania. But swing-district Democrats who have voted with the president in Congress are struggling, even if they’re now asserting their independence.

Weisman repeats his assertion throughout the article, saying “resistance to the agenda is rewarding some House Democrats as the midterm elections approach” and that there is a “pattern of opponents of the Obama agenda doing better than supporters in conservative and swing districts.” Weisman’s article is accompanied by an impressive-looking chart of 11 Democrats, purporting to prove that “[i]n swing districts, House Democrats who’ve resisted some party initiatives are polling strongly” — and those who supported Obama’s agenda are in trouble.

The problem is that Weisman’s claim relies on misleadingly cherry-picked data. As Weisman points out, there are Obama supporters in conservative districts that are expected by polling mavens such as 538′s Nate Silver or Charlie Cook to lose — Murphy, Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH), and Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO). But there are also Democrats in conservative districts who supported all of Obama’s top priorities that are expected to win — such as Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL), Rep. Zack Space (D-OH), Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI), and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ).

And just as there are House Democrats who sometimes voted against Obama’s signature agenda that are doing well — Altmire, Rep. Health Shuler (D-NC), Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC), Rep. Walt Minnick (D-ID) — there are those who are struggling — Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX), Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD), Rep. Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (D-SD), Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ), Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN), and Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA).

Although Weisman points out Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS) as someone who is “running strongly” and Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL) as “strongly in the running,” Nate Silver projects both Childers and Bright are highly likely to lose.

In fact, one of the entries in Weisman’s chart — Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) — is shown as supporting all of Obama’s agenda and leading in her re-election campaign in a politically contested, economically devastated district:

Even Weisman’s own cherry-picked data refutes the premise of his article. The reality is that there’s just no apparent statistical correlation between these four votes and the re-election chances of Democrats in tough districts. The dominant factor affecting this mid-term election is the stagnant economy, which Republicans correctly calculated would hurt the majority party more than the minority, and thus obstructed a stronger recovery package, a stronger Wall Street reform package, stronger health care legislation, clean energy jobs, ending tax cuts on the rich, closing corporate loopholes, and a host of other policies which would have created more jobs faster.

It’s possible that some influence of voting record on political viability could be found after the election results are in, but Weisman’s article is unsupportable as written.