As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell requested and received millions of dollars in earmarks for this year’s omnibus spending bill, but has now denounced the measure and plans to vote against it. Overall, Republican Senators have gotten nearly $2 billion in earmarks into the omnibus, and yet because of concerns over “wasteful spending,” they are threatening to block the entire bill — which contains not only funding for their own projects, but the money the federal government needs to operate past this weekend.

Yesterday, Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Thune (R-SD) denounced earmarks and the omnibus bill during a press conference, despite requesting hundreds of millions of dollars of earmarks between them. “I support those projects, but I don’t support this bill,” reasoned Thune. Cornyn defended himself in a “heated exchange” with ABC News’ Jonathan Karl:

Today, the Washington Post reports that two of the most prolific earmarkers in Congress — “unabashed spending barons” Republican Sens. Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi — are also planning to vote against the omnibus, despite being responsible for 405 earmarks costing over $865 million.

Sens. McConnell, Wicker, Cochran, Cornyn and Thune are far from the only earmark hypocrites, however. A large number of Republicans requested substantial earmarks for the 2011 omnibus, despite a history of demagoguing the earmark process, and also plan to vote against a bill that included many of their requests. An examination of Taxpayers for Common Sense’s database of earmark requests for this year’s omnibus and their database of who was awarded earmarks last year, along with Sen. Tom Coburn’s working database of the earmarks that actually made it into this year’s omnibus, reveal quite a bit of Republican hypocrisy:

– Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) said on Fox News’ “Happening Now” this morning that he would vote against the omnibus bill. He requested 291 earmarks totaling over $770.5 million, and succeeded in getting 86 earmarks into the omnibus.

– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is opposing the omnibus because it’s “full of unnecessary spending which grows the federal government.” He requested 116 earmarks costing $326.8 million, and the omnibus contains one of these for $379,000.

– Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s (R-TX) office said she will vote against the omnibus, which she tried to insert 119 earmarks into, at a cost of $770.9 million. She has $140 million earmarked in the bill.

– Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) will also oppose the omnibus, because it “simply spends too much.” Chambliss requested 122 earmarks totaling $492 million. He achieved $56 million in earmarks in the omnibus.

– Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) blasted the “massive, 2,000 page spending bill” in a statement. Burr tried for 82 earmarks, totaling $287.1 million, and received most of them.

– Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) “has been railing against the spending in that massive bill that could come to a vote before the lame duck session.” He requested 32 earmarks this year, totaling $115.8 million, and got nearly all of them — almost $100 million — into the omnibus.

– Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-MT) tweeted today that “Defending the #earmark establishment is not leadership. Defending business-as-usual in Washington isn’t either. Leaders lead by example.” Rehberg is a proud member of the “earmark establishment” — last year he was the fifth-largest earmarker in the House, with 89 earmarks in the 2010 omnibus totaling $103.5 million.

– Rep. Chris Lee (R-NY) said on Fox Business Channel this morning that “It’s a week before Christmas, and unfortunately my Democratic colleagues like to play Santa Claus to the tune of $8 billion in new earmarks.” Lee was in a much more festive mood last year, with 36 earmarks totaling over $33.3 million in the 2010 omnibus.

– Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) tweeted today that “A HUGE spending bill is making its way through Congress. $1.1 trillion and 6,000 earmarks. We must stop it. I encourage the President to veto.” Last year, however, Wilson got 15 earmarks costing over $23.3 million in the 2010 omnibus.

It is the height of hypocrisy for these Republicans — all of whom have a long history of earmarking, and in most cases requested and received earmarks in this very bill — to suddenly oppose it because of a newly found opposition to “wasteful” spending.

NPR Senior News Analyst Cokie Roberts recently moderated a panel discussion with women serving in the U.S. Senate “about how they differ from their male counterparts.” Specifically, Roberts asked the senators — including Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison and New York Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand — about why there are fewer scandalous affairs involving women in public life:

Q: So is Sen. Hutchison right? Are women more focused on their jobs — at least the women politicians you’ve covered?

ROBERTS: Let’s put it this way, we don’t see a lot of scandals among women. And her [Hutchison's] point — oh my lord, you try to keep the kids straight and the job straight, and get back and forth between houses. And of course, she is a Republican woman from Texas, who —

She actually, interesting Michelle — as a senator, and now she is in her mid- to late-60s, adopted two little children, who are really young enough to be her grandchildren. So this was a new balancing act for her to have these children.

But she was echoed by Kirsten Gillibrand, the young senator from New York, who has an 18-month-old baby and others. And Sen. Gillibrand says, “You’re in the middle of diapers and bottles and bills and votes and markups, how could you possibly think about doing anything else?” They’re joking on the one hand, but on the other hand they’re not. They take care of their families and take care of business.

Roberts also commented on Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace’s recent comments that he was hoping former Alaska governor — and fellow Fox News contributor — Sarah Palin would sit on his lap during their interview on his show. Roberts said his remarks were “appalling.” “You know, it’s the last place that men feel that they can just make jokes,” she said. “They would never make such jokes about a minority, you’d be in terrible trouble. But you can still make sexist jokes about women and get away with it.” Listen here:

In reaction to South Carolina Mark Sanford’s (R) extramarital affair last year, former Bush press secretary Dana Perino said the answer was to “[e]lect more women. No woman I know has the time for such trysts, nor do I know any who say the desire one. They’re too busy trying to keep all the plates spinning at home, at work, and at the gym to make sure none fall and break.”

Yesterday, the Prestonwood Baptist Church held a “Friends for Life” fundraiser benefiting the Prestonwood’s Pregnancy Center. The guest of honor was former President Bush, with 10-person tables going for as much as $2,500. A consultant for the pregnancy center explained the decision to honor Bush: “The fact that he was the most pro-life president since Ronald Reagan is very significant.” Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison and Gov. Rick Perry — who are locked in a heated battle for the state’s Republican gubernatorial nod — both attended the event, which was closed to the media. Hutchison did not speak at the event, but Perry did, praising all the “lives” Bush “protected” while in office:

According to an outline of his remarks provided before the benefit, Perry said, “I feel like I am in the garrison of an army that has devoted itself to the defense of the unborn.”

His remarks also thanked Bush. “There is no way to tell how many lives were protected by your fearless pro-life efforts,” Perry’s speech said.

Bush also recently received another pro-life award, given to him by a Catholic group called Legatus in California. The announcement attracted criticism, with groups and individuals saying that Bush shouldn’t be considered “pro-life” because of his record on “[p]reemptive war, torture, a reckless disregard for the environment and economic policies that left the poor farther behind.”

During a discussion of President Obama’s bow before Japanese Emperor Akihito on Fox News Sunday this past weekend — after host Chris Wallace aired a videotape of Vice President Cheney choosing not to bow before the Emperor in Feb. 2007 — Liz Cheney quipped, “you could also look at the comparison and think, Cheney 2012.” On Fox News yesterday, Cheney further explained her promotion of her dad, saying, “I have to tell you, he’s my candidate. But I have yet to get him on board with the concept.” In Texas yesterday to endorse Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) in the Texas governor’s race, the former vice president adamantly rejected the idea:

When she took the stage, Hutchison noted a Sunday cable show in which daughter Liz Cheney suggested her father might be a good presidential candidate in four years.

“I wasn’t sure when I saw Liz Cheney on TV Sunday, I thought this might be the start of Cheney 2012,” Hutchison said.

A member of the crowd shouted, “We need you, Dick.”

Cheney shook his head.

“No chance,” he said.

Watch it (Via Jason Embry):

Every single Republican in the House voted against the $819 billion Recovery Act in January. Among the Republican senators who voted against the stimulus were Texas’ Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn. Both of them complained that they wanted to see more tax cuts rather than government spending.

But now, both Hutchison and Cornyn are pressuring the Obama administration to give Texas $3 billion in stimulus funds. The co-signers on the letter are a bipartisan group of the Texas delegation in the House, including 19 Republicans, all of whom also voted against the funds for which they’re now begging. The letter was drafted and circulated by GOP Rep. Pete Olson. From the letter:

Therefore, to ensure the U.S. maintains its leadership in human space exploration, we respectfully ask that you include in your promised amended budget request for NASA’s Exploration Systems a request to Congress to reallocate the necessary funds for NASA from the funds that we anticipate will remain available from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). As of last month, less than 15 percent of ARRA funds had been expended.

Since the stated purpose of the stimulus package was to secure good jobs and stabilize our economy, there is no better investment that could be made than the addition of up to $3 billion to NASA in FY2010, and the projection of at least that level of increase, as recommended by your Committee, at a 2.4% rate of inflation in the out-year projections included in the initial FY2010 Request.

Cornyn said that while the stimulus funding “that has already been spent [is] clearly not working, it is my hope that the Administration will use a portion of the remaining, authorized, unspent stimulus dollars to safeguard our nation’s space program.”

Texas isn’t the only state showing this stimulus hypocrisy. Some other examples:

– Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) is now criticizing Gov. Tim Kaine (D) for being “slow” to spend the stimulus money allocated for Virginia — even though if Wolf and his Republican colleagues would have had their way, there would be no extra money for the state at all. “We could use that money desperately,” Wolf told reporters. “We’re in a critical situation.”

– Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) also voted against the Recovery Act and has since called it a failure. The stimulus, Grassley told the National Review last week, “is not working.” In June, he had harsher words, saying the stimulus had no positive impact on the economy, “none whatsoever.” But recently, Grassley announced two grants totaling $399,875 to Goodwill Industries of Central Iowa and Goodwill Industries of the Heartland through the Homeless Veterans Reintegration program. “These funds will give a hand up to our veterans who have fought bravely and selflessly for our country,” Grassley said. The funds were authorized by the Recovery Act. (UPDATE: These grants were from FY 2009.)

In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) continues to put his ideology over his state’s needs, refusing to listen to state officials’ requests for high-speed rail funding.

On July 30, the Washington Post gave House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) space to write an op-ed railing on President Obama’s “virtual army of ‘czars.’” Today, the Washington Post allowed Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison to write a similar op-ed complaining that these czars set “a dangerous precedent that undermines the Constitution’s guarantee of separated powers.” Hutchison tries to make these officials seem shady and mysterious by noting that many of them don’t even have “formal titles”:

Nearly 250 years later, these critical lines of separation are being obscured by a new class of federal officials. A few of them have formal titles, but most are simply known as “czars.” They hold unknown levels of power over broad swaths of policy. Under the Obama administration, we have an unprecedented 32 czar posts (a few of which it has yet to fill), including a “car czar,” a “pay czar” and an “information czar.” There are also czars assigned to some of the broadest and most consequential topics in policy, including health care, terrorism, economics and key geographic regions.

In fact, ALL of these officials have formal titles. For example, Hutchison cites Van Jones, the “green jobs czar.” But Jones had the title of Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality. The only person Obama has referred to as a czar is “drug czar” Gil Kerlikowske, whose official title is Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. (Additionally, “drug czar” was a term that existed long before the Obama administration.)

Hutchison’s lie mirrors a claim by Fox News’ Sean Hannity, who recently said that the only reason he calls these appointees “czars” is “because the White House itself does.” Of course, it’s the media — not the White House — that is driving the term.

Hutchison does not list the 32 individuals whom she considers to be “czars.” But if she’s relying on the same list as Cantor — who also cited 32 people — then several of them are far from unaccountable; they’ve actually already been confirmed by the Senate.