« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Message to GOV. Mitch Daniels: Man The @#%! Up.

Make IN A Right-to-Work State

By: Martin Knight (Diary)  |  January 4th, 2011 at 12:27 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

H/T: fmaidment.

Maybe I’m the only one, but my impression from everything that’s been said and written about Governor Mitch Daniels (R) of Indiana from the time he was George W. Bush’s OMB Director has always been that of a steel-spined budgetary genius with mad cost-benefit analyzing skillz.

So, one could imagine my surprise when I read this;

INDIANAPOLIS | Bills filed in the Indiana House that would ban workers from being required to pay union dues could spark a debate so divisive that Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels wants to avoid the issue.

The so-called right-to-work legislation has been filed by Republicans who gained a House majority in the November election.

I must say I’m baffled at this.

Why would Daniels want to “avoid” the issue? I’m no professional political operative where Indiana is concerned but I really cannot see how making Indiana a Right-to-Work state (and abolishing public sector unions while they’re at it) could be anything other than a philosophical, policy and political win-win-win.

  1. Philosophically; there is no reason why anyone should be compelled to pay money to any organization out of his hard-earned wages as a condition of his earning a living. When the state is involved, this is violation of the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of the individual’s freedom of association. As Thomas Jefferson puts it;

    That man should be compelled to pay taxes (contributions of money) for the propagation of beliefs he finds abhorrent is a sin as well as tyranny.

  2. Policy-wise; Right-to-Work states are doing better by almost every key economic indicator. The clearest illustration of this is in the census; the fact that states where workers are forced to fork over hundreds and even thousands of dollars as a condition of employment are losing their workers (and Representatives in Congress) hand over fist to states where workers’ freedom of association is respected. Per – appropriately – Inside Indiana Business;

    The American Legislative Exchange Council recently published research completed by the National Institute for Labor Relations which provides five different forms of tangible information regarding the economic differences between right to work and non-right to work states. The research completed was based upon statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Census Bureau, United States Patent and Research Office and Bureau of Economic Analysis.

    :

    … right to work states create more private sector jobs, enjoy lower poverty rates, experience more technology development, realize more personal income growth, and increase the number of people covered by employment-based private health insurance. These facts provide public policy thought leaders with compelling information regarding the importance of being a right to work state … It is important for state-level policy makers to remove any barriers to economic growth in their state. A non-right to work state changing to a right to work state is an excellent example of how leaders can improve a state’s outlook. Elected officials in non-right to work states should seriously examine this issue and consider the potential benefits to their citizens.

    More economic growth, more employment, lower poverty, more freedom … Really, what’s not to like?

  3. Politically; Do the political benefits of de-fanging an implacable enemy (any Republican who thinks there can be anything between unions and the GOP other than a sincere desire of the former to utterly destroy the latter must be an idiot) really need to be spelled out? The instant the bill is signed, unions in Indiana are immediately (and very likely, permanently) put on the back foot – they’re going to start hemorrhaging members, which means they’re going to start hemorrhaging money; the money they use to attack Republicans, the money they use to organize and put boots on the ground to elect Democrats and push Far Left liberal causes their unwilling members object to. Simple and short, they’ll be made wonderfully impotent.

So, I ask, with a 60-40 Republican majority (quorum, unfortunately, is 67) in the Indiana State House and a 36-14 super-majority in the State Senate, what’s the downside to Daniels making this one of his more pressing priorities?

The only downside I can see is that a newspaper would call him “divisive”, append “controversial” to his name and decry his horrible lack of “reach-across-the-aisle” skillz. And, oh yeah – cause some discomfort for David Frum at the next “No Labels” meeting in George Soros‘ penthouse.

Tags: , , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Scope

    overtaking good policy. That should stay in the minds of those supporting him in a presidential run.

    • acat

      that is, if Daniels wasn’t planning a POTUS run (‘truce’ stumble out of the gate and all) he may still be avoiding talking about the idea, but not opposing it….

      As it is, he’s got to get *some* backing from the “Reagan Democrat” demographic to win – so there’s some logic to not picking the inevitable fight right now….

      I don’t agree with that choice – picking the fight early lets people know where you stand, and people like a fighter. (see also Palin)

      So far, Mitch is shrinking, rather than growing. Alas.

      A. Cat

      • Scope

        for Daniels. If he is serious about running for the presidency, which I doubt very much, for him to come out and strongly support a RTW initiative would have gone a long way with Republicans and conservatives. The Unions have been in the news a whole lot over the past year, and, there shennanigans have been tagged right back to the Democrats. I would venture to say that Republicans are pretty much anti-Union. This could have been a winner for Daniels.

        Someone here somewhere said that Daniels knows it won’t make it through the IN House, so he doesn’t want to expend the effort on it. I liken that to the Republicans in the House in DC not bothering to try to pass a bill to repeal Ocare. Of course it would never get through the Senate or Obama’s stainless steal wall, but the effort, symbolic or whatever goes along way in honoring the voters wishes, and, one day hopefully it will get all the way through to a Republican presidential desk.

        • wennejunk

          This is a good thing.

          Imagine our surprise to find (post presidential primary and election) that he didn’t actually have the stones for fighting the good fights, that he was busy triangulating his way to popularity.

          We don’t need just another politician in the White House. We need someone with the ability to fight for the important causes that help restore freedoms.

          Sure, political skills are important and maybe this helps him short term, but it reveals him to be more politician than leader.

  • redneck_hippie

    Let the legislature take the heat and quietly sign the bill into law? Let the bill pass or fail on its own merits and get out of the kitchen?

    I get that Daniels doesn’t want to be perceived as a culture warrior. He made that clear early on. But this is a meat and potatoes tea party agenda item.

    • AceInTX

      Let the legislature take the heat and quietly sign the bill into law? Let the bill pass or fail on its own merits and get out of the kitchen?

      End Sarc

    • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

      “Hell no!”

      Executives get paid to not just take the heat but to MAKE the heat. Daniels should be way out in front on this and if he’s not then this is his “Sarah Palin resignation” point for him.

  • Sean (SIConservative)

    The article explains that he is concerned that Right to Work legislation could make it harder to get action on other issues. I don’t know Indiana well enough to say whether that concern has any merit. If it does, though, it’s only fair to look at what those other issues are and whether they may indeed be reasonably considered higher priorities.

    • aesthete

      along this line. RTW legislation in Midwestern states tends to be somewhat similar to private school voucher programs in other states: a slam dunk philosophically and policy-wise, but next to impossible to enact politically for whatever reason. I would like to see Daniels propose RTW at some point, but there is a difference between retreating and flanking the enemy: there’s no need to impale our cavalry on the enemy’s pikes, and blindly rushing to support RTW in Midwestern states can be a pretty good way to do just that.

      • Aaron Gardner

        Making Indiana a RTW state reaches into the big unions that are crushing the US automotive industry. I know GM still gets many of their parts from Ft. Wayne Foundry.

        The have a huge majority in the House, a Super Majority in the Senate and a sitting Conservative Governor. If the time isn’t now, then it is never.

      • AceInTX

        causing un-necessary deaths in NY…And there is an NFL strike looming on the Horizon…anyone remember the baseball strike a couple years ago… Then there is SEIU dropping kids from their health insurance plans…

        I think Union Bosses have way over played their hands and they are low hanging fruit for Republicans if they message it right…and have the backbone to go after them…

        But that last sentence is the issue isn’t it?

        • aesthete

          but I can also see where we have overextended in this very election season, when we could have gotten more by not overextending, which I’m sure I don’t need to mention. There are leftists out there who criticize Obama because he couldn’t get single-payer passed, and who argue that he would have been more popular had he gotten single-payer into law. That’s just insane: voters who want single-payer are a minority. Similarly, the electorate in Midwestern states is very pro-labor: that isn’t something I like, but it is what it is. Moreover, state Dem parties in Midwestern states put a very high priority on union power, and are still powerful enough in IN to prevent a quorum. This is one issue that would motivate them to bloc vote to prevent a quorum and thus prevent *any* legislation from passing, including RTW.

          If we were talking about Republicans going all in principle, getting something of importance done for conservatives, and then getting slaughtered in the next election (the ObamaDem strategy in a nutshell), I would agree with you that a stand on principle would be preferable to avoiding the fight. RTW is one such issue that is a hill to die on, but *only* if it had a good chance of getting enacted. If, OTOH, this “principled stand” has no reasonable chance of succeeding, prevents other conservative things from happening, and results in Reps losing their seats, there’s no reason to go there. If you (or rather, an IN native attuned to local politics) can chart out a plan for passing RTW that allows it to get through IN’s leg without Dems going nuclear, then by all means, you should post it here, call out Mitch Daniels, and do whatever you need to to get it done (and you would have my blessing). If, OTOH, it is impossible to accomplish due to the Dems in IN’s leg, then place the blame where it belongs (namely, the Dems and to a lesser extent, the electorate), and focus on changing those things through elections and education, respectively. Mindless zealotry is the prelude to a crucifixion, not success.

          • AceInTX

            it’s about doing it because it’s the right thing to do…

            RTW laws were passed in the south 30 years ago…and now the south is growing while the rest of the country is atrophying…what’s wrong with making the point that this needs to be done to help the mid west…and going it.

            Seriously…all this horse trading crap and being afraid to do what we say we believe in is killing us.

          • aesthete

            how great the idea is. Public school vouchers should have taught us that lesson.

          • Aaron Gardner

            If that’s the case, then all of this is pointless. We can’t make policy unless we win elections, well we won, what’s the excuse now?

          • aesthete

            Dems in the Senate can suspend all legislative operations by denying Daniels a quorum (which they did use during his tenure): if that’s untrue and there’s a (legal) way around the quorum that would allow Reps to pass RTW legislation, then yes, the Reps should fall on their swords and take the hit if it would mean enacting RTW (not that I would expect that to happen, but I would like it to). If my description of quorum rules in IN is accurate, then trying to pass RTW legislation is nothing more than a symbolic act that will railroad other conservative initiatives in the state. In that case, there’s no point in trying to pass it, as there’s no payoff and quite a bit of potential loss involved.

            Seems to me that Daniels deserves some criticism if my description of quorum rules is incorrect and Dems cannot actually block Republican legislation, but that he doesn’t if my description of quorum rules is right and Dems can, in effect, hold legislation hostage using this rule.

          • Martin Knight

            The IN State GOP Senate Caucus is large enough to form a quorum all by itself. The IN State House is where the problem is – despite a 60-40 majority, the GOP would need 7 defectors to form a quorum.

            The fact is though that the IN House GOP leadership is thinking it’s worth a try. I think Daniels should throw his weight and the weight of his media machine behind them.

          • Aaron Gardner
          • Martin Knight

            I’m not saying he should push it to the top of his list of priorities, or even that he should rush in like a bull at a matador.

            But he should certainly add RtW to the list.

            Before then, he can start by seeing what he can do to severely handcuff and shackle public sector unions by executive order and regulation.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            and destroy the lives of the children of Indiana in the process, I’d be the first to encourage them.

            I think right now public employee unions – and to a lesser extent the UAW – have teed themselves up nicely for us. You’ve got new Democratic governors calling for major restructuring of union contracts. You’ve got Democratic mayors laying off up to half their police force. You have absolutely no good news anywhere about so-called “public” employees.

            This is a hill to die on and the dying should be done by the unions. We’ve got the MO! Now is the time to attack and attack hard. Will we win on every front? No. But where we lose we won’t likely lose by much and where we win we can win big. See FL where Governor Scott is talking about essentially privatizing schools. See CA where the wacko legislature passed and the neutered Governator signed a law giving parents the ability to turn their public schools into charter schools and the first one is in the process of flipping now.

            I’m a firm believer in picking your fights VERY carefully and in not losing for sake of making a point. This is our issue, it’s a winner and we need to go all out on it.

          • aesthete

            Not all that optimistic about our chances to get Dems to roll over on this one, but OTOH, if the GOP House leadership sees a fighting chance in passing RTW laws, Mitch should play ball and take point on the issue. It’d be watershed for a Midwestern manufacturing state to enact RTW legislation.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Detroit, of course, is still the beating heart of the UAW, but Indiana is like the aorta. We take down Indiana, and Detroit may again be a free enterprise zone.

          • aesthete

            knows what they’re doing in trying to enact RTW. Mitch already missed his opportunity to get out in front on this issue, but I hope that he changes course and adds it to his list of priorities, as Martin suggests above. RTW passing in a Midwestern manufacturing state would be a political shockwave; I just didn’t think it could get done. If it has a reasonable chance, it should be fairly high on IN Repubs’ list of priorities.

      • itrytobenice

        Mitch could do it in IN if he had the rocks for it.

        • itrytobenice

          What Blunt did was to remove collective bargaining from public employees, which is a bit different, but still taking on a union sacred cow.

          • aesthete

            as did Mitch Daniels as one of his first acts in his first term. RTW is a whole ‘nother ball game, with much higher stakes (but also higher rewards).

          • redneck_hippie

            revoked collective bargaining from state employees in 2005? See my link below on this thread.

            I’m really trying to get a handle on this controversy. Not because I think Daniels is absolutely the best potential president. But because I am trying to understand the whole RTW issue in Indiana. I’m in Illinois and companies (and therefore the people they employ) are fleeing across the border. Is RTW truly a hill to die on in that state?

            I tend to credit Daniels’ governorship for government shrinkage, which is doing quite a bit for the business friendliness and employment picture for my neighbors to the east.

    • Change Jar Conservative

      From a Fox59 article:

      One of those issues is public education reform. Governor Mitch Daniels and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Tony Bennett call the reforms “fundamental” and “significant.”

      Proposals include revamped teacher evaluation standards and more school choice. Also on the table, a program to reward college-bound high school students who graduate a year early.

      • Sean (SIConservative)

        Depending on how far the school choice goes, I could give him a pass for making that a higher priority this year. Also, rewarding students for graduating early could save the state a lot of money. I’m not sure why he’d limit it ot college-bound students, though, since it’d save them money whether the students were college-bound or not.

  • Aaron Gardner
    • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    to go along with social issues truces and taxes on the wealthy class warfare support…

    So…Why is it that so many are enamored with Mitch Daniels again?

  • IJB
  • txgho1911

    You could see this issue put him behind for many people in Indiana. Seems good cause to steam ahead and pit all the unions against him. He didn’t win that seat just to keep it. There is a job to do and he sounds like he’s sittin this out.
    He has said that he will not run. For POTUS.

  • runner12

    POTUS run for Daniels. If he cannot fight on an issue such as RTW, which unifies many different conservatives and is a big issue with Tea parties, he is sunk. The thought that you cannot take on the unions in a Midwestern state is a defeatist attitude.
    Being a leader, a real leader, takes a strong mix of courage and wisdom and what is best for your state, not taking a poll on whether it plays well politically. I am sure the people of NJ are glad that Christie had the courage to take it to the unions. Daniels would be wise to do the same.

  • David123

    And how much does a union boss make? A union boss makes a whole lot more than a regular worker, right?

    So this issue could be framed as just standing up for the rights of workers. Why should a regular union guy have to pay money to a really rich union boss? Being opposed to right-to-work is kind of like Robin Hood in reverse – stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    The author asks:

    Why would Daniels want to ?avoid? the issue?

    If you read farther in the 4 paragraph article that you linked, you will find the answer:

    He’s afraid it will cause a problem passing other items.

    NOWHERE does it say that Daniels doesn’t like Right-To-Work from a philosophical point of view, but in his full time paid position as the most fically conservative governor in the nation, he doesn’t think it’s the most important issue.

    Not sure why Daniels scares people so much since all he’s done is create the best ACTUAL RECORD (not just talk) regarding cutting the size of government, but he sure has a big target on his back.

    • redneck_hippie

      I remember you as Oz from the ’08 campaigns.

      Just a question for you or someone else who could perhaps fill me in: What are the bill’s repercussions on Private employee unions, as opposed to Public employee unions? This may be something Labor Union Report may want to chime in on(?)

      I’m not ready to throw the book at Daniels on his words on this. Something tells me there is more to the story than we can see. I would be very interested to know what the political situation is in the legislature. According to Daniels, nobody campaigned on RTW (see links below).

      How do people in Indiana feel about this? If the people of Indiana are in support of RTW, then Daniels needs to man up. No question of that. On the flip side, if support is soft, perhaps the next governor should make RTW a plank in his or her campaign.

      “But Daniels, also a Republican, has told legislative leaders that it would be better to leave the issue alone, even though he believes the proposal has merit. Daniels noted neither he nor the House Republican caucus campaigned on the proposed change.

      “It’s a very legitimate issue,” Daniels said. “But I think it’s too big to do without having discussed it out in the open first. And I’ll also say I think it would have the potential — just tactically — to possibly reduce or wreck the chances for education reform and local government reform and criminal justice reform and the things we have a wonderful chance to do.”
      (from Chicago Tribune)

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-uniondueslegislat,0,6852847.story

      Shortly after taking office in 2005 Daniels revoked the state employees’ right to collective bargain.

      http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/article_0f78dd85-3db4-5f5a-962e-55927e593885.html

      Am I wrong to infer that Daniels is making a distinction between public and private employee unions, or at least that his actions seem to indicate such? I don’t want to impute that politics are the only factor here. On the flip side I also can’t help wonder about the potential wrecking of legislative majorities over the issue.

      • Right Reason

        . . .It’s too big to do without having discussed it out in the open and then says he doesn’t want to talk about it.

        I completely disagree with his logic. If democrats say they will deny a quorum and shut down the state government over this issue, call their bluff. Think of how popular THAT move will be. If it jeopardizes other legislative priorities, make sure the voters know that, too. You don’t let the minority set the legislative agenda.

        If Daniels, with majorities in BOTH houses, is willing to give Democrats a pre-emptive veto on legislation at the state level because they might throw a hissy-fit, then he cannot be considered a serious presidential contender.

        • LibertarianHawk

          They denied a quorum in 2005. It’s really not that difficult a thing for them to do. And RTW is a life-or-death matter to them.

          The Republicans simply do not have the numbers to get RTW passed. I hope they can get it passed — I’m fully in favor of it. But it’s unlikely.

          The things Daniels wants to do needed Republican majorities — and the guy worked his tail off to help get them. He campaigned very hard throughout the state for House candidates and put his money where his mouth was, to boot.

          They should put his major agenda items first and, then, once those are completed, they can get going on RTW. At that time, the Dems won’t have anything to hold hostage.

          • Right Reason

            They get creamed the next election, the GOP gains the seats to make their own quorum, and we get it all next session.

            The republicans have the governorship and both legislative houses. How does that equal not having the numbers?

            Republicans don’t get re-elected by doing what the OTHER side wants.

            The bottom luine is that Daniels’ position is to let the Democrats set the legislative agenda while they are in the minority.

          • LibertarianHawk

            The Democrats fiercely oppose the agenda he seeks. That’s the reason he needed a Republican majority to get it and why he campaigned so hard to that end.

            He’s wanting to set the agenda — not the Democrats.

            The thing is: if they do go hard after RTW and his agenda gets lost in the process (and RTW doesn’t pass anyway), well, let’s say it puts a monkey wrench in his plans.

            And, yes, his plans do matter here — and I’m pretty sure everybody involved knows it. That precludes him from putting an end to all this by merely saying “Don’t even bother, I’ll veto it if you do pass it.” His saying that would end his political career — and, besides, why veto something you support?

            I’m betting the House Republicans will eventually yield to him on this. A number of them — especially the new ones — owe their seats to him. And I think it’s enough to fracture Republican unity on the issue.

    • LibertarianHawk

      People are interpreting this as his not supporting Right-to-Work. That is simply not the case.

      He would sign it if the GA passes it.

      What’s at issue here is where it is on his list of priorities. He really, REALLY wants to get this education reform put in place. It’s something he’s been angling for since he became governor. And he’s not been able to get it through the Democratic-led House.

      I went to a rally he held for some House candidates near me — 3 of the 4 of them won and all 3 won seats that had been held by Democrats. In his speech, he talked at length about education reform…what he’s trying to get accomplished, what impact he thinks it will have, etc.

      They should make an agreement that RTW will move forward, but only after they get education reform and the budget passed.

      • aesthete

        What’s your take on Rep legislative leaders in IN who want to make RTW a priority? Surely they’re aware of the political dynamics of the state, no?

        • LibertarianHawk

          Here’s my basic take on this: obviously, RTW has been a legislative goal for many Republicans (not to mention the CofC and other such groups) for a long time.

          The push to do this now is totally understandable: it’s been a long time since Republicans have had the governor’s mansion, a supermajority in the Senate, and a solid House majority.

          It’s not unlike what prompted the Dems to say “Damn the torpedoes!” and go for healthcare reform and anything else they could shove through in the last session in Congress. How often do they get the kinds of numbers they had?

          Well, look where they’ve ended up: at each other’s throats. And there’s a reason for that. As soon as the window of opportunity opens, everybody who’s been patiently waiting for it tries to get through….and the quicker the better.

          The bottom line is: I don’t think the numbers are there for RTW. The Dems hold enough power in the House to be able to prevent it and the unions own them so thoroughly here that they will use it to stop RTW.

          What I don’t want to see is Daniels’ other agenda items stalled because they made a futile effort at RTW.

          And, to save Neil the keystrokes, yes I support RTW — very much so.

  • LibertarianHawk

    Those of you suggesting he opposes RTW are incorrect. He has said he would sign it, should it land on his desk. Let’s just get that out of the way first.

    The issue here is that it’s not the #1 item on his agenda. Education reform is. And, beyond that, he has to pass a budget — and that budget fight is going to, once again, be contentious.

    His problem with RTW is that it threatens to derail the legislative agenda. The Republicans did NOT win a large enough majority in the House to defang the Democrats. They just didn’t.

    And if RTW becomes the focal point of the legislative session, not only will it fail (the Democrats have enough muscle to prevent it and will use it), but so likely will the education reform.

    That’s it in a nutshell. If it sounds like I’m defending Gov. Daniels, that’s because I am. Governing is not always as easy as we’d like for it to be.

    Now, you can argue that his priorities are out of whack and RTW should be higher on his list than RTW. But I have to imagine that he’d argue back that education reform is possible — which RTW probably isn’t.

    • earlgrey

      I like Mitch, even though he seems to have fallen out of favor with many of the conservatives on this site.

      • LibertarianHawk

        We are always asking why it is that government — under Republicans, under Democrats — never seems to get any smaller or less expensive.

        Along comes a guy who’s dead serious about it — with a record to prove it — and we’re ready to throw him to the wolves because he’s more pragmatic than dogmatic.

        He was recently asked how a budget-cutter like him could explain his tenure as OMB director in the Bush White House and I thought his answer was perfect: some of my biggest fights have been with people from my own party.

        Those of us who have, likewise, been critical of big government Republicanism ought to be doing cartwheels hearing an answer like that.

        Instead, we’re on a hair-trigger with the RINO gun. It boggles the mind.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
          • LibertarianHawk

            We, us, conservatives, Republicans. I am one, last I checked.

            Maybe you aren’t among those who have felt like elected Republicans too often just give lip service to cutting government spending. So, if you aren’t, then I’ll gladly relent and not purport to speak for you.

            But a lot of us have griped about it for a long time — which makes us appreciate those too rare opportunities when somebody comes along who actually seems serious about trimming government spending.

            It’s why Christie is such a breath of fresh air. And Daniels is cut from the same cloth.

            Here’s what Rep. Paul Ryan had to say about Gov. Daniels as they both received “Fiscy” Awards the other night:

            “This is a guy who can show other states what it’s going to take.”

            Thank you, Rep. Ryan. And I wholeheartedly agree. We’d all do well to take note.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            And it shows. You’re no conservative. You’re a libertarian.

            You don’t know what conservatism is, what with your radical pro-abortion views, so please stop speaking for us.

          • LibertarianHawk

            You must have me confused with somebody else, sir. I’m not only pro-life, I’ve been on the Indiana RTL’s mailing list for years….and given them a healthy amount of money, too.

            You must not be able to read very well — because I’m sure you’re getting this from my commentary about federalizing the abortion issue.

            That’s a political consideration — not because I want abortion to be legal. Because I don’t.

            I’m pro-life. Update your spreadsheets.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Wasn’t it you who argued that there’s no case for banning abortion before the baby has vital signs?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            And 6-8 weeks, from what I’m reading, for brain waves.

          • LibertarianHawk

            ….how many abortions in this country take place between conception and the onset of vital signs.

            The strength of my position on this, if you’ll consider it, is that it’s entirely logically consistent with our standards for determining the end of life.

            Honestly, my interest in promoting this standard is primarily strategic (not because I want to see abortions happen in the first couple weeks of pregnancy). Because I don’t think we’re ever likely to win an argument on the logic that independent rights are assumed at conception.

            I do, though, think we can win an argument that life begins and ends in equal, but opposite ways: it begins when vital signs arrive just as it ends when vital signs cease.

            I’m a friend Neil, believe me. You think I’d be active in RTL if my interest had anything to do with seeing abortion stick around?

            Let me put it this way: if I thought we could successfully get abortion banned from the moment of conception, I’d be all for it. That would be just fine with me.

            I just like to fight fights that can plausibly be won, that’s all.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Most abortions take place in the gap between the heart beat and brain waves.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            When you support early-term abortions, and support the Daneils sit-down-and-shut-up plan, it’s hard to see what’s friendly about your positions.

          • LibertarianHawk

            Like I said, find me the number of abortions in this country that take place without any present vital signs.

            It’s virtually none.

            As for Daniels, you’re right I do support his truce. But, then, as Barone already pointed out: his truce is already in effect. It’s called the Tea Party.

            All he’s saying is that we need to be united — for the time being — around the common purpose of getting our fiscal house in order.

            Daniels has governed as a pro-life governor. He’s gotten IRTL’s endorsement both times he’s run. He’s not a Snowe/Collins/Giuliani type Republican by any means.

            He just thinks we need to be singularly focused to be able to attract the biggest coalition we can to righting our fiscal ship in a way that doesn’t sink us with taxation.

            I happen to agree.

            If you don’t, that’s fine. But don’t let that knee jerk into me like I’m some sort of RINO that has to be purged from the party. We’re on the same team — I’m acting like it, why can’t you?

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Cancel the above, and if you will, humor me by answering a few questions.

            a) Do you believe a baby is human, and deserving of human dignity, from conception?

            b) Do you make rights- and vitals-based arguments because you believe them, or because you think they’re an intelligent political compromise that would reduce abortion?

          • LibertarianHawk

            As for question (a), I’ve already said that if you made me king for a day that I would ban abortion at the moment of conception.

            As for (b), it’s a position drawn largely from the interest of scoring some tangible and substantial victories in the realm of abortion policy — which is something that almost has come to seem impossible in this day and age.

            I want to convince as many people as possible that abortion should end. And, while it would be nice if we could convince enough people that life begins at conception, I think we’d have better luck using my approach.

            The practical outcome, though, would be pretty much the same (as I’ve said, find out how many abortions happen in the absence of vital signs. It ain’t many.).

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            I regret that I took your previous rights-based arguments as your actual beliefs, and not as a political strategy.

            I was clearly wrong above when I said you’re pro-abort.

            Sorry.

          • LibertarianHawk

            I appreciate that.

          • LibertarianHawk

            Just because I don’t believe that life begins at the moment of conception — but, rather, a couple weeks later when vital signs commence — doesn’t mean I’m pro-choice.

            At present, virtually no abortions take place in that span of time as it is. The reality is that pretty much all abortions now, as the bumper sticker says, “stop a beating heart.” That’s true, as it goes.

            And, if I had my way, such procedures would be illegal.

            Practically speaking, my position on this would allow for something like the “morning after pill” but would forbid pretty much everything else.

            So, no, I’m not pro-choice, radically or otherwise.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            It takes up to 8 weeks for brain waves.

            That’s a long time to allow abortions.

          • LibertarianHawk

            You’re missing the point, Neil.

            The point is to snooker those who try to argue that life begins at birth, or at some arbitrary moment of “viability”, or at some even more arbitrary start of a third trimester.

            Abortions almost never happen prior to the onset of vital signs. Yes, there’s the morning-after pill. But let’s focus on traditional abortion for the time being.

            You’d be amazed at how much I can trip up pro-choicers by arguing that independent rights are assumed at the onset of vital signs. They have no logical defense — because it’s based on their precious “science” rather than something spiritual.

            If life ends when vital signs go away (that’s what “vital sign” means) then does it not begin when they come on?

            If this standard were adopted, it would all but end the practice of abortion.

            Think about it.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            So to be clear you’re fine with the termination of pregnancy as long as it’s early enough?

          • LibertarianHawk

            I’m making a delineation between the morning-after pill and the procedure of abortion. Because, well, because they’re two different things.

            My position on this, as I already said, is entirely strategic in nature. I’d rather have a shot at winning with where I am than to continue losing the argument with a more purist approach.

            Make me king for a day, Neil, and I’ll ban the termination of pregnancies from minute one. And that would be just fine with me.

            But I’d really like to see us move the ball in our direction, as much as humanly possible. And we’re not going to do it using the same arguments and tactics we always have — that much has become obvious to me.

            Anyway, now you know more about where I stand. And I’d appreciate it if you don’t go around saying that I have “radical pro-choice” views. The pro-choicers I know would laugh at the insinuation…as would the people I’ve worked with in the life movement for years.

            My position may not exactly mirror yours. But yours, frankly, has gotten us nowhere on bringing an end to the scourge of abortion.

          • JSobieski

            but lets be honest as a matter of coalition building. The only ways to currently fight abortion are as follows:

            (1) Funding. We can stop the federal government from funding abortions and providing money to goups like Planned Parenthood.

            (2) Procedural Constraints. We can require parental notification, certain disclosures about abortion/pregnancy, etc.

            (3) Overturn Roe.

            Once Roe is overturned, the pro-life movement will fully realize that there are a lot of divisions between us. Some want an amendment to the US Constitution protecting the unborn. Others would be satisfied with a statute. Still others would want the issue to go back to the states. Adding to the divergence of views is the list of potential exceptions.

            Until Roe is overturned, does it make sense to get involved in fights like this? The pro-abort types have a lot of people wrongly convinced that law enforcement will start storming abortion clinics once Roe is overturned even though that just opens the door to legislative activity by the Federal government and the various states.

            If someone agrees on (1) and (3), doesn’t that make someone part of the broad “pro-life” coalition until Roe is junked?

            I for one would rather allow anyone in favor of repealing Roe to characterize themselves as pro-life at this point. We can fight about what pro-life fully means after that judicial monstrosity is tossed onto the trash heap of history.

          • LibertarianHawk

            If we (yes, Neil, I said “we”….if you don’t like it, tough) don’t start thinking and acting more strategically, we’ll never get the results we want to see.

            I’m sick of fighting a losing battle. We can make real progress, but we’ve got to get smarter in how we fight. I think that can be done without having to surrender any core principles.

            I not only want Roe overturned, I want to see zero abortions happening in my country. Assuming we all agree on that, let’s stop the circular firing squad garbage.

          • JSobieski
          • LibertarianHawk

            First things first. So long as Roe/Casey are still the law of the land, all of these arguments are moot.

            So how about a (dare I say) ‘temporary truce’? ;)

            Let’s set aside the differences we have and go win a few for in the larger war for a change. I’m convinced we can — but not if we keep fighting it the way we always have. That’s gotten us nowhere.

          • JSobieski

            Since virtually everyone agrees that SS would need to be phased out over time and after a transition to private accounts, doesn’t it just make sense to argue about the transition to private accounts?

            If we can transform SS during our lifetimes, we can say job well done and leave it to future generations to either pull the plug on it or not.

          • LibertarianHawk

            …has been the key to the left’s success since the FDR days. They’ve taken big swipes when they’ve had the opportunity. But, for the most part, they’ve gotten most of their yardage from small, incremental steps.

            The “incremental vs. revolutionary” debate on the left goes way, way back. David Horowitz’s book “Radical Son” talks about it in the context of the new left.

            I think incrementalism is the best way to go — particularly in a political system like ours.

            But I think it’s important for people who have similar goals, but prefer different strategies for achieving them, to try to work together for common cause.

          • earlgrey

            shared that perspective.

          • aesthete

            Incrementalism is the only way to go: it’s what makes Ryan’s Roadmap a possibility, what Dems have used for years, and the only thing that will work in a system with checks and balances, like our own.

          • aesthete

            I thought LibHawk was pro-life.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/01/06/dear-house-republicans-this-will-be-unacceptable/#comment-96894

          • powertothepeople

            may want to take him off their mailing list.

          • LibertarianHawk

            And, while most of the ones I’ve talked to don’t agree, they’re still perfectly welcoming to me.

            At the end of the day, they know that I’m every bit as interested in ending abortion as they are. And they also know that the difference between their position and mine, in practical terms, isn’t much — because, in practical terms, abortions don’t happen when vital signs aren’t present.

            Thing is: I’m pretty confident that I can whip a pro-abort person in an argument using the logic I do. The reason is simple: everybody already agrees that life ends when vital signs cease.

            Therefore, it makes it really easy to make the case that it begins when vital signs commence.

          • JSobieski

            and allegations of being “brain dead” can be wrong.

            For example, this guy was supposedly in a vegetative state for 23 years.

            http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9C5DTGO3&show_article=1

            The body of the woman arguably provides analogous external support.

          • LibertarianHawk

            We need to learn how to argue and successfully defeat the pro-choicers, not how to argue amongst ourselves.

            I know there’s such a thing as life support. In fact, I refer to it whenever somebody tries to argue that “viability” is the appropriate place to draw the line.

            The thing is: we’ve got to get pro-choicers to admit that there is such a line. They’re loathe to do it….trust me. Because they know that once the debate is centered around that premise, they’ll lose critical public support.

            The question is what the best argument is about where that line should be drawn and why it should be drawn there.

            I can certainly appreciate the argument that it should be at conception. The vast majority of pro-lifers would argue that. I just don’t think it’s a winning argument.

          • JSobieski

            which is pretty good evidence that I concur with its substance in the greater context.

            I specifically argued that pro-lifers shouldn’t get caught up on things outside of overturning Roe at this point.

            That being said, I chipped in my 5 cents on the underlying issue, but only after establishing what I consider to be the key political context.

            The comment I made above is a more narrow point made in the spirit of a dorm room discussion. The tests of heart beat and brain function are not particularly good tests on either edge of the life/death divide.

            External machines can substitute for a heart beat. Same is true for a mother’s womb.

            Brain death is just too darn speculative.

            Let me reiterate however that as a political matter, these arguments are worth getting into. Of course, it takes two to argue.

          • LibertarianHawk

            I’m not one to spend my time trying to exclude people from the movements I support by quibbling with them over the nuances of their positions. I appreciate that they may be substantive differences, and those differences matter.

            But we are all on the same team, ultimately. At least, that’s the way I think.

            Others, I guess, don’t.

          • JSobieski

            I was actually accused of all sorts of bad faith or even mentally ill conduct just because I prefaced my criticisms of Sarah Palin with what I sincerely believed to be her strengths. My point was to convey that she was not my first choice for President, but that she was also not my last or close to last choice (reserved for Huckabee and Romney). However, my approach didn’t work. Nonetheless, its worth giving it a shot. You seem like a pretty reason-based indvidual and anyone who spends time trying to articulate a test for personhood is at least willing to get into the intellectual arena–so I give you credit.

            We are all on the same team—as least for the foreseeable schedule.

            I would love to live in a world (hopefully to be found in the future), where these differences actually matter.

          • powertothepeople

            begins one second after the sperm breaks though the egg or 3 seconds, not a difference between recognizing life begins at conception and does not start for around 6 weeks or more as you believe.

            You are the one that claimed to be hardcore pro life, but then turned around and set conditions on the stance. Either you recognize the sanctity of life or you do not. There are pro abortion people out there that only stretch the weeks out to 90 days before recognizing life and other up to 6 months. While they may be willing to protect life at 3 or 6 months, they have no problem with it being terminated sooner. Which is what you believe albeit a few less weeks. And since many abortions occur under 6 weeks, the time it takes to recognize brain waves in a fetus, you are not hardcore pro life.and your stance, compared to those of us that recognize life from conception, is not a nuance, not even close.

            The way it seems you want it, is to include anyone who draws a line in the sand as to when it is OK to abort and when it is too late as being part of the pro life group. Does not work that way for them or for you, hence why you were called out by Neil. You are simply not quite pro choice.

          • aesthete

            I guess I believe something similar, but I think our laws should also err towards protecting something that’s alive, even if I don’t think it likely that it is “human” (which is an arbitrary and subjective consideration on my part).

        • earlgrey

          They seem pretty dismissive of him.

          I know he is dull, but we willl look stupid trying to find someone as charasmatic as Obama (although I am one of those that don’t think Obama is all that smooth). We need to find someone who can project an image of capability IMO. I think Daniels can do that.

          • LibertarianHawk

            That’s not to say that he’s flashy in the Obama sense of the word. And, who knows, maybe he doesn’t have the charisma and telegenics to run for office. If not, it doesn’t speak very well of our criteria for choosing a president these days.

            What he is, though, is competent. I think that his presence exudes that competence and it’s not an illusion. He’s also a genuine budget-cutter — the kind of which we have too rarely seen in government.

            And what I like about it is that it’s not just a slash-and-burn kind of budget-cutting. His record as Indiana governor has been to look for creative ways to gain value. Some of the ideas have worked, some (like the FSSA reform) haven’t. But, when they haven’t worked, he’s admitted it and pulled the plug on them.

        • redneck_hippie

          prioritized his goals, he did himself damage in view of Reagan’s 3-legged stool.

          Whether he can overcome that is a question on par with Palin’s shortened gubernatorial tenure.

          All of the most popular candidates on RedState are excellent and their pros far outweigh their cons. I strongly doubt Pence will decide on the presidency. Between the others, their determination to succeed is their only true limitation.

          My bottom line is accomplishment. Who to back is a difficult but very pleasant task this time around as compared with the choices presented for ’08, which time has shown to be uniformly flawed, in most cases fatally. The most accomplished among them are distasteful to the base, i.e., Newt and Romney. With a strong “managerial” type in Daniels to pull away some of that support, I think they would sink fairly quickly. One thing I definitely do not want to see is one “moderate” frontrunner and 3 conservatives battling it out. If Rudy hadn’t imploded, things would have ended very differently.

          Truce is a loaded term this cycle, but where I think it should be applied is being done admirably well in the Great Debate and Ericks diary yesterday.

          • LibertarianHawk

            I guess that’s become more the case after his global warming commercial with Pelosi and such.

            I have mixed feelings about him. In one sense, he’s brilliant and has always been good on the idea front. In the other sense, moves like the one with Pelosi show an opportunistic streak in him.

            I don’t know — he’s not my favorite for president. But I’m glad he’s on my team.

          • redneck_hippie

            I came across some old pencilled margin notes in one of my books just this week, where I was glowing about the wonderfulness of Newt. But that time has gone. Gone with the wind and his moderation on especially global warming. The couch episode was pure opportunism.

          • LibertarianHawk

            I can appreciate that.

            In regards to Daniels, I can totally understand why people reacted the way they did to his “truce” comment. Social conservatives have had sand thrown in their face by Republicans time and again and I’m sure they’re not excited about the prospect of it happening again.

            But I think he made his priorities based on the reality of the moment in which we’re living and the understanding that it’s going to take a Herculean effort with as large a coalition as we can muster to repair our urgent fiscal situation.

            With all the RINOs running around out there, it’s easy to hear a comment about a “truce” and assume that we’ve got another one on our hands seeking to be president.

            I just don’t think that’s a very accurate reading of him or what he was saying.

            And, speaking of Reagan, people should know that Daniels served as political director in the Reagan Administration — and also as president of the Hudson Institute, a conservative thinktank.

            He’s not a RINO. He just happens to be pretty pragmatic in style.

          • redneck_hippie

            I’ll be watching for his outcomes after this legislative session. If Indiana receives the school reform we in Illinois can only dream of, he’ll be a hero in my eyes.

            There is no doubt that the leadership of the teachers’ unions in IL are a major driver of the political stupidity in this bluest of blue failed states.

            Here’s hoping that Daniels succeeds in showing they way so other states may follow his lead.

          • LibertarianHawk

            I think it’s fair to say that he’s been laying the groundwork for this school reform since the day he assumed office. And he worked his tail off to help get enough Republicans elected in 2010 to make it possible.

            The single biggest obstacle standing in front of him right now isn’t teacher unions or the Democrats. It’s what we’re talking about here: Republicans wanting to use the opportunity they have to (finally) get Right-to-Work passed.

            I appreciate that. And I don’t know which one I’d consider most important. They’re both pretty important. But I think people who favor RTW have to appreciate the amount of time and effort that Daniels has already invested in getting the education reform.

            This didn’t start last week for him.

          • redneck_hippie

            program in Chicago this past year, but Madigan and his goons stood in the way. It would have affected 50,000 students trapped in the worst performing schools in the city. The jackassery in this state is beyond belief.

          • LibertarianHawk

            It just goes to show how much the teacher unions own the Democrats.

            I think there may be some cracks forming in that dam though. So don’t give up hope. I look at films like “Waiting for Superman” and think, maybe enough people on the left and in the education establishment are finally waking up.

            Of course, we’ve been making arguments like “Superman” for years. But it’s always fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps people like Rhee and Geoffrey Canada are signs of a bigger window of opportunity approaching for education reform.

  • Brian Hibbert

    if they did, it would put the mail in Illinois’ coffin. IN is already more economically competitive than Illinois and has been Making it a right to work state would allow them to coax even more of our businesses and jobs away.

    Kind of selfish of me I know, but SOMETHING has to save my state. God knows the Democrats that run it aren’t going to do anything to benefit Illinois. Maybe the Republicans in Indiana will throw us a bone.

    *Not really. Right is right and the right thing to do is give people a right to work without having to pay briberies to a union.

    • LibertarianHawk

      Don’t worry, I’m sure a 75% hike in your state income tax, higher cigarette taxes, and a new sales tax on Internet merchants will bring Illinois roaring back really quickly.

      Sorry. I kid, I kid. Actually, I feel for you. In the current climate and with everything that happened with Blagojevich, I couldn’t believe Quinn won the election.