« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Why Daniels’ Surrender To Democrats Matters

By: BigGator5 (Diary)  |  February 24th, 2011 at 10:50 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

(Via Hot Air) First, Governor Mitch Daniels has some clarifying thoughts. Which is double-speak for “ops, I’m in deep crap now with my base and I need to walk back comments I made”:

“First, I need to clarify a confusion I personally caused yesterday. I didn’t realize it at the time; most of you were not confused; yesterday I began extemporaneous comments by saying that the activities of the last two days- and I think I gestured to the atrium- were entirely appropriate. I was talking about the protestors and those who came to express their views and the strength of those views. They are welcome here, today and every day. What they’ve done is completely appropriate. It was not to condone the activities of the house Democratic caucus; which is completely unacceptable of course. Rereading my own comments, I could see how they could have been misconstrued and a couple of people did. So just for those of you who did misunderstand, my bad, but I don’t want any question left. Huge distinction between people exercising their first amendment rights and people who take a public paycheck, walk off the job, go to another state, and try to wreck the democratic process.

“The House Democrats have shown a complete contempt for the democratic process. The way that works – as we all learned in grade school – is that if you seek public office you come do your duty, you argue, you debate, you amend if you can, you vote ‘no’ if you feel you should. If you are not successful, you go home and take your case to the voters. You don’t walk off the job, take your public paycheck with you, and attempt to bring the whole process to a screeching halt. You know if they persist, the Democratic Party of Indiana will need a rebranding effort because this is as anti-democratic as behavior can be.

“All that said, I think they deserve another chance, let the heat of the moment cool I hope. Maybe if their leadership doesn’t have a conscience about the unconscionable things they’ve done, maybe individuals members do.”

All of what he says here, is meaningless. The real question is, did he realize his mistake and choose to side with Indiana Legislative Republicans?

The short answer: No. The long answer: This statement was the equivalent of him seeing his “mistake”, throws the bus in reverse and runs back over legislative Republicans again. Then, if it wasn’t bad enough, for good measure he throws the bus back into drive and runs them over a third time. I bet you anything he is all smiles and thinks he is good with legislative Republicans once more.

He might have been careless, but he didn’t make anything better. Nowhere in his statement does he give a Mea Culpa on the issue of Right-To-Work. No where is there an apology to Indiana Republicans. In fact, he even forgives the sins of Indiana Democrats and asks them nicely to come back home. When did we fall down the rabbit hole and end up in Wonderland?

Jim Geraghty rightfully asks: If the Indiana House Democrats get what they want through this tactic, what’s to prevent them from using it again and again every time they think they’ll lose on a big issue? Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma thinks so.

This battle and Daniels’ surrender matters for two very big reasons:

  1. Right-To-Work should be a right to everyone. We have something in the US called “Freedom Of Association” and people should not be forced to associate with a union on the condition of employment.
  2. If this guy can cave so easily on this one issue, how do you think he’ll act as President and faced with a Democrat Filibuster up on the Hill?

Maybe this is a good thing that Daniels is showing us he is as spineless as they come. Mitch Daniels is weak and has abdicated complete power to Indiana Democrats. If you think they’ll let Daniels reform education in Indiana now, like Mitch Daniels campaign on, then I want what you’re smoking. Now we know before we had the primary. It is bad enough he did this in Indiana, I will not let him give away power like that to the entire United States.

[Cross-Posted On Practical State.com]

BigGator5.net
@biggator5

Tags: , , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • LibertarianHawk

    To “surrender” a piece of ground means you had to have first occupied it. And he never occupied the ground on RTW.

    I understand that’s a source of frustration for some people — it’s a source of frustration for me. But I, at least, have listened to his arguments and understood them. He’s been laying groundwork for an agenda for a long time, but never had the numbers in the legislature to get it passed. He now has those numbers and he played a very big role personally in getting them.

    For better or worse, RTW isn’t on that agenda. Education reform is.

    He warned the Republican legislators to table RTW for this session, or at least until he can get those items they *did* campaign on passed and signed into law. But they didn’t heed his warning.

    He wanted to avoid this trainwreck. Now, it’s arguable whether or not it actually was avoidable. The Dems are just as fiercely opposed to school vouchers as they are to RTW.

    Still, if you think he’s “weak”, just watch him in action as he gets his education reform — every last plank of it — passed and signed into law.

    Indiana will become the first state in the country with a broad, statewide school voucher program. And it wouldn’t be the case without Gov. Daniels’ strong, principled leadership.

    • hoosierteacher

      Here are just a few of the many “mis-informed” or “dishonest” assesments of the Daniels surrender. You and Mitch’s spokeswoman really ought to get together and go bowling.

      Some of these folks are personal friends of Daniels who previously supported him, some are union experts, some are pundits, and all are conservatives.

      LaborUnionReport (Red State’s resident expert) wrote this in an exchange with me. He uses the term “no spine” -

      http://www.redstate.com/texasgalt/2011/02/23/vassar-bushmills-and-his-friend-mick-hensley/#comment-688

      And here’s a friend of Daniels from a blog Daniels is a writer on! -

      http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Thinking-About-Mitch-Daniels

      National Review’s campaign writer (and a “truce supporter”) -

      http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/260410/mitch-daniels-indiana-republicans-should-drop-right-work-bill

      MITCH DANIELS CAVES, the title (and story) from American Thinker -

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/mitch_daniels_caves.html

      Malkin calls Mitch and honory flee (sic) bagger -

      http://michellemalkin.com/2011/02/22/come-and-get-it-fleebagger-wi-democrats-will-have-to-pick-up-paychecks-in-person/

      The American Spectator laughs at Daniels primary chances now -

      http://spectator.org/blog/2011/02/22/daniels-calls-for-truce-in-ind

      Allahpundit says Mitch’s surrender ruins primary chances in 2012 -

      http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/22/mitch-daniels-on-indiana-right-to-work-law-this-isnt-the-right-time/

      Protein Wisdom calls it a “surrender” -

      http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=24969

      Race 4 2012 now says “Daniels can’t be trusted on unions”. And yes, a former nuetral to favorable evaluator of Daniels, can distinguish private from public unions -

      http://race42012.com/2011/02/22/mitch-daniels-right-to-work-blunder/

      HERE’S AN ARTICLE FROM “NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK” FROM BEFORE THE SITUATION UNFOLDED, PROVING THAT DANIELS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A FRIEND OF PRIVATE UNIONS! -

      http://www.nrtwc.org/tag/mitch-daniels/

      I can go on and on. Let’s face it, nobody is going to convince a Daniels fan that Daniels dropped the ball. They’ll make excuses all day long. My favorite is that poor Mitch can only do one thing at a time. He can’t pursue fiscal matters AND social matters. He can’t fight public unions AND private unions. He isn’t capable of handling matters as they come to him from his own voters and their majority of representatives in Indiana’s house and senate.

      Yep; we sure want a president who can’t handle issues as they come to him.

      This is why Daniels is getting ripped across the conservative universe. We have one or two folks at RS that will fight for Daniels no matter what, and I think it is no coincidence that they have “libertarian” or “Goldwater” in their names. If you are a libertarian, then fine. CONSERVATIVES have been betrayed by Daniels more than once (judges, private unions, etc) and our memory isn’t short (Daniels was OMB director during the Bush spending spree).

      I can and have written a lot of good about Daniels and the many great things he’s done for Indiana; but if his supporters are going to outright claim (with a straight face) that Daniels is somehow winning instead of surrendering on this issue, I’m done associating myself with Daniels at all.

      His followers are turning him into a cult hero like Paul or Palin. Face the facts – Walker is fighting, Christi is fighting, Kasich is fighting, and in Indiana we have, well, we have a putty cat. Everyone sees it for what it is, and I don’t understand why it bothers me that one or two people don’t get it. Maybe its because blind loyalty is so nauseating.

      • LibertarianHawk

        I’ve read most of the criticisms — and even have some sympathy with some of them (particularly the Ricochet writer’s, who basically makes the point that Daniels is too focused on fiscal matters to be a good president).

        But most of them are still based on a flawed premise: that Right-to-Work was a priority of his and he refused to fight for it.

        I can’t repeat this enough: It was NEVER a legislative priority of his. And you can’t “surrender” a fight you never took up. Now, folks can criticize him for not taking up that fight. But, being that he was pretty certain it was a bridge too far, I would argue that it’s actually quite smart of him.

        If Daniels went the way his critics wanted him to go on all this, there’s a pretty good chance he’d come up empty-handed in this legislative session….despite all the groundwork he’s laid, despite all his efforts to get a Republican majority, etc.

        And if you think it’s bad that he refused to fight a hopeless fight, how bad would you think it would’ve been if he’d have fought the fight and lost not only Right-to-Work, but also his education reform priorities?

        He’s going to get what he set out to get. Of that I’m confident — he usually does get what he sets out to get.

        If what he wants to get doesn’t comport with you want him to want, then you should’ve voted for Jill Long-Thompson. If you voted for Mitch, then you voted for his agenda.

        And that agenda didn’t include Right-to-Work. I’m sorry to say that it didn’t, BTW. I wish that it did. But it didn’t, it never did.

        So you’re a couple years late in criticizing him.

        • Right Reason

          Yet another reason not to consider him in ’12.

          • hoosierteacher

            A majority of Indiana house and senate members, representing their voters, wanted to pass it. It was apparently a priority of the people of Indiana and their representatives. Both my rep and senator campaigned on it.

            Had the democrats played by the rules, it would have went to Daniels desk to be signed. The dems fled because they didn’t have the votes to stop it. Instead of supporting the process, Daniels shirked his responsibilities.

            An honest governor would either sign the bill or veto it. Instead, he’s denigrated his own party members and caved in. As a result, the dems have not only won this fight, but are now refusing to come back in order to threaten other issues.

            Thanks a lot Mitch.

      • LibertarianHawk

        You made this comment:

        “Daniels was OMB director during the Bush spending spree”

        To some extent that’s sadly true. But anybody close to the Bush Administration will tell you that Daniels fought valiantly, but unsuccessfully, to get the Bush Administration to match their tax cuts with commensurate spending cuts.

        Daniels himself has said that, albeit somewhat diplomatically. But plenty of others have corroborated it.

        Why do you think he got the nickname “The Blade”?

        There are certainly some valid criticisms of Gov. Daniels’ record. But that he’s yet another big-spending Republican is hardly one of them.

        The guy’s a genuine skinflint — which is why I think he’s perfectly suited for the presidency at this moment in our history.

        • hoosierteacher
    • hoosierteacher

      it is a red herring to bring up the wonderful things Daniels is “gonna” do, “Just you watch”.

      McDaniels will do some good things, and he HAS done some good things. Nobody is saying he’s a liberal or something. What we are saying is that, at the very moment other governors are fighting unions and becoming heros, Daniels tucked his tail and stabbed his state’s conservatives and republicans (not to mention business owners) in the back.

      • ffc99

        Daniels are turning him into a cult hero? I think L’hawk has done an excellent job here and in other diaries calmly and clearly explaining the facts on the ground and why he supports Daniels actions. Comparing him to a Paulite or Palinista is a bit insulting. From my perspective, the only one with an unhealthy Daniels obsession is you, h’teach.

        As for the other governors you mention becoming conservative heroes, forgive me if I’d like to see them actually accomplish something before elevating them to that status (that applies especially with Walker and Kasich). A good knock down drag out fight with Democrats and the unions certainly warms conservative hearts, but at the end of the day what really matters is getting results.

        • hoosierteacher

          I don’t have a cult mentality. I’m a Daniels supporter, and I’ve voted for him. I’m pro-Daniels. I love what Daniels has done for my state. I’m certainly not a “hater”. I’m not anti-Mitch at all.

          But guess what? I don’t wear blinders when my man screws up. Virtualy the entire conservative universe, spanning Red State to National Review to Weekly Standard to National Right To Work to Limbaugh to Malkin is calling what Daniels did a surrender. (Even a site that Daniels is a staff writer for!) You can look at a few references upthread. I could have kept going too.

          Two Commentors (now three) at one site think Mitch didn’t punt on this issue. But I’m the obsessive one. Okee dokie.

          And your second comment is worse than your first. “Let’s see what they actullay do first” in reference to Walker, Christi, and Kasich, That’s the biggest laugh we’re going to get all day! I’ll spell it out for you my friend…

          WE’VE ALREADY SEEN what those three are doing. They’re taking a stand, and getting accolades from across the country (except from unions, democrats, Obama, and three red state readers). In the meantime, we’ve also seen what Mitch is going to do. Surrender and make excuses.

          By the way, within the last hour Mitch lost another battle. After caving into dems who won’t return on the RTW vote, those same dems are now refusing to return until Mitch backs down on his other spending priorities. Mitch gave them an inch, and they took a mile.

          That’s what happens when you give in to the other side in politics. They demand more. Gee; thanks a lot Mitch!

          • ffc99

            and Walker (both of whom I’m a big fan of) have accomplished nothing yet, h’teach. Yeah, they’re taking a stand and getting accolades from across the country (and I’m glad that that makes you feel all happy inside), but I’d like to see some legislation signed by either of them before getting too excited. And unfortunately, I think we’re still a long ways from that happening.

          • hoosierteacher

            …that makes Daniels more laudable?

            I may not know how a battle will turn out. But if I see one side raise the white flag I know THAT result.

            Also, this isn’t about me feeling all “happy inside”, so you can put down the snark machine. The bottom line here is that you and your side of this argument is being praised by unions, democrats and Obama. That alone ought to make you reconsider your position on Daniels handling of this matter. Our opponents (who just attacked a RS writer at a rally) are asking other governors to follow Daniels lead. If you think those opponents have our best interests in mind, there’s just no arguing with you.

          • ffc99

            no idea what you’re saying here, h’teach other than you’re completely misunderstanding/misrepresenting (after reading a number of posts/diaries from you I’d lean toward misunderstanding) the argument L’hawk and I have been making. As such, any further dialogue with you on this topic is likely to be unproductive.

          • hoosierteacher

            And it is clear that my months of working on the Right to Work issue in Indiana makes me terribly confused on the matter.

            You and your superior friends (all two of them) may now tell the rest of the conservative universe what we’re missing. I for one am finished wasting my time with you, and won’t stick around to read it.

            Buh bye.

          • aesthete

            Just because the conservasphere believes something does not necessarily make it true. Once upon a time, conservatives (and the entire country) were supportive of the Japanese Internment, and CO’s conservative governor was the odd man out in condemning it: doesn’t mean he was wrong.

            Everyone here would like to see RTW passed in IN, as it would be both good for the state and a watershed moment for the nation. I assume that everyone here would also like to see Daniels’ voucher bill pass, as it is the most comprehensive, conservative and far-reaching education bill that I have ever seen that seems like it has a shot at passing (that includes bills attempted in FL and UT). This is a discussion over tactics, not conservatism or RINOness. It’s bad form (not to mention insulting) to pre-emptively declare any disagreement with the conservative orthodoxy on an issue of tactics to be cultish.

          • hoosierteacher

            FDR was the driving force behind internments. The republicans (and conservatives) were, unfortunately, against direct involvement in the war. Internment itself was neither a conservative or liberal issue; it was a national security issue that the people of the time bought into, and SCOTUS supported. We can judge it in hindsight (as we judge Lincoln’s suspension of rights and Bush’s in a time of emergency), but people were scared then.

            Comparing the current situation is a non-sequitor.

            Daniels snubbed his own party. My opponent in this argument claims that isn’t true. It is reasonable then to quote several sources to see which view the majority of conservatives take. Whether Mitch is right or not isn’t the argument there; the argument is whether most conservatives would see this as a surrender or not. Clearly most conservatives do, as I sourced. My opponent, who is not a conservative but is a libertarian can’t understand this point.

            To frame a quotation of sources as somehow a hat tip to Japanese internment is so silly, that I’m not going to debate it further.

          • aesthete

            Your argument: “Virtually the entire conservative universe… is calling what Daniels did a surrender… Two Commentors (now three) at one site think Mitch didn?t punt on this issue.”

            = argumentum ad populum

            My argument (and I’ll paraphrase here): “Dude… the vast conservative movement has been wrong before…” *cites Japanese Internment*

            = quick refutation of argumentum ad populum

            In retrospect, I probably should have just called out the logical fallacy instead of doing it in the roundabout way that I did.

            As a quick aside, comparing the Japanese Internment to either Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus or Bush’s WoT policies is a false equivalence: whatever you think of either of the latter policies, the Internment’s origin was both racist (not “racial”) in origin, and a land grab, more supported by Governors and AGs in East Coast states (particularly the execrable Earl Warren, darling of progressives) than military intelligence. There is copious evidence for this, and the two are not comparable. (You are correct that it was bipartisan, however.)

            Back to your point, how is it relevant what “most conservatives” think about a subject? Facts and arguments are not a popularity contest.

          • hoosierteacher

            If I just said Mitch is wrong because these people say so, I would be commiting a fallacy. That isn’t what I’m saying.

            My opponent in the argument is a libertarian, not a conservative. My point to him has been that he is less qualified than actual conservatives to define the issue for conservatives. Of COURSE a libertarian will give Mitch a pass on issues like telling socons to hit the mute button or bending over for private unions. But what do conservatives say? To a conservative, this issue is going to be perceived differently than it is by a lbertarian or a liberal. Many libertarians, in their hast against “big business”, favor the right of private unions to organize, but see public sector unions as an extension of big government.

            This makes the argument difficult, because we are arguing in different contexts, different paradigms, and just plain speaking past each other. When my libertarian friend breaks from his points to argue what a conservative ought to think about what is conservative, it becomes helpful to point out what conservatives think.

            That isn’t to say that all conservatives will agree on an issue. But when conservatives overwhelmingly speak out on one side of an issue, it correctly follows that conservatives are of a similar mind. I won’t try to define libertarian positions for libertarians; it is only fair that I expect the same treatment.

            I’ve given plenty of facts and arguments; I’ve also quoted sources as to opinion. I’ve covered all of my bases.

            Now onto your Japanese internment distraction (which is fun, if not topical). You can call the issue racist, and it was. You can also call profiling racist, and perhaps it is. You can even try to pin certain elements of the Patriot Act on being racial (though I would disagree). The underlying issue is motive.

            Jesse Jackson said, in an infamous statement, that he would be relieved in the middle of the night to turn around in an alley and see a group of young white men than a group of young black men. Was he being racist? In a sense he was, but his motive is not harmful. Nobody thinks Jackson hates black people.

            During WW2 we sent a lot of innocent people far from home out of fear. Was it racist / wrong? Sure. Was there a justifiable fear of anything that looked or sounded Japanese? Sure.

            You’ll certainly recall Juan Williams statments that PBS fired him for. Was he wrong to equate anyone wearing a burqa or praying to Allah in an airport with fear? I think you can make a reasonable case for saying so. Still, isn’t Juan justifiable in thinking these things? Why not? Really now, I sure as heck don’t start sweating if I see an elderly nun getting on a plane.

            But my larger point is that quoting sources to see what most conservatives would call a “conservative position”, such as a surrender on a union related issue, is only helping to frame the issue for someone not coming from a conservative perspective. It is not defining who wins the argument, just what the argument is. And dude, really now, it in no way reflects on sending Japanese Americans to internment camps.

            : )

          • aesthete

            So long as you are not arguing that the validity of facts or arguments are predicated on majority opinion, we’re cool.

            As far as the Japanese Internment goes, I would point out a couple of things that differentiate it from Bush’s anti-terror policies and conservative support for profiling in some contexts (which I partly disagree with, but for different reasons):

            1) There was no serious threat from Japanese espionage rings. To this day, there is no proof that there was any legitimate threat from Japanese espionage efforts in the continental US, and German intelligence on the East Coast was far more developed and entrenched. Even Italian espionage at the time was more developed than Japanese efforts in the West Coast. The fact that there was not a comprehensive effort to round up German- and Italian- Americans to the same extent as Japanese-Americans indicates some level of mistrust for Japanese that was not based on rationality.

            2) The people included: according to official publications from the program coordinators at the time, even orphans with “one drop” of Japanese blood were considered threats that should be put in concentration camps: that is a completely unjustified and irrational fear that belongs in the category of fears about Jewish banking interests, not justifiable stereotypes.

            3) Non-military advocacy: many groups were quite strident and animated about removing Japanese from the US. White farmers’ unions, for instance, were open about the fact. (A quote from an organizer of one such union in reference to jobs: “It’s a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men.”) The sentiments in newspaper articles were similarly extreme in nature. From a column advocating for Internment (quoting the columnist): “Personally, I hate the Japanese. And that goes for all of them.”

            4) The land grab: there was absolutely no attempt to safeguard the property or livelihood of Japanese-Americans during this period, and in fact, the opposite occurred: almost immediately after Japanese-Americans were “relocated”, their possessions were “distributed” among connected citizens and politicians, or sold at below-market price. No attempt was made to recompense Japanese-Americans for their lost goods, or for the time that they languished in concentration camps.

            There are other points, but I’ll leave it at that.

  • http://theminorityreportblog.com Repair_Man_Jack

    I like the linkage between RTW and the 1st Amendment. It’s a shame noone has successfully sued to abolish compulsary unionism under that premise.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    …if our newspaper story is correct, the Democrats have now upped the ante and won’t come back until they get their way on education reform too (which the story notes, they oppose).

    Forget half loaf. Looks like no loaf coming up.

    That’s the problem with rewarding bad behavior, they just escalate their bad behavior. Any parent could tell you that. Especially any parent of teens.

    Time for some tough love – natural consequences. Starting with, for example, “if you don’t work, you don’t get paid”.

    A word to Gov. Daniel: when your opposition is out to subvert democracy and plotting your political demise to boot by keeping open the union money spigot, you might want to put up some resistance rather than meekly putting your neck on the political chopping block.

    • congressworksforus

      He, and the Indiana Senate president, knew this would happen if the Speaker brought this up. Education reform was the mainstay of his election campaign, and that of Republicans around the state last year.

      Now that is on the verge of going down in flames because RTW gave the Dems an out.

      As a parent I would happily sacrifice a RTW vote today in my state if it meant statewide vouchers for my kids, and the kids of every other parent in my state.

      As someone on another blog put it: why would you risk the entire agenda by bringing RTW up first? Why would you not PASS the rest of the agenda, and THEN bring up RTW.

      I seem to recall something about noses, faces and spite. This is the perfect example of that.

      • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

        LibertarianHawk has been arguing here that Daniel’s retreat on RTW was a brilliant (or at least necessary) sacrifice in order to save his education reforms.

        And now you’re saying those reforms are in danger too, not because of the obvious natural consequence of giving in to the Democrats’ tactics without even trying to break the action but because the Senate Republicans brought RTW to the table first.

        But this was obvious before Daniels gave in – he knew what would follow if he gave in – that he was giving the Democrats the whip hand. So then, why should he not have tried to save his program as well as RTW rather than throw in the towel?

        Or would he rather blame his fellow Republicans for everything? How does that improve his stature or give any confidence to his leadership at the national level?

        So what you’re really saying is that the minority Democrats should run the state and the majority Republicans have to just let them run over them because the governor doesn’t want to fight.

        And in your eyes, nothing is Mitch’s fault, it’s all because the Republicans in the Senate want to operate like they have a majority.

        Sorry, you folks have just lost all credibility.

        Seems to me there was a Union general in the Civil War who took a similar approach: George McClellan.

        • aesthete

          I’m in charge of the grand conspiracy to defend Daniels on RS, and it’s my job to make sure that everyone stays on message. I won’t let congress’ divergent opinions get posted on RS again :)

          In all seriousness, it seems to me that Daniels supporters aren’t so much telling people to praise Daniels for his strategery, as they are defending him from the unfair charge that his decisions in this regard are made from RINO impulses or rank stupidity. I don’t really have enough info to tell whether Mitch is being smart or too cute by half, but LibHawk’s rebuttal makes it irritating to read posts that paint perhaps the most conservative governor currently in office (as far as results) as the unholy spawn of Lucifer and Bill Frist.

          • Jack_Savage

            I didn’t know the surname “Daniels” was French.

            Seriously, it does raise questions.

          • Right Reason

            It has to be one or the other, either it’s RINO impulses or it’s rank stupidity. Either he took this position on RTW because he valued comity with the Dems over principle (RINO) or he actually figured they would give him education if he punted RTW (stupid).

          • aesthete

            From the outside, anyways, looks like Daniels gambled on getting education but not RTW, and like that gamble didn’t quite pan out. Dunno if I’d call it stupid, though; looks more like he underplayed his hand (and I don’t see how he would have been better off by pushing RTW if it would just have been symbolic). All the same, it seems to me that Daniels loses nothing now by supporting RTW, so if I were him, I’d about getting on that bandwagon.

            OTOH, if we’re getting rid of candidates for having made at least one stupid tactical decision, we’re gonna have a list with precisely one name on it, and I don’t think He’s all that interested in the position.

          • Right Reason

            Although, with Daniels, it wasn’t just the one decision. He shot himself in the foot with the truce and then put a scope on the gun to improve his aim at the other foot with RTW.

            Right now, I’m at the point of arranging my gin rummy hand of candidates. After the truce, and now this, Daniels is working his way well into the discard side of things.

          • hoosierteacher

            Daniels ran the OMB during Bush’s spending spree.

            Daniels was the executive director of the GOPs senate election committee (not the chair) when the GOP dropped 8 seats in 1986.

            Daniels has KILLED Indiana on judges.

            You’re right, it isn’t just one thing. His supporters will tell you he’s done nothing wrong, but they’ll make excuses all day long.

            What Daniels supporters should do is to tell the truth. Mitch is excellent on bringing businesses to Indiana, is excellent on education, is excellent on public unions, and excellent on spending (he has a mixed record on taxes). He is pretty much PERFECT on reforming government agencies. (Our DMV is actually quick, friendly, and professional now. No lines!)

            He remains an excellent governor for those reasons. But you’ll get labled a hater for pointing out that Mitch is not with us on everything. That’s a reflection on Mitch cultists, not on Mitch himself.

          • aesthete

            and it might get me into trouble, but I’m incredibly curious about Daniels’ stance and philosophy vis a vis judges. The only thing I’ve read was a hit piece from National Review, I believe, that had grave problems with its internal logic. What do you know about his stance on that issue? Serious question; I genuinely know basically nothing about him on that issue, and on foreign policy.

            For the record, I have not called anyone a hater for not supporting Daniels, and I believe that that is true of LibHawk, as well. I have called people out for either calling the guy a RINO, or for stating that his supporters are deficient in either their sense of morality or their commitment to rolling back progressivism.

          • Right Reason

            Daniels may have run OMB, but he didn’t make the spending decisions. It’s unfair to infer blame to him for “compassionate conservatism.”

            There’s a little more to losing 8 Senate seats than the guy who ran the election committee.

            Admittedly, I do not know enough about the judges stiuation you cite to have an opinion. I would be interested if you would elaborate further.

            At this point in the game, I’m looking at the big picture with the possible candidates. The minor policy items will seprate two who are close, but they’re not going to disqualify anyone.

          • hoosierteacher

            As the director of OMB, you are a voice (an expert) with budgets, and you have the ear of the president on matters of budgeting.

            I voted for Bush twice, and am a Bush supporter. But unlike some fans of Daniels, I can find faults with my own guy. Bush’s record on spending was atrocious. Bush’s primary guy on budgeting was whom? His OMB chair.

            As to the election in ’86, you’re right of course. One can’t saddle Daniels with the losses. On the other hand, being a political director and OMB director are Daniels two biggest feathers, and neither one of them can give him credit.

            Daniels only other significant experience is telling. One, he was a corporate executive at Eli Lilly (a pharm firm in Indiana). He was successful there. He was also a staffer for two liberal/moderate republicans – Ruckelshaus and Lugar.

            “Judges” is the primary strike against Daniels, and the reason why socons have had problems with him before he told them to hit the mute button. (It is also why some libertarians on this site like Mitch).

            In Indiana, a governor does not nominate judges to be affirmed by the senate like at the US level. In most states, the governor (by himself or with the legislature) picks state judges. Not in Indiana.

            In Indiana, a panel of very liberal attorneys select a small group of very liberal judges, and the governor has to pick one. Recently, for example, we got one of the Gitmo attorney / civil libertarians that helped to endanger the lives of Gitmo workers with his advocacy of known terrorists.

            Daniels picked the guy, but blames the panel. Now hold on to your hat, because here’s the kicker -

            The Indiana house AND senate voted nearly unanimously to overtrn this method of selecting judges. What did Daniels do? You guessed it. He vetoed it.

            It must not have been on his special agenda that week. Libertarians (like the ones at RS) LOVE Mitch. Conservatives, not so much.

          • Right Reason

            If what you say is accurate, and I don’t see why it wouldn’t be, it definitely moves him down the list. Like I said elsewhere, it’s the big picture that matters to me most, and this is definitely a big picture item.

          • hoosierteacher

            Here’s a good source:

            http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/259205/re-garnetts-defense-governor-daniels-carrie-severino

            While Daniels surrendered on the RTW issue, no republican is going to be perfect. I think he dropped the ball, but I wouldn’t take him off the presidential list for one thing (though I think many other people are going to drop Mitch over RTW).

            The way Mitch handled the judges isssue is so horrible, that only a liberal or a libertarian could love him. I don’t want a guy like Mitch anywhere near the US Supreme Court.

            This source pretty much says it all, but if you have to have more sources get with me. You should see some of the judges and rulings we’ve had to put up with!

          • aesthete

            As I understand it, it was a bipartisan attempt to change over to a system wherein people vote in SC Justices. I’m honestly not a big fan of that system, but then, I do have elitist tendencies in that regard.

          • hoosierteacher
  • sharonmcp

    .

    • carolina

      I could vote for him for President. I found him stable and responsible. I like his policys. I’m impressed with all that he has accomplished in IN. He has my vote.
      I didn’t realize that the IN dems were STILL out of the State. Since they no longer have an excuse (with RTW dropped)…… I have a feeling that this is going to really boomerang on them…….. and the WI dems too (by association)
      Funny how things work out sometime!
      And…. I wish more govs could get rid of collective bargaining by State employees with an executive order like Daniels did in 2005. Good for IN!

      • Goldwater_Conservative

        the powers that be here at Redstate have already decided that he is a RINO and not worthy of anyones time, or at least a confused wimp. Plrease rehash your comment to something along the lines of “Daniels is done, or He has no spine, Daniels is DOA”, is also acceptable.

      • LibertarianHawk

        Daniels has gone toe-to-toe with Pat Bauer on a number of occasions. And he’s come out on top on each of them.

        This time will be no different. When Daniels wants to get something badly enough, he’s successful more often than not in getting it.

        I know some people are miffed that he doesn’t want RTW the way he wants vouchers and education reform. But Rome wasn’t built in a day.

        He’s been a fantastic governor and I think he’d make a terrific president — particularly at this moment in our nation’s history.

        • carolina

          The only thing I can imagine is leading them to stay away with NO legitimate reason is the hysteria within the dem party over WI. All those frantic emails and petitions and protests……… have created a ‘fever’ in the dems. They have “lost it”.
          I am so proud of the ADULT members of the GOP. They are not acting all gleeful and arrogant. I think Daniels CALM focused demeanor is perfect for the times.

          PS LOL Gold H2O conservative. ;-)

      • aesthete

        have already gotten rid of collective bargaining in their states — some of our new Govs actually have a pair, imagine that.

        • Ausonius

          See this CNN interview and the comments on a pro-union website:

          http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/02/23/governor-kasich-on-cnn-sb-5-is-not-my-bill/

          The bill has already been watered down:

          From a Columbus Ohio TV station:

          “On Wednesday, Senate leaders said that they plan to change the bill, to allow state workers the chance to negotiate wages, but the measure would still ban public employees from striking.

          Senate President Tom Niehaus said that the change came after lawmakers considered testimony on the bill. He said he does not view the revisions as a compromise of the bill’s intent.

          State Sen. Kevin Bacon said the Ohio Department of Administrative Services suggested that keeping some sort of collective bargaining would be more cost-efficient than eliminating the system entirely.”

          OF course Niehaus does not view it as a compromise, because…
          IT IS A COMPROMISE! :)

          See:

          http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2011/02/24/story-columbus-city-council-firefighters-oppose-senate-bill-5.html?sid=102

        • carolina

          Walker is in a fight to get rid of collective bargaining (except for wages) in WI.
          Ausonius gives you the latest on Kasich.
          McDonnell….. is in a long-term RTW state with few union issues, I think. Someone can correct me if I am wrong.

  • aesthete

    In some states, you need a quorum for budgetary issues, but not other issues. If this is the case in IN, can IN Republicans pass (or threaten to pass) all of the social liberal bugaboos they can think of if the Dems don’t come crawling back?

    • LibertarianHawk

      Unfortunately, the tool that the Wisconsin legislature has is not available to legislators in Indiana. I wish it was.

      That said: it’s only a problem in the House. The Republican majority in the Senate is large enough that they can have a quorum on their own.

      However, Daniels and Bauer have already been down this road before…with Bauer denying quorum. It didn’t work out for him that time, and it won’t this time…particularly with a 60-40 House.

      • aesthete

        What is the quorum — 67? Are there any Dems who are particularly wobbly or susceptible to co-option? I’m pretty sure that the IN public would not look kindly on Dems who refuse to pass a bill that Daniels has apparently mustered up support for, and I can’t imagine that they’ll win through common cause with the public sector unions protesting in WI.

  • Wubbies World

    A lot of things can be said about Mitch Daniel’s in the past couple of days. A lot of it not too good, but there are a few people who still feel he is a good man.

    I do not know the specifics of his political work. So, from an overall perspective, I do not have the credentials to speak about how good he is overall. I only know about the things that have received national exposure.

    With all of that said, I will add an axiom I have learned a long time ago, and I will keep the language family friendly. “One ‘ah poop’ event wipes out all the ‘atta boys’ accumulated to that point”.

    Mitch Daniels had a lot of ‘atta boys’ under his belt with all the good things in Indiana he had done governing. Then he had the “truce with social conservatives” moment that did him no favors, but did not irreparable harm himself on the national stage.

    (One side note: I am a very pro life person and it did a lot of damage with me and the sanctity of life issue. However, I could see him still winning enough votes by tactfully handling the issue so as to reassure the right to life vote.)

    Then came the last two days. I know LibHawk and a few others have done well explaining why he is still a very good candidate and how he did nothing wrong. It was just tactical maneuvering on his part.

    However, I feel he has done himself enough damage politically that he has crossed the point where he will not recover from it, at least from a national political perspective. He may still do fine in Indiana state wide, but nationally he has done too much damage.

    I will repeat what I told LibHawk yesterday for my explanation why.

    –First Comment Excerpt:
    “I learned in my political science class in college that there is a very simple rule in campaigning, If you can?t say it so a third grader can understand it, you will get no mileage out of it. Unfortunately, the details don?t matter.

    My example is the ?wither on the vine? statement Newt Gingrich made in respects to the Health Care Finance Administration. He and the Republicans got killed in the media with the idea that they wanted to make Medicare wither on the vine. Even though he was referring to a government agency and not the program. Unfortunately, facts do not matter in cases like this. It is terrible to say, but truth gets sacrificed on the alter of political power.”

    -Second Comment Excerpt:
    “Long story short, if Wisconsin was not occurring right now, Daniels would not have drawn so much attention and [may] have done well. However, with Wisconsin so red hot a battle ground and Walker holding his ground, Daniels ended up with the misfortune of compromising under an intensely bright light and appearing to be another Republican caving in to the Democrats.”

    Now he has compounded the problem with trying to walk it back.

    Yea, he is done nationally. Though I am sure there are some who disagree with me. I seriously doubt it.

    • aesthete

      It’s too early to really tell how much these things will matter, and in the case of RTW, we might be counting our chickens before they hatch: it might very well be that the events of the past few days have moved Daniels towards supporting RTW, that he might have some ideas for how to pass it after his education agenda passes, or that the Republicans angling for RTW could convince him to prioritize it. If RTW passes under his tenure, it won’t matter what happened beforehand (from a political standpoint) to anyone but us activists.

      IMO, the truce thing is going to hurt him. Irreparably? I don’t think so: both in the primary and in the general, social issues are not going to be a big deal, period. That’s just the way it is: we probably won’t nominate a social liberal or libertarian like Guiliani or Johnson, respectively, but I think it’s really going to be more a checklist or regional sort of thing, not a defining feature of either the primary or general campaign. It offends some people, but social issues really aren’t a big deal to people outside some niche groups so long as other things are going on in the world. Judging by the foreign policy rumblings and the various fiscal issues we’re facing, we’re not going to have a time of peace: have you ever heard of a social issues “crisis”, as opposed to one related to fiscal/defense?

      • Wubbies World

        I said that the “truce with social conservatives did NOT irreparably harm him.

        You are also correct in that time will tell. We all thought John McCain was toast nationally after the “comprehensive immigration reform” bill fiasco, amongst other things, but he actually won the nomination in 2008, so stranger things have happened.

        • acat

          And the conclusion I keep coming back to is twofold – first, the media pretty much named him the one to beat .. and second, the early open primaries gave him the illusion of momentum when it may really have been Operation Chaos.

          I’m bringing this up because, going into 2012, if Conservatives want a Conservative candidate to actually get anywhere, we’re going to have to convince a lot of people – against the wishes of the Media, who remain firmly in Obama’s tank – that the Conservative not only can win, but is winning…

          Mew

        • aesthete

          It was intended as an addition to your comment, not an argument against it.

    • Right Reason

      I don’t. He’s obviously got some solid accomplishments. But he’s also done things that a conservative would never do – I mean someone who is, at their core, a conservative. Someone like that would fight for RTW because it’s obvious that it’s right. They would see opposition to it as damaging to the Dems, because they’d be wrong. That Daniels sees this the way he does says that, at his core, he’s a politician. One that more often than not decides our way, but a politician nevertheless. Moreso than making me dislike him, it raises concerns about him. To me, he can never be completely trusted to make the right decision. I think that Daniels does a lot of conservative things. But I do not think that he is conservative at his core.

      I want someone in office who I know IS a conservative, not just DOES conservative. If he gets the big stuff, he’ll get the small stuff.

      • aesthete

        A high level of scrutiny and circumspection should be applied to whatever any politician says: there’s no such thing as being overly cautious when it comes to pols. That said, I’m not sure that there are really any conservatives of the type that you mention running this time around. Politics doesn’t tend to attract those types of people: generally, conservatives work where they think they can be of most use, and that is usually in their churches and their workplaces.

        • Right Reason

          I think the current campaign process discourages people such as that from running. That being said, what I described is my ideal and is the stick against which all are measured. The tallest gets my support.

  • boonerdan

    We should all thank Daniels for showing his “true colors” now, rather than later (aka, buyer’s remorse). If you let these RINOs talk long enough, they will always show their true colors.

    Daniels seems fine for the good people of Indiana. America can do much better though.

    • BigGator5

      Yeah, I completely agree. He may be good for Indiana and people there seem to love him. They should keep him.