« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Mitch Daniels and Mike Pence: The Technocrat and the Intrepid Ideological Conservative

Any conservative who is flirting with the idea of supporting Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels for President should read this Politico puff piece on the potential presidential aspirant.  Jonathan Martin of Politico, in a piece titled, “Mitch Daniels: Heartthrob of the Elites”, cites elitist columnists and publications that heap praise upon Mitch Daniels for his “gold-plated resume”.  After discerning the type of pundits who admire Mitch Daniels, I am more certain than ever that he is not the man with the temerity, grit, or passion to battle the left.  Here is the opening of the article:

If pundits and columnists represented the GOP base, Mitch Daniels would be the odds-on favorite for the presidential nomination in 2012.

The Indiana governor has been showered with favorable coverage from political thinkers and analysts in recent months, most of which heaped praise on his thoughtful and principled approach to governing while celebrating his serious yet down-to-earth mien.

“Of all the Republicans talking about the deficit these days, Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, has arguably the most credibility,” claimed The New York Times’ David Leonhardt in an Indianapolis-datelined economics column recently. (emphasis added)

If these supercilious politicos hold Daniels in such high regard, I can’t imagine any supposition that he would serve as the conservative warrior to lead our nation back to constitutional government.  Perhaps it is his perfect resume, which titillates David Broder, that assures the political elite not be leery of Daniels.  As Jonathan Martin continues,

As David Broder wrote last fall: “[H]is record of accomplishment is dazzling.”

He went to all the right schools (Bachelors, with honors, at Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and a law degree, with honors, from Georgetown), learned at the knee of a political Wise Man (veteran Sen. Richard Lugar) headed up a think tank (Hudson Institute), was a top executive at a Fortune 500 company (Eli Lilly), and for two terms has been a governor, where, as the mandarins’ formulation goes, all the real policy innovations take place.

I’ll let that paragraph speak for itself.  Next, he cites a quote from George Will regarding an interview Daniels had with the Economist.

“He is a Republican who had never heard of 9/12, Glenn Beck’s tea-party group, before The Economist mentioned it to him.”

Citing his gold-plated resume, The Economist observed that in each of his jobs Daniels “brought a decidedly dorky passion: a reverence for restraint and efficacy.”

The article closes by quoting acclamatory statements from such ‘impeccable conservatives’ as Charles Krauthammer and Weekly Standard writers.


This article usefully accentuates a salient question for conservatives to ponder regarding Mitch Daniels in particular and the entire presidential field in general.  Are we looking for someone who is an effective manager, technocrat, ‘Mr. Fix It’, with a quasi-conservative predisposition?  Or, are we looking for a passionate ideologically galvanized conservative leader who understands the political battles that confront him/her and will not compromise those values for the sake of “fixing problems” and “getting things done”?

There is a gargantuan difference between the two prototypes.  The conservative technocrat is a problem solver, or manager first, a conservative second.  He will be willing to compromise on “bi-partisan” solutions for the sake of fixing a problem.

Consequently, someone like Daniels advocates the perpetuation, entrenchment, and exacerbation of the current unconstitutional Social Security system by requiring workers to retire later in order to receive their hard earned money.  Raising the retirement age or income exemption limit might be a prudent way of temporarily fixing the entitlement apocalypse (until they squander the money again).  Unfortunately, it does nothing to advance liberty, prosperity, and constitutional government.  In fact, it grants the left an interminable opportunity to control the very destiny of the American worker while leaving billions of dollars out of the economy.  In other words, the Social Security quandary is not a technocratic budget enigma that merely requires a steady-handed manager to achieve its solvency.  It is a a core problem with the role of government that can only be solved by a committed constitutional conservative.

The same technocratic predilection that motivates Governor Daniels to advocate his version of Social Security reform, had led a similar politician and presidential aspirant, Mitt Romney, to implement Romney Care in Massachusetts with alacrity.  Romney always speaks rapturously about his success in bringing together the preeminent health care experts in Massachusetts to solve the problems with health insurance.  Well, he “fixed the problem” by implementing an individual mandate that is as flagrantly unconstitutional as that of Obama Care.  If we elect a Republican whose desire to problem solve overshadows his conservatism, we will be confronted with unpredictable and inadmissible policy solutions.

These politicians are cut from the same cloth as those who gave us TARP and the Obama “tax deal”.  They are also the same ones who will demand we raise the debt ceiling.  After all, they must protect us from impending doom by harnessing their mature, steady-handed managerial skills to implement bi-partisan solutions.

What Republican technocrats lack in terms of conservative public policy convictions pails in comparison to their paucity of political savvy.  Any conservative must understand that we are locked in an implacable political war with the truculent progressives for the future of our country.  They will stop at nothing in their inexorable pursuit of socialism and moral decadence.  The degree to which we cede ground to them in the realm of public policy, will directly determine the extent of their success in achieving their unsavory goals.  Therefore, if a conservative lacks the moxie to lead the fight against the left due to his desire to ‘rise above the bickering’, he will inevitably surrender ideas to the left.  This is where Daniels’s political philosophy has led him to call for a “truce” on social issues and “get along for a little while”.

Mitch Daniels’s lack of political tenacity regarding that comment is more disturbing than the substance of the comment itself.  His remarks reveal that he has no understanding of the ferocity to which the left is actively seeking to impose their immorality on this country.  There is no truce with the left.  Once we pulled out our so-con (social conservative) forces, the vacuum was immediately filled by the so-libs.  They never agreed to a truce, and never will.

In fact, while we have backed down on social issues, they have made historic gains through the repeal of DADT and the nullification of state constitutional bans on gay marriage.  They are actively seeking to introduce sexuality lessons into elementary school curriculum.  Even the Republican Senate leader in my home state Maryland is so obsequious to Democrats that he plans to introduce a bill sanctioning civil unions.  The reality is that the left has no desire to get along with us as they seek to dominate every facet of our culture.  If we consign those like Daniels with the leadership of our party, there won’t be any battles to fight anymore because the left would automatically win by default of consensus.

An important, yet often overlooked attribute of Ronald Reagan, was his sagacious insight into liberalism as well as conservative philosophy.  Some of his most famous quips reveal a deep understanding of the malice intent of liberals and the battle that we must wage in order to defeat them.  Here are just a few:

“Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

“Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite.”

“How do you tell a Communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”

“The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother’s body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being.”

“the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.”

To borrow an expression from Rush, any successful conservative leader must know liberals like every inch of his back.  If he fails to comprehend the grand scheme of liberalism, he is doomed to become ensnared in their traps and indolently surrender the field of politics and culture to the left.  Ronald Reagan clearly understood the profundity and magnitude of the political war with the left.  George W. Bush clearly did not.  It’s doubtful that Mitch Daniels fully comprehends the fractious intent of the left to the extent that Reagan did.  Then again, those who adore Mitch Daniels will demand that we blithely forsake that Reagan nostalgia.

Undoubtedly, there are many fine attributes to Governor Mitch Daniels.  For the most part, he has had a very successful tenure as Governor of Indiana.  His solid managerial skills, intelligence, and mature demeanor would definitely be indispensable for any future President.  However, a person with those attributes who lacks the pertinacious conservative conviction is analogous to a luxury car without fuel.  Or, in political terms, we might think of someone like Dick Lugar.

There are some conservatives who are looking for someone in the ideological mold of Sarah Palin or Michele Bachman but without the ‘polarizing’ temperament.  For those who are in search of such a candidate, Mike Pence is their man; not Mitch Daniels.  Pence often describes himself as “a Christian, a Conservative and a Republican, in that order”.  It was his social values and conservatism that imbued him with the intransigence to vote against No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drugs, TARP, and the Obama tax/unemployment deal.  His conservative values trumped the desire to strike a bi-partisan solution to solve problems created by Democrats.  And yes, not only has he heard of the 9/12 rally, he was the only elected official to address that gathering.

There is no doubt that in light of the destruction a century of progressivism has wrought on our nation, we will need an innovative and effective problem solver.  In the wake of Obama’s assault on our prosperity, liberty, values, borders, and national security, even the most skilled and accomplished manager would find it an arduous task to heal our nation’s standing in just four years’ time.  However, it is imperative for our eventual nominee to solve the right problems and advocate the right solutions.  It is also requisite that our leader be skilled and intrepid in political battle in order to thwart the left from their natural success.  The Republican who “rises above partisan rabble” will inevitably lose to the Democrats, who thrive and persevere through visceral partisanship.  After all, what good is a conservative Mr. Fix It if he can never overcome the Democrats and achieve the opportunity to dazzle us with his brilliance in office?

Cross-posted to Red Meat Conservative

COMMENTS

  • bobmontgomery
  • redneck_hippie

    I had read the (cough! cough! choke! choke!) politico article this morning. I hear you on every point you make. I understood Mr. Martin to be waving the war flag to alert tea partiers to the fact that Daniels is a (gasp!) elitist. The article is no puff piece. It was intended and seems to have achieved its purpose.

    Funny, I never thought of myself as a technocrat-loving elitist-worshiper. If so, well so be it. Could be I am comparing Illinois hell to Indiana. Guess that makes me a pragmatist as well. Oh the horror!

    • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

      This politico piece did not really inform me with anything new about Daniels. It just highlighted something that bothered me about him since he made the comments about a truce on social issues. He just strikes me as the type to at least partially acquiesce to the left in order to achieve certain results. Look, there have been some very good conservatives that have made such mistakes. Think of Paul Ryan and his support for TARP. I never called Daniels a RINO, as he certainly is a conservative. I just don’t believe that he is committed to conservatism enough to stand the pressure against the left in DC. He is an excellent Governor in Indiana, but I just feel that somebody like Mike Pence could be trusted more to be down for the struggle against the left.

      • JSobieski

        why not cite an article discussing something he actually did or actually said rather than citing an article about what leftist media types say about Daniels.

        By basing the diary on a Politico article without any specific reason for doing so except the fact that the word “elite” is used, you seem to giving credence to what the MSM says about our candidates.

        If your real purpose was to discuss the Daniels “truce” comments, why not just talk about that?

  • JSobieski

    A bunch of liberals say Daniel’s is the candidate of the elites (which in a tea party world is clearly intended to hurt his chances), and like obedient little puppies we just buy into it.

    Daniel’s record and policies is very much in line with what the tea party wants. He is not someone who particularly enjoyed his time in DC or was interested in getting invited to the “right” cocktail parties.

    He is as frugal as they come, and his mild temperment is something that appeals to independents.

    There are reasons to knock Daniel’s, but the Politico and NYT’s characterizing him as candidate of the elites is not one of them.

    I for one wont let the Politico, the NYT, or any other leftist media influence who I support.

    • redneck_hippie

      If I recall, the final paragraph or so of the liberal politico article was stating that Daniels doesn’t stand a chance (in so many words.)

      I haven’t been sold on any candidate but I certainly wouldn’t knock one off my list because Jonathan Martin tells me I should.

      • JSobieski

        Jonathan Martin, the NYT, and others want to paint the race as being between Romney, Huckabee, and Palin. Looking to such sources, quoting their assessments on the viability of candidates, etc just seems like pointless exercise.

        Any time the MSM paints an ideas guy as an elitist you have to consider the converse—they are saying the tea party which “hates elitists” must have no ideas. Outside the arena of policy wonkiness, Daniel’s is no elitist (which is to say, he is an elitist in a good way, not a bad way).

        • redneck_hippie
          • redneck_hippie

            I didn’t see any mention by Martin of the Christ-centered school that Mr. and Mrs. Daniels founded. It was in the Weekly Standard piece, so it could be that Mr. Martin possibly cast his net narrowly. But since when did anyone believe anything they read in politico anyway.

          • aesthete

            I think that the NYT would like for the broad right to be seen as reflexively anti-reason: all the better for the left to claim a monopoly on intelligence and rational thought. That, is, of course, ridiculous: as the vanguard of classical Western society and values, a conservative who is not rational betrays much of what he purportedly espouses. In like manner, the heirs of Romanticism, Post-Modernism, and socialism are hardly followers of reason. Some segments of the right seem to have bought into this lie: polish and preparation automatically become a sign of elitism, and intelligence the handmaiden of liberals. Daniels is many things, but elitist is not one of them: riding around a state in a motorbike and sleeping in the houses of Hoosiers who would house him is the opposite of what an elitist would do. Daniels keeps a low profile concerning his personal life, does his job well and conservatively, and explains why he is doing what he is doing to his clients (the voters) with respect and without condescension: that sounds more in keeping with the average American.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            a very small group of elitists in politics and the chattering class and that the vast majority of the American people are basically conservatives and that the disproportionate news coverage that treats all views as equally valid masks that reality. Too many elected republicans and most all elected Democrats play to themselves and protect their own hides by making sure their membership in the Ruling Class is secure.

            Very few in the public share such priorities. They want results in the pocketbook and now seem to have been re-educated in the reality that liberal economics don’t work.

          • redneck_hippie

            to the left’s assumed position of superiority. That the broad American psyche is humble, law-abiding, hard-working, tolerant, courageous….and we submit only to our higher power……is to be at best exploited, and at worst oppressed.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • JSobieski

            if we aren’t careful, we will end up letting the MSM succeed in characterising the right as being anti-intellectual, which would be a truly dispicable outcome.

            I know several reachable independents who vote R at least half the time who would agree with the characterization of R’s being not only unintellectual, but anti-intellectual

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            The numbers of liberals that actually believe that tripe are small inho. I think the Leftist intellectual egg heads were first discredited by Nixon thru Hiss and by how they lost Eastern Europe and China etc. They made a small comeback that was a not insignificant part of their victories in 1968 and 1976, but not much since except arguably in 2008. But I think the overwhelming factors were really Vietnam, Watergate and Bush/McCain moderation/recession, and not any result of MSM success on the intellectual prowess supposition.

            I suspect that anyone that thinks the Dems are the intellectual alternative given their results, is probably masking their social liberalism thru that device.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

            are exactly what we need. But they must be the right ideas and solutions that are grounded in pro growth constitutional principles. Tort reform, ANWR, private accounts for SS, medicare vouchers, are all good ideas. TARP, expanding SS, and these other things are not good ideas. As I said, there is a lot to like about Daniels and I would certainly have more confidence in him than a George Bush Republican. I just don’t think that he should be the number one choice in light of his political temperament and especially when there is another Hoosier who has all of his attributes and considers himself part of the movement.

            Then again, he might let us know within the week that he is not planning to run anyway.

          • Scope

            as I usually enjoy reading what you write. I also appreciate your reply here, with your attempt to bring the conversation/debate back to the meat of your article, which I understand to be the difference between small c and large C conservatism, or conservative the noun as opposed to conservative the adjective. We’ve had those discussions here in the past. A candidates style of governance will surely depend on where they fall on the scale between the two descriptions. Small c conservatism is in your bones, not just on your lips as seems to be the case with many of the large C’s. I find it funny that at one time, to call yourself a C/conservative was something that not many were willing or able to admit out loud, it had many negative connotations. Now, everyone can’t run fast enough to claim that title. Mike Pence, in his speech to the Values Voters Summit in September said, “I love to say that I am a conservative, but I’m not in a bad mood about it.” Pence is a small c conservative, and has voted, and conducted himself that way throughout his life.

            I thought it was interesting that the discussion became about the MSM, and Politico, trying to choose our candidates for us. I agree with GC above when he says that the MSM doesn’t have the power to influence the masses that it once may have had. If you are a liberal, and you rely on any of the left MSM TV channels or websites, to make up your mind about who you will vote for, or not, chances are virtually nil in that you will ever be coaxed or convinced that anything other than liberalism is valid. No one will ever pull them under our tent. I really couldn’t care less what is written at Politico or the NYT.

          • http://redmeatconservative.blogspot.com/ dhorowitz3

            I agree that he is certainly not an elitist and I never referred to him as one in the diary. Is someone like Mike Pence who has been down for the struggle would have a resume like this I wouldn’t bat an eye lash. There is no inherent problem with an IV league education.

            I am just a bit concerned about his desire to solve things over implementing conservative ideas and fighting the left. We shouldn’t reward the democrat’s for bankrupting their own unconstitutional program by forcing people to wait until they are 70 in order to receive their hard earned money. The point I was making is that his temperament lends itself to non partisan solutions. Would raising the retirement age help the budget? Certainly. But it is flagrantly unfair. (I am a bit biased as I am a young worker). The reality is that in an ideal world we wouldn’t need our leader to engage in a partisan warfare. But heck, we have the Democrat Party who will not rest until they achieve their desired plans.

            With that said, Daniels would be much better than anything we have had since Reagan. It is pretty disconcerting to think that since hi departure, our nominees have been Bush Sr., Dole, Bush Jr., and McCain! So I’d take Daniels any day over those Republicans. I just feel that we can do better for the reasons stated in the diary.

          • JSobieski

            I would be very surprised if you could produce a link to support that proposition.

          • Scope

            dhorowitz mouth. I believe the point that dhoroqwitz is trying to make is that Daniels will more likely go along with keeping the entitlement programs alive, but with a few tweeks here and there, such as raising the SS retirement age, and maybe means testing etc. The difference is that someone like a Pence, or a small c conservative, will surely go along with those tweeks very temporarily, but look at the longer term, and the insolvency of the entitlements, and work to implement policy that will eventually take those programs away from government control, and send them over to the private sector. Perhaps Daniels would as well, but, I do agree with the analysis of him being more the manager who can only “get things done” by working in a bi-partisan fashion, as McCain would say. Daniels appears to be a results oriented administrator, which in and of itself is not always a bad thing, depending on where you are working, and what you are trying to achieve. There is no question that the left is going more left, and the right is going more right. That means there is little room to negotiate, and to move a conservative agenda along to any degree when you are willing compromise in order to achieve any results. The right has always been willing to give up many of it’s core principles in order to “get something done.”

            As to Pence’s position on SS reform, I am sure he would be willing to increase the SS age as just a small first step to moving it out of the governments control. You can’t just jump from A to Z. Pence has said that he agrees with much of Ryan’s Roadmap, and particularly with his ideas for entitlement reform, which includes privatizing SS and Medicare. Isn’t that what many conservatives want to work towards? Ryan’s Roadmap was discussed here, and in many other places. Many agree that some of the ideas are positive and can be accomplished. There are also portions of Ryan’s Roadmap that are not considered feasible or even desirable.

            http://mikepence.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=772&Itemid=67

            http://dccc.org/newsroom/entry/mike_pence_reaffirms_republican_plan_to_privitize_social_security_and_medic/

          • aesthete

            to attempt to pursue large-scale privatizations where they can, and to support Ryan’s Roadmap. Both have expressed support for the Roadmap, and Daniels has privatized many government functions in IN during his tenure (roads and several others; his priority right now is to pass a school choice bill), and has the best record of any governor regarding healthcare (having implemented HSAs in IN). Pence does not have such a record, but he has consistently voted against the excessive spending of both parties in a principled fashion, and has expressed enthusiasm for the idea in his public statements.

          • Scope

            of Ryan’s Roadmap from what I can find. He supports the entitlement reform portion in particular, especially with respect to privitization. He doesn’t support the whole thing lock stock and barrel. If you have any other info as to his total support I would love to read it. Many agree that there is both good and bad in the plan. If I am not mistaken, the only one I’ve read that supports the whole shebang is Palin.

          • aesthete

            I just know that Pence and Daniels have supported the broad outlines of Ryan’s Roadmap for a while, and that Palin recently wrote an OP in the WSJ in support of it. Ryan himself considers both Pence and Daniels allies.

          • JSobieski

            TARP is one fissure—a once in a lifetime fissure. Only one of the three has actually succeeded reducing spending.

            Not sure why people are so eager to follow the MSM media’s lead in characterizing Daniels as a elitist or a technocrat, but I guess some people just like to trust the MSM more than they should.

            Don’t we want to reduce government spending by rolling public sector employees into HSAs for health insurance and remove the ability of public sector employees to collectively bargain. Not sure when actual accomplishments became bad on a political resume, but the country would very well off if we could translate what has happened in Indiana to the US.

            If actually being a proven commodity makes Daniels a technocrat, then I guess I am not opposed to technocrats.

            Who do you want to perform your high risk surgery, someone with a proven record of doing it successfully, or someone with a lot of promise for whom you will be patient #1?

            I am disappointed that folks here at RS are so willing to embrace labels created by the MSM. Very disappointing.

          • Scope

            You didn’t like dhorowitz’s post from the get go, and that’s fine you don’t have to agree with what you don’t agree with obviously. You have made your support for Daniels known just as I have made my support of Pence known, and bj has made his support of Palin known. One thing I find interesting is that you are now using an excuse that I have seen used here, quite often actually by one of those named, in saying that people are just buying into the MSM propaganda, or are adding to it. You didn’t think that a worthy argument when it was used before, but, now you have adopted that same ploy yourself. Your several angry toned posts here in this thread alone sound like you are shouting in frustration at the audacity of some to not see in Daniels what you do.

            It seems that you are angry because some aren’t on the same page with you in supporting Daniels. I also felt very frustrated when you and others posted your negative opinions and reservations about Pence. I’m sure the Palin supporters were very frustrated when you kept asking them for more information about her than they were willing to give.

            This is exactly the kind of thing that keeps happening when anyone posts something favorable about a candidate, or something unfavorable about a candidate. This is the kind of comments section that winds up with 200 angry, argumentative comments. This is the kind of, shall I say, heated discussion that I no longer want to be a part of. This is not constructive or educational, it is simply arguing. No one has accomplished changing anyone else’s mind away from or to who they personally have chosen to support, yet the bumpy wheel keeps going round and round. Sorry I set you off with my comment.

          • aesthete
          • JSobieski

            The evidence suggests that Daniels, Pence, and Ryan are quite close in their economic policies. Both Daniels and Pence have gone out of their way to praise the roadmap. Both Pence and Ryan and praised Daniels on HSAs and cutting spending generally.

            People make assertions, I response with —any evidence?

            If there is evidence, bring it.
            If there are specifics, identify them.

            That is what debate is about. Its not about being right or being wrong—its about testing the validity of a hypothesis and getting closer to truth.

            I do get a little frustrated when conservatives buy into labels of our candidates created by the MSM. But that is their choice. I choose to make my decisions based on facts and analysis.

            If quoting what someone says and asking that they back it up is provocative, then I am provocative.

            I was accused of putting words in people’s mouths, so I quoted directly.

            I quote directly, and I am accused of being angry.

            I am engaging in a fact-based discussion. Arguing about the speaker, the speaker’s state of mind, etc is irrelevant to the logic of the conclusion.

            I gave specific reasons why Pence is good in some ways, and bad in others.

            I didn’t cite MSM tripe in addressing Pence’s weaknesses or Palins.

            I choose not to embrace the MSM labels. Everyone else is of course free to do what they wish.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            discussions by limiting discussions of 2012 this far out.

            I do! smile

            I love when elections are over so that I can discuss substantive issues more often.

          • JSobieski

            Pence, Ryan, and Daniels seem to be singing from the same sheet of music on fiscal matters. For people to assume that they are not is contrary to the evidence . . . evidence that is in fact, currently knowable.

            I support Barbour for President at this point, but Daniels is probably THE strongest candidate in terms of entitlement reform and healthcare reform. Its a shame that the MSM can call the guy a technocratic, and people conclude that he is less of a fighter for fiscal sanity than his brothers at arms—Pence and Ryan, both of whom sing his praises on fiscal issues.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            social issues and his flakey personality, and that the media calling his a “technocrat” matters not a whit to but few voters.

          • JSobieski

            of fiscal policy between Ryan and Pence.

            My point is simply that our analysis of candidates should be as factual as possible. Not liking Daniels on social issues should not result in mischaracterizing his positions of fiscal issues.

          • aesthete

            mischaracterizations of Daniels’ record on social issues as IN Guv should also not be engaged in: opinions are subjective, but facts are objective and their accurate and appropriate use should be a baseline for how good a person’s case for/against a candidate is.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • JSobieski

            The reverse of most politicians. I do think he more than anyone else embodies the anti-Obama (which does not necessarily make him a good candidate or a good President material).

          • aesthete

            Your opinion on something that happened (Daniels’ “truce” statement) is an opinion that is grounded in some fact. I have a different take on it, but that can’t be helped. What do you think of Barbour’s similar statements, btw?

          • Scope

            Asked shortly after CPAC last year, Pence said it was a “roadmap” but refused to embrace it. “I might take a different approach on some things than the one in the plan.” Pence has not signed on as a co-sponsor.

            Only because you keep talking about the Roadmap, I would like to add some info. To date, I believe that the Roadmap still only has 14 co-sponsors. From what I’ve read, Ryan was hoping to gain more sponsors with the new incoming 112th Congress. Some statements from some of the new members-

            Allen West- “”I think it’s a good start; it’s not perfect. We have to be able to be flexible.”

            Christie Noem- “I like portions of the Roadmap, such as the caps on spending, but beyond that, I haven’t explored it too far.”

            Steve Chabot- “We are still studying it, what the implications might be for the budget. I’m not ready to announce, but there may be some things we have problems with. We need more time.”

            I understand that many Republicans may not have wanted to vocally support the Roadmap, especially the entitlement reforms contained within it, so close to the mid-terms. I also believe that the VAT idea contained in it, and yes, it is a VAT, may have had some withholding support. The VAT was a widely unacceptable part of the Debt Commission plan, on both sides.

            I have gone back and reread EE’s diary about the Roadmap, not long after the second version was released last year. He acknowledges that there are some good things in it. His biggest problem with it though seemed to be it’s comprehensiveness. If I am not mistaken, each portion of the plan is interdependent on all of the other portions, in order for it to do the job of balancing the budget by 2058. It seems that it cannot stand as a buffet, where only the good sections can be gleaned out, and the rest discarded. I also am not so confident in any government plan that takes 30-40 years or more to reach it’s goal. No one can possibly know where the country will be, or what will have taken place before that time period, and to lock into a plan that will take that long to accomplish it’s goals is unrealistic, in my opinion. I have some further reservations with the Roadmap-

            In a WSJ article, Sarah Palin wrote that she supports the Ryan Roadmap. Some of the reasons of why she supports it are the very reasons I have questions about it. With respect to the SS and Medicare portions of the plan she cited “Those below 55 are offered a choice: They can remain in the traditional government run system or direct a portion of their payroll taxes to personal accounts, owned by them, managed by ” the SS administration”, and guaranteed by the federal government.” My problem with that is- If we are trying to move to a “private” SS system, why is there still a choice to stay in the government system, seemingly without any total switchover date. I read private to mean, managed by a private sector entity, not the government. Why can’t there be a plan where the government stops deducting the SS or medicare tax, except what is needed to meet the current obligations promised? Why is the government still involved at all with the collection of the private portion, and holding it until you are of age to be qualified to use it? Why can’t the same type of plan be formulated such as the HSA’s, where you have your own account, and control over it?

            Palin also favors the Roadmap tax plan, including the VAT portion. She said- “It contains a radically simplified new income tax system that people can opt into if they wish. The Roadmap would also replace our high and anti-competitive corporate income tax with a business consumption tax of just 8.5%” There’s that opt in rhetoric again. If we continue with both the current and the new tax plan, don’t we then have to moniitor two different tax systems? Don’t we already have a problem with the overreaching and overly burdensome IRS? Don’t we want to simplify the tax code, get rid of many of the federal government workers, and reduce the IRS necessary budget? She also has bought into a VAT, by her own words in the WSJ article. Again, when the possibility of a VAT came up with the Debt Commission, which may have in fact been Ryan’s recommendation, as he was on the commission, it was widely rejected, not only by the Democrats but by a majority of Republicans as well. From Palin’s wording in the article she talks first about the simplified income tax proposal, and then talks about the VAT. I may be mistaken, but Palin seems to be supporting both the income tax, and a new VAT tax. I understand Daniels also supports the possibility of a VAT. Palin’s final words are- “Is Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap perfect, of course not, no government plan ever is.

            In summary- The Roadmap takes 30-40 years to accomplish the goal of balancing the budget. The Roadmap keeps the government in control of the entitlements, seemingly throughout all those years, seemingly without switching them, or some of them, over to the private sector. From Palin’s statements, it appears that she is in agreement with keeping everything in government control.

            http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009322838245628.html

            I don’t have the link right now, but you can read an article at the Hill today where Bernie Sanders is pushing hard for a vote in the Senate on Ryan’s Roadmap, in it’s current form. That will be disastrous, but, one of the possible unintended consequences of pushing a total plan, before it can even be decided on by the majority of Republicans. Let’s hope Sanders is not successful, because right now, I don’t think all the Republicans will even vote in support of it.

          • JSobieski

            I thought the reason for favoring Pence over Daniels was that Pence was for real radical change, and Daniels was more of bi-partison technocrat? Maybe Pence has more of a self-preservationist political streak in him then people give him credit for.

            In terms of the roadmap, the Roadmap does switch things to private control, but just with federal dollars.

            Medicare becomes a voucher to individuals to allow them to get their own health insurance.

            SS becomes something akin to a private 401k account. Maybe some would call that government control, but I would call it a private account.

            It does take years for the roadmap to complete the transition of these programs, which is why starting as soon as possible is necesary. The Roadmap represents the most right-ward plan for dealing with the entitlement reform that currently exists.

            Some have endorsed it. Others have shied away from doing so.

            I look forward to Pence putting something as good or even better. Until that happens, the fact that Daniels supports the Roadmap and Pence does not suggests that Daniels is actually more of radical reformer then Pence is. Pence is clearly more concerned about having a political future than Daniels is.

            Not saying thats a bad thing (Presidents need a surivival instinct).

            Sanders wants to push a vote because reforming entitlements is not popular, which is why Pence wont come out on the record endorsing the Roadmap or be specific about his issues with it.

          • aesthete

            In fairness to Pence, he is being seen more and more as a Republican Congressional leader, and if Republicans in the House are too emphatic in their support of Ryan’s plan, or any other plan, they run the risk of having the Dems run a “the poor and old will subsist on cat food” campaign as they did in Newt’s time. Whether it’s justified or not, Republicans are quite sensitive to such charges and to their political impact, and are holding their cards close to their chest for now — a good thing, IMO, as they will not be able to do anything with Obama as Prez, anyways. By expressing support for the ideas within Ryan’s plan, Pence and other conservatives can get the conversation on entitlement reform started in a way that allows them to push the ball in the Dems’ court and the public consciousness without having the focus be on a specific plan. That is not a valid excuse for Bush-era big spenders like Boehner (who recently said that “nothing comes to mind” as a response to what he believed should be cut from government), but for consistent conservatives like Pence, I believe that it makes a good deal of sense. Mitch Daniels and Palin have no such problems, and at any rate (judging from his “truce” statement), political strategery does not seem to be Daniels’ forte.

            Given that both pols have been banging the drum on entitlement reform for quite some time (both during the horrid Bush years), I imagine that both are similarly radical on entitlement reform, and that differences between them on the issue are not significant, at least not from a political standpoint.

          • Scope

            First of all you need to drop the technocrat title with me, I never used the term, nor addressed it with respect to Daniels. That’s your argument with dhorowitz, not me.

            If you want to consider Pence a Pragmatist, or to say that he is a self preservationist because he doesn’t support the Roadmap in full, then you must also consider all but 14 Republicans in Washington Pragmatists as well. I really don’t think that is the case.

            You never once heard me say that Pence supports radical ideas, ever. Actually, Pence is more of a federalist to a degree. Do you think being on the federalist side is radical?

            ” In terms of the roadmap, the Roadmap does switch things to private control, but just with federal dollars.”

            How can you call anything private that is paid by by federal dollars. We’ve often seen all those strings attached when federal dollars are involved. When the federal government controls the purse strings, it cannot, by necessity, be called private.

            “SS becomes something akin to a private 401k account. Maybe some would call that government control, but I would call it a private account.”

            So SS becomes a sort of 401K account, managed by the government, and controlled by the government. There was some talk not long ago that the Obama admin. wanted to take over all 401K accounts, all those “private” 401K accounts. I really don’t think you consider that private. I know you’ve posted in the past that you highly favor HSA’s. The monies in those accounts is put their by the individual, not the government. The individual owned those monies, and had complete control over the account, including taking the money out of the account, even if it cost them a penalty. Do you think the government is better suited to control those types of accounts, and your money? This comment in particular sounds like Clinton explaining what the meaning of is is. Or maybe, it sounds like saying that when someone calls for armed conflict, they really didn’t mean armed conflict. Jsob, only a lawyer, trying to defend a murderer when there were 10 eyewitnesses would say something like that.

            “It does take years for the roadmap to complete the transition of these programs, which is why starting as soon as possible is necesary. The Roadmap represents the most right-ward plan for dealing with the entitlement reform that currently exists.”

            The fact that it takes until 2058 to complete the transition of the programs is a big major problem. As I said above, I don’t see any reality to proposing any government plan that would have to exist in it’s present form to succeed, as far out as 40 years from now. Heck, politics, the country, circumstances, administrations can change drastically next week, let alone 40 years from now. It’s not realistic, and, we need to balance the budget long before 40 years from now. It’s easy to say that the entitlement reform portion is the best that currently exists. It is currently the only plan in existence. I would prefer that the new House members have a say in drawing up entitlement reforms, period. Isn’t that why we sent them there?

            “Some have endorsed it. Others have shied away from doing so.”

            It is telling that only 14 members have signed on to the plan out of 435 House members. I wouldn’t exactly call that a majority, and the fact that Daniels has supported it, says more about Daniels than it does for those that have already won national elections.

            “Pence is clearly more concerned about having a political future than Daniels is.”

            Okay. Again, I would not exactly consider the fact that Pence has not supported the Roadmap in full to be simply and only because of a desire for a political future. That’s outright rediculous, and I’m actually surprised that you would even say that. Your stretching it. But, the fact that Daniels has signed onto something not so popular, and in fact widely questioned, to be not concerned about any political future. I still don’t think he’s going to run, because he’s allowed his mouth to run with some very unpopular rhetoric, that is actually campaign killing before it even starts.

            “Sanders wants to push a vote because reforming entitlements is not popular, which is why Pence wont come out on the record endorsing the Roadmap or be specific about his issues with it.”

            Once again, you don’t have the facts straight, Pence did support the entitlement reform portion of the plan, maybe not in full, but he isn’t totally opposed to it either. Once again, if entitlement reform does take place over the next two years, I would like the newly elected House members to have a say in it. If it isn’t approached until 2012, which is more realistic as the O would only veto any reforms now, it will be to Pence’s advantage to work with an even bigger majority of conservatives in Washington, as he sits in the Oval office.

          • JSobieski

            I am not putting words in anyone’s mouth. The individual thinks raising the retirement age is unfair. I suspect Pence disagrees.

          • acat

            Ever notice how some laws always have specific numbers in them? Take the retirement age of 65, for example. Or the alternative minimum tax (AMT) threshold? Or some of the ineritance and gift tax thresholds that are starting to bite on the upper middle class?

            Is it government stupidity or liberal cleverness to say that we know inflation is going to slowly increase the number of people affected by a hard threshold ? Is it a deliberate plan to increase income over time, or just an unwillingness to index the threshold to inflation?

            Is it government stupidity or liberal cleverness to say that we know medical science is getting better and people are living longer so we’ll set this threshold at 65 and allow no plans to change it?

            Life’s not fair. Anyone who says different is selling something. … and in this case, the idea that 65, which was chosen because most people fell over dead at 70 is somehow “promised” is either stupid or …

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            So again, we can load up Daniels with the word technocrat because he actually has some results he can show, but if you can actually find any evidence that Pence is more fiscally conservative than Daniels, I would love to see it.

          • JSobieski

            I would love to see any evidence of that.

            Daniels supports privatization. He has spoken in favor of the Roadmap. Why do you impugne the conservatism of Daniels on the specific issue of social security reform?

            The fact that Daniels may be a weak candidate for reasons outside of the economy is no reason to just presume that he is less conservative on economic issues.

          • JSobieski

            http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-ryan-rules-out-2012-presidential-run-talks-mitch-daniels

            Ryan apparently disagrees that Daniels is some kind of squish on entitlement reform and other budgetary issues.

            Ryan was willing to talk up the presidential prospects of another Republican: Indiana governor Mitch Daniels. “He would be a great president,” said Ryan. “He looks like your accountant, but that?s not so bad maybe.” In Ryan’s estimation, Daniels is the only potential GOP presidential candidate at the moment who really gets the ideas outlined in his Road Map and is willing to fight for them. “Are there [other] people who right now know these issues, have the principles, have the courage of their convictions, and are willing and able to defend them? Nobody comes to my mind,” Ryan said. But he added that “any one of these guys” interested in running for president could get up to speed on the Road Map.

          • JSobieski

            http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/13/pence-rejects-daniels-proposal-for-truce-on-social-issues/

            ?I think Mitch Daniels is the best governor in the United States of America. He?s done a fantastic job for the people of Indiana,? Pence said on CNN?s State of the Union.

          • redneck_hippie

            credit, Pence said the same thing when he spoke to the Indiana legislature last week.

            http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/states/IN/2011-01-18-646957387_x.htm

  • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

    the media is obviously trying to discredit him. The real question is why. I of course have a complex conspiracy theory involving Palin, but nobody wants to hear that.

  • http://www.TheConservativeChampion.org Thomas Cheplick

    This article is quite simply wonderful.

    We have limited time however to show Mike Pence the level of our support! He is set to make his decision whether to enter this most crucial Presidential election of our Lifetimes in under 7 days!! He said he will decide by the end of January.

    That’s why I am urging everyone to go to www.TheConservativeChampion.org and sign the declaration cheering him on to get into this race!

    America is in a serious crisis and we need a serious President who is smart, insightful, and a *true* Constitutionalist. That is unequivocally Mike Pence.

    We cannot afford to nominate another weak, moderate. America cannot afford this.

    Pence is my preferred candidate, who I put my trust in to make sure America does not end up as some sort of second-world big government mess. What’s more, Pence likes the gold standard! Pence will fix this ship, and do it RIGHT.

    We MUST get Pence in this RACE. We need him!!

    Major Tea Party leaders like Dick Armey to major Conservative icons like Richard Viguerie to activists like Brent Bozell and Morton Blackwell, and many, many more have ENDORSED him.

    The reason I am cheering on The Pence to get into the race is because Mike Pence is the Strongest Reagan-Kemp pro-Jobs free market guy we have got in America. There is really nobody else like him! He was the FIRST to stand up to Karl Rove to fight against the Wall Street bailouts in 2008, and he was attacked for it ruthlessly but stood.his.ground. He stands strong on national defense and fights Planned Parenthood tooth-and-nail! Principled, Christian, and he has got a fine and crisp speaking-style!

    He has fought for us, and now I will fight for him.

    Thomas


    “I did not come to Washington to expand the size and scope of government. I did not come to Washington to ask working Americans to subsidize the bad decisions of corporate America.? – Rep. Mike Pence

  • steve010

    Mitch Daniels is 5?5? and doesn?t have any hair. Every President in the TV age has had good hair. Kennedy, Nixon, maybe not Ford, but he wasn?t elected, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Sr., Clinton, Bush, and even Obama, all had good hair. A short guy without hair doesn?t stand a chance. What is he going to do stand on a box behind the podium? MSM would have a field day with that.

    Mike Pence has a good TV presence, but if you went up to 100 people in cities like Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, Denver, I would wager that no one would know who he is. Even though, these two guys have good conservative credentials , they have less than a 5% chance of beating Barry. Sarah Palin has good hair and she is tall for a lady and definitely has name recognition, but she is much too polarizing.

    We are trying to unelect an incumbent. This is a huge uphill climb. Carter and Daddy Bush are the only two Presidents who were defeated in re-election campaigns since before FDR. And Carter and HW Bush, were pretty weak running during bad economies and against extremely strong challengers.

    What is needed is a tall guy with good hair who has decent name recognition who isn?t too polarizing. That is someone who starts out with about 45% of the vote. Also, who are the committed conservatives going to vote for, Comrade Barry? So, even if the nominee is mushy, he gets that vote. The nominee starts out with most of the Red States already and now has to pull in the independents in States like OH, PA, WI, MI, CO, and NV. And what I?m thinking about, at least, is who is best suited to do that and it’s not the three above..

    • aesthete