Mitch Daniels’s Truce

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Jacobson get2djnow

I’m speaking of just Conservatives getting along. This move by Daniels puts more pressure on Walker, which was the wrong move at the wrong time. I really don’t care if it hurts legislation that Daniels wants passed. Sometimes we have to look outside of our window to figure out that our actions hurt or help our neighbors. The move in Indiana is just such an instance. It’s time for people like Daniels to recognize that if more red states fix their budgets the country will be able to survive the Socialists currently at the helm. Forcing right to work legislation on the unions will severely curb their ability to raise money for ever-increasing spending. It’s the right thing to do and will help at the national level.

Great & timely article.

AceInTX

of course we can count on them to never leave the state again to prevent a quorum on anything …can’t we.

If Mitch believe this it shows how nieve he is. It’s not tone deafness it is nievete’!

The Dems were allowed to get away with this in Texas ten years ago to prevent redistricting….and I said then this would go national.

Oh…by the way…this is a redistricting year this year….you son’t think they’ll leave Indiana again to preserve as maby Dem seats as possible Mitch?

SUCKER!!!!

joecollins

What would Nancy Do?

Would Nancy Pelosi pull back from certain victory, and opt to run a do-not-offend legislative calendar?

http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Made similar arguments yesterday and the Danielites offered some weak sauce about the nature of the legislative process and the need to pick your battles even though this battle is one we can win.

Others defended Daniels by interpreting his remarks to mean something that he did not say.

Daniels has some serious problems if he wants to be the GOP candidate in 2012.

http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

Made similar arguments yesterday and the Danielites offered some weak sauce about the nature of the legislative process and the need to pick your battles even though this battle is one we can win.

Others defended Daniels by interpreting his remarks to mean something that he did not say.

Daniels has some serious problems if he wants to be the GOP candidate in 2012.

alreadyexists

In a time of crisis, Mitch Daniels has demonstrated that he is more of a manager rather than a leader. His retreat is demoralizing to all of us who believe that the house is on fire and compromising only guarantees that the house will burn down more slowly. Should he run for president, Mitch will not get my vote.

acat

What Daniels has on display here is well beyond naieve … that’s reserved for the first time people learn a new skill.

Daniels is no virgin, he’s worked in D.C. for crying out loud… he can’t have never, as you say, opened a window and looked around …

On the upside, I’m sure the Illinois Department of Tourism appreciates the rash of extra hotel bookings…

Mew

http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

I am beginning to wonder if Daniels is a team player. Here he undermines his own GOP legislature and stabs Scott Walker in the back at the same time.

Walker had been mentioned as a possible GOP Presidential Candidate. I wonder if Daniels wanted to take out a potential rival.

http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

I am beginning to wonder if Daniels is a team player. Here he undermines his own GOP legislature and stabs Scott Walker in the back at the same time.

Walker had been mentioned as a possible GOP Presidential Candidate. I wonder if Daniels wanted to take out a potential rival.

acat

Illinois currently has the Indiana, Wisconsin, and Illinois statehouse dems.

Just sayin’

Mew

AceInTX

and should be against the law!

At the very least…every one of these people should be open to lawsuits from constituent for breach of contract because they are failing to represent them as advertised!

http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

I think your “manager rather than a leader” comment hit the nail on the head. Kudos.

drivlikejehu

I never thought much of his 2012 chances but this makes it official. There’s an important aspect here that I think isn’t being considered- if Daniels was a strong leader, he would have worked with Republicans in the legislature to schedule this battle after a few of his preferred reforms. What happened instead was that Republicans brought up the bill and Daniels hung them out to dry, demonstrating his lack of leadership and a lack of moral courage. Republicans need to stand up for their principles and call out Democrats on their misdeeds, not betray their fellows and surrender at every opportunity.

izoneguy

Now is the time to bust up the public sector unions. There will be plenty of people that would work for the public sector without unions representing them. The public sector workforce takes and takes and produces nothing. There are plenty of other states in America that do just fine without public sector unions. Republican governors should not be hesitant here. Time to slam down the hammer.

bnation

He had the opportunity to capitalize on his own CPAC momentum and get the PR that Walker is getting. He instead chose to govern.This is the difference between governing or coalescing to national sentiment.
That is why we need him. It is very unfortunate timing because it seems as a slap in the face to national conservatives, but when the emotion dies down, you will agree that he made the right decision. He was elected to govern Indiana, not stand in unity with the “issue of the moment nationally.”

He has already de-certified the public unions on his first day in office, so why abandon the MOST aggressive and conservative education agenda in the nation in order to help his presidential chances. To me, breaking the educational monopoly is far more important than right to work. Imagine: near-universal school vouchers for any child in middle to low income families. It will lead the way for the nation. His record is far better than any candidate. Take emotion out of it. I believe he is right, but in an unfortunate situation.

chihank

Daniels is touted as the fresh face needed to challenge Obama. With his truce on labor union issues and social issues, he is making the 2008 retreads (Romney, Huck, Palin, Newt, Santorum) look acceptable. As a new comer, he doesn’t want to do that. Still with his apparent surrender on RTW, he is still better than the retreads because our whole field stinks.

I am upset with Daniels’s “New Tone” approach, but I could still be willing to support him. It will depend on how the rest of the legislative session goes. The IN House Speaker is a conservative who wants to promote RTW, more pro-life bills, and a ban on gay marriage. I want to see how Daniels reacts to these bills before I make up my mind about whether Daniels will be “My Man Mitch”.

Goldwater_Conservative

this is what I was saying yestarday. In Indiana, Daniels can push the goal post back much farther than can Christie or Walker can in their still heavily democratic states. So it would stand to reason that he may take on a different tactic than those two will at least at this point. I’m not sure that he isnt making a mistake here, but lets not get caught up in the heat of the moment, lets judge by the final result.

congressworksforus

Talk is cheap.

It’s only an issue if he fails to put pen to paper.

He may be showing a lack of leadership skills, or he may not. I guess it depends on your viewpoint.

At the end of the day though, for Indiana, he’s doing the right thing. He’s keeping his enemies close rather than poke them in the eye. Remember, as you say Erick, the Reps in the statehouse have the votes. Doesn’t matter in the end what Daniels says.

But I bet he doesn’t veto the legislation when its passed.

ldrider51

Stick a fork in Mitch, he’s done. Another RINO reluctant to do the work conservatives must do to right this country.

Why do so many so called “conservatives” go weak in the knees when presented the opportunity to act??

Viator

“Fox just reported that in the face of fleebag Democrats on the one hand and weak Gov. Mitch Daniels on the other, Indiana Republicans have dropped the right-to-work bill that the Democrats claimed was their reason for fleeing the state. The Democrats? response? They?re staying away and demanding to get their way on other bills. Hey, why not, it worked once? “

AceInTX

For what?

So he can pass his budget?

Let me ask you Genious, what should he do when the Democrats leave the state to keep him from passing his budget? Or to keep him from passing his redistricting plan in the future, or name your bill.

Is there any time to fight? is there ANY tactic the Dems can employ the we shouldn’t cave to?

Please!!

eddiethegeek

One more quibble with your math….with Deocrat legislators from Indiana, Wisconsin and Illinois all hiding out in Illinois, that leaves 54 states to go.

AceInTX

When do we finally say enough is enough…and when to we stop appolgizing for Spineles Republicrats who refuse to take a stand on ANYTHING?

LibertarianHawk

Why don’t people grasp this?

I can’t state the exact wording of the rule to you. But, simply put, as soon as a bill passes out of committee, a clock starts running. If the full House (quorum required) doesn’t take up the bill before that clock runs out, the bill is dead for the remainder of the session.

You’ll notice that the voucher bill they’re griping about hasn’t yet been passed to the floor. There’s a reason for that.

Daniels will get his education reforms — on that, I’m relatively certain.

Goldwater_Conservative

this stunt? He is praising them for their right to be the opposition party (blah blah blah), I dont see him saying ok if you come back I’ll give you X…..

Walker hasnt got the dems back either, so who is to say his tactic is working?

LibertarianHawk

He wouldn’t veto the RTW legislation. But it isn’t going to be passed — it never was. It never had a chance, and for some reason I can’t seem to convince people of that.

The RTW legislation is now, for all intents and purposes, dead. It could be taken up by the Senate (which doesn’t need Dems for a quorum) later in the session. But I suspect that isn’t going to happen.

Work now moves to the education reform that Daniels has been encouraging all along.

LibertarianHawk

Oh Good Lord. Not you, too.

If Mitch Daniels is a RINO, then we need a whole party of them. What have we come to when a guy who lays it all on the line for a statewide school voucher program gets tabbed a RINO?

You know the fight that Walker is having in Wisconsin? Well, Daniels decertified the public unions on his first day in office by way of executive order.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

AceInTX

Of course…We can count on Republicans to do the same the next time the Dems cram something down our throats can’t we?

I say again

SUCKER?

GULLIBLE, NIEVE, SUCKER!!!

AceInTX

And Daniels is on record praising them for their heroic stand.

(shaking head)

Finrod

Can’t the governor of Indiana call a special session of the legislature if needed? I seem to recall that happening once or twice when I lived there.

If I was governor of Indiana, I’d let the Dems run out the clock on this session, then call a special session and lock them in so they can’t flee the state.

bnation

Do you think he relishes in this decision? He has already come out and said that he supports right to work.And, has done more than Walker has ever dreamed of doing in Wisconsin. Let’s not confuse and merge what is going on in Wisconsin with what is going on in Indiana. It seems as all conservatives are lumping them together as the same. He is governing Indiana, not coalescing to national sentiment even though it would help him to do so. He is about to win big in education. So, why wreck everything you have worked for in education reform, prison reform, and etc in order to have good “optics” for the country.

AceinTx: Say he did stand up like Walker did (albeit completely different circumstances), then ended up in a similar stand off like Wisconsin. What would you think the result would be? All deadlines for committee and bills are this Friday. Are you willing to sacrifice all conservative legislation in Indiana on the alter of “having a backbone?”

AceInTX

Someone should be in JAIL over this!

The_Gadfly

you need to change your moniker, because you are dishonoring a noble man.

Goldwater_Conservative

but we are talking about Daniels himself. You said he is rewarding their behavoir so I’m asking where did HE give them something for their little trick. He cant control who, when and why a bill is pulled. Dont try and Palin your way out of this, stick to the actual facts, not what your emotions are telling you.

Bill S

He’s just one of the most politically tone-deaf politicians that I’ve seen in a long time. He’s turned bridge-burning into a fine art.

The_Gadfly

and labeled him a pigeon. He needed to backup his party when the Dems pulled their extra-constitutional stunt. He didn’t. Game over.

streiff

as Bill S says below he’s politically tone deaf and he seems to have lost his nerve.

The_Gadfly

he’s been felled very early for failure of the most basic requirement of politics: know who your constituents are. Only a year before the primaries start, and first he alienated 1/3 of the base that are SoCons. Now he’s alienated 1/3 of the base who are FiCons. Even McCain wasn’t that stupid.

LibertarianHawk

I can’t stress this enough: the chances of RTW passing this session are, and always have been, roughly zero.

That would be the case whether he went to bat for it or not.

Now, you can say that Daniels and the Republicans should’ve made the case to Indiana voters on why RTW should be passed. But they didn’t do that — none of them, to my knowledge, did.

Rather, they campaigned willingly on moving forward *his* agenda — which consists of education reform and reforming the township government structure.

And that’s what they were elected to do. So, if anybody’s being tonedeaf here….it’s the Republican legislators who are waging a futile battle for something they didn’t even campaign on!

Now, I support RTW. I’d like to see it happen. And, if done correctly, they can make it happen. But they’ve got to begin making a case for it, bringing that case to voters, and then acting on it.

It’s not only futile to try to do it the other way, it could prove counter-productive.

LibertarianHawk

I’m beginning to have more and more sympathy for the leftist chestnut that Ronald Reagan wouldn’t be welcomed by today’s conservative movement.

I have to confess that — and it’s something that I wish I didn’t think.

But I look back at Reagan’s record — both as president and as governor of California — and I see the way that Gov. Daniels is treated by his ideological allies, and I think these guys have a point.

We’re in love with a mythological Reagan….we’d run the real one out of the room and call him a RINO.

And if we think this will serve our cause well, we’d do well to think again.

The_Gadfly

But that too was back in the misty times of my youth.

acat

LibertarianHawk

Nobody’s going to be getting RTW this session — and they never were.

The minority party in the House has way too much power for that to happen.

They’ll have to be put in a box by voters having been presented the legislation as a specific campaign promise and voting to promote it.

There’s nothing that either Daniels or Bosma & Co. can do to move RTW through in this session. And that’s been Daniels’ point all along.

Darin_H

A while ago, Governor Daniels was on my radar for the nomination. Yeah, he wasn’t perfect, but he deserved a fair shake for the way he’s run Indiana. Then he came out with the “truce” and it showed me that he didn’t understand the Democrats (they accept the truce on your side and push forward anyways). He then had the audacity to double down on stupid when he reaffirmed the “truce”. Finally, he put the nails in his political coffin now when he didn’t understand the power of the bully pulpit – giving PR aid to the Democrats on their cut & run. So now I refer to him as Governor Dumba**

Elsewhere I use the fully term, redacted for RedState.

Darin_H

Reagan made compromises, but he never surrendered ahead of time.

runner12

I don’t care what his apologist’s say.He had an opportunity to show great leadership and he failed.

I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt with the “truce” statements. When he doubled down on them, a small red flag went up. Given the way he handled this issue, it is now a glowing red siren. If you look at all three of these incidences, a pattern of weakness and lack of courage emerges.

I do not care one iota about his “stance” on vouchers for public schools. He won’t get that passed either because he has demonstrated to the Dems that he will cave when things get rocky. Don’t be suprised if his education reforms get dropped as well.

Bill S

is acting solely in the interest of Indiana, perhaps you’re right. BUT, we are looking at this through a national politics lens, NOT an Indiana one. When you put it in the context of the Wisconsin situation, Daniels looks like a moron. And couple it with his groin-kicking of social conservatives and you get a one-legged-stool “conservative” who looks like he couldn’t get elected as dog-catcher.

Bill S

the reason we’re even TALKING about this is the potential for Daniels to be a POTUS candidate in 2012, thus the need to use that national politics lens. Without that, this is a non-issue, and Daniels just fades off into the sunset as IN Governor and some day becomes a policy wonk on Fox News.

LibertarianHawk

How familiar are you with his Social Security reform effort?

How much fight did he ever put up to move it in a conservative direction even a smidgen? He really didn’t. He never made the case for private accounts, though it was an idea that had already been floated (and instituted, by that time, in Chile).

How about on domestic spending? Have you ever read David Stockman’s account of that period? Stockman was miffed — and rightly so — that Reagan never put up a fight to get any spending concessions. He won the tax concessions, but that’s about it.

How about his signing one of the most liberal (pre-Roe) abortion laws in the country as governor of California?

Reagan picked his battles. We can debate about whether or not he did so wisely. But the point is: Reagan was as successful as he was because he had good doses of sound conservative ideology AND pragmatic skill.

I think we’ve gotten to a point where we can’t tell the difference anymore between pragmatic skill and RINO-hood.

This won’t serve our cause well, I promise you.

acat

Would it be better, then, to only have “former governors” and “former senators” etc. etc. run?

It would seem that their records are a bit more set in concrete.. and that they won’t get distracted by or from current events…

Unfortunately, in this election, it would also take some of the more appealing candidates off the table. (no more Daniels, true, but also no more Pawlenty or Barbour…)

Mew

pastisprolog

Reagan was opposed by GOP leaders on most of the conservative positions he took, from opposing abortion (can’t win an election that way) to taking a hard line with the Soviet Union (he’ll start WWIII) to federal public-sector unions (you can’t fire them). He accomplished all three of these missions and many others besides. These and other conservative positions were not popular with the, “go along to get along,” GOP establishment.

Was he bamboozled in California on the abortion law? He admitted so himself and that he never dreamed it could be used to open the floodgates to on-demand abortions. This doesn’t make him moderate or progresive. Neither does his support for Social Security. He was never a libertarian. Reagan was open to making changes that would get the federal government’s hands out of the SSA till, but he couldn’t do anything really effective about it. That doesn’t make him unconservative either.

Reagan reminded Americans of what it meant to be conservative, and an American. In a sense, he became what it means to be conservative. He still is.

LibertarianHawk

…how things work here.

I think it would be pluperfectly stupid for a governor, particularly one with national ambitions, to put his name on a doomed bill — even if it was the most sensible piece of legislation in the world.

The bill had no chance at passage — with or without Daniels’ support. I can’t understand why people don’t understand that.

You think he’d be better served to nuke both his education reform AND RTW than to punt on RTW so that he can get vouchers and charter schools?

No wonder we’re never successful getting our stuff enacted. We’re strategic knuckleheads, if what you’re saying is representative.

hoosierteacher

From my tone you might think I’m anti-Mitch. Far from it. I won’t support Mitch in a primary, but I could vote for him in the general. He HAS done a terrific job in many areas of our state. He IS a terrific governor. However, at the same time, I get sick of people sugar coating Mitch and making him out to be something he isn’t. Mitch is only a partial conservative, and is weak in many areas we want in a president.

I’m from Indiana. I’ve been following the Right to Work issue in Indiana for months, not days. If we’re going to stick to the facts, there are two groups right now. The “I told you so” conservatives in Indiana that know about Mitch’s strengths AND faults, and the Mitch supporters that keep having to come up with excuses every time Mitch opens his mouth. Face it, Mitch just trashed his presidential primary chances, and everyone from Red State to Weekly Standard to National Review to Ricohet.Com seems to get that. Those that don’t get it are falling further behind.

So let’s look at those facts that you’re talking about.

It may enlighten some readers to know that Mitch and his house speaker have fought tooth and nail to prevent Right to Work from getting to the floor since his own party started work on it before the last election. Mitch opposes Right to Work, even while taking some swipes at public sector unions. Mitch fears the high percentage of PRIVATE sector union members in the state. This is foolish, since the winds in the state and the country are anti-union.

There’s been discussion, mailings, debate and work on Right to Work going back well into last year on this. Mitch may not have been on board, but his party was. Then again, Mitch vetoed an overwhlemingly lopsided vote to prevent a panel of unelected, leftist lawyers from selecting state judges. Thus did Mitch shirk his own responsibilities to pick judges, giving us one of the worst Gitmo attorneys in the nation as an Indiana judge.

Mitch has fought the public sector unions, but is in favor (and always has been) of private sector unions. We in Indiana have been trying to tell the rest of the country that we love Mitch for a lot of positive fiscal reasons, but he WILL spit on conservatives from time to time. Despite his alleged record on social issues, Mitch is NO social conservative. Despite an excellent record in budgeting and in bringing businesses to Indiana, Mitch has also sided with unions in the past.

As for “…so I?m asking where did HE give them something for their little trick”, I respectfully point out to you making public statements about the right of legislators to break legislative rules to flee the state provides political cover for democrats. Also, the wild claim that “this wasn’t a part of our election” is not only shirking his responsibilty, but patently false. This has been an issue since last spring in Indiana AND in the elections. A lot of voters felt betrayed when our speaker and Mitch fought the republican majority from bringing the bill on the floor this year. If Mitch isn’t going to work on issues as they come to him, he shouldn’t be a president. 9/11 wasn’t an election issue, and neither was Iraq and Afghanistan. But when situations present themselves, leaders act.

Right now, Mitch has democrats breaking the democraticaly written rules of the legislature. Those rules require him to act. Worrying about the private union sector vote, Mitch is once again crying for a truce. He’s done it on judges, he’s done it on social issues, and he’s doing it again on unions. I live here; I’ve seen it. We in Indiana told you so.

As Erick and many writers point out, ground zero for this fight is in Wisconsin, and now is the moment if a state is going to have a chance to enact reforms.

audax

…Obama said:

I’ve been to 57 States…(57)…
….with one to go….(58)…
…and my staff will not let me go to Alaska or Hawaii…(add 2 more)…
..that gets us to “all 60 states”…

..so subtract Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana and you get 57 States to go!

victrola

I was a Daniel’s fan, and I even more or less agreed with him when he said Conservatives should put fiscal issues front and center and put some of the divisive social issues on the back burner. I guess I misunderstood him, Daniel’s was basically saying to surrender to Liberals.

My reasoning for supporting Daniels was, although he wasn’t the most electable or exciting Republican, he was a no-compromise Conservative. But that all went out the window. Now all we have is a mushy Republican that’s boring, uninspiring, and unelectable.

Right now for 2012, I’m looking for electability. I see no “perfect” conservative out there, and the best conservative is the one that gets elected, imo. The only two options left unless Christie jumps in is Romney and Pawlenty. Neither are perfect, but those are the only two left that can actually win an election in 2012.

Change Jar Conservative

That’s a stupid question, but it makes my point.

Daniels is strategically focused on passing the first in the nation vouchers for everybody approach to education.

No one is criticizing Walker for not currently pitching a voucher program so why are people criticizing Daniels on the union issue.

Bush was a piece-meal president who got nothing done except to make government larger.

Daniels is strategically focused politician.

He spent his first four years cutting government spending with a laser focus and was SUCCESSFUL. (Compare this to say Georgia’s governor Perdue who said all the right stuff but accomplished nothing).

Daniels plan for 2011 is VOUCHERS … he already has cut the size of government and he has already nuked unions with the executive order that Erick mentions in the main article.

In order to lose weight, get out of debt, write a book, or any other major program, normal humans have to have what Dave Ramsey calls a “Gazelle focus” on the prize.

That’s what both Daniels AND Walker have.

They simply have different focii.

Walker looks at his state and he sees that the #1 problem is the budget and that he needs to make these changes to fix it. Ditto Christie in NJ.

Daniels has a different focus.

His focus is different because HE’S ALREADY FIXED HIS BUDGET (even if he did things differently) and with the budget under control, he now thinks that the most important issue is EDUCATION.

So while he agrees with the movement in Indiana, he also sees it as a distraction and a possible stumbling block to meeting his goal.

People seem to go after Daniels on everything while ignoring a) what he is doing and b) what their heroes (i.e. pro-abortion Christie) don’t bring to their table.

But the simple answer to all of those who “don’t understand what Daniels is doing” is what I stated above.

He’s strategically focused on the biggest issue of the day which in his opinion is to give voucher flexibility to every student in Indiana.

congressworksforus

It seems that the crux of this issue is that a Republican majority in the statehouse can’t get legislation it wants through to the Governor’s desk.

For those of us not familiar with Indiana politics, can you explain why this is the case? It might help people understand Daniels’ methods a little more.

Tbone

stupid. He may be right for Indiana, but he’s not enough Right for America.

Mayhem

First, I live in Indiana and I have been thrilled with Mitch Daniels’ management of this state. So I don’t have any qualms with him. (However, that doesn’t mean I will support him for president.) Indiana is completely different because of his leadership.

Second, and most importantly, one thing the Right is totally missing on this, contra Wisconsin, is that the Democrats in the Indiana House have an absolute veto on any bill they don’t like. The constitution says two-thirds must be present for a quorum. The GOP only has 60/100 seats, so if the Dems flee, everything stops. In fact, several major bills on the GOP agenda this year died at midnight because there was no quorum, including the right to work bill that started this. More will die today and tomorrow.

The reason? The Indiana General Assembly has a very structured legislative schedule. There are deadlines for everything. Unlike Congress or other states, the IN legislature can’t just pass bills any way or any time it wants. After Friday, the state House is barred from writing or considering any legislation on its own. It can only consider legislation that the state Senate has passed so far in the session (we’re halfway through). Essentially, the two houses swap bills. That’s why the House Dems fled when they did. They knew this deadline was near and that the entire GOP agenda would die on Friday if they denied a quorum.

You see, Daniels is actually fighting to save some 40 or 50 bills that are now at risk of dying if a two-thirds quorum is not achieved by Friday, including the states two-year budget, not just one union bill. The stakes are so much higher. Everything is at risk.

Daniels cannot do anything to fix this, and that’s why he appeared so conciliatory in his remarks yesterday. The only people who can fix this are the House Dems who fled. Daniels can’t even strong arm them. They have an absolute veto, and they are using it. So, he wasn’t caving or calling a truce. He was working within the reality of the rules of the Indiana House (as dumb as they are). Unlike Wisconsin, the Indiana Dems are demanding the death of a dozen or more reform bills that Daniels has been pushing (including school vouchers and charter schools).

If this situation were the same as Wisconsin, then the Right would be justified in criticizing Daniels. However, the legislative rules are completely different here. The Dems can kill anything they want regardless of what Daniels does. That’s not the case in Wisconsin.

I want these reforms to pass more than anyone, but people are making judgments about Indiana without all the facts. The two situations are different.

congressworksforus

I’d add that a voucher program is so the antithesis of everything that the unions believe, that this may do more to turn Indiana towards right-to-work than a direct bill.

We all know most of the time it’s a fight against union lies. Prove them wrong with a voucher program (as Ohio has done in Cleveland of all places), and the rest of the journey might be smoother?

hoosierteacher

I live here, I vote here, and I’ve been following the Right to Work movement here for months, not days. (The movement is much older, but the plans for the legislation started during the last assembly).

Mitch has publicly said he didn’t campaign on Right to Work, and won’t act on it now. Mitch also joined our state’s speaker to fight to keep Right to Work off of the floor. This was weeks before the Wisconsin episode blew up.

Mitch HAS positioned himself against public sector unions, and he deserves credit for that. But in their rush to make Mitch into a bigger conservative than he is, a lot of supporters are making excuses for Mitch that just aren’t accurate.

Mitch IS excellent in several areas dear to conservatives. But he won’t give you conservative judges, he’ll actively fight FOR private unions, he’s publicaly punted on foreign policy, and he’s punted on social issues.

The folks that don’t like Mitch often ignore Mitch’s positives. I’ve voted for Mitch for governor, and I probably will again. He’s done a terrific job! But to call him presidential or conservative is to sugar coat the man.

Wubbies World

Your arguments about Reagan are reasonable. However, Reagan did what he had to do in his day and age. Reagan was not in the middle of a big government revolt vortex that spawned the Tea Parties.

Mitch Daniels is in the middle of a big government revolt vortex. Therefore, different situations need different responses. If this was 1986, Mitch Daniels and what he just did, would would be hailed as the same kind of Reagan compromise.

However, there is too big of an anti big government backlash going on in the heartland for people not to notice the big government trade off and not be sickened by it. Right now bipartisanship is regarded as a big part of the disease people are angry about.

Mitch Daniels has engaged in bipartisan compromise at his own national ambition peril. History will determine if he made the right decision. On its surface, from a national ambition perspective, he may have made the wrong choice. It is the Walker’s and Christi’s who are getting the good polling numbers nationally right now, and the Mitch Daniels types who are not doing well in the polls.

The right thing politically, is in the eye of the beholder, but at the end of the day, the polling at the ballot box does not lie.

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

He *saluted* the Democrats.

He’s on their side.

Wubbies World

hoosierteacher

I live and work in Indiana. As Erisck points out, you miss the point to focus on Mitch’s record against public sector unions. I ask you to read my other comments under Erick’s post, where I spell out that Mitch has an excellent record against public sector unions and in many other areas, but has always fought against republicans in other unions (such as how we pick our judges and in private union matters).

Folks can make excuses for Mitch (and they’ve had to every time Mitch opens his mouth). But those of us who’ve been saying I told you so have just seen Mitch as we’ve known him in Indiana for years – A good governor who’s done some excellent things, but a guy who actively works against conservatives and his own party a lot of the time. Mitch is much more McCain than Reagan, but if you’re a libertarian (hawk), that shouldn’t bother you.

Just my opinion.

congressworksforus

I’m guessing that, like myself, few people on here knew how this works for Indiana. It certainly explains a lot!

Bill S

Probably impractical, but it does kinda disconnect from current policymaking that might cloud their positions.

Bill S

Just like the Obamacare repeal bill was the right thing to do in the U.S. House. Just how would failing to pass a RTW bill make Daniels look bad? If he (truly) supports that legislation, it’s no black mark on him. He tried, it didn’t go thru.

I suspect hoosierteacher’s assertion is more the point – he never supported RTW in the first place.

Change Jar Conservative

He saluted the few Democrats who showed up to express their disagreement not the ones who fled.

Read more here:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/mitch-daniels-salutes-dem-lawmakers-who-fled-avoid-labor-vote

acat

vital0gy

*saluted* Democrates = he’s on their side

So Mitch is now a Democrat?

vital0gy

Neil is passionate with his disdain for Mitch Daniels.

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

Duh.

Bill S

you believe Daniels’ mouthpiece instead of what actually came out of Daniels’ mouth. Read the WHOLE story and not just the words of Daniels’ spin-meister. Heck, read the freaking headline.

Scope

and I believe it is in the state constitution that public sector workers cannot unionize. I remember reading a local blog where a teacher in NJ was looking to move to VA, and wanted to know about the union rules in the state for teachers. She was advised by another teacher that she would have to join some kind of national or federal union, as there are no state teachers unions in the state. Gov. McDonald also cut back on school budgets for the state. The school districts got to decide if they would lay off teachers or do without something else. They layed off a bunch of teachers class room aids, and even some teachers.

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

Once you establish that boycotting the legislature is an acceptable means of political negotiation, then you’ve totally undermined the legislative process, because that means that any minority in the future can simply hold the process hostage.

That damage to representative government is permanent, and preserving that should outweigh any short-term tactical behavior.

And to those who argued that the bill was DOA – that doesn’t make sense: the Democrats can count just like the rest of us, so if they knew they had the votes to defeat it, they’d welcome a vote. Their boycott puts paid to that idea.

I see only two plausible interpretations of Daniel’s behavior:

1) Daniel was willing to sacrifice the legislative process to defeat the bill without putting his fingerprints on the deed. Without a Democratic boycott which he could accede to, his only alternative would to publicly veto the bill to keep it from becoming law, which would kill his national aspirations; or

2) Daniels is unwilling to stand up against bullying, which means he doesn’t have the character to stand up for what is right -which means that he is unworthy of the public trust.

Which then makes me suspect that many of his apologists must be preoccupied above all else with supporting his efforts to neuter social conservatives, since that at this point seems to be his only constituency left, his having betrayed his claims to be a fiscal conservative.

(I know nothing about his national defense positions, so can’t comment on that leg of the conservative stool.)

Darin_H

Reagan HAD to deal with Democrats, they were in the majority.

http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

(I live near Indiana, and many of my news outlets are from there.)

There is no fixed choice between a drawing a hard line while standing by helplessly as the entire legislative agenda fails on the one hand and saluting Democrats on the other.

Daniels could have drawn a hard line and beaten the Dems up over fleeing. That would at least have won a propaganda victory.

At the same time, he could have begun publicly pushing those items that each house passed, which are still viable in this session, especially those popular with the public — or as importantly, with that subset of the public who cares about stuff.

Mainly the message he sent was that Scott Walker was doing it wrong, when as you say the situation is different.

http://teapartisan.wordpress.com Socrates

That’s the best thing I’ve read on this so far.

Scope

he would have to be involved in the “issue at the moment”, just as Obama has been with his support for the unions nationwide. Daniels would have to lead the nation, not just govern one state, and one legislature. So far it seems that the top job he may be seeking is more than just one pay grade above him.

I’ve read in many places that his CPAC speech was one of the less than exciting speeches.

Kyle-MI

then why did the Dems resort to killing the quorum by fleeing?

drivlikejehu

Why are Daniels and the GOP legislature not better coordinated? Isn’t that the proximate cause of this mess? How is that not a failure of leadership on Daniels’ part?

Even if everything the pro-Daniels people say is true, I don’t see how that exonerates him in the slightest. It’s his job to lead.

pastisprolog

If not, is it Hunter? Progressives can’t use McCain again to split libertarians and conservatives off and win the GOP primaries in cross-over states, but they can find a new Republican for that role.

The left is looking for a Republican who the media can fawn over and build up as the voice of reason from the right. By the time GOP-only primaries were held, it was too late to get another nominee. This must be prevented. The nominee in 2012 has to be uncontrovertably conservative to convincingly win cross-over primaries by attracting the necessary votes to overwhelm progressives voting for the conservatively weakest GOP candidate.

How is picking a good-enough candidate going to do that? I’m not saying it didn’t work when the Bushes were eledcted, but we’ve seen how well that worked out in the long run.

And, I’m not saying the candidate has to be 100% founding-principles conservative to win the GOP primaries and get nominated. I am saying we are tired of electing a “conservative enough” candidate and finding we got a semi-progressive instead.

I honestly don’t know who is the best candidate. I know who I like best. But then, I wanted Jean Kirkpatrick to run for President.

Change Jar Conservative

twice actually.

Change Jar Conservative

And while I think Daniels remains our best GOP choice for President based on his experience, I am concerned with his inability to force the state legistlature to go along with him or to talk them into going along with him on this.

Perhaps it’s just too many Republicans in the majority so the majority leaders think they can do whatever instead of following the governor.

Scope

Daniels is in his 6th or so year as Governor. No comparison either for school vouchers or RTW. Big comparison on a strong stiff spine and acting with leadership as opposed to a cooked noodle spine and compromising with the Libs.

http://ruminationsaspirations.blogspot.com jonbingham

1) Ends any chance of his presidential consideration.
2) Leaves this issue available for future IN Governor Pence to look even better when he accomplishes it. Welcome, President Pence (2020 or beyond)…

Scope

are’t any better than his social positions. He seems to be more on the side of the libertarians with respect to defense. Actually I would say that Daniels whole message is meant to appeal to libertarians rather than Reagan conservatives.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/11/can_skinflint_mitch_daniels_win_the_presidency_107508.html

Castor

Thomas Paine said it…
Let?s just hope Daniels is the fox in question and not a blinkin? RINO

Castor

Thomas Paine said it…
Let?s just hope Daniels is the fox in question and not a blinkin? RINO

Wubbies World

This is one of the underlying points overall with a lot of Republicans.

Democrats are always willing to go to the mat to win, but a lot of Republicans do not want to offend, or disrupt the decorum to win.

In short democrats are willing to fight, but republicans will roll over and show their belly.

This battle exemplifies that point.

The same way filibustering judges works for the democrats in the Senate, but not for Republicans.

LibertarianHawk

First, imagine a filibuster. We all know what that is. If 40 Senators determine that a piece of legislation isn’t going to pass, they have the power to make that happen.

Now imagine if, by so doing, those same 40 Senators effectively had the power to nuke an entire legislative session. So, not only would their filibuster trip up the particular piece of legislation they don’t like, it would trip pretty much every piece of pending legislation up.

Indiana does not have a full-time legislature. As such, a walkout like this doesn’t only imperil the contentious bills, it imperils all of them.

Daniels campaigned on, and has strongly pushed for, various other pieces of legislation — including education reforms and reform of our antiquated, costly township government structure.

He knew that RTW would cause the Democrats to walk out of the session — and he wants to avoid that so he can get his agenda items done and passed into law.

Why risk the possibility of going 0-for-2, when there’s a real possibility he could go 1-for-2 and no possibility he could go 2-for-2?

LibertarianHawk

…my admonition to everybody is this: if we’re so adamant about finding that “perfect” candidate who’s finally, at long last, going to break through and deliver us to the conservative promised land, we’re going to be disappointed for the rest of our lives.

Right now, the conservative movement is having a really hard time distinguishing political pragmatism from ideological apostasy. And even when we’re pretty sure that somebody is just pragmatic, but not apostate, we’re still inclined to torch them.

Pragmatism is not a bad thing. It’s how the left has been so successful moving the ball so far for so long (which is a bad thing).

In Horowitz’s autobiography, he tells stories about bitter debates between the revolutionary set and the more pragmatic set on the far left. The pragmatists eventually won, and look at what it’s gained them…..they’d have never been so successful without it.

We should take a lesson from their experience. We’re right to hold Reagan in such high esteem, but we’re often wrong about why we do.

In his words, he was staunchly conservative. I’d argue that he was in his actions, too — but with a decidedly pragmatic and strategic manner.

If we *really* want to revere him, we’d emulate that.

LibertarianHawk

That’s precisely my point! Reagan governed very pragmatically — but he never, ever lost his core conservatism.

My point is: if some Republican offered up the ideas that Reagan embraced with regard to Social Security today, he’d be tagged a heretic.

The same goes for Reagan’s 1986 tax reform — which, in many ways, effectively raised taxes…just like the 1983 SS reform raised taxes.

Thus my point that we mythologize about Reagan, and very much to the detriment of our movement. Pragmatism should not be a dirty word — nor should it be confused with ideological heresy.

Until we come to understand that, we shouldn’t plan on moving the ball in our direction very much.

Goldwater_Conservative

opposes Inidana becoming a right to work state then thats inexcusable. If he delayed voting on the legislation knowing that he didnt have the votes to pass it while brining up legislation that he knew he could pass, then thats another thing.

LibertarianHawk

In most republican systems of government, minorities have power too. Such is the case with the federal government — where it takes 60 Senators to get much of anything done. Such is the case in Wisconsin, where it takes 20 present senators to get anything done.

And such is the case in Indiana.

Governing *requires* you to be pragmatic in virtually any system that isn’t totalitarian.

You watch: Gov. Walker isn’t going to get exactly what he wants here. He’ll get something and it will be a net positive.

But because he’ll appear to have “caved”, he’ll get tarred and feathered by a lot of people….none of whom will take a moment to realize just how much he was able to accomplish.

Here’s Mitch Daniels about to get the first broad, statewide voucher program in the country, and he’s getting slammed by conservatives because, to get it, he had to punt on RTW.

Meanwhile, I’m just wishing that Milton Friedman could be around to see it.

If that’s going to be standard operating procedure for the conservative movement, we’d better get accustomed to losing.

LibertarianHawk

It was never going to pass because they had the numbers to kill the quorum by fleeing, Kyle.

This is not a new thing for Indiana — both parties have denied quorums at various times, even in recent history.

The Dems did it to Gov. Daniels back in 2005, in fact. Republicans have done it before too.

When I say it “wasn’t going to pass”, just imagine I’m talking about a piece of federal legislation having the support of 54 Senators, but not the 60 needed to invoke cloture.

It’s been no secret for a long time that the Republicans were going to try to get RTW and that the Democrats were going to deny quorum. This was no surprise to any of us here…nor was Daniels’ position on it.

He warned of this happening, and his entire point was that doing it risked the entire agenda — and it did so in a hopeless effort to pass RTW.

LibertarianHawk

The precedent’s already been set. I wouldn’t say these walkouts are quite as common as Senate filibusters are — but they aren’t at all unheard of. Both parties have done it…and the Dems last did it in 2005 during a budget stalemate (which, BTW, the governor finally prevailed on).

So the notion that the walkout, and Daniels’ reaction to it, is setting a new precedent is incorrect.

Second, he’s been very up front about his position and reasoning here. He doesn’t oppose the bill and would sign it if it made it to his desk. But he’s long doubted that it could and it simply wasn’t anywhere on his agenda.

He hasn’t campaigned on it and he hasn’t gone about vetting it.

He has, though, campaigned on and vetted the education reforms. They’ve been in the works for years. And he made clear, including during the 2010 campaign, they were his priorities for this session.

He didn’t want the session to go up in smoke over a futile attempt to pass RTW. So long as the Democrats have more than 33 House members (they have 40) they have enough to deny quorum and stop that legislation.

Because of the time limitation — which is a long-standing House rule — their walking out actually imperils *all* pending legislation.

So here’s the long and short of it: he had a choice of going 0-for-2 with RTW and EdReform or 1-for-2.

What people here would apparently have him do is attempt to go 2-for-2, even if it resulted in his going 0-for-2.

And that’s plain stupidity.

LibertarianHawk

Because Daniels has been cautioning Bosma & Co. for several months now to just table this measure — or, at least, wait until the education and government reform measures were successfully passed.

And if he’s been doing it publicly, then I have to imagine he’s been doing so even more forcefully privately.

I don’t see how it’s Gov. Daniels’ fault if Bosma refuses to heed his cautions.

Or, there’s always the possibility (however remote) that they did this intentionally and actually are working together.

LibertarianHawk

Both parties, while in the minority, have used this tactic. It’s not really even that uncommon. You only have to go back a few years to find the last time it was done by Democrats…and only a few years before that to find when Republicans did it to a Democratic majority and Governor.

So, no, nobody’s setting a precedent here. And, yes, both parties have been on both sides of the same table.

If House Republicans would’ve listened to Gov. Daniels when he said to leave it be, we wouldn’t be in this mess. The problem is: some people don’t seem to understand that passage is, and always was, an impossibility.

hoosierteacher

1) It really isn’t a matter of having the votes or not. Mitch opposed Right to Work before the legislation was even drafted. There’s been a big push in Indiana to get Right to Work, and the legislative planning started last spring (well before the elections). Several people campaigned on it at the assembly level. Mitch is telling the truth; he stayed away from the issue.

Those of us that have been working on and supporting the effort knew that Daniels would either be weak in support or outright opposed to the bill. Where we were blindsided was when Bosma (our speaker) tried to scrap the bill early on, DESPITE majorities in both chambers. Bosma backed down and threw his weight behind the bill. However, hang on…

2) WE DO have the votes to pass the bill, and the reports to the contrary are a smoke screen. Why do you think the dems have fled the state? Because we DO have the votes.

I’m not saying I told you so to anybody, but in Indiana we know our governor (we even like him!). We just aren’t willing to make him out to be something he isn’t. A few people in the press made him out to be something special because he has a great fiscal record in Indiana, hates public unions, and has made some good speeches. In Indiana though, we see the whole picture. The guy isn’t with us on some issues (private unions, foreign policy) and is outright hostile in others (judges).

He’s a good man and a good governor. I vote for him and will do so again. But I don’t want the man in the white house. That’s just my own opinion.

Goldwater_Conservative

I went through this when RS and the tea party picked an idiotic, convoluded and most importantly a no chance in hell battle when they went all in after the Texas GOP speaker of the house. They compared that speaker to the devil incarnate because he used tactics that ALL Texas speakers have used in the past when challenged, and when I pointed out that they decide to attack me (RINO, troll, weak ect). Of course the measure failed (it didnt even make it for a vote) and the bottom line is Redstate has a choice, they can either become the fringe of the fringe, or be the mainstream driving force of the GOP, its their choice. Performing RINOplasty every week or so is going to put this site on the fringe of the fringe.

pastisprolog

It’s a bad habit. Conservative voters are shy of that this time. Plus, it seems as if everyone is campaigning now, so lots of conservative rhetoric being spouted, but people are disinclined to believe it.

I’m glad you recognized my points earlier. Libertarians and die-hard conservatives in PA abandoned Santorum over his support for Specter and it cost us a very reliable (if not perfect) conservative Senator and gave us Casey instead, who is a disaster.

LibertarianHawk

If anybody tries to tell you that Daniels opposes RTW, they are either misinformed or a liar.

His long-standing opinion on this was that he would sign it if it got to his desk, but didn’t think it would, and didn’t want it to torpedo the whole legislative session where he had other priorities.

That’s it in a nutshell. When pressed, he said that he agrees with the general idea of RTW, but that it should be properly vetted, presented to voters, and implemented appropriately….just as he’s done with his education reform measures.

As for the “votes to pass” thing: they have the votes to pass it just the same as the Republicans had the votes to pass drilling in ANWR back in 2003.

Yeah, they had the votes to pass it…they just didn’t have the votes to have a vote.

Well, RTW doesn’t have the votes to have a vote. The Dems openly stated they’d deny quorum if this bill was brought to the floor and that’s precisely what they did.

Daniels’ entire point was: why not have a productive session and get done what we can get done?

hoosierteacher

1. Our democraticaly elected representatives in Indiana have brought it to the floor.

2. We have the votes to pass it. (Which is why the dems fled).

3. The issue predates the election (Mitch didn’t campaign for it, but a lot of our republicans did).

Should we let it be because Mitch disagrees with a majority of his assembly and the voters of Indiana? Should we let it be because the democrats threw a tantrum and went against the rules that govern our legislature? Or should we get to the real truth here; Mitch has a history of fighting spending and public sector unions, but he ALSO has a history of supporting private sector unions, bad judges, and tax increases.

You can’t just excuse Mitch by trying to come up with clever reasons why he is being so “statesman-like”. That’s lefty media hogwash. Those of us in Indiana that have been working on Right to Work knew about Mitch’s opposition as far back as the start of last year when this effort got moving.

This is the second “I told you so” moment from those who know Mitch, and it is no wonder why conservative publications and the right blogosphere have been pulling back from Mitch’s corner.

Some people will be slower to “get it”, and just about all of them are from outside Indiana.

We love Mitch, but we don’t sugar-coat him either. He’s EXCELLENT in several areas, and we’ll keep voting for him as governor. But I seriously doubt Mitch can even carry Indiana in a national level primary.

LibertarianHawk

Now this is just confusing.

Surely you understand the difference between opposing a piece of legislation and not supporting its movement…right?

Daniels has said he’d sign it if it got to his desk. But he’s also said that it won’t get to his desk, because the Democrats won’t allow it there, and so trying to move it forward will be futile.

He’s been proven correct. And, as a result, his education agenda is now endangered.

And, what’s more, you won’t vote for him again: he’s term-limited from running for governor again. The only other office he might seek is the presidency, and you’ve already said you oppose him for that.

Aaron Gardner

I did a cursory search on google and can’t find it. You have said twice now that they had done so, would you mind pointing me in the right direction so I can read about that. Even if you just give me the year it happened I should be able to find it myself.

Thanks in advance.

Goldwater_Conservative

could be the most troubling. Even if he called for a truce on social issues but would appoint strong judges that would be good enough for me (ala Guiliani), but if he is weak on judges that would be pretty bad.

ffc99

Republicans minorities walked out in 2001, 1991 and 1975.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20110223/NEWS05/102230374/-b-Q-b-About-bill-walkout

oneconservative

Any chance Mitch had for the Presidency is now gone. Too bad. I thought he had some potential.

I hope and pray that we have a Conservative in 2012 to win the Presidency. The damage that has been done in the last few years will take several years to erase. Mitch is not the man for the job.

Way to sit down Mitch. Way to count yourself out.

LibertarianHawk

It’s been a long-standing position of his. For him to have done anything else would’ve been a “move.”

A lot of people, here and elsewhere, are seeing this as something that came from nowhere. It hasn’t.

He said as far back as December that House Republicans should resist the temptation to bring forward RTW in this session….precisely because it would result in this outcome.

Aaron Gardner

No I will go read you link.

drivlikejehu

Like I said the exact details don’t really matter because the buck stops with Daniels. If the Republicans in the legislature don’t respect him, that is a sign of weak leadership on his part. Even if Bosma is out of control- and he seems normal enough to me- a number of other Republicans had to be involved. Blaming the GOP legislature is especially dubious considering that Daniels endorsed and supported many of them.

So there is plenty of room to argue over exactly what went wrong, but there is no question that the ultimate responsibility lies with Daniels. If he can’t handle the Indiana legislature, how on Earth could he handle the US Congress?

Wubbies World

I agree with you on pragmatism and the need to emulate Reagan’s use of it. However, in the current political climate there is danger walking down the middle of the road, and all politicians need to be careful when they do walk down it right now. I am not say Daniels is right or wrong, however right now the middle of the road will get you run over. Once in the White House, it is a better place to be, combined with picking your battles strategically, like Reagan did.

The fact of the matter, good or bad, it is the base that elects you in the primaries, and right now the base is furious with the Republicans who are moderates for compromising too much. It always seems that the only compromise is Republicans agreeing with Democrats, but never the other way around. You will find the Republican base not in a good mood about that getting us where we are at right now.

Long story short, if Wisconsin was not occurring right now, Daniels would not have drawn so much attention and would 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.

I am not saying it is right or wrong, but in the world of instant media, his timing was terrible. He has been tagged by the majority of the voting public who never pay attention to politics until the last month before the election. People only saw and heard the sound bites in contrast to Wisconsin on the six o’clock news. I think it will stick with him long term. Without even trying, I can already see any primary opponent scripting an attack ad using this very effectively.

I am afraid the “optics” of this situation are unfortunate for Mitch Daniels. It is what it is….

LibertarianHawk

“But I seriously doubt Mitch can even carry Indiana in a national level primary.”

That’s such an absurd comment that I’m tempted to just let you go on your merry way.

Next you’ll probably tell me that Herman Cain is just the man to beat him.

And you keep saying you’ll keep voting for him as governor…although he’s term-limited out.

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

California does have a 2/3rds vote requirement for tax increases (and used to require 2/3rds to pass a budget), but otherwise it’s majority rule.

This 2/3rds quorum requirement seems to essentially mean, in effect, that all legislation potentially could require 2/3rds approval, with only public opinion +/- lobbyists, media as the check on this power.

I wasn’t aware that this was a longstanding option for a minority, though as you seem to note, the usage seems to be uncommon.

I’ll leave it to you and hoosierteacher to fight out whether RTW could pass, but I think you have the burden of proving that it can’t since the Democrats must be afraid it would pass or they wouldn’t resort to what , if not unprecedented, is at least by your admission an extraordinary method of trying to stop a bill.

Again, if the Democrats really have the votes, delay would only work against them – why not just vote it down. You can see why I am concerned about a backroom process here to keep Daniel off the hot seat, especially if he really is in bed with private-sector unions as some commenters have argued above.

I don’t quite understand your vetting argument – since RTW has been around for decades, the mechanics should be quite familiar at this point. It shouldn’t need so much vetting as to distract from his other legislative projects.

I’ll take your word about the time clock of legislation – though it would seem reasonable to stop the clock when the legislature cannot meet because an inability to reach quorum. But that’s a future change for the legislature to consider.

pastisprolog

What I was trying to write was that die-hard libertarians and conservatives in PA ….. gave the seat to Casey after feeling betrayed by Santorum for fulfilling an obligation to the White House.

I should have waited until I had enough time to edit.

The rest is that, while we want real conservatives to run, win and govern as real conservatives, we can’t always tell who is real from their campaigning, they often make a left turn after election, and they (real conservatives) can’t win everywhere.

We are tired of getting fooled and the stakes keep getting higher and higher. We want to more Specters, Schwarzeneggers or Bushes, or worse, real progressives like Nixon (anti-communism aside he was a progressive).

I hope that makes up for sounding like I was stereotyping you.

romeg

as Governor of Indiana. He should stick to that and allow Governor Walker to do HIS job as governor of Wisconsin.

In other words, Butt Out.

LibertarianHawk

http://www.wthr.com/story/1669307/republicans-walk-out-of-house-again?nav=9TahL5k9&redirected=true

pastisprolog

I wondered where the coverage went. One day, all in. The next day ………….

LibertarianHawk

…if the Democrats would allow a vote. I’ve never said otherwise.

I do know of at least two Republicans who would vote against it. But CW is that the votes are there to pass it.

But it’s like saying that the Republicans had the votes to pass drilling in ANWR back in 2003 or so. Yes, they technically had the votes to pass the bill…they just didn’t have enough votes to take a vote.

It’s the same thing here. The quorum-denying walkout is the closest thing we have to a filibuster.

rightwingmom52

the social conservative who is standing firm on the fiscal issues.

Goldwater_Conservative

what, why cant we just be happy. I’m happy with what Cristie is doing, I’m happy with what Walker is doing, happy with Daniels, McDonnell, Perry, Barbour, Haley ect…

Why are we so quick to tear one of them down, they are all working hard and trying to pass a conservative agenda with the tactics they have decided to choose. Why start comparing and tearing one against the other, I am happy with them all.

ghostship

They have a Party that will fight for their agenda.

What do we on the Right get?

A Republican Party with spines made of Jello. How sad is it that as a Republican I’m frequently disgusted at the little pansies that make up my Party?

wrxsti

He’s got so many likable qualities, but I agree that he really wants to seem a moderate and non-partisan governor. Not sure what’s going on there of if he’s just being himself.

LibertarianHawk

It turns out that Bosma did try to prevent it from coming to the floor, but was unable to prevent it.

So I guess he’s a poor leader, too.

I’m not sure what else you’d have had Daniels do. You can lead a horse to water…..

Goldwater_Conservative

I was the only one to post (through a diary) on what actually happened. When it came time to vote both of the tea party guys pulled out and supported Staus. It was embarrasing to those that went all in on this which is what I warned Erick and Redstate when they did it, so they never said a word about it as if pretending their little drive by rinoplasty never happend.

LibertarianHawk

And I can flat guarantee that would’ve meant the end of his education reform agenda.

Like I said: the realistic choices in front of him were going 0-for-2 on RTW and EdReform, or 1-for-2.

People here seem to believe he should’ve risked going 0-for-2 by trying to go 2-for-2, though 2-for-2 was likely impossible.

In other words, had he done that, it would’ve handed the Democrats a “victory” because they’d have stared him down.

Keep in mind: they only need to stay away for a couple days. House rules require bills to be taken up by the full House (with a quorum) within a few days of being referred by committee. Otherwise, they expire.

Yeah, I’m sure it would’ve been a huge propaganda coup for him had the Democrats laughed in his face while the bill expired.

Are you serious?

pastisprolog

Choose your battles. The more things change … Thanks.

Aaron Gardner

Having read the linked article, it appears that the republicans denied a quorum for less than one full business day, and they did so by simply refusing to take the floor.

Can you point to a time when the Republicans denied a quorum for more than a few hours, an instance when they actually left the statehouse, or one where they fled the entire state?

hoosierteacher

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

LibertarianHawk

And the primary reason is because it diverts resources and attention from battles that can be won.

As the old saying goes: choose your battles wisely.

Inherent in that sentiment is the notion that there are battles better off not fought.

If the RTW battle was one we could’ve won in this session, I’d have been all for it. And I bet Gov. Daniels’ would’ve been as well.

But I’ve got no desire to hand the Democrats a “victory” like that. None of us should.

Wubbies World

However, in American politics and the voting public, there is only short term memory on things like this, unless it is a very big event. I can assure you 95% of the voting public does not remember the walk outs in the 1990′s. Right now, they only remember Wisconsin.

In Wisconsin, the Democrats have made it a very noticeable event. The Indiana Democrats are only emulating something that they perceive as working up there. You can expect a rash of Democrat State Legislators repeating this tactic over the coming months, because it is viewed as an option that works. At least in Indiana it worked.

The Democrats lost a lot of State Legislatures in November 2010. They will do what ever they can to prevent any efforts to undo the governing structures they put in place over the years. As long as they can win doing it, without any backlash from the voting public, they will use it

This is a fight to the death for them. The loss of union funding will kill them long term and they know it.. However, in the case of Republicans, they will not treat it with the same seriousness the Democrats do in most instances.

One thing you learn in the military about any battle or war, it is all about cost tolerance. The side who is will to endure the highest level of cost tolerance will win every time. That is why we lost in Vietnam, and North Vietnamese General Giap even said as much in an interview after the war. The North Vietnamese exceeded our cost tolerance and we gave up.

Politics is no different.

hoosierteacher

I won’t do your homework for you.

“We’ll keep voting for him as governor” was a rhetorical statement, as if to say we would keep voting for him. I accept your swat. : )

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

Daniels either doesn’t think this is important enough or doesn’t have the tenacity to engage in a full confrontation with the Democrats over this, which would polarize the state until the next election and possibley impair his ability to get the rest of his program through.

Fair enough.

(Although if he did win on this issue after the Democrats have gone all in, he might have a much better chance of getting through he rest of his program. No guarantee, but that’s the difference between a bold thinker and a play-it-safe CYA manager.)

However, many of us think since the linchpin to Democratic power are unions and especially union dues going to support Democrats, reducing their power is key to keeping conservatives in power.

Not to mention RTW is the right thing to do, especially from a libertarian viewpoint. I would hope and expect on the basis of your screenname that you do support RTW in principle, anyway.

Which means that it will be up to the conservative voters to decide if Daniel’s position is a good one or not. But one maxim of warfare is that you press your advantage when you have breached the enemies defenses rather than giving them a chance to regroup while you “wait for a better time”. So many battles have been lost that way in history, from Absalom on down.

Right now is the best opportunity in perhaps 70 years to seriously disrupt if no destroy the political power of Big Labor – and if Mitch Daniels is not willing to stand by with the other who are bravely pursuing the battle – waiting for others to do the hard work and then joining in if and only if it is “safe”, then he will have to face the consequences of that choice.

So let is be written, so let it be done.

hoosierteacher

That must be the Daniels “truce” way.

: )

LibertarianHawk

And it depresses me that more of us don’t see that.

In fact, it more than depresses me: it makes me worry about the state of our movement and its prospects for future success.

That’s why I made the comment about Reagan. I really, REALLY hate agreeing with anything that comes out of a leftist’s mouth, but I’m starting to think they’re right that we’d chase the real Ronald Reagan (as opposed to the mythological one) out of the movement if he were around today.

It’s not that our brand of conservatism is based on any different principles or values than his was. It’s that he understood the need for pragmatism in governing — and how it wasn’t a violation of his principles to do so.

I remember reading that Richard Viguerie read Reagan out of the movement at one point when Reagan was in office.

And doesn’t that seem really silly in retrospect?

We’ve got a huge opportunity in front of us…and I fear we’re going to blow it. Not by being too timid, but by being too rigid and not knowing the difference between pragmatism and apostasy.

writeblock

because of the peculiar rules in the Indiana Senate by which a time limit is imposed for bringing up bills. He wants his education reform bill passed first and this gets in the way of that. So his opposition is strategic, not ideological.

Daniels shouldn’t get shot down for this. He’s one of our strongest contenders and we need a fiscal reformer in 2012–bad. I can see where he’d have a better shot at winning in a general election than probably anybody else. His electability should be kept in mind before all else.

Walker has it all–but he’s getting radioactive. If he wins, he’ll be a hero to us, but would bring out opposition voters like nobody else would. He’s young–and would be prime material for the top job ten years from now when the anger on the left has subsided–especially with more years as governor under his belt.

drivlikejehu

Would GOP legislators defy Christie like that? I don’t know. But results matter more than intentions, whether it’s fair or not.

And the main controversy wasn’t over the legislative matter itself but Daniels’ reaction to it. Today he has been backtracking and admitting a lack of clarity on his part.

I get that you’re a Daniels fan but this has played out very poorly for him, and his judgment was already in question due to the “truce” issue.

Aaron Gardner

I also wonder where this sentiment was for Bush, who was lambasted by libertarians for just about everything he did.

LibertarianHawk

I also support school vouchers, charter schools, and pretty much everything else on the legislature’s agenda.

What I didn’t want to see was for them to come away basically empty-handed. And it was, and still is, a very real possibility.

The foundation for education reform began being laid years ago. Daniels campaigned hard on getting the numbers to finally bring it to fruition…he also donated big money to candidates to get the numbers he needed.

What he’s doing here is keeping his eye on the ball — and, IMO, that is bold leadership.

Name me another state in the country that will have what we’ll have educationally. We’ll have a statewide voucher program. Mayors and private colleges will be empowered to charter new state-funded schools. Kids who graduate HS in 3 years will be able to use their 4th year money as a scholarship to any state college. Teachers will be paid based on their achievement in the classroom.

I’d call all of that a terrific achievement.

Yes, RTW would be great. But the foundation to get it hasn’t been laid…and we’re a pretty heavily unionized state historically.

Where is RTW in Ohio? Kasich’s great…so where’s his RTW? Where’s RTW in Wisconsin? What about New Jersey?

Republicans should campaign on it in 2012, along with Mike Pence. And, if they’re victorious, they’ll have the mandate to implement it.

That doesn’t exist right now.

Darin_H

Reagan compromised, no one has disputed that, and no one is suggesting that either Walker or Daniels not compromise. What we are complaining about is the preemptive surrender that is accompanying Daniels through his statements.

It’s one thing to get something while giving something. It’s entirely another to treat legislators who flee the state as worthy, noble opposition. They aren’t he should call them on it.

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

I’m not asserting that your interpretation of the Indiana political situation on the ground is in error. You live there, along with hoosierteacher, and thus have a better sense as to the forces on both sides.

But in extraordinary times like this regarding Big Labor…well you know that if the Democrats are staging the level of activity they are, you know they are very scared. And it is the ability to assess those intangibles that distinguishes the leader from the number cruncher.

In any case, the choice is up to Mitch – just as the voters hold the trump cards. And his character is being exposed by this trial.

writeblock

governing these legislative chambers.

LibertarianHawk

…if, by some strange happenstance, Daniels does run for president, the contest isn’t decided by the time Indiana’s primary rolls around, and he’s still a viable contender….

….I think I’d be willing to bet you every asset I own that he’d not only win the state, but that the other standing competitors wouldn’t even bother campaigning here.

And I’m not even a betting man.

That was an absurd statement.

LibertarianHawk

But what’s the difference?

There isn’t a substantive difference that I can tell. Denying a quorum is denying a quorum….except, I guess, that leaving the state does so with an exclamation point.

The point is: it’s a well-worn tactic in Indy and nobody is setting any precedent here.

LibertarianHawk

But the walkout came as no surprise to anybody who follows Indiana politics very closely.

Daniels was publicly warning of it months ago, in fact.

Why would we want to hand the Democrats a victory like this? If there’s a battle ahead that you’re almost certain to lose….doesn’t it pretty much always make sense to avoid fighting it?

I’ve always assumed that it did. I don’t much believe in moral victories.

But maybe others disagree and think that every fight, so long as it’s for the right cause, is worth it.

I think that’s suicidal.

hoosierteacher

I live in Indiana, and have been supporting the Right to Work movement since last spring.

Let’s stop with the semantics games and just stick to the facts. I understand your passion for Daniels, but he’s getting harpooned by all except the lefty media because they see him for what he is. Those of us working on IRTW have known about Daniels opposition for some time, and his current behavior didn’t shock us. Weeks before the Wisconsin epsidoe the pro-IRTW movement even sent out mailers to supporters warning that Bosma and Daniels were not on board. Bosma woke up; Daniels didn’t.

Answer each point, or conceed that you have not been working on this issue in Indiana over the past year (like I have) and don’t have any earthly idea what you are talking about.

1) Republicans have the votes to pass Right to Work, UNLESS the democrats run away. Show me how I’m wrong. Do you know why Walker and Christie are so popular right now? Because they are standing on this issue while Chamberlains like Daniels punt.

2) Daniels said he would sign it if it got to his desk? Well, he has done everything imaginable (including twisting arms) to keep it from his desk. He’s fighting to keep it off his desk right now.

3) Several of our republicans ran on a platform in favor of IRTW. It has been debated and “vetted”, and in the last election our voters spoke. It didn’t go McDaniels way. He lost, and now he’s joing the democrats by giving them cover.

4) I’m all for education reform (I also wasn’t in the union when I taught. It has always been voluntary to my knowledge, and I caught a lot of grief for it). So is Daniels. So what? Daniels doesn’t want THIS legislation, even though the voters and his own party (and both houses of our general assembly) support it.

Whining that he can’t support IRTW because he wants to work on other things is just another example of what we always see from wishy washy politicians. The matter is in front of him, and he should lead. The voters AND their representatives have spoken, and once again, Daniels goes opposite.

Its no wonder the pro-Daniels movement is in shatters, and declining everytime Daniels opens his mouth (see front page posts at RS, National Review, and Weekly Standard, all three of whom loved him until the “mute issue” and now this debacle).

Calling people on the ground and actualy participating in the issue “liars or misinformed” is silly. Supporting Daniels as he continues his plunge from the primaries… priceless.

We wouldn’t be in this mess if Daniels had simply done his job. Most of us get that.

LibertarianHawk

I’m arguing that what’s being exposed is something to be desired, not something to be shunned.

What really would’ve been unforgivable is if he’d gone the other way: taken up the futile fight and then lost the terrific education reforms he’s been working on for 5+ years as well as the RTW.

Then the Democrats would be doing nothing more than waving his scalp around — not only on RTW, but on vouchers.

Is it too much to ask that we, ya know, win some victories from time to time?

Goldwater_Conservative

you will never be happy, just as the far left wasnt happy even with Pelosi, Reid and Obama. You have to realize perfection is not possible on this planet, and nothing even close is reasonable to expect.

LibertarianHawk

I’ve always gotten the impression that many conservatives were sour on GWB.

Heck, Limbaugh used to gripe and complain about how he “had some conservative tendencies…but wasn’t A conservative”. I’d consider Limbaugh a conservative, not a libertarian.

Bush’s brand of conservatism was budget-busting, I’m sorry to say.

And one of the very first guys to fight him on that was none other than my illustrious governor…I’m proud to say.

But while I’m proud to say that, I’m sorry to say that he lost the battle — which is what usually happens when you take on your boss.

Tbone

“He?s one of our strongest contenders and we need a fiscal reformer in 2012?bad. I can see where he?d have a better shot at winning in a general election than probably anybody else. His electability should be kept in mind before all else. ”

If this were even close to true, then we are truly doomed.

hoosierteacher

…on right to work prevent the rest of his agenda? Or do we have to let minorities in the house and senate dicate the agenda?

We have the votes because the voters gave them to us. If we aren’t going to use them, they’re worthless.

The dems WILL get Daniels scalp now – he just spit in the eye of his own base. The dems will never help Daniels, and to think that they will is sheer lunacy.

Aaron Gardner

Leaving the state limits Daniels options. If they don’t leave the state he can make them show up.

Additionally, there is a difference in the circumstances of the walk out.

You can ignore these differences if you want, but that doesn’t make what the R’s did and what the D’s are doing the same. Tactically they are different and end in different results.

Just like you can’t compare what RR did with SS reform to this, especially when you have a valid parallel in the ATC strike to divine how Reagan would have handled this.

Additionally, your comments ignore tactical advantages that Daniels hold but thus far has refused to acknowledge. The Senate can achieve a quorum without any D’s at all. Once that is done the Senate could take up RtW, which would force to House to take it up in a special session, which Daniels could call for. At that point Daniels could lock them in and basically pass RtW and School choice at the same time. A scenario you have denied in multiple comments.

The ability to do this is there. The question is where the will is. And the answer can only come from Daniels at this point.

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

…which is part of what political debate is all about – refining the arguments of the various positions.

And which you wouldn’t have articulated so well if you hadn’t been challenged.

Your point about preparation is very well taken, that Daniel has been crafting enough of a consensus that it looks like he’s on the brink of achieving what appear to be by all accounts an excellent school reform package.

It’s what in law is called building a foundation (BTW, IANAL). And that’s vital if your building is going to stand for long (or for that matter if you can build it without it toppling over).

And you seem to be saying is that such a foundation is not there for RTW. You have made a coherent argument here that does conform as to how the political process works.

So as you’ve presented matters, I would agree what you describe is effective leadership and certainly is a plus for Daniels. We don’t need folk like Ron Paul* in government can’t work with others to actually effect their programs, rather than just talk about them. Daniels does appear to have done the necessary hard work, and that is to his credit.

History is also replete with generals guilty of overextending their position and outrunning their supply lines that can allow a counterattack whichcan cut off their forces and even lead to downright defeat.

It’s hard from outside to know which war analogy fits this situation.

I will definitely take your points to heart as we see how all this plays out.
__________________________________________
*RP is not the only such politician – there are a lot of loudmouths who don’t want to or can’t do the hard work of governing, they’d rather just talk. I picked him because he has such a long track record of ineffectiveness.

LibertarianHawk

…haven’t paid attention to what he’d been saying about RTW.

The way this has been dealt with in the national media makes it sound like it was some spot decision on Daniels’ part.

It wasn’t — and I have to remember that as I discuss it. Being local here, I know what many people who aren’t here don’t: this has been his position all along.

He told Republican legislators a long time ago (publicly, so I assume he first said so privately) that it would be better not to bring this up and muck up the session with a futile effort.

If they’d have listened to him, we’d have avoided the entire mess. So, far from blaming him for just sticking to his guns, I’m looking at the Republican legislators who defied him.

Aaron Gardner

I was just speaking to my current audience.

Aaron Gardner

When everyone is just happy, they become complacent. That was our downfall from 2001 to present.

Kyle-MI

I should be the one saying, “Huh?” This sounds like something out of Alice in Wonderland rather than a system devised by any sane person.

Although it may explain how a system like this can produce a Milquetoast like Luger.

hoosierteacher

There are plenty of Mitch haters in Indiana (I’m sure you’ve seen the “Ditch Mitch” bumper stickers; they seem to be everywhere).

Mitch will never win those people. What Mitch CAN do is keep his base. Well, recently he alienated his social base. That doesn’t help. Now, when national conservative media and pacs and movements (ie Tea Party) look at the contrast between Daniels and Christie/Walker, they see a terrible fumbled opportunity.

Let’s cool the tone between us and focus on a simple, single truth. Given the behavior of Walker over the last few days, do you believe that conservative affection in this country is going to go towards Walker or Daniels (given the radicaly different directions each has taken on the matter).

You can’t honestly answer that Daniels is scoring with conservatives right now, but Walker is clearly a darling of the conservative base right now. Indiana conservatives are already looking at a primary against Lugar (and the wisdom of that is for a seperate post). Don’t think that republicans in Indiana aren’t split on Daniels right now.

Until his “mute” comment, his support was solid. And now this.

But answer the question about Walker and Daniels for a moment. Really, who is the conservative hero right now and who is losing supporters for a potential campaign?

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

I’m not necessarily saying I agree with your position. Others here, including Aaron above, are listing thoughtful ways that Daniels could get RTW without losing his school reforms.

But again, you have made a coherent case rather than simply coming across as defeatist.

The open question: is it really either/or, is it really half a loaf or none? That’s why we have forums like RedState, to thrash this out.

But I do get tired with Republicans negotiating against themselves when they’re in power while Democrats refuse to negotiate at all when they’re in charge.

Not sure that’s the case here, but what folks like Gov. Walker is doing is to try to change that formula. And business like usual is going to send our country down the tubes, which is why many of us are at RedState, to change the way the Republican leaders behave.

LibertarianHawk

So don’t worry about offending me.

And, believe me, I couldn’t sympathize more with the wariness of genuine apostates. I’m hardly a fan of RINO Republicans, they have long driven me up a wall.

The problem I see is that people are getting too loosey-goosey with throwing the RINO term around. So we’re having a hard time distinguishing between somebody being strategic and pragmatic…and somebody being ideologically off the reservation.

Now, I’m not even sure we should fully ostracize the latter. But I do, anyway, agree that we’re better off not electing them to office to the extent that’s possible.

But we should be very careful about mixing up a genuine conservative who is governing pragmatically with somebody who simply isn’t a conservative.

It is not brave and courageous for somebody to take up even the very best of causes in what is certain to lead to a political setback. It is stupid. Sun Tzu would smack our hand with a ruler, or an abacus, or something.

If Daniels had put his full weight behind RTW, it still wouldn’t have passed. And, worse, he’d have given the Democrats cause to crow about beating him back and imperiled his other agenda items at the same time.

I don’t think that would be strategically smart. But, even if you disagree with me, can we please refrain from castigating everybody who acts like this as a faux conservative?

If we continue doing that, we’re eventually going to look a lot like the Libertarian Party….which is an organization that really doesn’t serve the libertarian cause terribly well.

Sure, they’re ideologically pure. But they’re politically irrelevant.

LibertarianHawk

The surest way for him to have been mowed down would’ve been for him to take up a futile cause.

He avoided a battle he’d have lost — I wouldn’t call that walking in the middle of the road.

In fact, there isn’t much of what Daniels has done since he’s been governor that I’d call walking down the middle of the road.

We have the lowest property taxes in the country, we were ranked #14 in spending per capita before…we’re now ranked #3, we have roughly $1B in cash in a rainy day fund, we’ve attracted all kinds of foreign investment, we’re going to get some much-needed education reforms…and I could go on.

I’m all for shaming Republican governors who govern like Democrats. But I’m also all for recognizing when that is and isn’t the case.

I don’t know if he’s going to run for president or not. But if he does and conservatives turn their back on him for fear that he’s “too moderate” or “spineless”….it will be a great shame.

IMO, he’s one of the best conservative public executives the country’s had in recent times. And, yes, I did say conservative. He’s also probably about as far away from spineless as one can get — which is big reason why Chris Christie thinks so highly of him.

Wubbies World

My only point is that the timing is terrible, especially for the voters outside of Indiana who do not know the details. I am not saying he is wrong. I am saying that for the voter who only takes cursory notice of politics, this looks bad.

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.

Timing is everything, and unfortunately, it is also a cruel task master we are all slave too.

meg_m

Daniels has displayed during this push for RTW, do you really think the dems are going to allow education reform to come to the floor? IMO the dems will be emboldened by his inaction on their current absconding and will flee every time legislation they do not agree with comes to the floor. Daniels just doesn’t seem to have the fortitude for the job of POTUS. If he cowers from the dems in his own state how will he deal with our enemies abroad? On top of that he has that pesky social issue truce hanging over his head and is squishy on judge appointments. He is a decent governor but I think he has reached the highest political office he will ever hold.

LibertarianHawk

Go read Mayhem’s post above to better understand the procedural dynamics here.

Walkouts have happened in the past — both parties have done them — and they’ve pretty much always been successful.

I’m telling you: Daniels’ hands are tied on RTW. I don’t know why people can’t understand that.

Everybody keeps talking as if he could’ve gotten it through if only he’d have fought harder, etc. etc.

There’s nothing he could’ve done. Maybe he could’ve convinced one or two Dems. But he’d need 67 people there for a quorum — and there are only 60 Republicans.

And for those saying he *still* should’ve pressed for it, even if he was guaranteed to lose, that’s something I’ll never understand — not, anyway, when people understand how the legislative process works here.

He’d have torpedoed his entire agenda.

powertothepeople

would you loudly proclaim your support for a scumbag like David Duke if enough people turned into raving racist? He was a republican and did run for president, or do you believe a person has to have some sort of character for you to vote for them. If you do look at character, then why the constant nonsense about electability which you can not prove or demonstrate at this point and why do you feel we should not look at character and just listen to your nonsense constantly.

Simple question, not so simple of an answer.

LibertarianHawk

That’s why I’m here trying to explain the situation. People are, naturally, going to liken it to what is taking place in Wisconsin…and I’m sure that was the Democrats’ point in leaving the state.

Ultimately, I just wish the House Republicans would’ve heeded Gov. Daniels’ advice and tabled the thing, at least until they could be sure to get the priorities he set through.

Spilt milk.

But, yeah, I can see why it looks so bad, given the context in which it’s presented. It really isn’t what it seems, though.

Aaron Gardner

I think we are done here. You don’t even address the tactical advantages Daniels has.

pastisprolog

I just talked to my neice, who is old enough to vote. She hates politics, knows nothing about anything political, no policies, no positions, nothing. She has no clue about domestic or foreign policy. She doesn’t know why we should ensure a steady oil supply or defend our allies. She doesn’t want to. She thinks EVERYONE who wants to come here should be allowed to – all of them. She’s reflexively progressive because she was taught to be in school.

She votes. Every time I see her I teach her something. This time it was why foreign law, especially Sharia law, is bad for America. She listens. I don’t see her enough. I won’t live long enough to undo the damage done by her public school teachers.

Did I mention, she votes?

Goldwater_Conservative

right thing to do is to attack and tear down elected GOP leaders because they have not acted in the way our activists’ eyes think they should have?

LibertarianHawk

He explains it better than I could — and there’s no reason to recreate the wheel.

It has to do with the procedural hurdles that are required by House rules — particularly with respect to timing.

This isn’t like the US House and Senate. They have a limited amount of time in the session, and scheduling is very important. Time limits are very narrow.

He’s been down this road before (in 2005). So he was speaking from experience when he warned Republicans about lighting this fire.

Aaron Gardner

It is the duty of the voters to hold their elected officials accountable. Complacency, or being content with what you get, leads to elected officials who have little respect for those who put them in office.

Goldwater_Conservative

those that are questioning his willingness to stand up to loud voices in this incident…and I quote “Don’t understand the situation, at all”

That was my point early on is that I dont know they whole situation and neither does anyone else on here, therefore lets judge the final results not the daily headlines.

Aaron Gardner

All of us who disagree and point out tactics that Nitch has failed to even bring up are just dullards who don’t get it.

Nice.

Goldwater_Conservative

I said I dont know, you dont know, Erick doenst know, neither does anyone else on here know whats really going on. The only ones who really know whats going on are the ones right in the middle of the situation, so as such lets reserve judgement till the final outcome is scored.

Aaron Gardner

Waiting for the final outcome to make your objections know is moronic. Once the decision is made, your objections don’t mean squat.

AceInTX

He praised them for their right to speak out and act out as a minority party in the legislature.

He’s giving them cover. They get to block bills they want to vote on and he says they have a right to do it…what’s so hard to figure out here?

I think the Republicans in all these state legislatures should tell these Dems that either they get back to the business of representing the people…or every Republican and Senator an these states are going to Canada and let the budget process collapse since no budget will pas, no government business will be conducted and thus there will no longer be a debt crisis.

Up the ante but for crying out loud don’t praise them for being irresponsible!

AceInTX

whats to keep the Dems from doing this to kill it?

What’s to keep Republicans from doing this and shutting down these state governments into perpetuity and why hasn’t someone on our side threatened to do just that?

Why can’t these governors not call up the Governor of IL and extraditing these these vermin back the the state capitals. In fact…I think I’d be calling him and telling him…either round em up and send them to us…or I will be calling up the national guard to go to IL and get them!

This can not be allowed to stand…it’s lunacy

Goldwater_Conservative

they have the right to pull this stunt, just as the GOP had the right to hold up Obama’s legislation. He isn’t condoning it just merely calling a spade a spade. You want him to attact them for this move, he has chosen not to at this point, but that doesnt mean he is rewarding them.

AceInTX

of epic proportions

Goldwater_Conservative

I said wait until the whole thing is over before you SCORE it, if you want to object go for it, but the game isnt over so you dont know who has won.

Aaron Gardner

Instruct the Senate to take up RtW where a quorum could not be prevented, force a special session locking all members in, have the Senate pass RtW putting it back to the House, simultaneousnessly the House would move on School Choice passing it and putting it to the Senate. The end result? Both initiatives pass.

Maybe this strategy just isn’t obvious to Mitch.

AceInTX

if so, when and how many times?

AceInTX

carolina

I wish every gov could end collective bargaining for State employees with an executive order the way Daniels did.
RTW will affect the PRIVATE sector unions likely more that it will the public sector unions. Daniels needs to address the public sector issues first.
I think he is doing a great job!

AceInTX

Check out by post at the bottom, I will be posing it just after this…It’s not about purity…Daniels is a 90 lb weakling the elites are pushing and the press is fawning over and nothing more where presidential politics is concerned.

I wouldn’t vote for McCain over Danials….but I’d have to at least think about it…because I don’t know which is weaker

Bill S

because if so, you need to seek professional help.

carolina

I don’t live in IN……. but you two have confirmed my impression of what was going on in IN – by filtering through the clips on the lamestream media.
I admire Daniels handling of the entire situation. Too bad some rabid GOP state senator created a hub-bub that did no one any good and only fed into the lamestream media’s feeding frenzy.

AceInTX

Strike one:

Daniels proposed a surtax on “The Rich” as part of his first budget

Strike Two

Mitch has publicly moralized about Republicans needing to be “grown ups” and consider raising taxes as a way of dealing with out debt woes in the midst of 9 to 10 % unemployment and a collapsing economy

Strike Three

Daniels has kicked Socons in the crotch, not once, not twice, but over and over again by calling for a truce on social issues…and Mr. Genius has yet to tell us how he’s going to get Dems to play nice while we’re all hugging each other and getting along so swimmingly since we’re ignoring those icky traditionalists in our midst.

That’s three strikes

He’s out right?

Nope…he’s still swinging the bat

Strike Four and Five in one interview

On his Jan 31 Interview on the Laura Ingraham Show,Daniels once again echoed his call for a truce and again would not address how we were to deal with Democrats who would still be pushing their radical social agenda while we’re ignoring these issues for the “more important and pressing” issues

Then he goes on to state the Chinese emergence as a world power “could be” a good thing. He followed that up by saying we should “Stop Whining” about the Chinese dumping cheap goods on our shores while blocking our imports into their country, their currency manipulation and their increasing aggression on trade policy because we need to focus on the more pressing problems of Jobs and the economy….as if trade with an aggressive trading partner who is gaming the system has no effect on jobs and the economy.

Strike Six

We have this from Hoosier teacher above. This is a new revelation to me…and I haven’t been able to check it out yet…but this is disturbing on Judges if true:

Then again, Mitch vetoed an overwhlemingly lopsided vote to prevent a panel of unelected, leftist lawyers from selecting state judges. Thus did Mitch shirk his own responsibilities to pick judges, giving us one of the worst Gitmo attorneys in the nation as an Indiana judge.

(if you read this Hoosier Teacher, please reply to this with a link so I can study/read/and source this)

Strike Seven

We have him praising Democrats for packing up and leaving the state to prevent legislation from being passed and playing the court jester in this episode

Yet we still have apologists here insisting Daniels is a genius, singing his praises and making excuses for all of the above insisting we trust him because he’s a conservative…he really is!

This has blazed past silly into the land of the absurdity

writeblock

in politics any day. I want a candidate to win above all else, who will do something for my side, who will push my agenda and nominate conservatives to the courts. I don’t particularly care if he cheats on his wife and never goes to church. I want a winner–for the sake of the country and for my conservative agenda. If it takes somebody nasty, so be it. We’re in a war. Nice guys frequently make lousy warriors–just look at Bush who never fought back and set up the Dems for huge victories.

That’s not to say a guy with good character can’t win elections. But if it’s a choice of character over electability, I choose electability every time. That said, guys like Duke never have much of a following, so I can’t take seriously the hypothesis you set up. But a guy can cheat on his wife and be a strong leader. Conversely, a lot of moral men would make a lousy leaders. One quality has little to do with the other–just as a lot of moral men might make lousy executives and a lot of immoral men make excellent executives.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

writeblock

nt

AceInTX

Oh…I see….it’s all so clear to me now

/sarc

AceInTX

Tbone

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

AceInTX

proudmarinemom

.

writeblock

Some of the posters around here seem more interested in finding a hero to worship than a candidate who can win elections. But we’re in a civil war and we need warriors to lead us–and warriors don’t always come in neat moral packages.

AceInTX

NHConservative0227

Erick,

I remember back in the beginning of January when you stated that you liked Gov. Palin but that she was made radioactive and as a result were supporting Mike Pence for POTUS>

You also stated:

“As it stands right now, if the election were held tomorrow and Mike Pence isn?t in, Palin has my vote.”

Is this still the case Erick? It seems that after Pence said he wasn’t running, the new Anyone But Palin (ABP) mantra switched to the establishment pick in Mitch Daniels. Now alot has come out to show that Daniels isn’t all that great. In addition to him wanting to pull the right to work bill, he wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal about compromising on Obamacare, wants to do a VAT tax, and doesn’t view stopping illegal immigration as a top priority as Indiana governor.

Daniels is not a better choice than Palin.

Erick will you go on record in support of Gov. Palin for President? Maybe create a “Draft Gov. Palin” thread?

Goldwater_Conservative

I know where you stand, you dont have to tell us. Attack, charge, take no prisoners, keep charging, keep charging fight like hell.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

I’m not interested in voting for someone that I can’t trust. Been there done that. This has nothing to do with hero worship, and that’s especially true for me. If I can’t trust him, how can I know he’ll do what he says?

BTW, I think it’s hilarious that you can actually say “Rudy” and “electable” in the same sentence.

pastisprolog

The man who would have been the second greatest hero of the Revolutionary War, after George Washington, was Benedict Arnold. Character does matter.

writeblock

You misunderstand what I’m saying. I’m not advocating for bad character. I’m advocating for strong GOP leadership in whatever packaging it comes in. If a candidate has a spotty moral background but is a true warrior and is very electable–then I will go with that absolutely. That said, our weakest candidate is preferable to any one of theirs.

AceInTX

powertothepeople

from a person with a low character themselves and a mind that is only able to handle one thing at a time. He would vote for Hitler if he thought he could “win.”

But I do have to say his comment just took the trophy.

ASsHat

AceInTX

powertothepeople

and while she would be better than Daniels, it would be shame that once again we were only able to produce a slightly better than bad candidate for president.

And she is not running………

writeblock

A man can cheat on his wife and yet be honorable in his business dealings. And vice versa. Obama and Carter never cheat on their wives–at least we have no record of it–but I wouldn’t trust them as far as I can spit in any sort of negotiation. Rudy was said by social conservatives to have been untrustworthy because he cheated on his wife–though his mistress at the time was public knowledge so he never technically “cheated”–but he was always more principled than somebody like Romney who switched principles according to how the wind blew. We may not like Giuliani’s principles–but he was honest about them. So his word was trustworthy–unlike Romney’s–regardless of his private life and troubles with women.

Aaron Gardner

hoosierteacher

Are you ready for this? Daniels is now flipping on his position / statement about the dems. Read my latest post in the diary section.

He may be throwing LibHawk and his other supporters under the bus. Apparently, he (Daniels) realizes that he just blew his presidential chances, and is trying to walk back his statements.

What a leader! (sarcasm)

hoosierteacher

Would you be so kind as to read my latest diary on Daniels flipping his position? It is still one of the two or three newest diaries.

For God’s sake, don’t rec it or anything (I’m not trying to get into that mess!). I just want your opinion.

Goldwater_Conservative

a response to Ace, not you. As your response above, I didnt say anything about it becasue once again you created something else all new and nothing I said. I never said “what could Daniels do about the situation”, I just said he has chosen to deal with it the way he has. So yes, he could do some of the things Scott Walker is proposing, but he has not deicided to yet, and btw those wis dems are still at large as well so who is to say what works at this point?

Aaron Gardner

NHConservative0227

I think the fact that she’s had PAC members scoping out Iowa last month and will be the keynote speaker in India next month indicate that she IS running.

Why else do you think she’s going to India, just for the sights?

And how is Palin only slightly better than bad candidate?

She’s got 9 years of proven executive experience, has an excellent record as governor of Alaska. As mayor of Wasilla she took a city that was a hole in the wall and turned into a thriving community.

No one has spoken up for in the public arena for the conservative cause over the last 2 years despite an avalanche of smears. She has refused to back down. Palin is outside the establishment She will shake things up just like she did with the GOP in Alaska.

Palin is the best candidate we’ve had since Reagan.

http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

He’s just not electable, so he doesn’t meet your criteria.

Character does matter though.

Aaron Gardner

The point being, you are busy throwing out ad hominem in the direction of Ace and ignoring facts.

The point of this whole thread is that Mitch lacks the spine to do what is needed.

The point is that you and Lib Hawk are fanbois for Mitch and just can’t admit it and instead you infer that everyone who disagrees with St. Mitch just isn’t bright enough to understand how this all really works.

The point is, ad hominem attacks are against site policy.

It’s time people get the point.

Tbone

Besides, your boy Mitch has exactly the same mathematical probability of being elected POTUS as I have.

ZERO.

writeblock

and just as silly.. Do you know how to follow an argument? The worst GOP candidate, character-wise, is better than their best. But to save the country we need winners–warriors who’ll fight this civil war and win. I’m not advocating anybody with low character–I’m advocating a winner, even if he’s morally flawed, over a loser who is morally impeccable. I don’t see how you can argue with that.

Goldwater_Conservative

you are now in wacky world. Not one thing in that entire post is true. Its like you are having an argument with the little man in your head.

acat

writeblock is a Rudy! fan.

Mew

Aaron Gardner

AceInTX

why do we have to keep making excuses for our feckless, pathetic leadership when all they do is wet themselves as the left keeps advancing the ball?

Goldwater_Conservative

you suffer from ADD and you have been unable to stick to a topic or stick to what you say, so I’m not going to argue with you. Case in point, this whole little rant of yours came by way of me responding to Ace.

AceInTX

btw, do you have a link for what Daniels did on the Judges that you mentioned?

AceInTX

Aaron Gardner

And I know that you replied to Ace. That is why I came back. You avoided my comment challenging the tactics, or lack thereof, of St. Mitch, and instead decided to hurl ad hominem attacks towards Ace.

I am not “wacky”, have a “little man in [my] head”, nor do I have ADD. You just can’t argue your way out of a wet paper bag so you fall back on ad hominem attacks.

AceInTX

Tbone

he may as well “Switch to Mitch”. (I’ld copyright that but, what for? LOL)

powertothepeople

so Arlen Spector,Charlie Crist, Edison Misla Aldarondo, Scott Muschany and others are better just because they are republican? Is that what you are trying to say? Are you saying that the highest position in this country, one that is privy to the very documents and info that keeps this country powerful, that is a position that takes character in order to keep respect, takes the respect of the world in order to get things done should be passed on to a liar, a cheater, a person who has serious character flaws just because you the trophy winner feels they can win?

And you are advocating a person with low character, his name is Rudy. So try to play another game for a change.

And a person who can not even keep their own life in order, honor the promise they gave their spouse in marriage, govern as they campaigned or how they talk when cameras are around. etc etc etc has no business running this country. And that is why voters across this country resoundingly rejected your dream man.

Now go play with your trophy………

PS And save the crying, I decided to live by my own words and respect the mods request to stop calling morons morons. If this or anything else I have said to you was a personal attack, you and everyone else would know it. And with what you type, it would be quite easy to make personal “attacks” or as I would call it with you, character descriptions.

streiff

one more instance of name calling and your posting days here are done. Any questions?

Goldwater_Conservative

This is from the realclear politics article:
“An initial press report suggested that Daniels was instead saluting the Democratic lawmakers who left the state. Subsequently, an audio of the press briefing was released making it clear Daniel’s was referring to the protestors, not the Democratic lawmakers.”

So you guys were wrong, in perfect rinoplasty drive by fashion.

Daniels DID NOT praise the AWOL lawmakers, instead he was giving lip service to the citizen protestors who were excersing their right to protest. So you were wrong, I was right. Apology acepted.

Tbone

Well, it would take someone with some combination of morals, ethics, character, convictions, honesty and integrity. Perhaps, even just an inkling of any of them.

As such, I can understand your lack of insight into these things.

AceInTX

By biggest issue with him isn’t just that he’s not up to the task…that he has no stomach for the fight….or as you put it…that he “lacks the spine to do what is needed”…

It’s that the incredible dunderhead PRAISED

Let me say that again so everyone can hear

PRAISEDthe democrats for making their stand in IL

AceInTX

streiff

if so, get over it. Fast.

Aaron Gardner

I don’t expect to hear from you much longer.

Daniels backtracked. That doesn’t prove that at the time he wasn’t praising the democrats as so many did, and still do believe.

But hey, St. Mitch said, so it must be true.

Goldwater_Conservative

read the article closely

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/23/daniels_clarifies_comments_blasts_democratic_lawmakers__109006.html

he gave lip service to the citizen protestors, same as Walker did

hoosierteacher

I added a source I found in my comment reply to you in the other post.

Goldwater_Conservative

read the story, it was incorrectly printed that he praised the AWOL lawmakers, when they played back the audio he actually didnt.

AceInTX

seems this confusion wouldn’t have occurred if this account is right….had he been a we bit more articulate

Aaron Gardner

See how we can both throw out links supporting the premise?

Aaron Gardner

He admitted that he left it open to interpretation, that is why he made clarifying remarks.

hoosierteacher

My reading of the article is that Daniels statement could have been taken either way, but he meant the legislaters and that’s exactly how the media took it too.

It took him until late today to “clarify the remarks”, and then ONLY after the bill had to be pulled and Mitch was getting pummeled. The remarks were reported all night then all day today.

It is also clear from the questions from the press at his conferance that nobody buys his backtracking.

I think Daniels threw his supporters (including his supporters at RS) under the bus, and they are scrambling for anything to show he must not have meant what he said.

It doesn’t matter anymore though. Daniels is finished for a 2012 run. Between his comments against socialy conservative voters and now his major contrast against Walker and Christie, Daniels has lost the primary before ever getting started. And thank God.

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

This is not a Sarah Palin post – let’s keep the spotlight on Mitch Daniels.

hoosierteacher

I’m fighting a nasty stomach virus, and I was a public school teacher for several years. (lol)

My wife can’t believe I won’t tear myself from the PC and go to bed.

hoosierteacher

If you read the story, Daniels and his spokeswoman stand by his comments EXACTLY as quoted. They are NOW trying to say he was talking about the protestors instead of the democrats that fled the state.

Even Daniels isn’t trying to say there was a misprint of his words.

The problem is, he had 24 hours to clarify his remarks (which were immediately scrutinized when he made them).

Face it. The same people that have been defending Daniels statements and positions have to change course because Daniels is changing his position. If you saw or heard his presser, the media folk were stunned at how he was walking back his earlier statements.

Daniels threw you under the bus, and you’re still trying to make excuses for him. Just admit that he said some foolish things Tuesday (and in the past about socons), and that he isn’t up to the battle like Walker and Christie.

It seems to me that the two biggest supporters of Daniels at RS right now are you and libhawk. A “Goldwater” conservative is a libertarian, and “LibertarianHawk” wears his politics openly in his own name too. It shouldn’t surprise you that most folks at Red State (a conservative site) don’t care for Daniels, while it is understandable that libertarians would.

Perhaps this is why everyone is “speaking past” each other. We aren’t going to agree. A victory for libertarians is not always the same thing as a victory for conservatives.

We can all get along once we realize that not everyone in this argument is arguin from a conservative perspective, and that’s ok.

rickbull

I think James Carville has better character than John McCain. And Carville has impeccable taste in women . . .

AceInTX

rickbull

the Illinois Dems will take off to Iowa . . .
(And I will be selling snowballs in Antarctica.)

AceInTX

writeblock

…but that’s not all it will take to save America. Most of our candidates have reasonably good characters. But it’ll take a helluva lot more than that to turn this country away from the brink of fiscal disaster. Facing that kind of scenario, a good marriage is beside the point. Rudy was condemned by a lot of social conservatives for his marital problems–but he was exemplary as a leader during 9/11, showing the steely nerves and coolness that good leadership requires. So character is in the eye of the beholder. A lot of guys with solid marital credentials might have folded under the same pressure. So it’s apples and oranges. One thing has little to do with the other–given a normal set of values–which most candidates have or they wouldn’t have gotten where they are in the first place.

ghostship

They could have taken out the collective bargaining part and voted on it separately without the need for a quorum and passed it easily since the D’s were all out of state.

They could have passed or at least threaten to pass a lot of other stuff while the D’s that would have forced the D’s to run back to the state if they had some balls but the Republican Party proves once again that it’s run by a bunch spineless wimps.

The Party needs to man up and actually fight!

writeblock

Carville might have a better character and a better judge of women–but he’d be a disaster for America if he ever ran for president. McCain might not have had as good a character, but he would have been better for America than any Democrat–especially with his support for the military and the war in Iraq–something no Democrat is noted for.

kestrel

I wish people would at least read Thomas Sowell on school choice, and do some thinking. I agree with you, Hawk, especially on this: “What he?s doing here is keeping his eye on the ball ? and, IMO, that is bold leadership.”

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

You do a whole lot better job of justifying his position than he does.

writeblock

As long as you mention Specter, let me give you the reason I voted for him in the primary over Toomey–which is also why both Bush and Santorum endorsed him over Toomey who was by far a better man morally..

The Republican majority in the Senate was hanging by a thread. A loss in PA would have meant a loss of the Senate. A loss of the Senate would have meant Bush could not have gotten his Supreme Ct. nominees through Congress. So winning the Senate was crucial that year.

The problem for conservatives in PA was that Toomey was polling badly. He could not have won. Heck, he just barely won in 2010 in a wave election–and there was no wave back then, it was touch and go. So I went with Specter, much as I despised him. But he was more electable. As a result we won the Senate seat, he took the chair of the Judicial committee and ushered Roberts and Alito through the confirmation process. So we got two supreme court justices out of my vote–something we would have lost had Toomey won the primary and lost in the general election.

You get my drift? Morals, character–none of that means anything if somebody’s not electable or is a weak candidate.In most cases morality is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Those who suggest Rudy is without morals are clueless. He has more integrity in his little finger than most politicians that get praised by the right. It took guts and courage to fight the unions, the race hustlers, the Mafia, the media. That’s a matter of character also–not just having a good marriage. Look at Rush–he’s on wife number three, I think. Yet he’s a great conservative leader. His marital life has little to do with how good he is on talk radio.

rickbull

the subject was character. You said that our worst had better character than their best, and I successfully countered that, by your own admission: “Carville might have a better character . . .”

As far as candidates, Mrs. Carville (Mary Matalin), would be a MUCH better candidate for POTUS than John McCain.

It also explains what happened to James’ hair: “OMG, I’m a liberal and I’m married to a CONSERVATIVE!!!!”

powertothepeople

even a monkey would see the fault in this logic and hide his head.

So you voted for trash over a good man and claim he could not win. Maybe it was because a ton of people listened to the ignorance you are spewing. Anyone can be beat and anyone can win if enough people do the right thing. And what did your “glorious win” give us. A man who screwed not only the party so many times people lost count, but the people of PA as well. Oh and then he came out of the political closet and joined the party he belonged to the entire time. Kudos to your and your “argument.”

Do you understand how badly you just damaged your own argument. No, no way you could see that, and yet another reason for the trophy.

And I really would not count GWB’s actions as merit for your argument. Only an idiot would claim he did the right thing all the time or even half the time.

In his little finger…….either you are blind or really have no clue as to what the meaning of integrity is. Look up the word as I am going to assume that is your problem.

And just for your info, Rush is not our leader or a leader of our party. He is an entertainer who happens to have conservative values. Again, not a good comparison and since he is not running for office, his marriages matter little. Should he run, and they will be an issue. Well that and his pill popping while he was condemning the same.

And none of this has anything to do with the names I posted. You claimed any republican was better than a dem regardless of their lack of morals or character. Look up the other names and get back with me on that subject. I would have figured you being in PA you would have remembered the massive damage Specter always did to the party and our cause, but without surprise, you conveniently glossed over that part and spewed nonsense once again.

writeblock

Most of our politicians have good marital lives–but are moral cowards. They hate to fight. They prefer making back room deals. They are not do-ers, they’re go-along-ers. They are nice guys, they are gentlemanly, they are well married with nice families–but they are moral cowards. They are invested in the status quo, business-as-usual. It takes moral courage to fight the media, for instance, to fight the unions, to fight the Mafia. That’s the kind of morality in politics I can respect–not the fact that somebody’s private life is exemplary. To that I say–so what? It has nothing to do with the kind of morality we need to save America. On the other hand, sometimes a politician shows he’s got it all. I’d put Rubio and Walker in that category. But they are rare. Most polticians take polls before they take a stand. That’s cowardice–immorality of a different order than a church-going morality. But it matters more than the latter when it comes to governing.

rickbull

NHConservative0227

He is too weak and compromising.

There is only one leader today who has the backbone needed to help put us on the right track and it cannot be stated enough.

For too long people have been brainwashed by Achance and his misguided vendettas.

If you don’t like what I have to say then ignore it. Thanks for being the thread police though, I’m sure Michelle Obama would be proud.

writeblock

You bet I voted for trash. Specter won that year. He was always the clear favorite in the general election. It meant we took the Senate–which meant we got two great Supreme Ct justices.

Look at what would have happened if we took your advice. Toomey would have won the primary and lost the general election.
Heck, he barely won in 2010 in a wave election even against a weak candidate like Sestak. But in 2006 a loss by him would have been catastrophic. It would have meant Republicans would lose the majority in the Senate and this would have made Pat Leahy chairman of Judiciary. This would have effectively blocked both Bush nominees–Roberts and Alito.

Your way is dumb politics and suicidal for conservatives. Winning is everything in politics. You may feel morally superior to me–as some of you seem to feel–but that kind of smugness gets you nowhere in the rough and tumble political world. It does no good to be ignorant of the bottom line. Winning means fewer abortions, it means fewer leftwing judges, it means more jobs and more national security and smaller government. Losing gives us just the opposite.

powertothepeople

Why else do you think she?s going to India, just for the sights?

Maybe for the Cumin, who knows, who cares.

And how is Palin only slightly better than bad candidate?

Been answered a thousand times, not going to do it again.

She?s got 9 years of proven executive experience, has an excellent record as governor of Alaska.

Oh, OK sure!

As mayor of Wasilla she took a city that was a hole in the wall and turned into a thriving community.

Sure she did, all by herself?

No one has spoken up for in the public arena for the conservative cause over the last 2 years despite an avalanche of smears.

Partially agree except for the “no one” part. That is absolute nonsense and you know it.

She has refused to back down.

Didn’t she tuck tail and run once already? Oh that’s right, she did.

Palin is outside the establishment She will shake things up just like she did with the GOP in Alaska.

Sure she will. Such sweet dreams you have.

Palin is the best candidate we?ve had since Reagan.

And your closed with a joke. Nice!

writeblock

On any other level this wouldn’t be true. But in a power struggle between Republicans and Democrats for the presidency, then our worst is better than their best. Because their best still would give us bigger government, fewer jobs, more abortions, and international decline.

powertothepeople

You did not need to admit to voting for trash, we already know your leanings and how they should be used to teach all new voters on what not to do.

And since it is very obvious you are not God, you have no proof anything you stated in paragraph two has any grounding in fact. It is just assumptions from an …..oh yeah, newtone and all. And sorry Bub, Specter was not the reason we got the two SC justices nor would his absence been the undoing of the two. You really love to revise history don’t you.

And I am morally and intellectually superior to you, but that is not saying much. There is not a republican on this site that is not in the same boat as me, and we even have a few monkeys in the same boat. It is just amazing to us all you can say the same nonsense so many time and yet never realize just how stupid it is and how stupid it sounds. But C’est la vie, by all means carry on.

hoosierteacher

She is not the idiot her detractors make her out to be. She is also not the answer her followers make her out to be.

Palin was unfairly attacked, despite running a state almost as large as the rest of the country (bigger, in fact, than most European countries). She and her family were subjected (and still are) to the most cruel and insensitive attacks, and her words continue to be twisted without correction by the Courics of the world. I get that. She’s a straight shooter, attractive, and one of the few gals I’d love to go hunting/fishing with (except that she would likely outdo me).

On the other hand, nobody that quits on their voters mid-term and goes on to star in a reality show is going to get a serious nod from the voters. I love Sarah, and I’ve got her back. But she isn’t going to run – she’s going to fight in the trenches where she can be more effective. That’s what she said when she walked away from the governor’s office, and she’s kept her word.

rickbull

The issue was character, not political ideology or power struggle, and you have already said “racist.” (see below)

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

EVERY post is about Palin.

writeblock

Would you rather win with a morally flawed GOP candidate or lose with a morally impeccable GOP candidate? Which one gets you fewer abortions, smaller government, respect for the military, etc. –the loser or the winner?

powertothepeople

but few of her detractors, myself included think of her as an idiot nor do we paint her as one. We simply do not accept the hysteria that she is the female Christ that will cure all disease, wipe away poverty. end the democratic party, stop all the evil and do all this after a spot of tea. We actually see her past record for what it is.

And I agree, it is shameful the way she has been attacked and even more shameful that they went after her family. Attacking her policy, politics, record, or gaffes is one thing, but that was not the focus of their attacks. I am 100% sure this has been a trying time for her and has to have been the most disgusting thing she and her family have ever had to deal with. Had I been her husband, I would have been in jail in multiple states for assaulting the scumbags who have attacked her and her children.

Most of us also recognize the contributions she has bring to our cause. We see the value she brings campaigning for candidates, her value in raising money and awareness, and we know how much of a void there would be should she quite doing all of that. But we also see she is not the politician so many make her out to be and many of her policies as gov were not the policies of a conservative. She has extreme value in politics, just not as a politician.

And as far as her personally, yes she is beautiful smart woman. I respect her for a ton of things from the care and love she gives Trig to her faith and willingness to stand in the gap for her family. I just have no respect for her past political career nor do I want to see her run for the highest office in the country. But if by some small chance she does run and does win, I will and would vote for her in the general as I would for any other republican. And if she was to win, I would hope and pray she surrounds herself with wise council, much wiser than she has in the past, listens to the council, and acts on their words. And I would have no issue with calling her president.

gekster

it’s his position to move the goal posts when confronted with facts, try to rewrite history, (his Reagan examples), change course in mid stream to try to win the arguement, say he’s being call names with those who disagree with him, CONSTANTLY say he is misunderstood when all clearly understand what he has said, and the biggest issue is that the primary system is flawed because Pennsylvania is not the first primary in the nation and it wont elect a looser like Rudy.
I don’t think i missed anything, but probably did.
But he is fun to have around to play with.
He is good for those dull days.

disclaimer: having delt with this guy for at least a couple of months now, I can state what I say is true.

writeblock

and looking weak in the polls doesn’t necessarily mean a candidate will lose. But it depends on when the poll was taken and by whom and on how well you know your constituencies. But in the final analysis you go with the odds and you look at the risks.

It was foolish to risk a loss of the Senate when Specter back then was polling strongly. Too much was at stake to start taking chances with Toomey who polled poorly. And we were right. Personally, I’m still surprised at how poorly Toomey did in the 2010, just squeaking by in a wave year. So I certainly don’t regret my 2006 vote–it gave us Roberts and Alito. Had Specter lost the primary, we’d probably have lost the Senate. Toomey just isn’t a strong candidate–though he’ll make a terrific senator and I’m thrilled he won last year.

As for your stating flatly that you are “morally and intellectually” superior to me, let me comment that to say this is pretty foolish–since it reveals your own limitation as a thinker so clearly. You never have a solid argument–merely a personal attack. Your animus against me at least is consistent. I don’t take it seriously. It sounds bizarre.

NHConservative0227

I mean have you ever said anything good about Gov. Palin?

It’s time to wake up and realize that she is the best candidate we have by far and the best candidate since Reagan.

NHConservative0227

First, to be honest we need to address why she quit. The governors office was flooded with frivilous ethics charges what were threatening to personally bankrupt Palin. It was making so almost nothing got done which was a disservice to the taxpayers.

Palin played a great role in the Tea Party movement and helping many get elected. She was able to do so as a private citizen, while others run for office while ignoring their current duties (like both McCain and Obama did).

Palin is the most conservative candidate. She has a great record and has already laid out a number of her policy positions. Palin will have the chance to appeal to the voters directly and win them over. I believe the overwhelming majority of Americans will choose Palin and limited gov’t over Maobama.

NHConservative0227

Sarah is a Constitutionalist.

Under the AK Constitution, the AK Governor is a negotiator on behalf of Alaskans, who jointly own AK?s natural resources. Also, 85% of the operating budget is to be derived from development of said natural resources.
As said negotiator, Sarah fulfilled her Constitutional duty to get Akns the best possible deal without discouraging developers. And to supply the 85% of the operating budget with ample funding from development.

Under the U.S. Constitution, the President is NOT a negotiator with the business sector on behalf of all Americans (BO, however, believes he is!). And all Americans do not jointly own all natural resources. And 85% of the U.S. operating budget does NOT come from development of natural resources.
Therefore, as President, Palin would not pass a bill, such as ACES.

hoosierteacher

You are falling exactly into what I’m talking about.

You say:

“We simply do not accept the hysteria that she is the female Christ that will cure all disease, wipe away poverty. end the democratic party, stop all the evil and do all this after a spot of tea.”

…as if her supporters say that. They DON’T say that, and to intimate that they do is to label her following the way the leftist media does. You are exagerating, and can’t find a single example of “Christ”, ending “poverty” or the “dems”, stopping “evil”, etc. I want her detractors (like you) to be serious, and I want her defenders (like NHconservative) to be honest.

Her supporters bother me because they can’t understand that her flight from the governor’s office and her daliences with things like reality shows are un-presidential. I didn’t like Clinton wearing sweats in the oval office (when he was wearing his pants), and I don’t think Sarah cuts the jib of a serious leader. That’s just my opinion. I can’t see her winning a primary, and most of us can’t.

But I don’t have to make up stuff about her followers thinking she is Christ or something. C’mon now. Seriously, who throws shoes? (Thumbs up if you caught my Austin Powers reference).

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

I’ve said lots of good things about her. For instance, she’d make a great RNC Chair. She’s quite good at doing what she’s doing, and that would be casting stones at the GlassHouse while have no responsibility to actually put together a coalition of legislators to accomplish something. She’s a very good fund raiser (see RNC Chair) and did a fair job of promoting candidates in primaries last year, although some of her more notable successes ended up being very notable – and highly visible – failures in the general. Overall, her election cycle performance – IMO – was a plus.

The general point is, the areas that she is competent or better are generally related to her public political skills with a slice of the base of the Republican Party. Those skills, at least at this point in time, do not attract – and in fact seem to repel – those not associated with that slice. In addition, she has shown no ability to be even a competent executive who can motivate the machine.

And, fool, I don’t “hate” her. I just recognize that she’s not POTUS material, although if there are enough people in the primaries the theological wing of the party may well nominate her. And thereby insure BO’s reelection.

One day she may be POTUS material. Today however, is not that day.

And she’s no Ronald Wilson Reagan. In any sense of the term. Any.

Oh, and “hater” is simply the hiding place of those who don’t have the facility to assemble a cogent fact-based argument. Simply pathetic.

hoosierteacher

Nobody brought that issue up. And with respect, what in the heck are you talking about!?!?!? What IS that issue?

Nevermind. I’m being rhetorical. I really, REALLY don’t (D-O-N-’-T) want to know about Alaska’s negotiations and resources and ACES, or whatever the hell you’re talking about.

You’re as bad for Palin as powertothepeople is against her.

Ok, you might be a little worse.

: )

NHConservative0227

If you knew the background on her you wouldn’t be taking a cheap shot at me. For years Achance was on here criticizing Palin. I believe his unfair hatred of her affected many on here. Truth is the Achace worked for Frank Murkowski and had a serious ax to grind against Palin.

That’s a major reason why many on here have an Anyone But Palin mindset. I’ve have seen numerous criticisms saying she did some things in office that were not conservative from people like MBecker.

Powertothepeople just mentioned that above, that she did some acts in office that were not conservative. ACES is the most common topic that many posters one here are often referring to.

I felt compelled to set the record straight. That hardly makes me a Palinista. There are things I’ve criticized her on as I have and will continue to hold her accountable just like I will with everyone. However, Palin is still the best candidate for president by far.

hoosierteacher

Anyone who holds the office of governor or president is going to have a desk full of ethics violations and lawsuits against them at any time. The Sheriff’s dept I worked for had lawsuits (they always get dismissed or beat) simply because the sheriff has a jail of inmates that are suit happy, and they arrest criminals that have no sense of self responsibilty.

Now mutiply that to the governor’s level. In addition to suits from your prisoners in your state’s DOC, you have your political opponents, folks unhappy with ANY of your agencies, media investigations, unions, your state employees, etc. Almost every suit against the state seems to have your name on it! And it is multiplied more when you get to the White House!

Sarah DID get a bum rap, and (like all governors) most if not all of the suits and ethics complaints were completely bogus. But that is what you deal with as a governor, and it gets worse as a president. Name one president (just one) without a truckload of ethics complaints and suits. Please play the history game and name Washington – you’ll be shocked at how low his opposition sank.

Sarah (God bless her) couldn’t handle the heat and quit. I don’t blame her. I would never subject my family to public office. And the voters (in their wisdom) would never have me.

: )

But if she couldn’t take the heat in AK, she wouldn’t have handled it in the White House.

NHConservative0227

Yes, it’s true that goernors offices all over the country get frivolous complaints. The difference is that Alaska law does not allow the use of state funds to fight the complaints. As a result, Palin very easily could’ve gone broke using her own money to fight the complaints. See the difference?

Also, Palin’s office had alot more complaints then the majority of other offices throughout the country. THis is from the liberal media doing an all out assault after rthe 08 campaign.

Finally, the real test of Palin’s resolve is what she’s done the last two years. Even though an obscene amount of criticism and unfair smears has been launched at her, she has refused to sit down and shut up. How many other Republicans will cave at the slightest sign of trouble? Just look at Daniels with the Right to Work bill (and the tide is actually in his favor now)!

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

If you all want to argue Palin, then write your own diary.

Mgmt.

writeblock

I’ve been consistent. I said I’d take electability over character any day. I stand by that. How am I inconsistent or changing the goal posts?

hoosierteacher

I’m not Achance. I’m not MBecker. I HATE Murkowski. Nobody brought up ACES, and I still have no idea what it is about (and have no desire to know). And most of all, I didn’t take a cheap shot at you.

I think you’re mistaken because you are calling on Erick to support her, and I think you are being serious about it. Go to any site, blog, or magazine devoted to conservative thought or activism and pull that stunt, REGARDLESS of who your candidate is. It makes you look silly. Nobody is going to support your candidate because you come to the site telling the leadership of the site to support your candidate. Daniels supporters don’t do that, Romney supporters don’t do that. Thomspon supporters… on and on. Uhm, Ron Paul supporters do that, but they’re nuts.

I also didn’t see where pttp attacked her conservative credentials. He DID attack her, and you can read where I stuck up for her.

So both you and pttp prove my point. The people that can’t stand Sarah attack her supporters for thinking she is “the female Christ, and the end of poverety, democrats, and evil” That’s just silly. You don’t believe that do you?

But her supporters run around to blogs and websites and demand that those entities support her for president. Sarah can’t win and no credible site is going to support her.

I’m trying to stick up for Sarah, and you don’t make my case easy. It’s probably because it is much easier to stick up for Sarah than to stick up for her supporters.

Sarah is good at what she does (rallying the base). I love her for it, and no one outside of office does a better job. It is what she was born to do. When you come to a blog and tell the director who he has to support, you give your detractors a lot of ammo.

When you go off on this ACES crap, you give the rest of us some good laughs.

: )

writeblock

I never said our primary system was flawed because PA wasn’t first. I said it’s flawed because it front loads states that are meaningless guides for how candidates would do in a general election. They are small states and insignificant states undeserving of the clout they’re given in the party and in the media. The truly important states–the swing states, the battleground states–come later–when their choices have no impact since the candidates have been weeded out early on. By the time we get to NH it’s all over–why? It’s a system designed to give us moderates and losers.

But as usual you mischaracterize what I’m saying.

writeblock

We started by discussing ELECTABILITY and character. You brought up Carville. I assumed you meant if he ran for president. Otherwise why drag him into the discussion? I was being consistent. It was yourself who lost the thread–then claim I did.

http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/23/mitch-danielss-truce/#comment-103160

…unlike myself, who was just making a request earlier…

hoosierteacher

Write a diary.

And don’t call me dishonest PAL. She quit – and every governor gets suits and ethics complaints. Call me a liar again and we’ll go to the moderators for a ruling.

We’ll take up your personal attack on me when you write your own post.

Frankly, I’m ashamed that I started this thread trying to stick up for you. You just trashed that entire notion. Or maybe powertothepeople has a point?

powertothepeople

unless you consider citizens of certain states not Americans, And the states set up their own dates as to when their primaries are so if you have such an issue with the way it is, complain to them.

And outside of a few states, all primaries are held in less than 30 days and the actual contest are only about 7 days. Every candidate that runs for office knows the set up, know what states they need, know what states they are strong in and which ones they are weak in, and know what money they need to put into certain states. You keep stating it is over by the time we finish NH, but that is an outright lie. Gekster has already shown you numerous times candidates that lost in NH, yet won the nomination. And since all but a few states complete their vote in less than 30 days, most people already have their choice in mind and vote accordingly. If a candidate guesses wrong and thinks they are winning or will win in certain states and it backfires, their problem.But your continued ignorant argument that somehow NH is the king maker, which it used to be the “lousy” farmers in IA that did that according to you, is absurd and void of any merit.

Moving on, lets put something to the test. You claim to be smart/intelligent, lets see if that is correct. You have beat this dumb drum since the day you darkened these doors. Lets see if you have the mental capacity to spend one week discussing something else other than this that actually does something to further our cause. I know you can not, but lets try it anyways.

And just for your info whether you want to accept it or not, candidates do not drop out because they lose NH, IA, SC or even FL. They have their own internal polls, they know they states they must win in order to take the nomination. They know just how many delegate votes they need and what states will give them the magic number. If by the end of FL, they have been unable to win enough votes and their polls show them not taking enough upcoming states to win, they drop out. It would matter less how the system was set up and what states went first, they would use the same formulas and the same results would occur. Put these states first, PA, TX, CA, NY, NJ, And OH and if a candidate did not win enough in those states and their internal polls showed them not taking enough of the states coming up, they would drop out. So since your guy, who whether you drop his name or not is the reason you beat this drum had the states first I listed above, he was losing in all of them but lets give you PA just for kicks and giggles, now lets add to the equation the known fact he was losing in SC, NC, FL, NV, NH, IA, MA, GA, and he was beat and beat bad. He was done no matter how the system was set up.

No matter how many times you beat this drum, not one candidate is going to drop out after the first primaries even if they lost all the first states if they are winning in CA, TX, PA, OH, NY, NV, NM, etc. It would be absolutely stupid for them to do so as wins in those states would put them over the top almost and it would only take a few more of the small states to win it all. All the states you feel are filled with insignificant American voters are no where near enough to win it all. In fact, their low delegate count is nearly at the bottom of the pile. So contrary to your constant assertions, those states do not end anyones campaign nor do they force anyone out. What forces them out, as it forced Rudy out, is their internal polls showing massive losses in the other states and on Super Tuesday. It is Super Tuesday that crown the winner and PA is in that contest.

gekster

It’s like your talking points are on a loop.
I have heard them enough to have them memorized by now.
It allways boils down to the primary system is bad, and a good (in your eyes alone) candidate like Rudy can’t game the system and get elected.
If he can’t win the small states, how on earth is he gonnna win the big ones.
And for the umpteenth time, he was a BAD candidate. Period.

gekster

They don’t count to him, just those in the liberal big cities.

gekster

Allthough he won’t see them.

writeblock

insignificant [??ns?g?n?f?k?nt]
adj
1. having little or no importance; trifling
2. almost or relatively meaningless
3. small or inadequate an insignificant wage
4. not distinctive in character, etc.
insignificance , insignificancy n
insignificantly adv

IA and NH are of little or no importance in a general election. I used the term properly.

And candidates drop out because the money dries up after the early primaries. You don’t seem to know or appreciate this. By the time we get to the bigger states, it’s all over. It’s absolutely unfair–and it gives insignificant states too much clout–but that’s the process and so far we’re stuck with it.

writeblock

why do you distort it. When did I ever say PA should go first? I’ve advocated a system where there is regional rotation and one that’s totally closed and proportional. But I never insisted PA go first–though I thought it was ridiculous how battleground states are backloaded. I’ve also shown how the system’s designed to produce moderates–or losers. A change is long overdue.

writeblock

I do agree NH and IA are important IN THE PRESENT PRIMARY SYSTEM. But my argument is not that they lack importance in the present process but that it means nothing in terms of the general election–and is therefore a crazy and stupid system. We should be wondering how candidates do in the swing states. They shouldn’t be talking about ethanol for a year in a small state with four electoral votes that’ll probably go to the Dems anyway–not when the country’s on fire.

NHConservative0227

Since anymore discussion is obviously unwanted here, I’ll be waiting for the next Palin thread to set the record straight.

And you’ll never see me threatening run to a moderator about anything, but whatever floats your boat.

Tbone

Spit, spit, spit, spit ….

Change Jar Conservative

that’s not what he was doing.

Whether you believe he and his spokesman or not, he was praising the few Dems that did show up.

Change Jar Conservative

that’s not what he was doing.

Whether you believe he and his spokesman or not, he was praising the few Dems that did show up.

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Mitch Daniels’s Truce

COMMENTS

ALL

COMMENTS

POPULAR

#RSRH

PICK YOUR STATE & GET LOCAL