« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Mike Pence is Ready for the Next Fight

Rep. Mike Pence is stepping down from his leadership post as Chairman of the Republican Conference in preparation for the next phase of his bright future. Below is the letter he sent to his colleagues to announce his decision; it’s well worth a read.

As a friend and former staff of Pence who has watched him closely over the years as a movement conservative, I want you to know this. Mike Pence walks the walk. Being in Leadership is not easy, and behind closed doors, Mike Pence was a relentless voice for freedom and limited government and legislating on the basis of principle rather than polls. I couldn’t be more proud of the job he did.

The full letter is below the fold, but the following selection needs to be highlighted, for it serves as a warning to our new Republican majority. May the warning be heeded.

Finally, let me say, I am in no way leaving the fight. In fact, I look forward to standing shoulder to shoulder with you as we confront the challenges before us. The American people have given us a second chance and they deserve a Congress that represents their principles. While we should always seek areas of genuine common ground with the opposition, we must avoid the temptation to embrace agreement for agreement’s sake. We must never compromise on our commitment to end this era of runaway federal spending, borrowing, bailouts, deficits and debt. We must never shrink from our stand for a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and traditional moral values. We must regularly remind ourselves that the American people showed us the door in 2006 and 2008 not because we compromised too little, but because we compromised too much on key principles.
….

My challenge to you as a colleague and a fellow American is this: Be bold and courageous. Do not allow political winds to sway you from doing the hard thing and standing up for the basic principles upon which our nation was founded. We have been given an awesome responsibility and a second chance. If we prove to be true to our word and act with courage, the American people will stand with us.

Here is the full text of the letter:

Congratulations on your reelection. Your efforts contributed mightily to a great victory for the American people and, as a member of your Republican leadership, I am personally grateful.

I am writing to inform you that, after much prayerful consideration, I have decided not to seek re-election as Chairman of the House Republican Conference.

Two years ago, you unanimously elected me to serve as House Republican Conference Chairman, and it has been an honor to serve you.

During my acceptance speech in November of 2008, I told the Conference, “If we can boldly return our party to the practice and promotion of a common sense conservative agenda, I believe we will win back the majority in 2010.”

I will always be grateful for the confidence shown in me by John Boehner and you, and I am proud of the small role I played in helping our team win back a majority.

You deserve to know why I have chosen not to seek re-election as Conference Chairman.

After two consecutive losses for our party, the Republican Leader asked me to help lead House Republicans back to the majority, and I felt it was my duty to do so. I have always believed people should keep their promises and complete the assignments they have been given. As you recall, that’s why I declined offers to run for the U.S. Senate in the middle of my term as Chairman.

Now that we have restored a Republican majority to the House of Representatives and I have fulfilled my commitment to the Republican Conference, my family and I have begun to look to the future.

As we consider new opportunities to serve Indiana and our nation in the years ahead, I have come to realize that it may not be possible to complete an entire term as Conference Chairman. As such, I think it would be more appropriate for me to step aside now, especially since there are other talented men and women in our Conference who could do the job just as well or better.

I do not know what the future holds for my little family, but I do know who holds the future. So for now, we will continue our duties serving the people of Indiana and do what we have always done in such times; we will wait on the Lord and follow where He leads. We certainly welcome your prayers and your counsel in the days ahead.

As I complete my duties as your Conference Chairman, I have but one regret – saying goodbye to the finest Conference staff ever. Building on the foundation of my predecessor, we built a team of men and women of integrity and a servant’s heart. Whatever success we had over the past two years is owed entirely to the professionalism and character of our staff.

Finally, let me say, I am in no way leaving the fight. In fact, I look forward to standing shoulder to shoulder with you as we confront the challenges before us. The American people have given us a second chance and they deserve a Congress that represents their principles. While we should always seek areas of genuine common ground with the opposition, we must avoid the temptation to embrace agreement for agreement’s sake. We must never compromise on our commitment to end this era of runaway federal spending, borrowing, bailouts, deficits and debt. We must never shrink from our stand for a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, and traditional moral values. We must regularly remind ourselves that the American people showed us the door in 2006 and 2008 not because we compromised too little, but because we compromised too much on key principles.

Our country is in trouble. A nation conceived in liberty has come of age in bondage to big government. We’ve lost respect in the world. We are going broke, the American dream is dying for millions and our social and cultural fabric is unraveling. Our people are looking for leaders who will confront these challenges with solutions grounded in timeless American values.

My challenge to you as a colleague and a fellow American is this: Be bold and courageous. Do not allow political winds to sway you from doing the hard thing and standing up for the basic principles upon which our nation was founded. We have been given an awesome responsibility and a second chance. If we prove to be true to our word and act with courage, the American people will stand with us.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to serve as your Conference Chairman. It has been one of the greatest honors of my service in Congress.

COMMENTS

  • txgho1911

    I do know Mike has been in the house a number of terms now. He has earned the posting and he can lead the conservatives.

  • Scope

    that Mike Pence will run for the 2012 Presidency.

  • http://www.facebook.com/BigGator5 BigGator5

    *puts on his “Pence 2012″ button*

  • Zaber

    I’d settle for Pawlenty, but its definitely gotta be Rubio in the VP spot. He brings anyone Cuban and a large part of the Hispanic population with him.

  • chihank

    the Republican Conference.

    It will drive the liberals crazy!

  • congressworksforus

    Mitch Daniels R-IN (Gov) will be running for President.

    Mike Pence will be repeating Daniels road, and going from Congress to the Governorship.

  • maindependent

    Amen and Amen!

  • Oz

    but then I’m pretty keyed into the single thought of Daniels 2012 myself.

  • ceili_dancer

    He could primary Lugar. Especially if Lugar goes all conciliatory towards the Dems.

  • littlehouse18

    While I don’t know enough about Daniels yet, he seems too ‘mild-mannered’ to make a strong impression vs. Obama. Pence is quick on his feet, good with the one-liners, and makes strong, effective points. He seems much more the man we need to defeat The One and stop the destruction of America. From this frankly inspiring letter and what I’ve seen, he has great integrity as well.

  • Scope

    on two of the three solid legs of the Reagan conservative stool right off the bat. He has already alienated the Social Conservatives-

    http://www.www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/more-mitch-daniels-truce-social-issues

    Even more importantly, he said that he would cut our defense spending even more than the Obama administration has-

    http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/10/04/conservative_think_tanks_oppose_republican_efforts_to_trim_defense_budget

    Anyone who doesn’t take America’s enemies seriously, and put every once of support behind our troops, and their equipment and weaponery needs, is off my list before he even makes it to my list. I will never support any candidate that does not “support our troops” and go all in with our country’s defense. AlQuidea (sp), the Taliban, and the radical islamofacists are already feeling emboldened by a very incompetent current president. The last thing we need is someone who has already telegraphed weakness on national security.

    He’s going to have a very hard time with two strikes against him out of the starting gate. If the country is only looking for fiscal conservatism, we may as well elect Mittens. Didn’t he turn the Olympics into a profitable operation?

  • red_oakster

    Daniels by the way is very similar to Lugar on foreign policy. He’s not a hawk at all.

    It’s time we stopped projecting our own views onto candidates. They are not all Reaganites who favor economic and social conservative issues. Daniels certainly is not, nor is Huckabee or Romney.

  • Illinicon

    he continues supporting a VAT combined with a flat tax. I like the idea of combing a consumption tax to a flat tax, but the VAT is to consumption tax as what our current tax code is to income taxes, a big bureaucratic mess.

  • aesthete

    (a part that I have some experience with, btw), I can assure you that our Armed Forces are spending money on various things that have nothing to do with our safety or security. There is a tremendous amount of waste, graft, and rent-seeking that could be eliminated without endangering the lives and limbs of American citizens or military personnel. Just off the top of my head, “peacekeeping missions” with the UN and the EU could be completely cut without risking our national security or sovereignty (which is the primary and exclusive responsibility of the Armed Forces). One of the little talked-about changes enacted by the 1994 Republican Congress was the Base Reallocation and Closure list of 1995, which shut down 30+ bases. We don’t have to support every asinine thing that some bureaucratic flunky with a Dept of War approval stamp deems “necessary” to support the troops or the mission. We certainly don’t have to give said flunky a blank check to do the same. Cutting down on much of what we’ve taken on as our “global responsibility” and putting American interests first would not only save us some money, but in fact would make America safer. Sisyphean tasks to impose democracy on third-world nations with neither the desire nor the inputs necessary are in no way related to the security of US citizens, and shouldn’t be undetaken on the taxpayer dime. Subsidizing the security of Western Europe is not necessary in a post- Cold War framework, nor is it fair to the American taxpayer, who is forced to pay for the security of foreigners. It is not a choice between supporting the troops and cutting programs in the military: in many cases, the two go hand in hand. I’ll tell you one thing: we won’t be protecting anyone if the US gets to the point where it can’t pay its debts.

  • cordpt

    including many bureaucrats at the Pentagon, are no better than unions or the business companies that make a living of subsidies and bail-outs.

    The politicians in charge of the US government waste an incredible amount of taxpayers money on unnecessary military expenditures. It’s a great deal for defense contractors, it’s a way of living for some Pentagon bureaucrats, it’s a convenient activity for politicians who get part of that money back via campaign donations… but it’s a terrible business for the American taxpayer. A large part of the DoD budget is dedicated to keeping this rent-seeking machinery working.

  • aesthete

    From what I understand, he was a pretty reliable vote on OIF and OEF. The only negative thing I know about his foreign policy is that he made a speech critical of Bush’s strategy in Iraq in 2007.

    Also, and with respect, too many project their ideas of idealized conservative foreign policy when speaking of Reagan’s foreign policy. Truth of the matter is, many of Reagan’s successes on the foreign policy front were based on successful diplomacy and the use of soft power, not direct military engagement: Reagan was determined not to repeat America’s experiences in Vietnam. One of the largest breaks from previous administrations, besides his use of the bully pulpit and his viewing of the Cold War as a primarily ideological conflict, was less direct military commitment: something which angered the hawks of the day. It would be a stretch to paint this reticence to use force as isolationist or pacifistic in nature, but it is similarly a stretch to say that Reagan’s foreign policy was particularly bellicose relative to prior administrations. Concepts like “peace through strength” are particularly difficult to apply to our current struggles against non-state actors; the idea behind “peace through strength” was that our being strong would deter aggressors for fear of reprisal: a concept that works against formal enemies, but that isn’t so practical against groups which might value the furthering of ideological or religious goals over whether their cities go up in smoke.

  • Scope

    we won’t have to worry about any economic issues either. You see how that works aesthete.

    No one, and, I mean no one is against cutting waste and fraud in the defense budget, however, there is probably not a department in the federal government that doesn’t only tolerate waste and fraud, but, they promote it.

    Mitch Daniels seems to have spoken off the top of his head, when he said he would cut the defense budget even more than the O administration. I don’t know for sure, but, Governors aren’t a part of the defense cut discussions with the administration.

    He also proposed a “truce” on social issues, at a time when the country is waking up to the fact that we have become an ungrounded society. If you can really argue that Christianity is not under attack, God Bless your heart. Discussions about morality are now debated between those that have argued about moral relativity, traditional morals, and, the Progressives that have excused themselves of any moral bearings. You’ve made your morally relative arguments many times. It has been going downhill since the 60′s at least. He cannot win without the Social Conservatives, period.

    Again, Daniels appeals to the fiscal conservatives, but, that is where his appeal ends. Mitch Daniels has no resonating, appealing voice or argument to attract many, without putting them to sleep first.

  • aesthete

    Jesus said that in this world we will have trouble, and the world has done its best to prove him right. What business does the government have “defending” Christianity? (Can it even do the former effectively?) As far as the Bible is concerned, we’re called to pray that our government lets us live peaceably, and to pray for wisdom for our leaders.

    BTW, you’re misinformed concerning defense: Obama hasn’t cut a dime of defense, has kept to Bush’s timeline in Iraq, and has doubled down in Afghanistan. He’s cut specific programs recommended to him by Gates, but general funding for the military hasn’t decreased. In fact, Pres Obama signed the largest military budget in history in 2009, amidst the predictable squalls of leftists. Any real cuts in the military and military infrastructure by a future President would necessarily be greater than those made by Obama, because he redistributed the funds from the F-22 project and some other small cuts into the general military budget. (The 1994 Republican Congress cut military spending during the Contract with America heydays in a real way, through BRAC and other cuts. They therefore also cut military spending more than Obama.)

    Mitch Daniels signed every single pro-life bill that came across his desk as Governor, and I believe that he also supported a provision making marriage in IN between one man and one woman. In addition, less spending is by default, more socially conservative: whose power are you taking away by cutting the Department of Education or the National Endowment of Arts, that of social conservatives, or that of social liberals? Every time you cut domestic spending (especially on regulatory and redistributional programs) you are decreasing the power of social liberals in a very real way. If you’d rather pass symbolic stuff like a ban on gay marriage, that’s your prerogative, but I’d rather kill two birds with one stone by cutting government spending: it increases liberty, reduces the deficit, and makes social liberals less powerful. (It also, btw, makes military and necessary government spending less of a burden.) In short, Daniels is putting his emphasis precisely where it belongs: an overarching state whose stranglehold on education, retirement, the housing market, and now healthcare is a much more pressing and real threat to fiscal and social conservatives alike than whether a slip of paper is granted to some couple or another.