• Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) has some very devoted followers on RedState. I know this because of the angry knee-jerk responses if red flags are raised about whether or not he is an across-the-board ideological conservative.
• I believe the shockingly early endorsement of John McCain by Mitch Daniels in the last presidential election (before McCain’s own entry into the race) says volumes about the RINO tendencies of Daniels, but this recent response to the exit of Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) raises new concerns.
• The article below deserves a response, so I’ll direct the remainder of my comments to the officeholder himself:

Governor Daniels, I’d like to have an “adult conversation” with you.

1.  It’s not “too bad” that Bayh chose not to run. Your diplomatically worded comments reveal you personally share the mushy mindset of Republicans in Indiana who have voted for Bayh for decades. Bayh’s departure is the very best thing that could have happened.

2.  Bayh is not truly on the outs with his party; don’t help him by promoting that lie. He is instead positioning himself for future power. Are you unable to grasp that concept? Bayh is not a Republican who accidentally put a D next to his name. He is a born-and-bred liberal, Governor. Call him one.

3.  I’m sorry you are so desirous of attention from the Washington press corps (your old beltway buddies) that you could not even bring yourself to simply say that your party’s sensible, logical conservative principles would serve your state and this country better than Bayh and his party, no matter how much the guy lies about “groping for the middle.”

4.  While we’re at it, we don’t need to encourage people to stumble blindly into the quicksand of the middle. We need to define the beauty of conservatism, and help them to move purposefully past the middle to the time-tested, successful right! Reagan knew that. But then, you told us during the last election (when you stumped for your buddy John McCain) that it’s time to let go of the era of Reagan.

5.  Rather than saying goodbye to the legacy of Reagan, I’ll be glad to support your choice to retire. I’d much rather let you and Bayh disappear together into private life, since you both share a sentimentality (with Dick Lugar, another like-minded pal) for the vague, happy bi-partisan land of “something must be done about this.” Governor Daniels, if you can’t once-and-for-all, definitively take raising taxes off the discussion table, what good are you to the conservative movement? You’ve sold yourself as a fiscal conservative, so that’s the very least you should do.

[Copyright infringement redacted - NS]

Mike Pence (R-IN) certainly knew that his stepping out of the U.S. Senate race against Evan Bayh (D-IN) would be the perfect opportunity for him to anoint (or at least raise the profile of) a candidate who had already been running for the seat — John Hostetler and Marlin Stutzman, to name two.

So those who are currently targeting Dan Coats would have to assume that Mike Pence was ignorant of the U.S. Senate record of Coats when Pence made this tricky-to-retract statement of support on February 4th. Or perhaps Pence knows something that the detractors of Coats do not know. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Rep. Pence statement on Sen. Coats

Updated: Thursday, 04 Feb 2010, 1:07 AM EST
Published : Thursday, 04 Feb 2010, 1:05 AM EST

Word is that Congressman Mike Pence (R-IN) may run against Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN).

When I worried out loud that Pence would have to risk a great deal to run, a smart friend of mine cut to the chase: “Pence has to run. If 2010 isn’t the time to defeat Bayh, there will never be a time to beat him.”

Why would I, a strong supporter of Pence, have such a timid initial reaction to this perfect match up — one that Pence can win?

Because of people like Sean Hannity.

Over the years, Sean has been quite welcoming to the soft-spoken Bayh, giving him face time and radio time to spout his foolish claims about being less than the born-and-bred liberal he is.

It’s conservatism by association. And it’s worked beautifully for Bayh.

Here’s just one example from August, 2009:

HANNITY: Do you think the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left?
BAYH: Well, I find myself having a more moderate to conservative fiscal and economic outlook, and a little more forceful outlook on national security than some members of my party. But look, you know, both extremes. Whether it’s on the far left or the far right, tend to not really speak to the American people and come up with practical solutions.

And my guess is what the vast majority of your viewers want, whether they’re Democrats or Republicans, or regardless of ideology, they want what works. What will matter in their daily lives. And enough of this politics and enough of this ideology.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/30147

Evan Bayh could not be more wrong. It’s all about ideology. It’s all about which world view will inform individual choices; daily lives flow from ideology. That’s why so many people who voted for Obama now regret that choice, because of the day-to-day repercussions of his ideology. That’s why so many voters have lost their jobs — because companies have no choice but to cut positions when liberals (acting on their “politics” and their “ideology”) pass laws that cripple the economy.

Not surprisingly, this week Bayh has been widely quoted as saying Brown’s upset victory in Massachusetts is a “wake-up call” for Democrats. Whoopee. For Bayh, that just means that Coakley didn’t know how to cover her tracks and dupe the electorate as he’s been able to do.

Of course, Sean Hannity quoted Bayh’s “wake-up call” comment during an interview with John McCain this week. And that’s exactly what Bayh wants. He wants to be considered the Sarah Palin of his party, but it’s all a lie. This week, Bayh pulled the same old play out of his playbook to try to save his Senate seat:

“ The only [way] we are able to govern successfully in this country is by liberals and progressives making common cause with independents and moderates,” Bayh said.  “Whenever you have just the furthest left elements of the Dem party attempting to impose their will on the rest of the country — that’s not going to work too well.” 

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/01/bayh-warns-catastrophe-if-dems-ignore-massachusetts-senate-race-lessons.html

So according to Bayh, there are 1) liberals, 2) progressives, 3) independents, and 4) moderates. Is that all? Have we missed anyone? How about CONSERVATIVES? Did he forget about them? I guess that’s because they have no “common cause” in governing with Bayh and his buddies. How true.

Up to this point, Evan Bayh has been almost impossible to pin down, but he showed his true colors by voting for the health care debacle, and stating publicly that it was a wrenching choice, while privately rallying the Democrats with anti-Republican, anti-conservative rhetoric behind the scenes.

So, Sean Hannity, it all comes back to you:

In 2010, you would be doing the country a great favor by forgetting to book Evan Bayh on your TV and radio shows. Just lose his number. Don’t return his calls. Stop offering free commercial time for Bayh-the-candidate to back peddle, provide excuses, and regurgitate flowery, conciliatory rhetoric to save his political life.

Or at the very least, Sean, stop treating Evan Bayh like a favorite colleague. A true conservative is going to take Bayh out this year — if you don’t get in the way.

Read More →

As the guest host on Sunday’s “This Morning with George Stephanopoulos” show, Jake Tapper tried to school Robert Gibbs on the meaning of the word “transparency,” as well as the difference between public “voting” and secret “negotiations” on health care reform, but Gibbs was having none of it.

By his own admission, Tapper — “in the spirit of the Christmas season” — gave Gibbs more than one chance to explain away why President Obama is choosing to ignore his campaign pledge to “‘have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so the people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.’” And even though Tapper used a wry restraint throughout his post about the verbal exchange, the title for the article says it all:

Gibbs Passes On One Last Chance to Make Health

Care Negotiations Transparent

Seeing at least one member of the mainstream media bring attention to the crucial intersection between Obama’s campaign promises and the health care mess? . . . Encouraging.

Watching him make fun of Gibbs in the process? . . . A late Christmas present.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/12/gibbs-passes-on-one-last-chance-to-make-health-care-negotiations-transparent.html

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.       Edmund Burke