A Double Dose of Failure

Let’s cover two short issues today. First, we have economic data which confirms the middle class is getting crushed under Obama. Secondly, the NRA and Indiana seem determined to set back the cause of gun rights.

Issue One: The surest way to determine what chance a president has at being re-elected is to ask the question Reagan made famous: “are you better off today than you were four years ago?” Obama desperately needs to hope no one asks that. Why? How about these numbers:

● Unemployment: At 8.2%, unemployment is at one of its highest points in decades. In May, 12.7 million Americans were officially unemployed, with another 24 million unofficially unemployed or underemployed. Five million people have been officially unemployed for more than two years now.

● Falling Incomes: Since 2007, the median income for all American families has fallen 7.7%.

● Inflation: Inflation is eating away at spending power. A dollar today is only worth 32 cents of what it was worth in 1979. That means inflation has eaten 68% of the value of the dollar in 33 years. When you factor in wage increases, the middle class already took a 28% pay cut between 1979 and when Obama took office (the poor took a 50% pay cut). Official inflation under Obama has been minor, but that’s a fake number. Gas prices are up 83% and meat is up 24%, and real inflation is estimated at around 12%. Factor in the falling wages of 7.7% with the pay-cut of inflation at 12%, and you have a huge pay cut being taken year after year.

● Falling Net Worth: Since 2007, the median net worth of American families has fallen by 38.8% from $126,400 to $77,300. This is largely (but not entirely) the result of falling housing prices. In the West, this decline was 55%.

This tells us that the American public is taking a beating. Their savings have been cut by a third, their incomes are falling (those that are even employed), and inflation is eating away at all of it. So much for being better off today than anyone was four years ago. The exception, of course, is Club Fed which increased its spending 714% since 1979 and 33% since Obama took office.

Issue Two: Indiana has passed a law at the behest of the National Rifle Association which allows residents to use deadly force against government employees, including law enforcement officers, who “unlawfully” enter their homes. Mitch Daniels signed this in March.

This is a HORRIBLE idea!

First of all, let me ask why we need this? Is there a problem with cops attacking people in their homes in Indiana? If not, then there’s no reason for this. Secondly, has anyone asked what this will cause? How do you decide if the police are there unlawfully? Doesn’t this give people a false belief that they have a right to shoot at the cops no matter why the police are there? This is a stupid bill which will get police (and civilians) killed. And there is no need for this bill because it doesn’t stop any real problem.

This is a classic example of the stupidity of activists. Some jerkoff at the NRA decided this would be a good idea for whatever reason and the other jerkoffs talked themselves into it without every stopping to ask someone with common sense if this was a good idea. By pushing this, the NRA has put the “responsible” gun lobby on the side of fringe politics and irresponsible laws. This is, in fact, the very type of law which turns people off the cause being promoted. This is Planned Parenthood defending partial-birth abortion or gay marriage activists suing churches to force them to perform gay marriages. This is stupid. This is the kind of bill guaranteed to bring a backlash. And this is yet another reason I won’t support the NRA despite firmly believing in the Second Amendment.

Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Suckers For Chris Christie

Christ Christie is reconsidering whether or not to run for the Presidency. Ok. I don’t think the Democrats will give him the nod over Obama, but he’s entitled to try. Wait, he’s thinking about running as a Republican? And there are conservatives pushing him? Grrr.

Rick Perry is flaming out. After Perry’s horrible debate performance, Herman Cain cleaned his clock in the Florida straw poll (37% Cain, 15% Perry) and Romney took him out in Michigan (51% Romney, 17% Perry). This has created an opening if someone else with strong name recognition wants to jump in. And to some people that means Christie.

Apparently, several big money types, including Rupert Murdoch and the billionaire Koch brothers have spoken to Christie about running. A group of 50 business leaders including Ken Langone, Jack Welch, Charles Schwab and Mort Zuckerman appealed to him in person. Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal has been pimping him as well. So has The Weekly Standard and Bill Kristol. Even Ann Coulter, normally a thoughtful conservative, is a fan of Chris Christie and encouraged him to run as recently as this summer.

Mitch Daniels, who is generally conservative, has been agitating for someone new to jump into the race as well, and he just had a private meeting with Christie. Said Daniels of Christie, “he’s different, right?” Yes he is, but not in a good way.

Listen conservative suckers, this has to stop. Christie is barely even a RINO, much less a conservative. They think he’s a pro-life conservative who appeals to conservatives, moderates and liberals because he has Tea Party ideas, but isn’t ideological and won’t “demagogue” on issues like abortion or immigration. But that's not true. Consider these FACTS (read: not delusions) about Christie:

● Christie has been a tax raiser. His first budget included $250 million in new taxes and eliminated $1.3 billion in property tax refunds.

● Christie has been a big spender. Christie claims he cut spending by 9% ($2.56 billion), but spending actually increased by 6%. And even that relies on gimmicks like delaying $3 billion in payments a couple weeks into the next budget and forcing $1.2 billion in spending down to the local level through unfunded mandates.

● Christie took $1 billion in stimulus money, after promising he wouldn’t. And he borrowed $750 million to build schools in Democratic districts, after promising he would never borrow money.

● Christie took on the unions right? Wrong. There don’t appear to have been any job cuts and salaries went up 7% per year.

● He believes in global warming. In the past, he claimed he wasn’t sure, but now he claims he’s always been sure:

“In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state. (lie) There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. (wrong) This decade, average temperatures have been rising. (wrong) Temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate. (wrong) . . . When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and that humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts. (false logic)”

● Christie favors unspecified gun control because he “wants to make sure that we don’t have an abundance of guns out there.”

● Christie favors amnesty for illegal aliens:

“Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime. The whole phrase of ‘illegal immigrant’ connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime. . . It is not.”

* * *

“What I support is making sure that the federal government plays each and every one of its roles: Securing the border, enforcing immigration laws, and having an orderly process — whatever that process is — for people to gain citizenship. It’s a very easy issue to demagogue and I’m just not going to participate in that.”

● He appointed liberals to all of his key positions. He appointed liberal Democrat Paula Dow as Attorney General of New Jersey. He appointed a global warming enthusiast as Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection. He appointed an ObamaCare supporter as Commissioner of the Department of Health and Senior Services.

● He tried to appoint a Kinseyan (sexual perversion advocacy, masquerading as science) as Director of the Department of Children and Families.

● He fired the only conservative in his cabinet (Brett Schundler, his Commissioner of Education) for failing to grab Stimulus money which Christie had previously promised he would not accept.

So how is he different than Obama?

Let me say this to the conservative glitterati: do your damn research! Stop falling for soundbites and false images. Politicians have records and you need to examine them. If you don’t, then you end up choosing the wrong people, people who will destroy and discredit conservatism. . . people like your latest crush, Chris Christie.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Faux Fear And Loathing Among Liberals

Liberal Democrats love to tell conservative Republicans which GOP candidate might appeal to them and independents. The ploy frequently sways enough voters in primaries so that the "acceptable" candidate wins the nomination. And then, just as with Lucy and Charlie Brown, the football is pulled away during the general election. Can you say "John McCain?"

Democrats love to talk about their favorite Republican "mavericks," and moderates and how dangerous they could be for the choice of the Democratic Party. Then, like clockwork, the day after the Republican nominee is chosen he becomes an object of low humor, derision, and angry denunciations by the same Democrats who had praised him. They warn Republicans that if their candidate is too conservative, he (or she) just can't win. They demonstrate their faux fear of the moderate/liberal Republican candidate by advising Republicans that if they nominate so-and-so, the Republicans might just win. It reminds me of Bre'r Rabbit pleading not to be thrown into the briar patch.

So now I have to consider why some liberals are warning their own about Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana. There had been talk among the movers and shakers of the Democratic Party that Daniels might be the John McCain for 2012. Hendrik Herzberg of The New Yorker had given the governor McCain-like reluctant praise, writing: "He doesn't throw off the crackles of craziness. I found his effect reassuring. When it comes to red meat, he seems to be a vegetarian." Uh, oh. Daniels is sane. That could be dangerous for Democrats. Let's let the Republicans know we're scared of him. Maybe they'll nominate him, and then we can hit him with the switcheroo. Same stuff, different package.

Michael Kinsley of Politico was an early proponent of "fearing" Daniels. Said Kinsley: "the blue-eyed governor would be better than any of the other Republicans who are running to stop Obama from winning a second term." Kinsley couldn't resist at least one "he's white" comment, but you get the idea.

That piece was followed by "maverick/moderate" phony praise for Daniels in the New York Times, Washington Post and Chicago Tribune. So imagine my surprise when I see the age-old mouthpiece of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, The New Republic, warning its readers that Daniels may not be the McCain choice after all. "Don't be fooled" said TNR. Daniels had recently announced that he would not campaign on social issues. He told reporters: "We still need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean." Some right wing bloggers jumped all over Daniels for that. Still, TNR believes it knows the truth: "But savvier and more influential voices on the right know better than to think Daniels would run as a moderate Republican."

So instead of announcing its fake fear of Daniels to Republicans, it announced its real fear of Daniels to the Democratic faithful. TNR trotted out a bloody litany of Daniels atrocities. He was president of Eli Lilly, one of the largest drug companies in the world. He initiated the largest private-school voucher program in the nation. He took donations from the Koch Brothers. He has stated that he would sign a bill that defunds Planned Parenthood. He abolished the right of Indiana teachers to bargain collectively on anything except wages. He supports Paul Ryan's proposed federal tax cuts. God help us all, he even privatized a state highway.

TNR then goes on to list the frightening collection of fascists and fascist organizations that have spoken well of Daniels's record. Dick Armey and his friends in the Tea Party. The Weekly Standard. Arthur Brooks and the American Enterprise Institute. The American Spectator. And the lowest of the low, National Review. As an example of liberal-think gone wrong in the past, the author brought up the favorable biography of McCain by liberal Elizabeth Drew. The book was praised by liberal historian and FDR biographer Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Then the magazine went on to list the post-primary vision of their previous favorite McCain:

"The celebrated maverick chose Sarah Palin as his running-mate, embraced a Muslim-bashing preacher, and accused Barack Obama of running a radical education foundation with Bill Ayers." But at least McCain had some bipartisan legislative accomplishments on his record before he became the presidential candidate. Yep, McCain-Feingold comes to mind. Still, TNR can find no such accomplishments for Daniels. The problem here with TNR's logic is that McCain did exactly what the "fearful" left was hoping to engineer--he lost.

By logical extension, if McCain with all his liberal support turned fascist after getting the nomination, imagine what will happen if Daniels gets the nomination. He'll be a super-fascist. Or so TNR appears to believe. Says TNR: "For Daniels [unlike McCain], bipartisanship seems to consist of seducing journalists at what Hertzberg describes as a 'gilded age' mansion." Beware--the end is near! "But if he does go lunatic [Daniels once mused "what sane person would run for president?], the policies Daniels espouses will be no better than those of his GOP rivals."

Completing the thought, TNR adds: "In order to win the nomination, all in the running will have to take stands even to the right of Reagan, who as president was heedless of deficits and left Medicaid and Medicare alone. A good salesman like Daniels may be able to make the conservative creed sound 'reassuring.' But, in reality, he will have no desire to alter the harmful doctrines of the faith." In other word, TNR believes that Daniels is a truly dangerous conservative threat to Obama rather than a fake conservative like McCain. Rather than try to ambush him after the primary voters have made their choice, it's better to warn off less-sophisticated Democrats now who might think he's another McCain.

I'm certainly not going to make my decision about which candidate to support based on what liberals tell us about who would be their most dangerous adversary. And I'm not ready to support a candidate based on who TNR considers to be a genuine conservative. But the simple fact that TNR considers Daniels to be too dangerous to deserve even faint praise makes me want to take a longer look at him.

Andrew and I have both written about Daniels previously. We have discussed his positives, his negatives, and his "questionables" in order to help our readers (and ourselves) make up our minds. Andrew's posts can be found at Conservatives Should Embrace Indiana Abortion Bill and Mitch Daniels--Conservative?. Mine can be found at Mr. Show, Meet Mr. Go and Who's In Charge Here?.

As we move through the early election season, I'd like to remind each of us of two things. 1. The perfect is the enemy of the good. 2. There was only one Ronald Reagan.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Conservatives Should Embrace Indiana Abortion Bill

On Friday, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana indicated he would sign a law defunding Planned Parenthood in Indiana. Many are speculating that Daniels only agreed to sign this law to rebuild his relationship with the religious right after the damage done by his comment that it was time for a “truce” on social issues. That could well be. But this is a law all conservatives should support and seek to duplicate.

The law in question provides that the state may not give money to any organization that provides abortions. This will cut off funding to seven entities in Indiana including Planned Parenthood (“PP”), which is not happy about this.

There are three aspects of this law that I find particular interesting. First, this is a direct assault on yet another Democratic funding source. Just like the unions and ACORN, PP uses taxpayer funding to support Democratic candidates and lobby for leftist causes. This law, which is now being copied in other states, will cripple PP’s ability to continue doing that. Nice work state-Republicans!

Secondly, this issue has exposed that PP’s primary concern is abortion, not the other services they hide behind like a facade. Indeed, as usual, PP’s defense is not that this law will restrict abortion, but that this law will affect other services. Says Betty Cockrum (seriously) of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, this law is “unconscionable and unspeakable” and will “leave as many as 22,000 patients without access to pap tests, birth control and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.”

Gee, that sounds horrible. But it’s not true. First, let’s think about this logically. How in the world do you get 22,000 people? The state of Indiana has 6.5 million residents. So if those other 6.48 million people still have access to these services, what has gone wrong for the other 22,000? Why can’t the 22,000 go to the same places as the other 6.48 million? Do they live in a bubble? Or is Cockrum really talking about “less convenient” and just trying to spin that into “without access”?

And let’s not forget that birth control is available at every 7/11, most high schools, most truck stops and within your own mind’s ability to avoid stupid decisions. Pap tests and treatments for VD are available almost anywhere there’s a hospital, clinic or doctor’s office. So how is it that 22,000 people suddenly can’t find these services?

Perhaps the issue is one of economics rather than distance travelled? Well, no. These services would be covered by Medicaid for the poor and Mitch Daniels has specifically ordered his health department to “take any actions necessary to ensure that vital medical care is, if anything, more widely available than before.” Why would PP consider that as anything less than a step up. . . unless they only care about abortion?

But here’s the real kicker, i.e. the ingenious exposing part of this law. For while Cockrum pretends that her real concerns are these other services and not abortion, there is no reason PP can’t continue to get government funds to provide those services. . . all they have to do is spin off their abortion operations. Indeed, as Daniels points out:

“Any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions.”

So what’s the problem? PP claims they don’t use taxpayer funding to support abortions, so there’s no reason for them to insist on keeping the abortion function grouped together with the other services, is there? And certainly not if that happens at the expense of losing all of these other “vital” services. So what gives?

Well, there are two problems. The first is that PP is lying; they do use taxpayer funding to support abortion. Here’s how. When money is given to PP to cover their non-abortion costs, that frees up money for use on their abortion operations. Think of it this way. Assume a drug addict spends $200 a month on food and $200 a month on drugs. You want to help them buy food, but you don’t want your money used on drugs. They agree and spend your specific $200 on food. . . receipts and everything. You feel good about yourself. But money is fungible and the reality is that all you did was free up the $200 they had been using on food to now be used to buy drugs. Thus, while you kid yourself that you only bought their food, every dollar you gave them actually supported their drug habit. It’s the same thing here. All that money paid for birth control and pap tests went to cover overhead, rent, salaries, etc., and freed up money to be used to subsidize abortions. And without that taxpayer support, the abortion business could not survive on its own.

Secondly, right now it’s very easy for PP to lobby and to get celebrity support by hiding behind the myth that their primary function is healthcare, with abortion being only a minor, minor side-offering. But if PP broke into two companies, how many celebrities would want to be seen donating their time, money or name to the abortion portion of PP? Not many. Thus, separating out the abortions deprives PP of the cover of being able to claim that abortions are something they “kind of sort of also sometimes do” in addition to the meaningful services.

Finally, I find this law interesting, because this is an issue that all conservatives should be able to agree upon, i.e. both religious conservatives and libertarians. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what your stance is on abortion or government involvement in people’s lives, there is no justification for using taxpayer funding to support the practice.

That’s why this is an interesting law and Republicans everywhere should be emulating it.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

2012 Contender: Mitch Daniels, Conservative?

Who is Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels? That’s a good question. The establishment loves him. Indeed, everyone from establishment conservatives like George Will to establishment liberals like The Economist and The New York Times heap praise upon him. Is it deserved? That’s hard to say because divining Daniels’ true beliefs is difficult because every time Daniels giveth, Daniels taketh away.

Daniels’ history is that of a consummate insider. He spent years working for RINO Richard Lugar, he served as Reagan’s budget director, he ran the US operations for Eli Lilly (a big pharmaceuticals firm), he was president of the Hudson Institute (a conservative think tank), and he served as Bush II’s budget director. As governor of Indiana has been known for being pragmatic and “not dogmatic.” Here’s why:

● Smaller (Growing) Government: Daniels talks about making the government smaller, BUT then says the government must be aggressive at doing things the private sector cannot, “like improving schools” (which frankly, the private sector is doing better). He further says, “the nation really needs to rebuild,” a standard Democratic trope for spending. As Governor, Daniels has kept spending growth below inflation, BUT he hasn’t actually cut the budget.

● Stimulus: He derided the stimulus BUT took the cash he was offered.

● Deficit Cutting: He sounds good on the deficit. He favors cuts in military spending. He intentionally avoids puffery statements like cutting “waste, fraud and abuse,” which are shorthand for “I have no idea.” He favors changes to Medicare and Social Security rather than tax increases to cut deficits. Specifically, he favors benefit cuts for high-income and healthy people. He favors slowing the yearly increase in benefits to reduce the real value of reimbursements over time. And he favors raising the age eligibility for both programs, i.e. the retirement age. These are good ideas. BUT, his track record is not as impressive. As Bush II’s budget director, Bush referred to Daniels as “the Blade,” but the budget went from a surplus of $236 billion to a deficit of $400 billion. Some conservatives accused him of “carr[ying] water. . . for some of the Bush administration’s more egregious budgets [and making] dubious public arguments in support of his boss’s agenda.” Of course, that was his job. FYI, he underestimated the cost of the Iraq War by more than 11 times.

● Taxes: In 2008, Daniels proposed and got a property tax ceiling put in place of 2% on rental properties and 3% on businesses. This resulted in an average property tax cut of 30% and gave Indiana one of the lowest property tax rates in the country (these caps were put into the state constitution in 2010 by voters). BUT, in exchange for that tax ceiling, he agreed to raise the state’s sales tax from 6% to 7%.

● Unions: Daniels reduced the number of state workers by 18% since he took over as Indiana’s Governor in 2005. BUT, Daniels definitely blew the recent union issue. When Democrats fled the state as they had in Wisconsin after Republicans introduced a right to work bill, Daniels first said he “saluted” the Democrats and that their actions were a “perfectly legitimate part of the process.” Here’s what he said: “Even the smallest minority. . . has every right to express the strength of its views and I salute those who did.” Then he tried to backtrack by saying he meant to salute the protestors, not the Democrats. The Democrats, he said, were “try[ing] to trash the process, run[ning] out to another state to hide out” and were behaving “totally unacceptably.” Of course, he’s wrong both times. The Democrats have the right to do what they are doing, but they should not be saluted for it. His job was to exploit their bad decision. He did not. Instead, he caved in to them, abandoning the right to work bill: “I’ve explained more than once, I thought there was a better time and place to have this very important and legitimate issue raised.” Really, when?

● Global Warming: With an eye on the White House, Daniels wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal in which he condemned the Democrats’ cap and trade bill. In that editorial, he echoes my arguments that the scheme would do nothing to affect global warming and would only put the US at a disadvantage to China and India. So far, so good. BUT, he also says he’s approaching the “‘climate change’ debate with an open-mind” and he will let “others” address the “scientific and economic questions.” Then he goes on to say that Indiana is “eager to pursue a new energy future” which he describes as biofuels, wind power, clean coal and “aggressive energy-conservation, indubitably the most cost-effective means of limiting CO2.” His clean coal push also involves “carbon capture.” In other words, he’s not sure about global warming, but he’s all in favor of limiting carbon, i.e. he favors fighting global warming. This is very troubling.

● ObamaCare: He supports repealing ObamaCare, BUT he also identifies reforms he would like to see if it isn’t repealed, none of which seem particularly conservative. Indeed, these seem mainly to include dumping Medicaid beneficiaries into Obama’s exchanges and demanding more reimbursement from the federal government. He also proposes giving insurers more flexibility in what they can offer. None of that is good.

● Immigration: Daniels has remained disturbingly silent on illegal immigration. He side-stepped questions about Arizona’s law by saying they had “every right to pass that law” (note he doesn’t actually say it’s legal) but that Indiana was “not in the same situation.” Now that a similar bill has been introduced in Indiana, which has an estimated 85,000 illegal immigrants, Daniels refuses to say if he supports it.

● Social Conservatism: Social conservatives have been rather upset at Daniels because he said that conservatives need to call “a truce” on social issues because politicians need to unite on urgent matters of national security and debt. Beyond that,

● Daniels claims to be anti-abortion.

● He claims to oppose same-sex marriage as well as recognizing civil unions.

● He supports affirmative action in government contracting and hiring, but not in college admissions.

● He’s a Syrian-American Presbyterian, who says that “atheism leads to brutality” and claims that “the whole idea of equality of men and women and of the races all springs from the notion that we’re all children of a just God,” BUT he also says: “I also take very seriously the responsibility to treat my public duties in a way that keeps separate church and state and respects alternative views.”

So who is the real Mitch Daniels? I honestly don’t know. If I had to pull out a label, I’d say he’s a moderately-conservative establishment type who believes in not rocking the boat. He’s very good at saying things that sound like he’s agreeing with them, without actually agreeing with them, and I have found no evidence that he’s pushing anything more than a veneer of a conservative agenda. He certainly avoids controversy. Would he make a good president? Probably. Would he make a good conservative president? Probably not. But in truth, I have no idea who he really is.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Mr. Show--Meet Mr. Go

Back in June of last year, I wrote an article about a potential future Republican presidential candidate who nobody (including myself) outside the Midwest had heard much about. But at that time, some savvy political insiders had written pieces about his future potential, so it tweaked my interest enough to do some research. That resulted in Who's In Charge Here?. The subject of the article was Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.

No doubt you're wondering why I didn't show a more traditional official photo of the governor. Stick with me, there's method to my madness. The picture was taken in the rotunda of the Indiana state capitol where Daniels displayed a New Orleans Saints flag for a week after losing a bet with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal over the Super Bowl. Both Republican governors have been among the early mentions for the presidency in 2012, but neither has yet captured the attention of the general public. I have a certain fondness for potential candidates who are mentioned early but don't have much of a following nationwide because they are too busy doing their jobs in their home states. Jindal and Daniels have both been doing exactly that.

Before continuing, I should mention that after complying with the terms of the bet, Daniels could have simply tossed the enemy banner into the trash. Being a waste-not, want-not type, Daniels instead is auctioning the enemy flag off on e-bay, with a starting bid of $100, proceeds to go to charity.

In recent weeks, Daniels seems to have picked up some speed. He has received honorable mention in The Washington Times, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, US News and World Report, The Washington Post, The New Republic and National Review. None of those have been about some sort of landslide looming in Daniels's future, or puff pieces about the hot new kid on the block. All have been workmanlike studies of a workmanlike governor in a state that desperately needed to get its house in order. Though Daniels has strongly denied that he has presidential aspirations since winning a substantial victory in Indiana at the same time Obama was sweeping the nation, his name has been kicked around by insiders ever since that day.

Daniels is not a big time showman like Obama. His reticence to make grandiloquent speeches and join in rallies may have cost him some support when he called the recent CPAC get-together "a bunch of rowdies," but it's probably not a serious bump in the road for him. After all, the same convention conducted a straw poll which showed Ron Paul as the most desired Republican candidate for 2010. How much is that going to mean three years from now? Not much, I suspect.

Daniels first took office in 2005. At that time Indiana had been governed by Democrats in the executive mansion for sixteen years. The state was in an $800 million dollar deficit. When he ran for re-election in the year of The One, the state had a $1.3 billion surplus. And he didn't accomplish that by raising taxes, since he is a student of the Laffer Curve. One way he did it was to cut waste and get money back into the state economy by targeting the top-heavy and inefficient State Board of Education while at the same time repaying $760 million directly to schools and local governments. Those funds had been appropriated to finance the state's deficit spending under Democrats.

Daniels managed to hire 800 new child protective caseworkers and 250 badly-needed state troopers while still cutting the rate of increase of state spending from 5.9% to 2.8%, just over the rate of inflation. He worked feverishly to bring new business into the state, and succeeded in getting two Toyota plants, a Honda factory, a gigantic Nestle chocolate facility, and a BP (British Petroleum) project, which combined are expected to bring $3.8 billion dollars into the state economy. But he's not just a big business kinda guy. He has made the business climate vastly better with incentives for start-up businesses and tax breaks for small to medium size businesses.

As tame and mild as Daniels is, he won re-election by 18 points, including 51% of the under 25 age group that we covered on Friday. He captured 24% of Democrats, and 20% of African-Americans (and remember, this was the year of Obama). He received a predictable 67% of the senior citizen vote, but also 57% of independents in a year when independents were voting their disapproval of the Bush administration in most other states.

Daniels doesn't have to talk about conservative governance. He's enacted it, and has the track record to show for it. Those in the conservative Republican king-making corner have not only discovered him, but are starting to make sure his name gets out to the people. Before a conservative potential candidate can get a nomination, people need to know who he is. Sometimes they hire campaign consultants, or public relations people. But in some cases, they let their record speak for itself and if it gets the attention of those who can get their name in front of the public, they aren't going to throw the opportunity away. This is the stuff of which dark horse candidates are made.

Daniels has the common touch, in some ways like new Senator Scott Brown. When he first ran for election for governor, he traversed the state in a motor home when he wasn't on his motorcycle. He became noted for a great sense of humor, generally pointed at himself. His travels on the campaign trail were compiled into a YouTube presentation called "MitchTV." It was an instant hit.

In an article published at National Review entitled The Anti-Obama?, Mona Charen explains that the sobriquet has been used for Daniels before, but explains it as follows: "The contrast with Obama is not in style. Both are poised, intelligent, and well-spoken. The most glaring contrast aside from philosophy is Daniels's wealth of experience and record of governing success." Daniels believes that any Republican who runs against Obama in 2012 must be someone who knows how to reduce a deficit with serious economic programs that don't include seeding the clouds so they'll rain money. The candidate must be "prepared to govern, not just to win," says Daniels.

Daniels has said that he will serve out his term, working for the people of Indiana. He tends to be a man of his word, and tending to business is as natural to him as breathing. Unlike Obama, he does not have the addict's taste for the ultimate power-fix. Still, his broad experience in government, innate intelligence combined with wisdom, track record, and general affability may eventually put him in the spotlight he would rather not be in. If he chooses to rise to the challenge, he could be a very effective candidate. The next time we hear the name of Mitch Daniels, we owe it to ourselves to do better than say "who?"
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Who's In Charge Here?

I want to discuss two interesting takes on what's going on with the leadership of the Republican Party. One concentrates on the role of major conservative pundits versus Republican party leadership, while the other concentrates on one possible emerging leader. If you don't recognize that person in the photo, you're not alone, but all will be explained.

First, to the pundits and the leaders. When a party controls the White House, it is generally perceived that the leader of the party is the President. Perception and reality merge, unless the President and the Congress are from the same party, and the President has for some reason become unpopular within his own party. In that case, certain Congressional figures may step forward to assume the mantle of leadership, but it's rare, and certainly not the case today. Occasionally, a strong and popular state governor may also fill the gap during an intraparty crisis. Right now if you ask anybody who the leader of the Democratic Party is, you've got a 95% chance of getting the answer "Barack Obama."

Now how about the party that is out of power, really out of power? Currently, the Republicans have lost the Presidency and the Congress (in the House and Senate that has been two consecutive election-cycle losses). So, if you ask the average person as did a recent Gallup Poll, "who is the leader of the Republican Party?" you will get a multitude of answers, and an occasional blank stare. Among the answers you are likely to get is the name of Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh does not claim the title, and probably considers it something that would hamper his ability to be a gadfly. Yet if you ask the Democrats the question, the answer is Limbaugh. If you ask Republicans, even more answer with the name Limbaugh. Others mentioned are Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage.

For those who are a little more sophisticated, rather than simply registered members of a party, Limbaugh is always mentioned as influential, but only the mainstream press has attempted to paint him as the party leader. The most common answer among active Republicans is either Newt Gingrich or Dick Cheney (about ten percent each). Next in line is Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee. But the RNC, for all its influence, is not the official voice of the Republican Party. That's because, like the Democrats when out of power, there is no official voice--just prominent ones.

So why is the mainstream press so happy to ignore actual politicians and push Limbaugh as the leader? The reasons are many, but the best reasons are that it isn't true, and it trivializes the importance of genuine emerging leaders. If you can ridicule a party that has a radio and TV personality as its leader, you can assert gravitas for your favorite party (and we know which one that is). As a bonus, you can attack all the pundit's pronouncements as if you were conducting a serious and legitimate discussion of the positions of the actual party.

Peggy Noonan, the chief spokesperson for the Pessimist Wing of the Republican Party over at the Wall Street Journal finds all the negatives in Limbaugh being such an important spokesman in the Republican Party (not for the party). She says that Limbaugh expressing his occasional contrarian opinions harms the Republican leadership. Her reasoning is that "When Michael Steele gets up in the morning, 20 million people don't wait to hear his opinion." She concludes that the recent disagreement between Limbaugh and Steele harmed Steele and the Republican Party, without considering that leaders are not dictators, and that open debate is an admirable trait that Republicans are more likely to exhibit than Democrats.

Noonan says "Rush made [Steele] look weak." True or not, if a genuine party leader can't stand up to a prominent member of his own party, how is he going to stand up to the Democrats? Somehow she segues from that thought to "The radio talker may be doing it to play to his base, but the mainstream media does it to show that Republicans are mean, thick and angry." She seems to be saying that the radio or TV personality has to play to his base, but he really shouldn't because it means that it's "conservatives talking only to conservatives." She neglects to notice that there are numerous "bases" to address, and that the pundits are talking to the nation, not just to their conservative base.

The pundits and the political leaders both serve a purpose, usually in tandem, occasionally at cross-purposes. But in the absence of a single national Republican political leader, both are vital to the growth and success of the party. Noonan's downer of a final question was "You wonder sometimes as you watch: Who's looking out for the country?" My answer: "Both."

Now, who's the mystery person in the photo? Well, my initial answer is "not one of the people in the Gallup Poll which asked "Who is the national leader of the Republican Party?" Rich Lowry over at National Review says this man "didn't even rate an asterisk in the poll." Lowry approaches the Gallup Poll from a different direction than that of Peggy Noonan. Unlike Noonan worrying about what the pundits are doing, Lowry concentrates on emerging political leaders, and one in particular. The mystery man in the photo is Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Lowry, a pundit himself, doesn't fret over who the public currently thinks is the national Republican leader, but rather points one out who he believes stands for the core beliefs of the Republican Party. He suggests that if Daniels is right, and handles himself properly, he may emerge as one of several potential real leaders of the Republican party. Lowry recognizes that what is truly important is not "who is the current leader," but who will be the single leader when the rubber meets the road three and a half years hence.

I neither agree nor disagree with Lowry on the viability of this candidate, but it's nice to see a conservative journalist offer up a candidate for our consideration without having a fit over how the candidate might end up not agreeing with Rush or the other radio and TV personalities, or with Michael Steele, for that matter. So here's what Lowry has to say: "More than any other GOP officeholder, Daniels points the way ahead for his bedraggled party. He's a Reaganite who's not trapped in 1980s nostalgia. He's a fiscal conservative who believes not just in limiting government, but in reforming it to address people's everyday concerns. He's a politician of principle who refuses to sell his program in off-puttingly partisan or ideological terms."

Maybe Lowry is right, and maybe he's wrong on this particular candidate. But he's absolutely right in his assertion that there are new and dynamic politicians emerging from the ashes of 2006 and 2008, and that rather than despair like Noonan, it's better to concentrate on choosing a leader who can articulate the Republican agenda. Lowry is optimistic that the party can choose a successful leader by putting forth names of those politicians most likely to develop a leadership style and agenda which will not alienate the conservative base or fall into the RINO trap. And if Rush Limbaugh likes the candidate, that's an added bonus.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...