Wednesday, February 24, 2010

HoosierPundit on Young, Sodrel, Hankins, and "GOP leaders we can have confidence in"

From HoosierPundit, citing these (and other) excerpts from an article in the Indiana Daily Student:
“We cannot trade irresponsible Democrat leaders for Republican leaders we don’t have complete confidence in,” said Todd Young...It was a jab at former Rep. Mike Sodrel...

Young called the Republican-controlled Congress in which Sodrel served the most fiscally irresponsible, second only to the current one. But Young didn’t offer specifics about how he would have done better, just the usual talk about outrageous earmarks and bloated budgets.
Then, HP starts to critique Young and defend Sodrel.

So, let's hear it. Let's set aside the empty rhetoric about "outrageous earmarks and bloated budgets" and let's hear Todd Young's specifics.

I don't know about Young's speeches, but it's true that his website only provides modest detail. Then again, Sodrel's website provides none that I can find. That's probably best, since Mike sold himself as a fiscal conservative before he got to DC and then voted like a fiscal moderate. (See: the data from fiscal watchdog groups like NTU and Club for Growth. But I'm especially fascinated by the equivalence of Obama and Sodrel in 2006 by Citizens Against Government Waste!) I'd hate to see him start making more promises that just aren't credible-- without owning (and apologizing for) his voting record.

For those who value website specifics, they'll end up choosing the best candidate in the GOP field, Travis Hankins-- who has, by far, the most detailed description of his positions on his website.

HP ignores Hankins and attacks Young. A good strategy for a Sodrel supporter, I suppose...

Continuing on, HP also takes Young to task for critiquing the GOP Congress in which Sodrel served:

Young called the Republican-controlled Congress in which Sodrel served the most fiscally irresponsible, second only to the current one. Republican Congresses deserve a lot of criticism, particularly in light of the expansions of government they unwisely voted for in 2003 and 2004.

I'd also say that the Republican Congress that held office from 2005 to 2006...represented an attempt to begin a return back to the fiscal prudence seen by the Republican majority in the 1990s....

Some people are satisfied with the economics and spending of President Bush and the GOP Congress from 2005-2006 (and even 2001-2006). And many of those people will be quite content to vote for Sodrel. Unfortunately, those people cannot reasonably be called fiscal conservatives.

For those who want to choose a fiscal conservative in the 9th District GOP primary, you can have some/much faith in Todd Young-- and you can have as much confidence as one can imagine with Travis Hankins.

The Republicans in 2005 and 2006 were also trying, with their efforts at taking up Social Security reform in early 2005, to address looming entitlement problems....

Actually, this is one area where President Bush deserves credit-- one of the few areas in economic policy. Instead, it was the GOP Congress who sacked his efforts at reform. The GOP controlled the Presidency and the Congress and made no progress on entitlement reform-- or other issues like drilling for domestic oil or ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

Again, you may be content with that sort of thing. But you really shouldn't try to convince people that such things are "conservative" or impressive.

One last comment from HP:

So to attribute fiscal irresponsibility to be some Republican malady as Young does is to concede important facts, and a big area of the political battlefield, to assumptions and spin put forward by the Democrats...

I'd phrase it like this: To fail to attribute fiscal irresponsibility to the 2001-2006 Republicans "is to concede important facts, and a big area of the political battlefield, to assumptions and spin put forward by" those who want to return (or maintain?) the GOP ideological status quo of politically-expedient, big government. We cannot afford to go there...

6 Comments:

At February 25, 2010 at 8:20 AM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

I forgot to add that Sodrel voted for only 1 of 19 anti–pork amendments put forward by Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in 2006. Like Pence (at least then), Travis and I would have voted for all 19.

 
At February 25, 2010 at 8:34 AM , Blogger Mike said...

Young has never offered any specific conservative position on anything but rather just typical GOP political talking points. Hoosier Pundit is certainly right on that.

 
At February 25, 2010 at 9:05 AM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

OK, I can understand-- and empathize with-- that critique. But what has Sodrel offered? So, HP's critique rings hollow. If the point is the need for specificity, then Hankins is the man.

 
At February 25, 2010 at 10:03 AM , Blogger Mike said...

Sodrel has offered nothing but Hoosier Pundit still offers something useful. I think the difference conservatives see is that Mike Sodrel is not conservative in a certain way that is somewhat tolerable.

For example when asked about the Flake Amendments Sodrel's response was "they weren't going anywhere(not going to pass)" now that response is horrible but it is brutally honest...Young on the other hand will give you all the vague crap about pork dancing all around the subject trying to trick you and then he will have NOPIGS claiming to be anti-pork again trying to trick you again but make no mistake Young is even more liberal than Sodrel.

Todd Young started NOPIGS yet he supports PORK...to real conservatives this dishonesty
is not forgivable and worse he tricks lots of people...even someone as smart of yourself, Eric, has said that Young seems credible on fiscal issues(which is how I found this blog)...based on what? Talking points? or rather specific proposals that he cannot back out on?

We know he is not a social conservative...what is Young supposed to run on???? being a liberal Lugar Republican lawyer who always dreamed of going to Congress?

Of course he will run as a fiscal conservative!Nelson Rockefeller ran as a fiscal conservative!

Young has never cast a vote.
How would you judge Sodrel if he never made it in 04 and had never cast a vote? It would only be on his words and actions campaigning.It would be hard to call Sodrel a fiscal liberal without the votes to back it up!Its not worth the price to give someone a seat then find out they are not conservative.
So we have to look close.

I have a friend who served with Young in the YRs and he has had those backroom off the record talks about politics long before Todd ran for Congress and he is sure that Young is not a conservative on any issue.

So while Travis Hankins is clearly the only real choice in this primary(or any other primary which Hankins would run...I am not saying he is the best of bad options)many of us would rather have Sodrel over Young and many people are SURE that Young is even more liberal than Mike Sodrel.
Young is seen as the bigger threat to the cause than Sodrel.

 
At February 25, 2010 at 10:23 AM , Blogger Mike said...

An example to prove my point:

Young gave a radio interview and the question was,"your opponent Travis Hankins agreed to never seek an earmark will you take that pledge?"(paraphrase)

Young's response was to talk about his NOPIGS (which he had mentioned in other questions)for two minutes and he never answered the question or said anything that Baron Hill wouldn't say.

I have since talked to a Young supporter who heard the interview and he is sure Young took the pledge...NO he did not!!!!! That guy simply heard what he wanted to hear.Paraphrase"well he answered talking about NOPIGS off course he took the pledge" NO he did not!
Sodrel might have answered honestly but I doubt Sodrel would spend two minutes trying to deceive and dodge.

This is important because if the Freedom movement cannot get Travis Hankins types elected to 218 house seats(and we CAN!!!) our next best hope is to get the YOUNGS and Sodrels of the world on the RECORD!

If we get Young on the record saying he will never initiate or seek and earmark then we can hold him to it! Even better get him on the record saying earmarks are unconstitutional or even better that he will never vote for any spending bill with an earmark!

We need to get these guys on the record with firm positions...so far Young is skating through with typical GOP answers.

So whatever HPs motives...he does a service.(the IDS reporter figured it out! Why can't some "conservatives" in the ninth?)

 
At February 26, 2010 at 6:39 PM , Blogger Eric Schansberg said...

I've met Todd a few times and he seems credible on fiscal matters, philosophically and in terms of passion. But who knows? I haven't followed his campaign closely, so I don't know. In any case, I'm supporting a candidate who is the strongest fiscal and social conservative in the race. So, it's not my problem.

We know Sodrel's promises from his campaigns and we know his voting record. Absent apologies or repentance, then a reasonable person will expect more of the same. And if you're a conservative, that's simply not good enough-- as long as there are other good options. And we clearly have that in Hankins.

Sodrel's answer on Flake's amendments is a total cop-out. Should we criticize Mike Pence for his votes in support of those amendments? No way!

I agree that getting Young on the record is an important thing. If he won't do that, then that's even less reason for one to support him.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home