who wants a fiscal conservative in the 9th District?
I do-- and hopefully, so will Republican primary voters in May and general election voters in November. [Along those lines, their clearest choice is Travis Hankins.]
Unfortunately, Mike Pence has decided he doesn't-- or is somehow confident that a victorious (and chastened?) Mike Sodrel will change the error of his fiscal ways from when he served as the 9th District's rep in 2005-2006.
Pence endorsed Sodrel today (hat tip: HoosierAccess) in a bizarro-world decision. Is this what you do when you run for President?
Sodrel's "fiscal conservatism" is similar to Baron Hill's-- far more claimed than what's reflected by their voting records. Sodrel was more fiscally conservate than Hill, but Sodrel was average for a Republican and Hill has been conservative for a Democrat. For a fiscal conservative, neither is (nearly) good enough.
Pence apparently found this sort of thing quite disturbing a few months ago (hat tip: TFeldman). Feldman also notes that Sodrel's rating of 30 from Citizens Against Government Waste was equal to Barack Obama's 30 in 2006-- when both were rated as "unfriendly" to taxpayers. Wow...
Of course, it's public record that I do not think Mike Sodrel is the best candidate in the 9th District's GOP primary this year. That said, if he somehow wins the primary and then the general election, I'll certainly hope that he acts on the fiscal conservatism he claims to hold dear.
And what does this portend-- if anything-- for Mike Pence's future?
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 9:48 PM
28 Comments
28 Comments:
Eric, are you a paid consultant for the Hankins campaign or a volunteer? Just wondering....
just a volunteer...should I be asking for money? ;-)
what do you think about the endorsement?
Standard call. Mike is the obvious front runner and the two are pals. And yeah, ask for some money.
But, if you are into consulting for free, I know a little county council race that you could lend a hand on. :)
I had thought, until recently, that Pence was far from "standard". That's what made this surprising and disappointing to me.
This is not *nearly* as bad as Gingrich's Scozzafava-endorsement, but it is similar in type. With Gingrich, I was not surprised so much ideologically as much as the tin-ear nature of the endorsement. With Pence, I'm surprised ideologically, strategically, and in terms of his "non-standard" credentials.
Point taken...now how about that local race?
Why do you see Sodrel as the front-runner? He certainly leads the field in both name recognition and baggage-- and it's not clear that this combination will lead to victory (let alone the lead at present).
It's the DC-establishment candidate vs. the Indy-establishment candidate vs. the grass-roots outsider. Sounds like a good formula for the outsider, especially in 2010.
I'm always happy to meet with people to talk strategy and policy. We could meet for lunch, coffee, or a late breakfast if you want. If so, drop me an email.
Thanks also for the financial advice, but I don't need the money-- and am very happy to help. Hankins has the best combination of views for those who value fiscal conservatism and pro-life.
Speaking of paid consultants vs. volunteers: should I be wondering if Sodrel apologists on the blogosphere are paid consultants too?
This is the year for the grass roots. However, I was referring to Mike as the front runner for the primary. I am sure you saw the poll numbers in a head to head with Hill. His name recognition plus ability to raise money is a positive combination. The "baggage" will not hold water and Mike will be seen as the candidate that should have been there all along.
Don't I wish it....Mike is just a friend and I am not paid.
I wasn't talking about you! LOL!
Mike might win the primary, but I wouldn't put money on that-- and I wouldn't label him the front-runner. In any case, it should be an interesting race.
Oh, so there are other apologists out there? Too funny!
An interesting race indeed. I have a feeling there are going to be several races in that category this cycle.
Let's get together for lunch sometime soon. I will email you next week.
Not only that but in your debate with him in 2006 Mike Sodrel endorsed the concept of mandatory universal health insurance which is the main tenant of Obama care.
I still believe Sodrel is more conservative than Young who seems to be even more political and less principled than Sodrel.
I don't remember that. Was that in the Bloomington or Jasper debate?
Jasper
huh...I probably have that on tape then.
When I talk to Young, he seems credible on fiscal conservatism. A number of people claim otherwise (on blogs), but I don't know why.
In any case, if you want a fiscal and social conservative, Hankins is easily the best choice among the three.
Mike Pence is your typical "Party over principle" Republican. Anyone who identifies himself as "I'm a (insert religion) first, a (insert alleged political leaning) second, and a (insert political party) last;" is a phony, who is telling me that he/she, will allow his religion to color his decisions. No thanks! I want someone who will follow the law, and do the right thing, in spite of his religion.
I hope you're wrong about that! That's how I would describe myself (except party and philosophy are the same in my case).
With Pence, it looks like party suddenly jumped above principle for some reason. Maybe he's been in DC too long-- and term limits (self-imposed or by voters) would have prevented the slide.
Why is one's religion so important? Would you vote for someone who professed that "I'm a Muslim first, a conservative second, and a Republican, in that order"? I think I know your heart Eric, so I'll grant an exception for you. Do you see my point?
I have said this elsewhere but maybe it's time to say it here.
Everyone has a "religion" whether they know it or not. All laws are nothing more "faith-based" policies. Everyone has their own concept of right/wrong and books/people/ideas from which they get these ideas. And we all think our ideas should be "the way it is".
Mr. Kerns, you are no different than Travis Hankins, in this respect.
Now I will voice my humble opinion -- I think Travis Hankins is fantastic! I appreciate the fact that he is honest about his values and convictions and I share them.
I like that he is an outsider because I'm sick and tired of these career politicians who have proven completely ineffective.
We need some drastic action - NOW
He seems committed to cut the trillion $ spending and to protect individual liberties, including the liberties of those of us who have not yet emerged from the uterus.
I hope everyone will Vote for him!!!!
Ms. Jenna - My comments were about Pence "the pretender" conservative. I stand on my opinion, that I don't care to know what religion you practice. In most cases, I would cast my vote against anyone who uses GOD to whore for public office. Just my opinion.
Here is another perspective to consider on this topic:
Jesus Christ values individual persons and their freedom to choose him or reject him; I'm not sure this is true of Mohammed.
This is probably why you can spit on his image, slander him, and curse Him in the USA and not get in trouble but try to do that to Mohammed in the Islamic countries and I can only imagine what bad things could happen to you.
The biblical principle of liberty influenced the Constitutional principle (freedom of religion) to some degree.
Tim,
I agree that people should not use God's name to whore for political office.
I believe that religion (or atheism) is a part of who you are, there's no doubt of that. I'm a practicing Christian, but I dislike the wearing of Crosses, Stars of David, Crescent Moons, etc. I don't think you have to advertise that you are a follower of Jesus of Nazareth (or Whomever), because if you truly are, your life will reflect it. If not, then you are just another hypocrite. Thanks for the discussion.
Tim, I haven't answered you yet:
You asked, "Would you vote for someone who professed that "I'm a Muslim first, a conservative second, and a Republican, in that order"?
The answer is yes; it's quite possible. First, with that combo, they might hold political views that I would find mostly palatable. More important, it would signal a principled person-- and while I might not agree with all of their principles-- I think we need a lot more of that in DC!
I wish we had more people like you Eric. It would be a better world.
I agree with Tim! :)
That is perfect. Yes - words of wisdom, Eric.
Now maybe we can all agree that outward expressions of inward commitment/principles, spiritual or otherwise, can be acceptable in the public arena.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home