Ace of Spades HQ

December 27, 2010

Mike Pence: Fiscal Hawk, Socon
— Gabriel Malor

Commenters to the Barbour piece below note that we shouldn't let the media chose our candidates for us. It is in that spirit that I bring you the other big news story today about a probable GOP 2012 candidate: this Wall Street Journal puff-piece on Indiana Rep. Mike Pence.

Mr. Pence usually draws under 5% in voter surveys testing the emerging 2012 field. But the excitement he's stirred among a swath of conservativesÂ—he won a straw poll at the prominent Values Voter Summit in SeptemberÂ—points both to the fluidity of the 2012 lineup and the dearth of names rousing interest among the religious right, a dependable GOP voting bloc.
Mr. Bauer believes that if Mr. Pence ran, he would quickly build support among socially conservative voters. "The nomination battle would be very wide open without Mike," Mr. Bauer says, who is one of several activists urging Mr. Pence to join the nomination fight.
A former radio personality, the 51-year-old Mr. Pence became a darling among fiscal conservatives for opposing two of President George W. Bush's signature initiatives, the 2001 No Child Left Behind education act and the 2003 Medicare Part D drug benefit. He saw both as violating his party's small-government principles.
Mr. Pence favors reducing the size of the federal government, and even the power of the presidency. He wants to amend the Constitution both to ban abortions and to allow marriage only between men and women. He says increased security along the Mexican border must precede any immigration overhaul.

Not to be missed: the endorsement in the third paragraph from Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, who recently suggested that DADT repeal would lead to a new draft since no soldier wants to be molested in his sleep. Not kidding.

Pence has said he would make a decision on running for president next month, but he's also got a good shot at the Indiana governor's mansion. The current governor, Mitch Daniels, is term-limited (and planning his own run for the White House).

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:57 AM | Comments (71)
Post contains 345 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Pence is only 51?! I have less gray hair than he does and I'm his senior.

It must be the weight of responsibility he bears.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 27, 2010 08:59 AM (S5YRY)

2 Pence and Ryan are about the only ones I am considering at this point.

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at December 27, 2010 09:01 AM (zdaIQ)

3 I still want a governor to run, rather than a legislator.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 27, 2010 09:03 AM (S5YRY)

4 And by that I mean I would vote for a slightly less consistently conservative governor, provided he had been successful, than a hard right legislator. We are going to needs some executive success to unwind the disaster of the Obama years.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 27, 2010 09:04 AM (S5YRY)

5 Just to let you know, a constitutional amendment to ban abortion is a loser in a presidential election.

Posted by: arhooley, conflicted Californian at December 27, 2010 09:06 AM (cIfeD)

6 He wants to amend the Constitution both to ban abortions and to allow marriage only between men and women.

Then he doesn't really want to be President, does he? When the fuck will GOP presidential candidates realize abortions are here to stay? You can't put that genie back in the bottle.

Run on fiscal issues and leave the abortion talk behind. You will still get the votes of all the social conservatives anyway.. especially against Barack Obama!

Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry at December 27, 2010 09:06 AM (f9c2L)

Either Daniels or Pence will have to run, it can't be both. I don't think Either will win, but we shouldn't deprive Indiana of a good governor because both men have their eyes on the white house. Since Daniels is term limited, I think Pence should stick around.

We're going to be needing good governors, especially considering what is coming down the pike

Posted by: Ben at December 27, 2010 09:06 AM (wuv1c)

8 I still want a governor to run, rather than a legislator.

I second that.

Posted by: M Huckellberry at December 27, 2010 09:07 AM (tf9Ne)

9 I second that.
Posted by: M Huckellberry

Eww.

Posted by: toby928™ at December 27, 2010 09:08 AM (S5YRY)

Also, Gabe we know that 76% of gays do their molesting when people are sleeping. Can you blame them?

The AFA: Someone has to protect our sleeping soldiers from molestation

Posted by: Ben at December 27, 2010 09:08 AM (wuv1c)

11 Yes, yes. The sooner we eliminate all of these extremists from contention we can get back to telling the public exactly what they want.

Posted by: TheConcensus at December 27, 2010 09:08 AM (i/tnP)

12 Not to be missed: the endorsement in the third paragraph from Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, who recently suggested that DADT repeal would lead to a new draft since no soldier wants to be molested in his sleep.

Sailors are a different story, however.

Posted by: Eric "Tickles" Massa at December 27, 2010 09:08 AM (bgcml)

13 I like Pence. I think a Pence/Christie ticket would be beyond belief amazingness.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at December 27, 2010 09:09 AM (Baf0e)

14 This Christmas, let's remember those who are on duty while others enjoy the bosom of friends and family. Here's to All Gabe, All The Time.

Some of us may be acquainted with the soldier who does want to be molested in his sleep, no kidding. Others, not so fuckin much hey.

Posted by: a doctor, a lawyer, and an indian chief at December 27, 2010 09:09 AM (hrwMe)

15 The last Gallop poll I saw for 2012 had Palin in the lead with Huckleberry Hound in second. Romney had been up there but lately he has been dropping like a rock.

Of course right now it is all a matter of pure name recognition. These early polls are virtually worthless.

Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2010 09:10 AM (M9Ie6)

16 3 I still want a governor to run, rather than a legislator.

Agreed. If Mike Pence were to run for President and win, he would be the first President elected directly from the House of Representatives since James Garfield in 1880.

Still, his voting record has been stalwart toward fiscal and social conservatism. But he should get some executive experience somewhere first before I'd feel more comfortable voting for him.

Not to say I wouldn't vote for him if he became the Nominee...

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at December 27, 2010 09:10 AM (9hSKh)

17 If one believes that abortion is the taking of a life, then it's already prohibited by the Constitution. An amendment to the Constitution reaffirming the Right to Life, Liberty... etc. is pointless.
It's sure to energize a conservative core, but equally sure to energize a massive "moderate" backlash.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 27, 2010 09:10 AM (T+5rr)

A lot of the people who are in the main social conservative organizations are nuts (example: Bryan Fischer). This does not mean, however, that social conservatism is nutty.

The problem is that the people in these organizations enter these debates for religious reasons but know that religious arguments for their positions won't work in public debate. Because they just think of 'secular' arguments for their positions as a means to an end, they make the most ridiculous arguments just hoping for anything to stick. There are good arguments to be made for social conservatism, unfortunately, these people are not the ones best suited to make them.

Posted by: Paper at December 27, 2010 09:12 AM (VoSja)

19 If there wasn't such urgency to get somebody in there to undo the unholy mess left by Obama I would say Pence should run for governor instead to build up his executive creds and he can run for Prez later down the road.

But do we really have the luxury of time though? Can we afford another 4 years of Obama or God help us all, Romney/Schmuckabee with the economic clusterfuck we're facing now?

Posted by: PenceBot at December 27, 2010 09:13 AM (UqJ8A)

Pence needs to run in 2012. That's all there is too it. Screw the gov'ship. It's too important to do it now.

I don't want to see this country in six years without at least four years of his leadership behind it.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at December 27, 2010 09:13 AM (pLTLS)

Pence and Ryan are about the only ones I am considering at this point.

Ryan and Christie are on my list, but they aren't running in 2012. I think Ryan sees himself as a House Majority leader someday. Christie will stay in New Jersey, because he knows that if he runs in the primaries and loses that he can kiss a second term as the NJ Gov goodbye.

So that leaves:

Pence

Palin

Paul

Huckabee

Romney

Maybe Thune, Giuliani, Gingrich, Jeb Bush, am i leaving anyone else out?

Posted by: Ben at December 27, 2010 09:13 AM (wuv1c)

22 I am the greatest Legislator-in-Chief this country has ever known!!11!

Posted by: The Comeback Kid at December 27, 2010 09:15 AM (GwPRU)

23 Agreed. If Mike Pence were to run for President and win, he would be the first President elected directly from the House of Representatives since James Garfield in 1880.

America hasn't been the same since he instituted Lasagna Thursdays by executive order.

Posted by: Ben at December 27, 2010 09:15 AM (wuv1c)

24 Can we clone Scalia?

Posted by: Rickshaw Jack at December 27, 2010 09:17 AM (zdaIQ)

25 also I left out Haley Barbour, because I think its clear that the media is pre-emptively sinking his ship

Posted by: Ben at December 27, 2010 09:17 AM (wuv1c)

26 Let's just let the MFM pick.

Posted by: USS Diversity at December 27, 2010 09:17 AM (DLxD/)

27 Posted by: ChiTown-Jerry at December 27, 2010 01:06 PM (f9c2L)

Sadly, I think you're right: at least for the short- to medium-term.

On the other hand, you'll need to run on Social Issues during the primaries: Socons more-or-less run the primaries when they're really interested: and I expect they'll be really interested next year.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 09:18 AM (8y9MW)

28 The last time a sitting member of the House was elected president was Garfield. Pence seems like a good guy but it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 27, 2010 09:18 AM (TMB3S)

29 If one believes that abortion is the taking of a life, then it's already prohibited by the Constitution. An amendment to the Constitution reaffirming the Right to Life, Liberty... etc. is pointless. It's sure to energize a conservative core, but equally sure to energize a massive "moderate" backlash. Posted by: Lincolntf at December 27, 2010 01:10 PM (T+5rr) Where does the Constitution mention Life, Liberty, etc.? Abortion is something GOP candidates are wise to touch with great care.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 09:18 AM (XXyJt)

30 Miss me yet?

Posted by: Jonny McMaverick at December 27, 2010 09:18 AM (GwPRU)

31 Palin/Pence 2012.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 09:19 AM (XXyJt)

32 The last time a sitting member of the House was elected president was Garfield. Pence seems like a good guy but it ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 27, 2010 01:18 PM (TMB3S)

Well, no one had ever run a successful Senate write-in campaign until recently either...

Posted by: Burn the Witch at December 27, 2010 09:19 AM (fLHQe)

33 eman, Good point.

I'm trying to think how one would craft an amendment that would basically ban "murder", provided that's what Pence considers abortion.

Posted by: Lincolntf at December 27, 2010 09:20 AM (T+5rr)

34 I like Pence better than Daniels, but I'd like him to be governor first. He's really only been a Representative and, before that, a radio host and a lawyer. And I'm not sure that the type of law he practiced was germane to government service (ie: unlike Christie who was a DA).

Something about Daniels I don't trust. I am not a purity Republican, but Daniels strikes me as someone who'd be too quick to cut deals with Democrats.

I have a little concern that Pence might be too socially-conservative for my taste, but that's based on stuff I read over a year ago at LGF, so I am taking that with a big grain of salt. If Pence campaigns, I'm sure it'll become apparent rather quickly if he's too socially-conservative for my comfort.

Posted by: Y-not at December 27, 2010 09:21 AM (IDL9N)

Also, let's face facts. To win the primary in some states as a Republican you have to be pro-life, against gay marriage, and show some degree of religiosity.

Ask Giuliani.

Fiscal Issues are important, but let's face it, we kinda have a litmus test on some issues. It is expect that you are on the side of social cons on certain issues before they start considering other issues.

If you don't qualify on those three issues then you can kiss your chances of winning the south and some midwest states. You can still win the primaries without them, but it will be considerably harder.

Posted by: Ben at December 27, 2010 09:21 AM (wuv1c)

36 Overshadowing all of this is the fact we have no clue what is going to dominate the debate in the next 20 months. Except for one thing: trillion.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 09:21 AM (XXyJt)

37 Posted by: Y-not at December 27, 2010 01:21 PM (IDL9N)

Exactly what is "too socially conservative?"

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 09:23 AM (8y9MW)

38 Gabe of Spades.... has a certain cache doesn't it?

Posted by: The Great Satan's Ghost at December 27, 2010 09:23 AM (9f1Jw)

The last time a sitting member of the House was elected president was Garfield.

Well, electing a Marxist is unprecedented!

Posted by: Barry the Marxist at December 27, 2010 09:24 AM (DLxD/)

40 I'm trying to think how one would craft an amendment that would basically ban "murder", provided that's what Pence considers abortion. Posted by: Lincolntf at December 27, 2010 01:20 PM (T+5rr) I would take a different tact. Return abortion to the States. Argue that it is analogous to the death penalty and should be governed by State statutes and not be called a Constitutional right. Lefties will hate any restriction on abortion, others will hate any access to abortion, but most folks could live with State by State abortion laws. Give people a chance to vote with their feet regarding abortion. Right now, now matter where they go, Roe v. Wade is there.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 09:27 AM (XXyJt)

41 Posted by: Lincolntf at December 27, 2010 01:20 PM (T+5rr)

How about: "Life shall be defined as beginning at conception?"

Nice, simple, one line. And it thereby makes abortion murder, while still allowing abortion in cases where the question really is: life of the mother, or life of the infant (assuming such cases still exist: we're constantly assured they are, but I've never actually (personally) heard of one).

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 09:27 AM (8y9MW)

42 Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 01:27 PM (XXyJt)

And that's the best way to handle it, IMO.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 09:28 AM (8y9MW)

43 Exactly what is "too socially conservative?"

For me, teaching creationism in science classes (public schools), prayer in public schools, getting rid of gay civil unions, putting the Ten Commandants on courthouse steps -- that type of thing. Basically, I want a secular government. And I don't want a President spending time on that sort of thing in any event.

Abortion is not a social issue for me. It's basic human justice.

Posted by: Y-not at December 27, 2010 09:28 AM (IDL9N)

44 Pence, Palin, Ryan, but Christie, not so much. The more I read about him, the more squishy he seems.

Posted by: Vladimir Putin at December 27, 2010 09:28 AM (p00j9)

45 >>Well, no one had ever run a successful Senate write-in campaign until recently either... There's a hell of a big difference between a sitting senator who loses in the primary in a state with a population smaller than many mid-sized cities from a political dynasty and a relatively unknown (outside political junkie circles) hard right rep winning the presidency. Obama won by exciting his base and taking a big portion of independents. Mike Pence may excite the fiscal/social cons but he is not going to take independents from Obama.

Posted by: JackStraw at December 27, 2010 09:28 AM (TMB3S)

Dagnabbit! Sock off!

Posted by: Soona at December 27, 2010 09:30 AM (p00j9)

47 In the fifth and fourteenth amendments. You honestly didn't know that? Posted by: Insomniac at December 27, 2010 01:26 PM (i6p1m) I had forgotten. Thank you for reminding me!

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 09:31 AM (XXyJt)

48 Posted by: Y-not at December 27, 2010 01:28 PM (IDL9N)

I could answer all of those, but we've already had those arguments.

So I'll just ask: given that the President has virtually no power over those things, why would his opinion on them matter? Unless you think Congress is going to hand him legislation which (to pick one from your list) mandates Christian Prayer in all public schools? BTW- While some Socons would applaud that, most would decry it as Government over-reach as well. We simply want it allowed, not Federally Mandated.

Another question to consider: from what foundational source does the Government's authority come? Not it's power (the point of a gun), it's Authority. Does it simply come from the rule of the Majority, or is there some Moral foundation to which it should adhere?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 09:34 AM (8y9MW)

49 Another question to consider: from what foundational source does the Government's authority come? Not it's power (the point of a gun), it's Authority. Does it simply come from the rule of the Majority, or is there some Moral foundation to which it should adhere? Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 01:34 PM (8y9MW) It comes from the People. As sentient, self-aware creatures we are born with our Rights.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 09:36 AM (XXyJt)

McCain wasn't thought of as a strong social conservative and won the nomination. He could point to being consistently pro-life (unlike Romney) and used federalism to argue that gay rights was a state issue.

Compare this to Romney who swung too far from his previous positions on abortion and gay rights. He went from clearly to the left of McCain to clearly to the right of McCain. Political opportunism hurt him as much as anything and will continue to hurt him.

Posted by: Paper at December 27, 2010 09:37 AM (VoSja)

51 Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 01:36 PM (XXyJt)

A trite phrase. If it comes from "the People," does that mean a pure majority rule? Or is there something (or some thing) behind that statement? Some concrete ideal that "the People" should enshrine?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 09:38 AM (8y9MW)

52 So I'll just ask: given that the President has virtually no power over those things, why would his opinion on them matter?

That's exactly why I said I was reserving judgment until (if) he starts to campaign.

If any POTUS candidate campaigns in a way that nod-nod-wink-winks at (what I consider) social conservatives who want government to intervene in those things (that I just detailed) -- making it clear that s/he will facilitate those sorts of changes (via judges and other appointees, for example, as well as through cheerleading Congress to go in those directions), then I'm not very interested in that candidate.

I suspect that Palin is more socially-conservative than I am - and she is beloved by social conservatives - but I am not worried about her (yet) because I think she has a track-record of not pushing those sorts of things when she was in government. (I have other concerns about Palin, but not about her as a social con.)

I don't know enough about Pence to know how well he separates his personal opinions from what he perceives to be the role of government. And, I'm not sure a track-record as a Congressmen would be enough to determine that anyway. Perhaps something could be gleaned from what he's said as a radio guy. But, if he runs, it should become apparent if those social issues are priorities for him as POTUS.

Posted by: Y-not at December 27, 2010 09:41 AM (IDL9N)

53 A trite phrase. If it comes from "the People," does that mean a pure majority rule? Or is there something (or some thing) behind that statement? Some concrete ideal that "the People" should enshrine? Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 01:38 PM (8y9MW) It has nothing to do with majority rule. It is an intrinsic quality. We are born with our Rights. They originate with the fact we are intelligent and self-aware. Everything else is our efforts to secure and use those rights. For some it is an effort to remove them.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 09:42 AM (XXyJt)

Posted by: sickinmass at December 27, 2010 01:32 PM (1rflU)

Repeal of DADT is one of the worst things that could happen to the military since Obama. One of the first things that a repub president and congress should do, is rescind it. The sooner the better. Or maybe a better idea. Bring back the selective service and draft all the gays and leave the heteros alone. You'd see the gays screaming for the good 'ole days of DADT.

Posted by: Soona at December 27, 2010 09:44 AM (p00j9)

55 Posted by: Y-not at December 27, 2010 01:41 PM (IDL9N)

Fair enough. So- no Huckleberry for you, huh?
And I mostly agree with that: As I (half-jokingly) tell my parents every now and again: Jesus was offered an Earthly kingdom at least three times. He turned it down.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 09:44 AM (8y9MW)

"I would take a different tact. Return abortion to the States. Argue that it is analogous to the death penalty and should be governed by State statutes and not be called a Constitutional right"

WINNAH!.

Posted by: Asian Carp Czar at December 27, 2010 09:50 AM (V6Nu2)

57 Fair enough. So- no Huckleberry for you, huh?

To say the least!

The only "Republican" whose name has been tossed around a bit as a POTUS candidate in whom I'm even less interested that Huck is Ron Paul.

Or Bloomberg... if he's considered to be some sort of Republican.

Posted by: Y-not at December 27, 2010 09:50 AM (IDL9N)

58 Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 01:42 PM (XXyJt)

But that has nothing to do with the Authority of the State. I never chose to surrender my Rights to the State. That choice was made long before my time (and, indeed, the State can only work because the People have surrendered some portion of the their Rights to it).

It derives its "Just powers" from the "consent of The People." Power is not the same thing as authority. The line just gets blurred a lot.

I'll short-circuit this a little, though: The very idea of the Rights of Man are silly in an im- or amoral society. If there is no Moral foundation, then there are no "Rights" there's just what you can do and what you can prevent others from doing to you. The very idea of "Rights" requires that they be granted by a Creator (thus the reason they were so linked in the Declaration). There is only one world view (that I know of, and I've looked) that holds that both: Men were Created AND that All men are inherently equal.

I don't propose that the US be made a theocracy (that would suck, and I'm a Christian), or even that Christian tropes be mandated by the Federal government, but American society must be reminded that it exists because of certain Moral ideas- and any candidate who will espouse and support those ideas rates higher, in my book, than one who just "runs on fiscal issues."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 09:52 AM (8y9MW)

59 Graham/Snowe 2012! (Trying to put things in perspective)

Posted by: Soona at December 27, 2010 09:56 AM (p00j9)

60
I like what Pence has to say. But I am leery of supporting anyone who wants to move directly from a legislature to the presidency, with no real executive experience to speak of.

Arguably, the biggest job that will face the next president will be undoing the damage that the Obama Regime has done to the executive branch: the activist appointments, the overreaching regulations, the leftists installed at every level. He (or she) can expect the leftists to fight him/her every step of the way; so that person must have the experience to bypass, neutralize, and (hopefully) undo his enemies in the bureaucracy. I'm afraid a neophyte like a Pence would just not be up to it.

Posted by: Brown Line at December 27, 2010 09:57 AM (VrNoa)

61 Are you in the Berkshires, sickinmass?

Posted by: Y-not at December 27, 2010 10:09 AM (IDL9N)

62 Gabe, re: Bryan Fischer... That is exactly what happened to me once when I was in the Marines. Demon rum was a contributory factor, but the bottom line was that I was the victim of a sexual assault. I was assured that this was an isolated incident. In a world where homosexuality is tolerated in the military, I would not accept such assurances, and would seek early release from the service on whatever grounds I could find. The assaultee was kicked out of the Corps in triple-time because homosexuals were not allowed to serve. And, at the same time, the assaulter was given a benefit: he didn't get prosecuted for assault. BTW, this seems to be almost exclusive to male homosexuals. Just another datum on how men and women are different. My fearless prediction: you will see a LOT more prosecutions for sexual assault, they will be inordinately male on male, and the gay community will go batshit over the issue.

Posted by: Cobalt Shiba at December 27, 2010 10:19 AM (w0sH6)

63 My fearless prediction: you will see a LOT more prosecutions for sexual assault, they will be inordinately male on male, and the gay community will go batshit over the issue.

I predict it will be women hardest hit. In a decade there won't be a straight woman in the military, much like college softball. ;-)

Posted by: toby928™ at December 27, 2010 10:42 AM (S5YRY)

64 but American society must be reminded that it exists because of certain Moral ideas- and any candidate who will espouse and support those ideas rates higher, in my book, than one who just "runs on fiscal issues." Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) at December 27, 2010 01:52 PM (8y9MW) But, step lightly here. You are approaching the idea that rights and morals come from supernatural forces and beings. Not all agree and there is plenty of debate regarding just what supernatural being is the correct one.

Posted by: eman at December 27, 2010 11:05 AM (XXyJt)

65 A possible solution for Pence's lack of executive experience - pick boy wonder Jindal as VP.

Posted by: JB at December 27, 2010 11:45 AM (RD9s+)

66 A possible solution for Pence's lack of executive experience - pick boy wonder Jindal as VP.

Folks from LA have soured on Jindal. If we want an "Indian" go with our new Gov Nikki Haley. She has started out right.

Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2010 12:01 PM (M9Ie6)

67 who is us?

Posted by: akak at December 27, 2010 12:16 PM (Kzfal)

68 Soured how? Jindal could make an effective Cheney type president, he knows his way around DC. Look, Daniels? Pawlenty? End the delusions. Either gets elected the country's toast. They won't fight the left where they're planting the next mines. I just don't see that candidate that has the whole package. But I think Pence gets it better than these bean counters.

Posted by: JB at December 27, 2010 12:17 PM (RD9s+)

69 Soured how? Jindal could make an effective Cheney type president, he knows his way around DC.

Some of the LA Morons said he had gone over to the dark side. Just sayin'.

Posted by: Vic at December 27, 2010 12:22 PM (M9Ie6)

70 All I know is that the next president has to wage a holistic, integrated war against the left, not same old conservative by-the-book bullshit of "good judges plus fiscal conservatism." He has to take on the scum in academia, schools, bureaucracy, every institution infected with commie vermin using whatever tactical means will work best for any given situation. There has to be a vision being implemented - not with an eye to appeasing constituencies but defeating the left. Defeat the left and all sorts of constituencies will be happy as a side benefit.

Posted by: JB at December 27, 2010 12:39 PM (RD9s+)

71 Bobby Jindal has done a remarkable job at turning around the state and anyone who says he has gone to the darkside is just pissed that he has had to cut HHS and Education funding to balance the budget.... because the Constitution pushed through by Edwin Edwards makes them the first areas to be cut. Apart from that Jindal is still pretty fantastic and I believe has the 2nd highest approval ratings for a governor (behind manchin so i assume first now).

As for Pence, he is one of the few candidates that I would donate too and actively support.

Posted by: hueydiamondpooty at December 27, 2010 02:31 PM (qDBiF)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

108kb generated in CPU 0.0626, elapsed 0.2322 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2125 seconds, 199 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.