Redstate

While I dont know if I agree with this being a litmus test (as I would like to see what other bills they voted on) it is a moot point since they both pass.

Both Pence and Shadegg voted against both of these programs. Finding two other people voting no on two other Presidential pet projects will probably be very hard to do:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll669.xml

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2001&rollnumber=145
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2001&rollnumber=497

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

If a Republican voted against these measures when Bush was popular and everybody thought Rove was a genius, it shows a spine and a willingness to stand up for conservative principles.

I am just wary of putting "litmus tests" to a person based on one or two votes. For example if they voted against these but voted for a lot of other things on other issues I disagreed with then it wouldnt be a good test.

I guess I dont like getting too specific but you are right, chances are that these are a good indication of how they vote on other bills.

but a gauge.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

He was talking about his Health Care Choice Act:

http://www.johnshadegg.com/issues/healthcare.cfm

and he was really good... pleasant, committed, knowledgable. Check out the act itself, its pretty radical. Also gaze upon this beauty that would be embraced by any lover of the Constitution:

http://www.johnshadegg.com/issues/enumerated.cfm

Heck, check out all of his positions. This guy should be President, not just Whip:

http://www.johnshadegg.com/issues/

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. -Ronald Reagan

Thank you for asking. I do not yet know who my pick is. I am still absorbing the unexpected news of the defeats of Republicans like J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, Jim Leach of Iowa, George Allen of Virginia, Jim Talent of Missouri, and Michael Steele of Maryland; and the news of the unexpectedly large margin of Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election in California. I do not know what these results portend, and I do not think that many of the rest of us on RedState really yet know, either. Intuition somehow warns me that Mike Pence is the wrong choice for leader in 2007.

Have you any suggestions for my pick? I cannot speak for other traditional conservatives of my stripe, but for my part the ears are very open right now. I am listening.

I have no suggestions for your pick because I dont know enough about you. maybe you would like McCain? (hahaha, ok I know enough from this sole post that you probably wouldnt want that).

I would say that I would back Shadegg for any elected position he wanted I dont know enough about Pence to be a complete cheerleader.

That said I dont see him as any worse than anybody else right now. a bit more research is needed. I think we are in the same boat. I just thought that since you had strong feelings about Pence you may have another candidate who could do better.

Tom Tancredo (R-Co.) is backing Pence. Would you like to throw Tancredo under the bus as well, as he's supporting Pence.?

Adam's Blog
The Adam Graham Program

No. That is very interesting information. Tom Tancredo is probably my favorite congressman. If he is publicly supporting Mike Pence for leader, then I am inclined to board the bus, as it were, and take my seat.

The enlightenment is appreciated.

You might want to take a closer look at Pence. Check out this World Magazine piece on him.

Good-mood conservatives
POLITICS: Republican rising stars Mike Pence and Mark
Sanford are making all the right enemies | by Russ
Pulliam, Warren Smith

With moderates John McCain and Rudy Giuliani the talk
of media towns, conservatives are on the lookout for
new faces. Here are two: U.S. Rep. Mike Pence of
Indiana and Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

Mr. Pence, a 46-year-old Republican, is getting
attention as an advocate of a leaner federal
government who also has good credentials as a cultural
conservative. He has an instinctive grasp of the news
cycle from years of talk-radio show hosting in his
home state. He is gaining mention as a possible future
speaker of the House, with Rep. Dennis Hastert
(R-Ill.) likely to step down in 2008.

Yet Mr. Pence's Christian faith and past struggles
with political ambition make him uncomfortable about
pursuing higher political aspirations at the expense
of family (wife and three young children), or just to
satisfy natural human desires for fame and adulation.

Lately he has pushed the Bush administration and the
Republicans in Congress to take some air out of the
ballooning federal deficit. He and his conservative
bloc in the House, the Republican Study Committee,
forced the House leadership to reduce federal spending
boosts for rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina. Mr.
Pence appeals to both evangelicals and the
business-oriented wing of the Republican Party:
Business Week recently called him a "self-effacing
Hoosier as comfortable quoting Scripture as the
Contract with America."

His optimistic disposition also is fueling this rise
to prominence after just five years in the House. "I'm
a conservative, but I'm not in a bad mood about it,"
he likes to say: "There is a tendency among some
conservatives to communicate as if they have been
sucking on lemons."

Mr. Pence has a strong pro-life record and has
displayed support for faith-based initiatives. When
the Bush administration was trying to figure out how
to get federal grants to faith-based groups, he joined
with other members of Congress in suggesting the
simpler approach of tax credits so that citizens could
send money right to the charity of their choice. "When
I give $1,000 to a rescue mission, I've probably given
four times [more] than if I sent the money to the
bureaucracy in Washington," he says. "It actually
reaches the homeless man and pays for a meal for him."

With his mix of social and economic issues, he is
showing the capability for uniting Republicans in a
way that took Ronald Reagan to the presidency. While
the Giulianis and McCains appeal to economic
conservatives, the key to GOP leadership, as Ronald
Reagan and George W. Bush have shown, is appealing to
both wings of the party.

That combo attracts favorable comment from unlikely
quarters, such as the New York Times editorial page.
He proposed a federal shield law to protect news
reporters from having to reveal their sources in
criminal investigations. If that makes conservatives
nervous, he notes that his position is essentially
conservative, helping to keep some checks on
government. "The role of the press is to create that
accountability for people who wield public power," he
says.

All this favorable attention might go to a
congressman's head, but he was chastened a few years
ago about the raw pursuit of political success and
tries to remember the lesson. After his unsuccessful
1988 and 1990 campaigns for Congress, he wrote an
essay, "Confessions of a Negative Campaigner." Then he
became a popular talk-radio show host before his
election to the House in 2000. "I developed a very
healthy skepticism of my ambition 15 years ago," he
said. "There is a tendency when you are in a public
position to begin to think more highly of yourself
than you ought to."

Bible reading, along with going home to his wife Karen
and three children, 13, 12, and 11, helps keep him
humble: "When I walk into the house, I'm no longer the
congressman or the conservative leader. "I'm just
Dad."

This really stood out to me, along with his position on the two votes noted above:

When the Bush administration was trying to figure out how to get federal grants to faith-based groups, he joined with other members of Congress in suggesting the simpler approach of tax credits so that citizens could send money right to the charity of their choice.

This kind of approach toward governance is very heartening. It demonstrates that a person motivated by their faith can nonetheless separate that from their management of public funds, and choose a common sense and fiscally sound solution rather than one motivated by scoring "points" with other religious citizens. Smart moves like this could do a lot to deflate fears from less religious citizens, and would pull the rug out from under people who would reject him simply on the basis of being a devout Christian.

This quote should be on billboards:

"When I give $1,000 to a rescue mission, I've probably given four times [more] than if I sent the money to the bureaucracy in Washington," he says. "It actually reaches the homeless man and pays for a meal for him."

It is a perfect explanation of why limited government works.

He even has been endorsed by Tancredo. I got some solid information last night that Pence has agreed to oppose the Senate comprehensive immigration reform package if most of the caucus opposes it (this is quite similar to the Hastert approach regarding majorities), and apparently both he and Tancredo already agree those votes aren't there.

The question I have is whether Pence will oppose the Bush Administration when it gets too cozy with the Left on other issues. That is what needs to be answered, because I am certain he has the mettle to stand up to the Democrats but this second prong will be awkward.

Well, very interesting. I appreciate each of the several thoughtful replies to my question. Maybe Mike Pence really is the right man for the job. We shall see.

From the point of view of the traditional American conservative, one of the most hopeful political developments in the Republican party since the revolution of 1994 has been the 2006 marginalization within the party of immigration enthusiasts like Chris Cannon, Mel Martinez, Alberto Gonzalez and (may I say it) George W. Bush. This political development has been nothing short of great, and though it did not carry us to victory in 2006, it suddenly, unexpectedly vaults the United States into a very small club of Western nations, including Denmark and Australia, whose national conservative party can legitimately be described as patriotically nationalistic. I fully realize that Mr. Cannon's gloat is factually true: Republicans ran coast-to-coast on the immigration issue and lost. We Republicans must take a mature view in the matter: the number of voters who voted against us because of our anti-immigration stance may indeed have been larger than we could have wished. If so, this is a significant political problem for us; but capturing one of America's two great national parties for patriotic nationalism in 2006 is in itself a superb accomplishment. It gives us the practical base from which to capture the nation.

Maybe elevating Mike Pence to leadership is indeed the right move in this light. Again, we shall see.

There is another issue, however -- not as big as the immigration issue but still huge. The party in which economic nationalism is making inroads today is the Democratic party. Conservative economic nationalism as such was not really much of a force or much of an issue during Reagan's Cold War days. The great Ronald Reagan was a free trader, indeed, but the situation was different then. There were powerful Democratic labor unions to fight and Cold War allies to support, yet even Reagan bailed out Harley-Davidson rather than watch it succumb to Honda. As much as some right-wing libertarians wish that the issue would fade away, it won't; it can't. American industry is what fades away. American industry is dying. American self-sufficiency is disappearing. American labor, who in the truest sense every conservative ought to be most staunchly for (despite the corrupt, anti-American big union leadership), is losing the honorable jobs which once allowed very ordinary American men to support families in security and dignity on a single income. American big business is ceasing to be identifiably American. The principles of conservatism never change, but the situation on the ground does change, and to meet the present situation fresh thinking is sorely needed in the conservative ranks.

I would much rather see the Republican party return to its old, pre-WWII economic-nationalist roots, than for conservative nationalists like me to be left to choose at election time between a Republican party right on immigration and traditional values, and a Democratic party not beholden to the chimerical ideology of free trade. But if it comes to that choice, then I guess that for the first time in my life it makes me a swing voter. That is not what I want. I just want to be a Republican.

I do not know where this leads us. In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, right-wing libertarians and traditional conservatives naturally found common political cause even though our fundamental beliefs diverged. The 21st century threatens to separate the two, which is not to be desired, but perhaps neither is to be avoided. Yet it is not clear to me that the Republican party can prevail nationally in the foreseeable future without the enthusiastic support of both of these two great right-wing factions. Maybe Mike Pence can show us the way.

Now, I think that I have said quite enough, and I appreciate your allowing me the platform to say it. The thread is yours. Whatever you add to it, I shall read silently but most carefully. You get the last word.

Rich Lowry of NRO said yesterday that Boehner was likely to retain the leadership position while Blunt's bid for Whip was faltering. I hope he's wrong about Boehner. He's the Republican version of Dick Gephardt, boring.

So which do we want: the spirit that gave us 40 years in the minority, or the spirit that politically lost badly to Bill Clinton?

I say let's just stick in the best conservatives we can get, and win with superior policy.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

What has Majority Leader Boehner accomplished, in terms of legislation, in his time at the post?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Or maybe he is nostalgic for those morning in America commercials.

I wonder if he is saying that we shouldnt get down in the muck with the Ds. That a conservative message IS a very positive and uplifiting message, if its told. Unfortunately when Ds call us racists and subsidy-cutting-baby-beaters we either sling mud back or cower in the corner. We should just brush that off and explain, in an emotional setting that Independents (i.e. democrats) understand, the great things about conservative ideology.

That could be it.

He did said negative PERSONAL attacks...not negative POLICY attacks...hmm....

Calling a democrat a 4 letter word, or making fun of their appearance seems a mistake to me, because it isn't related to policy and would backfire.

However lots of sound bites are effective and are quick summaries of the enemies stance on the issues. Like saying a democrat is pro-criminal or pro-terrorist. It's a short hand way of saying that democrats usually end up taking the side of criminals and terrorists, like in interrogation rules, prisons, etc.

The reality is that many voters respond to sound bites rather than 20 page position papers. In order to vote what they need is a gut feel for someone's stance on the issues. Hearing the sound bites of the enemy plus the response of the politician, along with summaries of what they voted for and against, goes a long way towards making their decision on how to vote.

So if we don't trade quip for quip, we lose.

I don't live in Mike's CD but this much I know. Mike Pence is not ever going to play dirty with personal attacks about somebody being a racist or a pervert etc. etc. He will attack the political position or political policy with a vengeance. He will never make a personal hit on anybody.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Why does Pence volunteer that? If it was to contrast with what the dems do then great, but if it means what Wu Wei infers, then bad. I also would hope that pence would call a racist a racist if he comes across one and that he would call Dem racist tactics by their name. I have a lot of hope invested in Pence. I admire him as Christian and a conservative. But I pray he has the fire and rhetorical skills to make a mark the public likes. we must frame issues better. In moral terms.

http://gamecock.townhall.com and www.race42008.com
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

It has been a few years ago so my brain is a little foggy. I do remember a younger Mike Pence campaigned for office and got into a dirty campaign that made the Allen-Webb campaign look like a pleasant tea party. He swore an oath to God that he will never do that again. Mike is a devout Christian with the fire and the rhetorical skills to frame issues in moral terms. He just will not make attacks toward making you personally hate another person. He wants you to personally hate a position instead of personally hating a person.

You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

> I will not encourage you to use negative personal attacks

Whatever Pence believes, it sounds like his personal position. He wouldn't try to require other members to do the same, just "encourage".

Being the minority in the House is one of the most frustrating jobs in the world. The majority if it wants to can take away their right to offer amendments, and even most of their right to debate, everything besides voting.

So I think after a few months of that plus the Democratic attack rhetoric, Pence and everyone else on the Republican side will be ready to rumble.