Thoughts On Charlie White

I have many, many thoughts on the Charlie White saga, so I may use multiple posts to put it all across. Some of my insights come from being a Fishers resident (White was on the Fishers Town Council), a former Hamilton County political boss (I chaired the Libertarian Party, I believe he is still chair of the Republicans... he was chair at least during the times of my tenure), and a former candidate for Secretary of State (White had been elected Secretary of State prior to being stripped of office).

The main thing that has bothered me about this case is that I absolutely detest this kind of ticky tack law. I have long maintained that the real purpose of these laws is as a 'gotcha' device. This case fairly well shows how that works.

But I also know it from other cases. Interestingly, Charlie White was able to remain on the ballot, despite the world knowing about the case prior to the election. Libertarian candidates who have the most minute, meaningless errors on their paperwork routinely get bounced from the ballot summarily. In 2006, while I was running for Secretary of State, and handful of Libertarians from around the state got bounced from the ballot because the Elections Division decided to enforce a technicality that hadn't been enforced before, and that our party was unaware of statewide. Too bad, no mercy for us. Bam! Gone. I called a press conference, and a couple of reporters turned up. I stood behind the would-be candidates, shouted from the Statehouse steps, and the item wasn't even reported.

So, it bothers me about the haphazard enforcement and standards. I mean, just today, by some miracle, it was found that Rick Santorum does have enough signatures to be on the ballot after all. He was 8 short before, and now, voila! he has enough. If a Libertarian is short? Rules are rules! Fire and brimstone!

Just days after the 2006 removal of 11 Libertarian candidates, 10 Fort Wayne Republicans had signature issues. Ha- issues. They fired their executive director for FORGING signatures on their forms. It's kind of interesting to look back on what I had to say:

The Libertarian Party just had eleven candidates withheld from the ballot for failing to meet a technicality. Well! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. These ten or so Republican candidates need to disappear from the ballot immediately if the law is the law, and the Elections Division is providing consistent outcomes.

Now personally, I think the booting of candidates is a great disservice to the people of our state, but the bar has been set. I think a better outcome would be that the eleven Libertarian candidates would be certified, and a fine levied against the Libertarian Party for missing the technicality, and everyone there moves on.

In the case of the Republicans, the best outcome might be that the ten or so candidates are put on the ballot, and the Executive Director might face some jail time, if in fact he committed perjury when forging the signatures of candidates.

Jail? From Indiana Code:

IC 3-14-1-13
Filing fraudulent reports
Sec. 13. A person who knowingly files a report required by IC 3-9 that is fraudulent commits a Class D felony.
As added by P.L.5-1986, SEC.10.

All of the State's campaign forms specify at the bottom of the first page:

A person who knowingly files a fraudulent report commits a Class D felony (IC 3-14-1-13).

Felons go to jail. Pretty simple.

Republicans and Democrats wrote this law. Republicans and Democrats should therefore be the standard bearer and the exemplars in how to do this correctly, and how to bear the consequences when this is done fraudulently- if there is to be integrity in our elections.

Nobody went to jail there. White isn't going to jail, but had the felonies hung on him, and faces a year's in-house detention. (Yes, the funny joke there is, "Which house? His ex-wife's?")

And yet, I still find White's case lamentable. Not only do I want every Libertarian on the ballot. I want every candidate on the ballot. If one loses an election, I want it to be because the voters decided, not a bureaucrat in the Elections Office decided it, or because they couldn't be on the ballot thanks to a legislature bent on political self-preservation.

But, the rules are the rules. I and other Libertarians may well detest the laws, but we comply. You have to pick your battles. Do you want to be on the ballot? Then you have to follow the rules. Make a case against the rules, but comply. Get elected and change the rules. We speak out about the rules all the time. I'll note that I never heard Charlie White once speak out against the rules. Nor did I ever hear him speak out in support of a candidate bounced from the ballot. He was a County Chair and a candidate for Secretary of State, which were all good avenues for speaking up about the rules. Never a peep. I guess he accepted the rules, right up until they ensnared him.

At the end of the day, here's what I would like to see happen:

1. It's just paperwork. At the very least, let's eliminate felonies for candidate filings. I'd like to see the most minimal paperwork requirements possible. Yes, we have to know who we're putting on the ballot. Yes, we need to know that this candidate is eligible to run, and lives in the jurisdiction for the office sought (White may have been out of his Town Council district, but he still lived in the state while seeking statewide office.)

2. Broaden ballot access. The Republicans got the scare of their lives, looking at the prospect of losing ballot access with the possibility of White being declared ineligible to be a candidate, with ballot access tied solely to the Secretary of State race. Let's broaden the access rules by tying the result to any statewide candidate in a four-year cycle, at the very least. I would also like to see the threshold lowered to the 1994 standard: 0.5%, The 2% requirement is keeping other 3rd parties off the ballot, especially the Greens.

More later.

Will The Real Republican Party Please Stand Up?

Most readers know me as a political partisan, a 'capital L' Libertarian. While I love the Libertarian Party, I love liberty more, and really couldn't care less which party gets the job of moving policy in a liberty direction done.

I've found it interesting over the years, that liberals and conservatives alike tend to try to push me to the Republican party. Why liberals concede that the Democratic Party is not the home for one who loves liberty is beyond me. But, another topic for another day.

Today is the day of the Iowa caucuses for the Republican Party. Today is the day we find out if, in Iowa, the Republican Party will embrace liberty in the form of Ron Paul, or if it will embrace one of the various authoritarian strains of Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Mitt Romney.

Many leaders in the Indiana Republican Party, at various levels, have tried to get me into their tent. My belief is that they really just want to plow me under, to disappear me within their organization- as they have done over the years with several former Libertarians. Can't name a one elected to anything as a Liberty Caucus Republican in Indiana.

The rationale, I'm endlessly told, is that more can be done by working within the Republican Party. Bigger stage, better chance of electability, etc. But I've never seen proof that liberty has been embraced by Indiana Republicans. Lip service? Oh, yes. Acts? No sir or ma'am.

There is truth to the rationale, though. Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988, and barely made a noise on the national level. Running in 2008, he won over a dedicated national following, and here in 2012, he is on the cusp of actually winning Iowa today. If he does win, this causes me to take serious notice- for the implications for his campaign, and for the place of liberty in the Republican Party, as well as the place of the Libertarian Party.

As I said, I don't really care which party carries the pro-liberty candidates. I will back them. If Ron Paul is winning caucuses and the primary elections, I have to be with him as far as he runs. The longer he is viable, the longer the message of liberty is in the media and on people's minds, and if he wins the GOP nomination, he could become president of the United States. I can't ignore that.

So, my first glance will be towards the vote totals. My second will be to the reaction of the Republican leadership in Iowa and nationally. They already hinted that they would ignore Iowa's results if Ron Paul wins.

Now, my Republican friends. If I'm supposed to seriously consider a move to the Republican Party, you just have to show me better faith than that. Ron Paul has been treated like garbage by GOP leadership for roughly the last 5 years. Is this any way to lure people to your party?

So, I'm watching to see what the real Republican Party looks like. Go, Ron Paul!

Ugly Business In The Indiana Senate

It seems that every year, Indiana's Senate passes a bill that causes me to feel shame about the state I live in- one that recommends a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

For one thing, the premise is complete bunk. From the mouth of the author, via the Indy Star:

"Marriage is one of the foundations of our society," said Sen. Carlin Yoder, R-Middlebury, who authored the amendment. "It is something that I firmly believe needs to be protected."

I've never understood, despite a ton of hot air, how a same-sex union threatens marriage. I'm married to my wife, and not once have I felt any suspect inclination that it would come crashing to an end upon hearing that gay people were marrying in California or Massachusetts, or some other state. Nothing affects my marriage, because it is between myself and my wife.

You want to protect marriage, Yoder? Ban divorce.

Better yet, get government out of the business of regulating marriage altogether. Let the churches marry people who want to be married. Let the courts uphold the contracts and agreements made by two people, whether married or not. How hard is that?

Apparently, for Republicans, that's too much to take. They apparently are much happier sticking their nose into people's private lives. Don't be fooled by their rhetoric about smaller government. What a load of crap. Don't let me hear another Republican derisively shout 'socialism'! Physician? Heal thyself!

So, I was especially proud of the Libertarian Party of Indiana, when the party stood up to declare opposition to this bill.

The notion of changing our Constitution to include Senate Joint Resolution 13 is in complete disharmony with the Preamble of this State’s guiding document.

Our Constitution reads, “WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the People; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being.”

Let me translate for the proponents of SJR-13. Our government was instituted to protect the right of every Hoosier to make decisions as they see fit. Our Constitution was written to protect us from invasive government.

Shame on those members of both the Senate and House that seek to violate the purpose of our Constitution. For all the sign waving by my Republican friends about liberty and socialism, it is striking that they would propose to write into this document discrimination and direct government interference.

Beyond this, the Republicans who promote this nonsense actually make Pat Bauer look like he's got his finger on the pulse of the state. From the Star:

House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, said the amendment is unlikely to receive a hearing this year, arguing the state's trial and appeals courts have upheld Indiana's marriage law.

"It's the same old song," Bauer said. "Some people don't have enough to do creating jobs and moving this economy forward, so they think up divisive things."

So, I'm proud of the LPIN, and ashamed of the Republicans. Why could I never get on board with the Republicans? Because they do so many irrelevant and needlessly antagonistic, counterproductive, and oppressive things.

Free Speech Under Attack

The wolf comes wearing sheep's clothing. American newspapers are faltering for their refusal to evolve (covered in this previous post), and here comes a US Senator, offering to 'help'. From Reuters report:

With many U.S. newspapers struggling to survive, a Democratic senator on Tuesday introduced a bill to help them by allowing newspaper companies to restructure as nonprofits with a variety of tax breaks.

"This may not be the optimal choice for some major newspapers or corporate media chains but it should be an option for many newspapers that are struggling to stay afloat," said Senator Benjamin Cardin.

A Cardin spokesman said the bill had yet to attract any co-sponsors, but had sparked plenty of interest within the media, which has seen plunging revenues and many journalist layoffs.

Cardin's Newspaper Revitalization Act would allow newspapers to operate as nonprofits for educational purposes under the U.S. tax code, giving them a similar status to public broadcasting companies.

Under this arrangement, newspapers would still be free to report on all issues, including political campaigns. But they would be prohibited from making political endorsements. (Emphasis supplied.)

From time to time, I feel the need to remind readers that I am a former Democrat. This becomes necessary because I so frequently write about things economic, and because I defend the free market as generally the best solution to issues surrounding exchange, I get pegged as a Republican of some sort.

No, I was a Democrat. My biggest issue was the 1st Amendment. So, the first big doubts I ever had with the Democratic Party came in the late 1980s, when Al Gore's wife, Tipper Gore, began railing against music with salty lyrics. It hit me like a total betrayal. I was always told by my fellow Dems that it was the Republicans who had fascistic tendencies. So, how to explain Tipper Gore?

So, this just looks like part of a continuum to me. Just as Republicans love to enjoy the reputation of being free marketeers and friends of smaller government, but aren't, Democrats love to enjoy the undeserved reputation of being steadfast defenders of free speech.

In either case, D or R, the commitment is to government control. This bill is an attempt to worm control into the newspapers, as government worms into anything- slowly, and in the guise of 'help'.

I'm glad there are no co-sponsors to date.

Note to my Democratic friends: Your party is becoming just as drunk with power as the Republicans were after the 2002 elections. Be on guard! You need to smack your party down, lest they go the way the Republicans went, crossing their base over and over again, especially on the things the base is correct about, to the extent that you eventually lose the entire middle.

Here's the text of the First Amendment, for those who need the refresher, including Senator Cardin:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (Emphasis supplied.)

Pretty simple.

More Podcasting on Ed Coleman

When then-Republican City-County Councilor Ed Coleman left for the Libertarian Party, I felt 100% certain that there would be a political price for him to pay. Talking with party insiders, the general consensus was that he would probably be removed from one or more of the committees on which he served.

In fact, he was removed from all of them on Monday. Again- no real surprise. Politics is a bare-knuckled game, and retaliation, no matter how silly or childish it may seem, is a way of political life just as much as favors and back scratching is on the flip side.

I got a better sense of why Ed left yesterday, when I interviewed him again for the Libertarian party of Indiana's Weekly Podcast. This wasn't the first retaliation against Ed by the Republicans, nor the first time he was stripped of a committee appointment. Because Ed was speaking out on issues against the grain of his former party's leadership, he was stripped of committee appointments, and then assigned to different committees. To summarize Ed, he was advised that being reassigned was a warning, and that he should shut up and toe the line.

Here's the link to the podcast archive. Check out Podcast #011, released March 5. It is incredibly revealing in details about how local government works. Or doesn't.

I asked Ed if the members of the City-County Council read the ordinances they vote on. Interesting answer, to say the least.

Welcome Home, Ed!

In about an hour, sitting Indianapolis City-County Council member Ed Coleman will take the podium at a press conference, announcing his switch from the Republican Party, to the Libertarian Party. From Coleman's press release statement:

This is not a decision I take lightly, nor did I come to it without deep reflection. I have found that the direction of the Republican Party has changed, and it is not the same party I joined many years ago. Nor do I believe its current leaders truly represent the ideals that the party markets and advertises to voters.

Both of the old two parties have forgotten their ties to the common man, and instead focus on power and control as elitists. I am a common man, I campaigned for the common people, and I still represent the common people; the voters and taxpayers.
I have come to find that my politics are actually more aligned with the Libertarian Party than any other; a party that still allows free thought, a party where dissent is not necessarily a dirty word.

Both of the old parties endeavor to silence dissent. During the Council’s previous period of Democrat control, the majority’s powers were used to silence Republicans. Now, under Republican control, the Council majority abuses their power to weaken Democrat influence. Over the past year I have been criticized for votes I made in response to the concerns I heard from my constituents. As a leader I have spoken out again the secretive and expensive affairs of the Capital Improvement Board; but the two old parties want obedient followers, not leaders.

Indy Star article. I can understand those kinds of thoughts. The Republican Party has changed its' direction more than any other party over the years. The Democrats have been steady on the march to socialism. The Libertarians have been steady on the march to liberty. The Republicans? They go from Nixon's Keynesism to Reagan's quasi-Goldwaterism, and back to George W. Bush's Keynesism. Locally, they seem even more rudderless. You could take a certain 'my way or the highway' if there was some consistent direction you could get behind, but there isn't. The one area where Republicans show some consistency, the Republican Liberty Caucus, is treated like the the red-headed stepchild. There is clearly no room for libertarian thought in the GOP, so why stay there?

I will be most interested to sit down with Ed to get the full story for the podcast!

No Place For Libertarian Thought In Huckabee's Republican Party

As I was driving Monday afternoon to Nashville, Tennessee, I did a little AM-radio dial hopping to see what was out there. I found a trashing of libertarianism, at the hands of Mike Huckabee and Sean Hannity.

Now, I've long felt that Republicans don't really believe in liberty. They really believe in big government, just as Democrats do, merely using the power of government as an instrument of plunder or oppression for a different set of beneficiaries, or over a different set of acceptable minority victims. It was just interesting to hear it plainly spoken.

Huckabee was promoting his new book, which features a chapter that trashes not the Libertarian Party, but libertarian thought. From Time Magazine:

In a chapter titled "Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism," Huckabee identifies what he calls the "real threat" to the Republican Party: "libertarianism masked as conservatism." He is not so much concerned with the libertarian candidate Ron Paul's Republican supporters as he is with a strain of mainstream fiscal-conservative thought that demands ideological purity, seeing any tax increase as apostasy and leaving little room for government-driven solutions to people's problems. "I don't take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it," writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state's Democratic legislature. "Faux-Cons aren't interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument."

The logical conclusion of our economic argument is self-sufficiency and non-dependence. Is that what Huckabee is afraid of? The logical conclusion is to not reward failure, and to not punish success. I guess that's what the Republican Party is done with. Just in time for the bailouts.

Not interested in spirited or thoughtful debate? That's something libertarians are actually accused of- too much debate. He does get one thing right, and that's calling libertarians "Faux-Cons". That's because we're not 'cons'. Libertarianism is classic liberalism. It's only conservative in the sense that the tradition extends back to Thomas Jefferson, and libertarians intend to maintain, i.e.: conserve, that tradition.

Jon Henke has much of value to say on his blog:

We've come quite some way since 1975, when Reagan said "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."

Oh, and it happens that Huckabee does, in fact, take issue with what we believe. In May of 2008, Huckabee called blamed election losses on Republicans being too "libertarian" (this is obviously some strange usage of the word "libertarian" that I was previously unaware of), accused us of being un-American (my response to that is unprintable, but I would be glad to say it to his face if he wanted to repeat his comment to my face) and then proceeded to make the standard, cartoonish Democratic argument against libertarianism.

and

Huckabee is a Rawlsian liberal + social conservative: Mike Huckabee describes his political philosophy as (a) the Golden Rule ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you", and (b) a passage from the Bible ("Inasmuch as you have done to the least of these my brethren, you have done it unto me"). This is not "conservatism"; it is basic Rawlsian liberalism.

and

Social conservatives have to realize that they need the fiscally conservative, socially moderate/tolerant voters if they want to be a part of a winning coalition. The limited government message won revolutionary victories for Republicans in 1980 and 1994; it is the only viable organizing principle for the current Republican coalition.

Well, the weak, tenous link between the Republican coalition is finally exposed. Social conservatives wish to use goverment to oppress minority groups they don't like. Fiscal conservatives want government to get out of the way of business and the economy. How is it that one can reconcile the desire for a heavy-handed government in one area of life with a desire for a relative absence of government in another? It doesn't make any sense.

There is actually a better chance, in my estimation, of the fiscal liberals joining forces with the social conservatives, then of small-l libertarians staying with the GOP long term. After all, social conservatives and fiscal liberals both believe that freedom produces bad results, and only the wise, heavy hand of government can force people to act more 'correctly'.

They have their leader. His name is Mike Huckabee, the anti-libertarian who would raise taxes and interfere in your bedroom. I'm glad he thinks libertarians should be cast out. Nobody who believes in liberty can support his brand, the Republican brand, of conservatism.

Now For The Bad News

Ok, idealism aside, my practical take is that if Bob Barr can't win, my best hope for minimizing the growth of government at the federal level is for McCain to win.

I feel ill typing that. Going back over a year, John McCain was one of two (Hillary Clinton the other) candidates I felt I could be pursuaded to vote against. But, divided government can be more deliberative, even though they weren't with the bailouts. It can be more restrained, even though they weren't with the bailouts. Sigh.

I fully expect an Obama landslide. That means unfettered Democratic rule. From this, I expect Obama to be a rubber stamp for his party's Congressional leadership, just as George W. Bush was for his. I expect government to expand dramatically, which is the bad news.

The only upside is historical precedent. Any time either the Democrats or Republicans take a majority, they piss off the American people in short order. We saw what Republicans did with their recent majorities. When Bill Clinton was elected in November 1992, he came into a Democratic Congress. The result? They pissed off the American people to the extent that the Republicans stormed back in 1994. Government was restrained at that point as best as has been in my lifetime.

So, there is some potential good news. It would be better if the American people took notice that they are alienated every time one party rule grows government, and went for REAL CHANGE and voted to restrain it, not by switching back and forth between the two parties proven to grow government, but to the one committed to scaling back the growth, the Libertarian Party.

But, since I'm being realistic here and not idealistic, my hope is for a structural repeat of the Clinton era: Dems take over, Dems screw up, divided government rules the day once again.

It's kind of like praying to have your breast bone brokem, because it's better than having your skull caved in.

Now, back to holding my little newborn guy!

Wither Gridlock?

Gridlock is my best hope for our federal elections- President of one party, Congress of another, they fight like cats and dogs and actually ponder some of the legislation before it sails through, jacking up our deficit. I don't think it's going to work out that way. I think that while both Obama and McCain are weak candidates, the Republican brand is so damaged by self-inflicted wounds that a can of Alpo could defeat McCain.

So, we're going to have one-party rule. As we saw recently with the Republicans, one-party rule is expensive and damaging. President Bush vetoed nothing his party in Congress presented him. Spending and deficits soared. Is there any reason to think that things will be different under a President Obama? Would he veto anything his party in Congress brings him?

What should give anyone pause is the evidence we can see with regards to one-party, Democratic Party rule. We have it in many major American cities. Washington DC, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland- these are all examples of cities with Democratic Mayors and Democratic Councils. They have all had such majorities for at least 15 years (Cleveland) or much longer even. Democrats are supposed to be strong on their domestic agenda, addressing poverty and unemployment with their social programs.

So, why do these cities still have crushing poverty and high unemployment? Shouldn't these long-entrenched Democratic policies have reversed these problems by now? If 15 years isn't enough, what length of time is required?

The Republican brand is about to be soundly rejected upon the strong evidence provided- as it should be. But, with such large cities offering compelling evidence simultaneously, why should the Democratic brand not also be rejected? Is it merely the least offensive in the moment?

(h/t Melyssa Donaghey, for her comments at Indiana Barrister)

Trade Horses!

Some folks think the Republicans are full of nerve, asking Libertarians to withdraw from close races. I don't see it as a slap in the face, so much as an opportunity. From Foolocracy:

To no one’s surprise, except Hupp’s and whichever Republicans she conspired with, the Libertarians refused to drop from the race. It is surprising that she considers the Libertarian Party as a Republican lapdog to rollover as needed. Third party candidates rarely have expectations to win, but they do believe in elections as a forum. Hupp may do well to check out the differences in the two parties’ platforms next time.

One of the Libertarians said that while Hupp did not directly offer board seats on local commissions, it was left open as a possibility. Hupp denied anything of the sort.

Wes Benedict, head of the Libertarian Party for Texas, dismissed the Republican requests for Libertarians to drop out. “Republicans need to earn those votes,” Benedict said.

If I were the Texas LP state chair, I'd make a deal: We'll drop out of these three races, AFTER, the Republican Party drops its candidates out of up to six races that are two-party contests, Libertarian vs Republican, at the same level: state house. No appointments. No swapping state office for county office. Straight up. Electoral contests for electoral contests. But since they're asking and I'm in the driver's seat, my price is high. As a state chair, I'd take six sure electoral wins.

Elections are indeed great forums for discussing ideals, but hardly the best thing going. Nothing beats elected office as a forum for implementing the ideals, which is what really matters.

Ron Paul's Ongoing Campaign

(Fishers, IN)- While Ron Paul is officially out of the race for the Republican Party's nomination for President, he is continuing his efforts with the launch of Ron Paul's Campaign For Liberty. It's a Political Action Committee with the following as it's mission statement:

The mission of the Campaign for Liberty is to promote and defend the great American principles of individual liberty, constitutional government, sound money, free markets, and a noninterventionist foreign policy, by means of educational and political activity.

With this launch, and without an endorsement of Bob Barr, to read between the lines is to conclude thusly: Ron Paul is continuing to work to "reform" the Republican Party. If you can have a mission statement like this, and not endorse Barr, I'm not sure what else there is to conclude.

I for one am not interested in reforming the Republican Party. I'm not interested in doing anything besides relegating it to the scrap heap of failed American political parties. They'd look good resting among the ashes of the Free Soil Party and the Communist Party USA. Paul gave it a fair shot, but was soundly rejected by Republicans in their primaries and caucuses. Republicans don't want liberty. They had their chance, and stomped on it.

I hope Paul's work of supporting candidates who promote liberty isn't limited to mostly Republicans and a few Democrats. It would render his PAC as the equal of the Club For Growth, which also mistakenly promotes mostly Republicans, and finds itself staring at an ever-growing government, with ever-growing amounts of taxes taken from the people, and ever-growing debt being generated as future taxes on future Americans.

Mitch Daniels Shows True Colors

When defending their party against challenges of fiscal mayhem or outlandish government growth, most Republicans I know quickly slip into their "Party of Reagan" mantra. I can't wait to ask them how they feel to know that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has rebuked Reagan... in favor of John McCain! From the Chicago Examiner:

The governor delivered his remarks to a room full of fellow red-staters at the Fund for American Studies’ annual conference and donor retreat at the Newseum.

“Nostalgia is fine and Reagan’s economic plan was good,” Daniels said. “But we need to look towards the future rather than staying in the past.” Daniels added that the GOP needed to work on uniting behind Sen. John McCain instead of constantly comparing the Arizona senator with the Gipper.

I get the desire to be present and beyond nostolgia. Maybe Daniels has just served the wake-up call that those who wanted limited government really are under the wrong tent if they are voting Republican. Elected Republicans have done nothing but grow govenment at every level, post haste, since 1994. It's only self-deception that keeps limited government supporters voting for and contributing to Republicans.

Probably, Daniels told us that for him, the most important thing is that his team wins, regardless of style of play. Forget about substance! Wear that elephant uniform, and win one for the... er...

Update: Rush Limbaugh smacks Daniels down as a 'country club, blue-blood, Rockefeller Republican'. I love the cognitive dissonance this must be causing across our state. From Limbaugh:

Hey, Mitch? Governor? Governor Daniels? Should we get over Lincoln, too? He's in the past. We just gotta go over Lincoln. This is so contrary to conservative thought. For me, on the wrong day, this could be tough to take. We're supposed to learn from our past. We are supposed to build on that which works. This is part of conservative thought! I'll tell you what. Let's just get over the founders. The founders of the country are in the past, too. Let's get over them.

Couldn't have said it better. I'll be happier when Daniels is in the past.

Oh, So Indiana Matters?

(Fishers, IN)- Some are getting all excited about the Democratic primary, because with it being a close contest, Indiana now matters enough to have Obama and Clinton campaign here.

Call me cynical, but I'm not impressed that the horse race situation makes our state at long last worthy of visitation, begging, and bombardment with campaign ads. Great that you're here now, but who could doubt that you wouldn't be here if it were wrapped up.

My personal taste came on Saturday, when a telemarketer called. Her question: Who will I vote for in the Democratic primary?

Well, now that's one hell of a leading question. I took on a woe-is-me voice and said, "My good lady, I wouldn't vote for either of them if my other option was a sharp stick in the eye".

She took that fairly well, and then asked if I would be voting in the primaries. I said that I would. That was the end of the call, and I'm sure she assumed I would vote Republican. No, I go to the voting place, sign the book, and then walk out. Until they have a place for None Of The Above, or make primaries something other than a public function on behalf of the private organizations the Republican and Democratic Parties are, then that's my only real 'choice' when voting in primaries.

On another note, I thought political push-poll calls were illegal. Moreover, I'm on the No-Call List. I thought it was illegal for pollsters to call those on the list. Do the rules not apply now?