Mike Pence for President…in 2012?
Jonathan Martin of Politico.com is reporting some interesting political news to Hoosiers:
Another entrant for 2012/2016?
Here’s a new one: Rep. Mike Pence (IN).
Upside: Evangelical, fiscal conservative, good with the media (he’s a former talk show host)
Downside: He’s a fairly junior member of the House and is virtually unknown beyond conservative circles in DC and voters in his eastern Indiana district.But he seems at least curious about the national stage. Why else would he keynote the South Carolina GOP’s Silver Elephant fundraising gala later this month?
If he does eventually make a run, he’ll already have a toehold in the Palmetto State. Tim Cameron notes that his direct mail consultant is South Carolina-based Starboard Communications.
Congressman Pence would certainly make an interesting choice. His name has even been tossed around during this presidential cycle as potential Veep pick.
I had the pleasure of sitting down with Mike Pence not too long after Hoosier Access first launched last August at the Midwest Republican Leadership Conference. Knowing the “Hoosier Hysteria” would be hog wild for a Pence candidacy, I prodded him about any potential higher political endeavors he might pursue. Check it out after the leap.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Although I don’t agree with him on everything, Mike (Pence) has been a fine Congressman and one of the few fiscal conservatives in the House. (If he was in the 9th district, I’d be enjoying a lot more time with my family these days!) Beyond that, he helped to start Indiana Policy Review– which makes nice contributions to the political landscape.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
please–God let it be true…..
May 7th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Congressman Pence would make an excellent president! If he has any hope, he definitely needs to continue increasing his profile and name ID in the early primary states. Pence had a great speech at this year’s CPAC convention.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Vice President Pence also has a nice ring! No doubt, McCain needs a VP who is conservative.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:16 am
We need Pence in Congress where he is. He can run for President in 2012 after the current “which worthless Senator would you pick?” fiasco runs its course.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
(Here’s my prediction:
Mike Pence will never achieve a higher popularly elected office than the one he currently occupies.
His only opportunity for advancement is through the Republicans in the House of Representatives or, possibly, through cabinet-level appointment. In each case, the constituency served or base leveraged is a national conservative relatively far-right constituency that represents too small of a percentage of an electoral base in Indiana for a statewide ticket. His politics are too off-putting for a national ticket. He wouldn’t even get moderate Republicans, let alone independents and Democrats. It’s possible that a moderate politician would consider appointing him to a cabinet in order to secure conservative support.
In my opinion, Pence is like Ashcroft, a conservative whose relatively far right politics alienates all but his own minority of conservative followers.
In my opinion, if McCain picks a conservative, he loses the rest of the electorate. If he picks a moderate, he possibly loses conservatives. He’s in a tough spot. His best opportunity to win might be in forgetting to name a running mate!)
May 8th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Here’s my prediction:
You are wrong and Pence will achieve a higher elected office than House of Reps member.
OK, now we wait and see what happens.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Betcha a dollar.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Or better yet, how about a dollar each year that he doesn’t achieve a higher elected office, with an agreement by me to triple your total payment back to you the first year he achieves it.
Just to be sporting, I’ll allow you to name the odds at any amount up to 1000 to one in the first year only. The most you could lose is one dollar, the most I can lose is according to whatever odds you set. We can begin with his not being elected vice president in November, a dollar which will become first payable when another is asked to run.
(By the way, for my friends in law enforcement, I remain opposed to gambling, and have never broken my rule not to engage in it. Indeed, it is my opinion that I have no money at risk in any of the above arrangements.)
May 8th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
This would be silly. First, Pence is really only a marginally reasonable VP choice. But not because he is conservative and not because he is socially conservative. He adds little to the ticket for McCain’s electability. Second, what are his opportunities? Well, if VP doesn’t make sense this year, the next opportunity would be 2010 when he would run against Bayh for the Senate. If someone could do it, Pence could do it. But trying to unseat an incumbent Senator has far more downside to upside.
Really 2012 is the next real opportunity for Pence. There are three options: Senate, replacing a retiring Lugar; Indiana Governor; President/VP. The situation would have to be very right for Pres or VP. Lugar would have to decide to retire for the Senate to occur. Governor is entirely open and is probably the most obvious choice.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
And yet it will completely out of his reach. Should he get the Republican nomination, it would secure the office for the Democrat.
(2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012….. that would be 5 dollars for me accumulated, with a 15 dollar payoff for you.)
May 9th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Hmmm let me get this straight (no pun intended), Far left wing moonbats such as the Jacobs/Carson cabal, JLT, Jimmy Paycheck, Little Birch, BHO, Billary and others are perfectly acceptable but yet Mike Pence is too “extreme”?
Thanks for the laugh.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:45 am
I have said no such thing, Michael. The only one above who as achieved statewide electoral status in the Indiana is Bayh who positioned as a centrist, no matter what his subsequent politics became. (Don’t know who Jimmy Paycheck is.)
May 9th, 2008 at 8:24 am
By the way, Michael, I’ll open up the offer to you.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Chris’s general feel is that social conservatives are unelectable. He ignores Reagan and Bush (43). He ignores folk like Santorum, DeMint, et al who have achieved Senate success as conservative (including socially). He ignores folk like Pawlenty and Jeb Bush who have been elected Governors as social conservatives.
He admits that if an amendment to the Indiana State Constitution to prevent gay marriage made it onto the ballot it would win approval. Yet he maintains that if a candidate actually supports that same amendment they magically become unelectable.
I am guessing that he will argue that my examples are not in Indiana. But Bush 43 won twice here. We voted twice for Reagan. We really haven’t had many opportunities to vote for social conservatives on a statewide basis. He might argue McIntosh, but that would ignore the fact that his weaknesses had to do with how he ran his campaign and his Johnny One Note message on property taxes.
I would agree with him that a candidate who ran simply as a social conservative (in the mold of Governor Huckabee), would have little or no electoral success here depending on the state of the given race. But I believe that all around conservatives running good races will fare very well in Indiana.
Time will tell.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Jimmy Paycheck is one of many nicknames for millionaire Jim Schellinger after his remark about he and his wife “Live paycheck to paycheck”.
A crude reference to a 1970’s country music singer that went by the name Johnny Paycheck (”Take This Job and Shove It”) that fell on hard times and hit rock bottom in the 1980’s and ended up in prison.
I don’t gamble. Hell I don’t even play the lottery. I’m way too frugal.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:35 am
And Little Birch - he did a nice snowjob on us as Governor acting like a centrist but once he drank the Potomac water made that hard left turn to Moonbatville.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Let’s be honest that all of this betting talk is stupid anyway. It’s pundit and bloggers, like us, who are throwing Pence’s name into the ring for higher office. He has not said one way or the other if he would pursue such callings. Obviously, I and many others, would like to see him respond to a call to higher office, but making a bet based on what a person may or may not do based on our discussions rather than his, is dumb. And I think you know that Chris. That’s why you’re trying to bait us into this silly argument.
Don’t blame you for trying though. Very Carville-esque.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:25 am
No, No, Joel. I don’t make the argument about social conservatives… however that might be defined. I make that argument about Mike Pence, who is a movement conservative and far to the right of both Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush.
Reagan was effective in harnessing social conservatives, but he was a very different breed from what we find today. Reagan promoted freedom and individualism over state control. He was divorced, hardly ever went to church, and vocally opposed the move by social conservatives to ban gays from teaching in California schools. Mike Pence is no Ronald Reagan.
And George W. Bush has been quietly distant from the movement conservatives on the topic of gay rights, expressing comfort with civil unions, and re-instating the administration non-discrimination policy that one of the crackpot movement conservatives attempted to abandon in his name.
Remember that George’s picks for Supreme Court were not movement conservatives, which is why there was so much outrage over them among conservatives.
Bush and Reagan both played to the center. Pence is a different matter altogether. That’s why his future is limited.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:47 am
So you argue that Pence is for state control and wants to ban gays from doing particular jobs? This is absolutely false and even if it was true, would be the OPPOSITE of a “movement conservative”.
Reagan appealed to the “middle”, but not because he took up positions to appeal to them. He communicated conservatism in such a way that the middle realized that they were whatever Reagan was.
Reagan was the DEFINITION of a movement conservative. Methinks you don’t understand what conservatism is.
Which of Bush’s Supreme Court picks are you referring to? The only one that I recall outrage over was Myers. That had nothing to do with her not being a “movement conservative”–it had to do with her not being remotely qualified to be a judge, much less a Supreme Court judge. It also had a lot to do with it being a patronage appointment. I believe most “movement conservatives” are quite happy with Alito and Roberts.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Pence voted “No” on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation, voted “yes” on federal amendment defining marriage between man and woman, voted “yes” on a federal amendment banning same sex marriage, voted “yes” on a constitutional amendment prohibiting flag desecration, rated strongly for teacher-led prayer in public schools.
On social issues, he is all about conservative government control/influence over individual conscience. He is a theocratic conservative. On economic issues, he is less interventionist/controlling, even in some instances in which business and economists are crying for a proper government role.
Reagan was some of those things, but he wasn’t doctrinaire…. Myers was shot down by the right because she wasn’t trusted… as was Gonzalez. Qualifications was the excuse in order to get a more reliable conservative in.
Maybe you can explain to me exactly what you definition of conservative is… I allow you to define the term for purposes of discussion.
If you can cite for me any statement of his, similar to the president’s or to the Governor’s, opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, you will have taught me something I didn’t know.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Don’t quote me on this Chris, but my feeling is that Pence opposed laws banning discrimination not b/c of the sexual orientation matter, but b/c that is government telling a business owners who they can and can’t hire. Opposing such legislation, if that were indeed his reasoning, would be more of a libertarian stance on this issue. And Pence has shown from time to time to have a “less government” streak in him. Maybe not in social issues, but certainly others.
But like I said that’s just a guess. I could be wrong. I haven’t taken the time to look up why he opposed the laws. I’m sure you have your thoughts as well as to why he opposed such legislation.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Here is what conservatism means to me. The quote is from Fred Thompson on the Charlie Rose show in response to the question “what does it mean to be a conservative?”:
“It means things that are consistent with God’s design for man. It’s consistent with human nature. It’s consistent with the lessons of history and the lessons of the ages. They found form in the Constitution, I think, and what our Founding Fathers believed. They understand that man can do great and wonderful things, but man is prone to err and times do terrible things, that too much power in too few hands is a dangerous thing. That power is a corrupting thing.”
http://infredheads.blogspot.com/2007/12/charlie-rose-video.html
Regarding Pence on discrimination:
From http://www.munciefreepress.com/node/18157
“Let me be clear that I am not condoning discrimination against people for any reason whatsoever. I believe in civility and decency in society.”
Pence’s vote on job discrimination was based on its abridgment of the first amendment protection of religion. We have had extensive discussion on same sex marriages and I think we can at least agree that there are more than one position held by honest people on this topic. None of these examples that you give really show that Pence wants to ban gays from particular jobs or increased state control.
Actually voting against the job discrimination bill was a vote to keep the government out of the issue (i.e. more freedom). You mistake his votes for freedom of religion as votes for controlling your life.
Just remember that whenever government passes a law–even one to “protect” a group–it is exercising intervention or control.
“Qualification was the excuse in order to get a more reliable conservative in.” — can you establish your accusation? I was one sending emails, etc. when Myers was nominated and it was ALL about her lack of experience and lack of a track record to know what she thought of Constitutional law.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Have you seen the Club for Growth’s just-released measure of fiscal conservatism for 2007? (They have numbers for 2005 and 2006 as well.)
Among Hoosier reps over those three years: not surprisingly, Mike Pence dominates– with 99% and an average ranking of 3rd (out of 435).
Dan Burton is next with 78% and an average ranking of 67th. Steve Buyer is close behind with 74% and 79th. Mark Souder trails a bit with 60% and an average of 123rd place.
Of past reps, Chocola was impressive with 93%– good for 12th place. Hostettler had 76% and 58th place. Mike Sodrel had 60% and an average of 113rd place.
And then there’s the Democrats: blue dogs Ellsworth at 18% and 206th and Baron Hill at 15% and 216th– and the full-blown socialists: Julia Carson at 5% and 364th; Visclosky at 3% and 392nd; Donnelly at 1% and 394th.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Joel, Pence’s position on religious freedom is the thinnest possible veil over the ugly reality.. especially when opposing the religious freedom of gays to marry… but then you’ve already seen that inconsistency.
Civil rights law became the law of the land in 1964 as a basic principle, prohibiting an employer from discriminating against you for being white, male, and protestant, for instance. Since then, outside of a religious environment, the religious “freedom to discriminate” holds no Constitutional water by any supreme court ruling I know of. To the contrary, you can’t on presumably religious grounds discriminate against anyone with whose religious views you disagree… Catholic… Jewish… Muslim….
According the poll by Republican Fabrizio in 2007, 77% of Republicans believe an employer should not have a right to fire someone based on their sexual orientation… a figure not too far from the 89% of the general population that the Gallop poll says believes that gays should have the same opportunities in the workplace.
Pence’s “I am opposed to discrimination” line is utterly hollow in this context… to the contrary… it is his explicitly his view that an employer should have a right to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation… If it related at all to freedom of religion and keeping government out of people’s lives, he would not have led the debates in favor of banning gays from marrying.
Pence is no libertarian Republican… and does not pretend to be. Instead, in my opinion he has adopted the role of a right wing religious conservative bent on constructing the law to ensure that the views of right wing religious conservatives prevail no matter their consistency from a Constitutional democratic perspective. In my opinion he is consistent only when understood in that context.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Chris, your position (and it has been very consistent) is that you understand the true motives of people who disagree with you. And their motives are religious bigotry and intolerance.
It seems to me that when you say, “If you can cite for me any statement of his, similar to the president’s or to the Governor’s, opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, you will have taught me something I didn’t know” that you don’t really mean it. You do not believe it even when it is provided.
You do not believe this, but this is a blind spot for you. It is why any time a discussion of a “movement conservative” or what I would say is a complete conservative comes up, you eventually end up arguing gay rights. You cannot construe a position of opposition to discrimination that does not include gay marriage, but there are other ideas in the world.
I would certainly not argue that Pence is a libertarian Republican. He is a conservative Republican, by his own admission.
May 10th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
No, no, Joel. I allow for disagreement on a whole host of topics without reference to religious intolerance, but you are quite correct that a position with regard to gays is bellwether today…. it is one of the deepest questions facing civil society… like slavery, it is not peripheral, it is central in understanding what thought process underlies a person’s philosophies.
It is one of the few questions that strips people down to the raw bone and reveals what kind of human being they are.. more so even then abortion… for the two sides of the abortion question (I believe) will never reconcile because of inherently consistent arguments on both sides… one on the side of a conception of life that is disputable but logically consistent.. and the other on the side of the autonomy of women, which is disputable but logically consistent.
With regard to the rights of gays, however, the arguments are not in the least consistent once divorced from narrow conservative religious thinking… the consistency breaks down completely, as I observe with Pence. If a person cannot find it within themselves to accord to gays our freedoms and equal protections as citizens, then their philosophical credibility zeros out. And unlike abortion, where I believe the dispute will be eternal, the belief systems of people today who refuse to accord to gays equality will gradually fade into a historical position of total discredit, and because of this discredit, all other aspects of their outlook will be stained as well. In contrast to those conservatives who before could be forgiven for being in step with the prejudices of their times, today we are beyond the tipping point.. and those who adhere to prejudice are now behind the times… They have been confronted with truth and have instead embraced their prejudices. In Indiana statewide and in national electoral politics, these kinds of people no longer have a future. Like segregationists of the 50’s and 60’s, their moment has past, and every aspect of their being discredited.
If a person doesn’t get it with regard to the equality of their fellow human beings who are gay, and shows such a dogmatic character as to demonstrate that they will never get it, then that person will be found to have all of the defects, prejudices, and logical inconsistencies in their civic philosophy common to not to the expansive conservative thought of Ronald Reagan, but to mere hidebound closed-mindedness.
History will show that reasonable people did not disagree about the civil rights for gay citizens… but that reasonable people embraced and encouraged those rights, unreasonable opposed them, and that progress ultimately prevailed over the unreasonable.
So if a politician is unreasonable with regard to encouraging and embracing the rights of gay citizens, then that politician will lack the facility to be truly credible on any topic requiring reason.
According to recent polls by Pew in 2007, 53% of those under the age of 30 believe gays should be able to marry legally, compared to 38% who oppose. Less than a majority of Republicans favor a marriage amendment. 75% of Americans (vs. 23%) under the age of 34 feel homosexuality should be be an accepted alternative. (There won’t be more gays.. just more acceptance of those who are.)
The rhetoric and record of people like Pence against gays, in contrast to our acceptance in that age group, why the percentage of those under the age of 34 in the Republican party has fallen from 25% to 17% in ten years.
Today, we have no respect for the racists of the 1960’s, whether politicians or ministers. Tomorrow no respect will be accorded those of this decade who have done so much to make life difficult for gay citizens and so little to make it better. Pence will fall in this category.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Eric, happy to see Dan Burton recognized again as a top conservative.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“Tomorrow no respect will be accorded those of this decade who have done so much to make life difficult for gay citizens and so little to make it better.”
And the day after that it’ll be championing equal rights for NAMBLA.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
I do take the above statement to be a smear of gay citizens. So rather than respond to Jezierski, I’ll talk over his head.
The problem right now with the conservative “movement” and its declining traction among younger generations is that the smears of gay citizens increasingly fail to resonate, for as more and more feel confident enough to identify themselves rather than deny being gay, younger generations find gays to be among their friends, their siblings, their classmates, even their beloved parents. Their experience of gays therefore no longer is defined only by those who have been outed in scandal.
(The 2007 Fabrizio poll reveals that nearly 1 in 5 Republicans have gay family members that they know of, over 1 in 4 have gay friends, some 1 in 7 have coworkers they know to be gay. Note that this latter much lower figure reflects the the fact that so many are afraid to out themselves in work environments, where no protection from being fired for being gay exist. I think we will find that these figures are higher in the general population and probably much higher among Democrats, for many gays I am sure choose not to out themselves to friends and family who are conservative Republicans, and prefer not to be among those who torment them.)
So it isn’t just the ongoing and increasingly hollow smears such as that uttered above that discredit those otherwise attempting to build the conservative movement, it is silence in the face of them.
I remember when I first entered duty in the Air Force I addressed those few who reported to me as a young officer. The positive aspect of my message was that so long as they engaged in initiative, if they erred I would take the blame and if they succeeded I would ensure they received the credit. The negative aspect of my message was that if I ever heard them utter a religious, racial, or ethnic epithet or joke, I would come down upon them with a force they had never experienced. Perhaps not remarkable, we never heard such jokes or comments in my office, no matter how common they might have been elsewhere.
I am always sorry to hear of racism exposed, for I fear it conveys an impression to racial minorities that a racist attitude characterizes all of us. The reality is that I in our own home growing up and in the business and social circles of exceptional decency in which I circulate today never hear racist comments, because by refusing to utter them and refusing to countenance them, those circles have long since conveyed that such comments are unacceptable.
I am well aware, however, that racism exists, for I saw an appalling racist incident in the Air Force, and a friend of mine told me that but 15 years ago (1993!) relatives of his driving through Kokomo were run off the road by a carload of people who told them never to be in Kokomo after sundown. I know these horrible attitudes exist, but I can say confidently that they are not manifested in any circle of which I am a part, and that the attitudes that underlie such horrible actions also seem to absent.
In my opinion it is time, and it is appropriate, for young conservatives to begin publicly disassociating from those kinds of comments as uttered above, as surely, surely you would of racist comments, rather than leaving it gays to defend ourselves. While gays defend ourselves again and again and again, silence conveys the impression that all young conservatives, rather than a minority, consider gay friends and family to be no better than pedophiles, and to have and deserve no rights. The Fabrizio polling indicates that this is an injustice to young Republicans, who appear in overwhelming numbers nearly as much the rest of the population to believe, for instance, that employers should have no right to fire someone for being gay.
The damage done by these remarks is less and less to the gay community, though the damage to does remain severe and cutting, but more and more to the Republican Party and to the conservative movement which these kinds of remarks discredit. It is in the interests of both that a clear disassociation from these kinds of remarks take place, for otherwise the Republican Party and the conservative movement will repel, rather than attract, decent and intelligent people.