Soon we will know the winner of the Florida Republican primary, and the winner in Florida will probably be the ultimate Republican nominee for president.  So it is time to start considering whom to have for vice president.  Florida Senator Marco Rubio is the man.  It’s not too soon!  Don’t take “no” for an answer!

During the time he has been a senator, Rubio has already accomplished a strong conservative voting record.  As a Tea Party activist, he has followed through with pledges to oppose all tax hikes and he voted in favor of the Ryan Budget to restrain entitlement spending.  He has called for repeal of Obamacare and abolition of capital gains and estate taxes, and he has also called for a flat-rate federal tax.

And take your pick on all other conservative issues, and Rubio is on board for all of them: national security, abortion, vouchers and charter schools, gun rights, streamlining regulatory burdens on businesses, and opening up drilling for oil here in the U.S.  There are more positions, but you get the point.  Rubio is a solid conservative who would be a great fit with any candidate at the top of the GOP ticket.

But it is not only his stands on the issues that call for a draft-Rubio movement for vice president.  It is Rubio’s full-throated defense of American conservative values and free-market capitalism that appeal to conservatives.  During the four debates he had in his 2010 race for Florida’s Senate seat, Rubio truly stood out.  He even spent some time criticizing the moderator, which was cool back in 2010 and is even cooler today.  Replaying highlights of Rubio’s Senate debates, as will inevitably happen during his campaign for vice president, will be an excellent national introduction for Rubio.

Forceful, unapologetic articulation is a new requirement for Republicans: it is not only a good track record or voting record, conservatives also demand the ability to forcefully articulate conservative principles.  Just ask Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Rubio would also be the first Hispanic candidate for high elective office.  Oh sure, we will be told, Hispanics don’t vote for ethnicity alone, but if the GOP could put a significant dent in the 67% to 31% advantage Hispanics gave Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, the presidential race is almost over before it starts.

The only drawback Rubio might have is that he has served in the Senate for only two years before running.  But where have we heard that before?  Possibly a certain Democratic presidential candidate in 2008?

But unlike Barack Obama, who before his election to the U.S. Senate spent seven years in the Illinois State Senate setting a record for voting “present,” Marco Rubio spent nine years as a representative in the Florida House of Representatives and even served two years as Speaker of Florida’s House.

Rubio will also be an asset in recent political developments.  In many political issues, the credibility of the politician on a certain issue determines his ability to get something done.  For example, that was why Richard Nixon, the perennial cold warrior, was able to go to China.  It is also why Governor Mitt Romney, noted rich guy, will never get top marginal tax rates dropped and in fact he is not even proposing it.  In the case of Marco Rubio, his mere ethnicity gives him credibility on immigration matters, so whoever the president will be, Vice President Rubio will be able to lead the issue of securing the border against illegal immigration while instituting a functional, bipartisan guest worker program, major electoral issues this year.

Rubio can also provide needed cover on another issue: the recent pandering to “Space Coast” Floridians.  Who would have ever thought that in the current days of $15 trillion national debt, Republicans would be outdoing each other on space proposals?  I mean, really!  I guess when I called Newt Gingrich “the Apollo 13 candidate,” more references to space were probably a given, so it might be my fault.

But in this primary season the Republicans have courted every Floridian vote, including the Floridians in the so-called “Space Coast.”  Hence the recent Republican calls for more trips to space, including a permanent station on the Moon.  If this keeps up, Moon-shots for Floridians will be like ethanol subsidies for Iowans, an obligatory pander to Florida voters from each new crop of presidential candidates.  As a Floridian, Rubio can put a stop to it and call it the shameless pandering that it is.

Other names mentioned for vice president include Susana Martinez, governor or New Mexico, would be very good, especially on energy issues; and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who just won re-election by a landslide.  Jindal is also very good on energy issues and has recently been making a lot of news on school choice issues.  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has also been mentioned, and he has a great fiscal track record.  The charismatically-challenged former presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty has also been mentioned as a possible vice president.  In his recent candidacy Pawlenty showed that he stands for most of the issues Republicans favor.

Good people, but none of them is Marco Rubio.  So let’s draft Rubio for vice president and get this general election campaign started.

On one level, things should get back to normal in Indiana in 2012; that is, their red state status should come shining through. Unlike its industrial Rust Belt neighbors- Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan- Indiana showed a 5.6% increase in population over the decade- not enough to gain a seat, but neither do they lose a seat in the House. It needs to be mentioned that unlike its neighbors, for the bulk of that decade, Indiana was governed by Republicans. While Democrats in those states often cite “the failed policies of the Bush years” as reasons for their demise, the fact is that their demise was beginning even before Bush took office. Indiana is the exception. And the main reason is that under Republican leadership, they improved and then kept their fiscal house in order.

Governor Mitch Daniels is term-limited. Thus, this will be an open race. When Evan Bayh decided to retire from the Senate in 2010, there was speculation that he would run for Governor in 2012. However, those plans went by the wayside when he announced he would not run. That left the Democrats somewhat flat footed and in search of a candidate. One name circulated was Brad Ellsworth who ran for Senate in 2010 and lost to Dan Coats. However, it makes little sense for him to jump back into the political arena against a strong GOP nominee in a statewide race when he lost to a somewhat weaker GOP candidate in 2010. Democrats believe the 45 year old mayor of Evansville, Jonathan Weinzapfel, is the answer, but he has not entered the race. Then Hammmond mayor Thomas McDermott was touted. To date, the only viable candidate to declare their candidacy is former speaker of the Ohio house, John Gregg- basically an Ohio Democratic B-list candidate.

Conversely, it became increasingly obvious when Mike Pence began shedding leadership roles in the GOP in the House that he would make a run for Governor and he did not disappoint. This is his race to lose and there are no indications that will happen.

In 2008, Indiana barely broke for Obama and he won their 11 electoral votes. That will not happen in 2012.

Unlike Bayh, incumbent Republican Senator Dick Lugar will seek another term in the Senate. Perhaps more than any other time in his electoral history, Lugar will face a double challenge to retain his seat. First, the perception of Lugar has taken some serious shots on these pages and other conservative websites. Some special interests have portrayed him as being in bed with Obama. The only area where they “were in bed” was on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation. I did have a problem with Lugar’s support of the new START treaty and believed consideration could have waited until the new Congress was sworn in. The bigger point, however, is that this idea that a candidate or incumbent needs to pass every item on some checklist or conservative litmus test lest they be targeted, or labeled a RINO, is ridiculous. It is comments and perceptions like that which cost the GOP probable Senate seats in Delaware and Colorado in 2010. Some of the arguments then are the same today: better a true conservative than a RINO. Really? Michael Bennett, an Obama lackey, is better? Really? Chris Coons, who traces his political guidance back to Marxism, is better?

Obviously, there is some dissension in Republican ranks in Indiana over Lugar. Some of his attempts at “bipartisanship” are viewed as “capitulation.” Second, the main attack on Lugar is that he is not conservative enough. A review of his comments, ratings, endorsements and votes from various sources reveals high marks from conservative groups and low marks from liberal groups. Third, if Lugar goes down to defeat, there is no guarantee the Republican alternative would win now or retain their seat in the future. From how I see it, Lugar is the known commodity that could be dealt with and no closet liberal as some have portrayed him. The alternative, at this point, is nothing but words.

Lugar thought he caught a break when car dealer Bob Thomas entered the primary race. His presence would have split the anti-Lugar vote and made his job easier. However, Thomas backed out, much to the delight of Lugar’s main GOP detractor, Robert Mourdock. However, Thomas was mostly critical of Mourdock when he stated: “Why elect someone to higher office when he is not doing a very good job in the one he’s got now?”

The so-called Romney effect is also to be considered. Obviously, Romney is not exactly the top choice of the Tea Party or conservative activists in the Republican Party. Should he basically wrap up the nomination by the time Indiana’s May primary rolls around, it will lead to low primary voter turnout leaving Lugar’s fate at the hands of the more involved and activist elements in Indiana. Some polls put Mourdock in a statistical dead heat with Lugar at this time among likely primary voters. As the theory goes, if Romney wraps up the nomination by May, Tea Party voters in Indiana will take out their displeasure on the next best thing- Lugar- while more moderate Republicans will just sit out the primary. In this way, the Democrats hope a weaker opponent will advance.

The next logical question is if Lugar loses the primary, is Mourdock strong enough to win the general election? Mourdock has received considerable conservative endorsements. Even our own Erick Erickson of Redstate,com has weighed in saying that Lugar’s time has passed and that Mourdock is the man to replace him given his “track record.” A search over the past several days has failed to find that “track record.” I do have his WORDS, but words do not a track record make. As far as his political track record, I know that he twice lost congressional bids in the 8th District in 1990 and 1992 by 10 and 8 points respectively. He did win an election to the Vandenberg County Commission and then state treasurer in 2006 and reelected to that post in 2010. In 2010, he won with over 1 million votes and 60% of the vote. Do those numbers from 2010 constitute a “track record?”

A look at his campaign website is complete with all the right conservative statements and policy positions that, quite frankly, have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever becoming law. I often rant about the fairy tale utopian world of liberals as not living in reality. But, there are fairy tale utopian conservative worlds also. Does anyone really believe HUD, and the Departments of Energy, Education and Commerce will be eliminated, as Mourdock proposes? On that site, he portrays Lugar as being in bed with Obama. Now that Obama has proposed the elimination of the Commerce Department, is Mourdock now “in bed” also with Obama? Regarding a balanced budget amendment, this is another conservative pipe dream that will solve nothing. There are 49 states with some kind of requirement for a balanced budget, yet there are 44 states with budget deficits, so how would an amendment solve the problem? The fact is that state budgets are “balanced” through accounting gimmicks that makes anything done at Enron look like small potatoes and the same would happen at the federal level.

His website criticizes Lugar for failing to support $1.006 billion in spending or program cuts. Admittedly, every little bit counts, but dedicating a whole page to a dollar amount that addresses a miniscule percentage of the total problem is too much grasping at straws. He attacks Lugar for voting for Obama’s auto bail out, but the vote he cites is actually a cloture vote that also included the AMT. As for Lugar’s support of TARP, that was a Bush program that was later subverted by Obama. Yes, Lugar was one of 33 Republicans to vote for TARP. Had he voted “NO,” he would have been in the same company as such conservative luminaries as Debbie Stabenow, Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden, and Bernie Sanders (sarasm intended). He also asserts that Lugar at one time supported the individual mandate in health care reform in the context of Hillarycare. However, using the very article Mourdock cites as proof, he fails to mention that Lugar supported the notion that all Americans should have health insurance, but that mandating it would create costly burdens and regulations on people and businesses. Regardless, it was the same view staked out by people like Bob Dole, Charles Grassley, Trent Lott and Jesse Helms at the time. Actually, that same article is, ironically, an article in favor of Lugar from the Courier Press. Once again, I fail to see the Mourdock “track record.”

I do see a track record as treasurer of the State of Indiana. Originally elected in 2006, he won reelection in 2010. During his tenure, I venture most of his accomplishments and “track record” is attributable less to Robert Mourdock than to Mitch Daniels. As many newspapers reported, during an unrelated audit tracking a $25,000 check, the state “found” $300 million in corporate tax receipts collected since 2007 that had not been transferred to the general fund. Mourdock elected in 2006. Over $300 million in corporate business tax receipts not transferred to the treasury starting in 2007. Mourdock reelected in 2010. That $300 million discovered in 2011. Perhaps, if Mourdock was doing his elected job, the $300 million would have been discovered earlier. That is the only “track record” I could find on him.

I did not set out to make this entry anti-Mourdock or pro-Lugar. That is for the voters of Indiana to decide and that decision should be supported and respected. But here is the problem as I see it. There are two types of conservatives- the ideologue and the pragmatic. Either can win with an “R” after their name in states like Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, or even Texas. But, Indiana is not one of those states; they are more pragmatic with pragmatic conservatism running in their Hoosier blood. As Exhibit A, I offer the pragmatism of Mitch Daniels and his reforms. As Exhibit B, I offer Democratic ex-Senator Evan Bayh, a more centrist Democrat, who would have crushed Dan Coats in 2010 had he run. As Exhibit C, I offer their close vote for Obama in 2008- a willingness, if you will, to give the other side a chance. True, Obama blew it when his big government brand of liberalism came shining through. The GOAL is to take control of the Senate in 2013 and the voters of Indiana need to keep that in mind. The Democrats are going to run a rather conservative (for a Democrat) candidate for Senate in 2012. Why put control of the Senate at unnecessary risk when the prize is within sight?

Next: Indiana, part 2

The Obama Economy: Built. To. Last.

“The 65% of our population who are imbeciles really love it, so it must be best!”

– Brett Stevens (in full-metal sarcasm mode) (HT:Amerika.org)

I’ll let Sir Charles Darwin explain why the entire premise of Barack Obama’s recent smug-fest campaign ad known as a State of The Union Address was an utter joke. Barack Obama thinks a welfare state with more tentacles than a sea monster from a Homeric Epic can give us an economy that is built to last. Darwin would explain reality as follows.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

(HT:Thinkexist.com)

Read More →

The Obama Economy: Built. To. Last.

“The 65% of our population who are imbeciles really love it, so it must be best!”

– Brett Stevens (in full-metal sarcasm mode) (HT:Amerika.org)

I’ll let Sir Charles Darwin explain why the entire premise of Barack Obama’s recent smug-fest campaign ad known as a State of The Union Address was an utter joke. Barack Obama thinks a welfare state with more tentacles than a sea monster from a Homeric Epic can give us an economy that is built to last. Darwin would explain reality as follows.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

(HT:Thinkexist.com)

Read More →

Sometimes the events in the political realm  causes this throbbing to occur in my head. Usually it is fine, since these events are fleeting and all I have to do is turn the television off, listen to music, eat a ding-dong and think happy thoughts.  The events of the last 10 days have managed to create a constant throbbing that even music by the Marconi Union cannot soothe.

Let us start with the two South Carolina debates. While watching, I was put off by the cheering. It is a debate not a hockey game. It wasn’t just the cheering, it was what the people were cheering about. They whooped and hollered at comments that made absolutely no sense. On display for the country to see was behavior by those in my party, best explained by Anne Coulter, when describing liberals, as mob mentality.

The more caustic or snide the remark, the louder the audience cheered. There is a lot of anger in the country and candidates would be remiss if they did not try to tap into this to garnish support, but they must do so responsibly, something lacking in those debates.  In the second debate the crowd was whipped up into such a frenzy all rational conduct went out the window.

During the first debate in Florida, the crowd remained subdued. In that atmosphere Newt Gingrich’s comments fell flat. Why? People actually had time to comprehend what he said. Even more important, they listened to the replies. Whether it was from Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney or Ron Paul, it became clear that Newt’s rhetoric did not match the facts. It was proven he did lobby for Freddie Mac, he does behave erratically and he was thrown out of his position as Speaker of the House.

What happened the next day?

The disgraced former Speaker went on the talk circuit complaining that the audience was not allowed to cheer for him. He threatened to pull out of the next debate if the people were not allowed to behave like a raucous mob.  He has put the media “on notice” he will not tolerate the suppression of free speech. As an “historian” he knows darn well it is not suppression of free speech to request a private audience to behave respectfully. The facts do not matter to him, he is playing to the mob mentality. He claims  if he is the nominee, he will tell the Commission on Presidential Debates to change their rule requiring the audience to remain silent.

Can you see him threatening to pull out of those debates?

President Obama will be really bothered by that threat, won’t he?

It will be interesting to see what tomorrow’s debate brings.

Now for the second source of my pounding head.

No, it is not Jack Daniels.

It was President Obama’s State of the Union Speech.

Yes, it was the typical SOTU speech; long, boring and a laundry list of desires. Unlike most SOTU speeches, however, it was also candidate Obama’s campaign kick off speech:

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.

It is clear, as the President tries to distance himself from the occupy movement, he is clearly pandering to them.

I did get some relief  last night, it came in the form of the response to the SOTU by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, this was my favorite part:

The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy.  It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.

That means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates.  A pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody.  It means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years.

There is a second item on our national must-do list: we must unite to save the safety net. Medicare and Social Security have served us well, and that must continue.  But after half and three quarters of a century respectively, it’s not surprising that they need some repairs.   We can preserve them unchanged and untouched for those now in or near retirement, but we must fashion a new, affordable safety net so future Americans are protected, too.

Just as my headache started to subside, I remembered it was Rush Limbaugh who chased this man out of the primaries before they even began. Time for another ding-dong.

Read More →

Legal Editor - The Minority Report

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist for Examiner.com

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Hillbilly Politics, Unified Patriots,  Political Daily and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Only in Washington can politicians get away with complaining about a government shutdown, while going on vacation for a whole week.

Senate Democrats took to the air on Sunday to warn the American people about a government shutdown on March 4th.  They argued that the Senate may not agree to the House passed Continuing Resolution (CR), because the bill’s $61 billion in cuts to spending for the remainder of the year are too much.  Yet the problem is not serious enough for these same Senators to come back to the Capitol to debate and negotiate the House passed spending measure this week to avoid a shutdown.

You see — the Senate has a vacation scheduled for this week — can’t miss that. 

Read More →

Only in Washington can politicians get away with complaining about a government shutdown, while going on vacation for a whole week.

Senate Democrats took to the air on Sunday to warn the American people about a government shutdown on March 4th.  They argued that the Senate may not agree to the House passed Continuing Resolution (CR), because the bill’s $61 billion in cuts to spending for the remainder of the year are too much.  Yet the problem is not serious enough for these same Senators to come back to the Capitol to debate and negotiate the House passed spending measure this week to avoid a shutdown.

You see — the Senate has a vacation scheduled for this week — can’t miss that. 

Read More →

The word truce is defined as “a suspension of hostilities for a specified period of time by mutual agreement of the warring parties; cease-fire; armistice.”  In recent months, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has turned this word “truce” into a rallying cry for libertarians and a curse word for social conservatives by calling for the next president to forge a “truce” with social conservatives on the pursuit of social issues.

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved.

But you see, there were no “hostilities” to begin with.  The social conservatives were minding their own business, and Daniels sucker-punched them.  And that was just the start.

In November a group of “gay conservatives,” GOProud, and a mish-mash of other libertarian-leaning “Tea Party activists” joined in the fun with their own letter, asking Republicans to “resist the urge to run down any social issue rabbit holes in order to appease the special interests.”

And on Wednesday, Daniels, apparently not sufficiently stung by the storm of criticism that followed his original “truce talk,” decided to double down on his previous gaffe by stating:

“I would like to think that fixing [the debt] and saving our kids’ future could be a unifying moment for our country and we wouldn’t stop our disagreements or our passionate belief in these other questions, we just sort of mute them for a little while, while we try to come together on the thing that menaces us all”

Truce? “Rabbit holes?” “Mute button?” Ladies and gentlemen, if there weren’t hostilities before, there certainly are now.

Read More →