Mike Pence NOT running in 2012

Pence would have my support if he ran. It looks like he may be planning a gubernatorial run instead. Good luck to him there if that is what he'll decide.

From the Washington Post

As Chris Cilliza reported last night, Rep. Mike Pence (R- Ind.) opted out of a presidential run in 2012. He seems keen to run for governor instead.

Pence had garnered praise from an array of conservatives, especially among religious conservatives. But the money needed to run and the number of contenders he would have had to beat were perhaps too daunting. His conservative bona fides on fiscal, social and foreign policy issues were not in doubt, but the long-time congressman would have had his work cut out in gaining visibility and making a unique case for his own candidacy. (Why Pence, rather than a governor or a fresher face?) And as I wrote previously, it's hard to see how he would win Iowa and build momentum for the rest of the race.

His departure will come as good news to several presidential candidates. Tim Pawlenty may have the most to gain. Pawlenty is looking to be the alternative to Mitt Romney -- a conservative with executive leadership but without the burden of RomneyCare or other baggage. The same movement conservatives who had been cheering for the solidly conservative Pence may find Pawlenty a fine substitute. Gov. Haley Barbour (Miss.), if he should run, also benefits by elimination of another "not Romney" candidate. Barbour would need a good showing in Iowa to stay competitive, and Pence's decision not to run frees up some social conservative voters who are key to winning the caucuses.

I'm not voting for Mitt Romney. I didn't do so in 2008, and I'm more strongly against Romney this time than I was last time. The names I'm hearing likely to run in 2012 are a lot of the retreads of 08 (Romney, Huckabee, Palin) along with Gary Johnson, Tim Pawlenty, Mitch Daniels, Jon Huntsman, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Haley Barbour, and the perennial thinking about running Newt Gingrich. All of them have their positives and negatives although some I'm much more willing to support than others.

If Mike Pence runs in 2012, he has my vote.

The Mike Pence 2012 talk has started to hit the mainstream press. Jennifer Rubin thinks Pence will run after reading the George Will column that explained how Pence is popular with conservatives, both fiscal and social.

There's several reasons why Pence has a lot of internet grassroots support. We can start with the bailouts.

Five months earlier, on a Friday, TARP had been proposed. The original three-page legislation sought $700 billion instantly, no time for questions; Pence's staff figured the cost would be about a billion dollars a word. On Saturday, Pence announced his opposition but thought the bill would pass the House 434 to 1. On Monday, however, other members started approaching him, almost furtively, "like a secret society." A week later, the House rejected TARP, 228 to 205.

Four days later, the House passed TARP's second, 451-page, pork-swollen iteration, 263 to 171. That weekend, Pence, who voted no, was at a Boy Scout jamboree at the Henry County Fairgrounds. He was approached by a man who had no scout there but wanted to thank Pence for opposing TARP. The man said that although he had lost his job the day before, "I can get another job but I can't get another country."

TARP was what woke a lot of people up, but what separate's Pence is that he is consistent on this issue, and that this goes back to the Bush years as well.

On Nov. 21, 2003, Pence's third year in Congress, the House was about to vote on the Bush administration's proposal to add a prescription drug entitlement to Medicare. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed the day before, Newt Gingrich had excoriated "obstructionist conservatives" who "always find reasons to vote no." Some recalcitrant Republican members, whose reasons for saying no to enlargements of the welfare state are conservatism, were brought to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. for presidential pressure. Pence told the president he was going from the White House to his daughter's 10th birthday party, and he said he opposed the new entitlement because he wanted to be welcome at her 30th, which he might not be if, by deepening the entitlement crisis, he produced higher taxes and a lower standard of living. Early the next morning, Speaker Dennis Hastert disgracefully prolonged the House vote for two hours and 52 minutes, until 5:53 a.m., time enough to separate enough conservatives from their convictions. When Hastert asked Pence what it would take to win his vote, Pence replied: Means-test the entitlement.

Impossible, said Hastert. Two Republican congressmen who, like Pence, that night stuck to their conviction that America had quite enough unfunded entitlements have risen - Pennsylvania's Sen.-elect Pat Toomey and South Carolina's Sen. Jim DeMint.

If Obama runs his mouth and scolds and lectures Pence about Bush's spending, Pence can tell him that he, unlike Bush is a fiscal conservative. Bush is a fiscal conservative only compared to the current idiot in chief sitting in the Oval office. Pence stood up to Bush, and Hastert. Pence and his Republican Study Committee also proposed and pushed a balanced budget...back in 2006. He also voted against No Child Left Behind.

I don't expect Mike Pence to run, but if he does, he has my support. The number one reason is consistency. Say what you mean. Mean what you say. When the pressure is on, can I count on this person? It's easy now to talk about fiscal conservatism. It wasn't that popular in political culture back in 2002-2006. I don't trust those who all of a sudden claim a new "conservative awakenining" at election time (Romney). Pence has been there and done that.

Pence Speaks at AFP conference

As I posted in my half asleep post last night, Mike Pence was one of the two keynote speakers at the AFP conference last night. Politico covered the speech.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) exhorted Republicans Friday to rally against fiscal excess, promising a conservative crowd that the country is “on the verge of a great American awakening.”


Pence, the House GOP conference chairman, said the simmering unrest that led to tea parties since the spring and the march in Washington last month reflected a country angry about the expansion of government.


“It’s authentic and it’s real and it’s powerful and it’s American,” Pence told about 2,000 conservatives at the annual conference of Americans for Prosperity, a free-market group.


The five-term Hoosier said of the movement: “The politicians aren’t leading this. They shouldn’t be leading it. They’re the ones that created this mess.”

How did Mike Pence pull off this speech so well? Consistency. Pence can say what many others in DC can not say, because of hypocracy. Pence does not have to worry about it. When President Bush and Congressional leaders spent like druken sailors in 2006, Pence and the Republican Study Committee walked the walk and offered a balanced budget. This was when fiscal conservatism was not cool in either party.

Pence delivered fire at both parties, mostly the democrats, but the Republicans can not be left off the hook for the 2002-2008 years. Pence can. He voted against them all, and most importantly, the bailouts.

Pence's quotes on the bailout and deal when he voted against it.

""Ask yourselves why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principles. If, like me, you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, I urge you vote in accordance with your convictions. Stand up for limited government and economic freedom. Stand up for the American taxpayer. Reject this bailout and vote no on the emergency economic stabilization act,"

"“"The last time I heard that, I was on a used car lot. The truth is, every time somebody tells you that you've got to do the deal right now, it usually means they're going to get the better part of the deal."

This wasn't just in 2008 when Pence railed against this. In 2006, the same thing happened.

Mike Pence in 2006, after the dems took over Congress.

After 1994, we were a Majority committed to a balanced federal budget, entitlement reform and the principles of a limited federal government. We delivered on balanced federal budgets, welfare reform and responded to a national emergency with defense spending, homeland security and tax cuts that put our economy back on its feet.

However, in recent years, to the chagrin of millions of Republicans, our Majority also voted to expand the federal government's role in education by nearly 100% and created the largest new entitlement in 40 years. We also pursued domestic spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and earmark spending that has embarrassed us and caused many Americans to question our commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Right now, the people are skeptical of the government, including Mr. Obama. They are downright distrustful of Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid. We've had in the first year of Mr. Obama's reign government bailouts, an auto industry takeover, government stimulus that does nothing positive for the economy, jobs killing cap and trade in the name of so called global warming (it's already been cold enough to snow in parts of Michigan before it became October), and now, we have an attempt to take over the health care industry. This is big government on steroids.

The biggest thing the Republicans must do is gain back trust of the people. That starts with a giant rejection of "big government lite" that President Bush gave us. What is needed is a return of limited government, which gave us 1994. Pence gave our party a model to follow. It's time for the GOP to live up to those principles, both at the state and federal level. If that gets done, we'll take back Congress and Michigan in 2010.

Update from Americans for Prosperity Conference

I'll post more on this tomorrow since I got zip, zilch, zero sleep last night.

There is 2000 people attending the conference. That's a good turnout for a DC area conference.

There was a rally at the Capitol earlier. I have some pics there, albeit cell phone pics. The message there was simple. Less government, more freedom. Americans are tired of big government spending too much and dictating over our lives. A big NYET to big government taking over health care and the abysmal Baucus bill which fines people who do not purchase health insurance. He needs to be drilled out of office for that bill.

At the dinner, there were two major speakers. Conservative talk show Laura Ingraham and Congressman Mike Pence. Normally, politicians do not speak as well as a talk show host. Laura Ingraham was an excellent speaker. Pence did even better. Part of that is because Pence is consistent and is not afraid to critique his own party when it is being fiscally irresponsible.

I'll get more into this tomorrow, but I'll just say if the GOP listened to Pence in 2006, we'd still be in control of congress. If they listen to him now, we might take it back in 2010. (House more likely than the senate)

Recent 2012 Straw Poll (Family Research Council)

I found this interesting out of Politco

Mike Huckabee cruised to an easy victory in a presidential straw poll taken among attendees at a social conservative conference, beating a group of four other Republican contenders by an over two-to-one margin.

Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and a 2008 presidential candidate, won with just over 28 percent of the 597 votes cast by attendees at the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the runner-up, narrowly edging out Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Alaska Gov. and Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and House Minority Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.). The four all received about 12% of the vote.

There was a fairly large political conference with the Family Research Council which is a social conservative organization. I didn't hear much about it, but they said it drew 1800 registrants. Their event was called the Values Voter Summit in DC. I ally with them heavily on abortion and the courts, but I do clash with them heavily on censorship/FCC issues with my less government views.

I went to their website and found the official straw poll results. They were interesting to say the least.

1. Mike Huckabee 170 28.48%
2. Mitt Romney 74 12.40%
3. Tim Pawlenty 73 12.23%
4. Sarah Palin 72 12.06%
5. Mike Pence 71 11.89%
6. Newt Gingrich 40 6.70%
7. Bobby Jindal 28 4.69%
8. Rick Santorum 15 2.51%
9. Ron Paul 13 2.18%
10. Undecided 31 5.19%
11. Other 10 1.68%

While nobody got a majority, Huckabee ran away with it with twice the votes of the nearest competitor. That's not a surprise. He was the favorite in 08 among a large number of social conservatives who voted mostly on those lines. The gripes on him were on economic issues.

It's not surprising to see Gingrich, Jindal, Santorum, and Paul back in the pack. Newt and Jindal's bread and butter are on fiscal issues. Santorum lost bad in 2006. Ron Paul is a libertarian.

What's interesting is numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5.

2. Mitt Romney 74 12.40%
3. Tim Pawlenty 73 12.23%
4. Sarah Palin 72 12.06%
5. Mike Pence 71 11.89%

I thought Palin would have challenged Huckabee. I wonder if her gubernatorial resignation hurt her. I did not support that decision at all if she's running for president. I'd have no problem if she decided not to run in 2010, but if you are planning a 2012 run, finish your term that ends two years earlier. Palin has her die-hard supporters who defend everything she does and her fanatical obsessed detractors that need to check into a mental hospital, but finishing behind Mitt and Pawlenty showed something.

Mitt likes to flood people in to events to win these straw polls, so he usually does well at them. A second place finish at one of these events helps him, but he already had high name recognition and with his organization, should have been able to close the deal back in 08. The nomination was his for the taking, and frankly for whatever reason. He blew it. He lost to McCain in a republican primary (so did Huckabee). That says something, and it's not positive. It wasn't just "democrat crossovers" like many on the right complain about either.

The big winners here were two Midwesterners. Tim Pawlenty and Mike Pence. I'm glad to see these two do well. I'm strongly looking at new blood for 2012. Nobody from 08. No retreads. Pawlenty is Minnesota's governor. I like seeing that name moving up if for no other reason than this. Governors become presidents. Senators rarely do. The last sitting senator to win before Obama was Kennedy (Nixon/LBJ were senators at one time, but also VP's), and Obama beat another senator. Pawlenty has a good shot to make a move on the 08 retreads.

Mike Pence I've talked about about on this blog before. It was good to see Pence do well here as he's more known for the economic issues than social issues. Whoever is the nominee in 08 will have to unite enough of the budget hawks, anti-tax and spenders, social conservatives, libertarians, anti-federalists (often what is called federalism today is really anti-federalism), second amendment supporters, national security conservatives, law and order types, and the rest of the base, and the independents who support some, but oppose other of the base issues.

My comment when Mark Sanford wrecked his career was this. "Damn. Maybe Mike Pence will run." If Pence runs, he'll have my support. Pence fought the bailouts that killed us. When Bush and the congressional leadership destroyed the GOP credibility on economic issues that is taking so long to gain back (more due to democrats than anything else - and it's still not what it was in the mid 90's), it was Pence fighting in the trenches. In 2006, Mike Pence and the Republican Study Committee proposed get this....a balanced budget. What happened to that? It got voted down by both parties, but the GOP was in control then. How many Republicans were tossed in 06 and 08? A lot. Who's still standing, in a district that Obama might have won and a district centered in a county (Delaware County - home of Ball State) that Obama did win? Mike Pence. With 65%.

It's still three years away from 2012, and a lot can change, especially with 2010 around the corner, but it is good to see new names going near the top of these 2012 lists.

Self-destructed - from 06 to today, and the way to climb back

Going into yesterday, I told those that asked me that I gave McCain a 40% shot to win. I thought he had a shot at Pennsylvania. If he didn't win there, he had to run the table. I didn't think that could be done. My realistic odds were closer to 30% than 40%. Part of that was the McCain campaign's doing. Most of it was due to Congress, Bush, and Washington screwing up. This was not that hard to see coming. I'm not going to post anything close to the election that would decrease turnout on the right.

Obama's strategy was largely built on the 2000 Bush message and 2004 Bush organization with a few tweaks. Bush won largely thanks to the classic outsider message and by winning the ground game. Bush's people had a tin ear when it came to policy related issues, but they are ace organizers, and the difference was striking between 08 and 04. As far as Obama's campaign organization, Obama used to organize for a living. He was one of ACORN's best people. Seeing 2000 and 2004, the plan was all laid out for him and Axelrod. Obama expanded on the 2000 Bush strategy with with the financial jaggernault, a media in the tank for him, gullible voters and capitalizing on blunders. The one good thing I can say is that anytime one party gets total control of government, they eventually screw up badly. The Democrats will screw up badly, eventually. Chicago style Daley Machine Politics is coming to America. The bad part is that I'm going to get screwed as well as those who voted for them. Until then, protect your wallet, buy some more guns and ammo before the new bans (as soon as a high profile shooting takes place - it will nickle and dime us out), get out of the market before the capital gain increases and switch to other investments. They are going to do for this country what Granholm is doing here. Don't bitch to me about it if you voted for him. He's your president, not mine.

However the title of this isn't about how bad of a president Obama is going to be. It's titled Self-destructed - from 06 to today, and the way to climb back. I've always been a believer in taking care of our own house first. You don't beat even an empty suit with nothing. The worst aspect of the last few years in Congress is that the few real alternatives and the piss poor communication (and some cases, stepping on) of any alternatives that did exist. That was the biggest problem of the Bush administration and Congressional leadership.

1. Mistake number one is this. When Congress/Senate got its ass kicked in 2006, why did we put the same people in charge of leadership? Whips were put in charge when leaders were needed. John Boehner and Roy Blunt are not leaders. What alternatives to the crap from Pelosi that Boehner/Blunt proposed? Where was the fight against big government? They let Pelosi run the show and at most just said no and lost the vote. That's unacceptable. They needed then to put Pence (Who won with 65% overall and 56% in a county that Obama won with similar margin) Shadegg, and Hensarling in charge. They need to do that now, or at the very least take a page out of that playbook or they will not take Congress back, even when Obama screws up. Stop following and start leading. The GOP Congress spent time letting Bush do all the leading (he's not a leader. He'll sometimes take a stand, but there's more to leadership that just that.) and even stepped on the leadership of some of their own members at the behest of DC consultants and beltway people. That's unacceptable. That needs to change and change now.

2. Bailout. Bailout. Bailout. McCain sealed his defeat by his handling the bailout situation and never recovered. That lost much of the blue collar vote nationwide. After the house defeated the "crap sandwich" the first time, he suspends his campaign, and votes for a worse bill. McCain could have been the Maverick and fought this bailout bill for saying what it was, a bad bill, then offered an alternative. McCain's biggest strength was his fiscal restraint and he lost it there. Both parties were behind the bailout.

3. You had a matching funds candidate taking on a 500 million dollar machine, plus the union leadership, plus the media completely in the tank for Obama, plus the congressional money. There's only one way to fight against that and it is to run against the big money special interests. Run against them, expose them. What happened to taking down their names and making them famous? That needed to be done much more often than it was.

4. Cliff Taylor. This was the worst loss. We knew that Jon Stryker and his gazillions was going to try and take him out and we were unprepared to strike back. I saw a couple of anti-Hathaway ads, but why didn't we fight back with better ones, like Michigan's Surpreme Court being considered the best in the country, and show the voters why he deserved to keep the job. I did not see one Cliff Taylor sign. I tried for three months to get one. Most people did not know who Cliff Taylor was, but the democrats made sure their people did. The GOP has been counting on the incumbent tag and has neglected these races for years, counting on the Michigan Chamber of Commerce to do the job for them. The Chamber needs more help.

5. Conceding the state. Whoever that aide was that announced McCain was pulling out of Michigan needs to get blacklisted. If you pull out of states, you don't announce it to the world. That gets you tagged as a quitter. Even that aside, I was not laughing at Howard Dean's 50 state strategy in 2004. Reagan won 49 states. Probably more impressive given the quality of candidates, the first Bush won 426 electoral votes. Nobody comes close to that today. McCain lost many of his votes by not fighting hard there. Bush made the same mistake in 2000, but was able to run the table.

6. No planning whatsoever. When the party throws as many people to the wolves as they did, there needs to be mass firings up and down the board. This crap has gone on for too long and is a big reason why you will never see me ever donate to the NRCC or NRSC. The conventional way hasn't worked. The 1994 way did. It's a great blueprint. Stop tossing tough seats to the wolves and conceding them before it gets started. Limiting the playing field limits victories to running the table. Hell, this year in the senate, the NRSC considered losing 4 seats a victory. What the hell is that about? Losing one is defeat, but I expect to win every game I play. The worst case was in Arkansas. Pryor was almost unopposed. No Republican ran.

After 06, I posted these pieces and much of what I said then applies today.

First is why I supported Mike Pence for minority leader. Second is is Newt's advice about turning 2008 into 1994. That didn't happen. That did not happen largely due to putting the same people with the same strategy in charge. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Lastly in 2006, I said then that it was time for Big Government Conservatism to end. Two words with that. The bailout.

That common sense I posted in 2006 wasn't followed, and we got our asses kicked as a result. Now we're back in 1976 all over again. Now this is what I would do if I was GOP boss, both state or federal.

1. Run a slate in each state taylored to the dynamics of each state (or localities within the state). Obama's the money machine. They have a lot of money to defend seats. Run against the fat cats, K Street, and rich leftist hypocrites funding them. Contest all races, and pick a half-dozen issues to run on. Criteria for these candidates - no rematches. Once you're knocked out of congress, that's it. Game over. New blood is needed, as well as new ideas to change Washington without being changed by Washington. The slate needs to be by state. At the same time, that means putting up with Republicans who may be more liberal or conservative than others on some issues depending on the issues. That I'll get to more in "balance." Run on the 70% issues. This is to get around the money defecit that will happen under the Obama regime.

2. Balance. Outside of being a great communicator, this is what Reagan brought that people forget. He knew what played well in which state, and found a way to balance Western libertarians, Midwest conservative populists, Security voters, Northeast Rockefeller Republicans, and Southern Conservatives, and even was able to win California which while at one time was more Republican friendly, was never a conservative state statewide. The Republicans lost this when they ditched states rights. This more than anything else is the problem that Bush and Congress had. They alienated all groups here as some time or another. That I pin mostly on Bush's policies. This needs to be remembered with any nationalized campaign. Hit those 70% issues. Then leave the rest of the stuff to the states where it belongs. We don't need a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. I don't live in Massachusetts. I live in Michigan. We don't need DC'ers running our states. That goes for perscription drugs bills, no child left behind, and all the other "compassionate conservatism" stuff that was pushed over the last eight years. Leaving things to the states is what preserved the big tent.

3. Don't neglect the intellectual side of conservatism, especially limited government. We need the "Joe the plumbers" but we also need the Jerry Zandstras. Without the ideas, a party is bankrupt. Without practicality, a party is still in perpetitual defeat. Both are needed. This side has been neglected over the past few years in all areas outside of foreign policy, and even that is debatable. Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, and Dick Armey were never replaced in Congress. I don't always agree with them, but when they left was when the mismanagement really started to begin.

3. Screw mandates. They don't exist. Period. The democrats never let Bush have a mandate. In 2004, when the GOP gained seats along with the presidency, there was no mandate. Bush thought he had one. He thought wrong. In 1992, Bill Clinton thought he had a mandate. He thought wrong. "Mandates" last as long as the policy is accepted by the people. No more, no less. Those who think otherwise, overreach and lose their jobs. That goes for Democrat and Republican alike. If the GOP buys into the mandate talk, they'll lose more seats.

5. Run on the 70% issues. We can start with balancing the budget without raising taxes, something a democrat congress has not done since before my lifetime. It was the 1994 Republicans that did it. Other issues. Ballot integrity which democrats hate because they sometimes steal elections. These issues need to be brought up immediately when Obama takes office. The GOP members of Congress need to lead, communicate the message, and tell Pelosi, Reid and Obama to put up or shut up on fiscal responsibility. Pence brought in a balanced budget before. It got voted down by his own party. Guess who is still in office and ran ahead of the ticket. Guess whose leadership got an ass kicking. It's time to lead, and make them follow or at the very least, get the hell out of the way like Clinton did to an extent after 94.

Maybe this time Congressional leadership got the message and will stop listening to the DC beltway. If not, maybe their seats go next.

Bailout fallout - The good, the bad, and the ugly crap sandwich

There was an interesting dynamic to the bailouts. This was a populist revolution against leadership. About 40% of the democrats said no. Over 60% of the Republicans voted no. I salute those that voted no, from Mike Pence to Dennis Kucinich to our state delegation that said "No deals." Mike Rogers, Tim Walberg, Thad McCotter, Pete Hoekstra, Joe Knollenberg, Candice Miller, John Conyers, Bart Stupak, and Carolyn Kilpatrick. 6 Republicans and 3 democrats.

The finger pointing has begun. Some blame Pelosi. Some blame some Republicans who may have thought about voting for it until Pelosi ran her big mouth. Some blame Bush and Paulson. Some blame the dems. Some blame Mike Pence who was one of the few real leaders in this.

Simplify this.
John Boehner voted for this and was part of the GOP leadership. He called the bill a "crap sandwich". I agree with him. The question to Boehner is this. Why did you vote for a "crap sandwich?" Why did you push for the rest of the GOP to go for this "crap sandwich" that even 40% of the democrats refused to back? This isn't leadership. Real leadership is pushing an alternative plan to this, one that isn't a bandaid. This quote also isn't leadership and is part of the reason why democrats currently control the house.

"I do believe we could have gotten there today if it had not been for this partisan speech the speaker gave on the floor of the House"

That's Boehner. I think we could have gotten there if we wern't given a "crap sandwich" (your quote) of a bill. Boehner would have lost my vote if I lived in his district. This is why I wanted Pence to be minority leader.

Where did the real leadership come on this bill? McCotter started the major push in the house with a speech on TV. This was his post vote statement. "The voice of the Main Street has been heeded and obeyed by Congress. Americans said 'No!' to the Paulson bailout. Now, let our work commence in earnest and prudence on behalf of the American people."

Mike Pence was one the most visable leaders on this. ""Ask yourselves why you came here and vote with courage and integrity to those principles. If, like me, you came here because you believe in limited government and the freedom of the American marketplace, I urge you vote in accordance with your convictions. Stand up for limited government and economic freedom. Stand up for the American taxpayer. Reject this bailout and vote no on the emergency economic stabilization act,"

Pence and the Republican Study Committee had an alternative plan here that wasn't a crap sandwich.
Three of the best quotes here are from fellow Midwesterners in Indiana. One is Republican, one democrat. Both opposed the bill. All said close to the same thing.

From Baron Hill (D) - I have been rushed to judgment by the Bush Administration before. There hasn't been enough time to evaluate the impacts this legislation would have if enacted, or to consider alternatives. Congress deserves time to weigh the benefits and the potential pitfalls of borrowing this money."

From Steve Buyer (R) - "I am bothered that Secretary Paulson offered an immediate government solution rather than taking the time to explore effective private sector and market based solutions. The Paulson plan was an unprecedented infusion of government power into the private financial sector."

From Mike Pence (R) - “"The last time I heard that, I was on a used car lot. The truth is, every time somebody tells you that you've got to do the deal right now, it usually means they're going to get the better part of the deal."

Emergency and rushed Bills usually turn out to be real turkeys. That got us the Patriot Act approved by 99 senators. That got us the department of "Homeland Security." That got us a massive increase in government, the loss of our freedoms, and in my opinion did nothing to make us safer.

You can't rush this crap. You have to first try and prevent this. If that doesn't work, as it did not work here, you find the root of the problem. When a Japanese Maple (my dad will get that reference) wraps around a septic pipe and breaks it, you don't fix the pipe until you correct the Maple. Else, it will break again, and the maple roots would be even bigger. This bandaid does nothing to fix the problem. It is so Pelosi, Chris Dodd, GW Bush, Goldman Sachs Paulson, Barney Frank, and Boehner can say "Hey, we did something!" and go back to put their heads in the sand and hope the worse collapse happens when they retire so it isn't their problem.

There's no secret to the problems here. People spent more than they had. They screwed up. The banks also screwed up in lending. Fixed costs they did not budget for increased. Housing markets dropped. Jobs (in Michigan and some other places) were scarce. Energy prices increased dramaticly. Unless these are addressed, then this bailout will only make it worse down the road.

My plan would be this.
1. All of the above (Except ethanol which raises food costs) energy policy. We need to open up our domestic energy sources, creating jobs here and improving our national security at the same time. Drill in Alaska and offshore. Clean Coal electricity. Nuclear Power. And at the same time work for alternative fuel. Fuel Cell, cold fusion. This needs to be long term. As people spend less on energy costs, they have more money in their pocket. Demand will only increase with an industrializing China and India and their 2+ Billion people.

2. Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This should have been done 5 years ago.

3. Cut pork spending.

4. As far as the Wall Street plan, the Republican Study Committee has an alternative plan which I can support. Click here to see Pence and Jeb Hensarling's plan

Paulson put all his eggs in one basket, as did Pelosi, Boehner, Dodd, Frank, Bush, etc. The rank and file house democrats and republicans alike united against this crap sandwich. It's time to think things through, quit rushing, and deliver something that isn't a crap sandwich.