Saturday, December 12, 2009

Senator John Thune - Dark Horse in 2012?

 South Dakota Senator John Thune, a moderate conservative Republican, has little name recognition  nationally. While Palin and Huckabee are getting most of the media attention with respect to the 2012 presidential election, Senator Thune may well be a rising dark horse.

Senator Thune, up for re-election in 2010, has $5.5 million in the bank and there appears to be a small but growing "draft Thune"movement taking form. 

In researching Senator Thune on some key important issues he appears to have conservative bonafides with the ability to exercise reason and judgement.

His formal education is in business having received his  Masters in Business Administration from the University of South Dakota. Something that would serve him well should he choose to run. Perhaps a leader with a business education, rather than that of an attorney, would actually look at issues and spending  from a cost benefit analysis and return on the taxpayers dollar. Run the government like a business and get the biggest bang for the taxpayers buck. Perhaps with a formal business education he might just realize that for the country to remain solvent it must balance it's checkbook, and soon.

The following excerpts are taken from the Senator's website and are shortened and paraphrased:

Fiscal Responsibility - Senator Thune believes that Congress should enact budget reform that effectively would force fiscal discipline. He supports a constitutional amendment that would require the federal government balance it's budget each and every year.

Taxes - The Senator has consistently supported tax relief legislation that would make the tax code simpler and fairer. He believes that Congress should act to make the 2001 and 2003 reduction in the marginal tax rates for families and small businesses, increase in the child tax credit, and repeal of the unfair death tax permanent. These are set to expire at the end of 2010 unless Congress acts to make them permanent.  

Energy - Senator Thune supports the use of E-85 ethanol, increasing our domestic refining capacity, expanding offshore oil and gas drilling, and opening a small portion of the  Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for environmentally responsible oil and gas exploration. He believes it critical that Congress acts to lower gas prices for all Americans and sees the preceding as part of the solution. He also believes we should pursue clean sources of energy.

Education - Senator Thune believes in the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act`and views the act as refocusing our country on increased accountability and achievement in elementary and secondary  schools. The Senator believes the law needs to be strengthened and improved for future generations.

Health Care - Senator Thune believes we have reached the need for comprehensive, bi-partisan health care reform to improve competition in the private market, make health care insurance more portable instead of tied to employment, and to allow greater choices for individuals and families.

No one likes everything about a politicians positions if they are honest with themselves. And Senator Thune is not even talking about a possible run at this point. But there are slight indications of that possibility. So it seems to make sense to start early and educate oneself on the position statements made by, and the records of potential candidates.

Senator Thune is to conservative for some, and to moderate for others. However, in my brief research of this gentleman it appears he is level headed and interested in doing the right things. Should  he choose to run and wage that uphill battle he may just be the right man for the Republican Party at the right time.x

The more I consider the possibilities the more intriguing a Thune /Romney or a Romney /Thune ticket sounds. To find out more on Senator John Thune visit his website here.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Politics Daily


  1. howdy amigo
    been a while since i've had time for blogs and this weather we're having was a good enough excuse for me to visit good friends again.

    just a few comments on this post. i agree that we need to view the positions of many possible condidates i think we also need to view the perspective of those positions also.

    take for instance the positions you outlined:

    fiscal responsibility:
    a balanced budget is a fine goal but we must remember that the federal government, by Constitution, has unique powers seperate from the powers of the states of which war is one. and if you are one that believes that any war that we constutionally enter is a war that should have victory as its goal then we cannot hinder that goal financially which could happen with that Consitutional amendement. national disasters is another area where the government might be hindered with that amendment.

    to me, any truthful tax reform will be tax policy that focuses on taxes based upon people's spending rather than earnings. that way the people themselves determine the amount of taxes that they will pay.

    it would also unite the people against the government rather than divide them against themselves as it does now. that, in my mind, would be the surest way to make government smaller.

    taxes on earnings is a fine concept for the advancement of socialism.

    the "leave no child behind concept" is a another program that advances the idea of socialism. we, as a people and a nation need to get out of this mindset that a certain number of years of schools is a right. an education is a privilege and like all privileges need to be earned. right now schooling is mandated and that goes against the very idea of freedom and self-determination.

    this is another area that is quickly becoming the mindset of being a right rather than a privilege as it should be seen as. that is why there is as much support for socialistic medicine as it has in society. we need to get away from this idea.
    we must remember that business first offered health benefits as an additional benefit for the purpose of keeping employees not because they had a right to them.

    anyways that is my gripe for the day. lol

    merry Christmas, my friend and i do mean merry Christmas not happy holidays as is politically correct these days.

  2. ohhhhhhhh and one more thought on the matter. i agree with you on the business aspect of his background. in fact i think that a business understanding should be one of the first things we should check in regards to any candidate. we also must remembver that there are a couple of schools of thought when it comes to business practices, one advocated by liberals and one by conservatives. which school of thought is Thune's background?

  3. Hello my good friend. Great to see you back at your blog.

    As usual I agree with some of, but not all of your comment. I shall touch on the area's of differences. Perhaps more as a point of clarification than outright disagreement.

    1) I am not endorsing all of the Senators positions as of yet. I post because I believe he would be vast improvement over Obama should he choose to run and get elected. I also believe he may be palatable to a broad cross section of the electorate because he appears to be more centrist than either Obama or Palin and Huckabee.

    2) I believe the Senator is correct in his support for a balanced budget amendment as it is the only way politicians are going to act with any fiscal responsibility. Perhaps if our representatives had to figure out how to pay for ill advised and unfounded wars (Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq come to mind)we would likely have fewer of them and this would not be an issue. Dwight Eisenhower warned America of the Military Industrial Complex in 1961 and to a large extent his fears and warnings have proven to be justified.

    3)Your are correct in your comment with respect to National Disasters. However, any amendment could have a clause written into it in that in the event of a national disaster the Congress could approve deficit spending if necessary to address the problem. Once the problem was resolved mechanism could be put in place to restore a balanced budget either through reduction in non essential spending or a special tax levied to recover the deficit coast of spending, At such time the budget returned to a state of balance the tax would be rescinded.

    4)You are essentially talking about a consumption tax. Here I agree with you. The progressive tax is socialist in nature and punishes the successful for their ingenuity and the drive to succeed. It also punishes the successful businesses for being successful. Again I was not endorsing this aspect of his position. Rather I was putting it out there to consider. While not perfect it is still better than the the inevitable if we do nothing to change the tax code.

    5)From a philosophical point of view I agree wholeheartedly that health care is not, nor should be considered a right. However, realistically this nation could, if so chose, find a workable system that was market based and allowed for competition and portability. We could do so without making it a government owned and operated program but rather as an oversight function. The Swiss health care system is one I believe would work. In this particular instance I actually believe making health care affordable at the basic level for United State citizens, yes I said United State citizens is the right thing to do from a humanitarian viewpoint.

    6) Again, I am not endorsing Thune at this point. The post is primarily food for thought. I only know what I read in his background summary and position papers. We will learn more as time progresses.

    I we don't correspond before the 25th of the month have a VERY non politically correct MERRY Christmas.

  4. he grins, and i was only commenting on the positions as written. i apologize if you saw it as an implication that you endorsed those positions. i realized that those were his positions and not necessarily yours.

    i'm not against a balanced budget. in fact, i'd argue that anyone with a common sense knowledge of economics would be a fool not to be in favor of one in times of peace.

    i also believe that the exemption you made for national disasters would also have to apply for wars if there was to be a chance of that amendment passing. you need to remember that from a Constitutional viewpoint, wars was the main reason for the setting up of a federal government. even wars strictly seen as a self-defense type of war and has the approval of all needs to be funded.

    the point i was trying to make is not only should positions be looked at when evaluating a candidate, any candidate, but also examine them to see if they are esentially compatible with the philosophy we hold in regards to government, especially in terms of individualism vs collectivism.

  5. Good points all. I share you concern with respect to the need to fund military action when justified.

    My view has always been this, "the use of military force should rightly be limited to response to an act of aggression against our nation or people."

    This conviction in my opinion knocks out Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq as justified wars. The use of the tern "protecting our national interest" is subject to being misused and overused as justification for war and it has repeatedly throughout history. I think what I am saying is if politicians were reigned in on determining what justifies the war perhaps we would have fewer and then when we needed to raise additional funds the same would apply as were it a national disaster. Breaks my friend on The Military Industrial Complex.

    You are spot on in your closing comments.

  6. My view has always been this, "the use of military force should rightly be limited to response to an act of aggression against our nation or people."

    one problem i have with that viewpoint is that would require us to take an isolationist viewpoint on this issue. it would mean the elimination of any defense pacts we have with our allies. that, to me, would lead to disasterous results unless there was a way to require that of all nations. and even then there'd be the problem of being able to enforce that requirement.

    one more thing. we need to remember that this nation began under a principle that contradicts that viewpoint. the slogan "all for one and one for all" exemplifies this principle.

    the Constitution, itself, was founded on the idea of one State not just defending itself and its people but to come to the defense of any other State when it was attacked.

    so, unless you take the liberal's viewpoint of interpretation of the Constitution instead of original intent then that viewpoint is indefensible.

    plus, a stance like that would leave some of our staunchest allies, like Isreal, very vulnerable.
    in my opinion, without the U.S. as its ally Isreal would soon be wiped off the face of the Earth and i don't doubt that it would be done so with blessing of the rest of the world.

  7. The basis of my philosophy is this; take action in consistent concern for one's self interest (read one in this case as nation). Understanding this took me years of thought. Understanding the full implications of this is not always easy.

    Isn't all for one and one for all sorta like collectivism, an extreme form of socialism?

    Can you point me to the Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution that indicated we are "to come to the defense of any other State when it was attacked." I am assuming you are referring to foreign States.

    I am a modern day conservative, which to me means a "classical liberal" in the mold of Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson, two giants of our Republic.

    I believe my position is very defensible, however it does require thinking out of the box and in a much larger philosophic sense.

    My argument is defensible largely because it is based on consistent and non contradictory positions.

    Something you and I could likely discuss for hours.

    I am not a proponent of "isolationism", but I do believe in acting in a consistent and rational regard for ones self interest. Both national and individually.

    If you think this through you will see there are times one self interests are best served by looking out for the interests of others. i.e.; Your reference to Israel.

    In this time of fiscal insanity and huge budget deficits and a National Debt topping 12 trillion dollars don't you think it is time we started looking at reality through a different set of lenses?

  8. "I am assuming you are referring to foreign States."

    no, i was referring to the thirteen colonies that allied themselves against England for Independence. Upon gaining independence, each new State realized they were not strong enough to stand alone in any persuing war that they might have to wage. thus they allied themselves by creating a federal government for the purpose of being united in case of invasion of any singular State. remember that after the war each colony became a seperate independent State with all the powers ans authority of a State including the right to declare and wage war. so, in essense the Constitution not only set up a seperate government but one that would represent the thirteen States in regards to foreign policy.

    "Can you point me to the Article and Section of the U.S. Constitution that indicated we are "to come to the defense of any other State when it was attacked." I am assuming you are referring to foreign States."

    specifically in according to your question, the answer is no. but it does give the President of the United States the power to enter into treaties with foreign States with the advice and consent of the Senate (the representative body of the States) in Congress. this would include any defensive alliance pact that he may enter into to.

    i'd say this is verified by the fact we entered into a defense pact with france in 1778. so, even the founding fathers recognized the need of such pacts with other countries.

  9. Since you were specifically speaking of the Articles of Confederation I agree with your observation. Essentially we are concerned here with what was the original 13 colonies that became the United States of America. Since this is the case, and given the historical reference in which we are speaking I agree with you. And it was limited to the continental north America geographically.

    I thought not because as I knew it didn't exist. I agree with you statement here. The isue again is one of rational self interest when engaging in war against a foreign power.

    And yes I understand I am aware of the defense pact of 1778 with France.In this case it made sense as both nations were looking out for their self interest AGAINST the possible invasion of Britain, arguably the most powerful military State at that tie in western history.


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.