View Full Version : Dan Coats

02-05-2010, 07:51 AM
It's yet to be seen if Coats will make the filing deadline. But since the establishment has already anointed him, it's safe to assume that he'll find a way. I assume he (or someone else) is paying for most of his signatures and gladly eating whatever the cost of getting 5,000 signatures in 10 days is.

So here are some of the things he has going against him (or for him, depending on who the judge is):
1) In a race where Hostettler already polled neck-and-neck against Bayh, the establishment actively courted Coats and anointed him as their pick. This indicates they're not as worried about winning the seat as they are with having to deal with an independent-minded Republican like Hostettler in the Senate.
2) His last job was lobbying for Congress to pass bank bailouts on behalf of Bank ok America.
3) His last job before that was testifying to the Senate why they should confirm Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court justice.
4) He's one of the fathers of the movement in the GOP called "compassionate conservatism," where government involvement in benevolence work is pawned off to conservatives as acceptable if it's done through public-private partnerships. So he's a central planner of the same sort as Bush, Huckabee, and Kemp.

02-05-2010, 11:13 AM
Don't forget he's a carpetbagger who most recently was registered to vote in Virginia

02-05-2010, 03:03 PM
5) He's a carpetbagger.

02-05-2010, 05:22 PM
6) Early on in the 2008 presidential primary race, when the Republican party still had the opportunity to nominate a conservative, Coats helped ensure that they instead nominated the far left wing John McCain. I don't know when he first endorsed McCain, but here's a speech of him doing that as early as Jan. 14, 2008.
YouTube - Dan Coats: Speech 1/14/08 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtmOKOBogf0)

02-05-2010, 05:34 PM
The DSCC already has a pretty snazzy ad up on Youtube about his carpetbagging and recently expressed desire to retire in North Carolina.
YouTube - North Carolinian (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVdRW-Jj4uU)

02-05-2010, 05:39 PM
At 4:30 and following Coats argues that the federal government needs to be more involved in emergency management like Katrina. And at 7:20 he says the operative question of how to get government more involved in providing health care to more people is doing so in a way that retains choices for consumers (i.e. think along the lines of Medicare Part D).
YouTube - Former Indiana Senator Dan Coats (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9PsJ53KFpI)

02-05-2010, 05:41 PM
Here's a nice little Cato write-up on Coats' compassionate conservatism from 1995.

The Government Habit

by Edward H. Crane

Edward H. Crane is president of the Cato Institute.

In the November 1 Washington Times, former HUD secretary Jack Kemp, now a leader of the conservative grassroots group Empower America, had a letter to the editor bemoaning the fact that a rental voucher program he developed in the Bush administration "had been transformed by HUD into a massive new fair-housing program to disperse low-income families to middle-income suburban neighborhoods." Most Cato supporters would question the constitutional authority of Congress to spend tax dollars on rental vouchers or public housing in the first place. None would be surprised that Jack Kemp's good intentions--to get people out of the disastrous public housing projects HUD created--have been "distorted," in Kemp's words, into "social engineering."

I mention that little episode because it is illustrative of a certain wide- eyed innocence on the part of many of our conservative friends. The most recent example is the Project for American Renewal being put forth by Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) and neoconservative intellectual Bill Bennett, also of Empower America. It consists of some 19 bills that Coats has submitted in the Senate in an effort "to find some ways to nurture civil society."

Most of the bills have vaguely Orwellian titles like the Compassion Credit Act, the Community Partnership Act, or the Family Reconciliation Act. Almost all of them amount to nothing more than conservative social engineering. The last bill, for instance, "would provide additional federal funding to states under the Family Preservation and Social Services Act, to implement pre-divorce counseling." The Assets for Independence Act "would create a four-year $100 million demonstration program to establish 50,000 Individual Development Accounts."

Never mind that, again, one would search in vain for the enumerated power in the Constitution that says most of those initiatives are within the purview of the federal government. Never mind even that conservatives who celebrated James Buchanan's Nobel Prize for his work in public-choice theory should recognize that those little conservative policy gems will one day grow into the liberal monsters that so disappoint Jack Kemp.

The concern here is that some conservatives have in the post-Reagan era adopted what might be called the government habit. That is particularly true of neoconservatives, who trace their intellectual heritage to the left and who, for the most part, have a fundamentally benign view of the state. The problem to them has not been the power of government but the misuse of that power by wrongheaded politicians and bureaucrats.

Thus, Bill Bennett writes in the introduction to a booklet promoting the Project for American Renewal, "If the liberal fallacy is an abiding faith in the all-sufficiency of government, then the conservative fallacy could easily become an abiding faith in the all-sufficiency of nongovernment." Well, not if Dan Coats has anything to say about it. And Coats is more of a traditional conservative.

The argument one hears from many conservatives, particularly inside the Beltway, is that you can't replace something with nothing. But that sentiment simply reflects the government habit. After all, the American people are not "nothing." Why not rephrase the issue: you can replace a failed government welfare program that has wasted billions, created dependency, and destroyed lives with the responsiveness, compassion, and prudence of a free people.

The left, of course, is hopelessly committed to the government habit. Even liberals who admit the current governmental approach has failed can't shake the habit. David Osborne writes in the preface to his Clinton administration bible, Reinventing Government, "We believe deeply in government. We do not look at government as a necessary evil."

All in all, the field for those who have confidence in freedom is left to the libertarians--market liberals or classical liberals--and conservatives who believe in strictly limited government. They are the ones to whom all the talk of "revolution" in Washington refers. As former Delaware governor Pete du Pont puts it, "We must break free of the idea that only government--at whatever level, federal, state, or local--holds the answer to social problems. Generally it's not so."

The ideological battle that lies ahead among those on the right should be more constructive than the old left-right divide. Conservatives who criticize libertarians for ignoring values and the workings of civil society have a valid point. But they also have much to learn from libertarians on the dangers of the benign view of the state. Perhaps the one intellectual who has the most to contribute to this debate is Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute. Respected by both camps, his book In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government describes how government "severs the tendrils of community" with one program after another designed to do good. It is a book his friend Bill Bennett should read, as should any conservative interested in breaking the government habit.

This article originally appeared in the November/December 1995 edition of Cato Policy Report.

02-05-2010, 06:04 PM
And another:

Expansive Solutions

by David Boaz

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute

Added to cato.org on September 27, 1995

This article originally appeared in the Washington Post on September 27, 1995.

David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer.

In 1994 the American people resoundingly expressed their concern about big government and deteriorating families. Unfortunately, both Democrats and Republicans seem to find it more appealing to offer yet more government programs that would ostensibly strengthen the family than to downsize the federal government.

Take Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros, one of the most accomplished politicians in the Clinton administration, for instance. He can talk the talk. In a new essay written with National Park Director Roger Kennedy, Cisneros says the first step toward civic reform is to "decentralize with vengeance". He points out that many churches, neighborhood groups and small businesses "know at least as much and are better positioned than the organizationally encumbered government in Washington" to improve their own communities.

But Cisneros can't walk the walk. His latest HUD program would put classrooms in public housing developments. According to The Post, "Cisneros said he envisions housing development modeled after college campuses, with units wired for computers and all residents required to attend classes each day - in prenatal training, educational day care, high school equivalency sessions or seminars for the elderly" (emphasis added).

Does he think that is what Americans voted in 1994? Welfare creates dependency and fatherlessness; government schools government students who can't read and write; government housing projects are wrecked by crime; and Cisneros proposes to have the federal government extend even further its control over the lives of the hapless poor.

Perhaps this sort of breathtaking expansion of government is to be expected of Democrats, even "new Democrats" who promise to "end welfare as we know it" and "decentralize with vengeance." Like alcoholics returning to the bottle, they can promise to lay off the hard stuff, but one whiff of a government program and they are hooked again.

But it seems Republicans suffer from the same weakness. The latest example is the Project for American Renewal, launched Sept. 6 by William Bennett and Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.). Bennett and Coats endorse "devolution of federal authority and funding to state governments" but go on to argue that Republicans "need to offer a vision of rebuilding broken communities - not through government, but through those private institutions and ideals that nurture lives." They stress that "even if government undermined civil society, it cannot directly reconstruct it."

They talk the anti-big government talk even better than new Democrats, which is why the 1994 election saw a historic shift toward GOP. But look at the "be it enacted" clauses that follow of Bennett and Coats's libertarian whereases.

As part of the Project for American Renewal, Coats has introduced 19 bills. They include:

* The Mentor Schools Act, to provide grants of $1 million to school districts to develop "same gender" schools.
* The Role Model Academy Act, to establish an innovative residential academy for at-risk youth.
* The Kinship Care Act, to create a $30 million demonstration program for states to use adult relatives as the preferred placement option for children separated from their parents.
* The Restitution and Responsibility Act, to provide grants to states for programs to make restitution to victims of crime.
* The Assets for Independence Act, to create a four-year, $100 million demonstration program to establish 50,000 Individual Development Accounts, to be used for the purchase of home, college education or small business.
* The Community Partnership Act, to institute demonstration grants for programs to match communities of faith with welfare recipients and nonviolent criminal offenders.

And on and on it goes. Most of the goals are good: Some students do better in all-boys or all-girls schools; children who lose their parents should ideally live with other adult relatives; restitution is a valuable aspect of dealing with a crime. But why does the federal government need to do any of those things? If the 10th Amendment and the new-found commitment to devolution of power mean anything, they mean that residential academies, victim restitution and welfare reform should be undertaken by state governments - if not local communities or even nongovernment groups.

And surely the First Amendment would recommend that such a worthy goal as matching "communities of faith" - that is, churches - with people in need should be undertaken without government support. As for 50,000 Individual Development Accounts, I'd like one - wouldn't you?

Like the Democrats, the Republicans just don't get it. They're still living in the Washington that Roosevelt built, the Washington where if you think of a good idea you create a government program. But conservative social engineering, like liberal social engineering, will fail. Worse, it will create new problems.

The message of 1994 - like the message of the 1776 and 1789, one might add - is not that the federal government should rebuild families and communities. It is that federal government should get out of our lives.

02-06-2010, 03:19 PM
If he enters the race does he have a shot at beating Hostettler for the nomination? This is disappointing.

02-06-2010, 03:22 PM
If he enters the race does he have a shot at beating Hostettler for the nomination? This is disappointing.

Yes. Coats would be the favorite to get the nomination, but definitely not a shoo in.

02-08-2010, 11:50 AM
Here's more on Coats' lobbying clients.

Coats registered as a lobbyist for a foreign interest while he worked at Verner, Liipfert, Bernhard, McPherson and Hand in 2000 and 2001. According to lobbying disclosure documents, he contacted members of Congress trying to get them to invite the Indian prime minister to a joint session of Congress.

Coats only personally lobbied for India, according to the documents, but around the same time his firm also did foreign lobbying for several other countries, including the governments of Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Taiwan.

Yemen isn’t exactly a country you want your name tied to right now, and the lobbying documentation provides Democrats with a ready-made attack ad to use against Coats.


Ex-Sen. Dan Coats (R) has spent the past several years advocating on behalf of pharmaceutical companies, major health care firms and big corporations, according to a client roster provided to Hotline OnCall.

Coats, a registered lobbyist at the powerhouse firms King & Spalding and Verner Liipfert Bernhard McPherson & Hand, counts PhRMA and the Healthcare Leadership Council, an organization made up of health care company CEOs, among his clients.

He has also aided the New York Stock Exchange, Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch and Bank of America. All 3 big banks accepted bailout funds, a Dem source pointed out.

Coats also did business with Bombardier, the Canadian aerospace and railroad company that manufactures popular regional jet aircraft. Since entering the market, Bombardier has taken significant market share away from US-based Boeing and Airbus, the European aircraft maker. And Coats, who took ex-VP Dan Quayle's House and Senate seat when Quayle advanced, is still benefiting from that relationship -- he lobbied for Cerberus Capital Management, where Quayle works.
A complete list of Coats' clients, past and present:

Achema Group
Ad Hoc Coalition For Fair Pipe Imports From China
Afterschool Alliance
Baca Land & Cattle Co
Bank of America
BET Holdings
Biovail Corp
Bombardier Corp
British Aerospace North America
Canwest Global Communications Corp
Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Cerberus Capital Management
City Council of New Orleans
City of Austin, TX
City of New Haven, CT
College Loan Corp
Commercial Information Systems
Confederated Tribes of Coos Lower Umpqua & Siuslaw Indians
Continuum Healthcare Systems
Cooper Industries Ltd
Datatreasury Corp
Davita Inc
Decision Sciences Corp
Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette
Equal Justice Coalition
ErinMeida LLC
Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis
Festo Corp
Forest Society of Maine
GE Transportation Systems
General Electric
Goldman Sachs
Hamilton Group
Harvest Natural Resources
Hatcher Stubbs Land Hollis & Rothschild
Healthcare Leadership Council
Heritage Development
Home Depot Inc.
I Have A Dream Foundation
JA Worldwide
John Maneely Company
Lookheed Martin Corp
Medicines Company
Merle Hay Mall Ltd
Merrill Lynch & Co
Micron Technology Inc
Julian H Robertson
National Heritage Foundation
New York Stock Exchange
Newport News Shipbuilding
Office of the Governor of the State of Indiana
Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)
PKD Foundation
Roche Diagnostics Corp
Save CDSOA Coalition
Southern Tier Cement Committee
Sprint Nextel Corp
Towers Perrin Forster & Crosby
United Defense LP
United Health Group
United Pan-Europe Communications
USA Rice Federation
Vanderbilt Univ. Medical Center
Virginia Commonwealth Trading Co
Vitas Healthcare Corp
Washington Co., OR
Washington Group Int'l
Water Systems Council
Woodfin Suite Hotels

02-08-2010, 07:42 PM
Interesting anti-Coats site that looks like it's probably by some Democrats.