How About a Daniels-Ryan GOP Ticket in 2012?
When this year’s midterm elections are over, there will be a two-month lull. And then in January 2011, because of our crazy system of neverending election cycles, the Republican presidential field for 2012 will begin to take shape.
To date, none of the rumored candidates really stick out. Mitt Romney seems to be the early favorite. But can he credibly run on repealing “ObamaCare” when “RomneyCare” is jarringly similar? Huckabee has problems outside of his evangelical base. Tim Pawlenty’s probably running, but what distinguishes him from anyone else? Newt Gingrich is a rare intellect, a real thinking-man’s candidate. He would mop the floor with Obama in a debate — but could he win the general election? And unlike others, I don’t foresee Sarah Palin running. She knows she doesn’t poll particularly well outside the Republican base. She’s making a bunch of money giving speeches and selling books. And since Palin’s so young, she’s got plenty of time to run for higher office. Why risk all of that on this go-around?
At this point in time, six months away from the GOP’s presidential preseason, the alternative choice for conservatives is becoming increasingly clear: the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 should be Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. Furthermore, his vice-presidential running mate should be Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. But more on Ryan later.
Why Daniels? Well, for starters, he’s the best governor in the country. That may seem like a subjective statement, but consider the financial state of the 50 states — and then look at Indiana. The fiscally competent manner in which Daniels has governed the Hoosier State has created recent buzz about a potential candidacy for the White House in 2012. Andy Barr at Politico writes about Daniels’ record: “Indiana has turned its $200 million deficit into a $1.3 billion surplus, paid all outstanding debts, doubled venture capital investment in the state and increased employment.”
Andrew Ferguson has an excellent piece over at the Weekly Standard detailing Daniels’ leadership style. “He treats waste in government as a moral offense,” Ferguson writes of Daniels. Ferguson continues: “No other state in the Midwest — all of them, like Indiana, dependent on a declining manufacturing sector — can match this record.” The list of accomplishments is impressive: seven percent of new U.S. employment occurs in Indiana, even though Hoosiers comprise just two percent of the country’s population; more people are moving in than out of the state for the first time in four decades; it is one of only nine states with a triple-A bond rating.
Since 2004, Daniels has been a stalwart against encroaching big government, wasteful deficit spending, and debt-ridden economics. He’s also a numbers wiz — he gets it. Daniels understands that the country’s current problems transcend mere disagreements over tax rates. The fundamental nature of our monetary system itself is inherently flawed. We overprint fiat money to pay for entitlement programs while rapidly approaching insolvency, and in doing so we devalue the very worth of our currency.
Moreover, despite his tip-top conservative credentials, Daniels isn’t a lightning rod. He can’t be caricatured. He’s proposed a “truce” on contentious social issues until our economic house is back in order. “We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” he says. Refreshingly, he’s a constitutionalist, and he’s libertarian enough to make the Ron Paul groupies and tea party people happy, but disarming enough to appeal to a broad cross-section of fiscal and social conservatives, moderates, independents, and Democrats. The biggest dirt on Daniels is that he served as the director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush until 2003. But “he’s Bush!” won’t work for the Democrats.
Daniels is the polar opposite of President Obama substantively and stylistically. Obama had no experience; Daniels has a great deal of business and executive experience. Obama promised the world and more; Daniels is tempered in what government can provide.
Throughout the 2008 campaign, Obama was weirdly self-referential. “Has there ever been a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements?” Charles Krauthammer then asked. Mitch Daniels, on the other hand, is quiet, humble, and self-deprecating. He’s sincere and speaks his mind honestly, almost to a political fault. “The very lack of (Daniels’) charisma becomes charismatic,” Ferguson observes. By 2012, after four years of Obamamania celebritydom, Americans might welcome a return to a “Silent Cal” Coolidge type of president. They might desire someone who doesn’t think much of gracing magazine covers. (And for those liberals obsessed with identity politics: Daniels is half-Syrian.)
As for the VP slot in ’12, I may be getting ahead of myself here. But can anyone name a single politician in America who has publicly challenged President Obama’s policies more forcefully and coherently than Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan? Ryan is young, just 40-years-old. But he’s as smart as a whip. A few minutes of watching him discuss monetary policy or the wonders of the free market on YouTube will show that. He’s conservative but, like Daniels, not a firebrand. Like Daniels, there’s not a threatening thing about Ryan’s personality. And like Daniels, he’s a doer — and a man of ideas.
Ryan uses stubborn things, like facts, to emphasize his arguments. He seems to know every stat and chart in the books off the top of his head, and there’s no debating statistics when they’re presented to you in a clear and concise manner. Ryan’s ability to articulate complex ideas, and offer long-term remedies to difficult financial problems, has made him a rising star in the Republican Party. Watch him here take President Obama to task over the health care bill. Obama looked bewildered throughout the entire thing. Can you imagine a Ryan vs. Biden debate? It’s been said that Obama has tremendous respect for Ryan as an opponent. Something tells me Obama doesn’t want to see much of Ryan on the campaign trail come 2012. All the more reason he should be on it.
Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future” is the most serious legislative proposal in Congress today. The roadmap addresses the future of America’s fiscal and monetary policies, as well as the total transformation of our bankrupt entitlement programs. Mitch Daniels is a fan of Ryan’s ideas: “Paul Ryan is right — we need to bifurcate these programs.” What a coincidence.
A Daniels-Ryan ticket would constitute an immense economic challenge to the Obama team in 2012. Both Daniels and Ryan are new, fresh, likable, highly accomplished, and untainted by the maelstrom of hyper-partisan politics. They’re conservative enough to reconcile the tea partiers with the GOP, and factual enough to appeal to all.
Together, they look like the best the Republicans can field in 2012.
Just to save you and your bosses some time, it’s Palin 2012. Anyone seeing it differently doesn’t have a clue. She is the anti-Obama and she is decimating him in every battle now. The old men at the zoo of the GOP will keep resisting- it’s the only thing they put any effort into, they sure don’t waste any energy on fighting Barry.
Palin 2012.
Amongst independents, Palin has +/- rating of 38%-55%.
In 2012, every black, Hispanic, and union voter in the country is going to turn out for Dems because they’ll be mortally afraid that – this time – the gravy train may truly be coming to an end. In order to offset this, the GOP candidate is going to have to win independents by a margin of nearly 2-1.
That ain’t gonna happen with Palin.
She won’t be the nominee.
The right to life people will give her the nomination. Iowa, NH, South Carolina and NV. She will sweep the first 4.
No compromise, we need a strait up ideological fight over the direction of the nation in 2012. I don’t give a dam about the union vote.
It doesn’t matter what you give a damn about in 2012…what matters is what the primary voters will give a damn about. And it ain’t gonna be abortion.
Eddie Murphy once joked that, to a starving man, even a saltine cracker is a delicacy. That’s what Palin was in 2008: a morsel for a starving man (i.e., the Republican voter). Come the 2012 election cycle, the Republican field is shaping up to be alot more palatable than the 2008 bunch. Daniels, Ryan, Pawlenty, Christie…all are better general candidates than Palin.
Palin will not be the nominee.
I love Palin and would vote for her in a second. However, she’s not going to run in 2012. She will endorse a candidate and campaign for him as much as possible.
There’s too much negative press surrounding Palin and just as many people who actually believe it.
Agree. Palin is simply too polarizing a figure. Her job is to raise the issues, raise money, and rally the troops.
In real news: Palin and her team of female conservative are here, in charge, and have no plans to go back in the kitchen to bake huckster, glomney and the other failures some more surrender cookies.
Palin 2012. Anything else is just RINOs and softcore conservatives playing with themselves.
And I say this knowing how powerful the REAL vested interests – cheap labor junkies, healthcare scammers like Gingrich etc- how much power her real opponents have.
This is an ideologically-sparked war and either we win or we lose. It isn’t just another election. Cream of Nothing Soup Affirmative Action Man has seen to that, on behalf of the cabal behind him.
It’s Palin 2012… or civil war. Simple enough for even small L liberal stooges to understand?
Come out of the fever swamps, fella. Not only is in not Palin in 2012, it is not Palin ever. She has tons of charisma, but is a political Rodney Dangerfield–one liners ad infinitum and nowhere near enough experience or smarts. Stop holding up her poster with one hand and get real.
Nolan, ur a kook. A blind Palin bot is no better than an Obama bot. Sarah Palin is a nice lady who I would 100% vote for over Barack the Socialist. She will not survive one GOP debate in 2012. She doesn’t have the chops to run withfrickin Huck, let alone Mitt or Newt or even Pawlenty. God help her if Ryan or Christie run. She doesn’t have the gravitas.
I don’t know enough about Daniels. Ryan, Christie and Romney can all beat Obama. Newt & Pawlenty maybe. Huck, Palin, Jindal are a solid no. Calling everyone but Palin a RINO makes u look absurd. McCain is a rino. Arnolds a rino. Paul Ryan is not a rino and u probably know that.
Jindal is a “No”. I love Jindal. Jindal exhibits great leadership and character, and he would be a dynamite President. But…we cannot have another person in the WH that is not a natural born U.S. citizen. Jindal is a naturalized U.S. citizen, not “natural born”.
Besides, electing Jindal would undermine efforts to prosecute BO for being an illegal alien presidential usurper — which will continue beyond his occupancy in the WH. So, stop bringing up Jindal.
What republican can draw 10,000 people at a moments notice? Not Romney, Pawlenty, Huckabee, Gingrich, Daniels, Ryan,or Christie. If you noticed on the Campaign trail in 2008, 60 -70 thousand gathered for one person in Florida. There is one person who can galvanize instant grass roots support, excitement and money when we here the word “go”. Answer, SARAH PALIN.
The next President must be a lot more than the anti-Obama. He is, you might recall, the anti-Bush, for which the press swooned over him. But he had nothing going for him as an executive. Sarah Palin certainly has more than Obama had, including executive experience, and no sordid Chicago-politics past. Her day-to-day remarks and recommendations addressed to the public are inspiring, and it’s a plus that the left is unhinged over her. But I’d like to see someone who’s run large operations for a decade or so, who has military and foreign policy experience, and a clear track record of goals and principles realized during his/her governing – including overcoming real adversity during the process.
An alternate proposal: Governor Christie of New Jersey, who is a superb proponent of clear goals in the face of huge adversity from NJ public sector unions. His ad lib speeches – no Teleprompter – are merciless in recognizing the real-world necessities of fiscal probity, and in conveying to the public the excellent reasons for his goals. His communication abilities shame the posturing, authoritarian, blame-shifting Obama, and one could hope that some day he’ll have a good shot at the Presidency.
Christie is an awesome choice.
For me, it’s Governor Chris Christie over Mr. “Truce” Daniels any day of the week. Ryan is good for the VP slot; but I like Michele Bachmann even better.
No to Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Huckabee, and no to Palin.
I don’t think Palin will run, because she knows it would be hell on her family, and I don’t think she could win (for the record, I like her, I like what she says and stands for). Daniels and Ryan are both good picks, and I’d add Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.
Jonathan, the guy writing this article doesn’t have a clue.
Palin is the only Republican with the kind of draw that will win the Presidency.
She’s the female Reagan, and Repubs are too STUPID to see it.
Tell me about it! I’m entitled to vote but I won’t be casting a vote for anyone unless I get to vote for Palin. I called her as the new Reagan in 2007 and I am yet to be proven wrong.
Presumably the price of her candidacy will be getting a creepy elite-approved VP like GHW Bush or similar. And having to tolerate the constant risk of assassination.
I pray for the country she heeds the call, gets the candidacy and lives long enough to heal the nation.
Sure, the adolescents on both of the false sides of politics will dislike her, just as they made Reagan a figure of hate and ridicule.
He still crushed the real enemy and made the USA great again. Palin will do the same. SHE IS THE ONE WE HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR.
I will NEVER stop witnessing to that.
The Barbour-Palin or DeMint/Palin ticket is my choice. Nobody beats Gov. Barbour in effectiveness in the face of tremendous adversity, directness, economic acumen and like-ability. Nobody in the party is evoking our feelings like Sarah. She will drain the brains of foreign “dignitaries” into their lower parts. DeMint singlehandedly exposed Obama as a communist on the Honduras so-called “coup” by visiting the place. He’s directing contributions in more effective ways than the big bosses.
But I do wish Sarah would focus more on Muslim women’s rights than abortion when discussing feminism. It’s just such a polarizing subject whereas the latter points out an absurd hypocrisy of the left.
Right on Jon. I’m with you
Absolutely correct re: Jonathan Nolan. Palin is tapped into the zeitgeist. She understands the hunger for plainspeaking, yet doesn’t surender to demagogic populism. She maintains civility, reason and grace. Furthermore, there is no way conservatives will accept another elitist truce-maker with the Left. (And by the way that poll on Palin’s appeal is garbage, ridiculously skewed in its sampling. Once the primaries and nominess are sorted out, independents will move to her over Obama, as they did to Reagan over Carter.) What people miss is that Palin, and only Palin as far as I see, has grasped the judo concept when dealing with the media — and that the Right is ready to take them on. All this knee-trembling among MSM-conditioned republicans that the “meme” on Palin is irreversible is just part of the preface to every revolutionary candidate. And the craving for that kind of candidate will trump the old maid worries.
One of the reasons I like Palin so much — and a reason I haven’t seen here — is that the Left and the MSM hate her so intensely. They are absolutely rabid when they talk about her. Never seen anything like it. Which is the reason I’ve boiled my decision-making down to a simple guide: whoever the Left/MSM likes, I don’t want; whoever they hate THE MOST, that’s who I want. I figured this out while watching the NYTimes endorse McLame during the primary — in order to push the GOP nomination onto the worst and easiest-to-beat candidate — only to abandon McLame once he got the nomination. We have to be very careful and not listen to the Left as to who’s good, who’s not capable, who should run and who should not run on the GOP ticket. They’ve proven to play “reverse psychology” on Republicans and Independents.
Oy vey. You Palin groupies are as bad as Ron Paulians. Pull your head out. We elected an incompetent to run this country and he’s running it in to the mud. We would be unbelievably stupid to consider a marginally more competent leader. I lie Palin, but she is not Presidential timber in any way shape or form. She simply compares favorably to the most inept, irresponsible and ideological person to ever hold the office. We’re going to have to set the bar a lot higher than that if we want any hope of recovering from Obama and Bush.
Daniels has it right. Drop the religious righteousness! Focus on the job at hand and don’t blow another election over metaphysical bulls–t.
Daniels/Ryan would be a great ticket in my estimation. But then I’m an independent. The right-wing of the Republican Party doesn’t like Daniels, especially since he wants to downplay social issues. But it’s a smart strategy, the type of approach that helped Scott Brown win in very liberal Massachusetts.
The idealogues on both extremes ridicule the “squishy middle” for having no principles, and hate the idea that they are the voters who determine elections. It’s my impression that the right-wingers want the whole pie in 2012, especially after being saddled with that “horrible RINO” McCain in the last election. They think his defeat proves that a RINO can’t win. They are wrong. Much of the country is so alarmed by Obama’s far-left policies that they will eagerly embrace a centrist, of either party. Daniels is right to focus on fiscal issues, which is high in the public consciousness at the moment, and likely to remain a priority. And no one talks numbers better–with clarity and authority–than Paul Ryan.
Half a pie is better than no pie if it means winning back the White House in 2012. I hope the Republican Party is smart enough not to capitulate to the extremists who would cut off their collective nose to spite their face.
If “Much of the country is so alarmed by Obama’s far-left policies that they will eagerly embrace a centrist,” then they will eagerly embrace a conservative also. “Centrists” are a good part of the problem, not the solution. When you split the difference between wrong and right, you end up with wrong. When you split the difference between good and bad, you end up with bad. Sorry, but either you believe in the principles and philosophy that America was founded on (that is the fundamentally conservative position) or you don’t. Trying to half-believe them means you don’t believe them.
My view exactly, Doug Loss.
Thats the spirit.. a little backbone..just a little. What we need is compromise a little more compromise. Dont give away whats left of Traditional America
away..give only half of whats left. We can negotiate about the rest later. Close the borders, but close the door only half way. A half shut door
works just fine. Negotiate with Iran
a little longer..just a little longer, after all Iran will agree to that.
Let the Far Left have the campuses, after all its only about ideas not real things. Appease racial identity groups as little as possible, but never whites. Thats racism. All cultures are the same, just different, Islam included of course. Public service “unions” make sense..they exist dont they?
And on and on and on
MP51 -
It never ceases to amaze me how people like you don’t understand that it’s precisely your type of thinking – “can’t we all just get along?” – that’s put us in the grave situation we currently find ourselves in.
There is no compromise with the Left. You either stop them…or you lose to them. Period.
We compromised on Social Security. The result? It’s bankrupt…as is our country.
We compromised on Medicaid and Medicare. The result? They’re bankrupt…as is our country.
We compromised on a Department of Education. The result? A centralized, tax-funded authority for Leftist indocrination of young people.
We compromised on the EPA. The result? An unelected bureaucracy that’s about to classify a naturally-occuring, life-sustaining gas – i.e. carbon dioxide – as a pollutant and in so doing, grab control over every aspect of our lives.
I could go on and on.
While I understand your reasoning, I’d submit to you that you haven’t really thought it through.
If you give people easy choices, they’ll make easy choices. If you give people hard choices, they’ll make hard choices. We need to stop giving people easy choices and force them to start making hard choices. Why? Because when you force a person to make a hard choice, you force them to pay attention to what’s going on. And that is precisely what we want, because when they’re forced to pay attention, they’ll be forced to see the consequences of voting for the Left: entitlements for leeches, high taxes, pourous borders, weak national defense, etc, etc,.
And when you do that, we win.
Spot on. No time to be squishy.
With that said, 2012 will come down to lib turnout and independents. This country has moved too far left to ever see a landslide by a Republican. The odds of winning NY & CA for a “R” have moved into the long-shot category for the foreseeable future. The way to win those two states is to keep liberal voters home. I do believe independents will either vote for the “R” or stay home as well. Obama (Carter II)will be viewed as a disaster to anyone not hooked on Kool-Aid.
What “moderates” like MP15 fail to grasp is that the Left fully subscribes to the following tenets set forth by one of it’s heroes, Vladimir Lenin:
So-called “compromise” is nothing of the sort: it’s a tactic that the Left has perfected for advancing it’s causes. It’s a win-win for them because they understand two primary rules of politics:
1) promise people free stuff.
2) never get caught holding the bag alone.
Here’s how it plays out:
1) Dems introduce a bill for some new “program”.
2) A “compromise” solution is reached.
3) Millions of people become personally vested in the new program.
4) Costs/end results are (unexpectedly, of course) not as predicted.
5) A “crisis” occurs.
And now, the Republicans are caught in a bind. By the time the crisis arrives, millions of people are now personally benefiting from the new program, so efforts at repealing it are unpopular with a sizable portion of the public. Additionally, by going along with the initial “compromise”, they’ve given the Dems cover from bearing full responsibility for the failed program. Not only that, the initial compromise allows the Dems to say “Well, the reason the program is in trouble is because we had to compromise with those stingy, greedy Republicans! If they’d have just let us implement it the right way, everything would be fine now!”
So, in the end, what are you left with? Republicans, who initially opposed the “program”, end up being blamed for it’s failures! Thus leading to diminished election prospects…thus leading to higher percentages of Dem representatives…who are then free to pursue their Leftist agenda with less Republican interference!
“Compromise” is a no-win situation for Republicans, because in the end, it always leads to future election losses for Republicans while it just allows the Dems to implement their policies anyway…in fact, it helps them to do so in the long run. Better to stand by your principles and make the Dems completely own all of their failures.
As someone wise once said, “You can’t get a little pregnant.”
rvastar: Your comments, the summary of the logical progression and consequences of compromise, hold true as well, not only Left vs Right, but within the Republican Party itself. Specifically it is this pronouncement: social-conservative candidates cannot win so social-conservative Republicans must swallow their principles (compromise) to GO ALONG and vote for the more centrist candidate, which POLLS reveal have at least a chance to win against the democrat, as these centrists can, the dogma goes, chip away from the democrat side the moderate and independent voters.
This is how we got to where we are today. Fear. “Oh, we just must have a Republican winner, regardless his stripes, because we just must keep power in our party, even if we have to sell our soul to get it.” And our country along the way. Fear. Keep the so-cons so fearful of socialist/atheist democrat control, that they gladly abandon their principles to vote the establishment candidate, a person all-too eager to compromise principle to gain and keep power. What a bunch of wussies conservatives have proven themselves to be. Man up, you lemming slackards. Know what you believe. Fight. Our nation’s war dead demand it of you!
The problem with “choices” is the 47% who pay nothing & always have their hand out for the next government freebie. They might not “choose” to stay home when their seats on the gravy train are in jeopardy. Also, the brainwashed young people who’ve been taught they’re “owed” EVERYTHING will be out there “defending their right” to even more “free stuff” at taxpayer expense. No matter how great the enthusiasm on the part of conservatives, it’s going to be difficult to overcome the numbers in this “gimme generation”. Let’s hope they’re so lazy they stay home thinking the re-election of “their guys” is a “gimme” too.
The whole purpose of entitlements is control. By allowing 47% of people to pay zero federal income tax, they’ve created a voting base. Any cuts in programs is an attack on them. Any reduction of taxes won’t help them and just helps the “rich”. (Not entirely true, but that’s the basic rhetoric.)
Someone needs to asks the Dems tough questions during the next election campaign. Look at the poor in our cities…how come were approaching 40 years of a Great Society but our poor are poorer and more dependant on the federal government?
They won’t get the turnout they had in 2012. A lot of the pro-Obama was anti-Bush fueld by the media. He won’t get that (as much) this time around.
No. No more compromise. No more center. Individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law. If the centrists can make a decision that holds these principles ahead of all else, then no.
Agree with all the folks that have responded to your post.
I don’t know who will be our nominee. I could support Daniels, Ryan, Palin, Pawlenty, and several others. We’ll see.
I think what MP51 is talking about is center as far as social issues are concern, not necessarily fiscal issues (correct me if I am wrong). If I am right on this, than I agree with MP51 completely. Social issues aren’t important, abortion isn’t important (yes I know, killing babies and all that, but how many babies will die if this country falls into 3rd world status?) , hell gay marriage isn’t important. Those are things that you should be preaching against in your spare time. Stand on soap box, fund charities, campaign for it, but do not use government to force it down people’s throats.
The problem we have (I am partisan Republican) is that good portion of independence either do not like our social agenda OR they think we are hypocrites for talking about small government, and then trying to use it’s power on agenda and programs that we believe in.
We have to show those who do not trust the Republican party that we are in fact opposite of a Democratic party, that we love personal liberty (and that often means allowing people to do things that we find amoral), and that we are fiscally responsible. We do that, and I guarantee you we will win in 2010 and in 2012, we might even be able to gain ground on socialists and their agenda with that formula.
So do not discount voices like MP51 because it will be THEM not US who will chose the course of this country in the future. We will vote for Republicans, socialists will vote for Democrats, but independent will elect the president.
Personally I like Palin, but I do not want her to be our nominee. She just doesn’t do well with good portion of our population, and she would likely loose to Berry. Last thing we need is another term of that guy. On top of that I am not impressed with her economical knowledge nor her international policy.
Thanks for expressing my position better than I obviously did. What Daniels seems to be saying is that it’s shortsighted to be pushing social issues when the country is headed for financial disaster. The fact that Mike Huckabee is castigating him is very instructive–Huckabee is all about social issues, but he can’t win a national election. Independent voters aren’t unconcerned about issues like gay marriage and abortion. But they are often alienated when right-wing Republicans focus with so much passion on those issues. Obama is clueless and is taking us over a cliff. Daniels impressses me as a thoughtful and practical man who knows how to prioritize. We HAVE to prioritize.
The responses to my post just prove my point. Contining polarization is going to doom this country. I’m sorry so many people view “compromise” as evil. It appears they would rather be principled losers and sit on the sidelines than get in the game. Bottom line: the Republicans don’t get to advance any of their agenda, on fiscal restraint or social issues, if they don’t win.
I think you expressed your opinion very well, I just think that people are so angry right now that they attack first and ask questions later. Secondly I think that far too many think that compromise means giving up your morals… it does not.
On certain things you can not compromise. For instance where it comes to constitution, to laws, to putting America first..etc.. You either do things right or … you get FDR and social security and Obama and Stimulus/Healthcare.
But we must pick our fights, and don’t pull McCain who’s idea of compromise is surrender on issues that truly matter.
However on social issues we must compromise or in our blindness we will fall and give this country over to Socialist.
For instance, I for one do not agree with Gay marriage (although my reasons are simply due to Adoption, not lifestyle for which I don’t care anything about). I hate drugs, I believe in family, etc..etc..etc.. However I also believe in Constitution in small government, in liberty and I understand that those two things aren’t compatible. Liberty means being able to do what others disagree with, just like free speech means allowing speech that offends us.
We must decide what is more important to us, the future of this country, or our social stand. If economy/security isn’t important to us, but abortion is, than let’s not compromise. However if we value economy/security/constitution as primary than we must compromise in order to achieve those goals. There will be plenty of time (and places) to discuss our moral disagreements, later when we right the ship and put socialists where they belong…. on the sidelines, as a curiosity of the past.
You’re wrong. Abortion is the single biggest economic issue in this country. It has cost us $35 trillion since 1973, and it is ultimately what is responsible for our demographic time bomb. If we don’t address abortion, nothing else matters, because there is no way to save this country while tolerating abortion.
And where the HECK did you get 35 trillion? Please explain how abortion is in any way related to economy.
You kill off a million children a year, it’s going to affect the economy. The oldest of the victims of legalized about would be 37 by now- old enough to have their own jobs, buy their own houses (which would have eliminated the housing crisis), and be raising their own families by now. The $35 trillion is the cumulative lost productivity from killing them off, and it’s a low-end estimate from 2008. It’s all over the web if you Google it, but here’s a link: http://www.lifenews.com/nat4440.html
The U.S. Constitution is not right, left, liberal, conservative, centrist, blah blah blah. It’s the Constitution. People in this country are reading it more and more, and for those who haven’t, better dust it off because it’s coming, starting Nov. 2010.
BTW, if you argue AGAINST the Constitution being THE guiding document, what’s that make you?
I disagree. I think a LOT of people on the right (and I’m one of ‘em) will look at Mitch and his bona fides and come away duly impressed. I’ve called his office myself over the past year begging his chief of staff to convince him to run. I suspect it’s Mrs. Daniels that’ll need the most convincing, though. The Weekly Standard article is an excellent primer on all things Mitch.
I would enthusiastically vote for that ticket. My only reservation is that Ryan might be able to do even more good as Speaker of the House during a Daniels administration.
Ryan doesn’t have enough seniority or political capital to make the Speaker’s chair.
Besides – after 8 years of a very successful Daniels/Ryan admin another 8 years of Ryan/?? sounds like a better idea yet – eh?
That sounds tempting, but I’d rather see Ryan remain in Congress to keep herding the GOP to the right, cracking the whip against the lefties, and working to make Daniels’ fiscal policies get implemented. It would be a waste of his talent to let him sit around as VP for 8 years.
If Daniels becomes pres, I’d love to see him appoint Bolton as secretary of state.
And I would love to see Christie do 4 more years in NJ, do a term in Senate, or head up the RNC before running for pres. in 2020.
Sounds pretty good, but where do they stand on foreign policy?
Daniels/Ryan is a viable ticket. Though not my first choice, I would vote for Palin if that’s who the GOP comes up with. We can find capable people, that’s not so hard to do.
What I’m worried about is the damage to party unity from the RINOs’ infighting. That might result in disgust (for the Independents) and the blunder of the formation of a third party. The Tea Party has to keep the GOP on task to prevent the formation of a third party.
We are living in a time when both the Democratic and Republican parties are flirting with implosion. We just have to keep the GOP together long enough to get through this next presidential election.
Could be why Mitch is discussing a truce on social issues, really, any issue that isn’t tied to fiscal responsibility.
Get our fiscal house in order, and the rest is gravy.
Don’t fix the fiscal problem, and we wont have to worry about the rest, we’ll be so far in debt we wont have any freedom.
Christie all the way – he can articulate conservative policies in a way that even journalists can understand. He points out the corrupt elements of supposedly morally superior liberal postions like no other. Neither of the guys above have the charisma or willpower to be a great president.
He certainly is direct and to the point. One of my favorite youtube clips stars Christie.
Daniels/Ryan would be a terrific ticket, both are men of substance and accomplishment. Although Obama is likable enough, I’m not sure he will be on the Dem ticket, the party may choose survival and tell The One he’s done.
I read the Weekly Standard’s article about Mitch Daniels and it’s worth checking out. Paul Ryan is just what this country needs, he understands how to get us back on the right track. 2012 is going to be another great election year.
This writer and this article are very suspect. The first tip off
is the line
“Newt Gingrich is a rare intellect, a real thinking-man’s candidate.”
What are the intellectual standards of a man who could believe that
statement? Then ask what else could he get correct? In one generation
the GOP via mass immigration has destroyed the very cultural foundation
of the country. Mass outsourcing of our entire industrial base has
destroyed the economy. All of this was at the behest of the GOPs Big Business bosses. And Newt Gingrich was one of the cheerleaders. So after 30 years of descent into a Third World cesspool we need
another middle of the road GOPer? We need a REVOLUTION led by real men not these department store mannequins with one eye in the mirroe and another on their poll figures.
All the “real men” ie hardcase tough marines in the GOP… are women. Valkyries in fact- gorgeous looking, tough as nails, smart as whips and mothers and wives many of them too. Multiple threats.
Double thumbs down on both of them. Danials doesn’t have the stomach to fight left’s war on our culture and Ryan is still figuring out a way to save Social Security instead of getting the government out of the rewtirement business. No need to worry neither one will be on the ticket.
Right now the best ticket would be Gov. Christie NJ who has shown he can take on the unions, cut spending while putting the media in their place.
LTC Allen West would balance out the ticket as a stauch conservative both economically and culturally. He is also the only one I’ve ever heard that understands that Islam, not some fictive “radical Islam or “Islamofascism” BS, is at war with us and we have a Muslim problem here at home because of our insane LEGAL immigration policies.
The left is at war with us and none of the people Guarigilia mentions are up to the task. I just gave you two proven warriors.
Sounds good to me. Government waste is a moral offense – wealth that has been removed from the pockets of Americans in order to fund government should be treated with the uttmost care. I’m insulted every time I see Obama / Reid / Pelosi treating my money as if it meant nothing to them. Do they realize how hard I worked for that money? How hard their taxes make it to make ends meet? How hard it is to save for retirement and my kids education with their hands in my wallet?
I could not care less about the social conservatives. The fiscal conservatives better be running the GOP or us Tea Party types will take our votes elsewhere.
Daniels. Ryan. Jindal. Palin. Bachmann. Pence. Isn’t it great to FINALLY have a field of potential candidates that don’t need a DNA test to determine whether they are Democrat or Republican?
And MP51-Daniels a Rino?! You haven’t lived in Indiana for 49 years, and seen how he’s cleaned up the utter disaster caused by way too many years of liberal Democrat union butt-kissing! He’s had to fend off Speaker of the House Pat Bauer (you’ll recognize him-he’s the old guy with the REALLY bad red toupee), who obviously has as his role model Boss Hogg on “The Dukes of Hazzard”. Daniels has had to fight Bauer tooth and nail to retain the Rainy Day Fund and to lease the Indina Toll Road to a “furrin” country while retaining control of it’s use and upkeep. You can be guaranteed that if there is an issue that benefits unions, whether or not it destroys the economy of the state, Pat Bauer and the Indiana Democrat Party will back it. Mitch has the chutzpah to do what is right, not what will get him re-elected (even though we did unanimously elect him for a second term). His current comments on social items is spot-on–you don’t worry about cleaning the bathroom if the house is burning. Fix the economy and get people working again, and THEN take care of cleaning up the social issues. A lot of those will probably disappear at that time, anyway, once everyone releases the slave mentality and realize their own self-worth.
Kat, have you considered running for office? We need your kind of clarity.
I thought you meant Charlie Daniels.
As a Hoosier, I was hoping Daniels would get some national exposure. Daniels or Mississippi’s Haley Barbour. Both have guided their states through troubled waters (Katrina; recession) and emerged in better shape than before. It will take a financial genius to get us out of the hole Obama has dug, but I think either man could do it if given two terms.
Yeah, good luck with getting Ryan to run, they keep asking him about it here on local talk radio stations and he’s pretty adamant about not running. Of course, maybe that’s why he’d be an excellent candidate, he has no national ambition.
I’m sorry there is nowhere to go on the internet to make suggestions. I like Darrel Issa because he’s smart, he’s articulate and he is passionate about what he does. Wish I had saved a copy of the letter he sent to Rahm Emanuel telling him in no uncertain terms that he was not afraid of his bullying! A truly great document! As to Daniels, I just don’t think the “squishy-middle” can win this election. There has to be a clear definition of what the two parties stand for. And while I was glad Scott Brown won in Mass., that state is totally different in outlook from states in the mid-west, for instance.
Is this the letter you have in mind?
http://www.redcounty.com/sites/default/files/Issa%20Letter.pdf
I hope the Republican Party is smart enough not to capitulate to the extremists who would cut off their collective nose to spite their face.
Massachusetts is not America. Liberals live to fight the culture wars. There can be no truce with liberals. Conservatives should be conservative and stop apologizing for their beliefs. The road to victory is not paved with squishiness. The majority want leaders who are honest, competent and frugal.
Call me crazy,but my GOP dream ticket for 2012 is Chris Christie and Jan Brewer…in either order.
Nonsense, Mr. Guariglia.
Although you write:
“Moreover, despite his tip-top conservative credentials, Daniels isn’t a lightning rod. He can’t be caricatured. He’s proposed a “truce” on contentious social issues until our economic house is back in order. “We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” he says,”
you neglect to realize this means accepting (i.e. leaving in place) Obama’s Leftist agenda items.
Take for one (among many), Obamacare…some would claim this is a “social” matter.
What country would be left of America if that were left unchecked?!
Ryan would be good, but
Additional comment:
http://minx.cc/?post=302672
When was the last time the less charismatic candidate beat the more charismatic candidate? 1964? And both Goldwater and LBJ had personality. The last time a boring candidate beat an exciting candidate? 1928? I don’t know. You tell me.
Boring candidates have won, but they have always beaten other boring candidates (Bush-Dukakis, Carter-Ford, Eisenhower-Stevenson, etc.)
Say what? 2012 is going to be an election about substantive issues, like charisma!? Did we learn nothing from 2008?
There’s what should be and there’s what is. The historical pattern is there.
I am one of those who is staunchly pro-life. I do however agree with Mitch Daniels. The defeating the fiscal bankruptcy of this great nation is paramount to our survival. If we become a more socialist country then our concerns about social issues will become null and void. The government will decide what is moral or not.
For once in our lives, “we the people” must vote for the survival of our nation and set aside issues we can argue later.
Not voting is un-American!
Christie would be good at the top of the ticket too.
I like Paul Ryan, he has a good head on his shoulders and would make a fine VP. I also think Daniels has done a remarkable job in Indiana, however I doubt he has the fire in his belly to really go after those idiots in Washington.
I’m thinking Sarah Palin, with all the media name recognition and exposure she is getting lately has become more of a household name than Daniels could hope for in a year and a half of campaigning. A Palin/Ryan ticket would offer youth, vigor, intelligence, balance, executive experience, and solid conservative values that might be hard to beat in 2012.
I understand the reasoning behind calling the middle ground squishy but, I don’t think swinging back and forth between ends of the spectrum promotes a better option…squishy, dizzy…same difference.
I don’t want to see a fight between fiscal conservatives that just want to stabilize the country and social conservatives that are more interested in moral wars.
I am pro-life,pro 2nd amendment and pray for people with alternate life styles but, we are all going down if we focus on social issues so I hope it isn’t the distraction that sinks the ship. The pro-choice, anti-gun, gay people will just have to wrestle with their choices while we get the economy back in shape and Mitch Daniels and Paul Ryan are the people who can do it.
I don’t want to hear about the personality contest either. We voted in ( I didn’t but, we collectively did) Mr. Personality last time and that didn’t work out so well. Americans are as awake as they’ve ever been and I think it’s a great time for policy wonks to win.
I have family in NJ, so I have a selfish reason to keep Christie there to finish the job.
Daniels is my governor in Indiana and he’s everything claimed for him in this article. Since he has not spoken much about foreign and defense policy, and is possibly not the most informed in those areas, I’d like him to have a running mate who fills that gap. The question is, who might that be?
Agree. Clinton insisted “It’s the economy stupid.”" But it’s not *just* the economy. The US faces increasing foreign challenges – Russia, Iran, North Korea, Af/Pak and radical Islam to name just a few – but the US since January, 2009 has “burned” a number of our allies – Israel, the UK, Japan, South Korea, Honduras, India and others. We’ll need at least one person on the ticket with serious foreign policy chops.
Daniels actually DOES have a genuine, what you see is what you get personality. While not a dynamic speaker, he is excellent in getting his point across, often using witty analogies/metaphors. People would “get” him. Ryan is the next Reagan-incarnate. The key is to shelve the old reliable candidates like Newt, Huck, and Romney. The country craves common-sense leadership and a brand new voice. As for Palin, she should maintain her current role as the Wielder of the Holy Flamethrower and keep lobbing the bombs at the progressive rats currently in charge – they are scurrying for the shadows!
“Wielder of the Holy Flamethrower.” I like it. Somehow I think she would too.
For what it’s worth, my first choice for President in 2012 is Chris Christie — but I’m thinking we’ll have to pry him out of New Jersey’s cold, dead fingers to have him.
“Wielder of the Holy Flamethrower”–I love it!!!
Gov. Christie: Purveyor of Razor Clarity
Michele Bachman: Queen Warrior of Reason
Gov. Daniels: First Knight of Fiscal Sanity
It is not a coincidence that both represent states that receive a fair share of new business enterprises and residents from that neighboring cesspool of Illinois.
While we’re at it, let’s fill in the Cabinet. Bolton for Sec State.
Bolton for Secretary of State.
YES. Love that guy.
Or let him have another go at the UN again – and get him confirmed for the job.
Come to think of it – move the UN headquarters to Paris or Berlin then drop our membership and let them find their funding from someone else.
PEOPLE! I keep saying this, but here goes again; You have to have a candidate that can beat Obama in the debates. Im sure that Ryan can do it–but Palin cannot. (I’m not familiar enough with Daniels to comment.)
To be fair, Palin did better against Biden than McCain did against Obama, but seriously–all she managed was to successfully deliver her lines. In a debate against Obama, she will not win.
Yes, I’m on our side and I want Obama to be gone, but she has not demonstrated an ability to beat him in a debate.
The fact that Sarah Palin makes the common man and woman feel good about themselves in not sufficient to carry this. This is too important an election to leave to faith. And I cannot emphasize to you people that this is absolutely the most important election of our lives. If we drop the ball on this one and allow an imperfect candidate–we lose more than we can imagine.
I laugh out loud when I read pointy headed progressive types say there is nobody to beat Obama. I’ve read through this list from above and like all of them. And I’ll add another to the list – Marco Rubio.
Tell me again Progressives who has the young talent, and who doesn’t? You’ve got feckless Obama and Hillary Rotten. Where’s it go from there?
P.S. – I like Sarah Palin, but she is a far more effective force for the party as spokesperson and not candidate; at least not yet. I too am staunchly pro-life, but I’m also pragmatic. We are winning the social issues one heart at a time. Let’s be smart this time and not draw a lightning rod for candidate that would turn away Independents. Elect a candidate who will give us Constitutional SCOTUS in the mold of Scalia. We’ll need every vote in 2012 to offset the voter fraud, buying votes, charges of racism, and pandering with federal money to win.
I just hope that Rubio can get to the Senate first. I just wonder if Kendrick Meek will be “nudged” out of this race, with his votes going to Crissy. Well, since were on the future:
Rubio-Sandoval Now We’re Really Screwed
Jindal-Haley I’ll Ride the Elephant if They Will
They would both get my absentee vote. Ryan is a winner for sure,a brilliant thinker, but ALSO a doer. I am realizing Daniels is a serious contender too. This duo should be given serious consideration.
Romney, forget about.Huckabee I like personally, he is also a moral man, but I don’t think he could win. Palin I love, but not sure if her high profile would be a minus.Would LOVE to see her as Sec of State, or another key position over national security etc.
Either we win this election or we fight it out on the streets.
Because if we lose the election there wont be
a next time. Mass Immigration and mass reeducation will make it
so that the USA is nothing more than a geographical location
We are the Last Generation of Americans. Make no doubt about that.
Thank you for proposing these two men. The people are hungry for a straight-talking president, preferably with callouses on his hands.People are fed up with weak words, divisiveness and incompetence. We want a positive, upbeat problem-solver who can help instead of constantly berating and belittling others.The current occupant of the Oval Office is unutterably depressing.He turns out the lights.
I would have naturally assumed the GOP would continue to go toward the…palin/coulter/beck route, but the daniels/brown/ryan route is quite interesting, specially when you consider the dems must have that part of the country. or they lose in math terms. From a pure political standpoint, it opens the race wide. But the problem is, can folks from the center hold the fringe? It would be a tough sell, specially on national health and pro life issues. I just do not see it. However, a Daniels/Ryan…or fittin scott brown on a ticket..somewhere could and would spell real trouble for the dems. But I really believe the t party wing will not allow that… but who knows?
I usually don’t comment on my own articles, but there’s a few things I wanted to correct. For starters, when Daniels talked about ‘social issues,’ he wasn’t talking about health care. He was probably talking about things like gay marriage, etc. As for the ‘truce,’ this is merely a euphemism for state’s rights and federalism. That’s how I took it at least. He’s a conservative, yes — but he’s also a federalist, a constitutionalist, a libertarian. I have two reservations about Daniels, and that is A) his lack of foreign policy ‘gravitas,’ as the talking heads say, and B) he might not be as forceful and articulate as someone like Gingrich or Romney.
As for Christie: yes, he’s great. I’m in NJ. We feel lucky to have him. But he just became governor six months ago. He’s going to fulfill at least one term. So 2016 or 2020 may be likely for national office for Christie — but not 2012.
As for Palin: I like her. Just don’t see her running for president until she polls better throughout the country. Which I think will happen, one day. Americans love to beat people up, then ‘redeem’ them. Oh, and if you’re going to say Ryan isn’t a conservative, then Bachmann isn’t either.
Bachmann just endorsed Rep. Chris Smith for NJ’s 4th District, the most liberal Republican in the House who voted for cap and trade and card check, over the Tea Party candidate Alan Bateman. Smith won, bragging that he had Bachmann’s support. It was a pathetic intervention on Bachmann’s behalf.
I don’t think Mitch is using ‘truce’ merely as a euphemism for state’s rights and federalism. While his philosophical background shows that he supports state’s rights, and federalism, I truly think he means what he says.
“We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while.”
That says to me, until the economy/debt/deficit/rampant statism problems are dealt with, he’ll take no actions on social issues.
I could see the caveat of, unless there is a consensus, both in public, and among Congress, to actually accomplish or solve some pressing social issue. And I think that means the status quo on social issues as far as legislation goes. He’ll still be free to make executive decisions, and orders, based on his long held beliefs.
Just my thoughts, having met the man, and supported him the past 8 years.
“As for Palin: I like her. Just don’t see her running for president until she polls better throughout the country.”
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this sentiment, in different forms. Let me ask this: when she runs, and then polls better because she’s running rather than waiting to run until she polls better, and she wins the nomination, will you vote for her?
All the squishies and were-jellyfish try and cite Reagan… At a distance, in the abstract, in sound-bites. PALIN IS REAGAN 2010. She is IT.
People need to accept it and rally behind her, because she is not a politician, she is a phenomenon.
When she receives an audience from Reagan’s old ally Margaret Thatcher, it is OVER.
WHo does Barry the undocumented and his chi-town scum go after? PALIN. Who do they dread having to run against? PALIN.
They went after her waaaayyyy too early. All the slime thrown at her from now on has lost its impact.
And coming after Carter II, which I predicted as did others, Palin is actually going to have an easier time of it.
Like I said, the price she will have to pay is accepting the power elite’s pick for VP. And dodging the assassins just like Reagan did.
Palin : Zeitgeist : 2012.
Wake up to a new morning AGAIN America.
Sure, I’d vote for her if she were the nominee against Obama. I’ve voted for a ticket with her before, I’d do so again. I simply don’t foresee her winning in ’12, therefore, I don’t foresee her running. I don’t begrudge the comparisons to Reagan, but remember: Reagan lost several times before he won. Palin may run for national office one day, and she may win. I just don’t think there’s been any evidence that she’s thinking about making that commitment (and risk) within the next six months.
I like Palin for what she stands for, ….BUT she is not ‘debate-ready’ at all.
She will not be able to hold her own in a serious debate. Sorry.
Daniels sounds very good, with great credentials, but Indiana does not give him a strong media base to work from, among other problems. And if he isn’t fiercely wanting it, he will not get the presidency.
The biggest mistake the Repubs could make is nominating Romney….which they foolishly might do.
Dr. Victor Davis Hanson might be the answer.
More professional politicians in 2012 is certainly not the right prescription for the United States of America as a potential cure for the cancer from which we now suffer. We’ve been going down the road to Utopia for at least six decades now and more of the same from another crop of professional politicians will not fix the problem.
America needs a true citizen-patriot to stand up before the world, face down the liars and point out the rotten corruption that is on the verge of bringing down the entire civilized world as we have known it. Such a person should also have the common sense to understand that wealth and happiness for everyone in the world cannot be brought about by waving a magic wand in the thin air ala Barack Obama.
Self-centered, power mad political ego maniacs rule the day in present day politics enabled by a lackey laced media that has no interest in country or the American People. This nation needs change. Real change.
Dr. Victor Davis Hanson, please stand up. America might support a man such as you. Give it a shot for your country.
I wholeheartedly agree, and I have urged and pleaded with the good Dr. to think about politics,,, I might add, this was in the distant past, several years ago. His replies to me indicated he has no interest in living in the public eye, the fish bowl. I can’t blame him for wanting to maintain his privacy, but we do need men like him to come to the front and say what needs to be said.
If you can talk him into running, he’d have my vote. I can think of nobody smarter and wiser than VDH.
Sounds a lot like the sentiments that gave the USA Carter. And, for that matter, Obama.
We need a fiscal conservative who will stay away from the far right conservative social agenda. I want a less gov type, not someone who is going to be pushing the anti-abortion thing, gay marriage debate, ect… Less gov means STAYING OUT OF THESE FIGHTS.
So im all for less government and fiscal conservative-ism .
We will need independents big time…
Again, the far right social agenda is another form of big gov telling us how to live…..
I agree whole heartedly !! I am so sick of social issues dominating the conservative landscpe. I know people who cast their votes simply on where a candidate stands on abortion . Social issues are the least of our worries right now ,illegal aliens being the exception. I look at this as more of a security issue than a social one anyway. Wake up people . We have bigger fish to fry than gay marriage for god’s sake. I am throwing my full support behind the most conservative candidate I can find . Social issues be damned. I could care less about any of them at this moment in time. We are fighting for the survival of our country
The far right social agenda?
Excuse me, but what you mean to say is that you support the radical left’s AGENDA, TO TEAR DOWN traditional social norms, like the respect for life and traditional marriage, both of which reflect natural law and natural rights, the basis of our nation’s founding principles.
So, you’re happy with marginalizing, even silencing, the “far right” who wish to CONSERVE America as it was founded so that the Left’s radical agenda to transform America into a secular godless state can proceed apace.
Thank you for clarifying your position.
Didn’t somebody once say that it profit a man nothing if he gain the whole world and lose his soul? Granting a truce on social issues is to lose your soul. Once Libs have turned the next generation into a mob of infantile, thumb-sucking, fad-consumers, there’ll be no more voters to rally to a smaller govt agenda. They won’t care about freedom. Also, remember Bill Clinton and Hillary? This divorce thing of Daniels’ sounds more than weird to me — caveat emptor.
Palin is like General Grant: She fights! That is the source of her effectiveness. She is willing to take a stand, backing candidates, enunciating principles, and leading. If she were a better speaker her path would be clear. Maybe one of these two instead can become a Lincoln.
For those concerned about Mitch’s foreign relationships, he has made multiple successful business acquision trips to Asia and Europe. He brought jobs to Indiana, and developed overseas markets for Indiana products. That is a big part of his job growth program. Dealing well with international businessmen puts you well ahead of those who know the Ambassador.
“Boring candidates have won, but they have always beaten other boring candidate”
Well, William McKinnley crushed William Jennings “Cross of Gold” Bryan twice, and Taft did it once. Woodrow Wilson beat TR (who was admittedly running without party backing). And Ike (who beat Adalai Stevenson twice)never struck me as charismatic — people sort of projected that quality on to him because he was a war hero, but he always seemed to come across as a bit lethargic in his television appearances.
Also, you are making the mistake of assuming Obama will be just as charismatic in ’12 as he was in ’08. Did you see (or hear) his speach on the BP spill? Even Keith Olbermann noticed how passionless he sounded. And even if he somehow manages to raise his blood pressure, I suspect many of the same people who thought him insirational in 2008 will find him shrill and desparate in 2012.
As to McKinley-Bryan … sure, before the existence of television or even radio. If the last time it happened was more than a century ago before the invention of television, I think you can see my point. Charisma does matter.
Adlai Stevenson was just as dull as Eisenhower, maybe duller. He was the Al Gore of his time. And he didn’t have the war hero status as a macho attraction.
I would much prefer to see Palin as Dept of Energy Sec and bring back Bolton as Dept of State, both with charters to clean house in all related departments and divisions. And cut the gravy train at the UN. Move them to Brussels and be done with the lot. There is so much that a determined team could do, if they campaign together.
If the GOP nominates palin, they lose. We do not need an incompetent, not so bright, little dipstick as the most powerful person in the world. Now those benighted, immature souls who look to mama for all good things will resent my statements; but, what if I, too, am a ditzy , dummy ,dinkie doo-doo?
And these other guys? Character? Where do they stand on abortion, sex perversion, spirituality, national defense, immigration, crime, private enterprise? Who are their pals?
The two main things I want to know about a candidate are: 1. Who does he hang out with? and, 2. How are the beliefs he says he holds most dear evinced in his life?
Champ, your neurotic post speaks volumes about you (mostly) and about what the future portends for Ms. Palin.
Good luck on therapy, should you ever choose to seek it.
Until then, the rest of us will continue to seek the winning candidate for 2012.
I rather like Sarah Palin and would hasten to vote for her should she decide to run. I thought she was the single bright spot in the otherwise lack luster McCain/Palin ticket. McCain could have won that race had he been willing to not pull the punches, I think he was too afraid of being called a racist. Guess what,,, they are calling him a racist anyway for endorsing the AZ immigration law. Some days you just can’t win no matter what you do.
White people dont seem to realize whats happening to them. Demographics
are everything. All your talk about American individualism, the debate of
ideas, the history of the United States, Western Civilization are words
that mean nothing to the demographic groups coming to power by sheer numbers.
The future of for all of us is Los Angeles. In my lifetime it went from
economic powerhouse of aerospace engineering, aircraft plants, full employment, and the 7th most
educated population on the planet. To a Third World cesspool of gangs, drugs
25% unemployment and Politicians that pander to them. Once it happens there is no turning back. Try to talk to them about American identity and they
will scream racist. Try to talk to them about immigration control and they will scream racist. Try to talk to them about less Govt programs..etc. Whenever I hear a white person talking about “diversity” and “multiculturalism” the image I receive is a smiling moron putting a gun to
his own head because he has been told its the progressive thing to do.
Ryan must be avoided at all costs. If you want the status quo, and to throw away everything the Tea Party represents, he is Bush all over again, and worse — in my opinion, dishonest as hell. Don’t believe a word he mouths about free markets. For him, it’s whatever gets him elected.
What a “unique” comment.
Please back it up with facts or at a minimum some “examples.”
Otherwise, your trolling will be duly noted and dismissed.
Every time Obama is confronted by someone, like Ryan, who is actually able to articulate a thought and a plan, and has their facts together, Obama appears confused and bewildered,,, as if to say; “How does he do that without a TelePrompter”?
‘Nuff said.
“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin.
More so than in any other election in a long time, it’s the economy stupid. You couldn’t ask for a better team if you want things put right; the question is does America want to move back to a sane economic policy or have we reached the beginning of the end.
It wasn’t Benjamin Franklin. It was Alexander Fraser Tytler. This quote has also been attributed to James Madison.
Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation.”
— Karl Marx
In many ways people have been paraphrasing this idea for many years – and Franklin actually said:
“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
— Benjamin Franklin.
Personally, I am a Newt fan and would not hesitate to knock on doors and give money to his campaign. Trouble is he is a polarizing figure like Palin. I read the Weekly Standard piece about Daniels and was really impressed. Ryan never fails to impress so I think we may be onto something here. Two sane and intelligent figures. We will all be watching
Jon Daniels and Nolan Ryan from the Texas Rangers? Absolutely! They have my vote!
One thing is clear: our next president MUST be someone with executive experience, and must have proved themselves capable of standing up to the leftist steamroller. No “thinkers” needed in the oval office, thank you very much.
That means Daniels or Christie, perhaps Rick Perry; Palin unfortunately too damaged by the successful tarring by the press.
Of course the Republican with the most experience AND charisma shares the unfortunate last name of Presidents 41 and 43. I wish he would run anyway. Jeb is the one who said “There’s no such thing as a big-government conservative”.
The potential candidate who consistently polls best against Obama is Mike Huckabee, who is the only candidate consistently in a statistical tie with Obama. Huckabee clearly knows what he’s doing. People who didn’t support Huckabee in 2008 should really take another look at his positions; he’ll give most conservatives at least 90% of what they want.
No no no to Daniels. He doesn’t just want to stop talking about social issues which would be ok. Daniels wants to compromise with the left on social issues. Compormise with the LEFT. Put those issues off to the side yes compromise with the left no. I would personally prefer a General like Petraeus and Palin as VP. That would be an unbeatable ticket.
Ahem. We have had 44 male presidents and vice presidents in the entire history of the US. We need a woman. Every time I see someone touting another all male presidential ticket I want to throw up. If you think it doesn’t matter, then read this:
“Looking at the television, Mary asked me what was on. I said something to the effect of “These are people who want to be president.” She paused, and, noting Senator Clinton on the screen, said: “But girls can’t be president.”"
http://services.newsweek.com/id/238660
I agree with Jenn. We need a woman on the ticket–it’s time. Republicans have to lead on this, since women are just another interest group for Dems, for whom Dems. seem not to have much interest. Ryan? Yes. He’s a big breath of fresh air and smart and so … real. I was touched by the statement of Mary that “girls can’t be president.” Time to break the cycle.
Ladies, please try to concentrate. You want a woman – any woman – for president because “it’s time”? It’s their turn? For little Mary?
I knew it was a mistake to give women the vote.
I almost posted to ask Jenn and SantaFeK if they were trolls.
Hmmm, want to have a woman president and I am thought a troll? I even touted Governor Palin. She’s got what it takes to lead.
Clearly Palin has executive experience, charisma and she’s tough. If she were a man this article would read “How about a Palin-Ryan GOP Ticket in 2010?”
Sometimes when you’re a guy and all you have ever known is men in the Oval Office it’s tough to give up half the power.
But, it must happen. No girl in America should be saying “Women can’t be president.”
I agree with Jenn and SantaFeK. It isn’t a matter of just “any woman” presuming that there aren’t women who are just as qualified and many more so than the men you are discussing. Our women have just proved they can kick booty in an election – so why not one of them? Palin, Bachmann, Haley, Fiorina, Whitman… and many more. Look what Palin has done for the party in fundraising, motivation, etc. Don’t let the libs make us cut her from the herd just because they ridicule her. Don’t you understand they will do that to ANY leader of our party that springs up? They learned it would work when so many turned on Quayle, then Bush, then Bush, then McCain… It’s a tactic we should ignore!
“I don’t foresee Sarah Palin running. She knows she doesn’t poll particularly well outside the Republican base.”
Neither did Reagan until November, 1980. And I thought one of the reasons for McCain’s nomination was to appeal to independents. That worked out great.
Independents fled from McCain precisely because of Palin. They saw her as a Bible-thumping airhead. And they were right, actually.
The people that believe that Palin is unelectable are the dumbest people in the Republican party. If you believe Palin can’t win than the media has succeeded. She is far better than a 400 pound moderate on social issues or a dopey pseudo wonk with Mitch Daniels. Palin is a dynamic figure that is the only Republican other than Paul Ryan that can win the White House. Don’t buy into the media. I want someone that reflects my views and someone that can win and that person is Sarah Palin. Don’t buy the premise the media is selling. Palin is our best shot. Huckabee is a joke and is trying to get as fat as Chris Christie. The media doesn’t want Palin because they know she can win! She will only get better. Please people don’t let the media play with your head.
Daniels said what I have believed for years. Dems have successfully used the GOP’s supposed “intolerance” on social issues to win over “moderate” voters and then go on to tax and spend like lunatics.
Unfortunately, “social conservatives” apply their fantatic litmus tests to GOP primary candidates, which kneecaps the party again and again.
I do fear that the social cons can deliver the nomination to Palin, who I personally consider to be an uninformed, intellectually-lazy rube. This is quite a reverse for me, as my wife and I donated the max to McCain-Palin the day after he put her on the ticket. I believed what Glenn Beck said about her at the time, but as I saw her on the stump and allowing herself to be humiliated by Katie Couric, I realized she was all sizzle and no steak.
I am tired of the GOP being held hostage by social fanatics. Those are issues to be won or lost in the cultural arena, not at the ballot box. Daniels/Ryan sounds great to me.
I’d vote for Thaddeus McCotter (MI) for VP or POTUS. He knows we need to fight Islamists, understands the immigration crisis, gun rights, he respects the Constitution and votes his conscience. A true patriot.
I like Thaddeus McCotter, too, a lot. Talk about an articulate, intelligent guy, and with a sense of humor to boot. He’s definitely worthy of our notice. Keep an eye on him for sure.
Remember the con that Huck felt sorry for, even though Arkansas DA’s begged him not to pardon him?
Huckabee Cried, Good Cops Died.
never forgive, never forget.
Gov. Huckabee didn’t “feel sorry” for him. He did the man justice- petty theft does not merit a life sentence. Cops died not because Huckabee sentenced the perp to over 40 years, but because everybody else dropped the ball by failing to lock him up on a parole violation as soon as he got arrested again.
Those of you who think Palin can’t debate Obama have not been paying attention. She is the ONLY one who has been confronting Obama on every issue: death panels, energy, immigration,the gulf, etc. etc. And Obama has reversed himself several times because of Palin’s intervention. Who else has done that? NO ONE ELSE. Everyone else has been silent. The woman is a powerhouse! And, no one else attracts the kind of following Palin does. When Romney’s book came out very few people cared. Sarah has people lining up for days hoping to meet her. I know I will be working for her candidacy with all my heart. As much as I admire all the other candidates, I’m only motivated to work for Palin. She has shown a great amount of grit and has taken on the President, the MSM and then some. PALIN 2012,for sure. And, she’ll have her pick for VPs because there’s a lot of talent on our side. This is her moment. She will be the GOP nominee and the first female POTUS.
So that’s what really matters to you: the “…first female POTUS”? Pathetic. I thought identity politics was a Lefty thing. Why not the first Schnauzer POTUS? The first developmentally-challenged POTUS?
Palin appeals to a lot of people because she is so…like they are! A mom, a wife, someone who spouts cliche’s and says simplistic things so charmingly. So what? I would give her a break if I saw any hint that she has attempted to inform herself since 2008, but instead she coasts and winky charm and soundbites like “grizzly mommas”.
Compared to Daniels, she’s a quitter and an airhead.
Why the hostility? There are some very qualified candidates who happen to be women. Women paid close attention in 2008 to how Hillary and Sarah were treated. Many are tired of the Dems counting on their votes and asking them to step aside and remain in a support role when someone in a more favored indentity group comes along. Please tell me the Republicans have a bigger tent than this, that someone with the experience and talent of Liz Cheney, were she to run for office, would find support among the Rs. We independents like her!
Some of the more rabid comments about “Compromise” just go to illustrate the main problem with a lot of “Social conservatives”-namely, that they are just as myopic and narrow in their thinking as liberals. They might matter in the primaries-not so much in the general election, where the vast “Squishy middle” they complain about will be voting with their pocketbooks.
Daniels is one of the few I have seen who has substance. He is not a one-issue wonder, nor a “Hero of the moment”. He looks like a meat-and-potatoes kind of Republican, the kind that would have won in an earlier time. I think most conservatives-the sane ones-would vote for him.
As far as the social conservatives go, many can’t seem to differentiate between “Liberal” and “Libertarian” when it comes to those who dare to question them. You don’t have to be a lefty to believe that the Federal government has no business telling people what to do with their personal lives, what they should watch, read, etc. This is where the “Culture Warriors” on the right lose the battle, IMO. It is not “Selling out” or “Surrendering” to think that libertarians and social conservatives who actually think beyond their own base can get along for the greater good. It’s being realistic.
What about John Bolton?
You read my mind, that was my exact pick Daniels/Ryan.
YES!!!! Where can I get a bumper sticker and yard sign. This would be a winning ticket that could potentially last for 16 years (Ryan moves from VP to POTUS after Daniels). I’m praying that they will answer the call.
YES!!!! Is is too early to print bumper stickers and yard signs?! This is the perfect ticket and could potentially lead to 16 years (Ryan goes from VP to POTUS after Daniels) and then who knows what? I’m praying that Sarah is wise enough to know she would be too divisive and these two fine gentlemen will answer the call.
No Romney, Huck or Newt (they all carry to many negatives). I like Palin but the press would be relentless and she would get smoked…along with all our hopes. That being said I do believe she should/will find a place with a new conservative administration. I don’t know that much about Daniels (yet-still reading) but so far he sounds ok, I also like Chris Christie I’m just not sure he will be ready to leave NJ in 2012. Paul Ryan is at the top of the respect meter and any conservative presidential ticket will have to include Ryan, maybe at the top of the ticket.
Yes, Daniels/Ryan is the dream ticket! Or Daniels/Christie. Or Christie/Ryan. Or any variation of those.
The losers of 2008, including Romney and Palin, have no chance in hell.
If the “conservative base” get their way again and veto any candidate that has any chance on the coasts and with urban and younger voters, Obama will get his second term.
If the 2012 election is another “conservative versus liberal” contest, Obama will get his second term as well. The US electorate:
Socialists, progressives, fake “liberals”: 30%
Liberals, libertarians, “moderates”: 30%
Conservatives: 40%
If the Republican runs on Liberty versus socialism, he will win in a landslide.
I think you may have truly hit on something to bring together “the squishy middle” which I guess is code for more compromise and what Americans will unite on:
LIBERTY VERSUS SOCIALISM
There’s a platform.
And don’t forget Chris Cristie!! He’s my “talk softly and carry a big stick” man!!!
BTW, if you don’t know much about Mitch Daniels, watch the videos here:
mymanmitch.com/mitchtv
Really entertaining!
Paul Ryan is simply unacceptable. It is not just that he looks smarter than he really is. And it is not even that he submitted phony numbers for his Roadmap to the CBO, as judged by Amity Schlaes (Paul Ryan is actively loathed by the real conservative economists, despite the constant PR Paul Ryan’s camp drums up to give you the opposite impression).
It is that he is a despicable big government conservative, all the while he pretends to be about limiting government. His Roadmap is an attempt to shore up the entitlement programs at current levels, not undo them in any way. This is in stark contrast to what Mitch Daniels says should be done. Paul Ryan has also separately proposed several major big government ideas since the financial crisis in a number of areas, and he has racked up a horrible big government voting record, including voting for Medicare Part D.
His continued support of Medicare Part D in itself means that he is unable and unwilling to decimate the entitlement state. Do not make excuses for him. He simply is not there where we need him to be mentally, so he cannot deliver. Promoting major redistribution schemes and then stamping “free market solution” on top of them will throw a wrench into what we are trying to accomplish, and it will not fly anymore. Observe his arguments against Obamacare. They were all about numbers, not the principle of the matter. That is because Paul Ryan has no principles. He has no moral objection to the welfare state. He just wants to cap it at current levels.
This is in addition to his having no executive skills whatsoever. He should not be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. Mitch Daniels has already riled up social conservatives–he cannot afford to alienate free market conservatives by picking up Teddy Roosevelt/Progressives-loving scum like Ryan. Do not let his propaganda machine fool you–Ryan has generated a lot of vitriol among key free market groups behind the scenes. It is early yet, but if makes a bid for the Oval Office, it will come out and may derail any ticket he is on. I would lose all my enthusiasm for a Daniels ticket if a snake oil salesman like Paul Ryan was #2.
The acid test for me is: does he/she have a record of growing government or shrinking it? All RINOs can be identified by that test.
It seems that the Republicans would be wise to dump the old-timers and get the “youngsters” into the line-up. In addition to Daniels and Ryan, there are Michele Bachmann, Mike Pence, and John Thune. But Daniels/Ryan seems like a great combination. Then name John Bolton Secretary of State… and watch the liberal heads explode!
Palin is running and nobody will stop her. To defeat Obama, you will need a CRUSADE.
Only Sarah has the makings of a crusade. She will pick an easterner as her running mate and that will be the Eastern Tiger:
Chris Cristie
Ryan is bright but NOT a leader. He will make a PERFECT Budget Director for the Cuda.
With that configuration, you will WIN, and more important, you WILL cut federal spending.
We need COURAGE people, and a Palin/Christie ticket will provide the fire for the GOP, Tea Party and Indies of the fiscon variety.
Daniels is as exciting as a ceiling fan.
When Sarah throws her Beowulf .50 into the ring, the population of Iowa DOUBLES.
She is the REAL Anti-Obama, and anything short of her courage will not even scratch the growing federal leviathan.
Vote Palin / Save the Republic
I’m a SoCon and FisCon. The SoCon has to be downplayed this election. Not to compromise, nor out of fear, but because to win there, we have to win the discal argument. After we show that conservatism works, then they may finally listen to us on other issues.
Romney: No. Fake. I will vote against any ticket wiht him on it.
Huckabee: No. Conservative until the rubber meets the road.
Daniels: No more withered, white guys. Looks like vampire leftovers.
Christie: No. Let him finish the job.
Pawlenty: No. Pencil-neck and boring, but at least competent.
Jindal: Yes. Another pencil-neck and boring, but extremely competent! He has said he is not interested, but after this oil mess, I think he’ll change his mind. With him out there on the ground all the time, folks are seeing him in a new light.
Palin: Yes. Sensible government. Just basic common-sense. Excellent track record of success. She gets to the heart of things. She now looks as bad as she will ever look again. Her stock rises all the time.
Ryan: Yes. The best of the lot. Only drawback is his youth and size. It is about time to get someone who can simply win the damned debate. It is time to destroy the lies of the Left. They are unmasked. Now remove their false arguments.
He’s not good-looking enough. I was assailed, or critiqued, on another thread for stating that 2010 American was not well-educated. Perhaps that was a wrong turn of phrase. Maybe the phrase I want is ‘focused on superficial matters to the detriment of good, common sense.’ Daniels also looks like he might be short. John McCain was old, had visible cancer that implied bad things, and was also short, partly because of his age.
Sorry, Americans in 2010 have proven themselves extremely susceptible to a good pitch and appearances. That is also part of why Palin is so attractive to many, though she really lacks experience and knowledge. She may have common sense, but she quit as Governor after a few years. We have a lot of people on this Board drumming their fingers to the theme of ‘conservative leadership for responsible, hard-working people.’ A Governor is elected for a full term. Sarah Palin seems to be more interested in fame and money.
So, support Daniels, or Christie, or someone else. But make sure they look good on camera too.
I have no idea what some of you people are smoking but the nominee is going to be Sarah Palin. She is NOT interested in being a running mate to anyone again! And yes, she is definately running. Why else do you think she is arranging a meeting with Mrs. Thatcher? She mopped up the floor with Biden at the 2008 debate and has forced Obama to reply and back down several times. No other Republican has done that as far as I can see. Also, consider this, if our nominee is a white male then Obama will win because most uninformed voters will feel like racists if they deny our first black President another term even if they don’t like him. This is a perception which the media will happily foster. But if it is Sarah, they will vote for her to make history with their vote and voters LOVE to make history and to show their daughters that women can achieve anything. Just remember, the media said the same things about Reagan in the late 70s that they are saying now about Sarah. And he made out OK. And or Dem friends are setting the bar low for her with this she’s stupid attack so Sarah can easily surpass it.
I for one do not let the media decide for me how good a candidate is, that goes for Palin. The media has attacked her and her family relentlessly and some of you are pathetic for not sticking up for her. Sarah has the Conservative ideology that this country needs more then ever. She has taken hard shots from media and hasn’t wavered from her core beliefs.
BTW a Conservative is someone who is socially, financially and military Conservative. Take out one of the pillars then that person is NOT a Conservative. If you wish to be socially liberal then the Libertarian party is for you.
I am a Reagan conservative. Reagan won 49 out of 50 states in his 1984 reelection. Most of us know of Reagan accomplishments. He was an outsider that the party establishment didn’t want. Where are you today? With Reagan or the establishment?
I don’t know what Danial’s is talking but if he is truly asking for a “truce” on social issues” then he’s not the guy. Why? Because every moderate who has rode in on a white horse to save the day has left being dragged by a donkey.
There hasn’t been a moderate in history that has stuck to being fiscally conservative and socially liberal, They tend to “evolve” into a liberal.
Was Rudy a moderate? yes and I would have voted for him for pres(especially over McCain)because he’s not beholden to NY liberal politics and doesn’t preach compromise on social issues. So don’t think we Conservatives are narrow minded.
We don’t need to back off from social issues. There are not the issue of the day however, we can’t lower our guard to them while we fight a front to fiscal responsibility. Daniels shouldn’t eve be talking about this. Why is he making this a issue and throwing us off track?
Yes! Daniels/Ryan in 2010! They are the anti-Obama, common sense, economic conservatives that this country NEEDs right now!
Regan was painted as a dummy before, during, and after his presidency, yet he is the modern standard for the Conservative president. Palin is relentlessly attacked by the left. They are telling us in no uncertain terms who the Republicans need to field. They are shaking in their boots. The first woman President a republican?!?!?
What about Christie?
@Offensive Bias (“BTW a Conservative is someone who is socially, financially and military Conservative. Take out one of the pillars then that person is NOT a Conservative. If you wish to be socially liberal then the Libertarian party is for you. I am a Reagan conservative. Reagan won 49 out of 50 states in his 1984 reelection…”)
So tired of hearing this BS. Reagan was a former Democrat, a divorcee from Hollywood. The current self-appointed “conservative base” would never have accepted him.
The entire idea that the Republican party is the conservative party is BS. The core used to be republicanism, or pro-business capitalism. The GOP only got the southern conservatives when the Dems didn’t want them anymore.
The debate that counts in America at the moment is not about conservative versus liberal, but liberty versus socialism. Or the Constitution versus statism.
Upholding the Constitution and the classic liberal ideas of the Founding Fathers is NOT a priority of conservatives. “Fiscal conservatism” is a recent invention, a conservative concession to pro-business republicans, classic liberals and libertarians.
Conservatives don’t understand the real constitutional issues. They reduce everything to a question of taxes and spending. It’s not about taxes! It’s about the role of the state! It’s about free enterprise! Liberty!
Conservatives don’t even understand the game the socialists – or “liberals” – are playing. That’s why they have been losing ground for the last half century. That’s why they are constantly playing into the socialists hands. Reagan understood because he came from the left.
Daniels gets it. Watch his videos on mymanmitch.com/mitchtv. Christie gets it as well. I have my doubts about Ryan. He does seem like a Washington insider policy wonk, someone willing to make dubious deals.
“So tired of hearing this BS. Reagan was a former Democrat, a divorcee from Hollywood. The current self-appointed “conservative base” would never have accepted him.”
Former Democrat yes and accepted by conservatives…absolutely. What in the world are you talking about? Reagan put Conservatism into the mainstream when the democrat party and the GOP establishment wouldn’t. Reagan became a Republican because the democrat party left him. Why do you think Vladimir Lenin called the American left “useful Idiots”? Don’t so shallow.
“The entire idea that the Republican party is the conservative party is BS. The core used to be republicanism, or pro-business capitalism. The GOP only got the southern conservatives when the Dems didn’t want them anymore.”
The republican party is the party of Lincoln and Reagan which formed as an anti-slavery platform. Who cares who is pro business and who isn’t. That is not the problem here today it’s a soft tyranny that is foreshadowing this nation. The republican party is a political vehicle that can be used by Conservatives to retake the Government. Your comment of southerners is idotic BTW.
“The debate that counts in America at the moment is not about conservative versus liberal, but liberty versus socialism. Or the Constitution versus statism.”
Been reading Mark Levin’s book? I doubt it because he is as conservative as they come, like me. It is liberty vs. Socialism but which philosophy is best to live by to defeat socialism? What did Reagan use to defeat the Soviet Union? Conservatism. Were at the point today because too many mushy moderate politicians wish to get along and compromise with the libs…good job(NOT!)
“Upholding the Constitution and the classic liberal ideas of the Founding Fathers is NOT a priority of conservatives. “Fiscal conservatism” is a recent invention, a conservative concession to pro-business republicans, classic liberals and libertarians.”
Now that is BS! The basis of Conservatism is Constitutional republic. Since when did conservatives wish to have government to operate outside the Constitution?
“Conservatives don’t understand the real constitutional issues. They reduce everything to a question of taxes and spending. It’s not about taxes! It’s about the role of the state! It’s about free enterprise! Liberty!”
You just stated conservatives don’t understand the constitution and you just named one of the biggest conservative positions. Conservatives are pro constitution as they come.
“Conservatives don’t even understand the game the socialists – or “liberals” – are playing. That’s why they have been losing ground for the last half century. That’s why they are constantly playing into the socialists hands. Reagan understood because he came from the left.”
Conservatives don’t understand says who? You? Their the ones who saw the soviets who they were starting with Reagan back in the late 1940′s. Liberals have always been sympathetic to the Soviets and the spread of Communism. Reagan was the only real Conservative to be President and under him, communism expansion did not gain an inch. maybe you should rephrase your statement that Conservatism didn’t lose ground in the the last half of the century but America has. Were the ones that will have to clean up the mess. The GOP establishment is who plays in hands of socialists so don’t get us mixed up.
“Daniels gets it. Watch his videos on mymanmitch.com/mitchtv. Christie gets it as well. I have my doubts about Ryan. He does seem like a Washington insider policy wonk, someone willing to make dubious deals.”
Don’t know if Danials get’s it. I though Bush 43 had it but didn’t. I think Danials is just another party establishment official. He’s liked too much from the them, Palin isn’t liked by the establishment and I like her because of it.
Careful about stabbing conservatives in the back because Reagan was one of us.
From afar, I love Palin as a fire-up-the-troops speaker, but Ronnie Regan she ain’t. Stuff didn’t stick to Regan the way it does to Palin. Not her fault that she has been persecuted beyond belief by the MSM and that she is damaged politically. She just isn’t (yet) Presidential timber.
To be successful, the GOP must present and convince people with intelligent explanations of Conservatism and Constitutionalism that play bigger than show-biz personality politics. The candidates need personalities that are attractive, worth listening to and that are admirable, but have no Hollywood in them. For Regan, being Hollywood worked for him because he had so much more to offer and he was a grown-up. After adolescent Obama, show-biz politics will be poison.
I don’t know much about Daniels or Ryan. From this article it sounds like they are intelligent, grounded adults and should be taken seriously. Are they boring?
Are they boring?
Perhaps, but I think by 2012 Americans may want a more grounded, down to earth, message from individuals who actually have serious “ideas”.
Obama, Biden, Palin, Huck, and many others on both sides do nothing but spew rhetoric. Good for rallying the troops, but not much else.
I see that I can’t spell “Reagan” properly. Apologies.
Truce Daniels ain’t going nowhere except to sink into oblivion. He’s a total non-starter.
Mike Huckabee is the only answer to run in 2012. He has 13 1/2 years of executive experience, he relates to the regular voter, he is pro-life, pro-guns, pro-family, conservative, likeable, excellent communicator, charismatic, excellent debater, won over 49% of black voters when he ran for Gov. of Arkansas the 2nd time.
Mike Huckabee has won 12 out of the last 14 natioal PPP polls for Republican President in 2012. He got the highest scores against Pres. Obama. That means he not only got the Evangelical voters, but also the moderates and Independents to win that number of polls. So for you people who say he can’t win the general election, you haven’t seen all the polls he has won. He also won Rasmussen and Gallup polls. His show, “Huckabee” on Fox News Sat & Sun at 8:00 p.m. EST has shown Independents and Moderates who Mike Huckabee really is. The Democrats think he is the nicest and most respectful Republican. That can mean that if the Dems are disappointed in Pres. Obama for 2012, they will look at Huckabee as an alternative. He displayed his Christian values in 2008 and people know he is a Christian, so in 2012, I don’t think he will be touting those values so much. Yes, he did disagree with Daniels position on a “truce” because he believes that a President needs to be able to handle many, many things at the same time. There was a person on the internet from Sweden who said in the 70′s Sweden took a “truce” from moral issues, and the country has gone downhill in many different ways, and it is disgusting what they are teaching the children in schools. In other words, evil doesn’t stand still, it will get worse, and after the years it would take to clean up the economy, everybody will say, just leave the moral issues alone, we have successfully forgot about them and we are fine. You see how this would go. So, Gov. Daniels is wrong about shelving the social issues. Gov.Huckabee knows that the economy and the fiscal issues are very important and wants to deal with them immediately, but doesn’t want to make a “truce” on social issues. Mike Huckabee also has the lowest unfavorable ratings of all the top 5 Republian candidates so far.
I live in IN and I like Gov.Daniels a lot. His position in the Bush Admin as Budget Director will kill his chances in the general election against Pres. Obama. As all of you have seen, the Dems STILL blame Bush for everything and if we give a Republican candidate who worked for Bush as Budget Director, Pres. Obama and all the Dems will crucify him with Bush, Bush,Bush.
Mike Huckabee/Ryan would be the best ticket to win against Obama. People love how Mike Huckabee clearly explains serious issues so everybody can understand them.
Yeah, Huckabee/Ryan sounds good. Palin can be the next GOP chair; she fits that role really well because it’s mostly fundraising. Ron Paul can be Treasury Secretary. If McCain is reelected, Huckabee can appoint him as Secretary of Defense or Secretary of the Navy to get him out of the Senate and replaced with a real conservative. Christie and Jindal need to serve two terms as Governors, then they can hash things out in 2020.
The system for nominating candidates stinks. Farmers and evangelicals should not be determining our presidential candidates. They screwed Rudy who was beating Obama and Hillary in the polls. We ended up with a loser. The system needs changing.
I hope Rudy runs again–with Palin as his running-mate. I’m wary of Daniels. He did well for Indiana–but he seemed to waffle when asked about the constitutionality of Obamacare. I want somebody like Rudy who knows the law inside and out, who knows what he thinks, who did for NYC what Christie is doing for NJ. I’m tired of the gentlemanly types–the Pawlentys, the Romneys, the two Bushes and the Doles. This is a time for real warriors–for Rudy and Sarah–not for good guys who finish last. We need to remember we’re in a cold civil war. This is no time to pull our punches.
Chris Christie / Paul Ryan 2012
Ah Daniels, nice guy, will he live down his first three years as Bush OMB director, or raising taxes, for his first year as Governor, Will he hold the line on taxes, secure our military, defend the border, will he produce enough economic growth to pay for this obscene level of debt, Will he hold out under pressure, when they throw everything including blatant lies, or will he cave
Amazing how so many from the right have been co opted into sub consciously believing the Palin can’t win mantra of the leftist msm and the progressive political machine.
What are you going to believe , what the media tells you or your own lying eyes?
Just goes to prove that their non stop indoctrination campaign does produce results for them..
Think back 2 years, how far from the truth were they were during the 2008 anointing..
and you want to give them an ounce of credibility today?
Never vote a legislator to an executive position. Executives execute, legislators cave……
My biggest fear is that the fascist liberals and MSM will attack Mitch Daniels in the same manner as they attacked Sarah Palin in 2008.
From the The Weekly Standard article “Ride Along with Mitch,” by Andrew Ferguson:
When the oppo researchers and the national press do get around to opening up Daniels’s life for inspection, they will find a few embarrassments. One is his arrest in 1970 for marijuana possession when he was a student at Princeton. He spent two nights in jail and paid a $350 fine, and later wrote about the bust in a column for the Star in 1989. More painfully, he and his wife Cheri divorced in 1994. She moved to California, leaving Daniels with the four daughters, aged 8 to 14, and married a doctor. She divorced again and moved back to Indiana. She and Mitch remarried in 1997.
Cheri (Daniels’ wife) has never spoken about this publicly, and from what I can tell it’s been mentioned in print only twice. Daniels’s only comment was to the Indianapolis Star in 2004: “If you like happy endings, you’ll love our story.”
I really can’t understand why any conservative would want to subject themselves or their families to the hyenas of the MSM enough to run for public office.
Reading all these posts has been an education in itself! And it’s as close to a true representation of the tension & struggle between the so-called liberal (Establsihment) and conservative (Social Conservative) wings of the GOP – BTW, nothing new since I’ve been alive! And that goes back to Dewey!!
There were many “conservative” Conservatives who supported Rudy Giuliani because of his leadership skills and no-nonsense approach to foreign policy in general and anti-Islam policies in particular. The subject of abortion, for example, was only an issue with a VERY narrow group of people within this wing of the Party.
Right now, Palin is head & shoulders above everyone else in the GOP pack that is even being considered for the 2012 ticket. But guess what? This group of Monday AM quarterbacks will NOT be doing most of the voting in the GOP primaries in 2012!! Palin – and her campaign – will be tested in many states throughout the country over a period of approx. 6 months before the GOP Convention in 2012. And who knows how things will fall out by then? BTW, if Christie wants to even be alive and (literally) running for ANYthing in 2012, he’d better shed at least 50-75 pounds! Nothing will kill it for him more than someone who is (literally) out of breath & sweating! And if Huck doesn’t knock off the eating binges, he, too, will undo all that fantastic work he did for his health & his appearance in the early years of this decade.
Like tens – maybe 100s – of thousands of other pro-choice women, we still strongly support Palin, because we know that her pro-life stance represents only her own very passionate position – not a major call to arms! National security, military preparedness, fiscal responsibility and devotion to the Constitution are what drives her – and rallies the troops (her fans) to her cause. And, BTW, she has been working, on an ongoing basis, with a cadre of policy experts & advisors on all the major issues of the day – and has started to truly formulate and propound her own position as she comments on Fox News and/or on the speakers’ circuit. That one-hour disaster with Katie “Gotcha!” Couric was extrapolated from 6 hours of interview time into the carefully crafted take-down we all saw (ad infinitum) as the final result. Palin wasn’t ready – and she admitted same. But if she had a one-hour/no-edit sit-down with Couric today, you can bet dollars to donuts that the results – and the resulting impression – would be 180 different!
Finally, a couple quick observations: I will vote for the GOP candidate no matter who we stick up there to get smacked down by the masses (and the conniving Dems), but I will NOT work for anyone but Palin and I wil NOT contribute dime one to anyone but Palin. That, in a nutshell, probably expresses the gut feelings of most of her more ardent fans & supporters. And if the RINO/Establishment types in our Party were honest, they would fall all over themselves to support her IF the LSM had good things to say about her. As it is, they are fair-weather friends, indeed – and we don’t need them to forward our Conservative agenda. News Flash: The country WILL survive another 4 years of Obama – it’s just that he will be the lamest of all lame ducks ever in the history of the USA, and the GOP will ride into the WH in 2016 with even a squishy RINO, unfortunately…
Finally, I think most of the posters on this site must be acolytes of Bill Kristol & The Weekly Standard – they’re all little parrots repeating the latest WS mantra, this time starring Mitch Daniels & Paul Ryan. Check in in a couple months to see who the NEXT big headliner will be…
While I like Sarah Palin, you Palinbots are deluding yourselves.
In a May 2010 Rasmussen poll, only 41% of Alaska voters would vote for Palin for President, as opposed to 48% who wouldn’t.
ALASKA VOTERS.
Any presidential candidate who can’t win their own home state is dead in the water…just ask the Goracle.
Alaskans are just sore at Sarah for resigning to step up nationally.
Sarah will CRUSH Obama in Alaska in 2012. CRUSH HIM! Think 15+%.
Remember, the GOP candidate is not running against everyone. They only have to defeat Obama, a tough feat but doable.
Sarah can and will once she wins the primary and the GOP, TPM and Indies unite against Obama and the Statists.
The media will not be able to ambush Palin as easy because more people are on to them, and learning that Sarah is not the knuckledragging Bob Jones they painted her to be.
The economy is showing signs of a possible second dip in GDP, and unemployment is NOT going down any time soon.
First woman
True Common-Sense Constitutional Conservative
Obama’s terrible record
People’s awareness of how the LSM protects Obama
The GOP united with a candidate that we KNOW has the GUTS to reduce federal spending.
Ohh my that is biggest straw man I have ever read Myth.
On the same token all those guys (or most) could very well be welfare babies costing us 35Trillion. To assume that they all would be productive at upper middle class (at least) levels, creating wealth is pushing things a bit (to put it mildly).
You may want to go back and try to frame an argument without using straw man like you did (and it was an amazing one too) doesn’t do any good towards your credibility nor your cause.
The only viable argument that you have is moral one. It maybe a good one, depending on your morals, but that’s it. Stay with that, just don’t use federal government to enforce it.
No, there’s too many of them to write them off as all being leeches. You have to use a representative sample of the survivors. Even if you assumed that the average abortion victim would’ve spent twice as much time in jail as the average American, three times as much time unemployed, and would not go to college, the child would still be a net contributor to society. The only straw man here is the one you set up because you don’t understand statistics.
Now you are using a tool of the left..”If disagree, insult”.
I understand statistics very well, which is why I called you on it. There is no way at all that your statistics add up. You are assuming that there will be a gain in terms of economics, which is a fallacy. You are making an assumption that X number of people = Y gain. that is at best a made up number. Put it another way, are inner cities next gains to our economy or net losses? They do have a lot of people, therefore by your logic, they should bring net gain, somehow I doubt that.
Secondly by your logic, that means that if (for sake of assumption) Universal Healthcare is good in terms of dollars and cents … then government should implement it. Something which I would disagree with. Even assuming numbers add up, we need to stand for SMALLER government and not larger one that controls our lives.
Anyway, the reason I am calling your argument a straw man is because you build it upon assumption that are at the very least guesses and then proceed to use that as a foundation for why we should do something. It is a logical fallacy.
Great responses.
On Christie: He’s not running for national office in ’12. To do so would require him to start to organizing a campaign now, which means he’d be governor for just 25% of his first-term — and then run for president? Not happening. Sign me up for ’16 or ’20, though. He’s in his late-40s. He’ll be around for a while.
On Palin: She’d probably be a very good president, but it’s a logical fallacy to assume she is Reagan incarnate. Perhaps she isn’t? Why must she be Reagan? Many conservatives have crafted this image of her; we’re projecting onto her what we want, which is what the liberals did with Obama. Let’s take it as we see it. She’s a smart and accomplished executive, despite what the MSM tries to say. But she doesn’t poll particularly well today. That’s not to say she won’t in ’16 or ’20. Does she have Reagan’s common sense? His star quality? Yes and yes. But remember, Reagan thought and spoke about communism for 40 years. He was around for a while before he won the presidency. Like Christie, Palin’s also young. There’s no indication and no reason she’d risk all of that so early in 2012, when other candidates are just as qualified and poll much better against Obama.
On ’12: There’s a whole host of candidates who would be better than Obama. Someone mentioned Giuliani. Someone else mentioned Bolton and VDH. Yes, yes, and yes. There are a lot of citizens who would make great public servants. We could name even more. Does anyone deny that Giuliani would be handling this BP oil spill better than Obama?
Like Palin and Christie, I don’t foresee Giuliani running. I think it’ll come down to Romney’s record of competence vs. his health care record, Gingrich’s debating skills and eccentric poli-intellectualism, and then a third dark horse. I think the country would be better off if that dark horse was Mitch Daniels. He’s very accomplished, competent, and conservative; his ‘truce’ comment was misconstrued entirely. Besides, the future of the conservative movement should, in fact, fight social issues at a local level. It’d lead to greater success locally, as well as nationally. It’s what the Founders envisioned.
The author puts forth a compelling case as to why Palin may not run in 2012.
Some of these comments are hilarious, and I have to wonder if these folks watched the debates for the last election when they write stuff like! “Palin in 2012 or civil war!” and “Palin is the female Reagan”
I must start by saying I am NOT Palin’s biggest fan. I like her, and she may have a future, if she manages to polish up a bit. I do not like her manner of speech nor do I like her focus on social agenda.
However to be fair to her, the debates aren’t a great record of her skills. First she was a VP where she was allowed only to say what she was told to say, and coached that way. Secondly she was forced into spotlight without any prior experience of doing so. Given that, she did fairly well against Bidon, who may be a buffoon, but who has been a politician for a darn long time, and who had huge amount of experience in these kinds of events.
I do have to say, that I am looking for another Reagan, but can’t find one. I am not excited about the current crop of Republican front runners for President. Don’t take me wrong I will vote and drag as many people as I can for them into booths, but that’s mostly because the Massiah is just THAT bad.
Palin doesn’t stand a chance. We all made fun of Obama for not having enough experience, and we were right, look at his inept handling of the oil spill. Governors know how to handle these crisis. Mike Huckabee was Gov. of Arkansas during Katrina. He immediately told his staff to cut all the red tape (they would deal with it later)and help the people of Louisiana to come to Arkanas and be supplied immediately with shelter, food and help. He took leadership immediately to help during that crisis. That’s the kind of leader we want as President…somebody with 13 1/2 yrs. of executive experience. If Palin would win the Republican nomination, the American people, who have seen what inexperience can do, will not vote for her. She quit her job as Gov. after two years. In 2012, Obama will have lots more experience and nobody with as little as Pain would have a chance against him.
Fighting the social issues at the Presidential level would involve getting us out of paying for abortions overseas and here in our healthcare program. Mike Huckabee knows how to handle many problems at the same time and knows the importance of handling the economic and fiscal issues immeidately. That doesn’t mean we need to put the social issues on a shelf. We need a Republican candidate who will be for both the fiscal and social issues. We don’t need a person who is only for the fiscal because the Christians will not support him or her. As far as Guiliani, he might be a good VP, but the Christians will not support a pro-abortion candidate. Pro-life is in the platform of the Republicans, so we need a person who will represent all the platform, not just the fiscal parts.
Mike Huckabee/Ryan would fit that qualification perfectly. Go Huckabee in 2012!
as a fiscal conservative Democrat-now-Independent, reading these comments is instructive.
anyway, Mitch Daniels will not survive the questions of his Syrian ancestry, even though I am sure it is Christian Syria ancestry. He will not survive championing the Iraq invasion while working for Bush43. Too bad, because he really has been a terrific governor.
If the GOP continues the social issue litmus tests, I guess I have to hope that a third-party independent ticket emerges (although I doubt the Democrats will nominate Obama again), because half the electorate are independents, and it does seem too soon for Chris Christie to run, although anyone who takes on the public sector unions deserves a standing ovation.
I guess Senator Bob Corker, who has executive and business experience, and is the only GOP Senator who makes sense, is a non-starter. The GOP rejected Chuck Hagel.
What America needs is a combination of Calvin Coolidge and Dwight Eisenhower, with Reagan’s personality. Neither of whom would get past the starting line with today’s GOP.
Jobs, debt, and chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention what might happen with Iran – those will be the main issues in 2012.
I am a typical Conservative. If I saw a Calvin Coolidge out there, I would vote for him in a second. He’s my favorite President!
I will not vote for a Senator. As much as I really like Jon Kyl, I wouldn’t vote for him. It must be someone with executive experience, period!
As for social issues, why do you consider them so unimportant? Isn’t the decline of our values a great contributor to the problems we face? Boys never seem to grow up to be men, for just one example.
Combo of Coolidge, Ike, and Reagan? Coolidge truly shrank the government. Ike was a fine administrator. Reagan had star quality. Which one of those descriptions does not fit Sarah Palin?
And for all the rest of you parroting the MSM line about Palin quitting? How dumb is that, buying Dem propaganda? Resigning was the right thing to do for her State and her family. She went onto the national stage. Time to time, now, she takes a good hard whack at Obama and Co. She endorses candidates, and generally they win. She is playing Kingmaker, something she can’t do being Governor in AK. It was a shrewd move. Very shrewd. Look how well it is turning out. AK is on good hands, and she is out just whuppin’ on the Dems. They only wish they had not run her out of town.
Marc, about your comment regarding social issues. There’s a book out called “Men to Boys: The Making of Modern Immaturity,” by Gary Cross. I haven’t had the chance to pick it up yet, but I’ve heard good things. It addresses your point.
Marc: I have nothing against Sarah Palin, but she is too polarizing for a presidential run due to the hangover from the media smears. My personal view is that a woman has to first serve as SecDefense before this country can envision a woman as CinC.
As to ‘social issues’, if you are talking about American values of patriotism instead of multi-culturalism, and a moral compass instead of moral equivalence, I agree. But the focus on abortion violates the separation of church and state that is one of America’s true blessings (not to mention the implications for public health because women will choose no matter if it is safe or legal – history teaches that)
And, maybe all the ‘gay rights’ activists need to be locked in a big tent with all the ‘creationist’ activists for the next ten years. Then we can see if evolution is real
If America re-industrialized to provide decent jobs, more Americans would be able to choose how they live their lives and focus on how they raise their children.
Calvin Coolidge would never get past the Iowa primary today. He was definitely not a social conservative. His greatness was in being the last president to honor the Constitution, communicating to everyone what it meant to be an un-hyphenated American, and setting a fine example of fairness and integrity while embracing the benefits of modernity. The official portrait of Grace Coolidge speaks volumes.
The abortion issue is not just a moral issue. Our constitution says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The babies have the right to life…they are human beings, just look at the pictures of their growth patterns. Americans, particularly, women are wanting their rights, but what about the babies right to live with freedom in this country. There are thousands of people who want to adopt babies, but there aren’t enough, so they go to other countries and pay a fortune to adopt a baby. If anybody can show me that every single fetus was not born a “human being”, I will concede the argument that fetus’ are not human beings until they are born. That is the most assinine statement there is!!!
Every one of you who say you are tired of social issues dominating the landscape are parroting the Media line. You have to stop letting them sell you this nonsense.
Tell me, what is so wrong with insisting that marriage REMAIN the province of straights. SoCons are not trying to change the status quo. They are defending it. Abortion was illegal in EVERY State, until the SCOTUS hijacked the Constitution. Prayer was always allowed in school, before the government took it over. Now the government has it, God is not allowed? Really? Where does government intrusion stop squeezing out religion as a legitimate part of our society?
The other guys are the revolutionaries. Conservatives are merely defending traditional America. You got a problem with that? Really? If the Left would stop the attacks on our fundamentals, there would be no issue. The SoCons aren’t the problem!
And then the rest of you “worried about how the Press will go after Palin”, I ask you, “Compared to what?” Quit granting power to the MSM that they no longer have. If you accede to their pressure, they will continue to define our choices for us. The Leftists control the media, so they will continue to control our choices as long as you let them. Choosing Palin is a rejection of the MSM. It is time to stop being afraid of them. That fear is why Pubbies stop being Conservative once they get to DC, because they start dancing to the MSM tune. It is time to ignore what the Press says. It is an obsolete paradigm.
There are few reason why social issues are not what we should be focusing on. Not the least of which is the 10th amendment, which I think should be dusted off, and planted right up there with the first one. Social issues are providence of state and local governments (at best) but NOT federal government. Marriage is not a business of a Federal Government, neither are Drugs, Abortion, etc… Roe vs Wade should be overturned, but ONLY because it is an example of a judicial activism and not because it deals with Abortion.
Prostitution is a wonderful example of how this should be done. Prostitution is legal in America on a Federal level, however most States declared it illegal. Fine by me, I don’t see how making it illegal is helpful, but if the people of the state feel like making it illegal is helping… it’s their right.
Second reason is simple, it puts off good portion of Independence from us and we can’t win without them. So you must ask yourself what is most important.. Beating Berry, Nancy, etc… or standing on your high moral ground and have them run this country?
Third reason is simple, we suppose to be a party of constitution, small government, liberty, and personal responsibility. How is that compatible with forcing Federal government to mandate moral issues?
What I am arguing about is that there is nothing wrong with being socially conservative, just don’t try to use Federal government as a means towards that end. If you feel that government should be involved, well Republicans also run in local and state elections… Focus on that.
I am personally very socially Conservative, I do not understand drugs, I never would even think of using a prostitute, I believe in Family, I despise abortion. Although I don’t have a personal problem with Gays (i.e. what’s in your bedroom is your problem), I also do not think they should be allowed to marry (i.e. a contract provided by a state). All that said, those are my morals, and my believes. Damn me if I ever will try to force others into them. I refuse to be a hypocrite.
DONT YOU DARE THINK OF TAKING CHRIS CHRISTIE OUT OF NEW JERSEY. WE NEED HIM FOR A LONG LONG TIME.
ok someday we will let him go but not now or in foreseeable future. New Jersey is in such dire mess and he has surprised many by his actions and comments. WE will gladly give him up after he does his two term here.
Obama will be re-elected very easily in 2012. Why? Because of the kind of dumb comments I am seeing on this blog post. Sarah Palin? Are you kidding me? To anyone who is not an ideological buffoon, it is obvious that Palin is dumber than a bag of bricks and has zero class. The woman comes out against every single thing Obama does, which makes her look like a lunatic. I don’t care how much you are against a President – There have to be a few things you can agree with them on. Gingrich, Romney and all the other candidates have at least given Obama kudos on one thing or another. How are we supposed to believe this woman will be an effective leader in a system where you ABSOLUTELY have to work with the other side? She is nothing more than a female Rush Limbaugh these days. Better stick to Daniels, Huntsman or Romney.