Let me relate one episode I personally witnessed when Daniels spoke. Some months ago, when his book was published, Daniels appeared as a guest on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I happened to be in the audience for the taping that day, and Stewart — whose entire program is half an hour — interviewed Daniels for more than one hour. The segment did not air, and was posted instead on the program’s website. I was greatly impressed by the calm manner in which Daniels spoke to and explained his conservative views to Stewart, who, as we all know, is a bona fide left-liberal in his personal views.
After the taping, Stewart did something I think is rather unusual. He came back out to the audience, and said something like : “Isn’t Mitch Daniels the real thing? Isn’t he terrific? Why can’t other Republicans be like him?” He also speculated on how different it might be if Daniels entered the race himself, and noted that one outspoken audience member (not me) made her voice known before the taping about how she wanted him to run, and how she supported him strongly. Stewart even mentioned that to Daniels during the taping, and he did so again in his post-show remarks.
If the liberal Jon Stewart can be impressed by Mitch Daniels, even though he disagrees with his prescriptions, and can listen to him and judge his arguments without rancor, that says something to me about Daniels’ wide appeal. He too has made money in his life, but he does not come off as the stereotype of the rich capitalist in a top hat that the Obama team will use to beat Mitt Romney over the head if he wins the nomination.
That is not Romney’s fault. He is a good man, and in the absence of another candidate, I am strongly backing him. But he makes the kind of comments (the $10,000 bet and $400,000 a year in speaker’s fees is not much) that enables his opponents to easily paint him as an out-of-touch elitist who is far removed from the common man and his concerns.
In the meantime, if Gingrich does win the nomination, the bloodletting between Newt and Mitt through the primary season will weaken his candidacy, and the Republican Party will make Gingrich the equivalent of the Democratic Party’s candidacy of George McGovern in 1972.
So I support those who hope for a brokered convention, at which time neither Mitt nor Newt will have enough votes to win on a first ballot, and the Republican Party can turn to someone else with a real chance to win against Barack Obama. At this point, I think, that candidate is Mitch Daniels.
See video of Mitch Daniels’ rebuttal here.
UPDATE: 11:25 am East Coast Time
In Today’s Weekly Standard blog, Jay Cost makes a further case for Mitch Daniels entering the race:
Somebody else – somebody with the ability to make the case for reform in a sober and courageous manner – should jump into this race. And not just to keep Obama from a second term. If 2012 is a decisive election – then we need a candidate with the courage and rectitude to make the choice clear to the voters, so that once in office he has the mandate to fix this mess.
Daniels could be that candidate. While he could not win an outright majority of delegates because of the passing of too many filing deadlines, he could do what Bobby Kennedy attempted in 1968: get in late, do well in the latter contests, win some big states, and make the case that, early primaries aside, he is the true choice of the party, the one who could unify everybody around a common cause. If nobody has won a majority of delegates by June, that could very well be enough for a dark horse victory for Daniels.
Let’s hope he’s open to the idea.
I’m with you, Ron.
I’m hoping Mrs. Daniels will give her permission to let Mitch run, and I hope she allows him to get out on the campaign trail too.
We need something to keep the ruling class occupied while Newt wins the nomination.
So good ol’ Mitch, who’s responsible for appointing those judges that spit on the 4th Amendment in Indiana, is fit to be President? Hell no!
On the merits, I agree with this piece. Yet the cold, hard reality is that it would be nearly impossible for Daniels to compete with Obama on television, for entirely superficial yet obvious reasons. In a perfect world it wouldn’t matter what someone looks like. The world isn’t perfect.
The SNL parodies write themselves, and we shouldn’t forget a presidential election now is as much a cultural event as it is a political contest.
if you like him Mr. Radish, i’m sure he’s a RINO… no thanks
Mitch Daniels appointed the current Indiana Supreme Court Chief Justice. When that Chief Justice and two Democratic appointed justices made their decision on the illegal search issue it became incumbant that Daniels lead the impeachment of these three justices. That he AND the legislature did nothing speaks volumes about how Indiana politicians of either party tend to treat the Constitution. No, it is best to leave Daniels wander the cornfields of Indiana than to promote him to any other political position. No more RINOs.
That’s right…”former” commie Ron Radosh will never feel comfortable with a genuinely conservative candidate or with the voters who are indeed capable of electing one as President.
He considers Mitt Romney is a weak candidate who might not get the GOP nomination, so he wants to hedge his bets with Mitch “Milquetoast” Daniels.
Despicable.
No.
How’s that for succinct?
He can’t be vetted in time. And he had his shot. His wife balked. What we do not need in yhe White House is another weenie who caves to his wife. Who incidentally left him for another man and then came back.
Next bad idea, Ron?
“weenie who caves to his wife”? Ahem. I respect him for respecting his wife’s privacy. I think it’s nice that they got back together.
If Mitch’s wife balked, it’s highly likely she is aware of something that she really does not want out in public that would kill his chances of winning the election. Certainly the leaving and coming back is not good. What else might be hiding in the background waiting to be found. You know David Axelrod will find something or if necessary they will manufacture it like they did to Cain. It’s a pity Cain didn’t handle it better. I didn’t care if it was true or not, what I cared about was how poorly he handled it. Daniels or his wife may have something as bad or worse. Only way to find out is to get him the nomination. Frankly I don’t want to find out.
My guess is that Daniels had sound reasons not to run…probably some issues of a personal nature that wouldn’t look good in public (remember Herman Cain?).
But I agree…I’d love to see him as the next President.
Mitch love the ladies. What is surprising is they love him!
“The real conservative alternative?” That’s funny! During Daniels’ 29 months at the Office of Management and Budget, the projected federal budget surplus of $236 billion declined to a $400 billion deficit. This is your budget cutting conservative? Why does he get a pass on this from you people? Are you that desperate?
I really don’t think you quite understand what a Budget Director does. They
crunch the numbers – THEY DON’T MAKE THE BUDGET DECISIONS! George W. Bush
and his cohorts in Congress were responsible for their deficits, not Daniels
(though it should be noted Bush actually inherited a substantial deficit – the
budget that ended in deficit at the end of fiscal 2001 was authored and signed
into law by Clinton).
Daniels was so unimpressed by Bush’s performance, he quit and ran for Governor
of Indiana. During his tenure he has turned a substantial state budget deficit
into an impressive budget surplus, which is even more impressive when you
consider the economic climate. He also neutered the State Public Employee
Unions his first week in office.
I’m a pretty cynical guy myself. I usually end up hugely disappointed in
the officeholders I support. Daniels is actually one of the few I’m truly
happy I voted for.
Hey! Let’s have a bona-fide political coward who didn’t run because his wife won’t let him enter the race!
Great idea!
Daniels decision not to run has nothing to do with political cowardice. Any
person who wants to run for President HAS to have the support of their family.
If Daniels were to win the Presidency he and his wife would live in a
fishbowl the rest of their lives – Secret Service Agents would be following
them forever. That is not a life everyone wants. Putting a spouse who adamantly
opposes a Presidential run, thru that, would be almost impossible.
Besides, Mrs. Daniels has already proven she will leave if she is not happy.
Mrs Daniels’ past would make her a front page story for weeks. The woman whose marriage she wrecked has spoken out freely and would do so again. Mitch really cannot run if he wishes to keep his marriage from harm.
Of course, you are 1000% correct, Ron.
Which now will put you in the “I hate you” category of nearly every thinking person who analyzes these things for a living.
Mitch’s wife has a very serious public relations assault coming her way, from the propaganda machine and, as you can tell already…from some of the pathological Newtonians…and possibly the insane paulbots…who are more alike than not, sadly.
The easily confused see Romney and Daniels as “one thing”. Nothing could be more inaccurate.
Daniels has the best resume’, second place is not within view. He laps the field in public/private combination of skills and experience. His time at the Office of Management and Budget and in Indiana’s deficit hole…are precisely what is needed.
As the Daily Show and the response to the SOTU show, he can articulate ideas and sell them. He doesn’t have crackpot binges, doesn’t throw grenades at success in the free market, and takes the fight to Obama in a devastating, quiet elegance.
But…his wife would be savaged. Any man that is protective of his family should not be derided except by the foaming pathological losers that seem to spout off like braying jackasses, loudly and for no reason.
That he doesn’t wish to abandon his wife…even if had three chances to do so…should be a sign of integrity.
But, yes…if the entire country hangs in the balance, that decision should be revisited. For him. For Paul Ryan.
If we leave this election to the current crop of “B” teamers, we not only risk where Obama will take us, we risk decades of a Supreme Court in his image, shredding the Constitution and having us follow in the European slipstream to small c communist hell.
Welcome to the club, Ron. All the best thinkers seem to be thrown out of the tent with you.
I’m slow. Why would his wife be “savaged”? Aside from the Marxist Media savaging anyone without a D after their name, what skeletons does she have hiding?
She left Mitch for another man and busted up that marriage. She later returned, and that lady speaks freely about her understandable bitterness.
Just what we need.
Another uninspiring establishment pseudo conservative.
Could you inform us what was pseudo-conservative about Daniels performance
as Indiana Governor? And please be specific.
At this point, given the number of ballot deadlines already past and the issue of name recognition, only Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin are capable of entering the race and having a chance to win. Anybody else is a spoiler.
Except that Mitch Daniels could afford to be objective and even-tempered as he is not running for office and not seeking the nomination. However excellent was his speech (and it was), he was not attempting to gain immediate personal support. As for Newt, he is tough, exceedingly intelligent, well spoken and informed. Of course he is flawed but the Republican “disease”, including the writer of this article, is to seek perfection. Won’t happen and doesn’t need to happen.
I heard that response last night too, I heard Mitch say the economic collapse was not Obama’s fault. What does he think Obama was doing in Chicago working to pressure banks to accept more sub-prime loans? This guy is going to take it to him? He is not even near the front lines and he is appeasing! What is going on at the RNC? Has someone put out a casting call for an actor to play General Petain? Tell us the truth Ron, have you ever been on a National Review cruise?
You better get down in the street a little more, the folks that will be running the Republican party before too long don’t wear designer suits and speak in modulated tones, they are angry and virile. Ron, you can hold your nose to vote, I did, you’ll get used to it.
Naw. Daniels took himself out of the running. He’s done. Same with Palin. To me, a much better alternative would be Scott Walker.
We already have a RINO from Massachusetts in this race.
Er, Scott Walker is the Governor of Wisconsin. Scott Brown is the junior Senator from Massachusetts.
And, as much as I hate to say it, all of these discussions are probably moot. Seems to me that chances are about 97% that the GOP nominee will either be Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich.
Why not 100%? Because, if it appears that Gingrich picks up enough momentum to become the nominee, I do think there will be an effort on behalf of the Republican establishment to prevent that from happening….and, whether or not such an effort would be successful, they won’t be able to just anoint Romney if voters have rejected him.
But my guess is that, should this remote possibility actually come to pass, the fallback candidate will be Jeb Bush, not Mitch Daniels (although I’d much prefer Daniels — he’s the real deal…and I’ve never figured out why so many conservatives fail to see that).
Jeb Bush will stay out of it. He knows the the Bush brand is out of favor. And frankly I’d rather not see another Bush in the White House for at least 20 years. I hate this family dynasty crap. That said, I’m still convinced that this is Romney’s race to lose. I think he will win the nomination and the general. Obama is trapped in a well he fell into while trying to see his reflection.
Even Rasmussen has Obama ahead of both Romney and Gingrich. What do you base your prediction that Obama will lose on? Romney loses because the base won’t come out for him. They don’t like him. Gingrich will get the base excited but independents and especially women (who are always key to winning) are turned off by him. I don’t even think it will be close as many have said. Obama will have the election wrapped up by August.
The voters have not rejected Romney… the voters want him very badly.
You fakers and hypocrites don’t want Romney… but WE THE PEOPLE do.
OK, that’s one…
Hmm. I guess then it is a matter of whether your “we the people” are a larger number of voters than my “we the people” who don’t want him. Your “we the people” are probably the ones who got us McCain last time. I see Romney as McCain version 2.0. Oh sure, he’s prettier and richer but his politics stink, his house is built on the sand and not on the rock.
Oops.
I’ve got a hair trigger keyboard sometimes…
Thanks for the correction.
Since “true” Republicans turned out to be complete hypocrites who want a corrupt government…
Call me a RINO all you want.
I want no part of a hypocrite party who would choose corruption over substance and good government by a complete Washington outsider like Mitt Romney.
Please don’t call me a hypocrite Republican… I won’t be a Republican in name or anything else if that hypcrite Newt Gingrich is the choice… believe me.
And another thing if the bigots can’t vote for a Mormon… then Obama is fine with me. The bigots deserve Obama.
I won’t vote for Gingrich, he is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination and Obama is a better human being.
Either way a true conservative doesn’t need the government’s permission to be a conservative… I’ll be just fine.
“Obama is a better human being”
Shauna, if you’re so upset about Gingrich’s treatment of his wives, how is it that that you are NOT upset when Obama serves up the same sort of treatment (to put it mildly ) to this country and the entire world?
Oh Shauna, no one ever believed you were a Republican in the first place.
She’s Mormon, but probably male.
What does his Mormonism have to do with ANYTHING? Newt is a converted Catholic and has been straight arrow since then. Are you bigoted against Catholics? Must be, can’t think of any other reason not to vote for him and call him names like you have. That’s a very liberal thing to do, calling someone names and accusing them when you have no substantive arguments.
Good lord.
The speech was a yawner. He’s got no pep, pop or pizzaz to counter Obama’s shiny facade.
More importantly: I had a very interesting discussion with several politically astute women I know. They think female voters would oppose Daniels.
As most know, his wife had a whirlwind affair, left him, married a guy in California and then came back to him.
The ladies I know say this will turn off women voters. The mindset seems to be that 60% of women are unhappy in their marriages, many would like to leave and get swept away by a prince charming situation, and Mitch Daniels and his wife will be an inconvenient reminder of reality.
No matter what their take on the affair, it does not bode well for Mitch:
They may “merely” regard his wife as faithless, in which case Daniels is tarnished in the eyes of women for making that poor choice AND by taking her back.
Or, maybe they will conclude Daniels used the kids or some other leverage to force her to come back, in which case women will think he’s a creep.
Or maybe female voters will conclude Daniels’ wife had “just cause” to leave and go off on the affair (was he neglectful, privately cruel, cold and uncaring?), and they will wonder what Daniels did to “justify” the wife’s fling.
In large part, women voters will project their own situations and relationship experiences onto that framework and Daniels comes out poorly.
For their part, male voters will also not support him. All except the most religiously pious men (who believe in redemption) will lose respect for a man who would take a woman back after such betrayal. They don’t want “that guy” holding the nuclear button. I heard one pretty solid conservative I know say he’s not interested in a ‘cuckold in chief.’
Mitch Daniels knows these things and I think he and his family made a sensible choice in staying out of the race. Next time, maybe the GOP establishment will not be so quick to anoint a guy like Romney that his enormous bankroll keeps all good conservative alternatives out of the field and leaves the primary as a contest between the guy selected by the GOP equivalent of the politburo and the dregs.
I thought Mrs. Daniels left because of a Larry Sinclair situation. If Romney is Obama-lite, Mrs. Daniels might be an easier on the eyes Michelle Obama.
IsntThatSpecial: You’ve made an unintentionally, but rather convincing argument that women shouldn’t vote….
Women can vote? Since when? I didn’t know that.
Good heavens! You know amazingly shallow women.
Good heavens! You know amazingly
shallownormal women.If cultural trends say anything, at least.
(I keed! I keed!)
CATO’s Dan Mitchell doesn’t seem to care much for him either.
Mitch Daniels wife left her husband and kids for another man, then he agreed to take her back. Of course the smut monger Obama will use that to the maximum. She knows it and at least has the good sense to not allow the MSM to destroy the family they are trying to rebuild. Can you just IMAGINE what that guttersnipe Axelrod will do to them for Obama? Stop dreaming and educate yourself about this matter. Obama is salivating at the prospect.
A few minutes ago I sent the following:
Governor Daniels,
Your country needs you. What if Martha Washington had said, “George, don’t go. I need you here at the farm.”
Where would we be?
I’m sorry but Mitch Daniels doesn’t have the belly for the fight. He is claiming it’s his wife and family holding him back, but that’s the excuse of every politician when they’re contemplating a tough campaign, “I’m going to spend more time with my family”. It’s the reason incumbents nearly always cite when they see they are likely to lose a reelection campaign, and for politicians like Sarah Palin and Mitch Daniels when contemplating a tough Presidential run.
You fight with the army you’ve got, all this wishful thinking is a waste of time. It’s time to get behind the most fiscally conservative, eloquent, and combative of the candidates running, and push the Democrats from power.
Obama has to pick his path to reelection. He’ll either run on his record or use personal attacks on his adversary. Daniels has shown no stomach for standing up to personal attacks.
Gee Obama thinks – should I run on my record or savage all who oppose me?
This isn’t even a 50-50 coin toss. We all know where this election cycle is going.
Cynical Wonder is correct about Daniels big government bad habits.
See Dan Mitchell’s (of Cato Inst.)post — http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/mitch-daniels-would-be-a-terrible-president/
“I’m mystified that some conservatives and libertarians are sympathetic to the idea that Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, might be a good candidate in 2012. The main challenge for our nation is the growing burden of government, so it seems that this would disqualify anybody who served as Budget Director for President George W. Bush.
It’s possible, to be sure, that Daniels didn’t want the no-bureaucrat-left-behind education bill, the corrupt farm bill, the pork-filled transporation bill, or any of the other big-spending bills that became law during the early years of the Bush Administration. But there certainly is no evidence that he used his position as Director of OMB to resist these terrible ideas. And he certainly hasn’t gone out of his way to disavow any of the fiscal excesses that occurred during his tenure.
Indeed, it’s quite likely that Governor Daniels is a supporter of big government, just like President Bush. Is there any other explanation that fits? And if you need any additional evidence, Daniels has indicated that he is open to a value-added tax (and energy taxes as well). A VAT would be a fiscal catastrophe for America, paving the way for European-style statism”
You have lots and lots of interesting suppositions about what he’d do if he were (hypothetically) in the Executive branch of the government. Kind of strange that you didn’t just look at ohIdon’tknow what he’s DONE in the executive branch of government. Vouchers, defunding Planned Parenthood, luring Illinoyed businesses to the state… Where’s the “like” button?
Why is everyone calling for Mitch Daniels to run? Has everyone forgotten that early on his “mommy” told him couldnt run for President? He could have phrased any other way, but he chose that way to phrase. It made him look weak and I wont get over it. Hes a wus. Let him stay home.
Mitch Daniels is a RINO, aka an establishment BUSHite Republican. He is not dedicated to liberty.
Couldn’t disagree more. I’m a good ol’ “fusion conservative” — meaning that I consider myself a conservative with libertarian leanings.
Back in 2010, Gov. Daniels was asked to do a “Five Books” interview. In it, he recommends five books (about public policy, social philosophy, etc.) to read and discusses them. Here were his five:
“Free to Choose” by Milton Friedman
“The Future and its Enemies” by Virginia Postrel
“The Road to Serfdom” by FA Hayek
“What it Means to be a Libertarian” by Charles Murray
“The Rise and Fall of Nations” by Mancur Olson
If that’s not the reading list of somebody devoted to the cause of individual liberty, I don’t know what would be.
If you go find the interview, he discusses the books in some detail…demonstrating a sound understanding of the philosophies of freedom.
Of course, we have to throw Tom Coburn, Marco Rubio and Jim Geraghty under the bus now too. Not many people left in the tent…but, they are all chanting in unison “Every one else is wrong”.
“The perception of Newt Gingrich as much quicker to compromise conservative principles than to ever admit a mistake comes heavily from Sen. Tom Coburn’s 2003 book Breach of Trust, which discusses his years in the House under Gingrich as Speaker, and paints a picture of Gingrich as a raging egomaniac, wildly hypocritical and quick to toss Class of 1994 principles.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/289249/when-gingrich-tried-and-failed-intimidate-tom-coburn
Nah….we wouldn’t want a guy that people on our OWN side actually admire and respect. Let’s take a guy that nearly everyone hates. Yeah, THAT’S the ticket to success in beating Obama.
Great idea. Can you imagine the enthusiasm gap when 80% of the people who can’t stand him, join hands with the 20% who settled for him because Mitt was worse?
What a ringing endorsement. Of course we don’t need a Daniels, a Ryan, a Rubio…we’ve got the most despised man in his own party trying to convince undecideds that it’s because the “ruling class” doesn’t like him…that his whole campaign staff walked out on him, nearly every conservative writer or note or merit thinks he’s a walking disaster and his negatives are sky high.
After that pitch, we move on to Dr. John’s magic elixir and a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
“we’ve got the most despised man in his own party”
poor cfbleachers, he can’t face reality.
Reality is that 40% of the voters in SC voted for Newt, despite a relentlessly negative campaign against him. 71% of South Carolinians voted AGAINST the ruling class’s candidate. If they swith to The Mouse, it will just get worse. Paul Ryan might do somewhat better, but as an astute poster higher up said, there is no time to vet these guys now, and Ryan has an achilles heal even worse than romneycare or being a mouse-man…he is already perceived as the guy who wants to end medicare (which of course, is a lie, as if that will matter).
I’m going to fix your quote for you. Here it is “we’ve got the most despised man in his own party’s self-styled ruling class”
As you can see from the overwhelming comments on this thread, people don’t want a mouse. They aren’t unrealistic about Newt, but they like a guy who can fight.
And nobody gives a shit what the ruling class republicans want. They aren’t the solution, they are a big part of the problem.
Isn’t it interesting how scared they are? And they should be, because when Newt wins, their lives at the left hand of the throne will be over.
I was about to respond to CF’s comments but decided to reload the page and saw your comments which closely parallel my own thoughts as I read CF’s comments.
As flawed as Newt is there is a guy in the WH that is even more flawed than Newt Mitt Ron and Rick put together (IMO) – he needs to be removed from office. We are killing our candidates with a thousand paper cuts. No prominent figure/leader since Jesus Christ has been certified perfect so lets get over this ‘flawed candidate’ theme and get behind who you think might do a better job – take your pick among the four left standing – but quit with the savage attacks on the one you don’t like. I can vote for either of them but I’ve only sent money to Newt. I like a guy that can kick ass and take names. I think even Paul or Santorum could take Obama. Let us not deliver a carcass to the general election in November.
Yeah, “we’ve got the most despised man in his party”. Like Churchill, maybe? But, tut, tut, we’ve got National Review telling us who is electable, with their over-the-top magazine cover of Newt the Manic Martian, just to drive the point home. Add in Ann, Jen, Mark, Quin, Rich, and I’m beginning to wonder just how much Mitt is paying everyone, based on the hysterical and loud proclamations of Mitt as the “most electable”, when he has only won one election in his life.
People are responding to passion and ideas, not punctuality and memorized lines.
I don’t default to Romney.
And there is not a single candidate in memory who has had MORE people on his OWN SIDE, who are so vehemently against him.
Romney doesn’t inspire passion, I don’t know how he managed to get five kids unless he had a pinch hitter.
But Newt…virtually NOBODY who has worked with him, supports him. He gets more vehement opposition than any other candidate I have ever seen…FROM HIS OWN PARTY.
It’s not that one state’s voters got all pumped up and gave him a grand total of one state’s majority votes. It’s that the people who know him best, genuinely despise him. His entire campaign staff quit, en masse.
Virtually EVERY thinker from our side of the aisle thinks he’s a complete disaster.
NOBODY…not even after basically offering jobs to them (Bolton, Rubio) has taken up for him. He’s a pariah. With the people who have access to him, work with him, he engenders no loyalty whatsoever.
You have to be completely blind not to see this.
And the excuses, alibis, and nonsense trying to refute it or explain it away range from the fantastic to the completely lunatic tinfoil hat conspiracy level.
Frankly, he sucks. As does Romney.
In the most important election of our lifetimes…ACE has a pie chart that basically says 75% of people don’t support the candidate because they are “dead inside”.
33%…this late in the game…want someone else to get in the race now.
And, that number is growing. Every day.
Many people want a brokered convention.
Why?
Because these four candidates are a cosmic joke. The “B” team isn’t up to the task. They suck. And, every thinking man knows it.
Did you just call Ann Romney a slut? Pinch hitter? You are a dispicable person. Just like Newt Gingrich you all are a bunch of hypocrites in the wrong Party. You commie free lover addicts should be in the Democratic Party with the rest of them!
does the 40% who voted for Newt in South Carolina count?
And as you know, I like Mitt. He’s just a bad candidate in this cycle.
But I’m becoming more convinced that he is the best VP choice for Newt. “the Brain and the Bain”. catchy, huh? Even the traitor Ann Coulter might be able to support the ticket. Newt can pitch Mitt as a man ready to step in on day 1 if necessary, and the guy he is going to put in charge of the economic turnaround. What a contrast that would be to Plugs.
I think with Mitt in the number 2 slot, the Bain cess pool is mitigated, as well as the unforunate Mormon mine field. And Mitt’s family values will help Newt with the little divorce thing they are trying to make into a big deal. And taking the guy who tried to shiv him in the campaign on as his #2 will show how Newt can make nice with anybody. Some independents will like that.
Add in Ann, Jen, Mark, Quin, Rich, and I’m beginning to wonder just how much Mitt is paying everyone, based on the hysterical and loud proclamations of Mitt as the “most electable”,
I’m convinced that Mitt’s paid for the gushing support that he’s getting from conservative media personalities. I’ve never seen such overwhelming support forany primary candidate, not even Reagan in 80. And Mitt is just a horible politician and not the least bit conservative.
“the guy that nearly everyone hates” is Mitt Romney. 70% of us hate the idea of “President Romney”.
He’s popular with Democrats? Well, that seals the deal right there!!
Did you know in SOTU he also caused for a PAUSE in the piling on of regulations? Yes! a PAUSE!
Kinda reminds me of Calvin Coolidge, one of our better presidents, look it up. Newt should really consider him for veep.
He gave a great speech. My first choice is Palin but I hope they both get into the race. Newt is just too sleazy and Mitt too clueless.
Palin will only run if she can do it at home in her robe. She’s too lazy to run.
Depending on the cut of that robe, she could still win!
Your ignorance of Palin is astounding.
And Palin is a complete hypocrite who was supposed to be against corruption then supports the most corrupt man this government has ever seen?
HYPOCRITE Palin.
I certify you 100% moonbat
I’ve been saying it for a few years now: if Daniels isn’t the best elected executive in the Republican Party right now, he’s near the top.
And it pains me that so many conservatives are suspect of his conservatism. I’ve basically determined that it’s a “tone” thing as much as anything. Many of these same people worship the ground that Chris Christie walks on. And, while I also like Gov. Christie myself, he’s no staunch conservative (which stands to reason: he’s in New Jersey).
I don’t know how good a candidate Daniels would be. He’s short, he’s balding, he’s never going to dazzle anybody from the podium. I always say that he reminds me of my milkman when I was a kid.
But he’s an extremely effective governor — and one reason he’s been effective is his communication skills. He’s also a bona fide conservative who, when asked to recommend a list of books, whipped out Hayek, Friedman, Postrel, and Mancur Olson!
I don’t doubt his conservatism. He’s been a good governor, far as I can tell. But note that there are people more familiar with his record who challenge that. It’s just further evidence that no candidata is perfect. They all have flaws.
The issue I have with Daniels is that he let his wife make the decidion not to run for President. That makes him unelectable.
I would prefer McRomney over Mouse Man 10 to 1.
But Newt is better than both. Newt will fight.
Newt?
Oh Lord. The guy would be a disaster of a candidate. The fact that he’s a “fighter” really doesn’t matter much.
Look, I was fine with nominating Christine O’Donnell in Delaware. Castle was a genuine RINO (which has become an overused term — it applied in his case). And conservatives needed to send the Republican establishment a message: we can take you down and we will if you keep giving us moderate candidates.
Yes, I knew O’Donnell was going to lose. But I was OK with that.
I’m not in favor of doing the same thing at the presidential level. If Newt gets nominated, we’re going to get our rear ends kicked….which will be a huge setback for the conservative movement and strengthen the moderates’ hand.
I’m no big Romney fan. But nominating Newt would be a major mistake.
Scott, don’t respond if you don’t want to be responded to back.
And if you respond, you have to give some detail or the other party can’t answer.
Declaring that Newt is a disaster is spewing not responding.
McRomney is the disaster. He will be ripped to shreds about Bain and about being a Mormon. He was a disaster as governor of Massachusetts. He has changed his positions so many times that he is easily portrayed as a man without a core. He isn’t a good defender of conservatism. He designed obamacare, for goodness sakes. He will be McCain II. This guy was the least electable candidate in the field from the beginning. After you get past the k-street jackals and the money, there isn’t anything there except a good jawline and a pretty family.
Gingrich led the first republican takeover of congress in 60 years, stopped Hillarycare, balanced the budget, enacted welfare reform, and started a giant economic boom. He’s a brilliant guy who is totally comfortable with the media and talking about any issue. He’s a lifelong conservative.
That’s how you make a case Scott. Try it.
Given the task before the next POTUS, I think Newt’s tough hide and willingness to be hated is a plus; he’s probably best suited to the task of balancing the budget over LOADS of resistance from both sides.
Proreason: “He will be ripped to shreds about…being a Mormon
So….? We all know that’s religious discrimination and hence a violation of the 14th ammendment. Right??
More like the Establishment “Conservative”.
I’ve had enough of these clowns. There are actual people who will say Daniels is Conservative, that Christie is Conservative, and now we have the SO CALLED Conservative Marco Rubio calling Romney Conservative.
Let me tell you, the base knows who is a Conservative and who is not. And we also know who are sellouts: Rubio, Nikki Haley. Be warned, we’re not voting for RINOs within 1,000 yards of a polling booth.
Don’t hate on Rubio. He’s got a good political future. I agree that his place is not between Romney and Gingrich, but don’t trash him for that.
The socons don’t want him either. They are driving us off the cliff and we can’t stop them.
Ron — You are in denial about Mitch Daniels. He is a multi-millionaire off Prozac Sales which he shepherded for Eli Lilly. Don’t think that won’t be used against him extensively. A Drug Company Executive?
Oh, and he sold his IPL (Indiana Power and Light) stock after serving on the board for $1.45, which shortly afterwards the stock declined dramatically, provoking a government investigation.
That’s HUGE baggage.
Then there is nickname — “Beta Male Mitch.” Beta Male Mitch, had his wife leave him (and their two daughters, ages then 8 and 14) for her high school sweetheart who she met at their HS re-union, who had become a Beverly Hills Plastic Surgeon. She divorced Beta Male Mitch, married the old flame, and was with him for ten years until he got a new model. THEN Beta Male Mitch got millions from Eli Lilly and she came back, re-married him.
Beta Male Mitch could not even hang onto his own wife. And he took her back after she dumped him for an Alpha Male, it took millions to make him acceptable. If that is not a stunning indictment of the guy AS A MAN, AS PERCEIVED BY WOMEN, I don’t know what is. It makes him even more repulsive to women than Newt. Who at least has been the big shot. And cheater, not cheat-ee.
Women have sympathy for women who get cheated on. Its a hazard for women, and no indictment of them as a person. Sexy Alpha males cheat, that’s just the way it is. Women have nothing but contempt for MEN who get cheated on, most Women (if they are being honest will admit this) see it as an indictment of the man as a person and sexual being, i.e. “worthless.” Its ugly but true, and part of human nature. You can’t get around it no matter how “Christian” your denial might be.
Mitch Daniels was considered so worthless a human being, his wife dumped him for an old flame, and only went back to him when she got dumped and he made millions. His icky personal life and Drug Company/Power company executive experience makes him a loser. There is a reason he never ran.
Chris Christie is fat and fairly liberal. Rubio too young and untried. Jindal too ugly and not dominant enough. Pawlenty too boring and beta male. Mitch Daniels is even more Beta Male. This matters because White female professionals have no real ties or economic or cultural interests in either party, and thus significant amounts of them switch based only on personal characteristics of the candidates. They are the only significant group of voters in play — thus whoever wins them wins the election.
No, the Christian accepts that being cheated on makes you a victim of adultery, which used to be a capital crime. It is an indictment that the cheating wife is a liar and lacks fear of God, and that the interloper is a thief and lacks fear of God. To all who lust for their neighbor’s wives, be sure your sin will find you out! Repent, because otherwise God will not hold guiltless the one who trespasses on his neighbor’s marriage. To steal a man’s wife is no less a crime against his body than to cleave off his arm! I will not hold my tongue- no matter how glamorized adultery may be in the culture, it is disgusting to the core. Oh you “alpha males” may think you’re smooth, but whoever lusts for his neighbor’s wife is a son of the devil.
And faithless wives, you too will answer for your harlotry. Mothers of bastards and interlopers alike will have to answer for every drop of sweat, every second of labor you have stolen with your lies and your bastards. And don’t you dare think of killing the baby to hide the evidence! Every drop of blood shed to conceal your crime cries out for vengeance! Fathers, warn your sons, lest they marry a harlot who lacks fear of God, for though her looks and embrace may be seductive, she will crush their hearts and plunder their labor. Warn them too not to be seduced by such a harlot that another has taken as his wife- she’ll shatter your heart if she’s your wife, but she’s a death trap if she is another man’s wife.
Adultery is not about being attractive or not; adultery is pure evil, and there is no excuse for it. The paramours do not go astray because of anyone’s behavior but their own; they are merely acting out their own sinful natures, which they have chosen to act on rather than resist.
Unless of course if you confess your sins and ask God’s forgiveness in Jesus name. Then all is forgiven and you are pure as the driven snow.
Getting desperate, are we?
“We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves.”
Ah, yes, a nation of “soon to haves.” I can see why a line like this would resonate with an ol’ folky like you, Ron.
You will eat bye and bye
In that glorious land above the sky
Work and pray, live on hay
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die
It does not surprise me that so many of the responses to Ron can be summed up by gallifet’s comment about the base being “angry and virile” and spoiling for war. Yes, that is about it. Or should I say ginned up arm-chair anger and virile posturing? As for all your virility complexes, yes, it sure would be sad if the Republicans nominated someone whose life reflects a desire for loyalty and family stability rather than someone who aspires to be Bill of Big Love with a wife in as many suburban homes as he can afford. But really, you all have to know how irrelevant any of that is going to be to the voters, dont you? In any case, it’s really the “angry” part not the “virile” part of gallifet’s cry that is most on display here. You want to feed the beast. “Give us the red meat guy because we want someone who can take it to Obama.” It is a sad comment on the state of mind of the Republican “base” that it has flitted from crank to crank and finally to Bonaparte in the quest for the meanest man in town, while grownups like Daniels get the short shrift. Obama should be easy to beat and I am pretty sure either Romney or Daniels can beat him. But the base is not interest in winning. It is interested in venting and in going down swinging. Virility, indeed. More like a death wish if you ask me.
Well, think about it. Most conservatives love Chris Christie — and it’s not because he’s particularly conservative (because, well, he isn’t), but because he’s combative and blunt.
The ironic thing about that is: despite his mild-mannered demeanor, Mitch Daniels is a pretty fierce political warrior.
One of the blurbs on his book is from a guy named Russ Stilwell. Stilwell was, until recently, one of the Democratic leaders in the Indiana House. He is a firebrand unionist Democrat — hailing from the United Mine Workers.
I don’t have it in front of me, but his blurb is a grudging compliment of Daniels and how effective he is at communicating messages and winning support…and how glad he is that he’s not running for president.
Daniels has gotten a lot accomplished in his 8 years in Indiana, and he’s about to cap it off by becoming the 23rd right-to-work state in the country (and the first of all adjacent states).
You don’t do that by being a pushover. Anybody who thinks he is hasn’t paid close enough attention.
Daniels most likely has the political steam to get through the vetting process – but it won’t happen this cycle. He’ll have to wait at least 4 years for his chance. The train has left the station and for better or worse we have four candidates on board.
You may be reading a little too closely, virility; “marked by strength or force”, “commonly associated with vigour, health, sturdiness and constitution.” I didn’t suggest going to war. It is a primary Jon, the kitchen sometimes gets hot during a primary. I won’t apologize for the way of the world, or the need to be strong. I shouldn’t have to, eh?
God no.
I voted for him for Governor twice.
I don’t want him for President.
Thankyewverymuch.
I think when your wife, in this case Daniel’s, goes off and leaves the family to chase after a doctor, and then she makes him take her back, it’s time to say goodbye to anything relating to high political office. Be happy as a governor. Enjoy the small things in life. Enjoy your marriage. Enjoy your family.
Lets rearrange Ron’s words and make a question of it.
Why should Mitch Daniels enter the race?
I can’t think of one good reason. Lets not go enlisting someone else just because we don’t like the bloodbath that the GOP nominating process has become. One of these heavyweights will come staggering to the finish line – everything that can be said about him will have been said. Can’t say that about Obama. There are PACs ready and waiting – willing to draw the lines to connect the dots from Ayers to Wright to Soros etc. With a bit of a vacation the GOP nominee will be fresh and ready to take on the lightweight glass-jawed Obama for 15 rounds. I’m betting Obama can’t last 5.
All the GOP nominee has to do is keep asking the voting public if they are better off than they were four years ago.
K.T. makes my point perfectly. “Can’t think of one good reason” for Daniels, K.T.? Did you even read the article here? You don’t mind if some “heavyweight” comes staggering to the finish line for the GOP as long as he then gives us Wright, and Ayers, and Soros. Yes, boy, that will sure do it, won’t it? Fiften rounds and a TKO. Maybe we should bring back Mobutu and hold the bout in Zaïre. The Norman Mailer-izing of the Republican right.
Indeed I did read Ron’s article. My point – poorly made as I reread what I wrote – is that we are too deep into this process what with the Florida primary coming up and two primaries and a caucus behind us. I have no problem with Daniel’s politics from the things I’ve read about him but he bowed out damned near a year ago if memory serves. I doubt he wants to put his family through the meat-grinder that this vetting process has become. Nobody is going to look good going through it. Too bad Obama doesn’t get this same treatment. We wouldn’t be having these conversations. We’d be trying to get McCain another 4 years (shudder) vs (maybe) Hillary.
If Daniels doesn’t jump on the bandwagon (and he shows no inclination) who will these pundits try to serve up as the next victim? Christy? Jeb Bush? Bobby Jindal? Who else? For good or bad this train has left the station – the process is underway and for better or worse it is what it is. A fluster cluck to be sure – lets not make it worse than it is. Obama and the democrats would love to see a couple more GOP candidates jump on board. Proof to them that the GOP is an unstable bunch of half-wits.
In short – there ain’t no do-overs in this process just because the ride starts getting bumpy and you don’t like the passengers. I don’t like it any better than you do.
Watch the mouse man’s sotu response.
When you wake up, watch this:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/newt-gingrich-slams-obama-sad-state-union-empty-142817147.html;_ylt=ArPX7kSr0.nMjU_HOkYslzUSH9EA;_ylu=X3oDMTRpbDZqMnFwBG1pdANGZWF0dXJlZCBCbG9nIFRoZSBVcHNob3QgTmV0d29yawRwa2cDZjA4N2U2MzktYWYwNy0zNGZiLThmNWYtNmI5YzdiOTBhMGQ0BHBvcwMxBHNlYwNNZWRpYUZlYXR1cmVkTGlzdAR2ZXIDZDAxY2E0MDAtNDc3MS0xMWUxLWJiZmEtMTUyYTRlNTdlZjM2;_ylg=X3oDMTNlYWRhbzZ2BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDN2MyZjU0YjAtNmMwMC0zYzk2LTllZTctOTJkNDExOTEyOWM2BHBzdGNhdANvcmlnaW5hbHN8dGhlc2lkZXNob3cEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD;_ylv=3
Then decide if the mouse man is the guy you want speaking for you this fall.
We’re trying to thin the field out, not grow it. If Daniels get in the race now, he’ll have his you know what handed to him.
You don’t like any of the contestants? Too bad.
33% of GOP Voters Say It Would Be Good If New Candidate Entered Presidential Race says a current Rasmussen poll.
To hell with them.
To hell with Christie the RINO and Haley the one-termer. To hell with winning.
To hell with Daniels and Jindal and Paul Ryan. And Coulter, Rush, Hannity, NRO, Wall Street Journal, Rove, Hot Air, Allahpundit, Powerline, Townhall, ACE, VDH, Phil Klein, Bill Kristol, the guys at Commentary, Peter Wehner, Bret Stephens, Guy Benson, the Club for Growth, Marco Rubio. To hell with all of them.
We are headed someplace of our choosing. Where are we headed?
Sounds like we have the roadmap picked out.
sigh
reality check time.
67% DON’T want a new candidate, an astonishing majority for a response to anything in 2012. 33% are willing or want to see another candidate, but that is different than saying that they reject the 4 candidates left. Heck, I’d like to see Christie and maybe Ryan jump in (Jeb would just be too painful and I don’t think Jindal is ready for the pain he would have to endure). And at the third level, even for the fraction of the 33% who actually are rejecting the 4 left, many would then find a new candidate even worse once the bloodletting on him or her began.
So the Rasmussen poll is kind of fantasy candy for those into that sort of thing.
But I’m glad to see you have at least abandonned the Mouse Man campaign. Christie and Ryan are more plausible candidates. Bob McDonnel is an option as well, I suppose, particularly since he can’t run for reelection, but he may just be a McRomney clone without the 5 year experience of being abused while running for president.
That’s fuzzy math.
67% is not the total for anything.
Fully a third of the GOP voting public wants someone else NOW…not that they didn’t want someone else all along. At this late date, that is a staggering number.
12% are not sure.
Gingrich getting 40% in one state (or Romney getting 40% in the prior one) are meaningless…since the “B” team alternatives were such a cosmic joke.
This number favoring “someone else” is probably well over 50%, I suspect close to 70%. NONE of these guys can get consistently past about 30% support…and Gingrich’s “not Romney” support probably is half of what he gets…rather than hard “pro Gingrich”.
(Votes for McCain against Obama suffered a similar fate. “Not Obama” was probably half or more of McCain’s support…without Palin, it might have been closer to 70%)
And, I haven’t abandoned “the mouse” nor have I said that I would not support the eventual blubber butt or the automaton. (I will NOT support the lunatic fringe guy).
The Mouse…has the best resume’ and second place isn’t even in the rearview mirror. Almost every objective person (that leaves out foamers, flamers and leftists), said his response was magnificent.
However, I thought his protection of his family would be a tough hurdle. Any red blooded man would stand between his family being savaged…that may not apply to some here…but, almost every guy in my inner crowd would step in front of that.
So, I have…for quite a while now…been saying Ryan/Rubio was the winning ticket.
And, I have been saying this…while almost EVERYONE was NOT supporting Newt, he wasn’t even in the picture when I took this position. It has NEVER been based on Newt or not Newt. It most certainly took place when Romney was the “presumptive and entitled” candidate.
Long before anyone thought it might be a close race between Mitt and Newt…I was DEAD RED ON NO for Romney. I thought he was a “B” teamer, a take a knee guy and “someone else” was desperately needed.
I have never moved the needle on Romney. Not an inch.
I just have not jumped on any other “B” teamer’s bandwagon.
And virtually EVERY thinker on our side of the fence…has come around to the conclusion I came to month ago.
Rasmussen is a great pollster. But polls are lagging indicators.
It is clear that there is deep dissatisfaction with the “B” team offerings. ACE, Allahpundit, Bill Kristol, VDH, …really, all the best thinkers…want somebody else. You can feel it in the air.
I got there before them. For me…it had NOTHING to do with Gingrich. I was there long ago. We should DEMAND BETTER. In the most important election of our lifetimes.
Again, I would support Walt Disney and Ted Williams frozen heads as the ticket against Obama/Biden. (not Paul). So, if Promney or Newtalinsky win the nomination…so be it. Off to the game with a .180 hitter as our captain.
But, we deserve better. And…a loss to the Fabian and his overthrow marxist regime…I’m going to blame some of the people in this room. And then, I don’t forgive. Oh wait, wrong movie.
Anyway, Florida will be interesting now that Rubio has had to spank blubberboy on his ample backside twice. He has given back all his mojo. The not Newtalinsky’s are heating up their engines while the not Promney’s are cooling theirs.
What a disgrace.
Blech.
here’s a link.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/poll-33-percent-gop-voters-want-new-candidate_618516.html
100% minus 33% is 67%. Not fuzzy at all.
Moreover, it’s a soft 33%. “33% of GOP Voters Say It Would Be Good If New Candidate Entered Presidential Race”
“It would be Good” is not “I reject the existing candidates”
more fantasy world from cf, but why?
Surely he knows that there isn’t going to be another candidate. There isn’t enough time to get on the ballots. There isn’t time to buid a staff, or even to get ready for all of the questions they will have to answer effortlessly. That is the main reason Perry did so poorly, and I’m not the only guy to say it. Being conversant with issues in Indiana, for example, does not automatically make one conversant with national security issues, or one’s position on the border, on Syria, etc., etc. That takes months, if not years of preparation.
And then there is the real nut cruncher…the vetting, flesh pealing, bone crushing or whatever you want to call it. For a while, the candidates only had to deal with the McRomney meat-grinder, but now they will have to deal with Newt as well, and Newt seems to have a mean streak about as strong as the ruling class jackals.
So sadly, there won’t be any more candidates. I think that is why the K-street attack dogs have escalated the war on Newt today. Particulary after the Mouse’s shameful performance giving the sotu response. Who didn’t cringe when he heaped praise on little lenin. America fumed, while the ruling class applauded raptuously. It’s McMitt or Newt. Pick your poison. They are the survivors.
I think cf may be clinging to this just because he has been pushing the idea for so long. Pride of authorship and all.
I predict he will abandon the fantasy if McRomney’s jackals tear a few % off Newt’s flesh. Once he sees that Mitt is is only option other than Newt, he’ll give up on the fantasy.
100 – 34 = 66
66-12=54
If the polling question did not allow for “not sure”, we could accept simple math, although I believe that would be a mistake.
It’s a weak analysis to suggest that in this race that those who believe it “can’t be done” are voting what they want. And certainly the “not sure” vote is definitively NOT in the 66%.
As for sticking to my principles, it is because I’m not a waffler, flip-flopper or windsock.
I form my opinions based upon what I see…and then call it as I see it.
Add Trent Lott to the folks who believe Newtalinsky has NO chance of winning against Obama. Not sure how that moves the needle…but, it’s a new fact to consider and weigh. He knows Newtalinsky well. Very well.
As I sit here now, I believe that Newtalinsky shot his wad in South Carolina. Promney is going to run the table for a while after Florida, which will likely be a tossup.
(barring the “surprise” revelation against one or the other that actually matters)
I ALREADY believe that Promney will likely take Newtalinsky to the convention in a two coffin hearse. Neither will have enough delegates to claim victory…if Newtalinsky stays in for the duration with the gut the military clown staying on throughout as well.
So, you see…my analysis is ALREADY factoring a convention where NO consensus candidate emerges from this “B” team clown car.
Either Promney wins it all…or we get somebody who actually will be a frontline warrior for someone other than his own vainglory.
Ryan/Rubio works for me. Looking at the shouts of RINO “rhino?”, leads me to believe that the audience for Allahpundit, ACE, VDH, Bill Kristol…must come from a different breed.
Mitch Daniels has the best resume for any thinking man. That automatically eliminates someone who shouts RINO at the mention of Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Marco Rubio.
The thinking man’s candidates are not in the race. Clearly, Newtalinsky doesn’t attract that voter. Pity.
Egzacary, the real Conservative vote… that is the non-elite Republicans.. us flyover mouth breathers have already rejected the establishment milquetoast.
No Flip romney… and no other POS like Mitch whatever RHINO establishment garbage.
We have a candidate.. and He Fights… NEWT NEWT NEWT!!!
No truces, no Mitch Daniels
Just like all your fantasy hero… Mitch has problems and he would not survive against Romney.
Romney is the Best candidate in fify years… Jack Welch said that, not me. But he is the best I’ve seen. Including Reagan.
If you aren’t happy with Romney you wouldn’t be happy with anyone.
If Romney was not a Mormon his support would be astronomical… and I think you know that. He is the most conservative candidate who has ever run from this party or any other. Yes, including Goldwater and Reagan.
You can’t see it because the lies got there before the truth could be told… but after he is in office you will become a believer. In Romney, not Mormonism… don’t get your panties in a twist.
Lot’s of formerly good Christian folks gave up their moral principles to oppose Mormonism… and all for nothing… your churches won’t change. Relax… remember who you were before you started lying… and everything will be fine.
I do not know from what planet were you listening Mitch Daniels from. As I have heard him, he looked like plain reading a teleprompter without depth and emotion. You are so obvious in your panic for pushing a candidate who is a pale imitation of Mitt. Mitt has more life than him. Ron Paul and Santorum have more passion than this guy. I am used to living in the cold north, but he left me even colder still. My God, he can never inspire with that dullness of delivery. Kindly get all the prospective candidates to have a telemprompter reading tutorial, if they can’t make an effort to speak from their heart.
And when he doesn’t run shall you ask someone else and when they don’t run will you continue to shout out to everyone that our candidates aren’t worthy?
This quote from up the thread said it all:
“…they like a guy who can fight. And nobody gives a shit what the ruling class republicans want. They aren’t the solution, they are a big part of the problem.” Perzacktly.
Quote from another blog:
“Listening to Newt is almost like getting to breathe after holding your breath underwater or in a room full of flatus for a long, long time. He has been giving us permission to think and hold to the ‘inconvenient truth’ as he calls it. His speeches never fail to encourage and clear the air.
Newt in the campaign is like a professional musician playing the finale after having spent the afternoon listening to novices and students. Or a better analogy, the conservative electorate feel like a mare in heat finding mature stallion in a pasture full of young colts, yearlings and geldings. He has the proper working equipment and knows what to do with it…and he isn’t afraid to do it. Blessed relief at last.”
Third quote:
“”When Mitt speaks, we wonder. When Newt speaks, we’re encouraged.”
“Mitt cannot speak the conservative language with confidence or clarity, because he isn’t a native speaker and hasn’t learned it by heart or by immersion in his political life. He’s never been a conservative, so he can’t articulate conservativism coherently. It’s like he’s using one of those auto-translators and it comes out like one of those spam messages. There’s a disconnect…a hint of insincerity, leaving a person feeling like he’s being played, given a line or a sales pitch. Maybe that comes from his training, knocking on doors delivering the Mormon message in his young years or selling Bain Capital’s services to wealthy investors. The result is that Mitt is always stammering, shifting, delivering soundbites and it’s painful to watch.
Newt speaks conservative fluently, comprehensively, historically, thoroughly because it’s his native language. He always has been an economic and political conservative through and through, come hell or high water. He fought for conservative principles, he’s taken fire, bled, suffered losses and kept fighting, whatever the cost to his own political career. Evidently, his repentance and redemption from his personal sins have made him a social conservative as well. (See Jeffrey Lord’s article at the Spectator: Reagan’s Young Lieutenant) His past conservatism has been strengthened and refined by maturity and spiritual redemption.
Listening to Newt articulate conservative principles is a joy. Listening to Mitt trying to act like a conservative is not.”
Too short. Unless he can connect himself somehow with James Madison. In the TV age, short guy loses. Bald guy does, too, which Daniels pretty much is. Also, I’m not prepared to put my “so-called social issues”, as the governor calls them, on the back burner.
Mich Daniels is good on fiscal issues, not so good on social issues. In fact he sneers at social cons.
Here is a social con sneering right back at ya Mitch!
Daniels was absolutely wrong when he said this is not about theology but numbers. This is not about numbers. It is about a failed and dangerous even murderous socialist agenda that wants to install dictatorial rule in place of our constitution. This is condescending to the nth degree to those of us who are aware of this abhorrent philosophy that is now embraced by Democrats and Obama.
This is what moderation is all about. Do not name the danger. Pretend it is only misguided or mistaken, excuse the perpetrators.
We’ve seen the face of evil for three years and we’ve seen how moderation has not made it change it’s course.
I agree a Republican rebuttal is not the place to use campaign rhetoric against Obama but it also isn’t the place to pretend it’s only about numbers. If your to shy to name an evil fine but don’t change it to a lie so it will be accepted by the timid and uninformed.
Couching their words carefully so as not to offend and changing reality into a digestible syrupy goo is why moderates such as Daniels will not save or restore this Republic. Just like erasing the words Islamist terrorist from government documents will not deter terrorists from trying to kill us.
Ugghh… Now Newt wants to revive a plan to put a colony in the Moon and give them statehood if they go over 13K inhabitants:
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/01/25/gingrich-talks-plan-put-colony-moon
I like that guy, but yes, it’s better not to underestimate his ability to self-destroy.
After all, primaries are for that, may the best win and may the Rs vote for the last man standing.
– wouldn’t get the women’s vote because, like Bush 41, he reminds them of their first husband. A 21st Century Grover Cleveland: we’d vote him in, vote him out, vote him back in?
Some of you Daniels backers are delusional. The job of president is probably more show than go and if you cannot make your case then you will fail. Daniels is about as exciting as Bob Newhart reading a Kellogg’s Corn flake label. He may be a smart man but he couldn’t lead a squad of Marines to a free nudist bar-b-que! Do you remember Patton and Bradley? The two competing generals of WWII. Bradley was the grunt’s general but moved with the speed of a glacier. Patton was the devil incarnate but he loved his men and got them to do things they would have never dreamed of under Bradley. That is what we are going to need when we finally get rid of Obama. We will need a leader who has real thick skin and who has been cursed before because he will be called everything known to man that is insulting.That is also why Romney is going to lose if he is our nominee. He doesn’t know the meaning of the word “Fight”. Obama the liar in chief will eat his lunch and then his ass.
I read an article about Newt Tuesday that summed up quite well the degree of this man’s incredible degree of resiliency with the following excerpt:
All the organization and money in the world can’t force folks to vote for you if they don’t want to, and now that Newt’s inoculated himself against further Super PAC attack ads and renegade ex-wives, it’s unlikely that Romney can carpet-bomb him as effectively as he did in Iowa. Newt’s now like one of those nuked Japanese film creatures that not only was not destroyed but is back, bigger, badder and more cheesed off than ever.
Article in its entirety here.
Bad comparison. Newhart would make it hilarious. You’d WANT to watch it.
If Mitch “Let’s Not Get Hung Up On What Kind Of People We Are As A Nation And Just Talk Money” Daniels is the nominee, or even the VP nominee, I’ll skip the presidential vote and let the Democrats keep driving us into the ground.
Do any of you know that if someone gets in the race now they WILL NTO BE ON THE BALLOT IN 13 STATES for the general election? In states where they already had their primary ONLY THOSE ON THE PRIMARY BALLOT AT THE TIME OF THE PRIMARY CAN GET ON THE BALLOT IN THE GENERAL ELECTION! Do you think Mitch Daniels can wiin the Presidency if he is NOT ON THE BALLOT IN 13 STATES?????
Advocating a Mitch Daniels candidacy reflects a rather poor feel of the pulse of the mood of the country. As it was in 2008 when a Bush-weary nation looked upon the widely-perceived charismatic Barack Obama as a beacon for “hope & change,” a current, extremely Obama-weary nation is looking upon the dynamic (& to some degree charismatic as well) Newt Gingrich as a beacon for changing things back to the way they should be. Soft-spoken, milquetoast types need not apply.
Some people think that losing with the loudmouth, bombastic type is a better way to go down, bobbcat.
There are those of us who believe that losing is not an option.
Daniels is being mis-portrayed by those who shout loudest. Usually, that type makes irrational and irresponsible decisions.
This, is no exception.
Nobody is going to “win” the nomination. Nobody from this group, anyway.
People can write in candidates, if a late entrant was their favorite.
We are going to the convention without a consensus candidate. Certainly none of these four carries the will of the people…if we don’t scream that ONE of them is “the best”, which they clearly are not.
The convention is going to be messy, a circular firing squad on steroids.
Ron Paul clearly does not represent the heart and soul of the party.
Romney has the loudest critics. And they are out in force, with good reason. He sucks.
Gingrich is nearly universally despised by virtually every thinking man and woman of the Party….or who is not a leftist or crypto-leftist.
Santorum has no chance.
As usual, the Stupid Party has given us defeat, snatching it from what should have been a slam dunk victory.
They ran a slate of “B” teamers and we will very likely pay the price. For the rest of our lives and that of our children and probably our grandchildren…after the Marxists seize control of the Supreme Court.
All, because we allowed the reckless and irresponsible to shout down reason. Because we allowed the irrational to scream and rage and froth and foam.
We allowed a self-absorbed blowhard to do the dirty work of class warfare and racial warfare that put Obama and his Marxist lackeys to shame.
How proud the Newtalinsky’s must be.
The “not Romneys” were right all along.
But the Newtalinsky’s have been dead wrong. In manner, in style, in substance, in logic, in tactics and in patriotism. They sold out a nation.
And continue to do so with impunity.
Hello,loudest screetching pot.
Don’t get me wrong, I like Daniels. The Right to Work law is great, but he isn’t doing it by himself.
Meanwhile the culture war continues being waged by the Left, no matter how much Mitch Daniels wishes to bury his head in the sand on that score.
Perhaps there is a “method to the madness” on the part of the RNC with its quest to have a 2nd-stringer as the party’s nominee: Paving the way for an Obama 2nd term. This way they don’t have to worry about any “racist” label fallout, affirmative action will have played its role to the fullest extent, making them all feel all warm & fuzzy inside. Further, no worries about threatening Pubbie seats with a “safe” nominee like Romney. With victories guaranteed for both houses of congress, efforts by Obama & Co. to further the erosion of the interests of the American people will be hobbled or thwarted; nevermind how much Obama goes around Congress to forge his policies.
Talk about snatching defeat……
Conventional wisdom is not always quite so wise, CFB.
Sir, you might as well stay in bed. I will be (with a little luck) 80 next month and I have been down this 4-year political road 15 times. It will all come together and the system will work. My initial pick was Huckabee and when he dropped out I jumped on the Cain bandwagon and when he was crucified, I thumbed a ride on the Newt wagon and will stay there unless Huckabee or Cain get back in the fray. Newt has his faults, as do you and I, but he is the smartest and most experienced man inside the Beltway. I will not go into why the rest are not up to the job, but the reasons for each is overwhelming.
Lots and lots and lots of verbage, but very few facts upon which to base your ranting and raving. A question; Just who do you support or recommend? I suspect your choice will be as far off the shelf as you claim all the others to be.
Dear Mr. Radosh,
There will be plenty of time in the general to make these cogent arguments to the American public at large. Mr. Gingrich can make them better and more confidently than Mr. Romney….with apologizing for them as he does so.
Best
These are not the words of a conservative.
A conservative knows that these things are unconstitutional, and damaging to a free country. They engender dependence on government, and thus are forever and always incompatible with maintaining liberty. They are the antithesis of liberty.
They don’t need to be “repaired” or tweaked or refined or massaged.
They need to be killed.
There’s a legitimate discussion about HOW and HOW SOON to kill them, given than many Americans are currently dependent on them. (To simply END them NOW is obviously neither fair nor workable.)
There is NO debate among conservatives about WHETHER to kill them.
Mark, you are off base. I am 79 years young, and have contributed my personal funds to the Social Security program since about 1950. This is not a socialist program per se, it was and still is a quaisi-group insurance program partially funded by the people but managed and controlled through the government. What is wrong, is the government, in its infinite wisdom, “took” the money our of the Social Security basket and placed it in the general fund. What is needed is for the government to repay all of the “borrowed(?” funds as part of their balancing the budget–it can not be done overnight but then again neither can the budget problem be solved in the near future; but as some ol’ sage said, “a journey of a thousand miles, starts with the first step”. However, having said all of that, the program does need some “tweeking”.
Again, according to Henry Kissinger, Jeb Bush will be the next president of the United States. And if Obama’s NWO boss says that, he must be pretty sure of himself.
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1555.htm
I was born in Indiana and have lots of relatives and friends there. Both I, and I am sure most of the country, know little about Daniels. He appears to be well grounded in this ideas, but his rebuttal speach left much to be desired. He lacks the verbal and phyical “persona” to compete on the national political stage. To further add to his problem, Herman Cain followed Daniels on the TV progam and had the followers (in my house) raving. He had a far better grasp of all of the issues and he presented them in a clear, concise and forceful manner. His presence in the arena would only muddy the waters and divide, still further, the vote.
Interesting piece, interesting concept. For this voter, Daniels didn’t impress during the rebuttal – the words were ok, but he was rather dull and colorless. I think we’re stuck with what we have.
Radosh seems to have missed Jon Stewart’s complete skewering of Mitch Daniels SOTU response on Wednesday.
I would add that Daniels most likely chose to not run because of Cherie, and also, tenure with Bush43, and then making money with Big Pharma.
Why is anyone allowing Romney to buy the nomination? He is the least electable – all he has in the polls is name recognition and offers his resume?
Please, Romney represents everything wrong with the economy – it was the Harvard MBAs who de-industrialized the USA.
Very sad to watch the GOP fracture at the most important moment in American history.
Mitch Daniels would make a fine SecTreas in a Gingrich administration.
“But if this election is so critical for our future as conservatives argue, a candidate with a chance to defeat Obama should put country ahead of family.”
True enough. And in a more general sense, it applies to others A-List GOP’ers who’ve chosen to sit this one out. So what might one conclude?
1. Perhaps the situation isn’t as urgent as all the rhetoric would suggest; in which case, many in the GOP don’t believe their own rhetoric. Politicians exaggerating out of self-interest? Say it isn’t so!
2. Daniels, if he believes that time short and the need is urgent, can’t even make the case effectively to his own family. Why then would you think that Daniels could make the case to someone less persuaded than you?
Actually, Daniels made himself look foolish with baseless attacks on Obama’s, “new age socialism” gibberish. Mitch made the claim;
In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt.
This is just more regurgitated nonsense that has no credence. The real culprit of the debt is the tax cuts for the wealthy, which didn’t work, which Daniels himself was Bush’s budget director. Daniels went on to say;
In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we might pick the wrong light bulb.
So, like the debt silliness, where the hell in a real world other than GOP lunacy did that come from? The Affordable Care Act, regardless of how many times one repeats the lie, allows one to choose their coverage. Light bulbs? The energy legislation easily passed the House and Senate in 2007 and was promptly signed by GWB. So now it’s Obama telling us what kind of bulb to buy???? And, Obama wants to chose our schools and tell us here we can borrow money????? I guess if you just roll multiple lies into one great big lie then it’s only one lie??
And I could just nitpick his gibberish to death. Let’s get real here. <bockquote"Steve Jobs created more American jobs than the Recovery ActThe bank bailout saved more jobs than Apple has employed. Just a fact.
Daniels spews that Obama made the economy worse. In what world? Anyone of any reasonable intellect has to roll their eyes at that as some desperation filler. Hell, even Romney agrees it’s gotten better but he just doesn’t want to assign credit to Obama.
Daniels parrots Lindsey Graham’s “U.S turning into Grease” which has been dismissed by even many of the GOP as shear fear mongering.
We expect this out of Romney because he’s a compulsive liar. It’s commonplace to hear Newt talk this way because like Paul, Bachmann, et al, he’s bat shit crazy. But I thought Daniels was suppose to be a notch above, a more prominent figure, or perhaps one of the sane members of the GOP. These unhinged and ridiculous statements puts Daniels in the GOP candidate category that Joe Klein called a “dim-witted freak show,” when he was pushing Daniels to run as he wouldn’t appear like a “public clown.”
When Daniels claimed Obama supports “a pro-poverty policy”, I was almost wondering if some saneness would prevail and he’d add something like “and I say this because as you can see, I really have nothing, the GOP has nothing, honesty has no place in our party, we know you’re not really smart people, and we really just don’t like Obama”. That would have at least given him a back some respect.