October 1, 2010

David Brooks thinks Indiana governor Mitch Daniels will win the GOP nomination for President in 2012.

And also that he's the party's "spiritual leader."

172 comments:

El Pollo Real said...

Brooks has always been anybody-but-Palin.

Does Mitch Daniels resonate?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Well so much for Daniels, then....

First all the "moderates" will endorse him as "electable" but then when the General comes around Brooks, Frum, Noonan, and Parker will vote for Obama

America's Politico said...

Yes, I would be worried about Daniels. As a total (100%) supportive of Obama/Biden, Pelosi,and Reid, the only GOP that worries me is Daniels.

There is NO ONE ELSE in the GOP that an even an ounce of accomplishment. Palin, do not make me laugh. But, I love her to be the GOP nominee. We would crush her so bad, that GOP will be finished as a Party forever and ever.

GOP is finished, either way. Nov. 2010 is dark year for them. Nov. 2012 is hope, if Daniels is their nominee. But, GOP is made up foolish people. They will select Palin (thank god for that).

mesquito said...

He must have a perfect crease in his trousers.

madawaskan said...

Mitch Daniels-joined 40 other governor's pitching the idea that right now we need another stimulus package to the tune of $450 billion.

That probably is going to be his *MittCare*.

Bender said...

If a SFB like Brooks is pushing this, all the more reason that Truce Daniels will NEVER get the nomination.

Salamandyr said...

America's Politico's endorsement aside, I like Mitch Daniels, from what I've seen. He seems to have done a good job in his state, and he seems like a generally all around competent fellow.

His desire for a "cease-fire in the culture wars" is a little distressing, because his opponents will read that as "let us win". The onus of a cease fire is on the party on offense.

El Pollo Real said...

You're crackin' me up AlphaPolitico!

madawaskan said...

Wait there is probably argument about the amount....

I think Ezra Klein said it was $450 billion, and Mitch Daniels said a lower number.

Then I just read a link saying that Mitch Daniels supposedly flip flopped on it.

It's probably enough to finish him with the Tea Party.

MadisonMan said...

Yes, it's interesting that the only line about Palin in the article isn't a flattering one.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
His desire for a "cease-fire in the culture wars" is a little distressing, because his opponents will read that as "let us win". The onus of a cease fire is on the party on offense.

Well that’s an interesting take on it, and it puts Daniels in between two stools, then…Gay Rights activists are on the “offense”, but so too are “Pro-Choice” activists…so Daniels’ position angers both Left and Right…

And it’s pointless, as a Republican, Daniels will be tarred as a tool of the Religious Right, no matter what. So being “moderate” doesn’t really do that much for you.

E.M. Davis said...

I wonder if English is America's Politico's 8th language.

madawaskan said...

Performance gets trumped by RINO these days.

That might pilter out who knows.

Actually having to govern gives you this dirty track record-that can be used against you.

It's a dangerous trend but trying to fight that makes you less popular than a Liberal troll.

Sixty Grit said...

America's asshole - what the fuck is "a total supportive"? Then, you go on to "write", "But, GOP is made up foolish people" - what the fuck was that supposed to mean? I get that you are the worst kind of jock sniffer, but at least pretend to write in standard English.

Your ESL teacher needs to be fired. I am glad that you have a "girlfriend" and that you work for the "democrats", but seriously, hire someone to review what you spew on here - you are more retarded than hdhouse.

JAL said...

And why does what David Brooks thinks matter?

We don't needs Brooks & Co. any more thank you.

Sophie said...

Daniels has been my pick for the last few months, regardless of what Brooks says. Daniels has been CEO of a large corporation, director of the OMB under Bush, as gov of Indiana turned a deficit into a surplus. Businesses are moving there. He's the GOPer who called for social issues to be put on the back burner for now, which takes some moxie in the conservative world.

And charisma? By 2012 people will be overdosed on empty charisma and rhetoric, and an anti-charisma candidate will seem safe and refreshing. We have elected non-charismatic presidents before.

No I don't live in Indiana.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
you are more retarded than hdhouse.

Well that’s debatable. And is it provable? And worse yet, what if it were, true?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Mitch who?

OH. Another soggy white bread mayonnaise and cucumber sandwich candidate (ht Hillbuzz)that the MSM (Democrat lapdogs) are trying to yet again foist on the Republicans.

I certainly hope that the Republicans have learned their lesson after the McCain (maverick, cross the aisles, darling of the media) fiasco. The Tea Party has figured it out. How about the Cocktail Party Republicans?

The Media does not have any pretense of impartiality. They want to promote the least electable candidate on the Republicans, just like they did in 08.

I'd rather go down fighting than run a bland, prefabricated, media approved candidate that is guaranteed to lose.

Sixty Grit said...

I was being hyperbolic, I admit it. And, yes, "retard" is a word that can only be used by liberals, so I am doubly shamed.

WV: comoth - an iceman who eats wool.

madawaskan said...

Well, well well he likes Whitman.

I can tell you right now the reason the Dems are going after her so hard is because she is a very real threat to them, and it isn't just about the California governorship.

Whitman is top of the ticket material.

Man I hope she can navigate this maid problem.

Meg Whitman has employed how many people exactly?

And they only found one instance of "maltreatment" or whatever.

Of course Michelle Malkin is playing concern troll.

She has trouble with Whitman, in the face of the other option Brown -which should get her audience to question Michelle's belief in ReConquista.

Michelle Malkin treats her audience like a bunch of idiots.

Salamandyr said...

As far as Brooks is concerned, I have trouble taking seriously any Conservative/Republican that the New York Times considers acceptable.

AJ Lynch said...

Chris Christie & Marco Rubio sounds like a winning ticket to me.

traditionalguy said...

So why would we want Davis Brooks to pick the GOP's nominee? Brooks is an Ivy League New England RINO...and so is Mitch, spiritually. The answer lies in a certain family of Ivy League new England Rinos who plan to slip back into control of the GOP, whose name is spelled B U S H. Ask Mitch if he will be Palin's VP. NO, because that helps the Palin Family instead of the Bush Family. All of the hidden Artillery is aimed at Palin from the Bush Family and from the Democrats media friends. If she is gutsy enough to beat both of them, than she will make a hell of a President.

virgil xenophon said...

Well, Brooks is now on record. Does the phrase "Kiss of Death" come to mind to anybody? I know, trite and hackneyed and all that, but accurately descriptive still....

America's Politico said...

Sophie is correct.

And, as a consultant to Democrats everywhere, GOP voeters like her worry me, indeed. They think. They are smart.

Fortunately, the majority of the GOP are otherwise. So, I sleep better and make a lot of money consulting Democrats on how to defeat GOP everywhere.

GOP stars: Daniels, Christie, and Ryan.

GOP: Please focus on Palin. Please.

sunsong said...

I like Brooks. I try to read his column regularly. I also like Mitch. I would prefer John Huntsman - but I doubt he will run. Palin is, imo, not electable. She is like Dan Qualye now - damaged material. Palin is doing a great job exciting the base for the Nov elections. She is also powerfully impacting the national debate - and making a bunch of money. Good for her.

Brooks had a column recently about responsibility and wanting to see a candidate emerge who can lead on responsiblity. I really agree. Lots of people, I think, would rather see individuals, government and corporations actually taking responsiblity than they are concerned about ideology.

Perhaps Daniels can be that leader?

roesch-voltaire said...

While I do not always agree with David Brooks, I do admire the depth of his knowledge and his connections which allow him to make insightful comments about our times. I thought his interview with Charlie Rose was a must see. Of course as a reasonable conservative well aware of the historical role that limited government has played in our countries development, the current breed will ignore him. Pity.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Brooks had a column recently about responsibility and wanting to see a candidate emerge who can lead on responsiblity.

Well that’s better than an impeccable crease in one’s trousers I guess. As Brooks seems to have chosen one candidate on his sartorial perfection I’ll just pass on Brooks recommendation.

“Truce McDaniels” is another person I’ll pass on too, thanx….If Daniels doesn’t think Abortion is important enough to warrant his attention, well then, I guess I’ll just ignore him…with some Conservatives I can get smaller government AND Pro-Choice, it’s not either or, you know…

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Of course as a reasonable conservative well aware of the historical role that limited government has played in our countries development, the current breed will ignore him. Pity.

Well that and the fact he supported OBAMA…which certainly suggests he DOESN’T KNOW THE ROLE LIMITED GOVERNMENT PLAYED IN OUR COUNTRY’S DEVELOPMENT, if he can vote for a POTUS who actively calls for “Progressives” to vote for the Democrats, this Fall.

madawaskan said...

No.

Chris Christie is a RINO.

You have to keep up with these things.

See Chris Christie is RINO because ummm, well skip all that great persuasive prosecutor stuff-he isn't pro-life enough damnit.

And, he is not a fan of Christine O'Donnell which The Tea Party Express, Sarah Palin, Mitt "COD is *the litmus test*", and DeMint all backed.

It's total war people.

Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint and Mitt Romney need to get down to Delaware and campaign hard for Christine O'Donnell harder than they went against Mike Castle.

I am sure most can agree- a RINO is not as dangerous as a "bearded Marxist."

So they need to fight that much harder for O'Donnell now.

What could be more important?

We'll see how Romney, Palin, and DeMint spend their time.

Are they going to back their candidate and work for her in Delaware?

Skyler said...

Brooks is too much. To him Palin is a joke because she's not a policy wonk and didn't go to the right schools.

Yet, Whitman has all the right credentials that Palin is lacking and he makes her sound like dried up bones.

I guess no one can be worthy in his eyes unless they are democrats in disguise, much like himself.

Alex said...

America's Politico = blighter from Megan McArdle blog?

traditionalguy said...

Sophie...I am so glad to hear that by nominating a cold Presbyterian with the Charisma of a small rock, that the GOP can then take advantage of the coming backlash against popularity. I am waiting...when does that magic trick start to happen?

Maguro said...

While I do not always agree with David Brooks, I do admire the depth of his knowledge and his connections which allow him to make insightful comments about our times.

R-V, this is funnier than anything America's Politico has ever posted here. I guess you're saying that you really like the cut of David Brooks' jib.

Are you sure your real name isn'tT Coddington Van Voorhees VII?

Joaquin said...

AlphaPolitico says:
"So, I sleep better and make a lot of money consulting Democrats on how to defeat GOP everywhere"

Bawaaa Ha ha! I am knee deep in Democrat consultants that are flat-busted and crying the blues!
I'll see a bunch more at 4:30 pm crying into their PBRs
AP, you should consider stand-up!

Bruce Hayden said...

I don't see it. The one exception that I know of of a Republican getting the nomination before having become known to America before, either as a previous Presidential candidate or that level of exposure was GWB (43), and he shared name recognition with his father GHWB (41), at least since Goldwater.

Since then, who have they nominated?
- Nixon - former Presidential candidate and VP
- Ford - President
- Reagan - ran against Ford
- Bush (41) - Reagan VP and ran against him for nomination.
- Dole - Senate majority leader and I think ran against Bush (41) in either 1988 or 1992.
- Bush (43) - Son of Bush (41)
- McCain - famous Senator who had run against Bush (43) in 2000.

That is why I see the most likely GOP candidates as Palin, Huckleberry, Romney, Gingrich, and I don't know who else. Maybe the Bush brother who was governor of Florida, but we are probably still Bushed out.

If Daniels is seriously interested, he needs to run a credible campaign this time, win votes and some delegates, and then aim at 2016 if the Republican candidate doesn't win in 2012.

I think that this may be where the party's conservative side shows itself. The GOP is just the opposite the Democrats here. They tend to only nominate (excluding, I think, Goldwater) known quantities, at least for 60 years now, and Daniels is not well enough known outside the inside players to get the nomination. And, it seems to be a working system, because at the next election, they will have held the Presidency for 36 of the last 60 years (60%) using it. And done that, with the Democrats having a significant registration edge through much of that time.

LarsPorsena said...

"..While I do not always agree with David Brooks, I do admire the depth of his knowledge and his connections which allow him to make insightful comments about our times..."

Heard in faculty lounges and repeated by non-threatening white males from coast-to-coast.

traditionalguy said...

Bruce Hayden...You are correct. IF the GOP nominee loses in 2012, then the GOP nominee in 2016 will win. So running a loser in 2012 sets up Jeb Bush for 2016. However, running a winner in 2012 blocks Jeb in 2016. Ergo, the Bushes want Daniels and not Palin to get the GOP nomination since he is a sure loser and she is a sure winner. White men are Obama's baited field, but a White woman will have Obama's number big time; ending slavery being such a long struggle and all.

roesch-voltaire said...

Gotta love the anti-intellectual, anti-historical comments offered on this blog along with the snide insinuations-- no wonder the best the Republicans can offer is the Pledge backwards.

Richard said...

He seems just as exciting as McCain.

E.M. Davis said...

David Brooks is a charlatan.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Gotta love the anti-intellectual, anti-historical comments offered on this blog along with the snide insinuations-- no wonder the best the Republicans can offer is the Pledge backwards.


Wow, R-V, don’t go away mad…just go away. We can’t miss you if you won’t stay gone…

any hoo, care to elucidate sum of them thar anti-intell-leck-chuall arguments and anti-hysterical comments? I meen yu bein’ so smart an’all a’know’n ‘bout Worl Class Inn-Viro-Menetical En-djinneerin’ an all yu jest whip sum of them facks raht owt….

And “the Pledge Backwards” Oh a touch I do declare…thou hast wounded me to the quick with thy witty repartee, so much better than the snide insulations that are otherwise leveled hereabouts! The Pledge backwards, let’s see…”egdelP” nah doesn’t really have that much ring to it.


Please resort to calling us "tea-baggers" as soon as posible, for that will be a crowning accomplishment.

LarsPorsena said...

Gotta love the pseudo-intellectual, ahistorical comments offered on this blog along with the patronizing twaddle that tries to pass for hard criticism.

jeff said...

"As a total (100%) supportive of Obama/Biden, Pelosi,and Reid"

"There is NO ONE ELSE in the GOP that an even an ounce of accomplishment"


So in other words, you are a total supporter of folks with no accomplishments as long as they are democrats?

Got to be a parody.

Bruce Hayden said...

Bruce Hayden...You are correct. IF the GOP nominee loses in 2012, then the GOP nominee in 2016 will win. So running a loser in 2012 sets up Jeb Bush for 2016. However, running a winner in 2012 blocks Jeb in 2016. Ergo, the Bushes want Daniels and not Palin to get the GOP nomination since he is a sure loser and she is a sure winner. White men are Obama's baited field, but a White woman will have Obama's number big time; ending slavery being such a long struggle and all.

Interestingly, Hillary! has somewhat the same dynamic. She really can't run in both years, because if she does, and loses again to Obama this time, then she would be damaged goods by 2016. But it is hard to run successfully against an incumbent, esp. after you have worked for him. Her problem, which Jeb Bush doesn't face as much, is her age. Late 60s by 2016, combined with liberals being, on average, younger than conservatives, may make it hard for her to connect with the liberal base when she is that old.

I don't think that Palin is a sure fire winner in 2012. But, unfortunately, there isn't anyone obvious at that level in the party who I see as having a better chance.

Romney's shot was 2008. He has two problems in 2012. First, two Harvard degrees (MBA, JD). Second, RomneyCare.

Huckleberry is a social conservative and a fiscal moderate. The wrong combination for the next Presidential election.

Gingrich is still too polarizing (not that Palin isn't), and connects better to the intelligentsia than the mainstream.

What Palin can do, which the other candidates cannot, is go up the Ohio River valley, up into the midwest, and pull the Jacksonian belt. This is where Obama was weak against Hillary!, and where Palin got rock star status at campaign events. If she can pull those states, as I think that she can, Obama is left with the northern Atlantic coast, the Pacific (excluding, of course, Alaska), Ill., and not much else. Maybe CO, NM, MN, and, to give credit here, WI. But even those states may be problematic.

Of course, if the Democrats get smart, they will dump Obama, and go with Hillary!, who I think could run much better against Palin. She would negate the gender issue, and did run much better than the President in the Jacksonian belt. But, then, a lot of Blacks would likely stay home...

The Crack Emcee said...

Unless Chris Christie runs (which I seriously doubt) the Republican nominee - and winner - in 2012 will be President Sarah Palin.

There is no one else who even comes close.

Bruce Hayden said...

Unless Chris Christie runs (which I seriously doubt) the Republican nominee - and winner - in 2012 will be President Sarah Palin.

There is no one else who even comes close
.

I think that Crack has a good point there. I listened the other day to some of Christie's greatest hits. And the guy is good. Not the least bit reluctant to take the fight to the enemy, call him out, and make him look foolish.

And Christie is right there with one of the biggest emerging issues - overpay and much too generous of benefits for government employees. Few of us outside government have generous defined-benefit pensions, and so, why should we pay for them for those who (supposedly) work for us?

AJ Lynch said...

If the economy still sicks in two years, who will the voters blame more- Obama or the Republicans?

The state of the economy will be a huge factor in what Republican gets the nomination. I wonder if Romney would take VP spot if he was given broad duties to fix the economy?

edutcher said...

I don't see any of the "names" getting the nod. Romney and Huckleberry are the front-runners and I have yet to see the front-runner this far out get the nod in either party. Miss Sarah, if she wants the job, is out also, due to lack of experience.

Christie and Brewer need more time in grade and I don't see another RINO being nominated after '08.

Watch for someone not even on anybody's radar yet.

Marshal said...

"Chris Christie & Marco Rubio sounds like a winning ticket to me."

I like both of these guys, but I like Daniels too (so far, all politicians have slime underneath). Unfortunately what he said was so damaging he's probably out. He should have said he intends to prioritize fiscal issues because the circumstances demand it.

There is no cease fire with a liberal, there is only surrender. To them all politics are in your face all the time BAMN. Any comment which shows you so minunderstand liberal ideology should be disqualifying.

sunsong said...

Joe,

Well that’s better than an impeccable crease in one’s trousers I guess.

I think that responsibility will become more and more of an issue. To me, it is inherent in freedom. Freedom without responsiblity leads to tryanny. Taking responsibility is also assuming power in that if you take responsiblity about something - you are not a victim of it. So, imo, freedom, responsiblity and power are intricately and intimately linked.

2012, of course, is light year's away :-) It's fun to speculate - and I do prefer Daniels to Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee or Romney. But that is just my opinion. I'm not a republican - so I won't be voting in the primaries. I'm not a democrat either - but it seems likely that Obama will run again.

Obama uses the word responsibility - but that is generally when he is lecturing others about what he thinks they should do :-) Obama seems quite enamored with blame - which, imo, is very different that responsiblity. And blame has gotten him this far. But I think the people are tiring of it now. He has been able to do pretty much what he wanted to - and it hasn't worked. So taking responsilbity would be refreshing - but it doesn't seem to be in his nature to do that.

Either way, I think Daniels is a better choice - especially because of his truce on the culture war. I don't want a theocrats in office trying to bully people into living by their values. I supported Rudy in the last election - but, of course, the religious right vetoed him. Everyone lost because of that, imo.

Sixty Grit said...

Hey, America's asshole, what are "voeters"? You are one stupid motherfucker.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Either way, I think Daniels is a better choice - especially because of his truce on the culture war. I don't want a theocrats in office trying to bully people into living by their values.


Funny, that’s what government does…it’s why we have elections. Would you have voted for Lincoln…he had values…opposed the extension of slavery. Generally when people talk about theocrats and bullying people, they mean “people with whom I disagree and who are now implementing their policy preferences.”

Dark Eden said...

"David Brooks thinks Indiana governor Mitch Daniels will win the GOP nomination for President in 2012."

Wow really bad news for Daniels.

traditionalguy said...

Sunsong...What facts do you have to enable you to say that Palin is a Theocratic social issues candidate? Unlike Huckleberry, she has never made religion a part of her act. She favors the Constitution that established a secular Republic since 1789. Perhaps Palin is not anti-faith values. But that is what makes her for the Constitution and not for the dominant Religion of Secular Humanism.

Michael said...

R-Voltaire: "Gotta love the anti-intellectual, anti-historical comments offered on this blog along with the snide insinuations"

By this I presume you consider David Brooks an intellectual? Not sure about the "anti-historical" whatever that might mean. Plenty of snide comments, including insinuations, and including this one, of yours.

Dave said...

Crack Emcee is right.

Palin and Christie are exciting candidates that would make 2012 a real contest. Daniels is about as exciting as Bob Dole. It would be hugely deflating for conservatives, especially social conservatives if he were the nominee. Honestly I don't see him winning any Southern State primary. After Daniels made the truce comment I could not in good conscience vote for him in a primary.


The Brooks endorsement is really a millstone around Daniels neck. Getting the thumbs up from the elitist faux conservative Brooks is like getting RINO stamped on your forehead. Given that the party is currently dominated by an anti-intellectual Tea Party wave (that's awesome by the way) the only thing worse would be Mike Castles' endorsement.

sunsong said...

Joe,

Generally when people talk about theocrats and bullying people, they mean “people with whom I disagree and who are now implementing their policy preferences.”

Very good Joe. Indeed, that is the MO for both parties - impose their values on the rest of us. I don't like it. I support greater freedom and greater responsibility.

C. S. Lews makes a good point, I think:

Of course God knows what will happen if we use our freedom the wrong way. Apparently He thinks it's worth the risk

I'm looking for a party that does not seek to impose its values - but that seeks to run a competent, limited, responsible government.

sunsong said...

traditionalguy,

Sunsong...What facts do you have to enable you to say that Palin is a Theocratic social issues candidate? Unlike Huckleberry, she has never made religion a part of her act. She favors the Constitution that established a secular Republic since 1789. Perhaps Palin is not anti-faith values. But that is what makes her for the Constitution and not for the dominant Religion of Secular Humanism.

I think you answered your own question, don't you. I would also refer you to the comments here from those who would only support someone from the religious right - the theocratic wing of the party - and they like Palin. Why is that, do you think?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I'm looking for a party that does not seek to impose its values - but that seeks to run a competent, limited, responsible government.


Ah, the irony, as you miss the point…Responsible limited government IS A VALUE and you’ll be “imposing” it one someone..the only difference is, of course, you’re right and Huckabee is WRONG…

This is not to say all government is wrong, or that we all do it…but rather to try to end this idea that “imposing values” is something the OTHER guys does. ALL winners impose their values, it’s the “perk” of winning. We may disagree about the values being imposed, and advance many arguments, more or less good, in support of alternate positions, but in the end the winners get to impose their values…whether it is the idea of Social Justice or Limited Government. Your argument is akin to one I saw at Reason.com, that one of Obama’s proposed “Czars” was an “activist.” Uh yeah! That’s why s/he wanted to be Czar, to implement policies with which s/he agreed! And if Matt Welch had his way, libertarian “activists” would be in charge…being an activist with values isn’t wrong, per se it’s the values and nature of the activism.

Alex said...

Both the right wing of the Republicans and the left wing of the Democrats are enemies of libertarians. We should fight both of them vigorously!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
the theocratic wing of the party - and they like Palin. Why is that, do you think?


As there ISN’T a “theocratic Wing of the Party” your point is moot. Or have I missed this Theocratic Wing…I mean I’ve prowled enough churches at night and seduced enough virgin Christian girls, you’d think I’d have run into some flyers concerning the various Meetings of the “Republican Party’s Theocratic Wing.” The Theocratic Wing is the Left/Progressive version of the Protocol’s of the Elders of Zion.

Alex said...

Joe - except the values I believe in don't involve stealing wealth from one person and giving it to another. Theft is the value of the left. No wonder they are soft on criminals. They ARE criminals.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
except the values I believe in don't involve stealing wealth from one person and giving it to another.


That’s as may be, but “they” won the election so they get to “steal” in your opinion. You get to set it aright this November, when you will “impose your values” on the losers. I don’t dispute the utility of libertarian/conservative positions….I don’t argue for Abortion, but I DO get tired of folks complaining about people imposing their values on people, when that it’s the very nature of an organized society…do you think thieves or murderers like you imposing your values on THEM? As was said of Gladstone, "I don't object to Gladstone always having the ace of trumps up his sleeve, but merely to his belief that the Almighty put it there."

madawaskan said...

Alex-
Well *if* you're a True Libertarian you can't vote for pot in Cali-.

Tax structure and all that.

I'm just sayin'.

Alex said...

do you think thieves or murderers like you imposing your values on THEM?

Uh that's why we have supermax prisons. Frankly I think we should do like Saudi Arabia, chop the hands off thieves.

Alex said...

Oh and murderers should get the most vicious torture we can think of before finally administering the death blow. Not that it will bring back the victim, but at least the family will get some measure of vengeance and society as well.

Revenant said...

Brooks has always been anybody-but-Palin.

I can't think of a single reason to nominate Palin.

I thought she was the best of the four Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates in 2008, but then again the other three were complete tools. I think she has potential. But why the heck would she be a good choice when there are so many other people with better qualifications?

Mitch Daniels looks decent to me. Not my first choice, but I'd vote for him.

Dave said...

Sunsong is right. For many of us social conservatives the lack of pro-life credibility is enough to under cut any GOP candidate. Sarah Palin's personal life is evidence of her pro-life credibilty. Chris Christies veto of planned parenthood funding give's him credible. Mitch Daniels surrender in advance of a fight means he's not credible and clearly demonstrates his lack of commitment.
Religion has a large part to play in the GOP; it's dishonest to deny it. This site may be dominated by philosophical conservatives rather than religious/social ones but that does not reflect the party as a whole.

sunsong said...

Joe,

Ah, the irony, as you miss the point…Responsible limited government IS A VALUE and you’ll be “imposing” it one someone..the only difference is, of course, you’re right and Huckabee is WRONG…

Even though you have some logic there - I disagree - of course :-)

I don't think it is an imposition to have responsible, limited government. And what I mean by that is - I don't think that freedom of choice (with responsiblity) is an imposition. Sure some on each end of the spectrum will wail and ga-nash their teeth because they want to use government to advance their agenda and *impose* their values on the rest of us - whether that is about gays or abortion or redistribution of wealth - they want to use the force of government to take away freedom of choice. I want freedom of choice given back. That's not an imposition imo.

AJ Lynch said...

Instapundit said his daughter has a theory that the American people vote for "opposites" in their presidents. Based on that theory[ which is a good one IMO], Christy gets the nod as most opposite of Obama.

Obama- lean with sharp pant creases, smooth talker, little or no experience and generally full of soup.

Christie- not lean at all, rumpled, direct, blunt and methodical with solid exec experience.

madawaskan said...

You vote for pot in Cali and you're going to be violating the first tenet of Libertarianism:

Let me smoke pot but don't tax me bro'!

Alex said...

I don't think it is an imposition to have responsible, limited government.

For the leaching parasites who believe they deserve something for nothing it is quite an imposition. As Markos of Daily Kos once said - Screw em.

sunsong said...

Sunsong is right. For many of us social conservatives the lack of pro-life credibility is enough to under cut any GOP candidate. Sarah Palin's personal life is evidence of her pro-life credibilty. Chris Christies veto of planned parenthood funding give's him credible. Mitch Daniels surrender in advance of a fight means he's not credible and clearly demonstrates his lack of commitment.
Religion has a large part to play in the GOP; it's dishonest to deny it. This site may be dominated by philosophical conservatives rather than religious/social ones but that does not reflect the party as a whole.


Thanks Dave! I appreciate and admire your honesty. I don't know how many times I've been told here that there is no religious right - or that they are no longer viable.

If a GOP candidate does not pass the religious right's litmus tests - they are very close to doomed. I am not Christian - do not believe it is true and don't care to have it legislated. But that is just me :-)

Alex said...

Honestly I don't get the anti-abortion crowd. Do you really think you're going to ban abortion in this country EVER? Why not just use persuasion instead of FORCE?

Revenant said...

I don't think that Palin is a sure fire winner in 2012. But, unfortunately, there isn't anyone obvious at that level in the party who I see as having a better chance.

Practically anybody has a better chance. A solid majority of independents disapprove of Palin.

Big Mike said...

Brooks likes him?

Poor bastard's doomed.

Alex said...

Practically anybody has a better chance. A solid majority of independents disapprove of Palin.

You think Palin can't do anything in the next 12 months to change that?

Revenant said...

Do you really think you're going to ban abortion in this country EVER?

Obamacare taught us that if you have 60 senators, a President, and 50% of the house of representatives, you can ignore the will of the American people and get away with it.

To undo what you've done, the opposition needs either a friendly court to strike down the law, or its own President, 60 senators, and majority of reps.

Dave said...

Oh and murderers should get the most vicious torture we can think of before finally administering the death blow. Not that it will bring back the victim, but at least the family will get some measure of vengeance and society as well.

You're making a huge leap between supprting a limit on criminal behavior to the death penalty. It's not a serious argument.

As a Catholic position I can't support the death penalty in anything but very limited circumstances. Vengeance belongs to God alone and torture is inherently corrupting. Intrinsically evil is the way John Paul II said it.

However prison time for said criminals is morally acceptable and laudable as it protects the innocent. Without resorting to religion it is possible to simply define the principle that your rights end where another person begins. Freedom is not a license to kill.

madawaskan said...

It's some variant of -

Don't taze me.

Sadz because your 1% of the 3% of America that call themselves Libertarian might be just in it for the pot.

And good luck getting the statistical data on any subset of 3% of America.

Are any *principled* Libertarians on the nets railing against the tax structure of the Pot Prop in Cali?

Or would that make them uncool with the kids?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Both the right wing of the Republicans and the left wing of the Democrats are enemies of libertarians. We should fight both of them vigorously!

I'm worried about myself. I'm agreeing with Alex.

Revenant said...

You think Palin can't do anything in the next 12 months to change that?

I think Sarah Palin has been trying to improve people's opinion of her for two years and her approval rating has dropped. She has a future as a female Rush Limbaugh type, though -- someone influential within the party as an opinion maker.

Pogo said...

I can see the bumper sticker now:

MITCH DANIELS 2012
You Could Do Worse.

AJ Lynch said...

Even Alex rarely agrees with himself.

Dave said...

Honestly I don't get the anti-abortion crowd. Do you really think you're going to ban abortion in this country EVER? Why not just use persuasion instead of FORCE?

Another canard, the vast majority of prolife folks do try persuasion as the ordinary means. It's the pro death crowd that has tyrannically imposed it's view through an irrational reading of the constitution, by force disenfranchising the people.

It doesn't matter if we win - it's not about worldly success. It's about facing up to the fundamental evil of our time so that when we meet Christ He welcome us as his faithful servants us. We believe this stuff - for real. I completely understand why you don't get us - we are best understood through "the eyes of faith". God is the axiom on which our world views diverge. I used to be an atheist I can empathize.

traditionalguy said...

Sunsong...Theocratic beliefs are not the reason that the values crowd likes Palin. They like her because they trust her. The issue is one of having a religious faith or having an atheist humanist creed. One signals that the person is faithful and the other signals that the person is fickle. You can trust a person of faith not to be a theocrat, but a person whose credo is that man is the measure of all things cannot be trusted past the end of next week.

Revenant said...

Are any *principled* Libertarians on the nets railing against the tax structure of the Pot Prop in Cali?

Probably. If we had to rely on "principled" libertarians, nothing would ever get better.

Revenant said...

The issue is one of having a religious faith or having an atheist humanist creed. One signals that the person is faithful and the other signals that the person is fickle.

"We don't like her because of theocratic beliefs. We like her because we're bigots".

Trooper York said...

Mitch Daniels is Martin Van Buren.

Sarah Palin is Andrew Jackson.

Trooper York said...

Newt is Abigail Van Buren.

He has a lot of advice for everyone but he has been married three times.

What's up with that?

Trooper York said...

Mike Huckabee is William Harrison Brady.

Trooper York said...

I mean Matthew Harrison Brady.

Sorry.

Revenant said...

I think of him more as Greg Brady.

Dave said...

Sarah Palin is Andrew Jackson.

I like the analogy in that she's the straight talking populist outsider. However I worry that she may lack Jackson's toughness. He had battlefield cred.

El Pollo Real said...

I think Sarah Palin has been trying to improve people's opinion of her for two years and her approval rating has dropped.

Luckily for us she's not the only one whose approval rating has dropped. The electorate is in a foul mood. There's a lot of time between now and 2012 and POTUS politics is a distraction anyways.

edutcher said...

sunsong said...

...

If a GOP candidate does not pass the religious right's litmus tests - they are very close to doomed. I am not Christian - do not believe it is true and don't care to have it legislated. But that is just me :-)

Speak for yourself, Priscilla. The rebuttal is the nomination of a guy named Bush.

Moreover, there were plenty of Conservatives, social and otherwise, who supported Rudy because of his stands on national security and fiscal responsibility and disagreed with his stand on social issues

Trooper York said...

Mitt is Bill Hendrickson.

Without Margene to smooth out the rough edges.

madawaskan said...

I think of him more as Greg Brady.

That probably makes Obama -

Marsha.

DaveW said...

Isn't Pawlenty running too? Or is he a bad candidate?

Bah. It's too early. But this is the republican's problem for sure. It's one thing for people to be dissatisfied with Obama.

They still have to put up a real candidate that people are comfortable voting for.

Trooper York said...

President Obama is Huggy Bear from Starsky and Hutch.

I mean he has all the information and talks a good came but nothing is ever his fault. The dude always had an excuse.

madawaskan said...

Or maybe Palin is Marsha.

Alex said...

However if Palin wants to win me over, she could start by saying that evolution is a FACT.

Trooper York said...

Pawlenty is Harvey Korman.

Without his sex appeal.

madawaskan said...

If Obama is Marsha then Hillary is Janet.

Trooper York said...

Charley Crist is Mike Brady.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Trooper York said...

Hillary is the nurse who gives you the meds that makes that big indian smother you with a pillow.

Just sayn'

madawaskan said...

I think "Bobby" Jindal is, erh "Bobby"*

[that's actually how he came up with his name.]

madawaskan said...

Chris Christie is The Skipper.

Pawlenty is Gilligan.

El Pollo Real said...

If Obama is Marsha then Hillary is Janet.

Who's Janet?

You mean Jan, the Brady Bunch Uberbabe?

Trooper York said...

Bobby Jindal just wants to get to White Castle.

Trooper York said...

Chris Christie is Ralph Kramden.

Revenant said...

Luckily for us she's not the only one whose approval rating has dropped. The electorate is in a foul mood. There's a lot of time between now and 2012 and POTUS politics is a distraction anyways.

I'm not saying she couldn't beat Obama. Maybe she could. I was responding to the idea that she was the best candidate to beat Obama. If she has to rely on the public disliking Obama more than her -- and she does -- then she's not a good choice.

Trooper York said...

Joe Biden is Norton.

Not the anti-virus.

The one who works in the sewer.

El Pollo Real said...

@Madawaskan:
Eve was always a bit plumber than Marsha if you know what I mean.

Synova said...

Thought I'd pop in to see if we were talking about Sarah yet.

;-)

Revenant said...

The rebuttal is the nomination of a guy named Bush.

How does Bush's nomination rebut the idea that Republicans nominees need the support of the religious right?

McCain, maybe. But *Bush*?

Trooper York said...

Jeb Bush is the reverse Ricky Ricardo.

AJ Lynch said...

Chris Christie driving a bus- that could be a commercial with possibilities- .......

"Hi I am Chris Christie - hop aboard - don't worry, it's safe with me - I won't throw you under the bus like that last president did!"

madawaskan said...

El Pollo

You mean Jan, the Brady Bunch Uberbabe?



Trooper York
Bobby Jindal just wants to get to White Castle.


Chris Christie is Ralph Kramden.


LOL!

Gawd my wrist is hurting I can't keep up...

I want to talk Ritmo into writing-

-I Defeat Them All! -You Too Can Power Type!

El Pollo Real said...

I don't think anyone could beat Obama today because he's not in the running!

Christie would be a good choice in 2012 too but who knows if he'll even run?

Meanwhile, the opportunity to counter the Democratic majority everywhere is at hand.

madawaskan said...

AJ

Ya but you don't want Keenu Reeves anywhere near that commercial.

Maybe with Obama....they're both Hawaiian.

madawaskan said...

Do you want Hawaiians driving that bus do you!?

AJ Lynch said...

EPR:
You are in CA. What's your gut telling you about Whitman's chances vs. the Brown Dynasty [hoping Trooper can give that a better handle].

AJ Lynch said...

Keanu Reeves? No way - unless we can dig up whathis name [the villain from Speed who just died] and get him to kill Reeves for real.

Trooper York said...

Governor Schwarzenegger has morphed into Steven Seagal.

El Pollo Real said...

You are in CA. What's your gut telling you about Whitman's chances vs. the Brown Dynasty [hoping Trooper can give that a better handle].

@AJ: Uphill slog all the way. Probably many more nasty turns along the way up to a late tipping point for Whitman. Epic power struggle though.

Brown seems to be trying to play down everything, hoping that anti-spin will spin gold.

Synova said...

"Palin is, imo, not electable. She is like Dan Qualye now - damaged material."

I don't think that Qualye wanted it bad enough to push through it.

But I would like to mention... this "damaged material" in my mind when applied to a human being is sort of vile. Being made unclean because of the actions of others is a faith-based concept and ought to be resisted just as much attributing "damaged goods" to a girl who was raped.

I don't think that this is *lessened* by the claim that, "Well, *I* don't think that way but other people do."

We have to decide what sort of world we desire to live in.

There is a *reason* that the "thrown under the bus" thing is so effective. Obama should stand by his people, just like everyone else should do.

Terrye said...

I live in Indiana and I think Mitch Daniels has been a good Governor here in a difficult time. But the man has never even pretended to be a spiritual leader. He is a bean counter, but then there is nothing with that. Maybe we need a bean counter.

AJ Lynch said...

My biggest concern re Palin's viaility is her resigning the governor job mid-term. How does she adequately and forcefully rebut the claim that she could not hack it? How does she turn that into a positive to the voters?

AJ Lynch said...

EPR- epic struggle is a great way to put it. Like two supernatural forces doing battle - the taxpayers vs the taxeaters!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You are in CA. What's your gut telling you about Whitman's chances vs. the Brown Dynasty

I agree with EPR. It is going to be close statewide and a tough tough slog, but I think that people are more than ready to have a 'bean counter' or a serious business person in the office. It is obvious that what we have been doing is NOT working.

My portion of the State.....Meg will carry by a 70% at least ratio. My county....more like 90%.

Fred4Pres said...

It is rare I say I hope Brooks is right, but Mitch Daniels would win if he were the nominee.

And I think Mitch would be a good president.

Trooper York said...

If Carlos Mencia were awake he would say the term bean counter is racist.

Fred4Pres said...

I hope Palin does not run and I doubt she can win. If she does, she will likely lose to Obama. And that would be a tragedy.

As president would Palin be better than Obama? Yeah, she would be. But I doubt she can win and that matters way more.

Synova said...

"I supported Rudy in the last election - but, of course, the religious right vetoed him. Everyone lost because of that, imo."

I supported Rudy, too.

But what I remember is a little different. What I remember is a few people saying pro-life was their single-voter concern and *everyone* else folding like wet tissue paper.

It wasn't ever (or hardly ever) "I like Rudy because..." It was just, "I like Rudy but..." But the "religious right" means he doesn't have a chance and we need to vote for someone who can *win*... Like McCain.

And Fred, Fred didn't have the "fire in his belly"... can't win! So we should vote for McCain."

And Mitt, Mitt wears funny undies and the "religious right" will never vote for him... So we should vote for McCain.

Wow, that worked.

Trooper York said...

John McCain is Colonel Hogan.

After he got hit by the camera stand.

Chip Ahoy said...

Mitch Daniels signals David Brooks telepathically.

Lincolntf said...

"Christie would be a good choice in 2012 too but who knows if he'll even run?"

Oh please. Chris Christie is worse than any Libtard when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, "amnesty", etc.
If he's a "conservative", then Mitt Romney is a hardcore Bircher.

El Pollo Real said...

Oh please. Chris Christie is worse than any Libtard when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, "amnesty", etc.

Oh right. I was trying to prioritize things, thinking that the redistribution of private wealth and property was a bigger threat.

Silly me.

wv = "logra" See your doctor if erection persists longer than 14 hours.

MadisonMan said...

Part of Rudy's problem was that he was all 9/11 in his speeches. I think 2008 was a little too long after 2001 for that to work. If the election had been in 2006, he'd have had better luck.

deborah said...

Revenant:
"Practically anybody has a better chance. A solid majority of independents disapprove of Palin."

My evangelical sister dislikes her a lot.

Christie seems like a natural, to me.

Chip Ahoy said...

Does your sister who is an evangelical say precisely why she dislikes Palin 'alot', or does she just call her stupid and annoying? Which is itself rather stupid and annoying. As for myself, I react poorly to a shrill and excitable voice, one that tends to issue boilerplate axioms and platitudes. But if that could be sorted then I would be willing to reconsider.

Lincolntf said...

Yeah, El Pollo, when the Dems have a permanent majority because of the "amnesty" garbage, your purity will be oh-so valuable.

The Crack Emcee said...

Revenant,

I can't think of a single reason to nominate Palin.

I can:

She's understood, and represented, the principles of the Tea Party better than anyone else in contention.

She's a proud American, with a bone-deep sense of our national character.

She scares the hell out of the opposition, and won't back down to anyone, foreign or domestic.

Terrorists will be terrified of, and humiliated by, taking a thumping from "Annie Oakley".

There ain't a yuppie (or "progressive") bone in her body.

She knows that killing unwanted kids is worse than killing stray dogs and will act like it.

She will defend our country to the death.

There will be no sexual affairs, not even a hint of socialism, and there will be no question that, when the president takes a vacation, she really needs a god damn vacation.

She will be pro-business - with an emphasis on small, local, or domestic interests - and won't be snookered by talk of "green jobs" bullshit.

The U.N. can kiss her ass. (It better anyway.)

Iran is toast. Israel is safe. And anybody we're at war with will get a mouth full of it.

Shall I go on?

deborah said...

Chip:
"But if that could be sorted then I would be willing to reconsider."

One of the things I like about you is your open-mindedness. :)

I don't recall her exact words, but her overall opinion is that Palin is a ditz.

So far, her choice is Newt. When I asked if she knew he'd delivered divorce papers to his cancer-stricken wife, she was surprised, yet undeterred. lol

The Crack Emcee said...

Chip,

I react poorly to a shrill and excitable voice, one that tends to issue boilerplate axioms and platitudes. But if that could be sorted then I would be willing to reconsider.

Like the people who were drawn to Obama, because he was (for instance) so articulate, I think you're looking at/for the wrong things. Like Bush, Palin may not be a great speaker but what she knows - not "believes" but knows - is the value of who we are as a nation. (She's the only candidate who could convincingly run on the slogan "No Sell-Out".) As far as I'm concerned, anything other supposed considerations are nothing more than needless distractions - all we want is a principled leader.

Sarah Palin is it.

Trooper York said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trooper York said...

And normally Crack doesn't have much use for the white women's.

Just sayn'

Synova said...

My sister likes Huckabee. Or did. I haven't asked her about politics lately.

I think that a lot of religious/social conservatives who are actually fiscally liberal... who are comfortable with the state doing what states do, because (as we're often told) it's a Christian value to take care of everyone... I can see that they wouldn't like Palin so much.

And I'd say to sunsong... that's because she really is "small government" compared to most. And someone who is genuinely of the opinion that it's not the state's business to make you a good person, isn't going to use the bully pulpit to lecture about "responsibility" and certainly isn't going to try to use law to enforce it.

Palin has a short policy history, but she does actually have one... of opposing corruption, of telling Big Oil who is boss and backing that up, of that pipe-line deal, of vetoing a bill sent to her desk to deny benefits to homosexual partners of state employees.

Yes, she thinks it's wrong to make choices about reproduction after actually reproducing instead of before, and she's not going to start insulting Christians with "fringe" views just to suck up to potential voters.

That's generally considered integrity.

I want to see her in some more debates and I want to see her asked policy questions now that she's had some time to adjust and prepare and learn to talk more slowly. I want a chance to decide.

I thought that she didn't do so badly before, that some of the "bad" answers she gave were actually because she was aware of the complexities and interactions of events... doesn't make good sound bites. I could follow her because her silly accent is my mother-tongue, but I understand how most people couldn't.

Big Mike said...

Maybe we need a bean counter.

Yes, Terrye, maybe we do.

sunsong said...

Here is the beginning of Brooks' piece on responsibility:

One of the oddities of the current moment is that the country wants a radical change in government but not a radical change in policy.

On the one hand, voters are completely disgusted with Washington. On the other hand, they have not changed their fundamental views on the issues. There has been some shift to the right over the past two years, but the policy landscape looks mostly the way it did over the last few decades. We’re still a closely divided nation; it’s just that we’re angrier about it.

The result is that over the next two years we’ll probably see gridlock on stilts. The energized Republicans will try to reduce the size of government, but they won’t be able to get their bills past President Obama. The surviving Democrats will try to expand government programs, but they will run smack into a closely divided Senate and possibly a Republican-controlled House.

Unable to do anything in the short term, both parties will devote their energies to nothing but campaign gestures for 2012. The rhetoric will fly. Childishness will mount. Public nausea will hit an all-time high.

Somewhere in the country, though, there is a politician who is going to try to lead us out of this logjam. Whoever that person is, I hope he or she is listening carefully to what the public is saying. Because when you listen carefully, you notice the public anger doesn’t quite match the political class anger. The political class is angry about ideological things: bloated government or the predatory rich. The public seems to be angry about values.

The heart of any moral system is the connection between action and consequences. Today’s public anger rises from the belief that this connection has been severed in one realm after another.

Financiers send the world into recession and don’t seem to suffer. Neighbors take on huge mortgages and then just walk away when they go underwater. Washington politicians avoid living within their means. Federal agencies fail and get rewarded with more responsibilities.

What the country is really looking for is a restoration of responsibility. If some smart leader is going to help us get out of ideological gridlock, that leader will reframe politics around this end.

Philip K. Howard has thought hard about the decay of responsibility and what can be done to reverse it. In a series of books ranging from “The Death of Common Sense” to “Life Without Lawyers,” Howard has detailed the ways our political and legal systems undermine personal responsibility.

Over the past several decades, he argues, a thicket of spending obligations, rules and regulations has arisen, which limits individual discretion, narrows room for maneuver and makes it harder to assign responsibility.

Presidents find that more and more of their budgets are precommitted to entitlement spending. Cabinet secretaries find that their agenda can’t really be enacted because 100 million words of existing federal rules and statutes prevent innovation this way and that. Even when a new law is passed, it’s very hard to tell who is responsible for executing it because there is a profusion of agencies and bureaucratic levels all with some share of the pie.

These things weaken individual initiative, discretion and responsibility. But the decay expands well beyond Washington. Teachers don’t really control their classrooms. They have to obey a steady stream of mandates that govern everything from how they treat an unruly child to the way they teach. Doctors don’t really control their practices but must be wary of a capricious malpractice system that could strike at any moment. Local government officials don’t really govern their towns. Their room for maneuver is sharply constrained by federal mandates and by the steady stream of lawsuits that push them in ways defying common sense...


link

Trooper York said...

California will elect a bean counter.

Arizona will elect a beaner counter.

Just sayn'

Synova said...

Trooper!

Shame on you.

LOL

Trooper York said...

If Rick Sanchez was awake he would have got fired over protesting that last comment.

GMay said...

El Pollo Real said: "Oh right. I was trying to prioritize things, thinking that the redistribution of private wealth and property was a bigger threat."

Lincoln's right on this one. Sure your concerns are high priority, but so is our 2nd Ammendment and sane immigration policy. Right now, Christie is lacking cred in those areas based on some of his positions.

Now, I'm not sure how much of those positions are based on his constituency being NJ, but he's going to have to address those issues before he gets my vote. And I get just as giddy as the next person when I watch his youtube clips.

E.M. Davis said...

If Carlos Mencia were awake he would say the term bean counter is racist.

If Carlos Mencia were awake he would steal the idea that the term bean counter is racist, from a funnier non-white person, and not give them credit for it.

deborah said...

So Troop, is New York on month-light savings time?

The Real Barack said...

Also, I meant to say, on average, David Brooks blows. He has no clue. And he is a such a pussy he might as well be a liberal.

wv =ploch

Revenant said...

Crack,

She's understood, and represented, the principles of the Tea Party better than anyone else in contention.

Sarah Palin has contributed absolutely nothing to the tea party movement. She is just another latecomer Republican hoping to get a boost from the association.

She scares the hell out of the opposition, and won't back down to anyone, foreign or domestic.

Democrats are not "scared" of someone who is disliked 2:1 by swing voters. They would LOVE to see her as the 2012 nominee. Of all the probable nominees, she's the easiest to beat.

Your other reasons are true for dozens of possible Republican presidential contenders.

Synova said...

Okay, Rev, how about... she's respected the Tea Party better than anyone else of similar stature has respected them, and sooner.

I always felt a little bit like she was holding back on the Tea Party thing, which was smart. She goes to speak and supports them but she makes pains not to be seen to be trying to run things.

It's more like, "I'm here as YOUR guest."

Revenant said...

Lincoln's right on this one. Sure your concerns are high priority, but so is our 2nd Ammendment and sane immigration policy.

I'm sorry, but anyone who looks at the nation's financial situation and says "well yes, that's pretty bad, but what about the second amendment and the illegal immigrants" needs to quit smoking crack. Its bad for you.

Nothing significant is going to happen to second amendment rights no matter who the President is. Notice how we had a far-left President and a filibuster-proof Democratic Congress and second amendment rights *improved*? That's because gun-grabbing is a political loser. So even if it were possible to imagine a second-amendment issue that was even remotely as important as getting our financial house in order, that scenario is not going to happen in the next eight years. Period.

As for illegal immigration... please, cut the fuckin' bullshit. We are going to be adding a trillion dollars per year to the debt unless something is done. Suppose your nightmare scenario happens and Chris Christie signs an amnesty bill (that was somehow passed by a Republican House and not filibustered in the Senate). Ok. We can take the $8 trillion we DIDN'T add to the national debt, pay every illegal immigrant $250,000 to give up citizenship and fuck off back to Mexico, and bank the five trillion dollars we have left over.

Ok, that last bit isn't a serious proposal, but it drives home the point: there is no conceivable way that even the worst-case scenario on illegal immigration could end up doing anywhere near the harm that the government's financial irresponsibility is doing.

Revenant said...

Okay, Rev, how about... she's respected the Tea Party better than anyone else of similar stature has respected them, and sooner.

She has "respected" the Tea Party because she needs it. She is out of office and needs to do things that keep her in the public eye. She can't NOT be involved in the major center-right political movement in America today.

I also think her involvement has been too obviously opportunistic. Her speeches to Tea Party groups have been very heavy on conservative defense, foreign policy, and social issues, and heavy on self-promotion as well. It is too obvious that she views the speeches as a means to build public support for herself, rather than public support for the movement.

traditionalguy said...

Revenant...You really are a conservative in the sense that nyou conserve your opinion and world view in face of reality. The aplomb that has made Palin unstoppable has been her rounding up the Tea Party resolve/anger and giving it a place inside the GOP rather than driving it into a third party role. That was a brilliant move. 1) it stops the trick Ross Perot played to help Clinton, and 2)it gives palin a dominant team inside the GOP. The GOP insiders appreciate #1, but they are incensed at #2. She has snookered them ... trapped their Queen... resulting in the intense anger at O'Donnell as the Palin group's image that the GOP insiders can smear night and day as a substitute to overtly assassinating the popular Sarah. Bean counters and Rovians beware! Popularity always wins. Juries and voters do not give diddly squat to people that they dislike.

GMay said...

Jesus Rev, I said someone else had a point and you lost your shit. Good job fuckhead, all the standard rules about ad homs apply. If I had come out that way against you I'd be all about it. Instead, you just make an ass of yourself and look a lot like Jeremy in the process.

Here's a challenge silly boy - go back and tell me where I placed our financial problems in the priority list and then tell me where I placed the 2nd ammendment and illegal immigration. Then apply it to your overcooked response.

If you want to talk, then let's talk. But if you're gonna get all butthurt becuase I'm not a big fan of your boyfriend, then let's just call it a flamewar and not do it all half-assed like.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

Ilya Somin of Volokh noted that he likes the libertarian Daniels. I guess I can understand being Jewish and liking quiet political music. Christie is too good a communicator to pass up though. I like Palin's verve and insouciance. She doesn't realize though that without the Bader Supreme Court gang she wouldn't be, only acknowledges it by inference in being a victim. That isn't enough presidential timber; she, and we along with her, would be crushed by the job.

Kirk Parker said...

"...the theocratic wing of the party..."

Good grief, ss: if you want to be taken seriously, you should avoid quoting silly lampoons as if they were serious or true.

Please repeat after me: yes, there are a few genuine theocrats here in America, but they aren't a serious wing of any major political party.

And no, "religious right" and "theocrat" are not close synomyms.

Kirk Parker said...

Alex.

Ahem.

The various things in the fossil records are facts. The dizzying array of life forms here on Planet Earth are facts. Etc...

Evolution is a theory put forth to explain those facts.

Revenant said...

The aplomb that has made Palin unstoppable has been her rounding up the Tea Party resolve/anger and giving it a place inside the GOP rather than driving it into a third party role.

This benefits the Tea Party how? Obviously it benefits Palin and the Republican old guard, but what's it doing to benefit the tea party movement? Oh goody, now the momentum behind a popular small-government political movement is associated with the usual Republican chickenshit issues like abortion and gay marriage.

Popularity always wins. Juries and voters do not give diddly squat to people that they dislike.

Anyone wanting Palin to run for President had better hope the votes DON'T depend on popularity, because there aren't enough people who like her to elect her President.

She'd win McCain-like support from Republicans, basically no support from Democrats, and around a third of the swing voters. Obama wins, 65-35.

Revenant said...

Evolution is a theory put forth to explain those facts.

Evolution is the gradual change of species, and emergence of new species, over successive generations. That this happens is an observed fact.

The theory of evolution by natural selection is a theory explaining why the evolution we know for a fact is happening, is happening. So "evolution", as it is colloquially called, is both a fact and a theory.

Revenant said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revenant said...

go back and tell me where I placed our financial problems in the priority list and then tell me where I placed the 2nd ammendment and illegal immigration.

You agreed with Lincolntf's comment that Christie's position on gun and immigration issues disqualified him from being a good candidate in 2012, and that he would need to address those issues before you'd consider voting for him. For the reasons I described in my prior comment, anyone who refuses to vote for pretty much the only fiscally responsible Republicans to hold elected office in the last ten years because he is bad on gun and immgration issues, is nuts.

Also, the only ad hominem in that post was my statement that people who think like you and lincoln are on crack. The rest of the post consisted of arguments why your issues pale in comparison to our financial situation. You replied to this with three paragraphs of content-free whining. Man up and make a real argument.