I find Mitch Daniels very appealing. A successful, accomplished state governor. I have a presumption against Senators at this point. But I haven't seen him in action enough to have an opinion about how strong of candidate he'd be, standing next to President Obama in a debate and so forth.
AND: Then there's Rick Perry...
Gov. Rick Perry says he has no interest in running for president, but one would never know it by watching him this week.
Posts
52 comments:
Say what you will about Indiana but I grew up there and the one thing they don't tolerate well is incompetence.
They expect government to be well run.
Bayh, former Indiana Governor and Senator, would also make a damn fine President.
That's the conventional dynamic I find so interesting: That a governor would have more administrative experience than a senator, but that a senator would be more knowledgeable about national and world issues, but might be too much a part of the "club" to run things.
(Interesting how U.S. representatives seem to get left out altogether, as we note the 150th anniversary of the election of former congressman Abraham Lincoln as president.)
Maybe we should look for someone with both state and congressional experience?
Word verification: unialil
Not an Armageddon Conservative. Wants a truce on the culture wars. Which in today's GOP is a definite deal killer. Pro life zealots will never stand for it.
How about Gary Johnson, for those of you who dream of a more libertarian candidate?
I miss the old Obama, the one with promise.
I miss the old Obama, the unknown one.
Mitch Daniels? That sound you hear is the professor throwing gay people under the bus:
ontheissues.org
Mitch Daniels on Civil Rights
Republican IN Governor
No same-sex marriage nor civil unions
Q: Should Indiana recognize civil unions between same-sex couples?
A: No.
Q: Should same-sex couples be allowed to marry?
A: No.
Q: Should Indiana provide state-level spousal rights to same-sex couples?
A: No.
Source: Indiana Gubernatorial Election 2008 Political Courage Test Nov 1, 2008
I miss the old Obama, the one racist America would never vote for.
I live in Indiana and Mitch Daniels has done a pretty good job in a difficult time. He is not charismatic or particularly good looking. He does not have a cult following or anything like that, but he is a smart man who knows how to manage things.
There is something to be said for that.
It's not about "experience;" it's about accomplishments in whatever position.
"... I haven't seen him in action enough to have an opinion about how strong of candidate he'd be, standing next to President Obama in a debate and so forth."
The reason you're intrigued by Mitch Daniels is because you're too influenced what you read in the NY Times.
Daniels is a Democrat's Republican. A tax-raising, big government RINO. In other words ... he's dead to us now. If Republicans nominate a Mitch Daniels, they guarantee Barack Obama four more years and they guarantee the end of the Republican Party.
Even if he somehow manages to win the nomination, you won't see him in action at the debates: He's shorter than the podium.
The NY Times wants Republicans to nominate some runt who is 5-foot-3 so that Barack Obama looks good towering over him (at 6'1") at the debates.
All about the visuals.
I would like to see an Allen West type President to prove that race really doesn't matter.
former law student:
Daniels also earned the ire of conservatives by saying there should be a moratorium on social issues until and unless we can put our fiscal house in order.
Daniels is also the kind of conservative who believes states should be making these decisions, not the federal government. So if he was president I doubt if he would give a damn who you were or were not sleeping with.
This would be vs Obama, who might or might not support gay marriage.
Mitch Daniels? That sound you hear is the professor throwing gay people under the bus:
Vote Republican and blame Democrats. That's how you show your support for gay rights.
The whole reason social issues are such a problem in politics is that the liberal position is that government should have it's hands in them up to it's elbows.
The conservative political position should be "That's not our business. Next issue."
It seems to me that instead of falling back on more establishment loser republicans that have gotten us into this mess, they should look at the promising up and comers.
So many names come to mind: Jindal, Rubio, Palin, Christie, and plenty of others.
Mitch had a shot. He was part of the losers that helped destroy the Reagan coalition. There's no particular need to toss him out of the party, but he certainly has no claim to leadership. If he were such a great leader, he would have prevented the mess they're in now.
The conservative political position should be "That's not our business. Next issue."
Really. The Texas GOP wants to make homosexuality a felony and reinstate the sodomy ban. We had a Republican running for Senate here in Wisc that wanted to outlaw homosexuality and all forms of pornography. Jim DeMint, the Tea Party spiritual leader believes gays and single women shouldn't be able to teach in schools. I don't what rock you've been living under.
In his first State of the State address on January 18, 2005, Mitch Daniels put forward his big-government agenda to raise the State's tax base by calling for a one-year 1% tax increase on all individuals and entities earning over $100,000.
Even Barack Obama doesn't want to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000/year. Daniels wanted to lower that to $100,000 in Indiana.
Do Republicans really want to nominate a guy who wants to raise taxes more than Barack Obama?
The Republican-controlled legislature had to step in and bitch slap Daniels. They refused to pass that tax.
Next up for Daniels: Raise taxes to fund a football stadium. When did the government get into the football business?
Why should taxpayers buy stadiums for millionaire football and other sports team owners?
Why would I vote for Mitch "Tax" Daniels?
Heck, he got us onto DST, which has never been popular here, so there must be something to say for his leadership (I was against it). Really, he's been a heckuva leader, even if he's not 100% with me. He'd be orders of magnitude better than what we have, certainly. Carter notwithstanding, I think governors make far better presidents than legislators.
The wind began to switch,
the House (of Representatives) to pitch,
and suddenly the hinges started to unhitch.
Just then Switch 2 Mitch - to satisfy an itch, went on the Internet offering a hitch.
And oh, what happened then was rich.
The House began to pitch.
The electorate took a slitch.
It landed on the Obama administration,
in the middle of a ditch.
"how strong of a candidate"?
"He'd be orders of magnitude better than what we have, certainly."
I'm not so sure.
Barack Obama wanted to tax only people making $250,000 or more (or so he claims).
Yet Mitch Daniels - as one of his first official acts - proposed lowering that to include people who make as little as $100,000.
Daniels wants to tax more people than Barack Obama does - and he's probably competent enough to get it done.
I'd much rather have an incompetent person in office who can't get Republicans to agree to a tax increase than a Mitch Daniels ... who could achieve the goal of fucking working Americans over.
If it's between Mitch Daniels and Barack Obama ... I'll vote for Obama.
Obama is incompetent. And that's a plus in my book.
"But I haven't seen him in action enough to have an opinion about how strong of candidate he'd be, standing next to President Obama in a debate and so forth."
--------------
what good will that do? You did see Hillary in debates with Obama, didn't you?
He has one big problem... he's a bachelor. The left will make a big deal of it and start a whispering campaign.
There was a good reason Americans hadn't elected a sitting member of Congress in 50 years before The Zero. Hopefully, it will be another hundred before anybody tries it again.
garage mahal said...
Not an Armageddon Conservative. Wants a truce on the culture wars. Which in today's GOP is a definite deal killer. Pro life zealots will never stand for it.
As opposed to the anti-life Demos?
As far as Daniels' "moratorium" on social issues, notice the Demos don't ever do anything like that and they're far more repressive in their attitudes (although very few people are willing to make the 'independents' face it).
(The Crypto Jew)
Oh Huzzah a Bush Rino for Prez..."He's Moderate" "He's Competent" Gee wasn't that the "strength" of McCain?
""The conservative political position should be "That's not our business. Next issue.""
"I don't what [sic] rock you've been living under."
Read, my friend. I said: "The conservative position SHOULD be..."
I doubt that you, like other Libs, want the government out of your business, so don't get pissed when they do and it's not the way you want.
Now if you do want them out of your shit, then welcome to the conservative cause. We have common enemies and some are Republicans
Candidate Obama supported civil unions, federal recognition of state civil unions, including partner benefits, equal tax treatment for civil unions, and the ability of US residents to petition to sponsor the immigration of their same-sex partner.
http://www.hrc.org//documents/
Questionnaire_ReportCard-ClintonObama.pdf
New Ham,
The country is in a mess because of under taxation and over spending.
Mitch is right that we need to increase taxes.
Conservatism should be primarily about fiscal conservatism and responsibility... not just cheaper tax bills.
(The Crypto Jew)
The country is in a mess because of under taxation and over spending.
Ahhhh the great Moderate Delusion and Liberal Con..."Tell you what you RAISE taxes, it's the RIGHT thing to do, and then we'll reduce spending."
RIGHT, this is the Lucy and Charley Brown scenario...and every time Moderates and Realistic Conservatives go "AAAAAAAAAAAAH" as the football gets jerked away, EVERY TIME.
But sure, Lisa, if you're one the "Responsible Conservatives" or you're a "Moderate" believe that story...Democrats will reduce spending, and all we have to do is agree to raise taxes.
"Conservatism should be primarily about fiscal conservatism and responsibility... not just cheaper tax bills."
Conservatism should be first about liberty. Taxes are the primary assault on liberty. They are used by government to control behavior and increase power over the citizenry, and they always succeed at that even if they fail to cover expenditures.
They are a necessary evil, which means less is better. Fiscal responsibility comes from controlling spending, not increasing revenues. For example: we all know plenty of people who have large incomes and are still fiscally irresponsible. More income will not solve their problems, but they will always tell you it will. Remind you of anyone?
Government revenue has been stable as a percentage of GDP for a very long time. The thing that has clearly gone wrong is the spending side.
Democrats will reduce spending, and all we have to do is agree to raise taxes.
Watch how things play out at the state level over the next two years. With so many Republican-controlled state houses, spending should be cut, right?
"Watch how things play out at the state level over the next two years. With so many Republican-controlled state houses, spending should be cut, right?"
RIGHT. And I have no problem with you joining us in the fight to make sure of it. We just need people to say: "I'll cut my program."
If you want to know where to cut, consult the constitution. If it ain't in there, well...
fls wrote:
"Candidate Obama supported civil unions, federal recognition of state civil unions, including partner benefits, equal tax treatment for civil unions, and the ability of US residents to petition to sponsor the immigration of their same-sex partner."
Who's this "Candidate Obama" fella? He sounds like somebody opposed to the President on these issues.
"Conservatism should be primarily about fiscal conservatism and responsibility... not just cheaper tax bills."
We can have both.
In this fiscal environment, is it a good idea to spend scare tax resources on PBS? To fund ACORN and its successors? To buy ads on MSNBC? To fund liberal colleges and universities which enjoy tax-free multi-billion dollar endowments? Should federal employees be making 6-figure salaries and get million-dollar pensions?
Before Republicans start putting ANY higher taxes on the table, Republicans have to ensure the elimination of all non-essential spending first.
Especially spending that benefits Democrat Party interests such as federal unionized employees.
THEN only after all the bullshit spending has been eliminated ... then maybe we put higher taxes on the table.
Or else we have no need for a Republican Party and we can get on with the business of establishing the Tea Party.
That's not a threat. It's a promise that we're carrying out already.
As long as NPR gets $1 federal tax dollar, as long as government union workers get 6-figure salaries and bonuses, then the federal government has taken too much money from hard-working Americans.
Taxes are OFF the Republican table until AFTER spending has been eliminated.
Bayh, former Indiana Governor and Senator, would also make a damn fine President.
I read his column Wednesday -- the man's a DINO. The Dems' problem is that they were insufficiently Republican. Then he rolled over and exposed his soft underbelly.
NO EFFING WAY Truce Daniels ever gets even close to the nomination. Never going to happen.
Roux said...
He has one big problem... he's a bachelor. The left will make a big deal of it and start a whispering campaign.
====================
Now, now... that could be a plus.
Mitch makes his GF 1st Lady. People don't like her as some Hillary wannabe wanting to be Co-President or a widely disliked Michelle "1st time I was ever proud of my country", retinue of 56 staffers and kanoodling with royalty...
Mitch dumps her and goes with Version 2.0.
********************
As for governors vs. Senators, I agree with Althouse.
Even on the Howard Dean level (would have been a far better President than Obama).
My favorites are Daniels, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, and the guy whose Last Name Shall Not Be Mentioned.
The two Indian-American govs may be good with some more seasoning. And while Rick Perry is OK, he is part of that Texas tradition I don't think the country wants a 2nd dose of for a while.
Palin was a governor, but she quit her job.
roux,
He has been re-married to his wife Cheryl since 1997. They were married, then divorced in 1993 and then remarried in 1997 to the present. He is not a bachelor.
Sorry, Mitch Daniels likes to raise taxes first.
That's a signal to the Parliament of Whores that it's okay to keep on with the Same Old Same Old.
Cut spending, cut spending, cut spending.
Let's try that first.
I love Mitch but I won't sign the petition, because I will be deluged with emails begging me for money for the next four years.
Rick Perry looks like Jack Lord. I just couldn't vote for him...
This is the STOP PALIN candidate. Run, Mitch, Run. I'll enjoy watching Mama Grizzly savage you and the rest.
Like a 5' 6'' running back, Mitch can run unseen behind the Media blockers suggesting that Mitch is a perfect candidate to run for President. But why does the media say that Mitch is a perfect candidate? They say because he lacks a political cult of personality ( by which they mean that Daniels has no personal attraction for any voters but GOP white men). But he has to go up against the Smiling Mr Personality Cult himself, that the media has worked hard creating for the past 4 years The suddenly helpful politico knows that the GOP needs more than Mitch Daniels has to offer.
"My favorites are Daniels, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, and the guy whose Last Name Shall Not Be Mentioned."
Cedarford just doomed these candidates (eh, Romney was doomed the day he signed ObamaCare in Massachusetts).
NOT Perry, please!
He's Bush all over again, just that he can read the writing on the wall a bit better and has jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon. He's pretending to be all about small government, but all he's really about is getting the feds out of the state's business--which is an admirable goal--except that he then has no problem with bloating the size of the state government!
My personal last straw with him was when he tried to force the std vaccine (I forget what it's called at the moment) on all children. I am plenty pro-vaccination, but that's not a choice the govt needs to make!
For more taxes and less Charisma - Vote Mitch.
VOte for Mitch: Cause Romney is way too Right-wing.
Vote For Mitch: He'll go to Bat for VAT.
Vote for Mitch: 'Cause moderate is kinda, sorta good in a way.
The NY Times wants Republicans to nominate some runt who is 5-foot-3 so that Barack Obama looks good towering over him (at 6'1") at the debates.
he can wear lifters like McCain did.
whoelse are they going to nom?
Romney is a MORMON, Chris Christie is FAT, and Palin is a RETARD.
lawl.
The GOP's leading candidate this past two weeks now has a lock on media attention and may be able to at the least to cause the Party insiders to anoint a perfect man.That leading candidate is named"Anonymous Sources". He was born named Karl Rove, but he has taken this new name ion service of the grandsons of Barbara Bush.
If Mitch wins he can ride his Harley in the inaugural parade.
If Palin ever wins she can ride a Polaris.
I like Mitch. We will see.
As an assimilated Texan, fiscal conservative/libertarian, I can assure you I will not vote for Rick Perry for president.
There is much to dislike about Perry, even though one may agree with a majority of his positions. He's a jerk. He's pro-business, but only the ones that have clout. Yet, I was pulling for him against pretend conservative Kay Baily Hutchinson.
The job of Texas governor is one of the easiest jobs in the country. It's hard to screw up. We've had moderate Democrats, liberal Democrats, mentally deficient conservative Republicans all serve without severely messing up a great state.
If the Republicans can nominate someone other than Palin, Perry or Hickabee, I think victory is possible.
Q: In 1988 -- with the inspiration of Ronald Reagan as president, and with his fellow Texan, George H.W. Bush, running for president as Reagan's VP and political heir -- what did Rick Perry do?
A: Perry was the Texas chairman of Al Gore's ill-fated campaign during the 1988 presidential primary elections.
Evan Bayh never, EVER takes any position that might make anyone mad, but he is a Democrat through and through. He thinks any problem can be solved with a tax increase. I would never vote for him.
Mitch is not a tax raiser. He is a tax shifter. He is under constant attack from the teachers' unions for clamping down on property taxes. He has cut spending and constantly looks for more cuts. I don't always agree with him, but I would vote for him for any office. This country has 50 Governors. How many would you prefer to Mitch? Two, three?
Daniels-Christie, cause you need a colorful VP to keep things lively.
Post a Comment