April 25, 2011

Haley Barbour will not run.

"For months, Mr. Barbour has been traveling to the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, testing his support among Republican activists. He was widely expected to enter the race this week, particularly among contributors and the party establishment, but he said that he was unsure about the long-term commitment."

I see I haven't made a tag for him yet. I've been restricting myself in the creation of new tags for this blog, especially on the names of individuals. I guess I had a premonition about this one.

I hope this gives new pull to the state governors left among the possible candidates for the GOP nomination.

76 comments:

Roger J. said...

Ah phooey--Ms Victoria said he would run and I expressed my support for Gov Barbour--apparently not going to happen--as is my usual lot in life, a day behind and a dollar short.

ricpic said...

The South will not rise again, Suh.

TMink said...

No great loss as far as I am concerned.

Trey

Scott M said...

I was hoping he would drop out.

God help me, but I just can't see a southern gentleman, however intelligent, going up against President Obama in the debates. The twang factor alone is an uphill battle. Sorry, but 'tis true.

Carol_Herman said...

So what?

Was he in contention? Was he looking for his own TV show? Did he have a chance?

I still think Americans, when they're good an angry at the political class, go outside. To find a stranger.

Just as they did to tame the Wild West.

Me? I'm just waiting to see how Obama handles Corsi's book. Because if his name's not Obama, the Oath of Office will have to be re-took.

You have another solution? Will there be time for Biden to grab hold of the donkey?

Will Q-Daffy still be running Libya?

Can Trump save us?

It was never, ever, gonna be Hail To thee, Barbour.

MayBee said...

I have a tag and Haley Barbour doesn't! If I run for president, that will be my main sales pitch.

Roger J. said...

I would however like to reiterate my support for Gov Barbour--he did an excellent job in dealing with Katrina and I have had the opportunity to review the states emergency management plans--He's competent--

unfortunately he has already been slimed and I suspect the electorate wont be handle to handle another presidential candidate with a southern drawl.

The interesting thing is that in Memphis, middle class blacks are moving to de Soto county MS in droves. They may know something we dont.

A small point: Mississippi picks up road kill along their highways (of course that denies Wisonsonsites from their grocery shopping) but it is a pleasure to drive the states highways.

Barbour is competant and I think he would be competant chief exec.

Original Mike said...

HEH.

Original Mike said...

@Roger: I also had respect for Barbour.

joeyconnell said...

I didn't think he would run. He's got a girl's name. But barbers are generally friendly so maybe the association would have helped him with middle-class whites and blacks who are disillusioned with Obama and like Barbershop.

I like boring Mitch Daniels a lot.

garage mahal said...

Aw shucks. He had more than enough money to burn a wet mule. Prolly figur'd that it was too much pumpk'n for a nickel.

Original Mike said...

By the time we get to 2012, gas prices may so high Porky Pig could get elected.

edutcher said...

A little too much Ol' South in Barbour's delivery for a lot of people, but I did like him when he was RNC chair and I agree with Roger anent Katrina.

Ann Althouse said...

I hope this gives new pull to the state governors left among the possible candidates for the GOP nomination.

Only if the name isn't Daniels.

ricpic said...

The South will not rise again, Suh.

If there's a shortage of Viagra and Cialis, it won't.

WV "lashap" What sadists have on their IPhone.

AST said...

I like Barbour, but he'd be rejected by the tea parties as being part of the GOP establishment. If I have a complaint about them, it's this kind of divisiveness. Sometimes they sound more angry at the GOP than Obama. That could be their undoing, as it always has been with rigid conservatives.

Can anyone from Mississippi ever be elected President? Being from the Deep South is one of the modern PC stigmata. It's still OK to dislike people with too much of a Southern drawl and mock them as hillbillies. Jimmy Carter had coaching to soften his southern accent, and Clinton softened his at Georgetown and Yale.

Cue up Randy Newman's "Rednecks."

wv: nessest: the ultimate degree of any -ness.

Jon said...

Can anyone from Mississippi ever be elected President?

Sure, as long as they aren't white.

AST said...

I just heard Kevin McCullough doing his usual boost of Huckabee on The Ed Morrissey Show. Huckabee is another who has softened his Southernness, and talking smack toward Romney. Huckabee is a demagogue in the great old tradition of Huey Long, but far more subtle.

He's carefully managed the idea that he's not going to run, but I'm not buying it. I don't trust him farther than I could throw him.

wv: shning The Stephen King novel that never found a publisher.

Browndog said...

He didn't stand a chance.

Slow talking, southern drawl is clear and un-refuted evidence of stupidity.

....according to liberal elites.

Just ask 'em.

Original Mike said...

"Sometimes they sound more angry at the GOP than Obama."

That's cuz the GOP is (ostensibly) on their side. You don't get mad at Obama. You just get rid of him

"That could be their undoing, as it always has been with rigid conservatives."

Yeah, cuz the "moderate" conservatives have put us in such a good place. It's my take that the Tea Party is hardline about one thing; finances. And we are in such dire straits, that's the only thing that's going to save our butts.

Roger J. said...

BTW the other thing that Mr Barbour has done is bring considerable industry into Mississippi--in part, of course, because MS is a right to work state, but Mr Barbour has been assiduous in bringing in manufacturing jobs to the Tupelo and Jackson area.--it is sad that the stereotypes of 50 years ago still prejudice our "right minded" commentariat who view MS is backwards irrespective of real evidence--

Tyrone Slothrop said...

I like Barbour, and regret his decision which I wager is based on his health. He has something lacking in the field of candidates, and sorely lacking in the incumbent, which is capability for the office.

bgates said...

If I have a complaint about them, it's this kind of divisiveness.

The hypothetical kind. I agree, the worst thing about the Tea Partiers is the way I can assert they would react under circumstances which I now know can never actually happen.

Original Mike said...

"the worst thing about the Tea Partiers is the way I can assert they would react under circumstances which I now know can never actually happen."

Heh.

Simon said...

One less vanity candidate is a good thing. Many fewer vanity candidates would be even better, and if Michele Bachmann, Gary Johnson, Fred Karger, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, and their ilk really want to serve the cause, they'll follow suit. (That's not reflection of them as people, nor of my own opinion on them; it's a question of facing reality.)

In 2007, I thought that a wide open primary field would serve us well. It didn't. I recanted. The debates become chaotic, the party becomes needlessly fragmented, and hideous sums of money--money which could be used fighting the real enemy--are wasted. I yield to the lessons of experience; we should aim for a primary field comprising no more than five good-quality candidates, none of whom should be legislators, and all of whom should have experience running a state, business, or battalion.

Simon said...

edutcher said...
"Only if the name isn't Daniels."

We could do far worse, "truce" silliness notwithstanding.

edutcher said...

Not really, Daniels is a gutless wuss.

In other words, your standard RINO.

Christy said...

While disappointed, I understand that Barbour's run would be tough. He impressed me greatly in the aftermath of Katrina and hasn't disappointed since.

Still, as Simon noted, the field needs winnowing. But I'm certainly open to a fresh face.

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

edutcher said...
"Not really, Daniels is a gutless wuss."

Care to elaborate? These things work a lot better if you make points rather than chop out opaque one line ad homs.

garage mahal said...

What I don't get is conservatives always say "Yes of COURSE we were against big spending of the Bush years!". Then say "Yea, Bush's Budget Director sounds good to me".

Browndog said...

In other news...

Two more books proving Sarah Palin is the Devil's daughter are about to drop-

The reality of Obama running unopposed, with a $1Billion war chest, winning all 57 States in a landslide is soon to be realized.

The pre-written headlines will literally Glitter in Gold.

lasckbounce said...

FLASH----Gov B would an excellent pres--- but is not electable---BHO got elected and he is $&#%€£ Gotta come up with with a body that has both attributes. And she is out there...

lasckbounce said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shanna said...

I like Haley Barbour a lot but I never thought he would be able to run for president as a republican from mississippi. Sad, really. From people who worked for him previously, I heard good things and as mentioned, he is quite a good executive.

Original Mike said...

Christ, garage. You don't even try, do you?

"In January 2001, Daniels accepted President George W. Bush's invitation to serve as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He served as Director from January 2001 through June 2003.

During his time as the director of the OMB, Bush referred to him as "the Blade," for his noted acumen at budget cutting. The $2.13 trillion budget Daniels submitted to Congress in 2001 would have made deep cuts in many agencies to accommodate the tax cuts being made, but few of the spending cuts actually approved by Congress."

Browndog said...

I have but one standard for politicians:

If you lie to me, you're done.

And I've been politically astute long enough to recognize the art of lying.

Original Mike said...

And when they both lie? For example, surely a big lie is more consequential than a small one? And the topic of the lie. That must matter?

Otherwise, you're not voting for anybody, ever.

garage mahal said...

@OM
Me try?

Original Mike said...

@garage. I know. The real puzzle is; why do I keep trying? I can't explain it.

garage mahal said...

You pasted an unlinked story. What was your actual rebuttal? That Bush gave Daniels a nickname? That Daniels tried?

Simon said...

Browndog said...
"The reality of Obama running unopposed, with a $1Billion war chest, winning all 57 States in a landslide is soon to be realized."

On the plus side, if he raises all that money and still loses (for he will not be outspent), it will finally and necessarily kill the left's theory that elections can be "bought." There's no downside to Obama losing.

Browndog said...

@Original Mike

ugh.

I forgot I was on a lawyerly blog-

How about a "fundamental" lie.

A lie that reveals yourself to be a fundamental liar.

A person who deals in lies as currency.

Good question, though. I appreciate the challenge.

edutcher said...

Simon said...
edutcher said...

"Not really, Daniels is a gutless wuss."

Care to elaborate? These things work a lot better if you make points rather than chop out opaque one line ad homs.


Opaque???

That's cute.

There's always chickening out of a union bill along the lines Walker pushed at a time when other Republican Governors were following Walker's lead. And the "truce" thing.

Original Mike said...

It was from Wikipedia. Sorry.

Two points are important:

1) Daniels was director for only the first 30 percent of Bush’s tenure
2) the fiscally conservative budgets that he proposed were not enacted, through no fault of his (though if you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it).

Original Mike said...

"I forgot I was on a lawyerly blog-"

Did you just call me a lawyer???!!!

Browndog said...

Sucking all that capitol out of an economy kills far more than a theory-

Exchanging time, effort, money, the "will to win"....greasing the gears of a political machine rather than your personal standing...

Stalin couldn't be prouder.

I'm of the ilk a collection of strong individuals make for a strong nation-

NOT- a strong political leader makes for a collection of strong individuals.

that's just me...

My vote is free...no matter how much you're willing to pay to buy it.

Simon said...

edutcher, in Indiana, our legislature meets for only a brief session; the Democrats could literally run out the clock. I suspect that Daniels' angle was simply this: union reform wasn't worth sacrificing the rest of his legislative agenda (including a critical redistricting), and I think that he believed that that was the choice. Now, as it happens, I didn't agree with that call; I would have used force to find them, drag them back in chains, and lash them to their desks (not a metaphor; this goes for the Winconsin fleebaggers, too), or at least declared the seats vacant and proceeded without them. (I do, however, agree with the premise I attribute to him that union reform is less important than districting if nothing else.) Nevertheless, while I disagree with the call, it wasn't a stupid call; it was a reasonable gambit, and characterizing it as "chickening out" is a kind of reductive nonsense more at home in the precincts of lefty blog comboxes. As to the "truce," I'll rest on what I said here.

Phil 3:14 said...

Sheriff Bill Gillespie, in spite of his "enlightenment" on the part of Det. Virgil Tibbs, could not shake his past as he rose in the ranks of the Republican party.

No fat, white cracker from the deep south was going to get elected President of the United States

Browndog said...

There's a hit piece out on Daniels today-

Syrian decent, muslim sypathizer.

I watched his speech at CPAC.

I thought he nailed it. I understand he's flawed. They all are.

Except Obama.

MSM endeavor to have Obama run un-opposed has commenced (1 1/2 years before the election).

Gonna get ugly 'round here....

garage mahal said...

OM
Not a ringing endorsement. Daniels badly underestimated the cost of the Iraq war, and he did inherit a much better financial situation than he left it. He doesn't seem to be a Randroid True Believer though, I'll give him that. WHat he could do with this Congress that he couldn't in 2001-2003, who knows.

Michael K said...

There's always chickening out of a union bill along the lines Walker pushed at a time when other Republican Governors were following Walker's lead. And the "truce" thing.

Daniels enacted the Walker reforms by executive order. The right to work bill that he did not support concerned private company unions and he thought it was too soon. There had been no preparation with the public to make Indiana a right to work state.

The truce thing is real and important. The next election is about the country going broke. Period. If the Republican wander off message, they will lose a lot of independents and libertarians.

Big Mike said...

Haley Barbour never stood a chance. It's not just that he's a white Republican from the old Confederacy. Much worse than that is the way he got his state going again after Katrina -- he demonstrated that there was a practical alternative to sitting around in FEMA prefabs cursing Bush for not doing more. There's also picking yourself up and fixing things yourself.

For all the caterwauling about Louisiana, New Orleans did not get hit with the full force of Katrina. That honor fell to Mississippi. New Orleans was only touched by the pups hanging around the Mama Wolf. Yet the city of Nawleans still is not completely back together.

Original Mike said...

I don't know anywhere near "The Daniels Story" that I need to before I vote. But given the alternatives so far, both Obama and the repubs, I want to hear more.

Browndog said...

The truce thing is real and important. The next election is about the country going broke. Period. If the Republican wander off message, they will lose a lot of independents and libertarians.

Lose them to who?

The guy breaking the country?

It's like the unions,blacks, illegals, and leftists threatening not to support Bamster-

Where the hell are they going to go?

traditionalguy said...

Haley we hardly knew you.

Simon said...

Michael K said...
"The truce thing is real and important. The next election is about the country going broke. Period. If the Republican wander off message, they will lose a lot of independents and libertarians. "

No, I don't think so. It's just a silly off the cuff remark that's gotten way out of hand; for reasons explained in the post linked above, it has no real content, and it's difficult to see how the defensive team can declare a truce. (The culture wars, after all, march to the beat of the left's drum.) On the other hand, what I think Daniels meant was that social issues are going to have to take a back seat in the next administration; other, more pressing issues will have to take priority. For example, President Daniels may or may not reinstate the Mexico City policy, but it shouldn't be the first thing he does. (One might have hoped that our current President has ruefully learned the lesson that Presidents should do nothing precipitous in week one, lest they be forced into a humiliating climbdown when it later becomes apparent that the move was ludicrous.)


Browndog said...
"[Michael K said that if the Republican wander off message, they'll lose a lot of independents and libertarians, but] Lose them to who? The guy breaking the country? It's like the unions,blacks, illegals, and leftists threatening not to support Bamster- Where the hell are they going to go? "

Yeah, to him. You evidently think that's impossible, but you're wrong. There are a lot of people out there—perhaps including our hostess—who have wearied of Obama, but will not vote for simply any Republican candidate. We can't make the mistake of projecting our antipathy for Obama onto an electorate that simply wants a better alternative.


garage mahal said...
"Not a ringing endorsement. Daniels badly underestimated the cost of the Iraq war, and he did inherit a much better financial situation than he left it."

As to the first point, it's hard to be critical without exploring the assumptions that underpinned his projections. If the war's additional cost resulted primarily from idiocy after Daniels left, and which could reasonably be projected by his model, fauling him would be unreasonable. As to the second, that doesn't seem right, either. If a plane is in a vertical dive, it might be true that the pilot who pulls it level and then passes out leaves at a lower altitude than that at which he arrived, but it would miss the point.

Sixty Grit said...

Ron Paul is in. He will lock down the looney vote, oh yeah...

Browndog said...

Yeah, to him. You evidently think that's impossible, but you're wrong. There are a lot of people out there—perhaps including our hostess—who have wearied of Obama, but will not vote for simply any Republican candidate. We can't make the mistake of projecting our antipathy for Obama onto an electorate that simply wants a better alternative.

Don't project. I'll tell you exactly what I think

Secondly, I've only been wrong twice. I've since over-corrected my mistakes, and now have one in the hand, two in the bush--take your pick.

Thirdly, I'm speaking of the hard-line electorate. Not the fence sitters like Althouse.

Remember, she told us she is a-political. More of an observer than a participant.

oops....

Bob Ellison said...

Mitch.

vbspurs said...

Ah phooey--Ms Victoria said he would run

I didn't get what you were saying, Roger, because I had been briefly on Althouse specifically to write that he had decided NOT to run. So I went back to my post, just now, and saw that my stupid iPad virtual keyboard somehow ate my "not". :(

Sorry about that!

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

Ah phooey--Ms Victoria said he would run

I didn't get what you were saying, Roger, because I had been briefly on Althouse specifically to write that he had decided NOT to run. So I went back to my post, just now, and saw that my stupid iPad virtual keyboard somehow ate my "not". :(

Sorry about that!

Cheers,
Victoria

vbspurs said...

ScottM wrote:

The twang factor alone is an uphill battle.

The are gorgeous southern accents out there. The elegant lilt of some Georgians, or aristocratic inflections of Tennesseans. But, unfortunately, Haley Barbour has one of the most annoying Mississippi accents imaginable.

I totally agree with you, there, Scott.

vbspurs said...

Original Mike wrote:

HEH.

I had forgotten about this, until I was driving home just now, and heard Mark Levine referencing the very same "skyrocket" story.

And did you hear that Steven Chu, the invisible Secretary of Energy, had said back in October 2008:

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2011/03/02/secretary-chus-insidious-economics-of-energy/

These are the people in charge of our domestic energy, folks. One guy who wants prices to skyrocket because of ideology, the other who wants nothing more for Americans than 9 dollar per gallon gas, just like the Euros.

Madness.

Simon said...

Browndog said...
"Secondly, I've only been wrong twice."

Does that include your comment above, or is that number three? Because it is certainly error to suppose that a voter ready to oppose Obama is ready to pull any other lever.

"I'm speaking of the hard-line electorate. Not the fence sitters like Althouse."

The fence sitters decide the election. The "hard liners" (I don't think of myself as a hard liner—the image seems vaguely soviet—but in reality I probably count as such for current purposes) don't have enough votes to elect a President. About 35% of voters identify as Republicans, so we win only by carrying a majority of independents (about 57%)—i.e. "fence sitters like Althouse." Nominate the wrong person, and they'll convince themselves that Obama is the lesser evil.

"Remember, she told us she is a-political. More of an observer than a participant."

And you suppose this is atypical of the electorate at large because...?

garage mahal said...

@Simon
Fair enough on Iraq. On Daniel's handling of the budget under Bush, there was no steep nosedive he was asked navigate unexpectedly . But in the end there was probably not much he could do considering the decision to go to Iraq and enact big tax cuts were going to be made without or without his consent.

Titus said...

I am devastated.

Trooper York said...

As for the matter or creating tags it is obvious that you have become quite promiscuous about handing them out like Crystal Mangum’s favors.

I mean shit, even Garage has one now.

peter hoh said...

I think Barbour had to notice that he wasn't getting any traction. Of course, that's not stopping several of the guys who are likely to run.

IIRC, Barbour's wife recently told an interviewer that she would prefer that her husband not run, but was leaving the decision up to him. Might she have not said that if his numbers were higher? I don't know.

peter hoh said...

Simon, regarding the public service unions, hadn't Daniels already achieved much of what Walker got this spring?

FWIW, I see Daniels appealing to independents much better than most of the candidates who are flirting with running for the GOP nomination.

Simon said...

Peter, I ought to know the answer to that, but I'm afraid that I don't.

Garage, agreed that a vertical dive is more vivid than accurate, but hopefully you see the point. A house can appear to be in great shape yet be riddled with dry rot. It's too simplistic to suggest that because the economy looked in good shape when Bush took office any deviation was the administration's fault, and even if it was, it's a bit of a reach to pin it on Daniels. (I also appreciate your courtesy in overlooking a typo that all-but inverted my meaning--thanks for getting what I was saying. :) )

For what it's worth, my wife can't stand Mitch, but I'm open to hearing more.

Browndog said...

It's late.

Checked back in-

It's good to see Garage has finally reverted back to civility-short lived as it may be.

I suspect Trooper is grinning...

garage mahal said...

I mean shit, even Garage has one now.

Stepford Wives dude. Resist.

And grab that twitter account. I have a beer waiting for you.

Revenant said...

Lose them to who? The guy breaking the country?

Lose them as in we stay home, because what's the point? You've got the guy in the driver's seat doing 80mph towards a brick wall. Anyone proposing to take over needs a better story than "hey, let me drive, I'll slow down to 55 so I can spend the extra time explaining how much I hate abortion and fags".

Revenant said...

I think Barbour had to notice that he wasn't getting any traction. Of course, that's not stopping several of the guys who are likely to run.

That's because NOBODY has any traction, yet. If Palin enters the race she'll probably win it (and certainly badly lose the general election). Barring that, it is anybody's guess who the nominee will be.

At this point in the 1976 and 1992 Presidential races, the men who would later go on to win were still virtual unknowns.

Hoosier Daddy said...

What I don't get is conservatives always say "Yes of COURSE we were against big spending of the Bush years!". Then say "Yea, Bush's Budget Director sounds good to me".

That's because you're just not very smart. Daniels was budget director for 2 of Bush's 8 year term.

He's done quite well for Indiana. Since we're pretty much beyond the fiscal event horizon anyway it really doesn't matter. I'm sure you'll cheerfully pull the level for Obama who is spending more than Bush dreamed of.

Hoosier Daddy said...

On Daniel's handling of the budget under Bush, there was no steep nosedive he was asked navigate unexpectedly .

You're absolutely right. 9/11 had no impact on the economy whatsoever.

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com