The American Spectator : Mitch Over Mitt

Text Size

Mitch Over Mitt

By Ross Kaminsky on 5.19.11 @ 6:09AM

Why the first should jump in, why the second doesn’t jump out.

Look, Mitch Daniels isn’t perfect. But he’s more than good enough. He’s more socially conservative than I am (not necessarily a bad thing when it comes to getting elected) and he’s not exactly a bundle of charisma. But his accomplishments as Indiana’s governor are solid and his stint as the head of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget is a critical résumé booster during these times of economic turmoil.

His opponents already smack of desperation, bringing up a rather strange marital situation — his wife left him, he raised their kids, then she returned and they remarried — which if anything makes Daniels look like a great father rather than a bad husband. They’re also trying to tar Daniels with the out-of-control spending during the Bush years. However, Daniels was (1) not a member of Congress, (2) only there for the first two years of Bush’s presidency, not the time of the most out-of-control spending, and (3) called “the Blade” by President Bush for his consistent push to cut budgets.

Daniels has been willing to make unpopular decisions, believing — and being proven correct more often than not — that the people would eventually come around to appreciate his government-shrinking efforts. One place where Daniels does have some political risk was his remarkable underestimation of the cost of the war in Iraq, though it’s hard to see that as a deal-breaker in this year of various flawed candidates.

(UPDATE: The Press Secretary for Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels offers this in response to the issue of the Iraq War cost estimate:

As OMB director, Mitch Daniels was ordered to prepare an estimate for the defeat of the Iraqi army and a six-month aftermath ending with the 2003 fiscal year on September 30. The estimate of $50 billion to $60 billion was for that period. It was not an estimate for anything beyond.

I’ll also include a link to the March 2003 background briefing on the supplemental request then OMB director Daniels provided. You only have to go to the first question to see his description.

She added, “I’ll have to disagree with you about the governor’s charisma description but that’s another conversation.”)

For a little more info about Daniels, I recommend this 2008 article by RiShawn Biddle for The American Spectator.

In short, I think Daniels fits perfectly into Charles Krauthammer’s suggestion, made in February at the 2011 Leadership Program of the Rockies Annual Retreat, that the Republican nominee should be someone “dull and competent” so that the election will remain focused on “Obama and Obama-ism.”

Meanwhile, the more I look at the betting-odds front-runner to be the Republican nominee, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, the more I see him at this election’s John McCain, a man too unburdened by principle to inspire me or the more conservative Republican base. Is he the conservative he ran as in 2008? Or is he now the establishment candidate? And if he tries for the former, who will believe him?

It’s not that Romney is a bad guy or even that he’d be a bad president. But how can a libertarian or conservative support a man whose major “accomplishment” in government is the state-level analogue to the major “accomplishment” of our socialist president. Romneycare and Obamacare are, if not identical twins, at least fraternal twins, and I can’t share the joy of the proud parents.

If Newt Gingrich’s campaign can be torpedoed in a day by his support of a “variation on” an individual mandate, why should Mitt Romney be able to skate on by without even the courtesy of offering a “variation” to the most liberty-crushing policy of the Obama Administration? Romney’s argument that “it’s OK because my method would screw just one state at a time rather than doing it in one national fell swoop” would be laughable if it weren’t costing both his state and the nation so much money, freedom, and quality health care.

Sure, Mitt raised $10 million in a one-day phone-bank fundraiser. That kind of access to money is a huge asset in politics, and showing it early in the game is certainly calculated to discourage other presidential aspirants from jumping into the ring. But Mitch Daniels should not be dissuaded. If Daniels can perform well in early debates and early primaries, the money will flow to him. And his Midwestern roots should help him in the critical state of Iowa (while Romney has the geographical advantage in New Hampshire).

Furthermore, this election will not be determined only, or even primarily, by money. A strong Republican candidate will beat Obama while spending much less than our Campaigner-in-Chief does. According to the Washington Post, in the 2010 Congressional elections, in the 63 seats that Democrats lost to Republicans, the Democrats outspent the GOP by an aggregate $35 million, or about 20%. That was also despite the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees’ (AFSCME) spending a reported $87.5 million in the 2010 election cycle, fully 30% of pro-Democrat independent expenditures according to the Wall Street Journal.

Yes, unions, especially public sector unions, will have to throw good money after bad in support of Barack Obama; after all, other than the reprehensible assault on capitalism by the National Labor Relations Board, this Administration has done little that the far-left union base wanted. No card check, a semi-freeze of federal employees’ salaries, at least mild support for free-trade agreements. A Huffington Post commenter perfectly framed the unions’ position: “Does the NEA really have a choice? Obama disappoints. But unless there’s a viable third party nobody can be worse than the GOP.”

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (268) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Daniel Haszard | 5.19.11 @ 6:24AM

Mitch is better qualified than Mitt.

CB| 5.19.11 @ 7:08AM

Daniels cannot hold a candle to Romney’s 25 years of private sector leadership experience.

Tom| 5.19.11 @ 8:14AM

"Romney's 25 years of private sector leadership experience" gave birth to RomneyCare. No thanks.

Intelligent Design| 5.19.11 @ 8:23AM

Romney is a certified collectivist. So is Gingrich. I would like to see Jeb Bush step up to the plate. He would appeal to a wide range of voters, including independents and Hispanics. He did a great job as Governor of Florida, and he stands on principles, not the latest poll or demagoguery. Some say the country doesn't want Bush III. I say Jeb would beat Obama handily.

wodiej| 5.19.11 @ 8:26AM

OMG...No more Bush people in the WH. They've done enough RINO damage.

Cosmo| 5.20.11 @ 2:23AM

Yes, and Jeb is an amnesty supporter.

Genius| 5.20.11 @ 2:25AM

No to Daniels...He's an anti-conservative RINO
like McCain....

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 8:32AM

Sadly the ignorant Amy's of the world make a Jeb run unlikely. Another Texas Governor, Rick Perry, would be an interesting candidate if he felt the call of party and country to throw his hat in the ring. He would lock up the Tea Party vote (sadly if polls are to be trusted pro-Obama on entitlements), the South, social conservatives, those who want a secure border and fair treatment of illegal aliens, libertarians, state’s rights conservatives (that Romney is trying to appeal to), those strong on national defense (a worrisome area with Daniels) and pro-business/growth Americans.

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:27AM

Tea Party Co-Favorite Dr.Ron Paul:
"We must rethink the very role of government in our society. Anything less, any tinkering or “reform,” won't cut it. A good start would be for Congress to repeal the Medicare prescription drug bill."

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 9:34AM

Thanks for the chuckles Clint.

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:40AM

You're Clueless RINO-CINO Apologist.
Dr. Ron Paul:
"Medicare similarly faces a shortfall of $30.8 trillion in unfunded future benefits. The Part D prescription drug benefit accounts for approximately $15.5 trillion, or half of the unfunded Medicare liability. "

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 9:49AM

Even funnier.

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:59AM

Interesting that You "Chuckle" & Find this "Funny".
Real Conservatives grasp the Economic reality that there is nothing funny or "Funnier" about Big Government Socialists & Their Out of Control Deficit Spending RINO-CINO BOY.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 10:41AM

Obviously, you don't get it. Ron Paul, King of the Earmark and Wild Shrimp Cowboy, is the joke with all his talk about the economy. Paul never saw a pile of Federal pork he didn't gobble up with the Democrats.

You need to learn more about your boy.

Dai Alanye | 5.19.11 @ 11:55AM

Ron Paul is the Ross Perot of our day, a hypocrite as well as a loon. His chances of beating Obama are as close to zero as anyone's.

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:36PM

Duuuhhhh, Do Your Homework Uninformed RINO-CINO Apologist & Economic Buffoon Micky From Tejas.
"First, The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch."
Dr. Ron Paul supports forwarding the requests of his constituents that $400 million of funds that the federal government has already taken from them and designated for spending be returned to their district.
Ron Paul never trades earmarks for "Yes" Votes.
Dr. Ron Paul: "In reality what we need are more earmarks. Just think of the 350 billion dollars that we recently appropriated and gave to the Treasury Department. Now everybody is running around and saying, “We don’t know where the money went, we just gave it to them in a lump sum”. We should have earmarked everything. It should have been designated where the money is going. So instead of too many earmarks we don’t have enough earmarks. Transparency is the only way we can get to the bottom of this and if you make everything earmarked it would be much better."
Aaaand also, "What if, for example, the WSJ gets its way and the president is given the line item veto? Couldn’t the president, as Dr. Paul points out, threaten to cut funding from a recalcitrant congressman’s district if he didn’t support the president’s proposed legislation? "

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:09PM

From Fox News, 2009 (A tip of the hat to Mr. Tomlinson):

"Spending Bill
Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Print This is a rush transcript from "Your World With Neil Cavuto," March 10, 2009. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

NEIL CAVUTO, HOST: Speaking of a lot of money, the battle about the money they're spending on Capitol Hill and, ironically, this guy is being targeted as maybe spending the most or at least earmarking the most for his constituents. He says it isn't fair.

But we thought it only fair to give him his due and explain what is going on. I'm talking about Texas congressman and former presidential candidate, Ron Paul.

Congressman, the rap is that you're a porker, that — that a lot of pork, $73 million-plus, went to your district. Is that true?

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS: Well, it might be.

But I think you're missing the whole point. I have never voted for an earmark. I voted against all appropriation bills. So, this whole thing about earmarks is totally misunderstood.

Earmarks is the responsibility of the Congress. We should earmark even more. We should earmark every penny. So, that's the principle that we have to follow and the — and the responsibility of the Congress. The whole idea that you vote against an earmark, you don't save a penny. That just goes to the administration and they get to allocate the funds.

• Video: Watch Neil's interview"

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:39PM

Asked & Answered Above Economic Imbecile Israel Firster AgendaBoy, Tool Job.

Clint| 5.20.11 @ 1:15AM

Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha !
Economic Buffoon Israel Firster Tool Job Is An Argument Against Himself.

Hint#1: What's An Appropriations Bill?

Hint#2: How many Appropriations Bills has Dr.Ron Paul Voted For ?

You Don't Get It Israel Firster Clown Tool Job.

Mike Bills| 5.19.11 @ 12:09PM

I too share Amy's views on Mitch Daniels. He is not perfect, which to Kaminsky and many readers in itself is a "disqualifier" for him to run(I refer you to the Kaminsky piece on 5/16/11 Sunday's Disqualifier). Here is a Case against Mitch Daniels
http://www.americanthinker.com.....niels.html Should we now assume from Kaminsky's own admission that Daniels is not perfect and this case against Daniels that he too is "disqualified"? This is silly. Personalities are not what is destroying our country. It's leftist policies!

Ross Kaminsky | 5.19.11 @ 3:27PM

What kind of brain would read my piece calling for Mitch Daniel to run (despite being imperfect, which really goes without saying) and claim that I am saying that Daniels imperfections are a "disqualifier"?

Sir, your thinking is utterly confused.

Mike Bills| 5.19.11 @ 11:18PM

Sir, my thinking is crystal clear and unlike yours seems to be far more consistent. My point, which seems pretty clear, was not that Daniels should be deemed “disqualified” for his imperfections. It was you, that made that argument in your “Sunday’s Disqualifier” piece just 3 days ago about Paul and Gingrich and in Paul’s case on a very weak argument.
You said about Ron Paul’s response to Wallace’s questions “It's this sort of foreign policy lunacy which makes the Congressman unfit to be president” and then went on to say “But between Paul's criticism of our killing Osama bin Laden (the way we did, anyway) and his public support of the legalization of all drugs (which I agree with, but which I acknowledge is not -- or not yet -- good politics, at least in a GOP primary), Ron Paul is a political dead man walking when it comes to the race for the presidency.” I encourage readers to look at the case you made regarding Paul.
So that’s it? Because you did not like the answer Paul gave to Wallace he is therefore unfit to be president according to you? Where was the substantive argument why Paul’s foreign policy is lunacy? There was none. Instead we were treated to this from you “Paul's answer is both stupid and dangerous, and he will be beaten mercilessly with it in every debate.” So can we assume your man Mitch will base his foreign policy on how will it plays in a debate?
So I get it, Paul is stupid, Gingrich is a fake and my thinking is utterly confused and we should ignore the pro-growth pro-America policies Gingrich offered and Peter Ferrara outlined this week. http://spectator.org/archives/.....ery-plan/1
How about you defend Daniel’s record and debate the issues if you are able. By the way where is the Daniels’ plan to get our economy going? I noticed you had nothing to say about the Case against Mitch Daniels. Why is that?

victor| 5.21.11 @ 3:11PM

What kind of BRAIN would blame, as you did the other day, the BLOOD OF THE DEAD due to drugs on those of us who want to keep illegal drugs illegal?

Hmm, Rossy baby?

LarryK| 5.19.11 @ 8:45AM

As Jesse Jackson famously said, "Stay out the Bushes"

TimH| 5.19.11 @ 9:01AM

Would he be for drilling off the coast of Florida, after he was against it?

Jack in Wi.| 5.19.11 @ 9:58AM

Clint is right: Ron Paul or someone like him. No prowar chickenhawk or pro big bank, big government Rino's wanted that leaves out Newt, Mitt, and Jebbie. The Bush family first gave us Clinton and then Obama, no thanks to a third. Why should people vote for another person like that when they can have Obama himself? This conservative will stay home if all the choices are one of the these. As for Daniels, his family situation, his physical shortness, and his friendship with the Bush's leaves him out in the minds of libertarian conservatives like me.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 10:46AM

Ron Paul, a true RINO, never saw an earmark he didn't love. Ron Paul’s addiction to gov’t pork is the problem.

http://blog.chron.com/txpotoma.....or-fy2009/

Jack in Wi.| 5.19.11 @ 11:13AM

Mike this is getting old: Earmarks are getting money back that has already been allocated in the budget. Dr. Paul is only getting his constituients hard earned money back in a small degree. Gingrich, Romney, Daniels, and Jebbie are unelectable and unexceptable.Drudge has had 2 polls up in recent times having Ron Paul with the best chance against Obama. Paul may be old but he is the only candidate among those mentioned who has a distinct philosophy and the ability to defend it. Mrs. Palin, like Dr' Paul, has a lot of libertarian conservative ideas. However her present backing of the wars disqualify her in my opinion. I also think that while she does a great job with prepared material, just like Obama, she not quick on her feet. If Mrs Palin doesn't run I would not be surprised to see her back Dr. Paul, as she did his son. She has no love lost between her and the countryclub elte. They have been knifing her in the back since the beginning.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:25AM

Earmarks are one of the reasons we're in the mess we're in now. You followers of Ron Paul make more excuses for his appetite for government pork. What’s worse you attack others who are ranked by the ACU and other conservative groups as more conservative than moderate Ron Paul. To paraphrase many here, "that's how the ruling class and RINO's excuse their misuse of taxpayer's dollars."

If you must support a Paul pick Rand (hat tip to anti-Semite jackbooted Clint). Rand is at least right to say earmarks should be voted on by Congress. Unlike his dad he's also not a supporter of bloated pork spending or sneaking a study of wild shrimp onto a non-germane piece of legislation.

Jack in Wi.| 5.19.11 @ 11:34AM

I had a lot of liberal Democrats represent me in this state and most of them claimed to against Pork. Proxmire, Feingold, Kohl etc. they voted for high taxes and got nothing back. In my opinion a representative should fight like hell against taxes and fight like hell to get as much of the money that is being spent back. Now Wi. gets very little of it's money back and we have had high tax people. Paul would close up huge Depts, get rid of all foreign aid and bring home our troops from overseas. This country can never return to fiscal sanity until that happens. He also would get rid of The FED, IMF, and World Bank. He and his ideas are driving the campaign and the Countryclub doesn't like it.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:46AM

I'm glad Trump is out of the race, but he nailed it at CPAC. He also made life fun poking fun at another friend of government pork – Obama. Wish he'd keep it up just for fun.

Look you love Ron Paul (guess Pelosi and Reid to since they love bringing home the bacon) and it doesn't matter that he's more moderate than Lindsay Graham according to the ACU, Eagle Forum and other conservative groups. I get. If he wins the Republican nomination I'll vote for him. Unlike, you I'm not going to sit back and let the Democrats win just, because our candidate is a short, unattractive, disingenuous big spending moderate RINO. I’d prefer a real conservative or moderately conservative candidate, but any Republican is better than Obama.

As for all of Paul’s big talk it ain’t going to happen unless he builds on Obama’s anti-Constitutional policies, ignores Congress and rules by fiat. But then I’d hope Rand would lead the charge to have his daddy impeached and removed.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:53AM

Just realized you're part of the problem too Jack. Gimme, gimme, gimme. Now you make sense.

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:48PM

Once More For The RINO-CINO Economic Asshat Micky From Tejas.

"First, The truth is that if you removed all the earmarks from the budget you would remove 1% of the budget. So there’s not a lot of savings. But, even if you voted against all the earmarks, actually, you don’t even save the 1% because you don’t save any money. What is done is those earmarks are removed and some of them are very wasteful and unnecessary, but that money then goes to the executive branch."
Dr. Ron Paul supports forwarding the requests of his constituents that $400 million of funds that the federal government has already taken from them and designated for spending be returned to their district.
Ron Paul never trades earmarks for "Yes" Votes.
Dr. Ron Paul: "In reality what we need are more earmarks. Just think of the 350 billion dollars that we recently appropriated and gave to the Treasury Department. Now everybody is running around and saying, “We don’t know where the money went, we just gave it to them in a lump sum”. We should have earmarked everything. It should have been designated where the money is going. So instead of too many earmarks we don’t have enough earmarks. Transparency is the only way we can get to the bottom of this and if you make everything earmarked it would be much better."
Aaaand also, "What if, for example, the WSJ gets its way and the president is given the line item veto? Couldn’t the president, as Dr. Paul points out, threaten to cut funding from a recalcitrant congressman’s district if he didn’t support the president’s proposed legislation? "

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 10:16PM

You Are A Slandering Liar Punkass RINO-CINO Bootlicker Apologist Micky From Tejas.

Dai Alanye | 5.19.11 @ 12:02PM

Earmarks are simply corruption masquerading as legislation. Americans are never going to elect a hypocritical whiner who won't even actively defend the nation. Ron Paul has no chance of beating even Joe Biden.

Drunken Sailor| 5.19.11 @ 11:16AM

You wouldn't vote for him based on his physical shortness and you expect us to take your opinion seriously? Let me guess your not for Christy either because he is fat?

Jack in Wi.| 5.19.11 @ 11:26AM

Short people don't win. They will have to put him on a box to debate Obama. History proves in almost all cases in modern times that the taller man wins and if the winner is shorter it isn't by much. If he agreed with me I would vote for a midget but I doubt he would win. I just don't like anybody who had anything to do with the Bush's and who they back.

Drunken Sailor| 5.19.11 @ 11:32AM

I understand were your coming from as far as PR. But thinking like that would not have gotten us.

Sam Adams 5,6
Alexander Hamilton 5.7
John Adams 5,7
James Madison, 5,4

Mitch Daniels is 5,6

Voting American Idol is what got us the present loser in the White house. Mature adults vote on the issues, granted America may be in short supply of those but don't be like them. If you disagree with him politically, say so and let it be.

Jack in Wi.| 5.19.11 @ 11:38AM

Only Adams and Madison won the highest office. They would never probably win in the TV era. Besides I don't think either was much good or Martin Van Buren either. The main problem of Daniels is that he is a rino. Being short just makes him more unelectatable.

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 5:36PM

You are using the term RINO way too much Dick Lugar is a RINO Daniels is an establishment republican, who happens to be very conservative compared to most others in the establishment, the Bushes werent RINOs they were Neocons which though I despise Neocons Daniels despite working for the Bushes isnt a Neocon, I can understand your ignorance as you arent from Indiana

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:27AM

Maybe they'll have a drink or two and he'll look better when they vote in 2012.

Roy| 5.19.11 @ 5:35PM

I disagree with Ron Paul and don't think he would ever be president, but come on, earmarks? He's not wrong, it wouldn't be a terrible thing if Congress did earmark every penny.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 6:50PM

Dear Roy,

the problem is with bringing the pork "home." Pork can contain parasites, and we have enough, including Paul. There are some Congressmen who never earmark because they look at their country a whole.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:10PM

Physical shortness: OK, then the Father of The Constitution is out. James Madison was 5 feet, 4 inches.

Jack, do you know anything about anything?

loulou| 5.19.11 @ 11:11AM

You didn't get the message: There will be no more Bushes in the WH.

Tex Expatriate| 5.19.11 @ 4:56PM

Sure, he might beat Obama, but almost anyone can beat the sorry SOB. But Bush is an open borders, amnesty advocate like his brother and daddy. We need to back someone with genuine cojones and conservative values. I have Cain, Palin, and Bachmann in mind.

JP| 5.19.11 @ 10:13AM

Bain and Company was a business consulting firm. It's not like started his own firm from scratch or ran a corporation that actually made something. Bain Capital was a private equity firm. Again, high finance is much different from manufacturing. There are plenty of private equity funds managers that couldn't run Tasty-Freeze.

In that sense, Mitt is a man who was in the right place, at the right time, and with a certain skill in picking financial winners at a time when almost all stocks were going through the roof.

Cosmo| 5.20.11 @ 2:22AM

Daniels...Loser...Bye...
Tells Conservatives to "go to the back of the bus."
If we do, we won't get off the bus to vote for him.
Just another Rino...and a Bushie besides....What a horrible combination....Pawlenty: maybe...
Bachmann...Yes !

Amy| 5.19.11 @ 7:09AM

Mitch Daniels was the Budget Director for President George W. Bush! I cannot think of a worse thing to have on the resume of our candidate next year! Republicans need to leave Bush in the past, and turn over a new leaf. We can’t beat Obama with one of Bush’s guys. No way.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 7:48AM

During the Bush years unemployment was regularly 4-5%, the housing market (until the Clinton sub-prime mortgage bomb blew up) was booming, the dollar was stronger, leases for pumping American oil were up (Democrats kept us from moving toward energy independence), the stock market was over 14K, gas prices were low, food prices were low, there was zero inflation, taxes were NEVER raised, the last Republican budget (2006) set the budget up to be balanced by 2015, Bush’s last annual budget was half of Obama’s February 2011 deficit, the national debt was $4 trillion less, based on GDP spending was lower than Reagan's and on par with Clinton and previous modern Presidents, all wars were voted on and supported by a bi-partisan majority of Congress, military morale was high and pay was fair and Muslim terrorists/jihadists/fundamentalists/the majority were scared as hell of the US.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.19.11 @ 8:14AM

Michael,
well spoken, sir! Great reminders of reality.

Nunya| 5.19.11 @ 11:01AM

Michael, yes to all of the above. However, W also gave us Medicare part D, and he spent money like a drunken sailor--to include the initial bailouts--bailing out rich bankers for their own stupid investments while stealing the money from the rest of us--including our grandchildren. He's part of the reason we are where we are (though Obozo has taken spending to a Zen level).

The Bush family is a bunch of globalists, and I will never vote for anyone named Bush.

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 12:54PM

A sad day when a person can say openly that our president is a socialist and it bothers no one. Yet when someone merely mutters the single word Bush blood pressure rises.

Nunya| 5.19.11 @ 5:42PM

You're right, but I would say two things: First, I believe taht everyone is well aware that Obozo's a committed Socialist/Marxist, so that's not news. Second, I voted for Bush twice and I feel betrayed by him. I was voting someone I believed was a fiscal conservative which he is absolutely not--nor was his father. That's why I figure the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree with any more Bush's in politics.

Nunya| 5.19.11 @ 5:43PM

I believe t-h-a-t... (I need to proofread before posting)

Intelligent Design| 5.19.11 @ 8:17AM

Unemployment averaged 5.3% during the presidency of George W. Bush, lower than the averages of the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. The average deficit-to-GDP ratio during his administration was 2.0%, below the 50 year average of 3.0%. His ratios of spending-to-GDP, taxes-to-GDP, deficit-to-GDP, and debt-to-GDP were all lower than the averages of the prior three decades, the 1970's, the 1980's, and the 1990's. And by the way, the Bush tax cuts increased the portion of the total tax burden that fell on the wealthiest Americans.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 8:36AM

An intelligent and factual reply to liberal dribble.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:13PM

Beautiful, ID.

Thanks, Michael. I was unaware how much of a porker Paul was.

Tom| 5.19.11 @ 8:17AM

Yes and no.

Was Daniels making the final decisions? No.

Did he agree with them? I don't know - that's a fair question.

What is more pertinent is what he's done when he was the final decision-maker.

What we don't need is another faux conservative -- Romney, Huntsman, (now) Gingrich. Whether Daniels is too, I'm not sure -- I'm open to being educated. Ditto re: Pawlenty.

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 12:56PM

Santorum seems decent from what little I have learned about the man.

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 5:39PM

He also worked for Reagan as his chief political adviser, should we just forget about Reagan to, It will be really hard to find a candidate who is credible and electable who didnt at one time in their career work for a Bush, remember both of thes guys were at one time very popular and Bush II won two terms

KDW| 5.19.11 @ 11:17PM

Amy, why would you hold the fact that Daniels
was the budget director for Bush, during the first
couple years of the Bush administration, against
him?

The budget director only crunches the numbers,
they do not make the actual spending decisions.
The President and the Congress decides what
gets spent and how much. Daniels was not
responsible for any of Bush's poor fiscal
decisions - Bush was.

Certainly, Daniels in no way emulated Bush in
his role as Indiana Governor. Daniels, I'm sure,
has his faults, but fiscal irresponsibility isn't one
of them.

Patrick in AZ| 5.19.11 @ 12:12PM

Mitt has his down-side (like all people), but the more the Republican establishment and the leftist media push Daniels, the more skeptical I am of him.

wyatt bridger| 5.19.11 @ 6:28AM

I agree. Charisma is important, i suppose, but lately even republicans seem to be sinking into an American Idol mentality.

Mike Hawk| 5.19.11 @ 7:00AM

If you got excited about Capt. McQueeg, Mitch will really get your juices going. We need another colorless, flat grey accountant type "Moderate" so we can pin another POTUS loser to the tail of the jackass.

Amy| 5.19.11 @ 7:04AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 7:49AM

During the Bush years unemployment was regularly 4-5%, the housing market (until the Clinton sub-prime mortgage bomb blew up) was booming, the dollar was stronger, leases for pumping American oil were up (Democrats kept us from moving to energy independence), the stock market was over 14K, gas prices were low, food prices were low, there was zero inflation, taxes were NEVER raised, the last Republican budget (2006) set the budget up to be balanced by 2015, Bush’s last annual budget was half of Obama’s February 2011 deficit, the national debt was $4 trillion less, all wars were voted on and supported by a bi-partisan majority of Congress, military morale was high and pay was fair and Muslim terrorists/jihadists/fundamentalists/the majority were scared as hell of the US.

benny havens| 5.19.11 @ 8:47AM

These are not the items that the media or the leftist talking heads will bring up before the American S--t-for-brains voting public. All we will hear is how Mitch worked for Bush and how bad things went for the children, senior citizens, illegal nationals, global warming and puppies.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 9:01AM

Recent polls have Bush actually tying Obama in popularity. The tide is turning as Americans begin to remember the boom days of George W. Bush.

This election will be all about Obama. If he attacks Bush or Daniel's (if he's the nominee) for working for Bush then he'll look even weaker than he does now. Obama his failed eoncomy and foreign policy will be the issues in 2012. Not the nearly 8 years of prosperity and safety under W.

benny havens| 5.19.11 @ 10:43AM

No matter who the Republican candidate is, the theme must be Obama’s record. I totally agree. However, Obama’s support group, the media, will go off on a tangent with some other BS issue. As Sarah Palin stated, we can’t let the LSM frame the debate. When a goofball question is asked, refuse to answer it. Keep the discussion on the issues. The issue is Obama’s record. There is plenty to talk about.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 10:48AM

Benny hopefully the future nominee is listening to you. Stay on point and always throw a question back to a Democrat propagandist as an attack on Obama.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:14PM

Benny, are you a ring knocker? If yes, thank you.

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 5:41PM

Most americans are tired of "Bush did it" and most americans probably by now recognize that Mainstream Media is very biased in favor of Obama, 2008 and especially 2010 confirmed this

MoeBlotz| 5.19.11 @ 1:39PM

Amy,are you redundant or just repeating yourself?

Jacqueline Zaring| 5.19.11 @ 7:05AM

Milkeque toast versus cinnamon toast; neither can win. We need something with protein, that delivers energy, vitality, sustenance, and staying power. Who could it be? Neither of these.

One says ignore "social issues" To a Country and a government that has lost its moral compass, that's not encouraging; the other says, "let's try socialism" but only for 1/50th of the nation, and it will be okay."

Sorry. I'll take a protein diet of conservative principles any day over "no principles" and "experimental principles."

Carol| 5.19.11 @ 7:12AM

Mitch Daniels reminds me of another lightweight who was afraid to criticize Obama and his name is John McCane.

He's a moderate who has to be shoved to do anything right away.

I'll pass.

Give me someone with cajones - a woman perhaps.

benny havens| 5.19.11 @ 12:55PM

Have you seen Harry Reid lately? I understand that he bumped into Michele Bachmann in the hallway the other day. Now there is a gal with cajones.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:15PM

Yes, but she's also very cute.

KDW| 5.19.11 @ 11:42PM

Could you enlighten us on some of the moderate
actions Daniels has taken as Indiana Governor?
Being an Indiana resident I seem to have missed
them. I've watched Daniels basically have his
way with Indiana Democrats while running seven
years of budget surpluses. Daniels also found
time to emasculate the public sector unions in
this state, his very first week in office. None of
his accomplishments came easily - he steamrolled the Democrats to get them.

His record as Governor is quite impressive.
Before writing him off you might actually want
to take a look at it. He might not be your cup
of tea but he is no RINO and he is definitely
NOT JOHN McCAIN.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.19.11 @ 7:19AM

The main thing scary about Mitch Daniels is his relationship to Bush. In some ways he will be perceived as a Bush selected hand puppet.

Mitch Daniels does have a sold record and in many ways. Read this passage and see how he and his wife started a school which teaches traditional values in what was left of a city after liberalism destroyed the city like liberalism has destroyed so many cities:

"He serves as an elder at the Tabernacle Presbyterian Church, in inner-city Indianapolis, which he’s attended for 50 years. In 1998, with a few other couples from Tabernacle and a nearby Baptist congregation, he and his wife founded a “Christ-centered” school, The Oaks Academy, in a downtown neighborhood the local cops called “Dodge City.” It’s flourishing now with 315 mostly poor kids who pursue a classical education: Latin from third grade on, logic in middle school, rhetoric in eighth grade, an emphasis throughout on the treasures of Western Civilization. “It’s the most important thing I’ve ever been involved in,” he told me. His social-conservative credentials are solid. " (From Mereorthodoxy)

On that note, he's not someone to be taken lightly, but he's also prayed at the Church of Big Government with Bush and that alone will be a hard obstacle to overcome. It will be difficult, if not impossible, to change that connotation.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney, may have an element of Teflon working for him.

The fact that he started a state run health care program that promotes health care through private insurance is a far cry from what will be single payer under Obama.

It could be argued that getting everyone to pay is far better then allowing people to exist anonymously out in the public only surfacing to scam the system when they need health care.

It's amazing how many conservatives want a Fair Tax which would eliminate a system where half the public no longer pays federal income taxes, only to criticize Mitt Romney for starting a health care system which essentially accomplishes the same thing.

Mitt Romney also has a history of solving massive problems, to wit:

"Statue or no, Romney turned around an Olympics that was headed for disaster in 2002 - a feat that put him squarely in the national spotlight. Before his work on the Olympics, Romney had been a successful Boston businessman, and he used the skills of persuasion he learned in the high-stakes world of private equity to rescue an organization marred by bribery allegations and financial mismanagement." (From the Concord Monitor)

Romney has also turned several companies around and created billions in wealth for himself and others.

In other words, Mitt Romney is the perfect anti-Obama.

Kerry| 5.19.11 @ 11:52AM

The reason most if not all residents of Mass have health care is that they were forced onto government welfare/medicaid. Rationing has indeed started in Mass- avg wait time for medicare recipients is now up to 2 mos. Insurance premiums are shooting up rapidly.
Forcing people to buy a product is against our Constitution. ANYONE who would sign such an evil into law is an enemy of our Constitution and way of life! Principles anyone???

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.19.11 @ 1:13PM

If that's true then why are there taxes? You're forced to buy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and many other government products each and every day.

Kurt| 5.19.11 @ 7:48AM

Governor Rick Perry is by far the best conservative candidate in my opinion and would attack Obama relentlessly! I think Romney would pitch softballs toward Obama because they both think in close to the same manor! We need a true conservative not a moderate which is what Daniels and Romney represent!

john dubose| 5.19.11 @ 8:06AM

More than ideology or personal interest guides the choice that people make for president. When people want a new approach, they want a new type candidate. Rick Perry is too much like GWB. I think he knows that and has decided to not waste the effort this go round. Someone with high competence and low charisma might be what people wind up wanting. If gov Daniels can convince people that he had an effect to reduce the budget under GWB, his star will rise and he would be a great pres.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 9:06AM

As a Texas Republican I can tell you Perry is no Bush. I've voted for both, campaigned for both and like both. Both are conservatives, but they're definitely different.

It is easy to compare and defend the Bush budget. Put it up against Reagan and Obama. If honest even the fiscal conservatives would have to agree Bush's budget was the best of the three.

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 5:46PM

I've heard about Rick Perry, He isnt as far as I know running, but I do know he is leaning in favor of a Daniels run, and that Barbour, Christie, Jeb, Boehner, and Scott Walker, all want a Daniels run, If all of those people were to endorse Daniels publicly which it looks like they are leaning that way than Daniels would be ahead of everyone but Romney and he would be pretty darn close to him with that

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 7:52AM

None of the current crop of candidates is really a moderate. While Romney comes the closest he will govern to the right. In fact, even Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins (truly moderates) would govern to the right of Obama that's how far out in left field he really is.

Nunya| 5.19.11 @ 11:32AM

Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are not moderates, they're leftists (in my opinion).

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:59AM

In comparison to Obama they're on the right, but that's true for Evan Bayh and he's a lefty too. Interestingly, they've stayed generally to the right since their stupid votes for the Obama stimulus.

Nunya| 5.19.11 @ 12:48PM

In comparison to Obozo I think Stalin would be to the right (a little...) :-)

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 1:03PM

I get where you're coming from. I think he'd like to be Stalin's little buddy.

martin j smith| 5.19.11 @ 7:52AM

Let daniels get in already--that is if he wants to--and let us know why we should vote for him. Isnt that a novel idea ?

**posttenebraslux**| 5.19.11 @ 7:58AM

Mitt Romney is to the so called conservative media what Bammy is to the main street media, they will protect him at any cost. He was and is the establishment's man, Bill O'Reilly started Romney's campaign 2 years ago by the simple statement, Mitt Romney will be the next Republican candidate for President. That is Romeny's teflon, the so called conservative media. Ask the tea party what they think. Their eyes are open to the American Idol phenomenoma, i.e. Herman Cain. Who did Mr. Cain support in the 2008 election? The tea party wants a true conservative. Are there any left?

wodiej| 5.19.11 @ 8:30AM

I guess since Trump is out and Gingrich is done, Daniels is the "flavor of the month." The "first lady" should be held to the same standards as the president. I don't know what the situation was that prompted Cheri Daniels to leave Mitch w their 4 children and go marry a Dr. in California, but it is a serious character flaw and not a good role model in leading our country. Gov. Sarah Palin fits the bill nicely. I guess it depends on how high your expectations are.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 8:43AM

We're not electing First Ladies. We're electing a President. If that is the most important issue for you then go watch Oprah or read People.

Any and every candidate is flawed.

Sarah Palin has her "weaknesses" too. She could be accussed of being a poor mother, because her daughter got pregnant out-of-wedlock. She quit her job as Governor for more money or it got too tough making her either greedy or weak. Finally, do we want another "reality star" in the White House?

The good news any Republican will do a better job than Obama.

Dai Alanye | 5.19.11 @ 12:14PM

Tomlinson's criticisms of Palin are off-base and exaggerated, not to say largely false. He is apparently so worshipful of Daniels that any slander is acceptable to use on competitors.

Palin's not my first choice, which presently is Santorum, but as compared with the colorless and quavering Daniels I'd choose her any day.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 12:43PM

Read carefully. I'm not critical of her on these issues, but how these type of arguments could be made.

I'm sorry he had marital problems, but I'm glad he and his wife are back together. It speaks volumes about his ideas of love, the family and his character of forgiveness. I find that admirable in our selfish world. Obviously, you don't, but I wouldn't be voting for his wife. You may not like her, but based on how many women dislike Palin and I'd hazzard a guess they'd prefer Cheri Daniels over Palin.

I don't support Daniels and he's not even in the race. If he enters then I'm going to give him a real look, because he has a real record as a Governor as opposed to Sarah Palin's half term the thing that most turns me off on her.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:21PM

With the exception of The Prince of Pork, the Archduke of Appeasement, of course, Michael.

Mimi| 5.19.11 @ 9:30AM

Wodiej...I'm with you. We've fought the good fight and ...Nov. 2010 is our CREDS! We want a strong CONSERVATIVE period....The Conservative late bloomer/RINO won't cut it. We have been good soldiers for the Republican party and stuck with them and the MODERATES and they spent along with the Dems. I believe the "O" won because many strong conservatives stayed HOME.....We are looking for REAGAN LIKE...figures and " FINGER TO THE WIND TYPES " need not apply. We traditional Conservative's need to hang tough and PRAY, the right candiate appears....We will KNOW...when we see him ....and a wide consensus of AMERICANS will vote him IN....Because he will be desparately needed..To save this country, and HEAL the HARM!

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 9:36AM

Strong conservatives voted against Obama, because they knew how stupid it was to stay home and let him win.

Wayne | 5.19.11 @ 11:48AM

Too bad John Mc Cain didn't realize that.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 12:00PM

True.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:21PM

I voted for McCain. Obama has given me NO surprises.

TURK| 5.19.11 @ 8:51AM

My first vote was for Eisonhower's first term in '52. At the time and since, I have, not only voted, but been a student and active participatent in the political process (8 yrs County Prosecutor in the 70's). When confronted with the uninformed breathlessly quoting some nonsense being peddled by the left or the rino/country club crowd, I always ask------where did you get that? This morning, when I read the puff piece on Daniels I looked at the bio stuff on Kaminsky to answer the Question: who IS this guy??? Answer;derivatives trader, heartland institute,Rasputin.com and backbone radio! Sooo, as he joined the left and rino/country clubbers in getting breathless over the bald one who is sniffy over the "social issues", our derivatives guy kind of made me think I might be witnessing a move ala 2008 where we can watch the Republican establishment boost someone who will blandly stroke the resident America hating (read his books and observe his associates and pals) socialist enemy of our ONLY ally in the mid-east. The history of the Republican don't rock the boat crowd, is guys like Wilkie, Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Daddy(kinder gentler) Bush,Dole and George(compassionate conservative) Bush. The last one, McCain prided himself on reaching across---but the magnificent one, Powell, voted for and supported the current disaster anyway.

There has been ONE republican debate so far. Herman Cain won it in a landslide, by the vote of average Americans who were there! Yet-----the silence on that from establishment and even conservative media has been deafening! Imagine if the dweeb Daniels had done that. The Bushes and Carl Rove would be having orgasms!

zelda| 5.19.11 @ 4:50PM

Turk,
Best Commnet I've read so far. I'm getting as tired with the Rino propaganda as I am with the left's propaganda.

Peter Verkooijen| 5.19.11 @ 8:54AM

And Daniels is not as dull as people make him out to be. He is an interesting character who knows how to connect with people. Watch the videos at http://mymanmitch.com/mitchtv

Wayne | 5.19.11 @ 11:47AM

But he needs to quit calling Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura.

Dee See| 5.19.11 @ 9:02AM

Putting aside, for a moment,
the awesomely unreckoned with matter
of our nearly complete
RED China sellout and treason op.

---Nothing so testifies to the effectiveness
of more than half a century of overt, capstone
'social engineering' (ie dumb down in the name
of EUGENICS etc.) than the miserable,
corrupt, stale, feeble selection of candidates
even as we're in the process of being defrauded
of national sovereignty itself.

"---and with medication, pornography, sports, entertainment, subversion of every kind, the average man will find rebelling
against his condition to be, in fact, psychologically impossible."
-Aldous Huxley
1952

---AS there's no definitve indignation that a
man who implemented the first state health
boondoggle (Romney) ---or another that's
actively promoted the aims of globalism
(standardization/cultural destruction) and
EUGENICS (scientific dictatorship/micro-chipping etc.) Gingrich ---are given any place in what fancies itself to be a genuinely conservative, genuinely American political forum----is
a damning case in point.

Groad| 5.19.11 @ 9:03AM

Daniels is the choice, it appears, of the RINO Establishment and Liberal Democrats. Another Dole/ McCain/ 'moderate' style RINO. We need leadership, not more of the same old DC insider pol.

Groad| 5.19.11 @ 9:05AM

BTW Ross, if Daniaels is more "socially conservative" than you, that means you are not a conservative. WHat does "socially conservative" mean anyway???

All American American| 5.19.11 @ 9:59AM

Ding ding ding, we have a winner! I remember listeng to G. Gordon a few years back. Guy calls in and says "I'm a fiscal conservative but a social liberal..." Liddy cuts him off by saying "So you're a liberal." Point being "social liberalism," i.e. a society with no morals or values, can not be "fiscally conservative." Why? Social liberalism leads to personal irresponsibility and then you have a society where 50% of the people think its perfectly OK to do what they want while the other 50% foot the bill at the point of the fed gubmint's gun barrel.

You can't have a "self-governing society" where anything goes socially. Remember a few years back when it was reported that over half of the members of congress overdraw their checking accounts and what not? They can't even manage their own money yet we think they can manage the country's pursestrings?

Yeah, how's that "social liberalism" working out for ya???

Ross Kaminsky | 5.19.11 @ 10:32AM

Groad,

Please let me know where I have self-identified as a conservative.

I am basically libertarian, though not for open borders and not for weak national defense, so not a member of the Libertarian Party (though I have been in the past.)

I make no apologies for not being "conservative" enough for some conservatives. I want government to leave us alone, not to shove a liberal Nanny State down our throats, nor a "conservative" Daddy State.

My touchstone is liberty. Period.

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.19.11 @ 11:45AM

But, but, that will brand you as some kind of anti-Paul, crank, firster and denier of the founding father of all things Tea Party.

Wayne | 5.19.11 @ 11:46AM

As a libertarian you should be very leery of a former exec of a Big Pharma company and how they get the US government to enforce the high prices for US citizens. Also how Big Pharma has basically controlled the FDA, which of course is Big Government.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.19.11 @ 3:29PM

I've been VERY critical of PhRMA and oppose crony capitalism -- which isn't actually capitalism -- wherever and whenever it occurs.

That said, experience in private industry is valuable.

Paul Hilsenrath| 5.19.11 @ 9:23AM

The Bush family is behind Daniels. They are the quintessential RINOs, hence in my opinion, Daniels would be the wrong choice to lead us out of the morass that we are in.

Wayne | 5.19.11 @ 11:43AM

And no doubt he would strike a deal to give way to Jeb Bush in 2016.

chris haynes| 5.19.11 @ 9:25AM

We need more men like Daniels. Men who are democrats.

Daniels platform: Accept abortion, so the liberals will let us save the welfare state.

Why cant we get a democrat like him? Somebody who says "Overturn Roe vs wade, so we can get the republicans to cut taxes, dump the EPA."

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 9:51AM

You obviously missed his most recently handling of abortion in his home state. Not too shabby.

All American American| 5.19.11 @ 9:26AM

Establishment RINOs amaze me---you guys NEVER learn that running establishment RINOs for POTUS isn't going to work, but you keep doing it anyway.

Besides, Daniels has a lot to answer for after the Indiana SC ruled cops can enter your house for any reason or no reason at all, especially when the judge who wrote the consenting opinion was a Daniels-appointee. Wow, is anyone else surprised that a RINO judge ruled AGAINST freedom? Me neither.

Look, if Daniels is the nominee I will grudgingly vote for him but then again a retarded monkey would be an upgrade over the current POTUS.

Peter Verkooijen| 5.19.11 @ 9:53AM

Daniels has no influence whatsoever over a supreme court decision. He can try to appoint the right judges, but beyond that it is out of his hands.

All American American| 5.19.11 @ 10:01AM

Daniels appointed the judge who just overturned 900 years of common law---he has A LOT to answer for.

Hell the least he could do is come out with a statement against it.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 12:06PM

Remember Reagan gave us Sandra Day O'Connor and Kennedy. Only George W. Bush gave us nothing, but conservative Justices.

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 6:18PM

one of the most conservative Potuses gave us two wishy washy judges, and a neocon gave us two very conservative justices, funny how things like that turn out, Indy is a Red State and Daniels has a 75% approval rating, you dont get that by being wishy washy on the issues

All American American| 5.19.11 @ 8:10PM

As soon as they overturn the 4A then I'll say that Reagan has a lot to answer for.

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 5:59PM

Reagan was part of the establishment but I dont see you whining about him, there is nothing wrong with an establishment with in a party as long as it keeps to the right and limited Government, the establishment has changed since the Bush years, in reality the only Bush that still has any influence is Jeb and not that much, The rest of the establishment particularly the governors who support a Daniels run are just as conservative as Reagan, Daniels is no Bob Dol or McCain and certainly not a Bush you should actually research him before you decide to ignore him, and if you are going to tell me we should vote Bachmann than all I have to tell you is that Bachmann is part of whats wrong with the GOP she is an idiot who has been milking the Tea Party for a long party if there is going to be a Tea Party candidate let be someone like Rand Paul or Jim Demint not Bachmann, who might not even get reelected to her district, why should we vote someone who might not get reelected based off their current record

All American American| 5.19.11 @ 8:12PM

Man, I said if Daniels was the R candidate I would grudgingly vote for him, but not anymore. Screw it.

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 9:39AM

"Look, Mitch Daniels isn't perfect. But he's more than good enough."

Good enough? ...gee...

What a RINGING endorsement.

Sorry, but I disagree...vehemently...on both counts.

"Good enough" is no longer...well, good enough.

And Daniels ISN'T good enough, anyway.

He's the preferred candidate of the RINO-led GOP establishment.

All during 2009-2010, while people like Michelle Bachman were leading the Tea party charge, where was Mitchie? I don't remember seeing him at all.

He wants to put social issues "aside" for now? Sorry, but I don't...and millions agree with me.

He stabbed Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in the back while Walker was fighting the Unions by vetoing Indiana's Right-to-work Law. WHY?!?!?

And he appointed a State Supreme Court Justice who thinks it's hunkey-dorey that the Police can enter your home without a warrant!

And let's not kid ourselves, as shallow as it may seem:

Daniels is 5'-7", and balding. Short men with hair don't get elected President. The last bald President was Eisenhower, a War Hero. I can just see l'il Mitchie debating 6'-5" Obama. No one will hear a word that Daniels says; all they'll be thinking is "Look how small he is.."

And one other thing...Daniels is also the preferred candidate of limp-wristed, pseudo-conservative David Brooks, the one who thought Obama was so swell that he swooned over the crease in Obama's pants...

That alone should be enough to doom Daniels.

If the GOP foists another loser on us in 2012, I'll be chaging the "R" on my voter registration card to "I".

Peter Verkooijen| 5.19.11 @ 9:50AM

"He stabbed Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in the back while Walker was fighting the Unions by vetoing Indiana's Right-to-work Law. WHY?!?!?"

He did not stab Scott Walker in the back. Daniels had already done in Indiana what Walker was trying to do in Wisconsin. He paved the way for Walker.

Daniels rejected a bill to turn Indiana into a right-to-work state, because it came out of nowhere, had no chance of passing and threatened to derail his agenda and give Democrats an easy opening to score points against him.

Daniels is a brilliant strategist - who worked in the Reagan White House as such - who carefully develops an issue over a longer time and then gets things done with broad support.

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 9:57AM

"Daniels rejected a bill to turn Indiana into a right-to-work state, because it came out of nowhere, had no chance of passing and threatened to derail his agenda and give Democrats an easy opening to score points against him."

Oh, so he rejected it out of pure politics, not because of any core convictions?

Thank you for the clarification!

Just what we need in our nominee...A GREAT politician!

WRONG. We need a leader.

And yes, Daniels stabbed Walker in the back. Walker and Wisconsin were ALL OVER the news for the better part of 3 weeks. By supporting RTW in Indiana, Daniels could have locked-arms with Walker and Kasich in Ohio against Union thuggery, but he chose to do the safe thing (safe for Daniels), and play politics.

Like I said...RINO, through and through.

Peter Verkooijen| 5.19.11 @ 10:13AM

You can't chose not to play politics if the other side plays politics. That is just how it is. Daniels knows how to deal with that. He was dealing with the same fleebagger nonsense Dems were pulling in Wisconsin. Daniels won in the end, his way, with much less drama.

What Daniels did in Indiana before and after the mess in Wisconsin only helped Walker and Kasich.

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 11:00AM

WRONG.

You can avoid playing politics by falling-back on principle, and refusing to compromise if there's no reason to compromise.

That's why the Democrats, as much as we dislike them, are successful: When they have the power to push their agenda, they do it. Republicans NEVER do this.

So, again...We don't need a politician.

We need a leader.

Nunya| 5.19.11 @ 11:39AM

Doc, you are correct. We need PRINCIPLED conservatives in office. Not "play the game" politicians who have no principles--or who would sacrifice them for political gain.

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 1:26PM

Do tell how a "great leader" can be a leader w/o being a 'politician' or being political?

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 1:33PM

Two words: RONALD REAGAN.

That's the precedent.

(And BTW...He was despised by the elites in the GOP, too...)

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 6:08PM

Okay first off Reagan was one of the most politically savy presidents we ever had and was a career politician, you dont make it anywhere without knowing something about politics you just end up like Ron Paul, furthermore Daniels didnt vetoe Right to Work, it was killed in the house by Dems taking off and leaving, he didnt compromise, they stayed in wisconsin trying to get him to vetoe 11 other bills he personally supported, furthermore what walker did in Wisconsin abolishing collective bargaining rights for public workers Daniels did in Indiana in 2005, furthermore if Daniels were to run Walker would support him, it seems to me you just dont understand how difficult it really would be to defeat Obama you have to have a guy who can take what the Dems throw at him and fling it right back so far people like Bachmann who are incable of understanding politics have only gotten mad, which makes them look foolish to the majority of American voters

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 6:54PM

Tim,

good arguments. Please proofread.

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 6:14PM

And he appointed a State Supreme Court Justice who thinks it's hunkey-dorey that the Police can enter your home without a warrant!

and Daniels will sign the law that will effectively nullify that ruling
By your Reasoning Reagan was a rino for appointing Sandra Day O'Connor and Kennedy to the Supreme Court, sometimes you dont really know what the judge is really like until they are on the High Court, and I'm sure this is what happened

Peppermint Tea| 5.19.11 @ 9:42AM

Romney is a problem solver, a consensus leader. If the consensus is to end the fed, balance the budget, cut entitlement spending, then he will be a true conservative. But if the consensus is business as usual, then he will be George W. Bush, and he will watch as the economy implodes and trust the Fed to have a solution, just like W.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 9:57AM

The reality is the economy "imploded," because (1) Clinton's sub-prime mortgage time bomb exploded and (2) Democrats like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd blocked reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (headed by Clinton/Obama loyalists Franklin Delano Raines and Jamie Gorelick who gave us 9/11). Repeating liberal MSM propaganda is a waste of time.

Romney or Daniels would be head and shoulder better than Obama. Romney has Reagan's good looks and pro-business agenda. Daniels is a successful Governor who like Reagan momentraily went astray on social issues, but got back on the right path.

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 1:29PM

End the FED? You are hilarious!

When was the last time the fed was ended? Are you aware what it took to do such a deed?

Interesting notes about the FED:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils in Government/Federal Reserve Scam/quotes_on_the_federal_reserve.htm

Peter Verkooijen| 5.19.11 @ 9:44AM

How is Daniels a RINO? He signed defunding Planned Parenthood. He rolled back collective bargaining for public sector unions long before Scott Walker, without all the drama. He is on record as a solid all around conservative. What more do you want from him? More red meat that will make him unelectable for libertarians and independents?

The "conservative base" are the original RINOs; they are the old Southern Democrats, former and crypto-racists who will support any big government progressive as long as he says the right things about abortion and taxes. That is how the GOP degenerated into a party of spend-happy bible thumbing hypocrites.

In 2008 McCain emerged as the candidate thanks to the conservative base vetoing more viable candidates like Giuliani and even Romney - who would be a disaster in 2012 because of RomneyCare, but had a better shot against Obama in 2008 than McCain. The "conservative base" would support Donald Trump, mushy country preacher Huckabee or Medicare panderer Gingrich and you call Daniels a RINO?!

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 9:58AM

I NEVER supported Trump.

I NEVER supported Huckabee.

I DON'T support Gingrich.

And I WON'T support Daniels; he's a RINO.

Peter Verkooijen| 5.19.11 @ 10:06AM

OK, so you support Palin then, from the big government state of Alaska? What makes her a credible candidate?

Or Bachman, who is very good at preaching to the choir, but would get zero support outside "the conservative base".

Herman Cain is OK, but he is a radio talk show host. Does he really have the resume to be a president?

It would be great to have a president with some business experience, but he has to be able to play the political game as well. He has to be able to handle whatever the Dems throw at him and lay as traps for him.

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 1:31PM

Herman Cain is OK, but he is a radio talk show host. Does he really have the resume to be a president?

Even after a few years as POTUS how is Obammers resume lookin'

Or, as someone once said: 'how's that working for ya?'

Peter Verkooijen| 5.19.11 @ 10:07AM

And again, please explain, what makes Daniels a RINO?

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 10:51AM

I already did; I'm not repeating myself for the hard-of-reading, or the Mitchie-for-Prez die-hards...

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 10:16AM

Then you must support Obama, because that's the kind of thinking that helped give us the Reid/Pelosi Congress and Obama squatting in the "People's House."

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 10:56AM

Actually, no...You have it EXACTLY backwards.

It's the GOP-establishment-types who gave us Reid/Pelosi/Obama by giving us candidates like McCain.

We out here in the sticks have had enough of the establishment's crap. These folks always whine and scream that we must stand for "Party Unity" when they push their pathetic candidates, but when a REAL Conservative is the nominee, they jump ship and label him/her "extreme" to curry favor with their buddies on the Georgetown cocktail circuit.

They're useless, gutless cowards. And if they foist another limp-wristed candidate on us in 2012, they'll be useless, gutless, and lonely, because millions like me will bolt the Party.

Does that mean that the Dems will benefit?

Perhaps. But it's time that the establishment GOP-types learned a hard. cold lesson:

We're NOT playing anymore.

Hope you're listening...

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 1:25PM

Doc,
In 2005 I predicted to Quin Hillyer the crackup of the conservative movement (led by the alternative media) would lead to McCain being nominated in 2008 and he'd lose. It was just too easy to see a worried GOP going for the "safe bet." I actually encouraged Newt to run against him when I met with him at a special book signing I was so desperate to see someone other than McCain as our nominee (that was his time not now). Once he got the nod I supported him 110%.

It wasn't that opposition of Harriet Myers or comprehensive immigration reform was wrong, but the tone or shrillness was destructive. When conservatives start sounding like MoveOn.org and even using the same words to attack Republicans it leads independents to bolt to the left; like it or not they're now a major portion of the electorate and many are easily upset by shrill invectives. The lefts overreach and shrillness helped us as much as the Tea Party in 2010.

Opposition to what one doesn't agree with is absolutely necessary to move the GOP to the right, but as Reagan showed us it is incremental. Had the 2005 crackup not occurred the country was on the verge of a major political realignment to the right on this Karl Rove was spot on. We may be moving back in that direction, but we must use reasoned passion to move it that way or we'll fail.

I’ve watched Paul Ryan explain his reform ideas and been thoroughly impressed how positive the response is from those in attendance, because he’s passionate, but respectful.

If the Dems win America loses. It is that easy and the Reid/Pelosi/Obama oligarchy should be proof enough even to the most unsatisfied conservative. As for establishment types who is that? Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, they’re part of the establishment too and that is a good thing.

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 1:44PM

So let me see if I get this straight:

When Conservative are openly critical of the establishment GOP, due to the establishment GOP's history of failure, duplicity, and stupidity, you accuse them of sounding "like MoveOn.org"???

Is that about right?

If so, you've confirmed everything I assumed about you.

You're a timid RINO. You prefer an electoral "victory" to a principled victory.

You obviously don't get the big picture. A Dem-win in 2012 is certainly a loss for America, but a GOP-win is not necessarily a victory. We need a CONSERVATIVE win, by a bold, unapologetic Conservative who will take the issues straight to the Dems and shove it down their throats.

Anyone who does this will win in 2012. Anyone who doesn't, won't.

Sorry, but Daniels doesn't strike me as the latter-type.

And your comment about "respectful" reveals a lot, too. To the establishment GOP-types, "respectful" is code for "sit down, shut up, and let us take care of it."

Sorry, GOP-weenies, but "respectfully"...go screw yourselves. You losers could mess-up a wet dream, and the rest of us have had enough of your incompetence. You want respect? EARN IT.

And when I say "GOP establishment", I'm referring to the usual cast-of-characters that make the rounds inside the beltway on the cocktail circuit and the Sunday Morning shows, the fools who curry favor with the liberal media and Democrats rather than their own electoral base. You can put Daniels, Gingrich, and probably Romney in that camp, although Romney is not a Beltway-Boy.

DeMint and Rubio are NOT "establishment-types". Neither are Palin, Bachman, Cain, Pawlenty, or Perry,

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 4:02PM

Sorry I hurt your feelings I forget how sensitive some folks are. Those of you who throw around the term RINO are the real RINOs. I'm a proud Republican and never vote for Democrats or Libertarians (they’re too much like Democrats on substantive issues). I have withheld my vote from a few Republicans, but that is rare, because I’ve lived in Democrat bastions and know how foolish that is.

Once I settle on a candidate for 2012 I’ll support them with time and money and if they win the nomination then I’ll be elated, but if they lose I’ll rally behind the winner, because I’m not so out of touch with reality to think Obama winning in 2012 is somehow good. The last 2 years are proof you're wrong. Even if the perfect conservative was elected in 2016 you’d soon be disappointed, because eventually they’ll have to compromise to govern. (Look back and see how some conservatives treated Reagan.)

As for GOP duplicity are you talking about Sarah Palin taking stimulus money and then condemning it when she was the Veep nominee? That may be duplicity to you, but I think it was probably sound politics in Alaska. In the real world politicians have to make compromises to govern. I learned that from watching and studying Reagan who I actually campaigned for (I walk the walk).

Actually respectful is from Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment. You would benefit from getting to know the real Reagan. Reagan was tough, but also respectful of others, that’s how he beat the Soviets at the negotiating table. That was a part of his true greatness. Even liberals who bitterly denounced him while he was in office now admit how decent he was.

Oh yes, Rubio and DeMint are establishment Republicans. In fact, Rubio is a part of the GOP establishment in Florida. He’s no novice. DeMint for all his outsider image is now a mover and shaker in the GOP. You may not know this, but he actually shows up on those Sunday shows and makes lots of media appearances, because the media recognizes him as an important member of the Senate. Rick Perry has been a fixture in Texas Republican politics since he switched parties in the late 8o's. You really don’t know what you’re talking about do you.

It is so simplistic to throw out terms like establishment Republicans, but it is the people of their states and districts that vote them into office. I guess a little bit like Obama you find the democratic process irritating, because so many Americans don’t let you have your way.

Did you sit out 2008 or vote for Obama? Is that why the MoveOn.org statement upset you?

Unlike you I sign my name, because I have the guts to stand behind my opinions obviously you don’t. I’m sorry that you feel so uncomfortable that you have to hide your true identity.

In 2012 I’m going to enjoy the Republican victory. Hopefully, its my candidate whoever that is, but even if it isn't I'm still going to still celebrate.

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 1:33PM

Yes, cut off your foot to save your... Obammer?

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 1:46PM

Nominating an establishment-type GOP loser is not much different from a Democrat, since he/she WON'T lift a finger to right this ship, and their pusillanimity will only lead to another Dem victory 4 years down the road.

BackToBasics| 5.20.11 @ 2:16AM

And the RINO president, if elected, will get ALL the blame with skewed headlines and skewed "news" stories. And partly because of this he would probably be defeated in 4 years by another communist-democrat. We've been down this road 2 times recently with the Bush's.

Better to go for it in 2012 with a true conservative with a cast-iron stomach and feet firmly planted.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 10:14AM

Ignorance must be bliss in your world. It is the South that compelled the Northeastern, West Coast and Midwestern Rockefeller /Nixon/Ford Republicans to the right on taxes, spending, social issues, national defense, state’s rights, right-to-work, pro-business and smaller government conservative principles.

McCain was far more popular in the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast than the South. The difference is we didn’t stick our heads up our asses and roll over so Obama could shove it up ours. We get out and vote, because we’re not stupid or endowed with magical thinking that losing is a good thing.

It will be the South that leads the country out of this Northeastern, Midwestern and West Coast created Presidency. Note to morons: the Southern states Obama carried have an abundance of carpet bagging Yankees that brought their failed big government and high tax ideas to the only consistently conservative region of the country – the South.

Boy you need to put down the Cheeze Whiz and old Milwaukee it's clogging your arteries.

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 1:47PM

Speaking of 'theSouth' many people that are not your WASP class voters went for B.O. as he is a black man. This was assisted by the 'anyone but Bush' crowd and the people ( Gov dependants) that were motivated by unions and groups like Acorn.

Having some low charisma slow talking dork against B.O. & his used car salesman 'I promise to do everything great for everyone' spiel did not help the (R)'s much either.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 6:56PM

Michael,

I should have known you're from the South.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 9:35PM

I think the thing to consider is this, Michael, and I'll throw it out: Being a hardnosed Conservative, so long as you do not have the "witchy" weirdness of the Delaware Destroyer, is a winning ticket in the US. It is those who trim that earn the electorate's disgust.

JP| 5.19.11 @ 10:18AM

Without the conservative base no Republican will ever sit in the Oval Office. McCain's 2008 campaign was a political disaster. He still didn't have the base nailed down during the convention, which resulted in his nomination of a person he never warmed to (Sarah Palin). His handlers hung her out to dry. Not once did McCain come to her defence (despite the surge in the polls, which was a result of her nomination). The race was neck and neck right up to the Wall St meltdown.

I don't trust Govenor Daniels. But he is an improvement over Mitt.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:30AM

Any Republican is an improvement over Obama.

Wayne | 5.19.11 @ 11:41AM

We don't need a GOP socialist either.

All American American| 5.19.11 @ 10:15AM

Here's a simple formula for establishment RINOs.

If the MSM writes articles about a potential candidate that include the words "maverick," "moderate," or phrase "media darling," this person SHOULD NOT be the Republican candidate.

If the MSM writes articles that say something like "this candidate could really challenge Obama," this candidate SHOULD NOT even be on the primary ticket.

On the contrary, you may wanna look at people the MSM write about by saying stuff like "we sure hope they run ____, cuz he/she will NEVER win."

If I could do powerpoint on here I'd turn it into a flowchart for ya, but hopefully its still simple enough that establishment RINOs can understand.

jean| 5.19.11 @ 10:45AM

I see Daniels' marital history as being positive, especially in this time of many such difficulties. His action (insofar as what we know) has been positive and that of a mature person.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 10:52AM

Nicely said Jean.

somnolence| 5.19.11 @ 10:56AM

Anyone closely associated with George W. Bush(who I voted for twice) won't even get a nod of acknowledgement from me if they are the nominee in 2012. The ONLY four viable candidates to me and who I would or could in good conscience vote for are: (1)Palin (2) Bachmann (3) Cain (4) Santorum. I have voted for my last neocon and RINO, period.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:11AM

Santorum was a Bush loyalist and supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan without hesitation so is he a neocon? Palin and Bachmann, though I prefer the latter as a real doer, will probably turn off women voters (blame it on Oprah). I'm guessing since Cain supported Romney and TARP after some time you'd find him to be a RINO too, because he won't pass the "purity test." Though he'd make a good canidate and right now has my vote.

loulou| 5.19.11 @ 11:14AM

Santorum supported Arlen Spector over Pat Toomey on orders from Karl Rove. I'll never see past that bit of cowardice and/or poor judgement.

BackToBasics| 5.20.11 @ 2:23AM

And Santorum takes Bill Bennet's spot on his talk show on Friday's. Santorum sounds like an insider on the show, mushy enough to be a RINO. I'd need to hear more from him to make a final judgement but his friend, Bill Bennet is a RINO for sure.

somnolence| 5.19.11 @ 11:02AM

Daniels sat on the sidelines placidly while the Dems walked, he took the wrong posture with unions over right-to-work, he appointed a judge who cast a ruling for law enforcement to knock down your door without a warrant, he implemented Obamacare Lite in Indiana as thoroughly detailed by NATIONAL REVIEW in March, and he was arrested at Princeton for having 2 shoeboxes of pot in his possession. He is a non-starter for me, and compared to the electricity of Palin OR Bachmann his presence amounts to that of a pissant.

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 11:08AM

Well said.

loulou| 5.19.11 @ 11:12AM

Daniels is a RINO type. A statist. No thank you.

somnolence| 5.19.11 @ 11:27AM

That is a black mark against Santorum, but we got Roberts and Alito on the SCOTUS as part of the deal-making dirty work.

somnolence| 5.19.11 @ 11:32AM

When I say "associated" with, I mean within the Administration, or inner circle. Santorum supporting the wars puts him in the upper echelon in my book. Daniels was almost like part of the Bush family, so I think you really get my drift. BTW I know about Cain's involvement as a regional director of the Fed, and that really has no bearing for me, since no candidate on either side realistically is going to get rid of it. Only we, the American people, can, by eliminating all the taxation baggage dating from the year 1913 and remedying the 16th Amendment.

somnolence| 5.19.11 @ 11:35AM

Cain acknowledged his support in 2008 for Romney in the S.C. debate. That is past history, though, and in my book some candidates, such as Daniel have EXCESS baggage. Let's face it, ALL candidates have warts, you just have to sort out the more virulent ones.

Wayne | 5.19.11 @ 11:38AM

I would have taken Romney over Mc Cain and Huckabee too. Though both Cain and Huckabee have a certain fondness for the FairTax.

Wayne | 5.19.11 @ 11:36AM

I have to be leery of Daniels who seems to be loved by the GOP establishment. One has to question his positions on globalism, the FDA, illegal immigration, China (which he seems to adore) and his weakness when dealing with the fleabaggers in Indiana.

Sorry between the two I will take Mitt, though others are better than either.

somnolence| 5.19.11 @ 11:37AM

And as far as neocons supporting the wars, hell, even some Marxists did. Nice try at dissuading me though.

Louis Tully| 5.19.11 @ 11:40AM

Lets see, for 2012 the GOP is offering me a choice of : a) the Godfather of national healthcare;
b) a Bushie who presided over the Bush spending spree; and
c) Newt Gingrich

Yeesh. The GOP has outlived its purpose, has it not?

Time for a conservative party dedicated unapologetically to shrinking Leviathan and restoring the written Constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 12:08PM

Obama wins in 2012 with that logic.

Louis Tully| 5.19.11 @ 1:22PM

Your problem. Damned if I'm voting for another GOP stiff. Only a conservative gets my vote.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 1:26PM

How can you vote if you don't live in America?

Pretty selfish "idealism."

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 1:49PM

Yes, of course...We're being "selfish".

Meanwhile, you GOP-establishment types have no qualms about savaging a genuine Conservative if he/she threatens your power-base...

...Ask Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Joe Miller, or Christine O'Donnell about that.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 4:09PM

Christine O'Donnell has talked about supporting Hillary not so conservative. Who savaged Joe Miller? Miller's campaing imploded with that over active security guard. Michelle Bachmann who has savaged her? You've got to hand it to Palin she gives it as good as she gets. In fact, she gives it more than she gets. Both her and Michelle Bachmann can hold their own.

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 2:02PM

Louis, people like you attributed to B.O. landing in office.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 7:01PM

Again, of the Republicans, only Ron Paul seems worse than Obama. That being said, I prefer my guys to want low taxes, government out of medicine, reduced governmental intervention in just about everything else, coupled with a muscular foreign policy that, while it doesn't nation build scum unless absolutely necessary (life offers choices sometimes between bad and worse), nonetheless bops sharia advocates on the head wherever possible.

Fairly simple wants. Obama fails at all of them. Paul would do well on some aspects of domestic policies, but I've looked at the ACU important vores of 2010, and almost none involved foreign policy. That's why he scored well, because he is otherwise a simpleton outside American Borders.

PCP Smoker| 5.19.11 @ 9:09PM

No offense and not picking a fight, but to say that "Paul seems worse than Obama" is a crazy statement.
Not a supporter of him, but at I would not mind seeing the power and reach of the federal government being severely restricted to those constitutionally enumerated functions.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 9:39PM

No, PCP, I understand your comments. My point is that Paul is actually To the Left of Obama on foreign policy. Check out the Thomas votes.

Since I believe that the overwhelming issue is stopping Jihad and Sharia, I might be left with the choice of hemlock or strychnine between Paul and Obama. I thoroughly understand those who would hold nose and vote Paul in that situation; I just don't agree with them. I am for keeping drugs illegal and for aggressive warfighting. I believe isolationism will kill us.

That being said, ANY other Republican except Darrell Issa I would vote for over Obama.

Mike Gabel| 5.19.11 @ 11:41AM

I agree that the GOP should run a conservative policy based candidiate, over a "personality". One that is able to fully articulate why Obama's policies are not only misguided, but un-American. One who can articulate the utter beauty and power of our founding principles. At the moment, no one is better at this than Paul Ryan.

I believe Romney is a good man and I want him involved in our nation's recovery. I just don't believe he should do it from the president's desk.

I like Mitch Daniels and I would not sell his charisma short. A down to earth demeanor, and a dry and self deprecating humor resonates with people, without making everything about that person.

Our country was never supposed to be about one person. Yet Obama is such an egomaniac, he has framed the debate thusly. We need to get back to the founding principles of We the People, representative republic, consent of the governed, limited government and self-reliance.

Empower people, not governments!

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 12:25PM

If he runs he'd life the debate to a new level. Like Christie they've got to decide sooner than later. Being shy is not a political virtue in Presidential politic. I'm glad he didn't waste time on the Senate he'd be wasted there.

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 1:50PM

Christie is NOT the answer, either.

He's a solid New Jersey Republican...But he's no Conservative.

Cindy| 5.19.11 @ 11:48AM

All I can say is Herman Cain

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 12:10PM

Cindy for now I'm with you.

rightasrain| 5.19.11 @ 11:50AM

When it comes right down to it, I will vote for whoever our candidate is. I hope it's not Mandate Mitt, but, really, what's the alternative? Vote for Obama? I'd cut off both arms first so I couldn't pull the lever. Not vote? Many conservatives sat it out last time because of the weak RINO McCain, but that was before they knew just how bad an Obama presidency was going to be. This time sitting it out would be almost as terrible as voting for Barry. I like Pawlenty. He's served his time on the cap and trade rap and should get a full pardon. Yes, he's dull but maybe he'll shine more with greater exposure. But whoever it is, he or she will get my vote.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 12:21PM

Preach it!

Those who don't vote against the liberals/Democrats have in fact abetted their march to morphing our great nation into the Obamanation. That's not to say that every Republican is "politically pristine," but an honest examination of the post-Nixon (RINO supreme) GOP is head and shoulder better than Carter, Clinton and Obama.

As an example Bush 41’s biggest mistake was listening to fiscal conservatives, following Reagan's model and making a deal with Democrats to “cut” the deficit. He was a fool to trust the Democrats, but that’s the problem with fiscal conservatives look at the failed “Gang of Six.” They'll make a deal to raise taxes every time to "cut" the deficit something that has never happened!

Hopefully, the primary system will give us a solid candidate. Personally, I still wish for Mike Pence, but that ship has sailed. Now I like Cain, but my vote isn't solid for anyone now. Pawlenty is a good man and would do a good job too.

Cindy| 5.19.11 @ 12:54PM

Mike,
I live in IN and will be voting for Mike Pence for Governor. I think Mike needs this extra bit of training and growth before he takes on POTUS. But watch out after that...he will be a force to be reckoned with!!! I can hardly wait.
For now I am still sticking with Herman McCain. I am tired of the GOP following the same old routine of picking the top person who didn't make it thru the previous election cycle. That is how we were stuck with McCain, who I was for during the first Bush campaign.
We have to get some new blood in there...someone with principles who will not get sucked into the DC swamp but will remember who put him or her there.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 1:42PM

Cindy you're probably right and that's probably Mike Pence's thinking too. Republican Governor's make the best Presidents.

We do need to break our tradition of electing the guy who has waited his turn.

Doctor Right| 5.19.11 @ 1:52PM

How is it that you folks who foist one loser after another onto Republican voters every 4 years NEVER take the blame for our electoral difficulties???

Did you ever think that maybe YOU'RE the problem, and not the principled Conservative voters??

No...Of course not. GOP-insiders aren't that imaginative.

rightasrain| 5.19.11 @ 2:27PM

I am a principled conservative. I'll support my candidate in the primaries with both my time and my money. But if someone else gets the nomination, he'll get my vote. What else do you suggest?

Drunken Sailor| 5.19.11 @ 2:45PM

Bingo, We want a conservative, but if we can't push them to the front or they don't get the nomination for some reason should we not vote for the most conservative canidate left? It would be very difficult to get a canidate LESS conservative than Obama

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 4:14PM

You really don't know much about politics. Here is a list of Presidents since 1970 can you pick the Democrats? Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. Did you notice how many were Republicans and how many were Democrats? Sometimes you lose in politics, but at least I'm not so stupid I ever want someone like Obama to be reelected. You can't say that.

Mimi| 5.19.11 @ 12:14PM

Great post Mike....After reading your 3rd and 4th lines, I thought you were going to say Mark Levin. But Paul Ryan is a GREAT PICK. If we are going to go down the road toward regaining LIBERTY, It is the likes of Ryan, with the FREEDOM, NOT more government ideas. To stop the Obama chaos, and to guide the country in RESTORATION of Freedom concepts would be a GRAND SLAM !!!

somnolence| 5.19.11 @ 12:23PM

Rush is getting ready to play Mitch's appeasement speech to the Ripon Society some time back as part of his radio program today. Like I say, some of us out here won't forget the sniping at Palin some in the GOP have meted out over the last 3 years. If he runs, Daniels course is going to be rocky.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 12:30PM

Has Sarah Palin always been above throwing a jab or elbow at fellow Republicans? She's got a pretty sharp tongue and can throw some zingers. That's why a lot of people like her. If she runs her road will be very rocky based on the bridges she's burned, but the Party would rally behind her if she got the nomination. I think she'll do the same thing if she's not the nominee at least I hope she will.

Appleby| 5.19.11 @ 12:31PM

So most of you men want somebody cute, sexy, with a great singing voice (preferably with his own band), snappy dresser, addicted to his Blackberry and "devices" as they are called around here, married to a Fifties wife for the past fifty years (she looks her age; he looks like a teenager), and who sprinkles his speeches liberally with the words f*** and s*** to prove that he's "one of us."

You don't care if the guy is competent, has a proven track record of fidelity, goes to a proper church properly with his wife and children (who are perfect in every way, although if his daughters also use filthy language, that would prove they are "with it") -- in short, you want somebody for President who could star on "Jersey Shore". He can't be short, bald, plain, particularly religious (especially Catholic or Jewish) or Have The Wrong Friends-- no matter how competent, capable or successful he may be. Only Movie and TeeVee Stars Need Apply.

It wouldn't surprise me to see this group of nudniks touting Jon Stewart for President. Assuming he has a presentable Fifties type wife and his children aren't actually in jail.

It's no wonder

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 7:04PM

Myself, I want a guy with a stache, or a fully Black President, or one of two women. Only one white guy need apply for me.

Kristal| 5.19.11 @ 12:56PM

Fans of Mitch Daniels should go to National Review Online and watch the video of him giving a speech. Not only is he dull, but he epitomizes the RINO, Bush the first, who will be forever remembered for reneging on his read my lips promise—

And, THIS fatal faux pas, IMHO, is one of those forks in the road that led to Clinton, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Just picture the alternative history, if GHWB had NOT done this, and followed a Reagan course.

And, people WANT to do another GHWB?

Yikes---the USA is doomed!

Kristal| 5.19.11 @ 1:01PM

Oops! My error.

The link is to the indispensable Jennifer Rubin, at Right Turn, at the Washington Post, from yesterday.

IN fact, she JUST posted another piece about this.

Check it out.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 1:36PM

Bush 41 did follow the Reagan model of making deals with Dems and raising taxes to cut the deficit that was his mistake. You never trust Dems to cut spending. That's what was wrong with the fiscal conservatives on the failed Gang of Six.

Even Obamacon Bruce Bartlett who used Reagan to attack W had to admit Reagan was a tax raiser and like W who never raised taxes.

somnolence| 5.19.11 @ 12:58PM

I never supported the buffoon Trump from day one. Haul me off to the looney bin before I vote for someone who supported Obama, Emanuel, Schumer, and Rangel. I also hope future "serious" candidates refrain from the "f" word and "s" words during a speech. I'll bet even P.T. Barnum wasn't that profane. I'm not against using high drama points though; just curb the barnyard/bathroom language to private circles, not the public at large.

Oldefarte| 5.19.11 @ 1:05PM

Ross' [and RiShawn's earliar] article only reinforce my initial preference for Daniels [and also Pawlenty] due to his strong/historical determination [and professional experience] to cut/eliminate/reduce governmental spending/expenses. To hades with the crap carisma, blackslapping BS. We've had that in spades historically [and especially now with the current El Chosen One's ineptness while displaying his ars-eatin-briars Howdy-Doody grin]. What this country needs desperately is the determination and intellectual ability to know/accompolish what, when, how, why of governmental spending reduction, and both Daniels and Pawlenty apparently have that ability in abundance!!!!!!!

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 1:33PM

Oldfarte,
Like your spirit. Thank you. This should be the year of the anti-Obama.

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 9:40PM

I would cheerfully vote for Daniels or Pawlenty over Obama. Or Jeb Bush over Obama. Obama is really terrifyingly bad.

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 1:08PM

An allegory to link someone to Bush will cause the person to flatten in any poll or campaign.

Bush has become a term now that is mythalogical vs. the reality of the situation.

Ask someone why they do not like Bush and you will seldom receive any credible or polite reply - often scrapped together on the spot is my experience.

chris haynes| 5.19.11 @ 1:12PM

He's a Presbyterian. That rules him out.

A church that promotes legal abortion., the greatest holocasut in human history. Holocaust? No decent person would touch them.

Of course he talks pro-life. In Indianan he needs conservatives. Needs them for the nomination too. He figures talk is cheap.

I figure, better vote for Obama than Daniels. Obama, you get another chance in 4 years. Daniels we're stuck for 8.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 1:31PM

Oh so vote for the most pro-homosexual, pro-abortion guy, pro-Muslim and anti-American guy. Makes perfect sense of you're a Democrat.

You obviously don't know how Daniels recently handled abortion in Indiana.

NWBill| 5.19.11 @ 10:33PM

Nailing him to the door of the Presbyterian church doesn't define him as a candidate. The guy did manage to outlaw state funding of Planned Parenthood, which is no small feat in this day and age.

Anyone who'd vote for Obama because they think he's "the devil you know" over another candidate needs to have his head examined.

Barack Obama is quite simply the worst President in American history ... and that's said by someone who lived through Carter (and still has to put up with his crap). Every constitutional means should be used to get him out of the White House.

The Joker| 5.19.11 @ 1:14PM

Even ignoring the personal failings of the two men, neither Mitt Romney or Mitch Daniels are good fits right now. Both are Wall Street friendly rather than Main Street friendly. Romney helped enact a pre-Obamacare pathway to Single Payer(the eventual goal, of course), was in bed with the homosexuals and attempted to out-queer Ted Kennedy in the 1994 senate election, was pro-abortion until it was no longer convenient and signaled that he was open borders until that became inconvenient. Daniels was budget director for the profligate spending George W. Bush, has turned his back on social issues at a time when the country is experiencing severe social decay, and by implication is also open borders on immigration. Most importantly, both men are favored by the Bush family, a Darth Vader force within the Republican Party. That is why both men must not be nominated. If either are nominated, a re-elected Barack Obama would be preferred so as to provide a 2010 reprise in 2014.

As for their personal failings, Romney is a political chameleon of no honesty. Daniels provides a wife who, at the very least, is capricious and, and quite probably immoral, not the sort of woman a conservative should desire as First Lady. Furthermore, I could not vote for a cuckold in good conscience.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.19.11 @ 3:34PM

The idea that you would not vote for a presidential candidate because his wife left him -- and then came back to him after HE raised their kids -- is stunningly self-destructive.

The Joker| 5.19.11 @ 5:19PM

Perhaps you need better reading skills, Mr. Kaminsky. I give several reasons for not voting for Daniels. Please re-read.

ABNCP| 5.19.11 @ 1:15PM

Since Huck has withdrawn, Paul is a no hoper who will wind up with his usual 3 to 5 % and Newt has let his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass again, the most likely Republican Candidates are Romney, Daniels and Pawlenty. Of course there could be someone else but those three will do for now. The two ladies, Bachmann and Palin are still possible but I do not think Bachmann will be there at the end and Palin may not run. Anyway, Palin could be doing much more important things for the country right now.

Of the three men, I don't care who winds up with the nonmination as long as one or more of them can actually locate their scrotum and realize they have a couple of round things down there. Each of them has positives and negatives. Each of them would be light years better than the disaster of a President we now suffer with.

Trump, although he went overboard with the birther thing, laid out the the way to attack this incompetant boob we have in the White House. He went right to the top of the polls because he went after Obama full speed ahead. Obama has opened himself to any opponent who has the guts to go for his throat and attack, attack, attack. From the time he wrote his Autobiography, "Dreams From My Father", he has been putting out misinformation, disinformation, half truths and damm lies. The lies and half truths haven't stopped. Someone in the Republican Party has to put out a montage to go on television with all the B.S. and lies this twit has been giving us for the last five years. Listen to his speech in El Paso, "the border fence is complete: the border is safer now than it has ever been". Not one of the three above has challanged him on it. Obama is as full of s**t as a Christmas turkey, we all know it and we all know the lame stream media willl never challange him on anything he says. The first Republican Candidate who jumps up and says, "no Mr. President you can no longer get away with that nonsense" and continues to confront Obama will jump right to the top of the polls and stay there. This country is dying for a tough no nonsense Presidential Candidate who has no problem putting on the seven ounce gloves and is ready to step into the ring.

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 2:26PM

Trump went overboard with the birther thing...?

Now we have 2 "official" documents that have several sections that provide contradictory data and in at least one case impossible data.

How is that "overboard"?

Francis W. Porretto | 5.19.11 @ 1:19PM

"...the Republican nominee should be someone "dull and competent"...

I'm not sure that's the way to frame the prescription. It's a bit like telling the patient about the unpleasant side effects of a drug before telling him what it will do for his cancer.

At this point, the field is as open as possible. I'd like to see more of Daniels...and Pawlenty...and Sarah Palin...and Herman Cain...and maybe Michele Bachmann. How good are they on the stump? How staunchly will they resist the teasing that the MSM used to suborn McCain? How fearlessly will they interview?

Stay tuned.

NWBill| 5.19.11 @ 10:27PM

I think, whether she runs or not, we need to see Sarah Palin out on the stump. She's battle-tested, has more experience now with the lamestream media, and still has the fire in her belly.

And if she decides to run, well .... :)

David T| 5.19.11 @ 1:58PM

OK, everyone, here's our daily affirmation from now until Election Day 2012 : Mitch Daniels is good enough, he's smart enough, and, doggone it, people like him!

Christopher Manion | 5.19.11 @ 2:01PM

Pro-lifers might not read the American Spectator, but there are millions of us who will not support Daniels because he considers Condi Rice, who considers herself "mildly pro-choice," as his first choice for a hypothetical running mate.

Pro-lifers have been betrayed enough, and the GOP establishment, which Daniels (whose skills I have admired for 30 years) ably represents, cannot take them for granted, however much it disdains them. His nomination would guarantee Obama four more years.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.19.11 @ 3:37PM

Just as it's pretty crazy to refuse to vote for someone because of his wife, it's also pretty crazy -- though less so -- to refuse to vote for someone because of a comment about a potential, hypothetical running mate.

Social issues conservatives are looking for any reason to oppose Daniels, it seems to me.

But if anything I think he's more solid than Romney on those issues.

What don't you people understand about "Beat Barack!"???

Frank Badomi| 5.19.11 @ 4:48PM

What don't you people understand about "Beat Barack!"???

Hey, Ross, like Churchill said, "if the Devil invaded Nazi Germany I'd say something good about the Devil in the Commons".

OK. You've said something good. Now please don't say it again.

PCP Smoker| 5.19.11 @ 9:06PM

The question is why Beltaway conservatives are singing in unison? THis crap could have been written or probably was written at NRO or the Weekly Standard. What is it about you DCCons that makes you act like liberals?

NWBill| 5.19.11 @ 10:23PM

Because working in DC means drinking a lot of the same Kool-Aid that anyone else working there drinks ... even for conservatives. Which is why we need to elect a candidate who doesn't have DC time or experience. A DC'er as VP, fine ... but not the big chair. That's the People's chair ... and it needs to be filled by someone who speaks for the People.

Jack in Wi.| 5.21.11 @ 2:37PM

Look Ross, you Woodrow Wilson Republicans are the ones sinking the party. The traditional Republlican Party of Bob Taft, Dwight Eisenhower, even Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were against endless war and for a more non-intervention and realistic foreign policy. Even GHW Bush wanted a balanced foreign policy toward Israel. James Baker as Sec. Of State was right when he said. ' The hell with the Jews they don't vote for us anyhow.' Conservatives get nothing from supporting Israel. If Israel can't learn to live in the neighborhood after hundreds of billions in aid from us and reparations from Germany it should fold it's tent and try something else. We sick of being Israel's piggy bank. Aid to Israel is an unconstitutional subsidy to the Jewish religion and its fantasies of rebuilding the Temple etc. If Jews want that, let them pay for it themselves.

Mike Bills| 5.19.11 @ 2:05PM

It appears we may have a Jeckle or Hide question with Daniels himself. Does Daniels truly have a " strong/historical determination [and professional experience] to cut/eliminate/reduce governmental spending/expenses"? Let the readers do their own homework and be the judge. http://www.americanthinker.com.....niels.html

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:30PM

The only guy running as a GOPer now that I would vote for in 2012 in a primary is Cain. (Is Bachmann running? I'm confused. I would vote for her, too. But Cain over Pawlenty, any day---his math/analytic skills are much better)

However, the only guy running now as a GOPer who I would vote against in 2012 is Paul. He's to the Left of Obama on foreign policy.

Great arguments, folks. Learned a lot. Thanks particularly to Michael for the update on the Prince of Pork, The Archduke of Appeasement.

NWBill| 5.19.11 @ 10:20PM

Cain is the only candidate who could correct the misdeeds of electing Barack Obama as the first black President of the US. I give him 8 months after being elected to make us forget the horrors of 2008-2012.

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 10:34PM

You're A Slandering Liar, Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job.

"On October 10, 2001, Congressman Ron Paul led the effort in Congress to give President Bush the tools he needed to capture, dead or alive, Osama bin Laden and the other terrorists responsible for September 11th. Dr. Paul introduced on that day H.R. 3076 - The September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001.

If passed, that legislation would have given President Bush an additional weapon against bin Laden. If Dr. Paul's legislation had passed in 2001, it is likely bin Laden would not have been around until May of 2011."

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:30PM

Oh, I'd also vote against Gary Johnson. He's so high.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.19.11 @ 3:38PM

Might not be a bad reason to vote for the guy...

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 7:07PM

Seriously, Ross. I was a psychiatrist in New Mexico in 2006. Gary Johnson turned New Mexico into a pariah state for Psychiatrists. It literally is the least favored state in the country for psychiatrists to practice due to Governor Johnson. Now, while there may be some chuckles there, ABQ's murder rate tends to show the problem with not properly medicating violent maniacs. And the reason psychiatrists won't practice in NM is entirely Johnson's fault. What he would do to the rest of medicine I dread to contemplate.

Jacobite| 5.19.11 @ 3:41PM

Mitch Daniels married a woman who ran off and deserted her husband and kids. That is all you need to know about his judgment. It's also all you need to know about his social conservatism and his character.

PCP Smoker| 5.19.11 @ 9:05PM

Preach it brother. Think this is the reason he is taking so long to decide? My wife did that and that's the last time she sees the kids.

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 10:43PM

You're A Slandering Liar, Neo-Chickenhawk Coward Israel Firster Tool Job.

"Texas Rep. Ron Paul said Tuesday that he was delighted to hear of the death of Osama bin Laden.

The Texas Republican, and potential Republican presidential candidate, discussed the killing of bin Laden on The Diane Rehm Show, saying he is “still looking for more information” concerning the details of the killing.

"Mr. Paul said he supported the killing of bin Laden, adding that he voted for the authority to go after those responsible for 9/11."

Jheb | 5.19.11 @ 3:47PM

To all Tea Party's and other conservatives: Choose any of the candidates other than Mitt Romney, or Ron Paul! Believe me, MR will prove to be worse than John McCain and can't beat Obama. Ron Paul is far too radical and certainly cannot beat Obama. Think! before you leap

Jheb | 5.19.11 @ 3:56PM

Look, the ticket should be Cain-Bachmann. Both have their heads on straight, they can not only win the conservative voters, but at least some Blacks and some Women extra.

Cindy| 5.19.11 @ 4:55PM

Well said...I would vote this ticket any day

Morgan| 5.19.11 @ 9:39PM

It's my dream ticket, but if we need one of the candidates to appeal to a broader audience, I can live with that.

NWBill| 5.19.11 @ 10:15PM

Cain would kick Obama's butt in a debate (and he knows it), while Michele would wipe the floor with anyone not named Palin.

If Herman Cain didn't exist, I'd be praying for a Palin-Bachmann ticket.

Joe D.| 5.19.11 @ 4:10PM

Ross, sorry to disagree with you again. But his stance on gay, transgender, etc. issues in not conservative or right for the country. I am not sure his complete stance on immigration as well. But since you do not care about these issues you did not bring them up. We conservatives, social and economic (Tea Partiers) care deeply. Rick Santuram is the man.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 4:22PM

Rick Santorum is a principled man and he'd make a good President. If he doesn't get the nomination he needs to be in the GOP cabinet.

Frank Badomi| 5.19.11 @ 4:36PM

Mitch Daniels is not a conservative.

http://www.americanthinker.com.....niels.html

And there have been reports that Daniels would choose Condi Rice as his VP. If you read Rumsfeld's auto-bio and his experience with her in the Bush 43 administration, the very last thing any conservative would want is Condi Rice VP or what all VPs think they will eventually become.

Fuhgettaboutit.

Jack | 5.19.11 @ 4:37PM

Mitch Daniels was for universal healthcare with individual mandate in 2003.

This article does not reflect that fact.

DanielsCare would be no better than RomneyCare or ObamaCare.

Tex Expatriate| 5.19.11 @ 4:53PM

REPORT FROM INDIANA:
Daniels has shown himself to be a fiscal conservative, but he is in no other way a conservative. He's shown poor judgment in his Supreme Court appointments; he appointed the author of the anti-4th Amendment opinion just delivered in Indiana. He's shown no leadership in dealing with Democrats. He's even said conservatives need to be nice to their opposition, because we need to be liked by them.

I won't support this man in a primary, and I would not support Mitt either. Give me Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, or Michelle Bachmann.

chris haynes| 5.19.11 @ 5:26PM

He wants Rice for Vice President? Forget it.

Her weapons of mass destruction...America's greatest embarassment. Her support for abortion....so much for Daniels being pro-life.

Why would he still want her? We all know. Affirmative action. Okay, but a failure? Cant he find a promising nobody?

NWBill| 5.19.11 @ 10:10PM

As smart and as competent as she is, her pro-choice stance disqualifies her on the Republican ticket. I'm hoping he was kinda joking about selecting her, anyway ... because anyone with half a brain would know she's an election-killer.

PCP Smoker| 5.19.11 @ 9:02PM

Take neither. The latter is a proponent of socialist healthcare, and a recent convert to Obamacare opposer. The former has a wife who is a whore, as she left her children to marry her soulmate in California.
At least you can say one thing about Barack. His family and his personal character is pretty good.

Morgan| 5.19.11 @ 9:37PM

I can live with Daniels but ONLY if he is paired with Herman Cain or at least Michele Bachmann. I agree we need someone who can serve as a "broadener" and not take focus off Obama, but we also need someone who can bring the heat.

NWBill| 5.19.11 @ 10:06PM

It isn't just "Mitch over Mitt," it's "anyone over Mitt."
(Well ... except for Newt.)

The Romneycare--Obamacare connection just can't be forgiven, and no excuses I've heard mitigates that. If, as he claims, Romneycare was "a state solution to a stae problem," then he should have been Enemy #1 of Obamacare--simply to remind people, "Look ... we tried this in the Commonwealth; but, that's not the same as New York, or Utah, or Tennessee! What works for one state doesn't mean it'll work for another."

He didn't, so ... he gets nothing for dinner!

Dee See| 5.19.11 @ 10:46PM

AND why no mention from either
of such matters as the banker bailout
and a host of other issues?

MEANWHILE

Remember folks, the think tanks (ie actuarial whorehouses)
have charted a decades long stage of MASSIVE
rioting across America and Europe set to begin
in the next few years.

WHY would they be expecting that?

Our guess it was, not just economic rage,
or even primarily an economic outrage.
Not for decades of rioting. Something more.

We guessed there has been an in place,
underway, covert sterilization op underway
via the food, water and meds. Something
slow but inexorable. Maybe an intergenerational
sterilant.

REMEMBER, all the core agendas are calling
for 100 MILION Americans to be exterminated
by 2050.

NOW with the VAST corporate world media
cover-up of the Fukishima fallout disaster,
set to spew and bioaccumulate ---INDEFINITELY
it seems we're seeing the agenda in action.

Now imagine your kids find, say in 5 to 10 years
that they're not only tax slaves, but sterilized
tax slaves at that.

----THAT would be a state wherein MASSIVE
decades long rioting could very well become
a reality.

Further prep for this eventuality is evidenced
by a whole series of recent, semi secret 'agreements' and
legislation opening
the door for foreign troops ---to be used here
on US.

FINALLY

EVEN as we write America is engaged in a
cross operational and training program, on
OUR soil, with ----the RED Chinese.

NOW, back to our Rep-O-Rat 'controlled
opposition' farce.

Dee See| 5.20.11 @ 12:05AM

"Oh Dee See! --always exaggerating."

MEANWHILE ---JUST IN!

On the same lines---

Where's your bailout money going?

As far as the GM subsidy and the appointed, Carlisle Group
'innie' Daniel Ackerson ---seems to a massively funded production and
quality promotion of a full-blown, worshipful
feature length propaganda celebration --uh,
we mean 'history' of the progressive goodness
of the RIIA created (SEE Bertrand Russell in
China) ---MAO TSE TUNG and the Chinese
Communist Party.

We blew the whistle on what was coming down
last year when, AGAIN, world corporate media
'mysteriously overlooked' the staggeringly
relevant 60th Anniversary of the KOREAN WAR
(likewise the 50th, 40th, 30th).

NOW THIS!

That's right! ---and ALLLLLL financed by OUR
bailout money.

"We must regard Mao Tse Tung's program
one of the great success stories of history
--whatever the cost."
-DAVID ROCKEFELLER
NY Times
1973

The cost? --tens of thousands of American
dead in Korea --well over 80 MILLION Chinese
themselves exterminated in 'peacetime'
--pervasive EUGENICS 'management'
(soft kill, organ harvesting, forced abortions and 'experiments' on the current Chinese population ---and the perpetual 'EUGENICS friendly' utopia that is the RED Chinese buffer state of North Korea.

---And these people are walking free,
unchallenged, indeed, in control and celebrated!

HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012.

-----------------------------YOU ARE THERE!

Oz| 5.20.11 @ 12:43AM

To be fair, I don't know a lot about Daniels, yet; but this bothers me: http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....61133.html

Makes me wonder what/who he would appoint to the Supreme Court should one of the current 9 retire, die, etc.

Gary Richardt| 5.20.11 @ 8:40AM

If Daniels is the GOP nominee I will not vote.

Angelo Zenga| 5.20.11 @ 11:26AM

There was an article on the Washington post that picked Mitch as a nominee for the Republicans, because as the columnist put it "He would make Obama a better candidate" In the end the writer concluded that she would not vote for for Daniels of course. So my question is this: Do you think that Republicans ought to support a candidate chosen by the MSM?

Burlington| 5.20.11 @ 4:31PM

Mark Levin took him apart last night as a compromising, inarticulate potential candidate totally lacking in charisma who would be a disaster if nominated. Rush seemed to second the motion.

His speech did not seem Presidential and he is not that eloquent. No wonder the MSM is getting behind him.

Replica Handbags&wallet; | 5.21.11 @ 1:36AM

Makes me wonder what/who he would appoint to the Supreme Court should one of the current 9 retire, die, etc.

Sarah| 5.31.11 @ 11:41AM

Once again the American Spectator produces meaningless articles about candidates who are not running.

Libertarian conservatives have yet to produce a candidate that can poll well against Pres Obama.

Talk about an inept and disconnected bunch of people....

Bill| 6.13.11 @ 1:16PM

Serioulsy, Mitch's State of Indiana has revoked the 4th amendment. This is NOT a joke! Do you want martial law?

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/l.....29697.html

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|4 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|7 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|3 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|3 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|3 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|2 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|1 comment

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Political Hay

Mitch Over Mitt

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (268) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Daniel Haszard | 5.19.11 @ 6:24AM

CB| 5.19.11 @ 7:08AM

Tom| 5.19.11 @ 8:14AM

Intelligent Design| 5.19.11 @ 8:23AM

wodiej| 5.19.11 @ 8:26AM

Cosmo| 5.20.11 @ 2:23AM

Genius| 5.20.11 @ 2:25AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 8:32AM

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:27AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 9:34AM

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:40AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 9:49AM

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:59AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 10:41AM

Dai Alanye | 5.19.11 @ 11:55AM

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:36PM

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:09PM

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:39PM

Clint| 5.20.11 @ 1:15AM

Mike Bills| 5.19.11 @ 12:09PM

Ross Kaminsky | 5.19.11 @ 3:27PM

Mike Bills| 5.19.11 @ 11:18PM

victor| 5.21.11 @ 3:11PM

LarryK| 5.19.11 @ 8:45AM

TimH| 5.19.11 @ 9:01AM

Jack in Wi.| 5.19.11 @ 9:58AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 10:46AM

Jack in Wi.| 5.19.11 @ 11:13AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:25AM

Jack in Wi.| 5.19.11 @ 11:34AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:46AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:53AM

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 9:48PM

Clint| 5.19.11 @ 10:16PM

Dai Alanye | 5.19.11 @ 12:02PM

Drunken Sailor| 5.19.11 @ 11:16AM

Jack in Wi.| 5.19.11 @ 11:26AM

Drunken Sailor| 5.19.11 @ 11:32AM

Jack in Wi.| 5.19.11 @ 11:38AM

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 5:36PM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 11:27AM

Roy| 5.19.11 @ 5:35PM

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 6:50PM

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:10PM

loulou| 5.19.11 @ 11:11AM

Tex Expatriate| 5.19.11 @ 4:56PM

JP| 5.19.11 @ 10:13AM

Cosmo| 5.20.11 @ 2:22AM

Amy| 5.19.11 @ 7:09AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 7:48AM

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.19.11 @ 8:14AM

Nunya| 5.19.11 @ 11:01AM

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 12:54PM

Nunya| 5.19.11 @ 5:42PM

Nunya| 5.19.11 @ 5:43PM

Intelligent Design| 5.19.11 @ 8:17AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 8:36AM

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:13PM

Tom| 5.19.11 @ 8:17AM

SpiralArchitect| 5.19.11 @ 12:56PM

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 5:39PM

KDW| 5.19.11 @ 11:17PM

Patrick in AZ| 5.19.11 @ 12:12PM

wyatt bridger| 5.19.11 @ 6:28AM

Mike Hawk| 5.19.11 @ 7:00AM

Amy| 5.19.11 @ 7:04AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 7:49AM

benny havens| 5.19.11 @ 8:47AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 9:01AM

benny havens| 5.19.11 @ 10:43AM

Michael Tomlinson| 5.19.11 @ 10:48AM

Occam's Tool| 5.19.11 @ 3:14PM

Tim| 5.19.11 @ 5:41PM

MoeBlotz| 5.19.11 @ 1:39PM

Jacqueline Zaring| 5.19.11 @ 7:05AM

**posttenebraslux**| 5.19.11 @ 7:58AM