-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Buy the Book
Cut Along with Mitch
A campaign autobiography without a campaign.
Bored with the actual Republican presidential field, pundits have spent the last few weeks dreaming up new candidates. Rick Perry was in hot demand, until he actually got in and failed to display the eloquence of Churchill. Now it is on to Chris Christie, Paul Ryan, and countless others who are likely to remain interesting only insofar as they stay out of the race.
Mitch Daniels is one who stayed out. The two-term governor of Indiana was Ronald Reagan’s political director, George W. Bush’s budget director, a senior executive at Eli Lilly, and the head of the Hudson Institute, among other things. More recently, he’s been showing us what might have been, hitting the talk show circuit and promoting the kind of book a presidential candidate would write.
Keeping the Republic: Saving America by Trusting Americans is unusual precisely because it is a campaign autobiography without a campaign. Before even the table of contents, the book lists nine tributes to what a good president Daniels would be. Nowhere, however, does the volume suggest he is willing to do the kinds of things that get people elected president in our media age.
Almost immediately, we are confronted with the paradox of Daniels. In his chapter on the national debt (characteristically dubbed the new “Red Menace”), he repeats Perry’s argument that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme” and a “monstrous lie.” Except Daniels doesn’t attract the same establishment scorn because he doesn’t use those exact words.
“For seventy years,” Daniels writes, “Americans were misled to believe that they had been putting aside money for their own retirement, that there were actual assets being held somewhere that would provide for them in their Golden Years.” Daniels continues, “The system worked for years because there were far more workers than retirees.” The ratio is declining to a point that threatens Social Security’s solvency. Ponzi scheme, anyone?
“The most nakedly political of Social Security’s design flaws is that every American collects from it, no matter how wealthy they are or how little they need retirement help,” writes Daniels. The only reason for this “absurdity,” he claims, is “the cold calculation that putting everyone in the system would protect it politically over the years.” This calculation and the IOUs in the trust fund are the monstrous lies.
This is very typical of Daniels. He has a way of achieving conservative results while making liberals feel like they have in some sense won. This formula worked very well for him in Indiana, but the flip side came back to haunt him when he contemplated a Republican presidential bid: when liberals feel like they have won, conservatives tend to feel like they lost.
Consider that when Daniels became governor, he went further in revoking the public sector employees’ collective bargaining power than Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (by executive order, no less). Yet he did not experience a comparable backlash from Democrats and unions. But when Daniels decided later in his administration to work with Democrats in the state legislature rather than promote a right-to-work law for which he didn’t have the votes, the consensus in conservative circles was that Daniels was a wuss compared to Walker.
On his book tour, Daniels has stepped into one of these controversies again. He told an interviewer that, unlike the Republican presidential candidates at a recent debate, if he could get a real grand bargain on the federal budget that included $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, he would take it. Most Republicans on that stage would take it too, but none would ever say it. The past 30 years are full of examples of Republicans taking worse deals in which there were real tax increases and imaginary spending cuts.
That’s not to say that conservative qualms about Daniels are entirely unwarranted. For example, he doesn’t see what the fuss is about the cigarette tax increase he used to pay for his Indiana health care reforms.
“I referred those Republicans who treat any tax, anytime, for any purpose as a hersey to the words of my former boss Ronald Reagan, who said, ‘If you want more of something tax it less; less of something tax it more,’” he writes. “I wanted less smoking in Indiana, and would be curious to hear the contrary case.”
The case for individual freedom, perhaps?
Daniels undertakes to explain his social issues “truce” comment, which he describes as an “innocent, modest, and offhand suggestion in an interview in mid-2010.” He professes to not have been talking solely about social issues when saying that Americans will have to put some differences aside to tackle the Red Menace. He emphasizes his record opposing abortion and supporting traditional marriage, especially instituting pro-life policies in Indiana.
It’s the paradox of Daniels again: his effort to disarm social liberals who might be open to fiscal conservatism served mainly to inflame social conservatives, with whom he substantially agrees even if he does not share (or even seem to completely understand) their level of commitment.
On immigration, Daniels has something to offend everyone. He suggests increased legal immigration levels, even though we are already taking in more than 1 million new immigrants a year while millions of Americans remain stubbornly unemployed. But if he is serious when he writes “we need to admit many more immigrants who create the most jobs and economic value” rather than “those who merely happen to live next door or who are related to those who are already here,” we would have to reduce the kind of immigration we are currently getting.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (33) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/28/cut-along-with-mitch
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Consternated Conferences
- Screwtape Talks Turkey
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
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
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
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
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
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
martin j smith| 9.28.11 @ 7:43AM
I do not know Daniels but I will say this: Sadly the current Democrat(ic ? aka Socialist crowd are not workable. This is what Establishment Republicans seem not to get. The voters do not want business as usual. What voters want are alternative solutions to the Socialist solutions. . And they want a Party that is honest and upfront with the voters not the usual arrogance because that is exactly what the Socialists are.
Mimi| 9.28.11 @ 8:29AM
Martin...They are the TAX & SPEND party, It is what they are and what they DO ! Even in the hardest of hard times, even when there IS no money THEY SPEND! Now they CRY "GIMME MORE MONEY" know ing the Bush Tax cuts will end in 2013, with their spending on WASTEFUL endeavors SOLYNDRA as an example and 200,000 a JOB proposal. They cry...PASS IT, PASS IT. FOR WHAT? .....waste and more bumbling like SOLYNDRA....With them it's like a bottomless PIT....GIMME, GIMME , TAX, TAX, TAX,,,,and they have the DARN NERVE to ask US for 4 more years. This time we all have to say NO, NO, NO.!!!!
Bob| 9.28.11 @ 9:14AM
The Hoosier Gov's big deterrent to higher office is his salacious/adulterous wife, My Cheri Amour. The gossip columnists would have a field day digging up the adultery dirt on her and the Doctor boyfriend in Cal smearing the diminutive governor with glee. If you can't control your wife then how can you run the country? A fair question.
Derek Leaberry| 9.28.11 @ 11:27AM
Barack Obama was our first black president. Abe Lincoln our first Republican. Jack Kennedy our first Roman Catholic. Andrew Jackson was our first frontier president. Thomas Jefferson our first Democratic-Republican. William Henry Harrison our first Whig. James Buchanan our first bachelor and perhaps something worse. Daniels could be our first cuckolded president.
William| 9.28.11 @ 2:12PM
Not really a fair question, but Muslims would agree with you.
Clint| 9.28.11 @ 9:16AM
As Wall Street & The Ruling Elite set us up for their Frontman Mittens Romney, there is a fostered game of musical chairs with the Candidates Du Jour, keeping away focused criticism from their Ruling Elite Wall Street Anointed One, Mittens Romney.
Rise Up In Rebellion.
cali| 9.28.11 @ 11:34PM
You're spot on! Isn't odd how the inside GOP frantically trying to select another one of their annointed one, just in case Romney doesn't make it? These guys are no better then their counterpart of democrats, not to mention sleazy.
We need to let them know that we will NOT accept any of their choices, but rather exercise our right to have our nominee.
TrueBlue| 9.29.11 @ 3:46PM
The only reason Romney is still in the race is that he knows if he holds out long enough he'll get the most total votes and end up the candidate just like McCain. There has to be a way to convince the actual conservatives that are running to step down and leave the strongest, maybe with deals for Cabinet positions (several of them would be good in various Cabinet spots or agency heads). Otherwise we'll get Democrat-Lite Romney and will just end up losing again, this time the results may be permanent.
sjccoach| 9.28.11 @ 9:28AM
Remember the Bushes backed Daniels. Daniels is the RINO du jour. I'm glad he is not running. If he became president he would reach across the aisle to raise taxes. Daniels is another Obama lite.
martin j smith| 9.28.11 @ 10:18AM
This individual as others have suggested is the proto type for failure. I think we have given the Republican establishment types ample opportunity --John McCaine being the most recent.
I have no doubt that I will vote for whoever is chosen as Presidential candidate. But this time is different. I think most voters who are on our side do not want Daniels or anyone like him.
If the Republican Party leaders want their Party to survive they have one option--Listen to the voters. If they fail I fear that the Republican Party will dissolve and a new party will need to be created as the opposition. The 2012 election is their final chance.
Derek Leaberry| 9.28.11 @ 11:22AM
Daniels has many strikes against him. One, he supports surrendering on cultural issues. Two, he is an open-borders Bushite on immigration. Three, he was Bush's budget director in Bush's big spending first term. Four, he is willing to increase taxes. Certainly four strikes are enough to strike Daniels out.
Jack in Wi.| 9.28.11 @ 11:45AM
I have to say that most of the posters above have nailed Mitch Daniels and all he stands for. The little guy was right to stay in Indiana. So was Christie in New Jersey. Perry has been the biggest and fastest flop that I can remember. He should have stayed back at the countryclub, belting down cold ones, with his lobbyist friends. I think Romney has flip flopped, so much he is a bad joke.
That leaves Ron Paul or ruin. Ron Paul beats Obama in the latest Harris Poll. He is the one who raises a lot of money, and the largest base of fervent suporters. The people agree with him in huge majorities on ending the wars now, ending all foreign aid, auditing the Fed. bringing the troops home from around the world, and returning to small constitutional government.
Dick Nome| 9.28.11 @ 11:58AM
Elmer Fudd beats Obama in polls too. Ron Paul isn't unique and he won't be the nominee. Too old. Sorry, but the truth is so.
William| 9.28.11 @ 2:22PM
He's more than too old: I don't doubt his supporters are fervent; the trouble is they are a small minority of the voting public.
Clint| 9.28.11 @ 12:07PM
Associated Press-GfK poll: Ron Paul the most favorable GOP candidate
A new national poll of the general population has revealed that top tier candidate Ron Paul is the most favorable choice in the Republican Presidential nomination race.
Ron Paul 37% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = +1
Mitt Romney 39% favorable vs 41% unfavorable = -2
Rick Perry 33% favorable vs 36% unfavorable = -3
Michele Bachmann 35% favorable vs 43% unfavorable = -8
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
DaveD| 9.28.11 @ 6:00PM
If you are fool enough to believe polls at this point in the process, CLint, I own some swamp land in Florida I can let go for next to nothing.
William| 9.28.11 @ 6:37PM
Some thoughts on these numbers. They presumably are based on the more active and interested of the potential voters in the Republican primaries. Even so, they do not show a dramatic difference among the candidates. Bachmann has less favorable numbers than Romney, which somewhat surprises me. Romney's favorable number is higher than Paul or Perry, but so is his unfavorable number. These numbers do not reflect the sentiment of those whose posts I often read on TASpec, who say it's got to be a "real" conservative, by whom they mean Paul or Perry, or no one at all. But these numbers suggest that Romney would be just about as acceptable to the Republican primary voters (in general) as the others, and I can't see how any objective observer (i.e., on thinking with his head rather than his heart) can believe that the candidates perceived (by the general public) as more extreme than Romney, would have a better chance them him of defeating Obama. (But see conflicting polling results referenced in the posts below.)
William| 9.28.11 @ 2:17PM
For those posters below for whom even Daniels is not "conservative" enough: you are like lemmings marching to the edge of the cliff. If you have the candidate you want, your defeat is virtually certain. Like the liberals on the far left, you cannot understand that the vast majority of the country does not share your extreme and absolutist views, and many of these consider themselves to be "conservative," like Daniels.
William| 9.28.11 @ 2:18PM
I guess it was "above."
idalily| 9.29.11 @ 3:43PM
THIS.
chudnutie | 11.23.11 @ 5:52AM
hem,,,
Clint| 9.28.11 @ 2:36PM
Duuuhhhhhhh !
Harris Poll: Ron Paul, Mitt Romney Would Top President Obama
The State Column | Staff | Wednesday, September 28, 2011
" Released on Tuesday, September 27, the latest Harris Poll surveyed 2,462 adults and was conducted between September 12 and 19. According to the poll, if Texas Congressman Ron Paul wins the Republican presidential nomination he would beat Obama by 51 percent to 49 percent in the general election."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.
William| 9.28.11 @ 3:36PM
I don't believe it, but I'll check it out.
RCV| 9.28.11 @ 4:45PM
And here's another poll on the 27th from Rasmussen, whom you have acknowledged is the most accurate based on prior results:
Obama 44, Paul 34
William| 9.28.11 @ 6:44PM
I just saw a Fox News poll in which Paul was way down the list in the preferences of potential voters in the Republican primaries.
Clint| 9.28.11 @ 9:29PM
Do Your Homework & Get Informed.
Rasmussen Placed Eighth Out Of Eight In Accuracy In The November 2010 Elections.
RCV| 9.28.11 @ 10:30PM
You didn't say that when you quoted him to support your points
RCV| 9.28.11 @ 11:42PM
And Rasmussen's errors were almost invariably in favor of the GOP.
Clint| 9.28.11 @ 3:46PM
Good For You.
Zbigniew Mazurak| 9.29.11 @ 7:32AM
"But when "we are borrowing the entire defense budget two times over," Daniels writes that some basic questions must be asked: "What size and kind of military is absolutely essential to preserve the physical safety of Americans? What, very strictly defined, are the national interests of our country? Our country." (Emphasis his.)
"The answer," Daniels continues, "may or may not encompass the mission to which presidents of both parties have at various times committed us, to attempt to spread universally the human rights we hold dear." He concludes: "We can stipulate to the nobility and correctness of a century of crusading without necessarily agreeing that this policy is right for America's third century." The task of "protecting Americans for a lot cheaper cannot happen just by better procurement or a couple fewer weapons systems."
Mitch Daniels can say these things because he isn't running for president. But maybe there's an extra seat on the super committee?"
What utter garbage, written of course by discredited Libertarian, Mitch Daniels sycophant, James Antle. Here are the facts:
1) It's true that the US borrows ca. $1.5 trillion annually these days. But that has nothing to do with defense spending. It's because of the big government policies (bailouts, subsidies, stimuli, etc.) began by Bush and expanded by Obama. As of FY2007, the budget deficit was just $161 bn.
2) The US does not borrow any money to fund its military, whose budget ($529 bn + 159 bn in FY2011, ca. $641 bn to be app. in FY2012) is covered with tax revenue. Annual federal tax revenue is ca. $2.2 trillion.
3) Cutting defense spending will not significantly reduce, let alone eliminate, the budget deficit. The entire military budget amounts to less than 19% of the total federal budget, the smallest proportion since before WW2 if you exclude the Clinton era. The Heritage Foundation has proven that even eliminating military spending ENTIRELY would not even REDUCE, let alone eliminate, the budget deficit unless domestic spending - discretionary and mandatory alike - is reduced significantly:
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/.....increased/
4) Daniels might not be Ron Paul, but clearly his mindset is just the same as that of Ron Paul. He does not badmouth the military and does not blame America for 9/11, but that's basically the only difference. He thinks the US can afford to hide behind oceans and coastal forts, like it was doing during the 18th and 19th century. Wake up, Mitch, it won't work these days. The US is no longer protected by oceans. America needs to have a large military to protect itself and some detachments of this military have to be deployed abroad in forward bases where they can react to any aggression immediately. The US has over 9 mn sq kms and a population of 308 mn people to defend. This cannot be achieved with a smaller military than the US military of today. This cannot be done with a military of 600,000 men. The US military is already too small and overstretched. And that's even if the US military were to defend only America itself.
5) The Heritage Foundation has actually done an exhaustive study of what America's interests are, what the threats to the US are, and what kind of a military (how many divisions, ships, planes, missiles, and MEFs) are necessary to defend America (not even its allies), keep the peace, and fend off threats.
6) On immigration, it's clear that Daniels is a strident open borders liberal. The US already welcomes 1 mn immigrants per year, yet that isn't enough for him. If anything, immigration laws should be stricter, and a 10-year moratorium on legal immigration should be considered.
6) On social issues, he's also a liberal, calling for a capitulation on social issues, even though conservatives are now making progress on them.
Daniels is a RINO, a scoundrel, and a Democrat in disguise. He must not be allowed to win the GOP nomination for any office, not even dog catcher.
POST American| 9.29.11 @ 8:48AM
-----Nice '90's Show' DIS--traction.
For those wanting to fill in the background
for our current Globalist RED China set up
and TREASON OP ---check out ALAN WATT's
archive of National Intel Redio from a few years
ago.
He breaks down the history behind theTemplar-Freemasonry provocateured and directed
French Revolution ---something Ann Coulter
didn't seem to get to in her latest book on that
event.
Seems the Masonic-Templar--USURY crowd, once in power, were into not just slaughtering the
scapegoated aristicracy ---but systematically
cleared the land and exterminated the
peasantry en masse.
Echoes ot the current Rockefellow 'Agenda 21'
extermination platforms ---and that remarkably
'on cue', astonishingly 'EUGENICS friendly',
FUKISHIMA fallout E-vent.
AGAIN, we never hear Coulter doing any
smart mouth about it ----EVER.
---OH, and BTW, you may discover WATT
is discussing HAARP events over Japan
-----in 2007.
---------------YO--Dell--AY---EEEE---WHOOOOO!
Jessie| 9.30.11 @ 4:25AM
I just saw a Fox News poll in which Paul was way down the list in the preferences of potential voters in the Republican primaries
http://www.bestbootsforsale.com
http://www.topbrandsbags.com
Jessie| 9.30.11 @ 4:28AM
Not really a fair question, but Muslims would agree with you.
http://www.besthandbagsshopping.com
http://www.wholesalehatsshop.com