-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
If there’s one thing you can’t accuse Gov. Mitch Daniels of, it’s pandering. The subject of persistent speculation about a presidential run, Daniels has a pretty conservative governing record, yet he continues to say things to alienate key Republican constituencies that he’d need were he to tip his hat into the ring. He’s already called for a “truce” on social issues and floated the idea of a VAT, and now he’s told the Hill that defense cuts should be on the table to combat the debt. “We need to take a really hard look at the missions we’ve undertaken,” he said. That surely isn’t going to sit well with national security-minded Republicans.
Meanwhile, in the same story, he said of Republican disappointments in Senate races, “We didn’t turn up the strongest candidates.” That’s certainly true of candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle, in my estimation. But then again, I have no presidential ambitions. Maybe Daniels really doesn’t want to run for president. Or maybe he’s decided that if he runs, he’s just going to say what he thinks.
View all comments (11) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/05/mitch-daniels-defense-cuts-sho
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Chris | 11.5.10 @ 11:07AM
To be fair, Mr. Klein, I am a "national-security minded Republican" who thinks that the "missions" we've undertaken in Afpak and Iraq need to be reduced and ultimately ended. There is little strategic value to keeping large, costly footprints in those countries (AF even moreso than Iraq) as the costs are just unsustainable over the long term. Perhaps instead you meant to type "neo-conservative" instead of "NSM-Rs". (I am aware of the small sample size of one reflected in my argument as well.)
Re: O'Donnell & Angle, who knows why they lost? O'Donnell obviously was running in a deep blue state. Angle's loss is more troubling, especially with polls showing her in a tie with Reid down the stretch. His explanation is as good as any. Perhaps we should be thankful the media chose to focus on those unqualified conservatives so that other, more qualified conservaties like Johnson, Toomey, Paul and Rubio could get in?
Chris| 11.5.10 @ 11:19AM
Well said Chris; about Angle and ODonnell. The other four come in well rested and ready for a fight. Not with the Left; but what's left of the Right.
Mike W| 11.5.10 @ 11:33AM
I would also consider myself a national security minded Republican, or something like it. I , also think that the big spending days are over for everyone, including the Pentagon.
Iraq was a God awful waste of money and made us no more secure. Whatever we can do to prevent such foolish ventures, we need to do. We can't go back to the old days were we go broke on defense spending and attempt to slash the left wing programs to the bone. The middle/independents will not vote for Republicans based on that philosophy.
Enough of the neo con foolishness.
Al Adab| 11.5.10 @ 12:11PM
Mitch just isn't the guy. Discussion of a VAT should never be "on the table" it would be a disaster even were it used to eliminate IRS and replace income taxes. Defense spending is an area in which better fiscal management can produce results, more bang for the buck so to speak. Nonetheless the military has been decimated both by the war and by the Left proclivity to fund vote buying programs at military expense.
Mitch needs to understand this and go after the spending, little piece by little piece- every Czar, every earmark, every special interest group (left or right) that has a hand in the pie. We must suceed for the price of failure is too high. Increasing federal revenue is not the answer.
JC| 11.14.10 @ 10:45AM
Why is a VAT off the table if it replaces an income tax and IRS - can you please expound on why a consumption tax is a bad idea? We have to have 17-18% tax/GDP - even the biggest tax opponents agree with that number, you can't cut spending to zero.
Going after problems "piece by piece" is painfully ineffective - it's like treating a sickness symptom by symptom instead of fixing the underlying cause. Social issues are deck chairs on the Titanic right now unfortunately...history shows that these issues are more "generational" than "political" anyway and we are moving hard right with GenX and the Millenials - it will fix itself...
Sandy| 11.5.10 @ 12:17PM
I think you are correct that Daniels doesn't care what he says, and thank God for that. It means he's done before he even starts a run.
He's peed on Social conservatives, National Security conservatives and Fiscal conservatives. What group is left for him to appeal to, the Democrats? Really, they like the VAT, they are anti-war and anti-military, and they would love a truce on social issues talk.
Sheila| 11.5.10 @ 1:55PM
Well said.
Chris | 11.5.10 @ 1:23PM
Al Adab starts off by saying that Mitch isn't the guy, then lists all the things that should Mitch should do if he gets into power. He did all of those things in Indiana. For pruning waste and gaining efficiency, he's the best qualified candidate this side of Chris Christie. Not sure what you're getting at.
Sandy, I think the time has come for Americans to stop accepting BS from politicians who promise no tax increases and increased spending. It's just not sustainable or feasible. The exact opposite of the "hope and changey" campaign, Daniels is the no-nonsense guy who will tell you can have your steak if you eat your veggies. I think that has a certain appeal to voters who are beginning to see that behind the curtain is just Ben Bernanke printing dollars to sustain a government we just can't afford.
Like it or not, abortion, global warming, and the wars are quickly receding to the rear view mirror as we head into the financial abyss . Mitch Daniels represents one of the better options the GOP has for staving off that peril by preaching fiscal austerity while setting the climate for small businesses on Main Street to succeed.
seth| 11.5.10 @ 1:52PM
There was a time not so long ago when the GOP didn't trust the " industrial military complex" . Big government is big government . National defense is necessary but to pretend that every mission and every deployment and every war and expense is sacrosanct is foolish and not good conservative doctrine.
Fisher Ames| 11.5.10 @ 3:37PM
Chris says it very well. Not only is Mitch Daniels the "anti-Obama," as he has been described, he is the real thing when it comes to "straight talk." (And he is never boring, even at his most wonkish.)
Conservatives need to memorize what he told Andrew Ferguson in the June 5th issue of the Weekly Standard: “I want citizens to understand. . . . When people start demanding we spend more money, they’re saying, ‘We want to raise your taxes.’ And the citizens should say, ‘Okay, tell me. Which one of my taxes do you want to raise?’ ”
Now that is a slogan that an opponent of Obama could run on.