-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels isn’t running for president in 2012. In the run-up to this decision, Daniels managed to irritate activists who make up all three legs of the conservative “stool.” His comments about a truce on social issues — an idea that could have never worked in practice — represented a particular problem. That said, Daniels’ record on many of these issues was to the right of Mitt Romney’s. It is telling that Romney has been able to substantially overcome his record by saying the right things while Daniels’ record is obscured by his saying the wrong things.
While family was ultimately the main reason the Indiana governor bowed out, it wasn’t clear that Daniels’ political instincts were in step with the mood of the Republican base. He was also going to have to answer for his role as budget director in the spendthrift Bush administration, which would have been used to tarnish his reputation for fiscal rectitude. There were also legitimate concerns that a President Daniels would have raised taxes as part of a grand bargain to achieve entitlement reform. Other Republican leaders may now take a second look at the race.
rightasrain| 5.22.11 @ 1:00PM
You are so right when you said that Daniels's political instincts didn't fit the mood of the Republican base. He did many conservative things in Indiana but always seemed to be apologizing for them. And his language when describing Obama's policies was the faintest possible--he "disagreed with" this or was "disappointed" in that. You wanted to shake him and tell him to show some signs of life. Someone that mild-mannered is not what we need this go-round.
PCP Smoker| 5.22.11 @ 3:00PM
Well said. Very well said.
Occam's Tool| 5.22.11 @ 5:38PM
Mild mannered is fine.
But we need a social and financial conservative who will defend us vigorously abroad from our next great enemy---Political Islam. Paul will neither defend us nor is he a Social Conservative. I DO NOT support legalization of drugs as he does, and think that will be a disaster. My medical expertise on this is considerably better than his.
Clint| 5.23.11 @ 4:11AM
You're A Slandering Liar, Fanatic Israel Firster Troll, Tool Job.
Dr.Ron Paul supported the killing of bin Laden, adding that he voted for the authority to go after those responsible for 9/11.
"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."
Dr. Ron Paul On Abortion:
Abortion is murder. (Apr 2008)
Roe v. Wade decision was harmful to the Constitution. (Apr 2008)
Define life at conception in law, as scientific statement. (Feb 2008)
Protecting the life of the unborn is protecting liberty. (Feb 2008)
Get the federal government out of abortion decision. (Nov 2007)
Delivered 4000 babies; & assuredly life begins at conception. (Sep 2007)
Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
Nominate only judges who refuse to legislate from the bench. (Sep 2007)
Save “snowflake babies”: no experiments on frozen embryos. (Sep 2007)
No tax funding for organizations that promote abortion. (Sep 2007)
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May 2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Oldefarte| 5.22.11 @ 2:50PM
I'm saddened that he's not running, as his political-professional expertise should have overshadowed the imbecilic moaning of social conservatives concerning his call to priortize economic issues. Those castigating his attachment as Bush's bedget director in facilitating governmental spending increases should realize that as same, he can only recommend [and not finally decide] the ultimate policies. His conservative buditary expense cutting as governor of Indiana should be instead viewed as a true indication of his [as a decision maker] ideology that could have bee brought to the table as a presidential candidate. Now the actual/hands-on expertise of Romney, Pawlenty and Cain should be the most viable choices to date [unless Palin or Christie or Ryan jump in]. With economic issues being supreme and critical currently and in the future, these candidates should be disected/examined as to which ones will best provide the budgetary cutting courage as president to right our economic ship of state!!!!
PCP Smoker| 5.22.11 @ 3:02PM
Contact George Will, NRO, Krauthhammer, David Frump, and The Weekly STandard. They have scheduled a cryathon and bitch session next week at 11
NoBama| 5.22.11 @ 4:11PM
lol
Occam's Tool| 5.22.11 @ 6:09PM
I like your style, NoBama.
It is interesting watching Republican candidates dropping like flies here. It should be pointed out that Obama IS a master of the Philthy Phil school of Advanced Chicago Politics, Chicago famously coddling its corrupt Pols in much the same way that LA coddles its glitterati. However, I honestly think the Palin can take him, so I fear and worry not.
JmsA| 5.23.11 @ 12:15AM
Thanks, but won't be attending.
kingsmill| 5.22.11 @ 3:39PM
So long Mitch, please take Mitt with you.
Jade| 5.23.11 @ 1:02AM
Pretty please.
Freddy G| 5.22.11 @ 3:43PM
Daniels was "Borked" by his wife's wayward behavior. No wonder he called a truce on social issues otherwise how could he explain his wife's salacious conduct and claim to be a social conservative.
PCP Smoker| 5.22.11 @ 4:19PM
Absolutely right. Danielites don't bring this issue up very much, but you and I know that a prospective first lady who, literally, abandoned her children to chase some dude to California would be an embarrassment to the nation and the GOP>
Mick Lee| 5.23.11 @ 10:37AM
Gee, people.Mrs. Daniels goofy behavior was EIGHTEEN years ago. The Daniels remarriage was TWELVE years ago.If the Daniels had simply divorced and it just was a failed first marriage, how many of you would have launched fireballs? It seems to me that Mitch Daniels is/was being slagged because he and his wife actually had the nerve to reconcil and remarry.
Wait. Come to think of it, maye I should see it your way. How dare they. What a slap in the face in the face of the New Morality. Talk about giving forgiveness a bad name!
You're right. Angels will spit on his grave!
Casey| 5.23.11 @ 1:16PM
Democrat opposition researchers would have been all over Mrs. Daniels' marital escapades.
She and the governor would have been tabloid fodder for months. You're a fool if you believe otherwise.
Bob Grant| 5.22.11 @ 3:49PM
Our folks are dropping like flies. Two in one day. Daniels by making it official and Cain by beginning the countdown to dropping out. He was given more than two weeks to clarify what his approach to foreign would be and gave the same inadequate answer as during the debate. By stubbornly refusing to share a philosophy on foreign policy is a disservice to people who are considering voting for him. In addition, to not be prepared to answer the most basic questions on Israel was disappointing.
Chuck| 5.22.11 @ 3:53PM
Hold on to your hats this opens the door for Jeb Bush. Jeb has the key to the general election...Florida. Will the GOP nominate someone who can't win their home states in the general election, i.e. Romney and Christie? Minnesota is doubtful also eliminating Pawlenty and Bachmann.
NoBama| 5.22.11 @ 4:17PM
If Jeb gets in it guarantees a third party. We've made it clear we don't want any more Bushes.
PCP Smoker| 5.22.11 @ 4:22PM
Have to agree with NoBama. How is Jeb different from his brother or from Mitch Daniels? Bush was mediocre. Let's not relive that again.
NoBama| 5.22.11 @ 4:40PM
Their conceit is beyond belief. Why would we want a third Bush presidency after the first two?
Can't we find someone else to run? I thought we fought a war a long time ago to get rid of a royal family. No kings please.
beebop| 5.22.11 @ 5:37PM
It is/was like getting Tommy instead of Dick Smothers. Sorry Jeb, no oval office for you!
Freddy G| 5.22.11 @ 4:56PM
Interesting post to say the least. Jeb would need Pawlenty or Bachmann to beat Romney in Iowa then beat Romney himself in South Carolina and Florida.
Tom| 5.22.11 @ 4:56PM
NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
Bob Grant| 5.22.11 @ 5:40PM
If Jeb has no qualms criticizing his younger brother's record, I would support him.
Indiana Joe| 5.22.11 @ 5:50PM
He needs to criticize his father also for breaking his no new tax pledge. If Jeb came out and said he would enforce all immigration laws and seal off the border he win in a landslide.
Jamie| 5.22.11 @ 6:11PM
GWB is Jeb's older brother. You're kidding yourself if you think he's any different from his father and brother.
Cris Worth| 5.22.11 @ 5:57PM
My late father said in '99 the Republicans should nominate Jeb instead of his brother. Jeb is a more folksy down to earth guy who connects better with people. A Jeb vs Romney is a no brainer, Romney is a stuff shirt elitist just like W. and W.'s father.
Jamie| 5.22.11 @ 6:09PM
Jeb should have run in 2000 instead of W; he missed his chance. Jeb is weak on border security like his dad and brother and has no business being our nominee.
Occam's Tool| 5.22.11 @ 5:36PM
It gets more and more fascinating. Obviously, our candidate is going to be a fully Black man (Fully Black and a Man) or a brilliant woman.
I like that. Considering that our first and greatest President from the GOP was a descendant of unexceptional rural poor, it makes sense that our next great President should also come from an underrepresented or historically oppressed subgroup.
Consider who and what the greatest Byzantine Emperor was. His empire outlived him by almost 900 years. We should be so lucky.
Bob| 5.22.11 @ 5:44PM
Since Cheri's husband dropped out, it's been Jeb, Jeb and more Jeb on political blogs. The GOP has gone ballistic. Just think if it becomes a showdown between Romney and Bush, the Tea Baggers will have an apocalyptic fit.
Jamie| 5.22.11 @ 6:04PM
Go tea-bag yourself, RINO.
Chuck| 5.22.11 @ 6:09PM
I'm surprised my post churned up so much response. Jeb is a longshot. But if he did run and came up with a solid economic plan, addressed social issues and enforced immigration laws a Bush/Perry ticket would sweep the south and carry many mid-western and western states excluding the left coast.
NoBama| 5.22.11 @ 6:33PM
Why are you surprised? His older brother left our party in a complete mess after 8 years in office.
Jeb Bush has spoken out against Arizona's immigration bill because he believes it's racial profiling and his kids could be targeted there.
Only an elitist would say something so ridiculous.
Arizona is under assault by illegal immigration and our federal government, and it shocked me that Jeb Bush publicly kicked them to the curb.
Casey Abell| 5.22.11 @ 7:34PM
Funny how everybody manages to overlook the obvious beneficiary: Romney. Palin isn't running (yet, anyway, and she's not doing anything to get ready for a serious run) and everybody else is dropping out, screwing up, or staying buried in single-digits.
PCC| 5.22.11 @ 10:43PM
So it's not true that Mrs. Daniels cracked him across the forehead with a tennis racket? That's a relief!
Jade| 5.22.11 @ 11:27PM
Mrs. Daniels is the one who took off and left their marriage for an extended period of time. What right does she have to wield a tennis racket?
Cromulent| 5.23.11 @ 8:32AM
All the foregoing Daniels complaints ring true of course. What really scared me are his judges.
Louis Tully| 5.23.11 @ 9:07AM
who's Mitch Daniels?
Stefan Stackhouse| 5.23.11 @ 9:31AM
A question I seldom see asked, but should be: Who would be best positioned to actually beat Obama in the fall? Unless you are happy with the thought of 4 more years of Obama (in which case, what are you doing here?), that has to be the priority, doesn't it? There are probably several candidates in the field that will assure that you feel good about yourselves all the way up until election night, but is that what we really need?
"There is no substitute for victory." Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
I don't know if Daniels would have won or not. He did have some negatives - but name a candidate or potential candidate that has none. He would have been a strong contender, nevertheless. The question now is: who do we have left as strong contenders, not just through the primary season but particularly for fall 2012 as well?
Huntsman actually looks pretty good on paper, if you can forgive him for serving his country while there was a Democrat in the White House. Pawlenty and Romney are Hoh and Hum, but I suppose that either could mount a halfway respectable showing against Obama if the economy continues to be bad enough.
Cain has two things going for him: he can really excite the crowd (in a way that none of the above ever can), and he would give every person in America a reason to not feel guilty about voting to turn out of office America's first black president. I see Cain as a possible modern-day Wendel Wilkie if the race ends up being deadlocked between Romney, Huntsman, Pawlenty, and others, with none coming close to a majority of delegates. (We actually have a very good chance of seeing a multi-ballot convention this time, something that hasn't been seen in the US for a very long time now, and something that nobody in the media is even mentioning as a possibility.) He has the further advantage of not being up against the likes of an FDR, and with no Hitler or Tojo threatening us overseas. A Cain campaign would still be a real long-shot, though.
One final thought: a deadlocked convention is also a convention that would be particularly inclined to turn to a draft candidate. That opens the field of possibilities considerably, and includes all the ones who have so far declined to run. Whether someone who never won a single primary could win in the fall election, though, is very doubtful.
buckeyeman| 5.23.11 @ 10:52AM
The lack of a decent conservative candidate is truly depressing but who knows, it may be a blessing in disguise. No one wants to be the one to stand up and tell the folks the freebies are over. It's like being the guy who climbs halfway up the stairs at the frat house and has to announce to the crowd that there's no more beer.
It has become crystal clear that neither the republicraps nor the demonrats will act to end the redistributionist fantasy. The economy is now over the cliff and in freefall. Who will take the blame? Maybe it's better not to be the one at the helm when the ship strikes the reef.
David T| 5.23.11 @ 11:16AM
Daniels didn't stand a chance against Obama. Pawlenty would be even worse. Paul is too weird for the American people. Gingrich is a bona fide member of the can't-shoot-straight gang. Cain is still an unknown quantity but, unless you're an Eisenhower, the presidency is not an entry level position anyway. Almost the same could be said for West. Palin has "quitter" tattooed on her forehead. Romney suffers from no-there-there syndrome. The only way Jeb could get nominated is if he said he was actually a "Busch" of baked-bean fame. Huntsman is not worth a mention.
If Rudy Giuliani vowed to seal off the border and never to use federal funds for abortion, he could walk away with the big prize.
Casey| 5.23.11 @ 1:21PM
Palin's going to run and she's going to win. Kiss my "quitter" ass.
Giuliani supports partial birth abortion and will never be nominated. Romney has "RomneyCare" tattooed on his forehead and is a flipflopping loser.
Casey Abell| 5.23.11 @ 12:00PM
"Romney suffers from no-there-there syndrome."
Agree with all your other comments. But Romney has, oh, just a few things there...a leading position in the polls, endless money to match Obama's war chest, an election dominated by economic issues that play to his biggest strength and Obama's biggest weakness, and primary opponents who are imploding, not running, or going nowhere.
Ideological purity? Don't make me laugh. The pocketbook rules next year. Nobody outside a few websites will give a hoot about the individual mandate.
All this hardly makes Romney a shoo-in. But it's ridiculous to look at the events of the past few weeks and not see how they overwhelmingly benefit that guy from Massachusetts.
Casey| 5.23.11 @ 1:23PM
Money isn't everything, principles are; too bad Romney doesn't have any.
David T| 5.23.11 @ 1:23PM
I'm not asking for ideological purity, just something at the core that says this is what I stand for. Giuliani is not running (yet), and he's far from being ideologically pure, but he has a strong record of leadership as the most conservative mayor of (very liberal ) NYC in half a century. I don't think Romney's record in MA comes close.
Casey| 5.23.11 @ 1:25PM
They're both from the northeast and their RINO values don't appeal to true Conservatives.
Casey Abell| 5.23.11 @ 2:13PM
"They're both from the northeast and their RINO values don't appeal to true Conservatives."
Sounds like a great endorsement in the general, especially in the Midwest and border South states that the GOP candidate will have to take away from Obama. A favorite son of The American Spectator would have no chance against Obama in those swing states.
Like I said, ideological purity will matter on websites like these. In the real world, in the real election, the pocketbook will rule. And that works directly against Obama and for Romney.
You never know. But the more I see Romney despised as a RINO on sites like these, the better I rate his prospects in the general. The primary is his biggest worry, but all his opponents are conveniently going away, never arriving, or self-destructing.
Casey| 5.23.11 @ 4:20PM
Not all of his opponents are going away. If Mitt wins it will be by default which is pathetic. He won't beat Obama, he's democrat-lite. We tried this in 2008, remember?
1blumett| 5.23.11 @ 9:31PM
Received this from a friend who I sent this artical to: "Well, look at it this way -- he was married for a while and then his wife walked out on the family and married a guy she was having an affair with. Then she married another guy and hadn't even filed for divorce. And then, Daniels takes her back and remarries her. I would hate to think that would be the way he would run government. Evidently she gave a speech last week to feel the waters and the outcome wasn't wonderful. Maybe she will even leave him again. . . ." Where do we find these types like Daniels to be leaders of our nation?
Herman Cain just keeps looking better and better.