May 13, 2011
— Ace This from Dustin. After saying he thinks Daniels is a great leader, he writes:
And I think a more sane appraisal of him would require someone to stop worrying about his private marital problems from YEARS ago and consider how he dealt with public unions, or dealt with democrats in his state legislature, or how he dealt with regulations and businesses.Mitch has earned respect of people who care about those issues because he is a freaking awesome leader. Scott Walker and Chris Christie style leadership.
But when it comes to national politics, I think he simply shows too much humility. It's like WWE or Nascar, and he's more of an actual accomplished Governor. We get the government we deserve, and if we aren't even thinking about a man's real accomplishments while calling him a weak pansy because he is nice to his wife, I think that's just freaking pathetic, and we deserve 4 more years of Obama.
It will take some backbone to beat Obama. Not being afraid of a little flack for someone's honest decency in their private live is a good place to start. If Mitch isn't the nominee, that's fine with me. I have an open mind either way, but the fear I see in people about Mitch seems weaker than anything Mitch ever showed.
This is the point I was making, sort of.
What is often taken as "toughness" -- surface bluster -- is not in fact toughness. Toughness often exhibits itself as quietness -- and loud brashness is actually often not toughness, but overcompensation due to fear.
And similarly, sure, we might say that "ditch the bitch" is the tougher response. Actually, it's just the more obvious response. And I think it's more obvious because most of us see ourselves in that situation acting out of hurt and vengeance (both justified, by the way!).
But does not forgiving a wrong take more toughness than taking self-pleasing pleasure in payback?
I'm a fan of payback and I will blame no one for saying "Man, I'd want payback in that situation." You bet you would. So would I. So would anyone.
So, in fact, would Mitch Daniels, I'm thinking.
But what I was trying to suggest in my post (obliquely) is that we often confuse good behavior with bad behavior and bad behavior with good.
And you don't have to be a fan of Sun Tzu to recognize that sometimes strength is quiet, not loud, and sometimes the greatest strength is not self-satisfaction, but self-denial.
One other point Dustin makes: I wrote just about the flashy, sexy, interesting news about Mitch Daniels. Of course I did not go into his record. In this respect I'm just as bad as the media: It is easier to do the quick, gut-reaction sexy stuff than the wonky substance stuff.
I would apologize but, like Mitt Romney, there's one problem with that: I'm not really sorry. It's the nature of the thing; we're all limited. If I apologized for that kind of post it would be false because that would imply I intend to do better in the future, and I specifically do not so intend.
But Mitch Daniels is a substantial guy and he's taken on a lot of problems in a quiet way -- not a loud way -- and he's succeeded in imposing his will in that quiet way.
Is that weakness?
Or is that a guy who just doesn't need to strut?
You don't need to strut if you just keep quietly winning. Boys strut around their victories; men go about quietly reassuring the people they just beat, because, in exhibiting modesty, it makes it easier to beat them again later.
That said, yes, I continue to be befuddled by Mitch Daniels' various political instincts.
Actually "befuddled" is a euphemism. If I were befuddled I might think there was some upside to some of these decisions; I just might not be smart enough to see it.
In fact I'm not befuddled; I'm decidedly critical.
And while I believe what I wrote about Mitch Daniels and how true strength may exhibit itself quietly -- I also know you Give The People What They Want, as the Kinks said, and over-subtle is a one-way-ticket to SnoozersVille, Population: You Lose.
Whatever Mitch Daniels might think of fire and red meat, it's what the customers want, and the customers are always right.
Posted by: Ace at
12:22 PM
| Comments (253)
Post contains 742 words, total size 4 kb.
Whatever Mitch Daniels might think of fire and red meat, it's what the customers want, and the customers are always right.
Yes, and that's why he's not running.
Posted by: Sean Bannion at May 13, 2011 12:28 PM (sbV1u)
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at May 13, 2011 12:28 PM (R6BwO)
Posted by: Dr Spank at May 13, 2011 12:29 PM (1fB+3)
GOP: in 2012, we'll be offering Mitch the VAT Daniels, Mitt Romneycare and Elmer Gantrybee
Dems: Chairman Maobama, of course.
Me: anybody have a linkto the forms for renunciation of citizenship?
Posted by: glowing blue meat at May 13, 2011 12:29 PM (K/USr)
Posted by: Ace at May 13, 2011 12:29 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 12:30 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: beedubya at May 13, 2011 12:30 PM (AnTyA)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 13, 2011 12:30 PM (TATbF)
Palin / Bolton 2012!
Scare the liberals in the US w/ Palin, scare the America-haters overseas w/ Bolton.
If the enemies of this country are going to choose the GOP dream ticket, let's give 'em their nightmare choice.
Posted by: Kortezzi at May 13, 2011 12:31 PM (zAZNI)
Posted by: Ace at May 13, 2011 12:31 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: George Orwell at May 13, 2011 12:32 PM (+vkOU)
Posted by: Dr Spank at May 13, 2011 12:32 PM (1fB+3)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 13, 2011 12:33 PM (+sBB4)
Posted by: Ace at May 13, 2011 12:33 PM (nj1bB)
He made a great governor of a conservative state. When you are US president you also have California, NY, and DC, fraudulent media, violent marxist academia, brutal union thugs etc. all spiraling out of control. When I have a pack of rabid animals in my yard I don't need someone who makes a great pet owner I need f*ckin animal control!
That's why I am a fan of open borders, I want that pack of wild dogs to kill that other pack of rabid dogs. Wild>Rabid. Its a shit choice I know, but the hour is late.
Posted by: Shiggz at May 13, 2011 12:33 PM (mLAWK)
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 12:33 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Ace at May 13, 2011 12:33 PM (nj1bB)
Posted by: Museisluse at May 13, 2011 12:34 PM (a8aqn)
Politics 101: If your opponents have to reject their only core beliefs to attack you, you win.
So Mitch is OK vs. liberals/liberal media. Everyone else, who knows?
Compare him to the NJ gov on conservative issues + electability and see where you come down.
There is no one in the current GOP field who stands out. Which means I'm waiting, again, for a safe candidate on whom I will project my values: like everyone did with W, and McCain.
Posted by: CJ at May 13, 2011 12:34 PM (9KqcB)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at May 13, 2011 12:34 PM (6SIms)
Posted by: Bob Saget at May 13, 2011 12:35 PM (F/4zf)
I want a hamburger, a hotdog, a milkshake...
Well, we're so busy want, want, wanting, we can't see that in the end we're going to get nothing. And then we'll be told to like it.
Just my take anyway.
Posted by: laceyunderalls RINO Trash Committee Chair, Cincinnati Chapter at May 13, 2011 12:36 PM (pLTLS)
Quiet strength. Hmmm, ok sure I've known a few men like that. Not many but I have known a few. Impressive, I suppose, to not give into your baser instinct and when you have been treated poorly.
Let me tell you something else that is a true fact of life, however. We get the treatment that we tolerate. If you allow someone to treat you like shit, guess what? Don't be surprised when they keep doing it.
I'm not sugesting that he should have shot her. I am only saying that what you might attribute to "quiet strength" might just be an unfortuante lack of assertiveness. Maybe he's a rock, I don't know. Maybe I'm just jaded and cynical. Or maybe he's a pusswhipped dumbass. Let's ask the Honey Badger.
Posted by: Sgt. Fury at May 13, 2011 12:36 PM (u2k3g)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 13, 2011 12:36 PM (+61wI)
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 04:30 PM (Xm1aB)"
Scares me too. Mitch's foreign policy is a huge potential problem.
But like I said, I just have an open mind about him. Let's see if he shows up at the debates with an intelligent view on foreign policy. The fact is that he's a governor right now, so he's less free to write op eds about issues like Pakistan and India. He clearly takes the issue seriously enough to not pretend to be an expert if he isn't, but we do need to have a president who is ready for a messy world. I think Obama is leaving us with a lot of serious problems, too. Now isn't the time to shortchange the issue.
So often I think Daniels shows a fundamental lack of skill as a politician, despite being an actually gifted administrator and leader. His 'truce' language seems wise to me, but the way he explained it completely failed to get his point across.
And it's not like Ace is wrong to say "
If this is honesty, let us please have less honesty. I am prepared to vote for a slightly less virtuous man."
You have to have swagger.
Someone asked Palin how she knew she was ready for a VP slot, and her answer was that she just has to be because that's what it takes to win. She's got a point. We need someone with Palin's confidence and Daniels's experience, and that person doesn't exist, so we're left trying to decide if we pick a great president or a great politician who has a better shot of being president.
I would ask that people keep an open mind about Daniels, Palin, Cain, and the guys who haven't announced yet, and see what they offer us in the debates.
Posted by: Dustin at May 13, 2011 12:38 PM (Q3nWV)
I missed this whole contretemps... what happened?
Posted by: Ace at May 13, 2011 04:33 PM (nj1bB)
Paging dumb_blonde and Y-not
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 13, 2011 12:38 PM (UOM48)
I agree that if you adopt that severe of a knee-jerk response, you are making a mistake.
But I do not think it is foolish to consider why the MFM would prefer one Republican candidate over another. Doesn't that make you at least a little suspicious?
And don't we have a rather poor track record with (primary) candidates who have had warm relations with the MFM; who enjoy laudable MFM titles like "maverick" and "straight talk express;" only to have that love miraculously disappear once the nomination is secured?
Posted by: angler at May 13, 2011 12:38 PM (SwjAj)
Posted by: Cherry ð at May 13, 2011 04:33 PM (+sBB4)
And you certainly can't take on Obama's wife.
Posted by: yinzer at May 13, 2011 12:39 PM (/Mla1)
Posted by: George Orwell at May 13, 2011 12:39 PM (+vkOU)
Posted by: shillelagh at May 13, 2011 12:39 PM (Oz4Bj)
Rules or no rules, game on, but both sides are playing by the same rules.
Posted by: MarkD at May 13, 2011 12:39 PM (6CLxP)
Posted by: Rich Lowry's combover at May 13, 2011 12:39 PM (/COcn)
Until then, FUCK your guy, whoever he is. You prove to me why he deserves to be the nominee. And you better make it good, because thid "best of a bad lot" shit isn't cutting it.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 13, 2011 04:36 PM (+61wI)"
Fair point, but there's two sides to that coin. Rudy, Fred, and Mitt had problems that we 'vetted' them out of the nomination for, and that's why we were left with Mccain. I can't stand Mitt, but he would have been a better nominee than Mccain, IMO. Probably a better president too, which is not high praise.
We need to have the spine to nominate someone who isn't perfect.
Posted by: Dustin at May 13, 2011 12:40 PM (Q3nWV)
True.
But more and more, all I'm seeing from the "customers" are a bunch of people who just want to quit. Nobody is good enough; nobody will ever be good enough; we've got to torpedo absolutely everybody on our side with a chance of going somewhere because ___________. If they have to turn their own self-proclaimed principles on their ear to do that, then no prob. And these people will be the loudest complainers when they get the second term of Obama they're helping to set up.
Losing has become a way of life for such people. It's all they know; it's all they expect, and they've brought themselves to a point where they actually find virtue in losing. Maybe that's why they made an unaccomplished quitter their political hero.
Ironic, to hear this kind of bitching about Mitch Daniels' marital situation from a vast collection of battered wives.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 13, 2011 12:40 PM (FYCiJ)
I missed this whole contretemps... what happened?
Posted by: Ace at May 13, 2011 04:33 PM (nj1bB)
Last week, the binLden photos- she pulled the "Only New Yorkers have moral authority to make that call", then doubled down, became essentially incoherent, said blondes were dumb bitches, was turning in a Moron to the FBI. Returned to a later thread, acting like nothing happened, with EXTREMELY conservative coherent prose, then reverted, then whined that that we are meaner than a liberal blog and attack her for having an opinion. Check today's top headline comments.
Posted by: Museisluse at May 13, 2011 12:40 PM (a8aqn)
What's your problem?
Posted by: MFM at May 13, 2011 12:40 PM (UOM48)
Posted by: Shiggz at May 13, 2011 12:40 PM (mLAWK)
I could vote for Mitch in the primaries.
He's seems more appealing to me than Pawlenty, and I've already decided I'm not voting for Romney, Santorum, Huckabee or Ron Paul.
So it's entirely possible he'll get my vote. He has a stellar record as governor.
Unfortunately our presidential contests are in part popularity contests. So he needs to get good at politics if he wants to have a chance.
Posted by: Ben at May 13, 2011 12:40 PM (wuv1c)
Posted by: the fabulous hair of Mike Pence at May 13, 2011 12:40 PM (+vkOU)
I liked christie telling someone it was "none of their business" when they asked a nosy question he didn't want to answer. I wish palin had said that to catty and then again when she was at the white house correspondents dinner and was asked another equally dumb question. Problem is, dems are raised the ends justifies the means and it's ok to be rude for their particular cause. Republcians always get a check in "plays well with others". They like that check and continue doing it and it always hurts them cause dems count on the fact that they always play nice.
Republicans need a bad boy/bad girl type with a donald trump directness and a personality that will get things done.
Posted by: curious at May 13, 2011 12:40 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: IE Con at May 13, 2011 12:41 PM (/COcn)
Posted by: Krazy Kat at May 13, 2011 12:41 PM (oNphh)
>>>Quiet strength. Hmmm, ok sure I've known a few men like that. Not many but I have known a few. Impressive, I suppose, to not give into your baser instinct and when you have been treated poorly.
Let me tell you something else that is a true fact of life, however.
We get the treatment that we tolerate. If you allow someone to treat you
like shit, guess what? Don't be surprised when they keep doing it.
And what has Mitch Daniels gotten since then? A happy, rebuilt marriage with a mother around to raise his four (FOUR!) daughters who desperately needed her, massive professional success, an unassailable reputation built upon across-the-board encomiums from true-blue conservatives to grudgingly respectful liberals, and a genuine record of political accomplishment.
If what you say is true, it would seem like he's been quietly teaching people around him the right lessons.
Look, I obviously like Daniels a lot, but like others around here I'm also a bit wigged-out by his 'modesty' gaffes: he needs to secure that shit quickly and be a bit more cocky. Less self-effacing, please. (In fact, right now my problems with this aspect of his record lead me to prefer Tim Pawlenty ever-so-slightly: Pawlenty may be a small guy but behind that friendly face of his he's a working-class hockey bruiser and it comes across in his interviews.)
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 13, 2011 12:42 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: SlaveDog at May 13, 2011 12:42 PM (9fDAi)
You've mellowed a bit lately, soothsayer.
I gotta say, I like it a lot. Still funny, less dickish.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 13, 2011 12:43 PM (NjYDy)
awww stop picking on poor curious.
I missed this whole contretemps... what happened?
Um, not to be an ass but you sound like Obama and 'cops acted stupidly' without
knowing the facts.
She picked and picked until there was no more blood coming out of that scab.
IMHO, girl trolls apparently get a pass because they have girl parts.
And that's fucking ridiculous. If you play here, you have to learn to have thicker skin.
Posted by: laceyunderalls RINO Trash Committee Chair, Cincinnati Chapter at May 13, 2011 12:44 PM (pLTLS)
You CAN wait for your wife to green-light a presidential run. In fact, I suspect it would be mandatory.
You CAN'T tell the world you're waiting for Mommy to give you permission.
Posted by: Truman North at May 13, 2011 12:44 PM (+gfwN)
Mitch is at least someone I could work up some enthusiasm for, as an agent of change for limited government. I could give a rat's ass about his personal life. How could that be worse than the current coke snorting Marxist in Chief? Gimme a break.
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 13, 2011 12:45 PM (ENKCw)
Posted by: IE Con at May 13, 2011 12:45 PM (/COcn)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 13, 2011 12:45 PM (Jq4xH)
Posted by: Truman North at May 13, 2011 12:46 PM (+gfwN)
Posted by: Ace at May 13, 2011 12:46 PM (nj1bB)
And now a commercial break...
Boobehs!
Now back to your regulary scheduled programing.
Posted by: Guy Fawkes, running for prez so you don't have to at May 13, 2011 12:46 PM (IXLvN)
She picked and picked until there was no more blood coming out of that scab.
IMHO, girl trolls apparently get a pass because they have girl parts.
And that's fucking ridiculous. If you play here, you have to learn to have thicker skin.
Posted by: laceyunderalls RINO Trash Committee Chair, Cincinnati Chapter at May 13, 2011 04:44 PM (pLTLS)
again I ask, did I do that, or is it one poster's interpretation of what they wanted to believe I was doing. I finally after being told I was stupid, snapped back at dumb blond....and I'm not apologizing for that, she wholly deserved it. I held back. If you want to keep "the narrative" that best suits you guys what are you accomplishing. Do you want me to leave the blog, is that your angle. I don't go to the overnight thread except to post an article that I hope vic will see and re post the next day early cause the ONT gals have their little click and I wanted them to realize I wasn't a threat. So what is your point?
Posted by: curious at May 13, 2011 12:47 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 13, 2011 12:47 PM (TATbF)
I'm not sugesting that he should have shot her. I am only saying that what you might attribute to "quiet strength" might just be an unfortuante lack of assertiveness. Maybe he's a rock, I don't know. Maybe I'm just jaded and cynical. Or maybe he's a pusswhipped dumbass. Let's ask the Honey Badger.
Posted by: Sgt. Fury at May 13, 2011 04:36 PM (u2k3g)
Yep. Now maybe Daniels is just filled to the gills with 'quiet strength' that we can't appreciate, but until I see unequivocal evidence of this my null hypothesis is that he's a wimp.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 13, 2011 12:47 PM (pAlYe)
Posted by: IE Con at May 13, 2011 12:47 PM (/COcn)
I get that Daniels is the meticulous type that gets confidence from tons of prep, and governors don't do foreign policy, but I had to double check that when I first heard it.
"Probably Not" is the column that he shot to the top of after giving that response.
That was the weakest of sauces for the potential leader of a superpower, if in fact we still are when Commander Death Star is done.
Posted by: ontherocks at May 13, 2011 12:47 PM (HBqDo)
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 12:47 PM (Xm1aB)
This fuckhead fucknut from BigPharma was at OMB when Medicare D was passed. He looks like he's already been embalmed.
Other than that, I'm keeping an open mind.
Posted by: Randall Hoven at May 13, 2011 12:48 PM (AI5dd)
Posted by: Mike at May 13, 2011 12:48 PM (2e6Dn)
Cool science factoid -- visiting teams have lower testosterone levels, which cause lower performance. Visiting teams try to combat this by psyching themselves up.
The evo psych explanation is that this is the equivalent of wandering into another tribes territory when out hunting. Your body reacts by trying to make you meek so you don't start a fight and get killed. Head down, shoulders tucked, small and unthreatening.
As right-wingers we are constantly in enemy territory -- which is why we actually need bluster and bravado. It bucks you up, gets you testosterone flowing and ready for a fight. Low testosterone makes you want to give up before the fight even starts and just slink back to your couch.
Posted by: Clubber Lang at May 13, 2011 12:48 PM (QcFbt)
Posted by: THE CAPS LOCK BUTTON at May 13, 2011 12:48 PM (+vkOU)
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 13, 2011 04:42 PM (NjYDy
I'm not saying he sucks or is wrong for wanting to repair his marriage and take care of his four kids. That is admirable and there are few men, I am sure, who could/would make that effort.
You don't need to be father of the year to beat JEF in the election. You do need to be one tough son of a bitch because the MFM is, at this very moment, sharpening their knives in preparation. You thought they slapped down the race card before? You ain't seen shit yet.
Maybe he'd be up for it. His pass on debating the JEF on foreign policy is not blowing my skirt up.
Posted by: Sgt. Fury at May 13, 2011 12:49 PM (u2k3g)
All this talk of personalities and style in a presidential candidate is gettin' me dander up. While I understand the need to present a viable candidate to counter the destruction that The Vapid One© has wrought, I still haven't seen one outline what we all know clearly needs to be done.
Stuff like repealing ObamaCar and the student loan takeover and the Wall Street regulation bill, opening up drilling, drastically reducing the debt immediately, a wholesale review of every government agency, and all the other stuff.
Without singling him out as my favorite (which he isn't yet, I'm just using him as an example), Herman Cain comes the closest to outlining a coherent plan to get us back on track. We need a candidate with all the public bona fides like a good hair and a decent personality, but I still maintain that the proper position on substantive issues will do more for a candidate this election cycle than sex appeal.
I'm still waiting...
Posted by: BackwardsBoy at May 13, 2011 12:49 PM (d0Tfm)
It's not a big deal, I just find it funny.
Posted by: radar at May 13, 2011 12:50 PM (v5PQS)
Ronald Reagan would be drummed out of the party as a RINO today.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 13, 2011 12:50 PM (FYCiJ)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 13, 2011 12:51 PM (UOM48)
Hey, I play bass and my old band had a song called "Have You Ever Been to Bum School?"
Am I eligible?
Posted by: Dr. Varno at May 13, 2011 12:51 PM (QMtmy)
Pawlenty has an "electrifying personality?"
I never noticed that.
Like the guy, I just don't have that phrase pop into my mind when thinking of him. Exactly!!
Posted by: Truman North at May 13, 2011 12:52 PM (+gfwN)
So in that respect this decision on daniels' part will be slightly appealing to all professional women who see marriage very differently from some of the soccer moms or as hillary put it "I'm not staying home baking cookies".
Posted by: curious at May 13, 2011 12:52 PM (k1rwm)
Posted by: curious at May 13, 2011 04:47 PM (k1rwm)
Not threatening anyone with FBI responses to posts that offend you would seem to be a reasonable request.
Posted by: ontherocks at May 13, 2011 12:52 PM (HBqDo)
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 12:52 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: JackStraw at May 13, 2011 12:53 PM (TMB3S)
Are you effin' kidding me? The party is nothing but RINOs.
Posted by: Teh Fred at May 13, 2011 12:53 PM (CYoZS)
Posted by: Mike at May 13, 2011 04:48 PM (2e6Dn)
But his campaign was in trouble until he shouted down the moderator at a debate in New Hampshire.
"I paid for this microphone, Mr Green!"
Posted by: Oldcat at May 13, 2011 12:53 PM (z1N6a)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 13, 2011 12:54 PM (Jq4xH)
Posted by: GnuBreed at May 13, 2011 12:54 PM (ENKCw)
Not threatening anyone with FBI responses to posts that offend you would seem to be a reasonable request.
I'm offended!!
Posted by: Truman North at May 13, 2011 12:54 PM (+gfwN)
Dutch knew when to throw down, though. He was a geniunely nice guy, but he could brawl when he had to. I'm generally amenable to Daniels, but it would be nice to see him show some fire.
Posted by: radar at May 13, 2011 12:55 PM (v5PQS)
Posted by: Damiano at May 13, 2011 12:55 PM (3nrx7)
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 12:55 PM (Xm1aB)
Click? *click click click* What the fuck? Who are we - Jets or Sharks?
Look at you playing your teeny tiny violin over there.
You owe a WHOLE lot of people an apology for calling them "selfish" (let alone bitches) for wanting to see those pictures.
I don't give a fuck what you do. You've proven yourself to be a troll and as such you'll be treated as one.
Posted by: laceyunderalls RINO Trash Committee Chair, Cincinnati Chapter at May 13, 2011 12:55 PM (pLTLS)
Posted by: derised1 at May 13, 2011 12:56 PM (xI4NA)
Posted by: Krazy Kat at May 13, 2011 12:56 PM (oNphh)
Mitch Daniels can't win because of his shitty hair.
There, I said it.
These things fucking matter.
Posted by: Truman North at May 13, 2011 12:57 PM (+gfwN)
the post was border line threatening.
Posted by: curious at May 13, 2011 04:53 PM (k1rwm)
Oh, it was not- or are you in the Manhattan phone directory as "curious"? Don't be such a drama queen.
Posted by: Museisluse at May 13, 2011 12:58 PM (a8aqn)
"I'll have to check with my wife"
"Obama trumps me on foreign policy"
I'm stumped.
Posted by: Cherry π at May 13, 2011 12:58 PM (+sBB4)
>>Posted by: Truman North at May 13, 2011 04:54 PM (+gfwN)
That's a little steeper up the curve for little girls than I'm telling mommy.
Flailing around in the deep end in the deep end of the pool is one thing, that was off the charts
Posted by: ontherocks at May 13, 2011 12:59 PM (HBqDo)
Posted by: dagny at May 13, 2011 12:59 PM (/kRxM)
Daniels mishandled his legislature on both sides of the aisle, actually. His apologists can say what they want but Daniels was pissed at the GOP legislators and let it show by criticizing them while going light on the fleebaggers.
My governor (Herbert) has a very red legislature who wanted to slash the budget on all sorts of things. Herbert didn't agree with that, but he managed to not give the media fodder to suggest there was a big rift in the GOP.
His political skills suggest that he's myopic, unable to see the larger impact of what he says. It was obvious to Daniels that his education agenda should be the top priority, ergo he felt it should be obvious to his legislators (the GOP ones) and he got pissy about it. Similarly, it was obvious to him that Indiana - which if you look on the map is the natural partner for Chicago, not NYC - should be in the Eastern timezone and follow DST, ergo it had to be that way. (Look at the Indiana timezone map now for some amusement.)
Having said that, I've given up on Romney coming to his senses so for now Mitch is my top guy. But I still contend he's not leaderly. That worries me some in terms of his ability to govern and it worries me a lot when it comes to campaigning for POTUS, even at the primary stage. He strikes me as oddly divisive. I think it will take a skilled politician to unite the Party going into the general and I don't think he has those skills.
Posted by: Y-not at May 13, 2011 12:59 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 13, 2011 01:01 PM (Jq4xH)
You liked the part about imposing an unconstitutional (and un-American, and immoral) religious test for appointment to public office? My god, it was like watching a man slit his own throat on live TV.
Even if he hadn't committed suicide with that gaffe, I still cannot in good conscience vote for anyone who never held elected office. This is the fucking Presidency, not a Congressional seat. We're already dealing with the awful consequences of what happens when you elect an unseasoned, inexperienced guy to the highest job in the land merely because he's black and says nice things. Try arguing to America that we should do it again, except this time with a guy that's got EVEN LESS practical experience in government!
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 13, 2011 01:01 PM (NjYDy)
curious - it's clique, m'kay? Not at all like the NYC click thing you got going on, right?
Posted by: mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at May 13, 2011 01:02 PM (LFiVW)
Posted by: Jane D'oh at May 13, 2011 04:51 PM (UOM4
Agree. Although he needs to start talking about a few social issues. Abortion? Affirmative action? The education system? Maybe he has and I've just not seen or heard it yet.
Posted by: Soona at May 13, 2011 01:02 PM (4HYWk)
I don't remember voting for Boehner.
Vote for whomever you want in the primaries. Shit, vote for Ron Paul, I don't care but don't vote for Obama by staying home.
If we keep letting democrats vote in our primaries then stay at home when we don't like the outcome then we might as well buy some mao jackets and publish dreams of my father with a red leather cover.
Posted by: dagny at May 13, 2011 01:03 PM (/kRxM)
Who does Mitch Daniels consider to be the customer? Who's he appealing to?
Posted by: John P. Squibob at May 13, 2011 01:03 PM (/U/Mr)
And you don't have to be a fan of Sun Tzu to recognize that sometimes strength is quiet, not loud, and sometimes the greatest strength is not self-satisfaction, but self-denial.
HERETIC!!!!!!!!1!1!111!
(go ron paul)
Posted by: zombie Ayn Rand at May 13, 2011 01:04 PM (UaxA0)
What the fuck? Nobody gives a shit about his marriage.
Gotta disagree. While his marriage issues won't be a big deal to informed voters, fact is, far too many voters don't inform themselves in any meaningful way. Instead, they base their vote on some amorphous "feeling' that they have about the candidates. It's a sordid little interlude that doesn't exactly contribute to good feelings toward him or the potential first lady by his side.
Being all girly, I can't speak to how men perceive the situation, but I suspect that many women will be disgusted by his runaway wife, regardless of how the situation ultimately resolved itself. There's Man Law and then there's Woman Law, and Woman Law states that there's nothing lower than a mother who abandons her kids for a man. My concern would be that some on-the-fence feelings-based female voters might hop over to the wrong side bcse of their distaste for her behavior.
Posted by: TiredWench at May 13, 2011 01:04 PM (oPceJ)
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 13, 2011 05:01 PM (NjYDy)
You've just got it all fucking figured out, don't you, Jeff?
Posted by: Soona at May 13, 2011 01:05 PM (4HYWk)
Posted by: JackStraw at May 13, 2011 01:05 PM (TMB3S)
Posted by: dagny at May 13, 2011 01:06 PM (/kRxM)
Posted by: Dr. Varno at May 13, 2011 01:06 PM (QMtmy)
Posted by: mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at May 13, 2011 05:02 PM (LFiVW)
Actually the clicks are probably from the surplus Soviet equipment we're using to monitor your internet usage. We're hoping to upgrade to some pre-owned Chinese stuff after the next fundraising drive.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 13, 2011 01:06 PM (pAlYe)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 13, 2011 01:07 PM (Jq4xH)
Posted by: MaxMBJ at May 13, 2011 01:07 PM (6SIms)
You know what? I honestly respect the fact that, despite all the abuse, she HASN'T left. People in this thread are calling it "doubling down" -- which is disingenuous bullshit because what would you have her do, issue a Soviet style "Public Self Criticism" mea culpa and beg forgiveness? Not defend herself like anyone/everyone else would? -- but c'mon...that's the stubbornness of a True Moron. I can respect that.
And FWIW I speak as a person who, back when I first encountered curious, started off by attacking her and accusing her of being a troll. I was wrong. I still think she's a negative nelly, but then again she's an independent from New York City so it's not entirely surprising.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 13, 2011 01:07 PM (NjYDy)
ace will need to start new websites...
Ace: Newt Edition, Ace: Daniels Edition, etc.
Posted by: Cherry π at May 13, 2011 01:07 PM (+sBB4)
Posted by: rdbrewer at May 13, 2011 01:08 PM (PCE0w)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 13, 2011 01:08 PM (TATbF)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 13, 2011 01:08 PM (Jq4xH)
Personally, if Daniels were the VP, I'd love a foreign policy VP like Cheney (not ACTUALLY Cheney, but similar to that choice).
For red meat, I think Daniels should pick Cain or Palin. Fortunately, Daniels is actually red meat on social issues himself, but I think a lot of the voters don't know that yet. He may actually need a moderate to make him more appealing to blue states. I realize this isn't how it appears today.
Posted by: Dustin at May 13, 2011 01:08 PM (Q3nWV)
Toughness is not the willingness to be brutal or judgmental. It's especially not a readiness to inflict punishment for an offense. Toughness is the ability to absorb punishment and keep going; that is all. And Mitch Daniels seems to have it.
Posted by: Francis W. Porretto at May 13, 2011 05:02 PM (FeYbR)
Oh ok so are we talking about an Everlast heavy bag or Bounty paper towels?
Posted by: Krazy Kat at May 13, 2011 01:08 PM (oNphh)
Posted by: RushBabe at May 13, 2011 01:08 PM (Ew27I)
Posted by: Dick Cavett at May 13, 2011 01:09 PM (ToOEC)
If you're monitoring my internet usage, you really should get out more. I'm very boring.
Posted by: mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at May 13, 2011 01:09 PM (LFiVW)
I never was part of the cool kids before in my life!
wow! i just dont post during the day because welll. usually im busy having a life... well... and i hate daywalkers... but mostly because i have a life
Posted by: Gushka at May 13, 2011 01:09 PM (93zw2)
Posted by: curious at May 13, 2011 04:53 PM (k1rwm)
You are a troll intentional or otherwise, and are continuing to demonstrate it.
If "border line threatening" is a new threshold for FBI intervention in your book then I'm glad that you outed yourself.
Everyone is expected to be patient with you, but if it's borderline lookout.
You sure rationalize like a lib.
Posted by: ontherocks at May 13, 2011 01:10 PM (HBqDo)
Posted by: Jeff B.'s Catamite at May 13, 2011 01:10 PM (c45xH)
Right. I guess that's an 'independent' thing.
Posted by: laceyunderalls RINO Trash Committee Chair, Cincinnati Chapter at May 13, 2011 01:10 PM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Gushka at May 13, 2011 01:11 PM (93zw2)
Posted by: Damiano at May 13, 2011 01:11 PM (3nrx7)
Posted by: mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at May 13, 2011 05:09 PM (LFiVW)
[checking log] yes. yes you are. It really the others that the ONT Clique on Unmoronic Activities has to worry about.
Posted by: Mætenloch at May 13, 2011 01:12 PM (pAlYe)
Posted by: Gushka at May 13, 2011 05:11 PM (93zw2)
That reminds me.....how is the horse that you rescued?
Posted by: Tami at May 13, 2011 01:13 PM (VuLos)
She didn't call DB a selfish bitch-selfish bitch.
/Curious, first rule of holes - when you're in one, stop digging!
Posted by: Chris Crocker at May 13, 2011 01:14 PM (c0A3e)
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 01:14 PM (Xm1aB)
Nope. Ronald Reagan would be subjected to five hundred snarks a day from AoSHQ commenters because he didn't scream into a microphone about Democrats all day long like Mark Levin on Dexedrine. Ronald Reagan would be mocked and condemned for not getting into daily piss-fights with every media liberal in sight, and we'd get non-stop speculation about why Ronald Reagan didn't have the testicular fortitude of Conservative Media Talking Head X. Ronald Reagan would see himself painted by the True Conservative Warriors of 2011 as something near a communist for some of the things he did as Governor of California.
Ronald Reagan would be excoriated around here as a ball-less RINO squish for saying things like "Die-hard conservatives thought that if I couldn't get everything I asked for, I should jump off the cliff with the flag flying -- go down in flames. No, if I can get 70 or 80 percent of what it is I'm trying to get, I'll take that and then continue to try to get the rest in the future."
70 percent?! People around here are RINOs if their ACU scores are in the low 90s. Certainly, we don't put up with guys on our side who believe in working steadily and incrementally to accomplish what they want (which is exactly how the Left enacted all the things it wanted over the decades). We want Warriors, not Politicians. We want all or nothing, and if we can't get it all we'll let the Dems take it all and congratulate ourselves for playing our twisted, perpetually-losing version of the "long game". Reagan? He might as well have been another Mike Castle.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 13, 2011 01:15 PM (FYCiJ)
Hell, I even thanked you for the nutting.
There are supposedly trace neurological agents and such in that bodily fluid that make women feel better...
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 13, 2011 01:15 PM (c0A3e)
It's obvious that the superior intelligence of his wife, as evidenced by her support of the Cards, is what is keeping that marriage going.
Posted by: Y-not at May 13, 2011 01:15 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 13, 2011 01:16 PM (Jq4xH)
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 01:16 PM (Xm1aB)
Posted by: Nate at May 13, 2011 01:16 PM (BBlzg)
Ir maybe it would make you mean. I mean honey badger mean. There are advantages to that.
Posted by: pep at May 13, 2011 01:16 PM (gmlb7)
No thanks.
Posted by: Anon Y. Mous at May 13, 2011 01:17 PM (2BMbC)
Well, there was the whole meat curtains incident, but I've reformed.
Can we get a list of clique members? I'm really not sure who they are. Maybe a show of hands?
Posted by: mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at May 13, 2011 01:17 PM (LFiVW)
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 01:18 PM (Xm1aB)
There are supposedly trace neurological agents and such in that bodily fluid that make women feel better...
Incredibly true. Gives me the same feeling as a xanex or 3 beers but lasts longer.
I wonder if that's why people are suspicious of guys who get cuckholded when they aren't physically separated? They think he's not doing the good work? (I do know that sometimes the chick is just a whore and usually unorgasmic but,,,)
Posted by: dagny at May 13, 2011 01:18 PM (/kRxM)
Y'know, I see Huckabee (and Huckabee alone), as Barry O with a twang and vitiligo.
I would let Barry drive this country into the dumpster if its a choice between him and Huck-up. We're heading there anyway, and Huck would enact the same policies as Barry, only with an oppressive holier than thou churchy flavor.
The lasting guilt for killing this nation would at least then not be on another republican's hands, the way they blame Hoover for the depression.
Posted by: s'moron at May 13, 2011 01:18 PM (UaxA0)
I dunno. Walker was calmly in command of his situation. They don't all have to be Chris Christie types.
I think the thing is we're all waaaaay too plugged into politics and we tend to get spooked easily and go into attack mode. It's probably an internet thing.
Oh, and I denounce myself for using the word spook.
Posted by: Y-not at May 13, 2011 01:19 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 13, 2011 01:19 PM (TATbF)
Posted by: Gushka at May 13, 2011 05:11 PM (93zw2)
I think I am just noodling up to the edge of the clique. Someday....
Posted by: Museisluse at May 13, 2011 01:19 PM (a8aqn)
You're making my exact argument for me, though you apparently don't realize it: indeed, it's working terribly for us, precisely BECAUSE Obama had no fucking serious experience in government. And now you want to nominate someone even more unqualified, even more unprepared to handle the transactional and functional aspects of the job? And you think you'll convince Americans with that argument?
Remember, there are TWO aspects of why Obama is a terrible President. The first reason, his liberal policies, is actually not relevant to this particular argument; of COURSE we hate him for that, but then we always were going to, because we're conservatives.
But the second argument, which is going to be the MAJOR part of pitch to moderates and swing voters during the general election, is competence: it's not just that Obama's a left-wing douchebag, it's that he's an incompetent one at that, a guy who just sucks at the job on an execution level, wasn't prepared for it when he took office, and still doesn't know how to do it well.
And the evidence is massive: I can name a hundred different examples, from the "reset button" hilarity with Russia to the fumbling of our Middle East policy to the cackhanded way they've botched the post-bin Laden story to the failure to build any sort of coalition for Healthcare to the willingness to "lead from behind" w/r/t Congress and let Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid usurp his prerogatives to his dithering on the debt and deficits issues etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
I'm going to let you in on a not-so-big secret right now: no matter who we nominate, our campaign against Obama is going to focus primarily on these arguments. Since he's the incumbent, unless we make the disastrous mistake of nominating Palin (which would turn the election into a referendum on her acceptability), 2012 is going to be run on the question of "can Obama actually do this fucking job?" And we're going to say, implicitly, "this is what happens when you succumb to the allure of Hope and Change and elect someone without any experience because he looks nice and talks nice."
If we nominate someone like Herman Cain, without any relevant experience of his own whatsoever (and no, being CEO of a pizza company several years ago does not count -- as valuable as business experience is for a candidate, it's not a substitute for government experience), then that entire argument -- our best, most convincing, WINNING line of argument -- is immediately destroying. Blows up in our faces. And Obama wins.
Furthermore, on a principled level, I simply don't think someone like Cain would make a good president. Not yet, at least. This ain't the happy-go-lucky 1990s anymore. We're facing problems that literally threaten to destroy the fabric of our entire country, and they're not simple ones with easy answers. I want someone who actually knows how to get shit done in the political arena dealing with these issues.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 13, 2011 01:20 PM (NjYDy)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 13, 2011 01:21 PM (Jq4xH)
I also want to bring up something to all of the social cons touting the anti-abortion legislation he just signed. What issue was in the spotlight when Daniels came up with all the "truce" talk? Abortion? NO. The controversy of the moment was GOProud.
Does signing anti-abortion legislation add any "clarity" to his truce comments when his truce comments were so obviously about the gay agenda? Why no, actually, it DOESN'T.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at May 13, 2011 01:21 PM (psns8)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 13, 2011 05:19 PM (TATbF)
That sounds border line threatening. I'm calling the FBI!
Posted by: curious(ly stupid) at May 13, 2011 01:21 PM (c45xH)
Posted by: laceyunderalls RINO Trash Committee Chair, Cincinnati Chapter at May 13, 2011 05:10 PM (pLTLS)
Geez! *scribbling in notebook: Women don't forget stuff*
Posted by: Soona at May 13, 2011 01:21 PM (4HYWk)
Our nominee is going to have to attack Obama on 9% unemployment and an 16 trillion dollar debt, and specifically why that is a danger to our future, not just by calling him a Marxist (which he is btw).
It's the term Ace used in his post. I took it to mean someone provocative, who would carry out the more "blood thirsty" attacks, off setting Daniels' perceived weakness (and supposed lack of fire and red meaty-ness.)
Is there any person out there who would fit that description that Daniels could name as a VP candidate?
Posted by: mpurinTexas (kicking Mexico's ass since 1836) at May 13, 2011 01:21 PM (LFiVW)
Purge him! Purge him!
Posted by: Y-not at May 13, 2011 01:22 PM (pW2o8)
When you're a Jet an 'ette
You're a Jet an 'ette all the way
From your first Valu-Rite
To your last dying day
*click click click*
Posted by: laceyunderalls RINO Trash Committee Chair, Cincinnati Chapter at May 13, 2011 01:22 PM (pLTLS)
Posted by: Cherry π at May 13, 2011 01:22 PM (+sBB4)
John F'ing Bolton.
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at May 13, 2011 01:22 PM (c0A3e)
I think Allen West would be an interesting foil for Daniels.
It bothers me that he's gravitating towards Condi.
Posted by: Y-not at May 13, 2011 01:23 PM (pW2o8)
Posted by: It's Morning in the Pension Fund of America at May 13, 2011 01:23 PM (u7WYD)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 13, 2011 01:23 PM (TATbF)
Posted by: Nate at May 13, 2011 01:24 PM (BBlzg)
I was excited about this "conservative" 2 time Governor of "Indiana" when I first heard about him. I thought this guy could be the one. I wanted to like him. Since then EVERYTHING he has done and said other then the planned parenthood thing has turned me off. Its almost like he is subconsciously commiting politcal suicide every time he opens his mouth. Maybe he really doesn't want the job deep down.
Also, after watching him do his one and only interview cycle during the union fight and watching him do a couple of softball interviews on Fox News, I came away feeling more creeped out by his style then bored.
I haven't ruled him out yet, but the dude is batting .125 with no homers and 1 RBI even though he is getting lots of protection and lots of opportunities in the lineup hitting cleanup.
In other words he better start hitting for the home team soon.
Posted by: Keven at May 13, 2011 01:24 PM (UMRed)
Posted by: laceyunderalls RINO Trash Committee Chair, Cincinnati Chapter at May 13, 2011 01:24 PM (pLTLS)
Fuck. This can't be good.
From Crazy Jim Webb: I recently made recommendations to the Department of Defense (DoD) to save taxpayers billions of dollars as we restructure U.S. military forces in East Asia. The DoDÂ’s current base realignment plans for South Korea, Japan and Guam are simply unrealistic and unaffordable. The new recommendations I offered, along with Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ), are workable, cost-effective and will strengthen the American contribution to the security of the region.
Posted by: dagny at May 13, 2011 01:25 PM (/kRxM)
Posted by: Marie at May 13, 2011 01:25 PM (W7Seu)
Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at May 13, 2011 01:26 PM (Jq4xH)
You're right, although I think a lot of that is the magnification you get from internet chat room discussions by folks who have access to too much information, much of which is bad information.
Posted by: Y-not at May 13, 2011 01:26 PM (pW2o8)
I have my opinions and I'm arguing them. Seriously, is there something wrong with that? If you disagree, then pick apart my argument and tell me the parts you disagree with! Then I'll respond & rebut. That's how it goes.
But just telling me I'm an asshole, or a smartypants, or that "ooh you must think you're SOOO smart"...what does that accomplish? How does that refute me? How does that convince anyone who's reading along and weighing the claims on both sides? I write such long, involved posts precisely because I'm always trying to add in justification for my positions, not just say "Herman Cain sucks! Faggots!" and walk away.
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 13, 2011 01:26 PM (NjYDy)
Twice."
Posted by: Joe Mama at May 13, 2011 04:56 PM
I like the way you think! lol
Posted by: derised1 at May 13, 2011 01:29 PM (xI4NA)
Posted by: Nate at May 13, 2011 01:30 PM (BBlzg)
Certainly, we don't put up with guys on our side who believe in working steadily and incrementally to accomplish what they want (which is exactly how the Left enacted all the things it wanted over the decades). We want Warriors, not Politicians. We want all or nothing, and if we can't get it all we'll let the Dems take it all and congratulate ourselves for playing our twisted, perpetually-losing version of the "long game". Reagan? He might as well have been another Mike Castle.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at May 13, 2011 05:15 PM (FYCiJ)
Geez, undead, Reagan was conservative for the times (2+ decades of "progressives" of one stripe or another), but he was no Goldwater. That said, before Reagan, Goldwater got trounced. There's no evidence that a real conservative would be a dead man walking the way it was assumed in 1980. We can, and should, demand better. If all the Republicans are going to do is efficiently run a leviathan of federal waste, then there's no need for them.
And no need to feel obligated to vote for them, for that matter.
Posted by: s'moron at May 13, 2011 01:30 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: polynikes at May 13, 2011 01:32 PM (3hdsA)
He's against Abortion and Gay Marriage . . .
This helps, thanks, but it would help more if you would cite evidence of this.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at May 13, 2011 01:32 PM (psns8)
Posted by: Gushka at May 13, 2011 05:11 PM (93zw2)
That reminds me.....how is the horse that you rescued?
Posted by: Tami at May 13, 2011 05:13 PM (VuLos)
no longer a dead horse walking. my rescue is adorable and now tame enough to wear a halter and stand on a box and Take X-rays which proved she was worth saving and could even with proper shoes be made sound and able to be ridden gently. Which is awesome because this darling lady horse wants a job...
Posted by: Gushka at May 13, 2011 01:36 PM (93zw2)
Posted by: Presnit Barry Soetoro at May 13, 2011 01:37 PM (/FqjZ)
Posted by: Nate at May 13, 2011 01:38 PM (BBlzg)
Look, the field is narrowing and about to be set in stone. We have a choice between a finite number of candidates and the trick is to pick a conservative who can beat Obama. Daniels is the only one who fits the bill. Maybe Pawlenty as well, and Romney if you consider Romney a conservative. But that's pretty much it. Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Trump, Santorum... they'd all lose. Newt as well. Buddy Roemer is way past his prime. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson would never get past the so-cons. Huck ain't running. Huntsman is an Olympia Snowe RINO.
So it's Daniels, Romney, or Pawlenty. Daniels strikes me as the one with the clearest record of conservative accomplishments. But the point is, we have to pick one of those three. Not one of those three OR Zombie Reagan. One of THOSE THREE. I pick Daniels. If the rest of you say, "We can't live with Daniels, but Romney would be okay," then I'd cut a deal with you and pick Romney. Let's get real here and figure out which one we can all live with.
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 01:41 PM (Mr4uJ)
I'm actually looking foward to 2012. This is going to be one of the most heated and contested elections in a long time, perhaps since before Lincoln. We're going to be deciding, not only the president, but the future direction of this country.
Oops! (Got distracted there by SE Cupp)
Anyway, I think we'll nominate a good candidate. He/she won't be perfect, but the ticket will be much closer to what conservatives wanted in 2008.
Posted by: Soona at May 13, 2011 01:42 PM (4HYWk)
Posted by: Presnit Barry Soetoro at May 13, 2011 05:37 PM (/FqjZ)
yes
Posted by: dagny at May 13, 2011 01:44 PM (/kRxM)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at May 13, 2011 01:46 PM (Y5I9o)
no longer a dead horse walking. my rescue is adorable and now tame enough to wear a halter and stand on a box and Take X-rays which proved she was worth saving and could even with proper shoes be made sound and able to be ridden gently. Which is awesome because this darling lady horse wants a job...
Posted by: Gushka at May 13, 2011 05:36 PM (93zw2)That's great news and all due to your efforts! Well done.
Posted by: Tami at May 13, 2011 01:47 PM (VuLos)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at May 13, 2011 01:51 PM (Y5I9o)
By the same token, do you have "evidence" that he was ashamed of the Abortion Bill he signed recently?
I don't think he was ashamed of the abortion bill. I am concerned that he's a squish when it comes to gay rights, and that social cons are willing to call him a social con based on his anti-abortion views alone.
Look, the year Daniels comes out with his truce comments -- seemingly in support of allowing GOProud to yank the GOP around -- we end up with a repeal of DADT. That repeal was supported by Toomey, Flake, and other "conservative" Republicans. And now our military personnel are having to sit through sermons about how fabulously normal homosexuality is. If Daniels is a sincere social con, he isn't a very smart one. With social cons like this, who needs liberals?
Why, by the way, are so annoyed that I want actual evidence of his views on gay issues in light of his comments?
Posted by: NotALibertarian at May 13, 2011 01:53 PM (psns8)
Posted by: Jeff B. at May 13, 2011 05:07 PM (NjYDy)
Everyone, take note. Prepare ye and repent, for the end is nigh!
Posted by: Minuteman at May 13, 2011 01:54 PM (/FqjZ)
Including Palin, as I recall.
DADT happened. I think it's a terrible idea, but I don't put it in the top 3 issues facing the country right now. I'm not even sure if it makes the top 10.
Posted by: Y-not at May 13, 2011 01:58 PM (pW2o8)
This may be the year I do a write-in vote. Had enough nose-holding and misgivings about candidates to last me a lifetime. Did consider not voting at all, but realized that is plain stupid. Down ticket is every bit as vital.
I did some looking in reference to the current crop , and only one meets most all the criteria. I'm sure y'all know who is being referred to here.
And with that, I'm all done commenting about candidates, but will be reading everyone's opinions with the usual great relish.
Posted by: irongrampa at May 13, 2011 01:59 PM (ud5dN)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at May 13, 2011 02:02 PM (Y5I9o)
I think it's a terrible idea, but I don't put it in the top 3 issues facing the country right now.
Is it possible that we don't have the luxury of only worrying about the top 3 issues facing the country?
Posted by: NotALibertarian at May 13, 2011 02:03 PM (psns8)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at May 13, 2011 02:03 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: Nate at May 13, 2011 02:07 PM (BBlzg)
That doesn't make any sense. It's a luxury to be able to consider more than just the most important, crisis-inducing topics. You restrict your considerations in a crisis, and you broaden them in luxurious times. Yes, I understand your point that everything is so fucked up that nothing can be considered unimportant, but there's still a hierarchy in play and for most people social con issues don't cut it. Seriously, that's why it's so important to get a guy like Daniels in because he's a proven policy social con who actually can win and be taken seriously by non-social cons. Or else you're just cutting off your nose to spite your face. I mean seriously, who of these republican candidates would be worse for a social con than Obama, who?
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at May 13, 2011 02:07 PM (Y5I9o)
Maybe that would have happened, but let's not pretend that a bunch of you wouldn't be wetting your pants in fear that he's just too darned divisive and conservative and unelectable because of his silly past the first time you heard the Left smear his acting career or declare him too stupid to be POTUS.
Posted by: Kensington at May 13, 2011 02:08 PM (kFdeH)
@72: "The evo psych explanation is that this is the equivalent of wandering into another tribes territory when out hunting. Your body reacts by trying to make you meek so you don't start a fight and get killed. Head down, shoulders tucked, small and unthreatening.
As right-wingers we are constantly in enemy territory -- which is why we actually need bluster and bravado."
Ok - if the GOP runs anyone who comes out and does a Maori haka (Ka mate, ka mate, ka ora!) before each debate, I will vote for that person unashamedly.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at May 13, 2011 02:09 PM (xy9wk)
. . . you're getting on the back of the guy who just cut state funding for Planned Parenthood because he made a comment (the "truce") recognizing that a large segment of the general electorate is not socially conservative? To me, this smacks of valuing style over substance.
News flash: Abortion and gay marriage are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issues. That means that it is possible to be conservative on one and agnostic on the other. People who care about the gay marriage issue have rational questions about Daniels. Sorry to rain on your parade.
By the way, if you take a look at actual referendums and election results, you'll notice that a large segment of the general electorate IS socially conservative.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at May 13, 2011 02:09 PM (psns8)
Posted by: Nate at May 13, 2011 02:11 PM (BBlzg)
I'm sorry, but in what universe does a President Mitch Daniels somehow lead to gay marriage? It's like you're projecting your worst fears onto Mitch Daniels. "If Mitch Daniels is elected, my favorite shows will be taken of the air. Think about it."
I mean, come on. It's time for people to admit that they just don't like Mitch Daniels, either because they support another candidate, or because he just rubs them the wrong way. But don't pretend it's because of some liberal policy view that you just KNOW he holds even though his record is pristine conservative.
Posted by: Dave at May 13, 2011 02:12 PM (Mr4uJ)
Yeah, I get it. It's just that I only ever see this presented through the "REAGAN WOULD BE CALLED A RINO!!1!" lens, and it annoys me.
Posted by: Kensington at May 13, 2011 02:12 PM (kFdeH)
I'm sorry, but in what universe does a President Mitch Daniels somehow lead to gay marriage?
When the President of the United States is a member of your party, he exerts an enormous amount of influence on your party. A Republican president who is a marriage agnostic will -- even if only through his indifference to the issue --advance the gay rights movement currently pushing itself into the Republican Party.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at May 13, 2011 02:17 PM (psns8)
Posted by: Nate at May 13, 2011 02:20 PM (BBlzg)
@116: "don't vote for Obama by staying home."
Unless you live in a swing state, staying home/voting makes no difference. Like it or not, it's only the votes in a few states that *really* count.
Posted by: Fa Cube Itches at May 13, 2011 02:20 PM (xy9wk)
no longer a dead horse walking. my rescue is adorable and now tame enough to wear a halter and stand on a box and Take X-rays which proved she was worth saving and could even with proper shoes be made sound and able to be ridden gently. Which is awesome because this darling lady horse wants a job...
Posted by: Gushka at May 13, 2011 05:36 PM (93zw2)That's great news and all due to your efforts! Well done.
Posted by: Tami at May 13, 2011 05:47 PM (VuLos)
Ok i MUST be believing she will go sound... I just bought the mare her very own saddle! It was totally on sale and i talked to the consigner about taking 20% off and they did and so i paid less for it than i have paid for some bridles.
and its red. a deep burgundy bullfighting saddle for jousting. She is just gonna LOVE the new job we have planned for her.
Posted by: Gushka at May 13, 2011 02:28 PM (93zw2)
Beta Male Mitch is the guy who not even his wife believed in. How's that for weakness? F it all, why not just choose Richard Simmons or something? Beta Male Mitch, little Timmy Down the Well (Pawlenty), who was AWOL when Al Franken punked him out and stole the election, are not going to get it done. Obama will steamroll right over him and take the White female vote like 90% or something.
Women cannot ABIDE weakness. Beta Male Mitch may have won in a Conservative state against weak opposition, but up against the Magical Black Guy(tm) of Hope and Change and Unicorns, he's toast. Short, weak, sexless, pathetic, and the very model of a loser beta male (marrying a skank and thinking her a princess).
No Beta Male Mitch. No Newt (divorcing your wife by dumping the divorce papers on her hospital bed after cancer surgery turns off, female voters). No smarmy, Hucksterbee. No Little Timmy down the well. No Mittens and the Healthcare of doom.
Santorum? Trump? Cain? Sure why not?
Don't let Obama pull a "I'll pick my GOP opposition" like he did with Ryan/Alan Keyes, or McCain. Obama would run right over Beta Male Mitch.
Bottom line, if even your own wife prefers other guys to you, then you are in trouble. [It is rumored that Daniels is not very well closeted gay, don't know if its true but would explain a lot. He's a joke. One best put down quickly. Just say no to Beta Male Mitch.]
Posted by: whiskey at May 13, 2011 02:39 PM (L03mw)
I am late for almost all threads, but if you have space in the clique for a late entry, I'm your man er woman. Lol
On topic I don't know enough about Daniels either way, but he sounds like he is dithering on making a decision. I hate that. And if his wife is trying to see if she will be off limits I suggest she not hold her breath. She cheated on her husband. How you going to pretty that up?
Posted by: lauren at May 13, 2011 02:40 PM (ibCFU)
Posted by: LAI at May 13, 2011 02:42 PM (nFLL6)
@224: News flash: Abortion and gay marriage are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT issues. That means that it is possible to be conservative on one and agnostic on the other. People who care about the gay marriage issue have rational questions about Daniels. Sorry to rain on your parade.
By the way, if you take a look at actual referendums and election results, you'll notice that a large segment of the general electorate IS socially conservative.
1) Sure you can have your rational questions, but in what rational universe is Obama better on social con issues than any of the current serious Republican candidates? If Daniels is not good enough for you on SOME issues, are you willing to sacrifice ALL issues to Obama and the far social Left because of that?
2) I never said that social cons aren't a large part of the electorate; they are. But the fact that a large segment of the general electorate is socially conservative does not mean that the segment of the general electorate that is not socially conservative is small.
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at May 13, 2011 02:46 PM (Y5I9o)
And as for the Reagan vs. USSR deal, Reagan was a sitting president for several years and spoke from a position of strength against mortal enemies of the US. We should not expect presidents, much less not-yet-declared candidates, to always speak with such moral fervor, since it cheapens the effect. I go back to my example of Fred Thompson and how the media jumped on him as not being serious, when if you actually listened to him, he was often deadly serious. Are you going to play the media's game of choosing glitz over substance?
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at May 13, 2011 02:57 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: Nate at May 13, 2011 03:00 PM (BBlzg)
There's Newt, gamely explaining his, errr, peccaddillos to a smirking press. No one is real sure why he's running in the first place.
Then Ron Paul folds after his UFO speech, as most expected, and quietly recharges his House campaign funds, as everyone expected. Most know that if Paul gets the nod, Obama will dance a jig all the way back to the Oval Office.
Mitt Romney holds an emergency press conference to dispel rumors he's a liberal but is unable to pronounce "conservative" when asked. The head spin did not help his poll numbers much, either. Obama will beat him, anyway.
Mike Huckabee announces he is thinking of running, maybe will not run, but is seriously, seriously giving it a lot of thought and plans to form a committee to study it from all angles and then let us all know. Obama would cream him, anyway.
Amid growing despair, Bachman releases her economic recovery plans, her plans for reducing the debt, and her plans to wreak holy war on some sorry SOBs that need killing. I resisted the siren call of this Amazon queen -- how dare she when so many GOPers had waited patiently for their turn?
How could she turn The Newt into so much news oatmeal?
Wasn't this a mortal insult to Romney and Paul? Could we deal with a seriously po'ed Huckabee???
The PTB turned desperately to someone to rescue them from this .. this woman! .. before it was too late. Why, she might even actually win and that would not sit well with Boehner and McConnell, nosireebob. McCain lit up the wires for a while ... but faded when everyone realized it was a last-ditch trick by the NY Times ... and when the dust settled, it was Bachman all the way.
She wore a fashionable but business-like navy blue suit to her swearing in.
... but I woke up and the 100 billion in cuts the GOP called for had, again, been reduced to a few billion but with Boehner's promise that next time ... next time they were serious about cutting.
Posted by: Full Moon at May 13, 2011 03:04 PM (m75CK)
. . . but in what rational universe is Obama better on social con issues than any of the current serious Republican candidates?
Am I to understand that you think Daniels -- or a social semi-lib --is our only chance against Obama?
I know I'll get yelled at for saying it, but with $4.00 gas and 18% unemployment, Anybody But Obama is a shoe-in.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at May 13, 2011 03:04 PM (psns8)
Am I to understand that you think Daniels -- or a social semi-lib --is our only chance against Obama?
I know I'll get yelled at for saying it, but with $4.00 gas and 18% unemployment, Anybody But Obama is a shoe-in.
1) I don't think Anybody But Obama is a shoe-in. Look at how McCain did against a guy who still has no serious coherent policies except Bigger Government, who still contradicts himself at every turn, who still has not had a serious vetting by the media about what his actual positions are, etc. And they will be even more in the tank for him now, and he has the incumbent's advantage in machine-voting turnout.
2) As for your question, I'm looking at the current crop of candidates, not some ideal Social Con candidate. And in fact, we kind of already have that guy in the mix; his name is Rick Santorum. How has he done in past years? Not too well. Anyway, I'm not beholden to a Daniels candidacy; I'm just pointing out that he does have a strong pro-life record, which is a lot more than you can say about the social conservatism of other current candidates. yeah, I know abortion isn't gay marriage or DADT. And I respect that at this stage of the game you do want clearer answers from him on those issues, esp. in light of his comments.
But this is where my question to you comes in: If Daniels, or some other candidate you deem "semi-lib" gets nominated, are you willing to throw away potential gains on some social con issues and risk liberal advances in them due to a 2nd Obama term, by withholding your support because they're not socially conservative enough for you? And if that's the case, how precisely would any of the current candidates be worse for social con issues than Obama so as to merit effectively supporting him over any Republican?
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at May 13, 2011 03:26 PM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: lions at May 13, 2011 03:28 PM (BUnJ9)
But does not forgiving a wrong take more toughness than taking self-pleasing pleasure in payback?
Yes.
But I question his judgement. When his wife left, then came back, we are unsure of the circumstances. If it is a simple as presented (doubtful), how did she win his trust on the second go round?
What did she do to earn that trust back?
I can forgive a lot. But once you've broken trust with me, especially on a deep, personal level like theirs, you're most like not every going to win it back.
I'd like to know how she earned his trust. It'll shed a great deal of light on his character.
If he just forgave her, and welcomed her back no questions asked, then he is unsuited for the Presidency.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at May 13, 2011 03:37 PM (1hM1d)
Look at how McCain did against a guy who still has no serious coherent policies except Bigger Government
This is not 2008. Obama is not the same candidate. He has a record -- an utterly contemptible record in the eyes of many former Obama-voters who still do not have jobs, and who still find themselves waiting for the oceans to stop rising.
I'm looking at the current crop of candidates, not some ideal Social Con candidate.
You have a valid point. (Pence was my ideal.) But is Bachmann really unelectable? How about Herman Cain?
I will certainly not withhold my support if Daniels is the nominee. But he isn't the nominee. That's the purpose of the primary-stage. Here are some non-social concerns I have: his supposed interest in a VAT (if true, this should disqualify him automatically), his support for private-sector unions, and the fact that he isn't Mike Pence.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at May 13, 2011 04:08 PM (psns8)
Here's an admiring summary of Daniels' RINO accomplishments, from liberal Ruth Marcus who can't wait(!) for a Daniels' run:
In a rigid GOP world of no-new-taxes ideologues, Daniels actually proposed a temporary tax increase to help close the state’s budget gap. He created a health-care plan for uninsured residents not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid — and paid for it in part with higher tobacco taxes. He believes in limited government but implemented all-day kindergarten and pressed for new spending on infrastructure.
Posted by: NotALibertarian at May 13, 2011 04:24 PM (psns8)
Me: anybody have a linkto the forms for renunciation of citizenship?
Posted by: glowing blue meat at May 13, 2011 04:29 PM (K/USr)
You know you are allowed to check out - but you can never leave . . . - The Eagles
Posted by: 57 states at May 13, 2011 04:25 PM (DzFce)
Posted by: curious at May 13, 2011 04:26 PM (k1rwm)
@ 242 - But this is where my question to you comes in: If Daniels, or some other candidate you deem "semi-lib" gets nominated, are you willing to throw away potential gains on some . . .
We haven't even held the primaries and we are discussing the terms of surrender?
Alex, I'll take Marxism-lite for the Last Hundred Years for 50 bucks please . . .
Posted by: 57 states at May 13, 2011 04:36 PM (DzFce)
Posted by: Call me Ishmael at May 13, 2011 04:41 PM (do977)
What is often taken as "toughness" -- surface bluster -- is not in fact toughness. Toughness often exhibits itself as quietness -- and loud brashness is actually often not toughness, but overcompensation due to fear.
This can not possibly be said often enough. I could write a whole freaking book on the truth of this statement. Those who whine about Daniels not being a fucking loudmouth jackass like Trump or whomever obviously aren't thinking of how people really are, in real life.
Daniels isn't my dream candidate either, but right now I guess he's my candidate since my dad laughed when I told him he should run (he'd be far better than Trump or Cain on all counts). But Mitch Daniels' personal story is a PLUS for me. He dealt with a really difficult personal situation without flaking out, which is more than I can say for a lot of people (if not most). My biggest complaint about Mitch Daniels is that I think his wife seems like a bitch, possibly Teresa Heinz Kerry-grade bitch, but whatever.
And he's certainly NOT a "semi-lib." If that remark is due to the "truce" comments, then you don't understand those comments at all, or his record. Rick Santorum and Jim Demint and everyone who demagogues it has a personal, self-serving reason for doing so. Their demagoguery is utterly fallacious, completely based in fantasy.
Posted by: Beth at May 13, 2011 04:59 PM (5NfIh)
Posted by: Nate at May 13, 2011 05:00 PM (BBlzg)
What a disaster she was - and that was when she was focusing on foreign policy.
Posted by: MlR at May 13, 2011 05:07 PM (uxyPr)
I actually saw someone say yesterday that they were for Sarah Palin because she knows how to shoot a real rifle. This is why we can't have nice things, you know. *weeps for America*
Posted by: Beth at May 13, 2011 05:13 PM (5NfIh)
Posted by: curious at May 13, 2011 05:29 PM (k1rwm)
The presence of which some would be forgiven for questioning in the typical Republican Party member.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at May 13, 2011 05:54 PM (gvBdW)
Let 's be honest about it. Can we imagine Reagan calling for a truce on social issues because the country was facing great danger from outside and economic malaise at home? Remember the communists were advancing around the world after the fall of South Vietnam in 1975. Can we imagine Reagan not ready to debate foreign policy with Carter? We can't because it never happened. This spin about fire and brimstone doesn't change the fact that Daniels is not ready. Let 's move on to a better and more electable candidate.
Posted by: LAI at May 13, 2011 06:02 PM (nFLL6)
Posted by: Rex the Wonder God at May 13, 2011 08:53 PM (NHeC0)
Posted by: Nate at May 13, 2011 09:00 PM (BBlzg)
As for his marital history? Oh, boy. I'm afraid he must also suffer from Little Dick Syndrome. His wife has an affair with an old boyfriend and runs off to marry him, leaving Mitch with 4 girls. I would bet you anything that by then Mitch was probably already doing all the shopping, cooking, cleaning, and laundry anyway so really didn't notice much difference.
For me, it's not that fact that she ran off that reflects poorly on Mitch. No, it's that he took her back. Yeah, my guess is it's about 2 inches. We don't need an insecure man in the White House. Short, balding, and a little dick. Nope.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at May 14, 2011 06:39 AM (4zKCA)
Anything we say about Mitch will be nothing compared to what Obama's media say about him and his family. The media does even have to say anything that is true! They have a license to lie. They must. They do it constantly.
Posted by: burt at May 14, 2011 07:00 AM (OzqQM)
Posted by: gary gulrud at May 14, 2011 04:14 PM (/g2vP)
Posted by: gwrgwrg at May 15, 2011 06:49 PM (iQ/HO)
Posted by: gwrgwrg at May 15, 2011 06:49 PM (iQ/HO)
Posted by: gwrgwrg at May 15, 2011 06:49 PM (iQ/HO)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2331 seconds, 381 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.








So....no.
Posted by: Kasper Hauser at May 13, 2011 12:23 PM (HqpV0)