David Brooks likes the crease in Mitch Daniels’ pants!
If we compare job growth in Indiana with job growth (or more accurately loss) with its mostly Democratically governed neighbors, it doesn’t look especially good.
Indiana lost 6.5 percent of its jobs between December of 2004 (the month before Daniels took office) and December of 2010. This beats Michigan’s 13.0 percent and Ohio’s 7.7 percent, but is worse than Illinois’ loss of 5.2 percent of its jobs. It’s also worse than the loss of 3.3 percent of jobs in Wisconsin and 0.2 percent of jobs in Iowa.
I suppose that Daniels campaign slogan can be “better than Michigan.”
The kingmakers are starting to make their push.
McCain was their last genius pick. Just so’s you know.
Brooksie would rather endorse Justin Bieber, but worries there might be some birther action because of her Canadian birth certificate.
Yeah…
We’re still suffering under the last guy who’s pants creases Brooks admired…I wonder if Mitch be willingy to extemporaneously discuss some Neibuhr with Brooks; now that would seal the deal.
Daniels should stand or fall on what he himself has done and said not what pussies like Brooks say or progressive think tanks spew out. Their opinions mean as much to me as Carville’s on which I hate Miracle Whip but not because James loves it.
Daniels? He’s doing a good job for his State. As far as him running for President, I like others better so far and from my view of how the Democrats have always operated I don’t want any nominee who was in a prominent national political position before 1993.
Why do you have to be so divisive and bring up the Miracle Whip issue again? Why can’t we all get along?
Sorry, Geoff. Very few people buy that walkback on the legislators leaving the state. In fact, Byron York talked about how the Daniels people contacted him after the shit hit the fan to re-contextualize the remarks, which didn’t make much sense in the new context.
Plus, he counseled us in ’08 to “get over Reagan.” To me, that signals pragmatist in giant blinking letters.
Daniels may be a good governor who tackles all manner of issues that we agree with, but he’s a failure as a movement conservative. Right now it should be obvious that a critical mass with a singular vision is the way to build on the wave that was the midterm elections.
We need a leader that is controversial to to the establishment, not the base.
Hummm, who could that be?
The esteemed Mr Brooks wrote:
So, he wants to run Rod Blagovich?
Let me help to sort things out for everybody:
If a state does better than average, has a Democratic governor and we have a Democratic President, both share the credit.
If a state does better than average, has a Republican governor and we have a Democratic President, the President gets all of the credit.
If a state does worse than average, has a Republican governor and we have a Democratic President, it’s all the Governor’s fault.
If a state does worse than average, has a Democratic governor and we have a Democratic President, then it’s all George Bush’s fault.
I hope that helps!
Alternatives?
It’s like porn: I’ll know it when I see it.
Mr Brooks didn’t write that, Dana. Dean Baker did (see Geoff’s comment).
The point is, Brooks is pushing for Daniels, the same David Brooks who took the “limited government is overrated” side in a debate against Paul Ryan ; and the left has already developed talking points about Daniels’ supposed effectiveness.
Just pointing things out.
Am I hallucinating or was Brooksie associated with/sympathetic to that ludicrous “No Labels” steaming pile of fail?
I trust very little of what comes out of most of the media and pundits about any conservative. Almost the whole of it is purposefully a “house of mirrors” designed to help the progressive left to get ahead. It is a war in the view of the left, they have done everything to push it to that level. The media is part of their intelligence apparatus not an unbiased reporter of facts.
Call it the second Civil War. The first over privately owned slaves, the second over State ownership of slaves. Conservatives need to win this battle over public sector unions as it will go a long way towards winning the war.
That said I think that winning the 2012 election for President requires a combination on the ticket. From an email I wrote over a week ago.
I want to return first to those thrilling days of three years ago. The summer and fall of 2008. I recall that there was discussion of how the Democrat’s ticket was upside down. The more experienced person was on the bottom of the ticket with the inexperienced one taking the top slot.
This was true in a wonkish way but the Democrat ticket was balanced in the way that counts electorally. It was balanced in a way that the Republican ticket was not balanced and had not been since 1984.
The balance that counts to win the election is that the most exciting person, the one with the rhetoric to make their ideology soar, the fearlessness to take the battle to the political enemy and slap them around, sometimes with humor, sometimes with sarcasm, and sometimes with straight up truth, that person needs to be on the top of the ticket. That balance the Democrats got more right and we got ass backwards.
I was a big Fred guy in the primary run up to the election. I liked what he had to say and thought he would have been a great president. Although he would have been better than McCain on the campaign he too would not have been the one to reach out and grab those people watching Sportscenter. Palin could, which is why the left immediately moved to destroy her, not just for that election, but forever is what they have tried to do, and may have succeeded. Of the speakers at CPAC who have presidential ambitions only Herman Cain has struck me this way so far.
I think Mitch Daniels would be a fine president but I don’t see him as winning against Obama. As a VP pick who would be seen and run against Biden he would be great. Biden is not intellectually fit to shine Daniels shoes. But it is way early in the run up to 2012 and I am willing to be pleasantly surprised in the ensuing months.
So, no. It seems like no one will ever be good/classically liberal/conservative/libertarian/ideologically pure enough to fit your bill. I’d hate to see this place become yet another purity police substation.
And committing logical fallacies in the process.
I’ll know it when I see it doesn’t mean no John.
We don’t even know who’s running yet.
But, you seem to have an axe, so grind away…
Have candidates announced yet? And really, is there something wrong with a classical liberal wanting the best classically liberal candidate to represent him? How does that make this place a purity substation? What it isn’t is a GOP cheerleading site. There’s a difference.
Anway, I’m waiting to see who David Frum endorses.
Name them and provide evidence.
So, no. It seems like no one will ever be good/classically liberal/conservative/libertarian/ideologically pure enough to fit your bill. I’d hate to see this place become yet another purity police substation.
And I’d hate to see the GOP nominate another McCain. You, on the other hand, seem to be happy with anyone who’s shown some fiscal backbone, without any regard to whether they show the willingness or ability to shake up the Washington apparatus.
Balancing a state budget is a good start, but it’s not enough. We need somebody willing and able to take on the Democrats, the Establishment GOP, and the entrenched bureaucracy in Washington. I, for one, am not interested in any politician who shows signs of wanting to play nice. Any such personality will be chewed up and spit out by the media and the Chicago machine.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you that no candidate will ever make me completely happy. None ever has, and none ever will. All I really want is the option of choosing somebody who doesn’t make me choke on my own vomit when I walk into the voting booth.
By the way, this: “And committing logical fallacies in the process”? A sweeping generalization.
Dicto Simpliciter .
Who is this “John” person? I don’t recognize him. My guess is he’s concern trolling.
Or Palin baiting.
Let’s give John the benefit of the doubt. I’m sure he’s here to show us how better to be reasonable. And helpful. How to spend less time listening to the rabble-rousers on the radio, and more time reading the thoughtful centrists in WaPo and Slate. Remember, it isn’t worth breaking the Left’s stranglehold on the Narrative, because the Narrative will paint anyone who resists as Bad People, and we just can’t have that.
Thank you, John, for reminding us that compromising our principles for short-term political advantage is far, far more important that winning the important battle for our children’s future.
The association fallacy. The evidence is right there in black and white, unless you’d prefer that I repeat your words back to you.
Also, asserting that I have an axe to grind, that I’m concern trolling, that I’m Palin baiting, and sarcastically giving me the benefit of the doubt while simultaneously claiming I’m doing something I’m not aren’t conversation starters, they’re conversation enders. They are a way to run yet another person (who’s on your team, no less) off who isn’t walking in lockstep with the particular narrative of this place, which is starting to look like this site’s pastime. I suppose all I can do is request that you please don’t do that, but I’m sure only more nastiness will follow in response.
Yes, I would.
Yes. My pastime is running people off who don’t walk in lockstep.
I suppose I could point you to thousands of examples of that NOT being the case, but I honestly don’t care enough to do so. I’ll just let your hasty generalization stand as a poignant juxtaposition to your simultaneous determination to lecture me on logical fallacies. If you don’t like it here, go elsewhere. I’m sure plenty of sites have proprietors who will concede that being in disagreement with you is a sign of their rigidity and demand for purity.
Me, I see a demand that I trade my principles for “electability” its own form of an ideological purity test. And I don’t like being lectured by people who believe they are somehow entitled to have their positions validated — the prerequisite, it seems, to be engaged in a “conversation” in your formulation.
“Also, asserting that I have an axe to grind”
Oh, that was me.
in response to your opener:
“It seems like no one will ever be good/classically liberal/conservative/libertarian/ideologically pure enough to fit your bill. “
You telling me there’s no ax there?
Also, asserting that I have an axe to grind, that I’m concern trolling, that I’m Palin baiting, and sarcastically giving me the benefit of the doubt while simultaneously claiming I’m doing something I’m not aren’t conversation starters, they’re conversation enders.
Given that your introduction consisted of a one-word question, followed by a bad-faith assertion that no candidate will ever be acceptable to Jeff or this community of commenters, I’m not sure that I’m willing to grant you the authority to determine what is or isn’t an appropriate conversation starter.
How ’bout you accept that we’re not thrilled with Daniels’ recent performance, and we’ll grant that his prior performance hasn’t been all bad, and we all get back to dismantling the Chicago machine and its media subsidiaries?
The association fallacy is everywhere in this thread. It’s implied in the title for chrissakes. Also, there was neither lectures nor a demand that anyone trade principles for “electability,” and I don’t at all appreciate your framing it that way.
And that latter part of my post wasn’t directed at you, but rather at those who are so obviously trying to shut me up that’s it’s comical. Clearly, however, you too have no use for me or my opinions (I’m not sure you have much use for anyone who doesn’t think exactly as you do).
Aw. Would a cupcake help John feel better?
It is astounding to me, John, that you can keep going on about logical fallacies while making sweeping pronouncements in nearly every comment.
This site has been active for going on a decade. I’ve had guest posters here who think nothing like I do. I have hosted debates with feminist sites. For you to drop by for a bit and tell me that I have no use for anyone who doesn’t think like me is not only false, but it is insulting.
Now, if you are going to point to the association fallacy, do so. Don’t just tell me it’s everywhere, or implied in the title. The title contained no punctuation. It could be a pronouncement, it could be a question. It could be simply my opinion, in which case there is no fallacy at all: Having read Brooks for years, having noted who he’s endorsed in the past, having listened to him debate Paul Ryan (and take the position that shrinking the government is not necessarily a good thing), and being quite attuned to the mood of conservatives, I have concluded, personally, that his endorsement of Daniels likely won’t help Daniels where conservatives are involved.
That is, I have drawn on a number of factors to reach an informed conclusion.
Nowhere do I argue that because David Brooks likes Mitch Daniels, Mitch Daniels is a bad man, or not a good governor, etc. I’ve simply noted that he’s a candidate David Brooks likes. What that says to you will depend on how you view David Brooks.
The “association” you draw is up to you. Fallacy? No.
“…those who are so obviously trying to shut me up that’s it’s comical.”
Right. We’re all trying to have your Internet connection taken away.
Drama much?
One more thing. I disagree with you on this, John. Do I not have a right to defend my position? Is my defense of my position proof I have no use for those who think otherwise? I mean, is that how it works now — proof of my supposed intolerance is my insistence on defending what I believe to be right? And conversely, to avoid the charge of purist rigidity, I must allow that you are right, or at least, equally correct?
I’ll pass on being a pragmatist, then, thanks.
I feel as though I’m missing something. The personality type is familiar, but more typical of the left-leaning pseudo-libertarians who occasionally stop by.
John, you seem to think “defend your position = trying to shut you up.”
Generally, there are a few basic reasons people shut up around here.
A: Conversation is over their head (I should probably shut up on this site more)
B: They’re losing the argument because they’re unable to consistently defend their position.
C: They’re not smart enough to realize they’re losing the argument.
John, being asked to defend your opinion isn’t the equivalent of trying to shut you up.
There are a lot of very smart people commenting on this site and well worth paying attention to.
But be warned, people on this site are very sharp and able to engage ideas very well.
Crap, C doesn’t fit. Someone not smart enough to figure out they’re losing the argument doesn’t shut up, they tend to get more strident.
I was doing pretty well until then.
I’ll shut up now.
It’s my understanding that JD is the unofficial bouncer around here anyways.
With a hall monitor and a bouncer this is either a strangely studious bar or my kind of party school.
I did not realize I was a bouncer.
I think of it as the Faber College Faculty Club after Delta Tau Chi siezed the campus during “The Days of Rage” in ’68.
If a motley crew of classical liberals, libertarians and conservatives can indeed be compared to that honorable fraternal society.
I think it’s between JD and I for most vulgar commenter, but he’s definitely Cerberus here.
I made a man throw up from a liver punch in sparring today. Just sayin’. If there’s a job opening…
Towards the whole thing with John and the echo chamber accusation, people have opposing thoughts. If the ratio for those opposing thoughts is high enough it can seem like an echo chamber when it’s not an echo at all, it’s a series of different individuals with similar thoughts. You know who would know this? Well, Jeff would, for one. David Letterman/Palin daughter. Themes of the Glenn Beck rally. It happens. And, quite obviously, others’ snark can irritate just as much as our own can satisfy. This is the internet. And before that, it was simply the human condition.
Also, John, with Daniels, I’ve myself been pretty supportive of Daniels on about 80% of the random topics we’ve covered. I didn’t hear an echo chamber, I heard common, everyday agreement. People can agree without any sinister group dynamic required or evil puppet master pulling the strings, can’t they?
You mean to tell me you just bitch-slap yelverton before kicking his ass down the stairs just for the fun of it? Dayumn.
By the way, I’m still not particularly psyched with Daniels’ reaction to the fleeing Indiana Dems but it appears that I jumped the gun over the “that’s a legitimate part of the process” segment.
Sounds as though he was just talking about the random protesters, not the fleeing dirtbags. He’s taken the blame on being unclear but given all the available evidence, that does seem to be the most likely explanation to me.
Nobody ever called he a 3headed dog before. Not sure how to take that.
I see bitch slapping and kicking yelverton down the stairs as more a public service than recreation.
Compliment, JD. Guardian of the underworld and all of that. That’s way better than just being another fat Somoan with a clipboard.
Hey, is there really a decent chance that AJB is Yelverton? That totally throws my verbal tics tracking system into the garbage, if so.
Samoan, that is.
From the context, I thought the walkback was unconvincing.
I just figured that being called a ferocious mythological guard dog is cooler than having the title of bouncer.
So, I can go back to saying I like him, just not for president?
That’s cool.
Yes, it is a high likelihood. He trolled under that name, ajb, at other site(s), and started using proxies and anonymizers.
Nobody ever called me a fat Samoan either.
I have lost 19 pounds in 5 weeks.
It’s certainly true that the consequence of what he said was that the AWOL Democrats were emboldened, and he’ll either have to learn from that and do better in the future, or just embrace the fail. Bottom line, IMO, is that if he wants to be president someday he’ll need more seasoning.
Maybe a dash of paprika.
What makes it seem more likely to me, Jeff, is that he spoke of “over the last few days”. The fleeing Dems hadn’t taken off over the last few days. They had done so just that day.
I don’t know how to resolve that unless he was actually speaking of the protesters.
Well, McG. I’m still not super enthusiastic about his response to it. Just that the one element that almost gave me an aneurysm doesn’t appear to be the slam dunk I thought it was.
As we’ve seen, the fleeing Dems didn’t simply take the dropping of right to work. They’re looking to press the strategy for all it’s worth. And, what’s his later response? A) They’re dicks and B) special sessions. Well, I was saying that in real time, nearly. Why couldn’t he? This bothers me. It simply does. Can’t get past it.
Goodnight, racists.
If you guys understood how inept I am with my hands, you’d have congratulated me by now.
With the big gloves, too.
sdferr.
Brooks and the rest at the NYT are choosing RINO ’12 for us whether we like it or not. But the difference this time is the Tea Party is on duty; without which the GOP would still be wandering as outcasts in the wilderness as they so deservedly earned. I don’t think Sarah Palin &c. will allow a RINO to fall in place so easily this time around.
Hmmph. Mitch was such a pushover, to attract the like of Brooks.
Gingrich, with all his earned negatives, has spoken well…
Bh – that is really cool, by the way. I hope he deserved it.
Why would you think that is sdferr?
Serr8d, I’m not sure why you’re busting sdferr’s balls here.
Bloggers and commenters alike take breaks from time to time. I personally recommend it. I’ve personally done it. The internet is a never-ending Thanksgiving where you’re constantly talking about religion and politics with friends and relatives.
Don’t confuse a friend for a foe.
I think it is a mistake not to assume that anyone Brooksie likes, should not be our next President. He may sometimes endorse someone that shouldn’t be rejected, but the odds are against it.
Any candidate that Brooksie like will have to spend the next year, at least, proving that he has an evil twin that Brooks mistook for him.
Even though we’re friends, he totally deserved it, JD. He’s kicked me hard in the liver about 20 times by now. And that hurts way worse because those shin guards are way smaller for how hard you can kick a dude. Way worse.
John, if you’re lurking, I hope you’ll note that Jeff and I don’t necessarily agree on something Daniels said.
It’s over an hour later now.
No evil mind control rays… yet. No minions rushing to escort me off the premises… yet.
If you’ve been lurking for a really long time, you’ll note that this is one of hundreds of times this has happened with me and probably one of the tens of thousands of times it’s happened in all.
It’s not a cult. So don’t be a dick.
Reiterated for all other names that may ever be suspected. sdferr is and always was only himself. PERIOD. Sheesh.
Anyone seriously suggesting that sdferr and happyfeet are one and the same has brain damage. Good Lord.
liver punch
Garnished with onion slices and bacon crumblies.
Yum!
and
My fault, for not making my intent in #55 clear enough, I suppose. I wasn’t suggesting, here, that the two were one and the same (it was proven they weren’t, when the ‘@ post times’ for both ‘feets and sdferr were the very same post times, in that thread that contained sdferr’s last post). What I meant in 55 was that the ‘John’ person’s reasoning and construction is much closer to sdferr’s than to ‘feets. Of course, the ‘feets stuff we’ve seen was highly illogical and increasingly ‘twangy’ and could’ve been a conscious effort to mislead, or a symptom of an advancing contagion, but that’s not the subject matter here.
I do miss sdferr’s input, and had no intention to ‘bust his balls’, bh. Just so that’s clear, and unmistakable, going forward. I hope he does catch plenty of fish, and comes back soon enough.
If he’s using crushed buffalo balls as bait, it’s a cinch.
In the strawman’s cartoon version of intentionalism that equates Jeff’s arguments about the (intentional) bastardization of language with a philosophic movement a la Professor Emile Flostre’s Empathicalism, that, my friend, is an impossibility. So, clearly, you’re guilty of a Pee Wee Hermanism, and thus no longer fit to grace the company of lockstep marching like minded thinkers.
Your’re ID card and secret de-coder ring, please.
Along with mine for repeatedlly violating the invioble Laws of Standard Usage.
serr8d,
I apologize for my misreading of your intent.
I also apologize for Geoff’s misreading of your intent. ;-)
As for me, I intend to misinterpret your recent apologies to someone else.
I apologize for triggering a recent spate of apologies. And for overcooking the chicken just now on the grill.
It’s cool, serr8d.
i still don’t apologize for slamming mitchy
I apologize for triggering a recent spate of apologies. And for overcooking the chicken just now on the grill.
That’s a corner off of your man card.
Ahhh, all this apologia warms my heart to the point of vacuous sentimentality. Burned chicken, though, that’s a fragrant fowl.
I just know sdferr will return shortly. After all, his last post didn’t include…
Good DAY!