Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“Obama budget reveals Obama’s core”

“Here’s what President Barack Obama’s new budget tells me: He hasn’t shifted to the center, he’s shifted into 2012 campaign mode, one that let’s him be who is really is.”

So says James Pethokoukis. Says protein wisdom, wait, you mean this was ever in doubt?

260 Replies to ““Obama budget reveals Obama’s core””

  1. cranky-d says:

    Keep those spigots open and flowing. Obama has a shitload of votes to buy, and certainly cannot afford to lose any through the deep spending cuts in entitlements that might save us.

  2. JD says:

    Reuters aint gonna be none too pleased about that column.

  3. alppuccino says:

    If bullshit were a renewable energy source, we should start drilling near Obama’s mouth post haste.

  4. JHoward says:

    Somewhere a Time magazine hack dusts off his best technique from deep into his second year of a journalism degree and promotes the words “The Gipper” to the top of page one. If not the cover.

    The left sure bullshits a lot. I’m thinking there’s something to that.

  5. MC says:

    Core? Rotten to teh…

  6. Pablo says:

    Hey, he can just run on his foreign policy successes!

  7. Pablo says:

    re: #3

    A highly publicized item in the 2012 budget is a 5-year (partial) freeze on discretionary spending, a saving of $400 billion. That was swallowed up this year when Congressional Budget Office re-calculated the deficit for 2011 deficit and boosted it from $1.1 trillion to $1.5 trillion, the biggest 1-year deficit ever.

    So, the error in Obama’s current deficit calculation is approximately the size of Bush’s entire last deficit? Jayzuz.

  8. panther_girl says:

    The budget is a political document that bets voters really don’t care much about deficits.

    It’s hard for me to believe that the voters who have sky-high credit card bills, go to school just for the financial aid money, and *need* their daily lattes, cell-phone plans, and big screen TVs with all the digital cable their financial aid money can buy actually do care much about such abstract things as deficits.

  9. Jeff G. says:

    But some of us eventually learn, panther_girl.

  10. sdferr says:

    A week or so ago Obama was out floating his religion for the cameras at a prayer breakfast, and a few people later took him up on observing about that. The Fox evening news roundtable among those. Not one mention of Obama’s twenty years in Rev. Wright’s church fell from their lips. Not one. The name Rev. Wright wasn’t mentioned.

    No one in the mainstream media speaks about Stanley Kurtz’s work on Obama, ever. His core has to be hidden, well, that is whatever core he has if he has one.

  11. JD says:

    DOE is reinvesting their savings from the salary freeze, even though it was not really a salary freeze.

  12. Ernst Schreiber says:

    The Plan:

    Tax Tax, Spend Send, Vote Vote.

    The Response:

    We’ll hold them to two out of three!

  13. newrouter says:

    For their part, congressional Republicans struggle to find $100 billion in budget cuts, even though their promise to do so fueled their historic election victories last November. So far, they have proposed just $74 billion in cuts for fiscal year 2011, $26 billion below this minimum threshold.
    Meanwhile, more than $700 billion gathers dust in accounts all around Washington.

    That’s right. An arcane budgetary category called “unobligated funds” includes money that Congress has appropriated for agencies and programs in every corner of the federal government. When that money goes unspent, it just sits there — like an ancient wooden chest on a Caribbean island, just waiting to be pried open.

    Senator Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) holds the treasure map. He and his team cite an Office of Management and Budget document with the riveting title “Balances of Budget Authority — Budget of the U.S. Government — Fiscal Year 2011.”

    On page 8, Table 1 indicates in black and white that this fiscal year’s federal budget contains $703,128,000,000 in “unobligated balances.” Thus, more than $703 billion languishes on department, agency, and program ledgers. This includes $12.2 billion unspent at the Agriculture Department, $16.4 billion at Labor, $25.2 billion at Housing and Urban Development, $71.4 billion at Defense, and $309.1 billion at Treasury.

    link

  14. sdferr says:

    Paul Ryan mentioned the unobligated funds last Sunday on FoxNewsSunday. He didn’t talk about how to claw them back though, but was using them as an example of the absurdity of the amount of spending in recent years.

  15. dicentra says:

    If bullshit were a renewable energy source,

    Dude. Methane.

  16. dicentra says:

    Besides, it’s not the deficits so much as the debts, the money we’ve flat-out borrowed and barely pay interest on.

    Which is something many voters can relate to, they having maxed-out their credit cards or gotten one of those skeezy mortgages or borrowed money to get an Art History degree from an Ivy.

    That they can’t pay back with a barista job at Starbucks.

    The idea that the government is overspending at an alarming rate is what set off the Tea Parties in the first place, so Obama’s doubling- and tripling-down on the spending can only aggravate, exacerbate, and infuriate.

  17. dicentra says:

    Like what Pethokoukis said: “Over the next decade from 2012-2021, it would add another $8 trillion dollars to the national debt and take the national debt as a share of the overall economy to 77 percent from 62 percent in 2010).”

    Debt. Not deficit.

    The party should never end, see, no matter how far in hock we get to the Japanese and Chinese and who knows who else.

  18. cranky-d says:

    I guess the plan is to bankrupt the country. They’re doing a fine job of it.

  19. Jeff G. says:

    I guess the plan is to bankrupt the country. They’re doing a fine job of it.

    Don’t say that around Michael Medved (among others). You’ll quickly get a what-for!

  20. geoffb says:

    From page 385 of the Stanley Kurtz book.

    President Obama’s long-term political plan is a replay of Michael Harrington’s socialist realignment strategy. Obama’s goal is to polarize the country along class lines, with Republicans marked out as the aggressors. Harrington’s bet was that, once the have-nots began to act as a unified class, they would naturally gravitate to socialism. What­ever the short-term political risks of this strategy, the potential long ­term gains would be worth it, in Obama’s mind.

    If the Republicans take power in the mid-term congressional elections, that only sets up the ultimate battle during the presidential race of 2012. With repeal of health-care reform and the rest of the Obama agenda on the line, the president hopes that a newly energized base of public employee unions, minorities, and the poor will overmatch the coalition of “haves” trying to take their new benefits away. At this point, the relatively dormant le­gions of Organizing for America and the vast new government-funded army of AmeriCorps volunteers would spring into action. America’s budding social-democratic movement would come to life.

    Ultimately, the success of this strategy depends upon blue-collar workers voting according to what the left considers to be their eco­nomic interests, rather than on cultural issues. The hope is that this can be accomplished in a country increasingly polarized along class lines­ with a newly expansive government allied with labor.
    Does this mean Republicans ought to abandon their efforts to repeal and roll back the Obama agenda? Not at all. But it does help explain the political thinking behind the risks the president is taking.

  21. happyfeet says:

    ship -> rocks

  22. Jeff G. says:

    Kurtz is unhelpful. Obama means well. I know, because sensible conservatives who are very very conservative and very very honorable have told me so.

  23. geoffb says:

    Unhelpful or useful idiot. Choices, choices, a real dilemma.

  24. dicentra says:

    Ultimately, the success of this strategy depends upon blue-collar workers voting according to what the left considers to be their eco­nomic interests, rather than on cultural issues.

    Q: How many times do Marxists need to misread human nature before they realize they’re wrong?

    A: Outta my way, running-dog capitalist. It’s our turn at the whip.

  25. JHoward says:

    How many times do Marxists need to misread human nature before they realize they’re wrong?

    Realize? ;o)

    Anyway, in the end we’re consumed by bad money and bad fiscal policy – the whole place really is going in the shitter at some point, after which we’ll be in permahock to the international banks.

    I do like the confirmation, however, even if the truths it tells about humanity are really dark: The Framers anticipated great evils and contemporary politicians, being the gentlemen they are, proved them right. You can expect corruption to know no bounds.

    There’s a certain I-told-you-so to it all. Whether willfully or ignorantly, the left is a joke.

  26. Bob Reed says:

    This budget proposal and Obama hypocritical, fantasy-land, rhetoric are stunning.

    The dissonance between what he constantly repeats, and what is actually on the paper in black and white, needs to preface the reply to any MBM questions to Rethugs about budgetary issues.

    Use the Reagan technique of talking past those suchahz!

  27. John Bradley says:

    The budget is a political document that bets voters really don’t care much about deficits. (Over the next decade from 2012-2021, it would add another $8 trillion dollars to the national debt and take the national debt as a share of the overall economy to 77 percent from 62 percent in 2010).

    Where’s he getting that 62% in 2010 number from? I thought we were at 97%? ( $14.1T debt / $14.5T GDP)

    Is there some extra ‘overall economy’ money that isn’t considered part of the GDP?

  28. bh says:

    The idea that the government is overspending at an alarming rate is what set off the Tea Parties in the first place, so Obama’s doubling- and tripling-down on the spending can only aggravate, exacerbate, and infuriate.

    Man, I really, really, really hope so. It certainly seems like it should be so.

  29. dicentra says:

    Wow. Guess who’s ripping Obama on his intergenerational theft?

    h/t Insty

  30. bh says:

    From di’s link:

    All of us who took Obama’s pitch as fiscally responsible were duped.

    He forgot to say “willingly”.

  31. Jeff G. says:

    If only I hadn’t come to those same conclusions in 2007, bh, maybe I could have gotten a gig at the Atlantic, too…

  32. bh says:

    Yeah, no shit, huh? For the Atlantic, add McArdle to that list. Who you can also see on Bloggingheads. Along with Ann Althouse.

    Obama voters. Representing the right. Yippee!

  33. newrouter says:

    In his address to CPAC, Mitch Daniels warned the crowd: “We face an enemy, lethal to liberty … I refer, of course, to the debts our nation has amassed for itself over decades of indulgence. It is the new Red Menace, this time consisting of ink.”

    Sadly, that “Red (Ink) Menace … lethal to liberty” was not the top priority of Mitch Daniels when he built a substantial amount of that debt as U.S. Director of the Office of Management and Budget (2001-03). During Mitch’s 29-month tenure, our annual surplus of $236 billion turned into a $400 billion deficit.

    Mitch Daniels now tells us the “Red (Ink) Menace” is a lethal enemy, but in February 2003, Budget Director Mitch Daniels told Time magazine’s James Carney that “a balanced budget … is not the top or the only priority.” That James Carney is now President Obama’s Press Secretary.

    Mitch Daniels continued to CPAC: “Every conflict has its draft dodgers. There are those who will not enlist with us … regardless of the cost in dollars, opportunity, or liberty.” So, is Mitch a reformed “draft dodger,” or just another RINO hypocrite?

    link

  34. sdferr says:

    Good, let’s see, so what was going on in 2003? Oh, yeah, that’s right, the country was cutting taxes as it prepared to enter a second front in the war against radical Islam (still ongoing), all while trying to recover from a recession following a series of burst economic bubbles and the physical destruction of a section of Wall Street. And this is the responsibility of the OMB director. Noice!

  35. bh says:

    Perfect example. Perfect fucking example that not all of this is serious criticism. Some is just open and malicious smearing peddled by political opponents.

  36. bh says:

    […]when he built a substantial amount of that debt as U.S. Director of the Office of Management and Budget[…]

    I mean, c’mon, that’s the sort of open lie that a child wouldn’t fall for. Yet, there it is. Presented right here at pw. As if we were children. Stupid children.

  37. newrouter says:

    mitchy is a bushy ruling class kinda guy ask karltherover and georgebowtiewill

  38. bh says:

    And you’re a retard or a liar.

    Either you’re too stupid to see through that piece or you know it’s bullshit and you’re trying to fool others.

    Which is it?

  39. sdferr says:

    And is a word too.

  40. bh says:

    It’s worth noting that this line of attack was used many, many times against Bush by progressives when they pretended to care about the budget before the ’04 elections. And here it is repackaged to attack Daniels.

    A conservative makes this argument? A conservative brings it here?

  41. newrouter says:

    “And you’re a retard or a liar.”

    was mitchy in w’s admin and does george will endorse him?

  42. bh says:

    No, fuck that noise.

    Realize or admit that piece was bullshit. Until then, you’re a retard and/or liar.

  43. Abe Froman says:

    Now would be as good a time as any for newrouter to write in complete sentences instead of Carl Spackler code.

  44. dicentra says:

    McArdle does good in this article, too: What Does Bias Look Like?:

    So while in theory, it’s true that you can’t simply reason from disparity to bias, I have to say that when you’ve identified a statistical disparity, and the members of the in-group immediately rush to assure you that this isn’t because of bias, but because the people they’ve excluded are all a bunch of raging assholes with lukewarm IQ’s . . . well, I confess, discrimination starts sounding pretty plausible.

    When that group of people is assuring you that the reason conservatives can’t be in charge is that they do not have open minds . . . when the speed and sloppiness of their argument make it quite clear that they rejected the very possibility of discrimination without giving it even a second’s serious thought . . . well, I confess, it starts sounding very plausible. More plausible than I, who had previously leaned heavily on things like affinity bias to explain the skew, would have thought.

  45. happyfeet says:

    In any case, says Mitch Daniels, Bush’s budget director, “a balanced budget is a high priority for this administration; it is not the top or the only priority.” *

    I suppose Sarah Palin would’ve made a profit on 9/11 with tasteful merchandising ideas

  46. bh says:

    Bush squandered Clinton’s surplus! There were no wars! There was no recession! In fact, Daniels used his mind control rays to control his boss. Just like Cheney did.

    This is obviously a well thought out and sincere argument.

  47. Jeff G. says:

    WSJ, a few days back:

    Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, who is considering a run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, veered from his party’s orthodoxy on end-of-life care Friday, suggesting the nation cannot afford to provide every treatment and technology available for every single dying patient.

    “We all want to live forever. We want everything done to help us,” he told health care reporters during a discussion of Medicare and its financial pressures. “And we cannot, no one can, do absolutely everything that modern technology makes possible for absolutely everyone ’til absolutely the very last day, the very last resort.”

    He added that he understands the urge by families to push for what may be futile care. “It’s the most human thing in the world,” he said. “Your loved one is in desperate shape.” He said “we can try this thing that has almost no chance of working” but questioned whether it is worth it, especially given that “it’s going to cost an incredible amount of money.”

    Many health care experts have voiced similar views, saying doctors and families need to do a better job at making choices at the end of life, but the subject has been politically taboo.

    Gov. Daniels would not say what policies he would endorse, other than to say he would prefer that families make the decisions, rather than the government. He also said he favored means testing Medicare so that wealthier retirees get smaller government subsidies.

    I guess I don’t follow. He’d prefer one thing, but he seems to see the wisdom in its opposite…

  48. bh says:

    Oh, for fuck’s sake, why do you have to bring up Palin?

    Jesus.

  49. Jeff G. says:

    Oh, for fuck’s sake, why do you have to bring up Palin?

    Because he’s a griefer.

  50. happyfeet says:

    the guy newrouter linked brought up Palin

    Mitch Daniels is George Will’s Great Male Hope to save his Republican Party from Sarah Palin.

  51. sdferr says:

    It was this type of suggestion during the health care debate that led to the false charge that Democrats wanted government “death panels” for Medicare patients.

    Who is Laura Meckler?

  52. dicentra says:

    we cannot, no one can, do absolutely everything that modern technology makes possible for absolutely everyone ’til absolutely the very last day, the very last resort.

    Who’s we, white boy? We who?

    Me, I don’t care if heroic measures are used on me or not. If it looks like I’m a goner, go ahead and pull the plug. If you can’t bear to do that right yet, then leave it in. What will I care, especially if I’m pretty much a vegetable?

  53. happyfeet says:

    but the point is to see what newrouter’s American Thinker monkey left our with his ellipses

  54. Jeff G. says:

    That was bringing up George Will and his animus toward Palin. Not bringing up Palin.

    You’re like Pavlov’s dog.

  55. newrouter says:

    “Carl Spackler code.”

    that decoder ring is here somewhere?

  56. newrouter says:

    “You’re like Pavlov’s dog.”

    more like the beagle blogger.

  57. happyfeet says:

    left *out* I mean

  58. bh says:

    For the life of me, I don’t understand why he’s musing about end of life care and talking about how expensive it is. It’s been in the news, death panels and all that.

    He can’t be serious about running. Can’t be.

    Maybe this has all been a practical joke to cause me heartburn.

  59. happyfeet says:

    it’s pretty clear I think that Daniels was responding to a question – and we don’t know what else was said other than what the Journal whore reports

  60. Jeff G. says:

    Meckler is a staff reporter for WSJ. And whether or not she wants to call government bureaucrats drawing up cost-benefit analyses for when to cut off the money for treatment “death panels” isn’t really relevant. What’s relevant is that Daniels appears to think himself pragmatic for conceding the point — while saying he would prefer families make the determination.

    And yet, why is spending money on, say, NPR, or some new sop to the teacher’s union through the DOE, at all worthwhile when it takes away money that can be used to extend life? Where’s the pragmatism in that?

  61. sdferr says:

    If health care spending decisions are left to individuals and their families, I assume they will make their decisions in line with their own resources, whatever those may be. If health care spending decisions are to be made by government, people will demand that every measure be taken (hang the cost, that’s on government) to preserve their own or their loved ones lives, wouldn’t they? Isn’t that the direction Daniels is pointing? At least filtered through Ms. Meckler, who seems to want to have it both ways herself.

  62. Jeff G. says:

    it’s pretty clear I think that Daniels was responding to a question – and we don’t know what else was said other than what the Journal whore reports

    Sure. Daniels can never mean what we hear him to mean, and Palin always means precisely the opposite of what she says, unless you disagree with what she says, in which case she means exactly what you say she means.

    Got the calculus now.

    Well, add “+ whore,” of course.

  63. happyfeet says:

    But dirty socialist health care like America’s doesn’t work without some sort of rationing. When people shriek about the rationing to where the rationing is attenuated, they only make a ruinously expensive dirty socialist health care system that much more expensive.

  64. Jeff G. says:

    If health care spending decisions are left to individuals and their families, I assume they will make their decisions in line with their own resources, whatever those may be. If health care spending decisions are to be made by government, people will demand that every measure be taken (hang the cost, that’s on government) to preserve their own or their loved ones lives, wouldn’t they? Isn’t that the direction Daniels is pointing? At least filtered through Ms. Meckler, who seems to want to have it both ways herself.

    He said he would prefer families make the decision. But in the event government manages the takeover, we now know that he’ll have to concede that so-called “death panels” are but common-sense fiscal realities, under those circumstances.

    Well played!

  65. Jeff G. says:

    I need a drink.

    MAVERICK!

  66. newrouter says:

    mitchy needs a squishy rino for his campaign symbol

  67. dicentra says:

    Although I am wondering if Obama’s surreal budget proposal isn’t similar to the teenager ploy:

    “Dad, can I get my tongue pierced?”

    “WHAT!”

    “OK, how about just my eyebrow?”

    He included absolutely everything on his wish-list (and maybe more), figuring that if he gets even a percentage of it that’s pretty jake.

  68. sdferr says:

    He’ll have to concede? Well, I guess so, at least to the extent that everyone and his uncle will have to concede it too, if such a ghastly eventuality comes to pass (which is still an argument against government control of health care decision making, so far as I’m concerned). But we all knew that right? Or did we imagine that there is an infinite sum out there waiting to be pressed into service saving absolutely every life whatever the doubtfulness of any clinical efficacy?

  69. dicentra says:

    Tweeth Burge: “Valentines Day love match: US Debt now matches US Gross Domestic Product. Get a room, you two!”

  70. happyfeet says:

    I imagine what we want are some commonsense conservative solutions to end of life care, and I think Mitch is on the same page.

  71. dicentra says:

    Commonsense conservative solutions to end of life care

    1. If you’re not dead by 80, we summarily off you. No muss no fuss.

    2. You can buy end-of-life care insurance, in case you don’t die instantly in an accident or slowly from cirrhosis.

    3. If you don’t have insurance or your own money, too bad so sad.

  72. sdferr says:

    . . . veered from his party’s orthodoxy on end-of-life care Friday, suggesting the nation cannot afford to provide every treatment and technology available for every single dying patient.

    So is the party’s orthodoxy that the nation can afford “to provide every treatment and technology available for every single dying patient”? Cause Ms. Meckler kinda leaves the association hanging there doesn’t she?

  73. newrouter says:

    mitchy’s life:

    In 1990, Daniels left the Hudson Institute to accept a position at Eli Lilly and Company. He was first promoted to President of North American Operations (1993–97) and then to Senior Vice President for Corporate Strategy and Policy (1997–2001).[

    big pharma check

    In January 2001, Daniels accepted President George W. Bush’s invitation to serve as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He served as Director from January 2001 through June 2003. In this role he was also a member of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.

    bushy guy check

    For several minutes, the vote total was stuck at 58-39, until Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) voted in quick succession in favour to pass the vote 61-39.[17] The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8.[

    big money cram down check

    Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY) is a global pharmaceutical company. Eli Lilly’s global headquarters is located in Indianapolis, Indiana, in the United States.

    mitchy well done sir keep crony capitalism alive.

  74. newrouter says:

    @74 the bill passed was :Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act

  75. bh says:

    #74 is a thing of beauty. Marvelous, really.

    So, ‘feets has Palin covered and now newrouter has chosen Daniels.

    Are we each going to end up with a candidate we lose our shit over?

    ‘Cause I have a bone to pick with William Henry Harrison and I’m thinking about exploring the studio space over the course of hundreds and hundreds of comments.

  76. Abe Froman says:

    I usually need to visit left wing sites to find chronologies like that.

  77. bh says:

    Did you guys know that William Henry Harrison was a secret Hindu?

  78. newrouter says:

    “I usually need to visit left wing sites to find chronologies like that.”

    is it true or not? what i found interesting is that as mitchy leaves the w admin as congress starts medi d and then rams it thru. then mitchy goes on to be gov. of the state of eli lilly. thank baracky if i sense alot crony capitalism goin’ on.

  79. Abe Froman says:

    The world is like a pyramid, newrouter. The closer you get to the top, the smaller the distance between players.

  80. Pablo says:

    Are we each going to end up with a candidate we lose our shit over?

    Dibs on Huckholio.

  81. bh says:

    Just askin’ questions. Sure. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, crazy ass lefties.

    Btw, has anyone ever seen William Henry Harrison have sex with a woman? Seems kinda odd, doesn’t it?

    And he’s always riding around on that horse. Hmmm. William Henry Harrison sorta seems to like horses more than women. Odd.

  82. happyfeet says:

    at least Harrison didn’t do medicare part d and death panels and Value Added Tax and spit in Rush Limbaugh’s face and declare a truce with abortionists

  83. newrouter says:

    “The closer you get to the top, the smaller the distance between players.”

    true but mitchy was Senior Vice President for Corporate Strategy and Policy (1997–2001)

    old w on promises kept:

    In its own document, “Promises Kept,” the Bush campaign is silent on Social Security and reducing partisanship. Rather, the campaign counters that the president has achieved many other of his promises beyond tax cuts and education: a prescription drug benefit under Medicare, a ban on what critics call “partial-birth” abortions, and progress on matters including homeownership and missile defense.

    link

  84. bh says:

    William Henry Harrison started each day by strangling one Indian baby in the belief that it was “lucky”.

  85. JHoward says:

    I guess I don’t follow. He’d prefer one thing, but he seems to see the wisdom in its opposite…

    He does that thing.

  86. Jeff G. says:

    So is the party’s orthodoxy that the nation can afford “to provide every treatment and technology available for every single dying patient”? Cause Ms. Meckler kinda leaves the association hanging there doesn’t she?

    Yes. That’s what the party’s orthodoxy is.

  87. bh says:

    Okay, later, folks.

    (I have to go meet a contact who says he has the real dirt on that horse-molesting baby-strangler.)

  88. Jeff G. says:

    He’ll have to concede? Well, I guess so, at least to the extent that everyone and his uncle will have to concede it too, if such a ghastly eventuality comes to pass (which is still an argument against government control of health care decision making, so far as I’m concerned). But we all knew that right? Or did we imagine that there is an infinite sum out there waiting to be pressed into service saving absolutely every life whatever the doubtfulness of any clinical efficacy?

    Really? We’re going to parse “he’ll” now? He can be cited as supporting the idea, under a certain set of circumstances. That he didn’t support the idea leading up to the circumstances is a different question. And “he” is different from us insofar as he can be presented as a dedicated conservative.

    It is what it is. Deal with it.

    Or else try these little angels on the head of pin parsings while the left is selling the public in big bold strokes.

  89. newrouter says:

    “Btw, has anyone ever seen William Henry Harrison”

    that’s cute but mitchy was with big pharma and w was for medicare part d in 2000 and pushed thru in 2003. mitchy left w’s admin on 6/2003 and medicare d was introduced on 6/2003. and eli lilly is a big pharma player headquartered in indiana. and mitchy becomes gov. in 2004. so i’m going back to trying to find my Carl Spackler decoder ring.

  90. JHoward says:

    So is the party’s orthodoxy that the nation can afford “to provide every treatment and technology available for every single dying patient”?

    Look at it this way: Neither party has the stones to tell its constituents — who don’t have the stones to live under such a state of affairs — that every medical nut and bolt is and shall remain paid for.

    The only “fair” system is one that has as few strings attached as is humanly possible. Why? Highest average level of care, highest motive to increase care, most competition — we know this stuff. Meanwhile socialism shares misery equally, etc.

    Maybe advanced medicine is God’s way of having us choose where it really, really counts. Give me liberty and give me death…because the other option is one lonely medical flash in the pan (which we’ve lived through, clearly) and then state bankruptcy.

  91. newrouter says:

    “Maybe advanced medicine is God’s way of having us choose where it really, really counts. Give me liberty and give me death.”

    or your pets have a better health care system.

  92. Jeff G. says:

    Maybe advanced medicine is God’s way of having us choose where it really, really counts. Give me liberty and give me death.

    Want to live that last year with your family, or would you rather shovel another few billion to “education” — with no demonstrable effect?

  93. happyfeet says:

    it’s an issue we’re going to have to wrestle with

  94. sdferr says:

    Somehow I don’t see why Daniels is interesting. He isn’t going to be the candidate, though he may be on the sidelines offering advice to anyone who asks. You want to write him off now? No problem. Done. And if done, then what’s the big deal, anymore than there’s a big deal about Huckabee or Romney or any number of other wannabes who won’t get past a set of requirements the likes of this?

  95. Jeff G. says:

    I heard Paul Ryan on Levin’s show tonight. He said he had the CBO calculate what tax rates will look like for our children. Lowest rate: 25%; next, 66%; top earner, 89%. And that’s just federal. And the CBO’s computers couldn’t calculate beyond 2037. It assumed the economy had already imploded before then.

  96. JHoward says:

    or your pets have a better health care system.

    Not sure of your cryptic reference, newrouter, but my pets go down when their higher power says so. The human animal, not so much. Yet.

  97. Jeff G. says:

    Somehow I don’t see why Daniels is interesting.

    Let’s see: he spoke at CPAC, he’s being championed by Will (and, from what I hear, Rove), and we know that the GOP is looking for someone with fiscal chops who they can also sell as a social moderate and pragmatist. And he’s contemplating a presidential run.

    Move along. Nothing to see here.

  98. sdferr says:

    That’s right, there’s little to see but a bunch of ostensible classical conservatives writing off a short bald guy. So good for them. He’s then moot. So, again, if moot, why interesting?

  99. happyfeet says:

    Mr. Daniels makes the other candidates look like pandering squacks I think Mr. sdferr. I think in some quarters this is a quality what breeds no small resentment.

  100. JHoward says:

    And the CBO’s computers couldn’t calculate beyond 2037. It assumed the economy had already imploded before then.

    Yep.

    Interest on the debt will crush us and it’s obvious that the big federal credit card company in the DC-Wall Street corridor has our Treasury by the balls. We’ll probably pass the point where we can’t even honor our periodic obligations soon enough, much less the whole damn balance. Especially during times of economies it itself has crushed all life out of. Cloward-Piven has nothing on this game.

    Cool how it’s all for nothing, this debt we endlessly bloat. And even cooler how the debt holders don’t do a damn thing for that wealth except run some computers and send that one bald dude to pee in our Congress’s ear a few times a year. Nifty.

    But no, surely it can’t be JHo’s fiat currency fictions. RON PAULIAN GOLDBUGERER!

  101. newrouter says:

    “Not sure of your cryptic reference”

    the pet health care system is a (relative)free market system.

  102. Jeff G. says:

    but a bunch of ostensible classical conservatives

    Ostensible. Because the real ones are far more nuanced in their thinking.

    Nice.

  103. sdferr says:

    Nice yourself. Some are, some aren’t. Surprised? Why?

  104. Jeff G. says:

    Mr. Daniels makes the other candidates look like pandering squacks I think Mr. sdferr. I think in some quarters this is a quality what breeds no small resentment.

    Sure. Only deep thinkers like you can recognize depth and nuance. The rest of us are held captive by pandering cumlicking cumslut hoochie whores what whore for Jesus and fetal matter and quit when the going gets tough and aren’t too bright and probably would declare war on homos, mexicans, and cupcakes.

    Ostensibly.

    Thank goodness we have you.

  105. newrouter says:

    “there’s little to see but a bunch of ostensible classical conservatives writing off a short bald guy”

    no just looking at his big pharma background and w’s budget busting big pharma bill and the karltherover approach to winning elections and beltway georgey wills baseball checklist and mitchy is dull and tainted.

  106. newrouter says:

    baracky 2012: mitchy is big pharma and he wants to repeal your health care.

  107. Jeff G. says:

    Nobody will ever say I can’t chase off readers with the best of ’em.

    FREEDOM!

  108. happyfeet says:

    when you say thank goodness you’re being sarcastic which makes me feel even less appreciated than if you had said nothing at all

  109. newrouter says:

    i’m still here getting depressed because now timmy P.s the best we got. go hermanator.

  110. newrouter says:

    “which makes me feel even less appreciated than if you had said nothing at all”

    two tacos and post here in the morning

  111. Spiny Norman says:

    i’m still here getting depressed because now timmy P.s the best we got. go hermanator.

    It’s pretty grim when the only current officeholder who is unashamed proud to admit he is a genuine Reagan conservative (and have the audience believe him) is a first-term Congressman from Florida…

  112. Ernst Schreiber says:

    It is grim Spiny. The fact is it’s Obama’s election to win or lose. Who we oppose him with isn’t going to have a whole lot do do with the outcome. What we oppose him on will have more bearing, but only a little. Ultimately, if the economy is humming along well enough that people forgive him for the past two years of mismanagement, and if there’s no city burning or burned as a result of man-caused anti-Islamic activity, he’ll likely be reelected.

  113. newrouter says:

    to bh, sdferr, jd, et al,

    trying to repeal obamacare with mitchy as the leader in 2012 is shall we say not very bright? i mean lefty’s squawking about big pharma taking away your health care. you might reconsider your positions about the political battlefield in 2012.

  114. newrouter says:

    “he’ll likely be reelected.”

    by whom? the youts of 2 years ago have now experienced his policies. and his budget proposal is doa. and 1 more f**k up abroad and this guy is in trouble.

  115. happyfeet says:

    repealing obamacaree would be a huge blow to big pharma – big pharma whored for obamacare like they were blue-ribbon whores what fucked every judge at the county fair twice

  116. happyfeet says:

    I think you’re right that Pawlenty is the only electable one out there if Daniels is taken out of the mix… and he’s a McCain-fellating pandering squack.

    7:43

  117. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Two years ago, the Democrats were planning their next 40 year majority. Let’s not make their mistake.

  118. Abe Froman says:

    that’s cute but mitchy was with big pharma and w was for medicare part d in 2000 and pushed thru in 2003. mitchy left w’s admin on 6/2003 and medicare d was introduced on 6/2003. and eli lilly is a big pharma player headquartered in indiana. and mitchy becomes gov. in 2004. so i’m going back to trying to find my Carl Spackler decoder ring.

    America is never going to elect the father from ALF president anyway, so it’s all moot. But where this stuff almost always falls short is in the fact that pretty much every big swinging dick in DC cashes in at some point. If he wanted to return to Indiana, how many high-level gigs are there to choose from? And where does this notion arise that people who work for a paycheck are inevitably the willing prostitutes for their former employers? It’s one thing when you’re looking at companies with revolving doors and a particular mindset like Goldman Sachs, but in a very general sense – in an era when people change jobs all the time – this kind of loyalty certainly isn’t prevalent enough to be presumptuous about it. And do you really think Lilly placed Daniels in the statehouse? This is the kind of thing the left routinely subjects us to.

  119. newrouter says:

    “Two years ago, the Democrats were planning their next 40 year majority. Let’s not make their mistake.”

    true. but i saw this :

    This is, above all, an appalling failure of leadership. When we look back on this period a decade or two from now, I think we’ll identify this moment — the president’s decision about how to approach the budget battle of 2012 — as the last real opportunity we had for a gradual bipartisan course correction. That option now seems closed off, and it is up to Republicans to decide if the alternative is to march off the fiscal cliff in order to avoid political risks or to propose a gradual course correction to voters and make the case for why it is sensible, responsible, and essential.

    link

    a time for choosing

  120. newrouter says:

    “And do you really think Lilly placed Daniels in the statehouse? This is the kind of thing the left routinely subjects us to.”

    let’s just say that the mitchy is an establishment/ruling class type guy.
    more of the same is not needed right now. besides dull and boring ain’t going to beat jesus/mohammed.

  121. newrouter says:

    ““And do you really think Lilly placed Daniels in the statehouse? This is the kind of thing the left routinely subjects us to.”

    i have no idea but would not the leftoids go postal with those small connections?

  122. Abe Froman says:

    I have no doubt that the left would if they found him at all threatening. The problem I have with this establishment/ruling class stuff is that it throws a blanket over people with a competing vision and people who have subjugated theirs to the cause of losing more slowly. It’s a habit of thought which stemmed from a hostile media as much as anything else. Compassionate conservatism, anyone? I’m not as quickly dismissive of ruling class sorts if they at least fight their timid instincts and are emboldened by an energized TEA Party, an increasingly vibrant alternative media and the failshit jugeared creep in the White House.

  123. newrouter says:

    “The problem I have with this establishment/ruling class stuff is that it throws a blanket over people with a competing vision and people who have subjugated theirs to the cause of losing more slowly. ”

    and so you have mitchy. can’t ever make a definitive statement. the dude has been in circles of power since 1990’s and at this point can’t or won’t upset the apple cart. the guy is tainted. if i as a non leftiod can find the line of attack on him for repealing obamacare in 5 minutes: what do you think the alinsky left will do to him in an election?

  124. newrouter says:

    ““‘I don’t think that we can only win by watering ourselves down and diluting ourselves,’ Limbaugh said, adding that he thinks Daniels does. ‘He has this overriding notion that conservatism is not enough to win. That bothers me, because clearly it is.’”

  125. happyfeet says:

    Daniels never said it wasn’t enough to win – he says it’s not enough to make happen what needs to happen in the time we have to make it happen

  126. Abe Froman says:

    I’m not arguing in favor of Daniels. However it really doesn’t serve much purpose to invest much energy in anyone who “gets it” from the safety of the Land of Misfit Toys. Some people even bitch about Christie’s timidity on certain issues, but here’s a guy who is thrusting his middle finger at the left every day in a deep blue state. You can’t have everything unless you vote for a person with a Facebook page.

  127. newrouter says:

    “he says it’s not enough to make happen what needs to happen in the time we have to make it happen”

    mitchy do you need chap stick for that finger in the wind? oh feces it is

    candle in the wind

  128. geoffb says:

    The message of the budget the Obama administration released today is the same as the message the president delivered in his State of the Union address: All is well, full speed ahead, and let’s invest a little more in solar panels and high-speed rail.

    I think that this puts “case closed” to what I quoted in #21. The political polarization gauntlet has been thrown down. Now the House Republicans need to pick it up and slap him with it.

  129. newrouter says:

    “I’m not arguing in favor of Daniels”

    i argue that a rove/bush/will/bigpharma guy ain’t the person if you want to DEFEAT the leftiods for the next 40 years. no dc losers.

  130. bh says:

    Newrouter has ruled her out to. He’s down to Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain.

    In a couple days he’ll realize that Pawlenty has baggage also. Which leaves Cain. Until it turns out that he’s out for this or that reason.

    Then, I assume, he’s going to run himself.

    Newrouter/To Be Determined ’12!

  131. newrouter says:

    “Some people even bitch about Christie’s timidity on certain issues, but here’s a guy who is thrusting his middle finger at the left every day in a deep blue state. ”

    yea the fatman f**ks pubic unions good. islam not so much. guns not so much. abortion clinics not so much. illegals not so much. yea he’s good gov. in nj and he can stay there like mitchy in indiana.

  132. bh says:

    You know what causes resentment?

    Not that your guy lost, his weaknesses or the valid criticism. It’s the cheap bullshit that some people employ because smears work.

    Keep at it, newrouter.

  133. newrouter says:

    “Newrouter has ruled her out to. He’s down to Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain.”

    bachman, santorum, cain, palin, pawlenty, barbour,

  134. Bob Reed says:

    newrouter, we’ve had our differences over time, and for what it’s worth I bear you no ill will, but you’re completely offbase with your contrived “MITCH DANIELS IS AN OPERATIVE FOR BIG PHARMA!11!1!(eleventy) assertions regarding Daniels in this thread.

    It’s tin-foil-hat stuff, my man, and it doesn’t serve you well to be resorting to prog tactics.

    Thoughtful objections are one thing, but don’t lower yourself to their level; there’s no need to.

    You can do better than that.

  135. newrouter says:

    “It’s the cheap bullshit that some people employ because smears work.”

    please do document such cases

  136. happyfeet says:

    rise above, Mr. newrouter

  137. newrouter says:

    “MITCH DANIELS IS AN OPERATIVE FOR BIG PHARMA!11!1!”

    he did work as:Senior Vice President for Corporate Strategy and Policy (1997–2001) for eli lilly No?

  138. Bob Reed says:

    I’ve criticized Daniels on a few occasions now for what I thought were rhetorical errors; errors that send the progressive left the same method that withdraw timetables send the Taliban-that if we just wait long enough we can have our way anyway.

    Now maybe myself and a few others here who have similar misgivings are mistaken in the understanding we take away from his words; I’ve been known to be mistaken on occassion.

    Still, regardless of my own personal misgivings, I want Daniels to be a part of the primary process, if he so chooses, as much as I’d like anyone else to be; well, except for Huck, Mitt, and despite his tough talk lately, Pawlenty.

    Everyone brings something to the table, and helps move the debate in a unique direction. Daniels brings a strong fiscal component to the debate, one that will only sharpen the GOP 2012 platform.

  139. bh says:

    From an earlier thread:

    “Wait, if Mitch is a Bush goon is Palin a McCain goon?”

    yea she is a shill like mitchy. sarah’s endorsement of mccain for sen. sucks because the awful idiot is still around.

    Ringing endorsement. You’ll hate her in another month.

    And Mitch is a pharma stooge but Haley Barbour isn’t out even though he’s been a huge lobbyist?

    Pawlenty hearts Al Gore and wanted the congress to act on global warming a couple years ago. He’s still in?

    Bachmann, Santorum and Cain will get you a trillion dollars each at the casino right now if you bet on them. Run forth and make money! Or, don’t. Because they’ll be commie sell out stooges in your mind soon enough anyway.

    You want documentation of smears? I present this thread.

  140. newrouter says:

    “It’s tin-foil-hat stuff, my man, and it doesn’t serve you well to be resorting to prog tactics.”

    well i’m trying out for the cpusa varsity team 2012: “the messiah has risen” tour.

  141. bh says:

    Well, not the whole thread. Look for your name. You’ll find plenty.

  142. Bob Reed says:

    Sure he did. And Sarah Palin worked as a TV reporter, and still does. Does that make her an MBM operative?

  143. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Just a guess, but I think newrouter’s point is that Big Pharma da… dum… DAH! is the label the left is going to pin on Daniels should he be the nominee.

    I don’t find it particularly persuasive, since it’s corallary “evil republicans want to take away your health care!” applies to any Republican.

    On the other hand, maybe newrouter really resents sick people and hates big pharma for helping them feel better.

  144. Stephanie says:

    John Stossel 2012!

  145. newrouter says:

    “Daniels brings a strong fiscal component to the debate, one that will only sharpen the GOP 2012 platform.”

    no he brings big pharma to the table as “we” try to kill obamacare. the leftoids will have so much fun.

  146. Abe Froman says:

    Just for the record, I’ve worked for Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco, Big Sneakers, Big Beer, Big Liquor, Big Junkfood, Big CruiseShip, Big Airplane, Big Dotcom, Big Electronics, Big CableChannel and assorted others but only GE require me to grow a John Bolton Mustache and twirl it while hatching evil plots.

  147. Bob Reed says:

    Oh, and wait a minute…

    Herman Cain was the CEO of Godfather’s Pizza; doesn’t that mean he’s an operative for big food?

    And, and, and, he was the deputy chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve; HE’S A BANKSTAH!11!1!(eleventy)

  148. Bob Reed says:

    And Rick Sasntorum is an “Establican” member of the rULiNG clASS!11!1!, who joined Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott after he was defeated in 2006.

    BIG LAW ESTABLICAN!11!1!

  149. newrouter says:

    “And Mitch is a pharma stooge but Haley Barbour isn’t out even though he’s been a huge lobbyist?

    Pawlenty hearts Al Gore and wanted the congress to act on global warming a couple years ago. He’s still in?

    Bachmann, Santorum and Cain will get you a trillion dollars each at the casino right now if you bet on them. Run forth and make money! Or, don’t. Because they’ll be commie sell out stooges in your mind soon enough anyway.

    You want documentation of smears? I present this thread.”

    i present you war hero john “effin” mclame. washington blow job boy. fielded the league of 14. side kick lindsey “hey we need wet backs” graham. screw all them clowns.

  150. Bob Reed says:

    And I was career Navy; OH NOES!11!1! THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX OPERATIVE

  151. Stephanie says:

    I was a cheerleader… Oh Noes! Blonde Bimbo Operative… shit I broke a nail typing that.

  152. Bob Reed says:

    You see how easy this is newrouter? Anyone can cast someone’s past in question, no matter how innocent and benign.

    So I suggest that we stick to circumstantial indications that actually exist.

  153. newrouter says:

    “On the other hand, maybe newrouter really resents sick people and hates big pharma for helping them feel better.”

    no crony capitalism sucks from the dc elite. whats fun is to look at some folks who don’t think that goes on in dc.

  154. bh says:

    screw all them clowns.

    Yep, you’ll be an army of one.

    You understand that was a sales pitch, right? An army of one is also known as a lone gunman. Possibly misunderstood. Didn’t get along well with others.

    That story doesn’t have a happy ending.

  155. newrouter says:

    “So I suggest that we stick to circumstantial indications that actually exist.”

    @74

    mitchy’s life:

    In 1990, Daniels left the Hudson Institute to accept a position at Eli Lilly and Company. He was first promoted to President of North American Operations (1993–97) and then to Senior Vice President for Corporate Strategy and Policy (1997–2001).[

    big pharma check

    In January 2001, Daniels accepted President George W. Bush’s invitation to serve as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). He served as Director from January 2001 through June 2003. In this role he was also a member of the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council.

    bushy guy check

    For several minutes, the vote total was stuck at 58-39, until Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Trent Lott (R-MS), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) voted in quick succession in favour to pass the vote 61-39.[17] The bill itself was finally passed 54-44 on November 25, 2003, and was signed into law by the President on December 8.[

    big money cram down check

    #

    Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE: LLY) is a global pharmaceutical company. Eli Lilly’s global headquarters is located in Indianapolis, Indiana, in the United States.

    mitchy well done sir keep crony capitalism alive.
    #
    newrouter posted on 2/14 @ 6:08 pm

    @74 the bill passed was :Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act

  156. newrouter says:

    oh noes mitchy corrupt bastard like w. give mclame or give me pawlenty

  157. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Best way to kill crony capitalism is to remove the incentives. Take away big gov’t’s power to reward friends and punish enemies and the cronies will go away.

    All facets of the same problem.

  158. happyfeet says:

    America is now a salvage operation. Mr. D gets that. The others just blither blather. Therefore I must confess that I have a bias towards Mr. D.

    I just wanted to mention that in the interest of transparency.

  159. newrouter says:

    you know kinda of funny old w got his shit while the loser left pounded him. why is that?

  160. newrouter says:

    i’m still wondering why the demonrat leadershit can abuse the president and he don’t says shit. nor the propaganda organs.

  161. Bob Reed says:

    you know kinda of funny old w got his shit while the loser left pounded him. why is that?

    I don’t understand your question. Can you use a few more words please?

  162. happyfeet says:

    Mr. Bush didn’t get the social security reform or the immigration tweaks he wanted or a non-unionized Department of Homeland Jerkoffery

    that’s just off the top of my head

  163. newrouter says:

    UPDATE: PW is ranked according to mozilla 185,694. lost out to the ferret confab at 185,693. that is all.

  164. Ernst Schreiber says:

    The ship has to founder before it can be salvaged. We haven’t broken the keel on the reef. Yet.

    If Daniel’s wants to be the guy to steer the ship, he’d better pick his direction and stick to it, and quit signalling that he’d be interested in hearing the opinions of the idiot oarsmen what got the ship into this predicament in the first place.

    So row well and live.

  165. Bob Reed says:

    America is now a salvage operation. Mr. D gets that. The others just blither blather.

    America’s not necessarily a salvage operation-yet, happyfeet. And all of the others aren’t merely blither-blathering.

    You’ve been supportive of Mitch for some time. I remember your earliest praises of him centering around his lack of charisma being what America needed after the charimatic, but substance free, Barack Obama. You went on for some time, gushing about that lack of charisma being very appealing to you.

    That’s not to say you didn’t recognize other qualities you saw as positives, or maybe my memory is poor, and to be hoinest I was off-line for 6 weeks last summer. But I often got the impression that you saw Daniels as the anti-Obama or anti-Palin.

    Just my impression though…

  166. newrouter says:

    “I don’t understand your question. Can you use a few more words please?”

    bush “won” his war by giving the keys domestically to sanfrannan. but if that is too sublime : bush needed to win “his” war by telling pelosi that give me what i want and you can ban light bulbs and pass every idiot law you want.

  167. newrouter says:

    “You’ve been supportive of Mitch for some time.”

    why do you support a bush crony?

  168. Pablo says:

    You understand that was a sales pitch, right? An army of one is also known as a lone gunman. Possibly misunderstood. Didn’t get along well with others.

    That story doesn’t have a happy ending.

    I beg to differ. Granted, M-60 proficiency is a boon in such situations, but…

  169. bh says:

    Daniels isn’t steering anything, Ernst and ‘feets. Put a fork in him. It’s over.

    If the soft establishment was truly getting behind Daniels as the establishment/intellectual/pragmatic candidate [insert massive disagreement here, but, who really cares now], may as well figure out who their second or third choice was.

  170. newrouter says:

    “I remember your earliest praises of him centering around his lack of charisma being what America needed after the charimatic, but substance free, Barack Obama. You went on for some time, gushing about that lack of charisma being very appealing to you.”

    yes bush crony capitalism

  171. Pablo says:

    I hope Ted Nugent gets in.

  172. bh says:

    Heh. Okay, Pablo. My apologies to John J. Rambo.

  173. Pablo says:

    Granted, M-60 proficiency is a boon in such situations, but…

    Fun Trivia: That from the hip thing is a bunch of hoohaw. You just don’t do it like that. Cover, fool!

  174. Bob Reed says:

    I appreciate the more complete thoughts newrouter. But I don’t get what those facts have to do with Obama’s budget or the discussion in this thread of Mitch Daniels.

  175. newrouter says:

    it is so much fun to tear down mitchy on a blog rated 185,694 according to mozilla. mitchy they don’t like you on “ferret country blog @ 185,693”

  176. BT says:

    Daniels reminds me of Calvin Coolidge. If elected he would probably do wonders with the economy. So would Christie. But i don’t think Daniels will be elected, not because he brings noting to the table, but because he is short. 5’7″ in heels. That will hurt with the superficial votes, of whom we have plenty.

  177. Ernst Schreiber says:

    may as well figure out who their second or third choice was.

    It’s Romney’s turn, isn’t it?

  178. newrouter says:

    “the discussion in this thread of Mitch Daniels.”

    he’s a karlrove loser back by folks who think w is ok. w won his “war” and sold us out domestically. f**K the bush family. f**K the pubic dc losers.

  179. newrouter says:

    “Daniels reminds me of Calvin Coolidge.”

    nah corrupt party dude like harding idiot>

  180. bh says:

    Jeb or Romney, I figure.

  181. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Romney’s the place-holder.

    Jeb! 2016

  182. newrouter says:

    “Daniels reminds me of Calvin Coolidge.”

    you remind me of karl marx

  183. Bob Reed says:

    As much as it would wound happyfeet, and may be a pure fantasy, imagine a Palin/Daniels ticket; she has the charisma, he has the wonkery. And like “Silent Cal”, it would give him some exposure in the public eye as VP. It would be great ticket until one, or both, of them reached the public’s gaffe saturation limit…

    Bottom line is that we needn’t even speculate until the primaries actually begin. It only leads to pointless arguments, bad feelings, and needless strife and division.

    Folks seem to become protective of the prospective candidates they support/are fond of/agree with, and tend to take a dim view of criticism of those folks. Some folks take it harder or even get indignant, moreso than others.

    It’s not good for team unity, and only serves to help Obama in the long rin; even though he’s giving us so much ammo…

  184. newrouter says:

    “Jeb or Romney, I figure.”

    helps to have votes

  185. newrouter says:

    “Folks seem to become protective of the prospective candidates they support/are fond of/agree with, and tend to take a dim view of criticism of those folks. ”

    i hate the ruling class. so if you like mitchy or any other political asshole be fore warned.

  186. Bob Reed says:

    I’m pretty sure Romney will never be the President of the United States. And it will be a bitter fight to keep the Huck from getting the nomination.

    That’s why I’m waiting to see who actually jumps imnto the contest.

  187. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Nah. Youse godda do dis afta ivry ‘lection. Heps ta git rid o da bad blood.

  188. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Bob, you’re pretty sure, I’m pretty sure. And Huckabee is for damn sure. He’ll see to it that Romney never reaches the oval office.

  189. Jeff G. says:

    it is so much fun to tear down mitchy on a blog rated 185,694 according to mozilla. mitchy they don’t like you on “ferret country blog @ 185,693?

    And with that, I’m officially done.

    G’night! Don’t forget to tip your waitresses!

  190. newrouter says:

    “Nah. Youse godda do dis afta ivry ‘lection. Heps ta git rid o da bad blood.”

    yes the “community organizer” in chief agrees. don’t let that crisis go to waste. the chicago dead are read.

  191. newrouter says:

    “G’night! Don’t forget to tip your waitresses!”

    maybe a pinch ;)

  192. bh says:

    Take him just as seriously as when he said pw was a seventh rate blog.

    As in, not at all.

  193. bh says:

    Actually, it might be easier to have newrouter tell us who isn’t a commie, a sympathizer, or ranked below Instapundit on the blog charts.

  194. Jeff G. says:

    Nearly ten years. And I’ll I got was this lousy t-shirt!

    Only without the shirt.

    You know what? Althouse and others are doing the intentionalism thing now. And there are plenty of newish OUTLAWS out there. Plus, I’ve got Frey badmouthing me to everyone he can surreptitiously email, because he’s a fucking paranoid, self-important whackjob — and my ordinary online “abrasiveness” has caused me nothing but a series of defections among one-time supporters, anyway.

    10 years is about enough. My mark on the blogosphere has been fairly pronounced, I think, but in terms of how it’ll be remembered, I’m a nobody. Ferret country blog @ 185,693. Seems about right.

    Later, all.

    If Darleen and the rest of you guys who can post want to keep this increasingly unimportant and (frankly) despised place alive, have at it. Maybe I’ll post again, maybe not. Honestly, I don’t think many people would care at this point. Turns out I’m more replaceable than I at one time imagined.

  195. bh says:

    Well, fuck.

  196. Pablo says:

    Dude, it’s newrouter.

    Helpful tip: Drano is not a suitable cocktail.

  197. Pablo says:

    That’s specially for newrouter, btw. Who’s too outlaw for outlaw.

  198. newrouter says:

    “I’m a nobody. Ferret country blog @ 185,693. Seems about right.”

    http://www.goldporntube.com is 167 so Take it easy

  199. Bob Reed says:

    Newish outlaws ain’t got your cred Jeff.

    But I have to admit you’re right about a whole lot of folks seem to be getting on the intentionalism train these days; whenever I see a post where someone’s arguing it, in a manner like they’ve just derived Fermat’s theorem or something, I just laugh and occasionally drop your name in their comments if I don’t have to register just to do so. Just like I have done lately when I’ve seen discussion of sell-out conservatives praising Obama in order to be seen as being CIVIL!

    We all have different seasons in our lives, and sometimes the change of seasons seems more starkly defined, at least that’s been my experience in life.

    I’m curious though, have you ever sent any of your stuff to Rush, Levin, or any of the other big timers who might be interested in your analysis, past and present?

  200. newrouter says:

    “Actually, it might be easier to have newrouter tell us who isn’t a commie, a sympathizer, or ranked below Instapundit on the blog charts.”

    oh heck i was goofing on firefox 3.6.13 and the stupid rating thing on the bottom right. if there is a ferret blog at 187… i have no idea.

    The Royal Scam

  201. bh says:

    Shit, this song works here, too.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGwCP2hX2FM

    Think I’ll have another drink and go to bed.

  202. Bob Reed says:

    Google has this site at a 6/10 page ranking.

    Now I’m not sure what that measn, but it’s better than 50%

  203. Bob Reed says:

    Yeah, I’m out too. After I thank newrouter, once again, for being such an uplifting presence here tonight…

    /sarc

  204. Joe says:

    When people are using your ideas and Patterico is bad mouthing you, you must be doing something right.

    I mean, jeeez, I only go on ferret country blog maybe once or twice a week.

  205. TRHein says:

    Ok feets, fess up. How much did you pay newrouter to play the heavy?

  206. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I you bail on this place Jeff, it’d better be because you’re busy writing the politically incorrect guide to cultural marxism or some damn thing like that.

    I like that this place is about the politics of ideas more than the politics of elections. Too many other places get all wee wee’d up about which team is winning the race at any given moment.

  207. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Forget it Joe, the Christers need to STFU or the hispanics and gays might not feel welcome.

    Maggie’s first commenter told me so.

  208. Carin says:

    Doug Ross is being unhelpful.

  209. Ernst Schreiber says:

    the Tea Party put aside social issues to focus on spendings, cause of America faces an existential crisis…

    Mitch gets that, and it’s what a Team R nominee in the age of Tea should do.

    You keep saying that. To which I keep saying spending is a social issue and needs to be framed that way.

    Do we need to keep repeating this pas de duh?

  210. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Ah Jesus H. Christ! Why do I bother replying before I finish reading your comments?

    Yeah. Rush is all about fags-n-fetuses. Social Conservatives are all about fags-n-fetuses.

    Enjoy cheerleading for the latest tax-collector in chief for the welfare-state. After all, not losing is just as good as winning!

    I think I join Jeff and embrace superfluousness.

  211. happyfeet says:

    If the Tea Party can succeed while putting aside social issues, then a Team R candidate should at least try it. And if Rush doesn’t think so them he should aim his same criticism of Daniels at the Tea Party, which has really dropped the ball on the fetuses.

  212. happyfeet says:

    *then* he should aim I mean

  213. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Did ‘feets just get unpersoned? A comment swallowed by the ether? Or am I just talking to myself?

    Which of course I do, but when you start doing it on line….

  214. happyfeet says:

    is spending is a social issue then of course mitch daniels is anathema

  215. Slartibartfast says:

    If you’re not dead by 80, we summarily off you.

    Unless you bribe us not to, through various taxesmandatory fees.

    Life Insurance gets a brand-new life!

  216. Ernst Schreiber says:

    There’s no point in arguing with you. You know what you feel and won’t be moved by anything else.

  217. cranky-d says:

    I tried my ancient log-in to post here on the main page and I guess it finally got deleted (or I forgot the password, or it got overwritten by the new account). Oh well, not much to say anyway, beyond the fact that if I were a Democrat, I would keep running black people as my candidates because enough in the electorate are afraid of appearing racist that they will prop up just about anyone. How else could you have a president who has much less approval for his policies than there is for the man himself.?

  218. Slartibartfast says:

    when you say thank goodness you’re being sarcastic which makes me feel even less appreciated than if you had said nothing at all

    happyfeets is completelymostly immune to sarcasm

  219. happyfeet says:

    sorry that was *if* spending is a social issue then of course mitch daniels is anathema

    of course there’s a point in arguing with me… just the other day Mr. sdferr convinced me to soften an uncharitable opinion of the Boehner

    and God help us but it looks like Boehner McConnell is what we got to work with for many many many moons

    the moons they are too many

  220. Ernst Schreiber says:

    How else could you have a president who has much less approval for his policies than there is for the man himself.?

    So you’re saying Clinton really was the first black president after all?

    (Personal approval rating is a polling gimmick to make it seem like there’s more support than really exists –ObamaCare is an abomination, the debt we’re racking up is disgraceful and the world is spinning out of control, but sure, he’s a good man!)

  221. Slartibartfast says:

    Did you guys know that Dick Cheney was once CEO of Halliburton?

    True story.

  222. happyfeet says:

    Barack Obama was once head of

    he was in charge of

    he was the guy responsible for

  223. McGehee says:

    Actually Ernst, Billy Jeff’s personal vs. job numbers were the revser of Barry Huss’. People gave BJ credit for the dotcom boom but had him pegged personally as a scumbag lawyer.

    In BH’s case, they deplore, despise and detest his policies but are scared to death of the social fallout should they disapprove of him personally.

  224. McGehee says:

    revser

    And this is why I wasn’t a red-carpet reporter at the Grammys or whatever the recent waste of time was in Horrorweird. Shoulda been “reverse.”

  225. McGehee says:

    Oh, and depending on how you pronounce “law” in the word “lawyer,” said word serves a dual purpose, especially in Billy Jeff’s case.

  226. Ernst Schreiber says:

    That was after Monica, McGehee. It was in his first term that we for the first time we’re blessed with a poll that discriminated between job approval and personal approval.

  227. donald says:

    Stossel/Howard!

  228. happyfeet says:

    delete delete delete!

  229. The reason Mitch is a player is because the GOP needs a candidate with executive experience to go up against a sitting President. Governors are good for this sort of thing. Especially in a crummy economy. Problem with Mitch is the Bush ties and yeah, big pharma will be a problem, but… I for one am glad he’s for big pharma, since a shitload of non-union white-collar people work for big pharma. Especially in the state where Mitch lives.

    If we were to go on big pharma ties, I’d go Christie for Pres with Mitch as VP. Lot more big pharma in the Garden State, plus lots of financial services cash.

    Mich is squishy on social issues because he’s a governor of a state caught between the Rust Belt, the Farm Belt and the Coal Belt. Farmers want their subsidies, Coal wants the EPA to leave them alone, hell, 2/3 of the employable in my county work or worked for the automotive sector and they want to keep making parts. He’s always going to be squishy.

    What bother’s me about Mitch is his tax problem. He’s openly contemplated a VAT, he has never addressed the state inheritance tax in a state with a lot of farms, and openly talks about raising taxes while goofing on the neighbors for raising taxes. He cut property taxes, which was nice, but then he raised the sales tax. The tax on gas and the tax on diesel is twice Kentucky or Missouri, so buy your gas at either end of 64. Don’t get me started on the feast or famine schools.

    He doesn’t have a chance at the big job, but he would be an effective negotiator for someone with vision. Problem is, unless someone with vision shows up, we’re stuck with a second term for Jimmy Carter/Wilson Goode/David Dinkins.

  230. alppuccino says:

    It can be hard when you have ties to the guy who was pretty much right about everything.

  231. Ernst Schreiber says:

    On some level, what is weak knows that it is weak; it understands that foundationally, it cannot support the weight of its own ideas, much less endure an opposing wind. And because weakness knows this, it goes out of its way to deflect the opposition by sowing confusion, chaos, guilt, fear. These are the by-products of weakness and its attendant insecurity. They are the telltale signs of weakness.

    [….]

    If and when the “Tea Party” begins to throw away members who do not absolutely conform to their ideals, or who politely disagree on a few issues, they should stop and consider that they are approaching that tipping-point of overreach, where insecurity begins to break through, and weakness is sown. Seeing this weakness, another movement with very different beliefs and goals will inevitably rise up against it.

    No Comment

  232. happyfeet says:

    As long as there’s a problem with the spendings and the Tea Party stays focused on it then what’s the problem? If the Tea Party wants to yimmer yammer about extraneous stuff then bam it’s indistinguishable from Team R.

  233. LBascom says:

    Well now, I can’t decide if this comment section is the open exchange of ideas and opinions among intelligent, strong willed individuals, or a high school cafeteria food fight.

    I think however, we can all agree PW is no echo chamber.

    Can I get an “Amen!”. ;-)

    I didn’t know that about Danials being director of the Office of Management and Budget from January 2001 through June 2003. That only polishes his fiscal acumen, we came out of 9/11 pretty quickly. Course marching the military into battle is usually helpful, but still.

    I just don’t think Danials is the complete candidate we need. We don’t need a talented CPA, we need a principled Commander in Chief that will attack the budget with a meat ax.

    Out of all our field, my best ticket would be Rudy Giuliani/ Herman Cain.

    I think that would be difficult for Obama.

  234. Big Bang Hunter says:

    ….In other Bumbblefuck News…..

    – Apparently the Golden Erkel re-election war cabinet understands how fucked up things will be if the chocolate jesus is left to depend on a weakening lame stream media to carry the message, particularly if they sense there’s more profit in throwing him under the printing presses. So, in anticipation we have:

    – The most transparent administration EVAH…

  235. Slartibartfast says:

    Can I get an “Amen!”. ;-)

    Up yours!

  236. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – ….And for what it’s worth, Rudy would be my choice, hands down.

    – If we’re looking for minimum negatives the media tried heroically but were never able to trash him, and the Left noise machine would have trouble from the git-go.

    – But basically I think he would be a strong leader, and tends to be popular with a wide range of voters.

  237. Slartibartfast says:

    He hasn’t shifted to the center, he’s shifted into 2012 campaign mode, one that let’s him be who is really is.

    let’s?

    How about lets?

  238. cranky-d says:

    Is it time for grammar correction? Yay!

    I want to slap everyone who uses an apostrophe for a simple plural, and draw and quarter people who think “alot” is a word. It’s “a lot.”

    Okay, I feel better now.

  239. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – And if anyone thought my reasoning about Rudy sounded like American bandstand (has a good beat, and easy to dance to) – Well bite me. :)

  240. Slartibartfast says:

    Is it time for grammar correction?

    Its always time for grammer correction.

    Your wellcome.

  241. John Bradley says:

    Those “I could care less” people? I want to rip their still-beating hearts from their respective ribcages and squeeze the juice on to my morning toast.

    I mean, how else will they learn?

  242. Big Bang Hunter says:

    – Not to worry. When the beer money for frat parties runs out, 90% of Bumbblefucks base will disappear.

  243. LBascom says:

    “Those “I could care less” people? I want to rip their still-beating hearts from their respective ribcages and squeeze the juice on to my morning toast.”

    Irregardless, can we get back to the topic on hand? My ventriloquist dummy and I want to argue over just how dreamy Mitch Danials is!

  244. McGehee says:

    Eye can’t sea watts teh porpoise off Annie off teas comets.

  245. McGehee says:

    Stooped Otto-cracked runed won off mind miss pellings.

  246. SDN says:

    LBascom, looks like Mr. Staunchy has more problems… because actually enforcing the law is hard…

  247. newrouter says:

    “My ventriloquist dummy and I want to argue over just how dreamy Mitch Danials is!”

    people stupid enough to vote for barack might vote for someone that rhythms with bitch

  248. ThomasD says:

    I use a lot a lot, and occasionally it comes out alot. Mea culpa.

    let’s?

    How about lets?

    Let’s is a contraction of let us. So let’s use it the way it is intended. The English language lets us do that.

  249. David Block says:

    #196. You quit posting and the bad guys win. I don’t give a crap about Frey. Try to avoid the joint at all costs.

    Stacy McCain on the other hand, now there’s some fine work.

    And I haven’t really been able to tell that Obumbles has EVER stopped campaigning.

  250. Slartibartfast says:

    Let’s is a contraction of let us.

    Sure. But expanding “let’s” to “let us” gives you “one that let us him be who is really is”, which is nonsense.

    If the sentence had been amended to “one that lets him be who he really is”, “let’s” would still make no sense.

  251. Well Danger, you know I used to be worried about my three inches. Until I found out some girls like it that wide.

  252. Squid says:

    It’s like I always say: “It may not be very thick, but it sure is short!”

  253. John Bradley says:

    “It’s not how long you make it, it’s how you make it long!”

Comments are closed.