Karl Rove, the Bushes, and most of the fellas at National Review wept.
The truth is, at some other moment in time, Daniels may have made a good GOP candidate. But this is an election where, win or lose, conservatives have to make their case and present a clear, unambiguous, and unapologetic defense of liberty, individualism, free market capitalism, natural rights, and the rule of law proceeding from the Constitution. Whether you like Daniels or not — and many swear by him — it is clear that his particular worldview is that conservatives must bracket social and “wedge” issues; strain to be liked (as opposed to merely being likeable); and bend over backwards to understand and in some ways accommodate the opposition.
This was the same counsel we received by a cowed GOP establishment in 2008 after McCain, who ran just such a campaign, was soundly whipped. And it’s the same advice being repeated back to us — by mostly those same people — that we’re to heed now that the 2012 election season is in its infancy, lest we be marginalized as extremists and rhetorical Visigoths.
No offense, “pragmatists.” But pound sand. We need to wake Americans up and give them a definitive choice. Those who would tell us the era of Reagan is over — that conservatism / classical liberalism itself needs be re-imagined as a sort of big government, low-tax “compassionate” nannystate — are not among those opinions we should bother with.
That is, aside from their value as sussing out who on “our side” is with us and who isn’t.
outlaw.
****
update: added video from 2009. I don’t know about others, but by 2009 it was pretty clear to me who and what we were dealing with, with respect to the President, this administration, and the current Democrat party leadership. So.
Sometimes Krauthammer drives me crazy, but often he’s spot on
Why the GOP establishment plays elections according to what Dems demand of them has got to speak to some psychological quirk.
Krauthammer likes squishes too, he just likes them less squishy. Pawlenty? Please.
I’m a huge Krauthammer fan, but he makes mistakes just like the rest of the beltway insiders do. He does not understand the feelings in flyover country. He does not understand the outlaw mindset.
Principles, not pragmatism.
My meh factor got cranked up a bit since his Missouri Plan defense but I suppose I’m a bit bummed that he didn’t go into a debate or two. He could have made his pitch regarding debt and growth and others could have made his pitch that would sound much like the above post itself. That would have been a good thing in my book.
But, a tangible good thing about this is that it removes some ambivalence from people like myself. (Have no idea what percentage that might represent.) Daniels — because of his record in Indiana — was the only person who didn’t make me want to puncture my eardrums when he made his super-majority, let’s-be-nice noises. Frankly this was because I always assumed he was a being a bit cynical as his words never quite matched his previous actions. For instance, when he defunded Planned Parenthood in Indiana he probably did it with a very nice smile.
With that ambivalence about the race removed, it’s Cain, Bachmann or Palin now, right? If I represent let’s say 15% of the base, that might be a non-negligible shift into the “fully support” column. Did this happen early enough to give one or all of them some momentum? If so, it’s probably better than hearing his pitch and the counterpoint pitch in the debates.
should have been “others could have made their pitch”, in the first paragraph above
Palin makes ya wonder.
If Palin took McCain’s seat, I might never stop giggling like a little girl.
The comments at the article Pablo linked are priceless. The Straw-Palin is taking a severe beating.
I still don’t think she’ll run, though, and I’d prefer it that way. I think her negatives are too high. On the other hand, I think by the time the MBM is done with whatever candidate the Rs put forth, the negatives will be too high.
I’m with bh. That would work for me quite well.
Meh. Daniels wasn’t impressive.
In other news, someone just bought a nice house in Scottsdale; that someone once lived in Alaska. If there were to be a campaign mounted, there’s the place it should come from.
Oh. I should read up-thread more often, eh?
I am still struck by others’ perception of Daniels at times.
When you say he wasn’t impressive, Serr8d, do you say this because of his soft rhetoric or some of those intangibles (not exciting, the “he’s shortbaldboring” complaint, etc). Or do you mean this in terms of his accomplishments as Governor?
First thing he did in office was to decertify the public unions. Last thing he did in office was to defund Planned Parenthood. And he did a few things in between.
Guy has his faults and weaknesses but his strengths were not imaginary.
Daniels’ lack of impressiveness is exemplified by his failure to have enough ‘juice’ in his hanging parts to even mount a run. Sure, he’s done a few good things in Indiana; so has Chris Christie in New Jersey. Whether or not those could translate to the national stage is the big question.
Look at BHO: he ran on a single concept, CHANGE; he kept much of his policies (such as they were) hidden. He lied to his base to get elected, and he’s still their champion. Could Daniels provide a good enough foil to BHO to get nominated, much less elected in November 2012? We’ll never know for sure, but I just don’t think he could’ve stirred up enough emotion to cut Obama’s March to a 2nd Term short.
Gotta be someone with a tremendous fire burning in the belly. And a lot of luck.
Well, I suppose it’s a fairly inarguable point that you can’t win the election if you don’t run.
I was just mentioning to someone today that only crazy people run for president. So it’s sort of hard for me to get too annoyed with a politician when they show they’re not actually crazy.
I think that’s fairly attributable to the old ball and chain. The media would have a ball with the married/divorced/married/divorced/married again angle. I take him at his word that family disinterest is the sole reason he’s passing.
The media will use that weapon, and if it doesn’t fit, they’ll use it on the candidate’s kids. It is what it is.
Oh, and being crazy – psychopathic might well be an advantage to a candidate.
This is something that’s been churning in the back of my mind for a while now. If this really is a referendum election a la Carter’s 1980 re-election bid, it shouldn’t matter who we run, should it? I’m having a hard time accepting the premise that there’ll be enough disaffection with Obama that he would be sure to lose but for our nominee. (e.g., is there really going to be a significant portion of the electorate thinking, “Obama’s terrible, but I just can’t vote for that Palin/Bachmann/Cain character after that character won the nomination?)
I’m thinking this way because I come at it from the opposite side. I don’t want to support any of the “electable” nominees because of the whole “losing more slowly” thing. But I just don’t know if I’m going to be able to not vote, or to vote 3rd party, knowing as I do that Obama is running for Carter’s third term.
My point, I guess, is that if Obama is truly beatable, he’s beatable by any candidate who succeeds in capturing the nomination of the opposition party. So we should be focused on getting the best candidate, and not worry so much about getting “the best candidate we can get” (meaning a candidate who meets the criteria set for us by others–Establicans, Conservative Intelligentsia, etc.).
There’s much difference in BHO and Jimmah, who was a known epic FAIL right after the failed hostage rescue attempt in April ’80. And, Cartah was not a community organizer; nor did he offer lots of free ‘other people’s money’ in exchange for votes. Even though a Democrat, he had not completely gone as far left as has this one.
We’ve a lot of factors working against us this cycle, including the many Americans who do not have the spine-backbone that prior generations of Americans possessed; many of these new ones are more susceptible to offers of freebies using spectacular oratorical skills in return for their votes.
Can you imagine what sort of reaction a far-left neo-Marxist politician using BHO’s arguments and tactics would’ve faced in any election prior to, oh, 1976? I guarantee he would not be allowed to get the once-proud Democratic party nomination, much less run for President on their ticket.
damn no mitch daniels to kick around anymore.
It’s rumored that she bought it — but I don’t see confirmation. And $1.7 million seems a tad steep unless she’s been making huge money. Which, maybe she has.
My opinion of Daniels is colored by the fact he went soft on the Dems in his legislature who staged the Hoosier Hustle; he thinks the GOP’s problem is Republicans aren’t liked, when what voters want in a candidate is that he/she can be TRUSTED (I cannot expect great things from a pol who doesn’t get this); and he let Indiana’s legal pimps foist this guy on him for the supreme court.
Maybe it isn’t fair to him, but politics has never been beanbag — and these days it makes the Capone/Moran gangster wars look like pattycake.
Heh. ‘Family objections’. Gym door, my ass.
Yeah, that bugs me. It does.
His wife gave him 16 stitches? You’re saying this even though he’s no longer a factor? Even though there is no pay off?
Ever consider the possibility that after reading all the bullshit written about him he decided it wasn’t worth it? That we were a fundamentally fucked up assembly of those who are just getting what’s coming to them?
Guy ran Indiana as a fairly hard right figure for eight years. His payback?
He’s short, bald, boring and his wife beats him.
Yay!
Might as well just keep BSing about him, bh. No sense in him ever having a voice again. Evil Syrian Manchurian candidate.
Not even a cheap, gold-plated watch, JD.
Just the basest insults towards his family life.
A family life not worth insulting. They separated and then got back together? Quelle horror!
Rush was pretty tough on Mitch, but far more critical of Newt on Friday. Mitch is just Mitch. As Rush noted, Newt knew Reaganism as well as Reagan did, and it was heartbreaking when Newt declared the era of Reagan to be over. Newt needs to drop out. He is done.
Right now the only conservative I see in the race is Herman Cain.
Mitch’s family life is his business. I doubt that is the reason he is not running. The stiches however are slightly relevant, only because such an event lends itself to Gerald Ford jokes.
At some point I should reconcile what I’d call “Jeff’s criticism” with much of the rest.
Just like I should one day write a post about how I feel out of phase with some of the rest of you regarding random aspects of our current debate. Meaning, I’ll never do it. It’ll just be some nebulous problem I have around the edges that just isn’t that important. Not because I couldn’t write it up poorly. I could. Very poorly.
Rather than do that, I’ll just say that I agree with Jeff when he said this isn’t Daniels’ time. I’ve said it myself. That we need someone doing the opposite of his notion of the super-majority. We need lines drawn. We need clarity.
All that said, could we not be dicks in the comment section, just this once? For a guy who’s been a template for other governors across the country? Would it kill us?
Couldn’t we just give Daniels that gold watch and thank him for his service?
In related news, I stopped listening to Rush when he started pretending that Daniels was the same as Romney. It was a lie. Pure and simple.
A lie.
You say we classical liberals/conservatives/libertarians need this in a candidate and we need that in a candidate, and yet you name no one with those characteristics. You don’t want Daniels? Okay, he’s gone. Who do you want? Name one single person who fits that bill, is actually running, and also knows what the right of return is. Until then it’s all just masturbation.
Well, I’ll give you three and a half, John.
Cain, Bachmann, Palin and Perry.
Cain, I’m not going to massacre him over the right of return. That would never be his actual policy. Wish he hadn’t said it, wish that had been in his briefing books (like 15 years ago, at least) but it means nothing towards policy. Are you telling me that, given his other statements, that’s a policy goal of his?
Bachmann. Agree with much of what she says. Can deal with the areas I don’t because it fits what others in the coalition want. She’s a bit ornery and headstrong.
Palin. Agree with much of what she says. She’s a bit ornery and headstrong. I like that. that’s why I said it twice.
Perry? Not running. Just throwing it out there because he’s not that bad of a stand in for this sort of exercise.
It’s May 2011. There’s plenty of this to come.
Is Putin a doppelganger for Daniels?
We have seen John before. Hilarity ensues.
It’s like J0hn is pretending that I haven’t advocated a specific type.
I’ll have to wait and see who runs. If Cain and Bachmann are both in, I’m with them. If Palin runs, I’d be with her. Perry, same. Ryan, same.
If I had to, I’d vote for Pawlenty. Or even Romney, if it came down to it. But my preference is with a movement type. I suspect Christie is waiting to be drafted. I’d take most others I mentioned over him. Newt? Blow me.
Yep,
J-zero-hn
J-zero-hn #2
Third time wasn’t the charm expected, sigh……
Fuck it.
Ohnoes. Someone get the hair spray. Or the DDT. Whatever works on this strange bastiche.
That was intended as tongue-in-cheek, as was the Mitch-stitches comment earlier, bh. Just so you know.
This pre-primary circus isn’t supposed to be ‘bluebirds, sunshine and happiness’. Let’s hope the best candidate does get the nomination. It it were to be Daniels, I’d have supported him. Now’s the time to point out the various weaknesses in the lot, because if we don’t, then certainly our opposition will have no qualms about doing so later. Air it all out, as theirs should have done before letting BHO take the reign(s}.
Heh. Everyone is entitled to opinions, right?
One more thing in response to J0hn: it is not my job to come up with specific candidates. It is my job to say what I want in a candidate; if a candidate wants my vote, he or she needs to have a set of principles I can get behind. That this is all “masturbation” is a narrow sense true: we’re discussing these things over a year out from the elections. But we are discussing them as a prelude to having to decide if we’ll once again sacrifice principle for “electability” (as determined by, naturally, those who themselves represent the idea of electability over principle), so in that sense I find these conversations worthwhile.
Had Daniels been the nominee I would likely have supported him, though his failure to fix the judge selection process, as well as his surrender to the Dem legislators who fled, were — in my mind — huge red flags. Tether to those his stated idea that we need to bend over backwards to accommodate those who disagree with us — that goal one is to be liked — and no, he was not my ideal choice.
As I’ve been saying over my last two+ years of wanking, I want this country given a stark and clear choice: socialist nannystatism, with certain “free” shit given in exchange for the new normal of stagnant economy, 10+% unemployment, and economic insustainability that will redound to our children and grandchildren, and that will result in a managed decline of the world’s sole superpower; or a competitive free market capitalist economy, and the primacy of the individual, individual liberty, and a small government meant to protect our natural rights, not act as those they grant them.
“In related news, I stopped listening to Rush when he started pretending that Daniels was the same as Romney. It was a lie. Pure and simple.”
You stopped listening to Rush because over Daniels? I find that incredible.
What was the lie, specifically?(as opposed to, you know, an opinion)
Technically, I didn’t stop listening because of Daniels. It’s not surprising in the least that Rush doesn’t like Daniels. For that matter, it isn’t surprising that other people don’t like him either. No, I stopped when Rush decided to give me a line of bullshit.
Remember that day when he kept intentionally mistaking Mitch and Mitt? Mitt Daniels. Mitch Romney. Mitch Daniels=Mitt Romney. There is no more obvious way to say it.
They’re not the same. Not even close. Pretending otherwise isn’t an opinion. It’s a falsehood.
For what it’s worth, I think now is a good time to be listening to both Limbaugh and Levin. And, if you don’t mind the occasional religious stuff (which, sorry, comes off a bit thick to me, though I’m sure it’s sincere), even Beck.
I happen to think they’ve been fairly prescient since at least mid 2008 (though I didn’t start listening to Limbaugh until very recently, and I don’t listen to Beck much at all). And I’m not just saying that because they tend to agree with me.
Well, I’m not just just saying that for that reason.
I’m sure that at some point I’ll be in my car and turn him on. Then I’ll laugh over some joke of his and I’ll be back in.
Beck can be a bit much for for me too. I’ve listened to Rush for over twenty years, and still remember my amazement at the time of hearing someone on the radio saying what I think. I’ve had disagreements with him, and times when I didn’t care to tune in to his show, but Rush is still great.
Levin is the bomb now though.
I would have cheerfully voted for Daniels if he was the candidate 2012, and I don’t blame his family or him for declining to go through what the Palins did. That was a cautionary tale for many a candidate, I’ll wager.
I can’t see why anyone would run and get that kind of scrutiny. Well, except Obama, since one does not scrutinize your savior.
I think I’m close to being on the same page as our host. I would vote for most of the current field (not Newt) but I would strongly prefer a candidate who provides a clear demarcation between himself/herself and what the progressives have to offer. We need stark contrasts right now. I want to know if liberty still matters to enough people. If it doesn’t, it may be time to hunker down a bit.