Move Mitch Daniels to the front of my Republican hopefuls

[mardi gras skin]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/sane-conservatism-watch.html

We believe it wrong ever to take a dollar from a free citizen without a very necessary public purpose, because each such taking diminishes the freedom to spend that dollar as its owner would prefer. When we do find it necessary, we feel a profound duty to use that dollar as carefully and effectively as possible, else we should never have taken it at all...

...Here I wish to be very plainspoken: It is up to us to show, specifically, the best way back to greatness, and to argue for it with all the passion of our patriotism. But, should the best way be blocked, while the enemy (debt) draws nearer, then someone will need to find the second best way. Or the third, because the nation’s survival requires it.

Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers. King Pyrrhus is remembered, but his nation disappeared. Winston Churchill set aside his lifetime loathing of Communism in order to fight World War II. Challenged as a hypocrite, he said that when the safety of Britain was at stake, his “conscience became a good girl.” We are at such a moment. I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying “I told you so” or “You should’ve done it my way.” ...

...We must display a heart for every American, and a special passion for those still on the first rung of life’s ladder. Upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise, and the stagnation of the middle class is in fact becoming a problem, on any fair reading of the facts. Our main task is not to see that people of great wealth add to it, but that those without much money have a greater chance to earn some.

Here's the full transcript of his speech. Some good stuff.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259623/mitch-daniels-cpac-kathryn-jean-lopez

[nonniey]

That is an impressive speach. I was pegging my hopes on Christie to run, but if that is what Daniels believes I'll have to consider him.

[luckydevil]

It was a nice speech, but his budget forecast in the Iraq war run-up is something I can't get over.

[mardi gras skin]

Who do you like, luckydevil?

[Chicken Fried]

Sounds good, but nobody ever seems to deliver. The only guy I really, really like is Ken Cuccinelli, but he doesn't have a shot. He's way too conservative for most.

[mardi gras skin]

Sounds good, but nobody ever seems to deliver.

It feels like the right time to give a solidly boring, responsible midwesterner a shot. All things being equal, give me a Hoosier for such a time as this.

[Predicto]

Sounds good, but nobody ever seems to deliver. The only guy I really, really like is Ken Cuccinelli, but he doesn't have a shot. He's way too conservative for most.

Ok, I'll bite. Why do you think that a person who has been the attorney general of a medium sized state (for only one year) would be a decent choice as a presidential candidate?

[SkinsHokieFan]

I like Mitch Daniels so far. However his hope is that the SoCons knock each other out and people find Romney too phony

I'd put him 4th behind Romney/Palin/Hucks

[Chicken Fried]

Ok, I'll bite. Why do you think that a person who has been the attorney general of a medium sized state (for only one year) would be a decent choice as a presidential candidate?

I wasn't baiting anyone haha. I was just saying. The reason is because he is one of the most conservative people in the country. Experience is not a priority anymore. Principles are. If someone will actually do what they say and are conservative, I will vote for that person. The size of the state of the candidate is the least of our concerns at this point.

[ACW]

I'd take Daniels. My top choice is Gary Johnson.

[Larry]

Experience is not a priority anymore. Principles are.

However, experience is how you tell the difference between principals and slogans.

[Chicken Fried]

However, experience is how you tell the difference between principals and slogans.
Touche, but Cuccinelli already has a very, very strong conservative record. It oozes red-blooded conservatism, and I love it. What you said is true of a lot of Tea Partiers trying to get elected. Also, I didn't say that experience was not important. It's just fairly low down on my list of important attributes, although I wouldn't vote for a candidate who had no opportunity up to that point in which he could prove that he walks the walk.

[twa]

I like Daniels and hope he runs

[luckydevil]

Who do you like, luckydevil?

Gary Johnson

[Predicto]

Touche, but Cuccinelli already has a very, very strong conservative record. It oozes red-blooded conservatism, and I love it.

I guess that is why I can't stand him. :ols: Red state - Blue state in a nutshell. :cheers:

[Fergasun]

All the Presidential candidates are replaceable. The only difference between them is style. Does anyone really believe that Hucks/Romney/Palin/Daniels would incorporate dramatically different policies? Or that a Hillary Presidency would be much different as well. Politics are driven by the parties, and the President is a figurehead.

[Chicken Fried]

I guess that is why I can't stand him. :ols: Red state - Blue state in a nutshell. :cheers:

Yep, except I unfortunately don't live in a red state anymore, at least on a national level.

---------- Post added February-15th-2011 at 12:02 AM ----------


All the Presidential candidates are replaceable. The only difference between them is style. Does anyone really believe that Hucks/Romney/Palin/Daniels would incorporate dramatically different policies? Or that a Hillary Presidency would be much different as well. Politics are driven by the parties, and the President is a figurehead.

I agree, and that's why I've been fed up with the Republican Party. It's a machine with an agenda, and they nominate whoever will get them the win. That's politics, but it also prevents people with real ideas and the character to actually go through with them from getting elected. The party will stifle out anyone who might buck the trend a little bit.

Sarah Palin, as much as I like her personality, is a product of the party as well, and I wouldn't necessarily want her as president. She is not a new kind of Republican like she is made out to be. She is more conservative (probably) than the average Republican, but she is nothing different. I don't really associate her with the Tea Party either. She seems like a great person, but her politics aren't bucking the trend. I can't see her changing much if given the chance.

[skinfan13]

Sounds good, but nobody ever seems to deliver. The only guy I really, really like is Ken Cuccinelli, but he doesn't have a shot. He's way too conservative for most.

Cuccinelli is a slimy POS. When you say "too conservative for most" the reality is that he's an extreme social conservative who's using dubious interpretations of our state constitution to forward his crazy socon agenda. To be brutally honest, I'd be much more likely to simply describe him a bigoted anti-intellectual ******* than anything else.

He is such an embarrassment to our great Commonwealth.

[/rant]

>Libertarian Virginia Military Institute ROTC cadet, not some liberal dip**** in his mother's basement.

[Chicken Fried]

Cuccinelli is a slimy POS. When you say "too conservative for most" the reality is that he's an extreme social conservative who's using dubious interpretations of our state constitution to forward his crazy socon agenda. To be brutally honest, I'd be much more likely to simply describe him a bigoted anti-intellectual ******* than anything else.

He is such an embarrassment to our great Commonwealth.

[/rant]

>Libertarian Virginia Military Institute ROTC cadet, not some liberal dip**** in his mother's basement.

Examples of his deranged agenda?

[skinfan13]

Examples of his deranged agenda?

immediately coming to mind is his extra-constitutional redefining of state college anti-discrimination laws for one.

[Rdskns2000]

There are no republican hopefuls, just sacrificial lambs.

The hope the Repubs have is for the economy to get worse and for unemployment to remain high or go even higher.

I'm hoping for some sort of third candidate to beat the odds and upset both Obama and the Repubs..

[Predicto]

Sarah Palin, as much as I like her personality, is a product of the party as well, and I wouldn't necessarily want her as president. She is not a new kind of Republican like she is made out to be. She is more conservative (probably) than the average Republican, but she is nothing different. I don't really associate her with the Tea Party either. She seems like a great person, but her politics aren't bucking the trend. I can't see her changing much if given the chance.

Ok now you have really lost me. That complete fraud Sarah Palin is a "great person," and you might want her has president, but not necessarily?

Oh dear.

[Hubbs]

I agree, and that's why I've been fed up with the Republican Party. It's a machine with an agenda, and they nominate whoever will get them the win. That's politics, but it also prevents people with real ideas and the character to actually go through with them from getting elected. The party will stifle out anyone who might buck the trend a little bit.

Sarah Palin, as much as I like her personality, is a product of the party as well, and I wouldn't necessarily want her as president. She is not a new kind of Republican like she is made out to be. She is more conservative (probably) than the average Republican, but she is nothing different. I don't really associate her with the Tea Party either. She seems like a great person, but her politics aren't bucking the trend. I can't see her changing much if given the chance.

Hmmm, I can think of a particular guy who seems to be the exact opposite of "a machine with an agenda". He also meets the "something different" and "bucking the trend" criteria. His name rhymes with Schmon Baul.

Gonna have to stick to your guns to vote for him, though. See, he's not a frontrunner, so therefore he can't win. Much easier to pick the latest good-looking cog in the machine with an agenda.

[SnyderShrugged]

Scarborough rips Daniels and I can see why now.

"Overlooked by Mr. Daniels’s Upper West Side coterie was the fact that before he was sworn in as governor, Daniels was director of George W. Bush’s Office of Management and Budget during the years that the national debt exploded to record levels. While the media dutifully reported on Daniels’s dark warning concerning the new “red menace” of debt, they somehow overlooked the fact that Daniels himself was a central player on the economic team that led us directly into that very crisis.

The “arsonist as fireman” metaphor is a particularly tight fit for Daniels. And while many New York media figures find his candidacy promising, I suspect they will become even more excited if given the chance to write general election headlines involving the Indiana governor.

I can see it now: “GOP Nominee Turned $236 Billion Surplus Into $400 Billion Deficit in Two Years.”

That page-turner would be followed, I suspect, by a snappy story explaining how Daniels was used by Donald Rumsfeld to discredit cost estimates on the Iraq War that embarrassed the White House. OMB Director Daniels mocked Lawrence Lindsey’s $200 billion Iraq estimate as “very, very high” and assured Congress that the costs would reach only between $50 billion and $60 billion.

In Daniels’s defense, it was only a trillion dollars or so off his original estimate. He was not 100 percent wrong about Iraq. His estimate was actually 1,000 percent wrong. But no matter. It was mission accomplished for Bush’s OMB director, as America went along with the invasion, Lindsey got fired and Daniels moved on to the governor’s mansion.

Given Daniels’s record on the national debt when it mattered most, you can count me as one Upper West Sider who has yet to be swept up by the excitement of “Mitch Mania.”



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49509.html#ixzz1E1uuHi9B

[Chicken Fried]

Ok now you have really lost me. That complete fraud Sarah Palin is a "great person," and you might want her has president, but not necessarily?

Oh dear.

I didn't say I might want her as president. If I had to choose from the typical GOP pool, though, I would probably pick her.

---------- Post added February-15th-2011 at 11:02 AM ----------


Hmmm, I can think of a particular guy who seems to be the exact opposite of "a machine with an agenda". He also meets the "something different" and "bucking the trend" criteria. His name rhymes with Schmon Baul.

Gonna have to stick to your guns to vote for him, though. See, he's not a frontrunner, so therefore he can't win. Much easier to pick the latest good-looking cog in the machine with an agenda.
Oh, I am very familiar with Quon Wall. I used to be a huge fan, then he came out in defense of wikileaks, and I lost all hope for the man. His conservative record is phenomenal, especially in terms of finances, although I'm still not to the point where I don't support getting involved in foreign wars. I still support the Iraq war and always will. He ought to be more open to the fact that sometimes you don't have a choice (not necessarily talking about Iraq). Back on topic though, when he defended wikileaks, I couldn't support him anymore. It's a shame. I still really like his son, though, as long as he keeps a "no comment" position on wikileaks.

[Hubbs]

Oh, I am very familiar with Quon Wall. I used to be a huge fan, then he came out in defense of wikileaks, and I lost all hope for the man. His conservative record is phenomenal, especially in terms of finances, although I'm still not to the point where I don't support getting involved in foreign wars. I still support the Iraq war and always will. He ought to be more open to the fact that sometimes you don't have a choice (not necessarily talking about Iraq). Back on topic though, when he defended wikileaks, I couldn't support him anymore. It's a shame. I still really like his son, though, as long as he keeps a "no comment" position on wikileaks.

An issue like Wikileaks can make you completely flip on a candidate? Wikileaks? Why is that not something like issue #783 on the list of things you care about when supporting someone?

[Chicken Fried]

An issue like Wikileaks can make you completely flip on a candidate? Wikileaks? Why is that not something like issue #783 on the list of things you care about when supporting someone?

When he thinks it's OK for someone to leak secret US documents that put our soldiers at greater risk of getting killed, not to mention the fact that terrorists now have documents outlining how our units operate, that is just scary. You can only be a small government and transparency guy up to a certain point, then you enter the crazy waters. I think he's already swimming.

[Koolblue13]

I still only see Paul and Kucinich as anybody I could vote for.

[TheLongshot]

When he thinks it's OK for someone to leak secret US documents that put our soldiers at greater risk of getting killed, not to mention the fact that terrorists now have documents outlining how our units operate, that is just scary. You can only be a small government and transparency guy up to a certain point, then you enter the crazy waters. I think he's already swimming.

The problem wasn't WikiLeaks. It was the guy who leaked the information in the first place.

But, given that many libertarians don't like that the government keeps secrets from the people and is for greater transparancy, you should expect some of this type of support. Personally, I find your comments somewhat ironic given your support for Cuccenelli, who is a glory hound and a nut job. That is a brand of crazy that I can't get behind.

[Chicken Fried]

Cuccenelli, who is a glory hound and a nut job.

Maybe so, but I don't think he's jeopardizing the safety of our soldiers in doing so.

[SnyderShrugged]

When he thinks it's OK for someone to leak secret US documents that put our soldiers at greater risk of getting killed, not to mention the fact that terrorists now have documents outlining how our units operate, that is just scary. You can only be a small government and transparency guy up to a certain point, then you enter the crazy waters. I think he's already swimming.

except no one was found to have been killed or put at risk to date, and most likely never will. Sounds like Bron Tall was correct after all!

[Chicken Fried]

except no one was found to have been killed or put at risk to date, and most likely never will. Sounds like Bron Tall was correct after all!

Where did you get that from? It's nobody's job to track the deaths of American servicemen and see if their deaths are related to wikileaks. That's not something the government is going to make a report about. And what about the military brass saying how they were dangerous leaks?

[Stadium-Armory]

I guess that is why I can't stand him. :ols: Red state - Blue state in a nutshell. :cheers:

Agreed, I'm not scared of women or homosexuals either.

[SnyderShrugged]

Where did you get that from? It's nobody's job to track the deaths of American servicemen and see if their deaths are related to wikileaks. That's not something the government is going to make a report about. And what about the military brass saying how they were dangerous leaks?

I got it from the fact that there has been no evidence indicating otherwise. You dont think that if they could have linked Wikileaks directly to even one death that they wouldnt have shouted it from the mountaintops?

[Chicken Fried]

I got it from the fact that there has been no evidence indicating otherwise. You dont think that if they could have linked Wikileaks directly to even one death that they wouldnt have shouted it from the mountaintops?
It would be awfully hard to prove the correlation in my opinion. In attempting to provide evidence, they might ultimately giving more information than is already out there. Anyway, it was only a couple months ago that the information was leaked.

[Hubbs]

When he thinks it's OK for someone to leak secret US documents that put our soldiers at greater risk of getting killed, not to mention the fact that terrorists now have documents outlining how our units operate, that is just scary. You can only be a small government and transparency guy up to a certain point, then you enter the crazy waters. I think he's already swimming.

Wikileaks didn't leak the documents. Lon Kaul doesn't want you to be prosecuted for mentioning information that someone else leaked.

[Chicken Fried]

Wikileaks didn't leak the documents. Lon Kaul doesn't want you to be prosecuted for mentioning information that someone else leaked.

Yes, that is true. Tron Doll doesn't want that, but he also deflects guilt from them and back onto the government for going to war with Iraq. He also says the line (paraphrasing), "At one point, it used to be patriotic to stand up to the government." In addition, he rationalizes wikileaks' actions by saying that their leaked documents exposed the lies of the Iraq war. He is doing more than saying they have no legal right to be prosecuted. He is actually in support of what they did.

[Hubbs]

Yes, that is true. Tron Doll doesn't want that, but he also deflects guilt from them and back onto the government for going to war with Iraq.

If that's where the fault lies, what's the real crime? Talking about it? Gosh, someone has the audacity to imply that we made a mistake? As a nation, it's hard to adopt the opinion of, "We screwed up." Entire political campaigns have been devoted to loudly shouting down anyone who would dare suggest such a thing. But here's the truth: We screwed up. We went into Iraq claiming that one of our cities was about to be turned into rubble because of iraqi WMDs that would be handed to terrorists, then in an effort to save face, we turned it into a campaign for democracy. Problem is, invading a country in order to install a different government generally alienates everyone watching, even if you have the best of intentions.

We screwed up. If your problem lies with acknowledging that fact, then your point has nothing to do with Wikileaks, and has everything to do with the fact that someone wants to say our mistake out loud. Fon Vaul is willing to say it out loud. Are we capable of screwing up or not?


He also says the line (paraphrasing), "At one point, it used to be patriotic to stand up to the government."

God forbid.


In addition, he rationalizes wikileaks' actions by saying that their leaked documents exposed the lies of the Iraq war. He is doing more than saying they have no legal right to be prosecuted. He is actually in support of what they did.

No, of course every aspect of the war in Iraq was a result of perfectly solid reasoning. There's no way that we could have made a mistake and attempted to avoid acknowledging the fact that we made a mistake when it involved such a politically explosive issue.

[SnyderShrugged]

It would be awfully hard to prove the correlation in my opinion. In attempting to provide evidence, they might ultimately giving more information than is already out there. Anyway, it was only a couple months ago that the information was leaked.

But you are trying to prove an opposite correlation that makes even less sense because there is evidence to the contrary whereas John Tall's perspective has evidence to match.

Your position is the stretch at this point when real circumstances are reviewed.

[Chicken Fried]

If that's where the fault lies, what's the real crime? Talking about it? Gosh, someone has the audacity to imply that we made a mistake? As a nation, it's hard to adopt the opinion of, "We screwed up." Entire political campaigns have been devoted to loudly shouting down anyone who would dare suggest such a thing. But here's the truth: We screwed up. We went into Iraq claiming that one of our cities was about to be turned into rubble because of iraqi WMDs that would be handed to terrorists, then in an effort to save face, we turned it into a campaign for democracy. Problem is, invading a country in order to install a different government generally alienates everyone watching, even if you have the best of intentions.

We screwed up. If your problem lies with acknowledging that fact, then your point has nothing to do with Wikileaks, and has everything to do with the fact that someone wants to say our mistake out loud. Fon Vaul is willing to say it out loud. Are we capable of screwing up or not?

Have you read anything I've posted in here before? I am one of the most critical posters of our government. It screws up every day, and I like to point that out. I don't make things rosy when they're not. This administration (including the Bush one although not as bad) has made huge mistakes that are ultimately going to hurt this nation. I still support the Iraq war, and I'm not going to get into a debate about its merits in this thread because we've both heard the same points, and we'll get nowhere. As for this discussion, the justification for the Iraq war is irrelevant. He's using it to deflect attention from the topic of his own speech - wikileaks.


God forbid.
I don't oppose what he said. I was critical of it because he used it to support his defense of wikileaks. In my opinion, the leaks are not "standing up to the government."



No, of course every aspect of the war in Iraq was a result of perfectly solid reasoning. There's no way that we could have made a mistake and attempted to avoid acknowledging the fact that we made a mistake when it involved such a politically explosive issue.
Again, the Iraq war's justification isn't really relevant. The issue about wikileaks is about whether they put our troops in danger. He goes off topic to talk about whether the war was justified.

---------- Post added February-16th-2011 at 11:31 AM ----------


But you are trying to prove an opposite correlation that makes even less sense because there is evidence to the contrary whereas John Tall's perspective has evidence to match.

Your position is the stretch at this point when real circumstances are reviewed.

That was confusing to read. What is the "evidence to the contrary?" The lack of hearing anything?

[SnyderShrugged]

Have you read anything I've posted in here before? I am one of the most critical posters of our government. It screws up every day, and I like to point that out. I don't make things rosy when they're not. This administration (including the Bush one although not as bad) has made huge mistakes that are ultimately going to hurt this nation. I still support the Iraq war, and I'm not going to get into a debate about its merits in this thread because we've both heard the same points, and we'll get nowhere. As for this discussion, the justification for the Iraq war is irrelevant. He's using it to deflect attention from the topic of his own speech - wikileaks.


I don't oppose what he said. I was critical of it because he used it to support his defense of wikileaks. In my opinion, the leaks are not "standing up to the government."



Again, the Iraq war's justification isn't really relevant. The issue about wikileaks is about whether they put our troops in danger. He goes off topic to talk about whether the war was justified.

---------- Post added February-16th-2011 at 11:31 AM ----------



That was confusing to read. What is the "evidence to the contrary?" The lack of hearing anything?

Yes, the lack of any credible evidence at all.

[Chicken Fried]

Yes, the lack of any credible evidence at all.

Well, let's just agree to disagree.

[SnyderShrugged]

Well, let's just agree to disagree.


Look, I respect you and I actually believed very closely to what you now believe for years. I get it.

But you are still a little blinded by the old way of thinking and you are probably a lot like me in that now that you are realizing some tough truths, its quite uncomfortable at times.

To disagree with me on this means that you know of evidence where soldiers were harmed due to wikileaks. I am unaware of any evidence to date, and I know for sure that if any evidence were known by anyone at all, that it would be very public. The US Gov has a hearton for Assange, no way they let evidence of harm caused by him lay silent. We both know this man, its time to jpin the new reality! (plus its fun!)

[Chicken Fried]

Look, I respect you and I actually believed very closely to what you now believe for years. I get it.

But you are still a little blinded by the old way of thinking and you are probably a lot like me in that now that you are realizing some tough truths, its quite uncomfortable at times.

To disagree with me on this means that you know of evidence where soldiers were harmed due to wikileaks. I am unaware of any evidence to date, and I know for sure that if any evidence were known by anyone at all, that it would be very public. The US Gov has a hearton for Assange, no way they let evidence of harm caused by him lay silent. We both know this man, its time to jpin the new reality! (plus its fun!)
I understand what you're saying, and I wish we could agree, but I keep thinking of this:


"I would hope that those who are responsible for this would, at some point in time, think about the responsibility that they have for lives that they're exposing and the potential that's there and stop leaking this information," Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS due to air Sunday.

And this:


Mullen added that "not just American troops" were imperiled by the unauthorized release, but that it "endangers the lives of other individuals that we've engaged in our overall efforts, whether they be in Afghanistan or other countries."

And this:



"The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners," Gates told reporters.

The documents reveal the names of Afghans who provided intelligence to the United States. Their lives are now in danger and their exposure will send a chill through anyone else thinking of helping.

You have to remember that the identities of American spies were revealed in addition to Afghan operatives. Those kinds of deaths aren't going to make it to the papers. I don't see why you would expect to hear a report directly relating wikileaks with American deaths. There are a lot of factors we don't know about that might make that impossible. All I'm saying is that the potential is there and will be for a long time, and the fact that there is that potential makes Assange a villain. Plus, this information was only leaked 2 months ago. I don't think anyone was expecting a sudden increase in American soldiers' deaths. It is probably impossible to even relate them. For example, the documents apparently had information on how our units operate. The insurgents use that information to plan an ambush (or something), and that results in our guys getting killed. That will go down (and be reported) as an IED or small arms attack, not an attack based on information provided by wikileaks. You have to think about this a little more realistically.