Quotes of the day

posted at 10:39 pm on February 25, 2011 by Allahpundit

“This is the G.O.P. quandary. The man who would be the party’s strongest candidate for the presidency is seriously thinking about not running. The country could use a serious, competent manager, which Governor Daniels has been, and still he’s thinking about not running. The historic moment calls for someone who can restrain debt while still helping government efficiently perform its duties. Daniels has spent his whole career preparing for this kind of moment, and still he’s thinking about not running.

“The country also needs a substantive debate about the role of government. That’s exactly what an Obama-Daniels contest would provide. Yet because Daniels is a normal person who doesn’t have an insatiable desire for higher office, he’s thinking about not running…

“He couldn’t match Obama in grace and elegance, but he could on substance. They could have a great and clarifying debate: What exactly are the paramount problems facing the country? What is government’s role in solving them?

“I hope Daniels gives us a chance to be part of that.”

***
GOV. MITCH DANIELS: I think that David Brooks is right most of the time, but even his good judgment deserts him now and then. And maybe this was one of those occasions that — there’s nobody whose regard I would rather have, honestly, than his. And I was gratified, of course.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, you’ve said you are considering it. What more do you need to know before — to make a decision to go?

GOV. MITCH DANIELS: It’s a long subject, but there are a lot of concerns that are very, very personal and family-oriented.

And I really do want to see our party step up to its responsibilities, as the loyal opposition, on the biggest questions of the day. And I think the single biggest question is the debt, which threatens to ruin the economy — not just the economy, but the position of this nation in the world.

And I would like to help do that, but there are ways to help other than throw yourself off that cliff.

***
“The class act of the Republican congressional delegation (House and Senate alike) is clearly the bold, articulate, personable Congressman Ryan. The most well-liked and respected Republican governor is Chris Christie. Both are dynamite in one-on-one confrontations. Both would shred Obama in a debate. Christie doesn’t look the part, but as Noemie Emery has noted, there are advantages even to that. Ryan, a true believer in the founding ideals, is presidential timber. The question is whether either man will seize the opportunity at the perfect, needful time to reclaim those ideals — or whether they’ll only step forward once we’ve already passed the tipping point.

“Too many Republicans fail to grasp the urgency of the moment. In addition to Ryan and Christie, Mike Pence, a telegenic, presidential-looking conservative, who would also appeal to both Tea Partiers and more establishment types, should reverse his decision and opt back into the race. Any Republican who thinks he or she might be the best, most electable, candidate should run…

“Given the extraordinary decision faced by Americans in 2012, it is the profoundest understatement that it’s time for Republicans to put the varsity on the field. The finest candidates in the Republican Party owe it to their country, and to the ideals in which they believe, to enter this race with a determination to win. And the rest of us who love our country need to do all that we can to draft them into service. Through Facebook pages — here are Ryan’s and Christie’s — word of mouth, and civic interaction of all sorts, we must act now.”

***
Click the image to watch.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Thus the Bushites are going to send in Jeb in the late innings to ‘bring us together’ and there will be just enough votes to get him the nom.
JimP on February 26, 2011 at 10:37 AM

No. In another time, that might have worked. Not saying they won’t try. But the jig is up for these people. It’s a new game, a new world. We can thank Obama, in a way.

These insipid elites will provide the warm-up round for Palin. Then, it’s on to the Left, and the political battle royal of modern American history. It’s a battle we have to have. There is no “coming together” until we have this battle. Palin is the one to fight it.

rrpjr on February 26, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Wow. You’re disgusting.

Fallon on February 26, 2011 at 11:24 AM

You never hit on all cylinders do you?

Your thought process is disturbing to say the least.

darwin on February 26, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Says the poster who hits on one cylinder and has a thought process like a corkscrew.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Says the poster who hits on one cylinder and has a thought process like a corkscrew.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Wow good comeback. Seems I heard that before somewhere./

You are an ugly person you know that right?

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2011 at 11:35 AM

Says the poster who hits on one cylinder and has a thought process like a corkscrew.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Are you a child? Seriously. Are you?

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 11:38 AM

You can’t legislate abortion, repair the economy, balance the budget, or fight terrorism when there isn’t a country anymore.

adamsmith on February 26, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Hmmm I think there are strong arguments that say we cannot save the country without working to end abortion, repairing the economy, and fighting terrorism. Big surprise DoucheStar bought that line though. So simplistic.

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2011 at 11:39 AM

Looks that way. Palin’s only real ‘merits’ over Ann are that she doesn’t include mass-murder fantasies in her canned talking points, and she has a cute little short-bus kid to parade around for brownie points.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I don’t even know what to say about that.

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Pug-My suspicion is that D-Star is a college kid who does some sort of illegal drug, has been responsible for his/her fair share of abortions, and has dabbled in bisexuality. Just guesses based on his posting history.

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2011 at 11:42 AM

short-bus kid

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011

Pug it just shows how ugly and unhappy the D-Star is. That says much more about him than this whole discussion, Palin, or her beautiful child.

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2011 at 11:43 AM

Pug-My suspicion is that D-Star is a college kid who does some sort of illegal drug, has been responsible for his/her fair share of abortions, and has dabbled in bisexuality. Just guesses based on his posting history.

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2011 at 11:42 AM

A stable, traditional, two parent household probably wasn’t the cornerstone of his upbringing, either. Nor was it mine, so there’s hope for it yet.

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 11:45 AM

Looks that way. Palin’s only real ‘merits’ over Ann are that she doesn’t include mass-murder fantasies in her canned talking points, and she has a cute little short-bus kid to parade around for brownie points.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

You’re way too young to live the rest of your life like that.

kingsjester on February 26, 2011 at 11:46 AM

“He couldn’t match Obama in grace and elegance, but he could on substance. They could have a great and clarifying debate…” (David Brooks)

Someone who considers himself a politically thoughtful and morally inquisitive adult — nevermind an intellectual and a conservative — actually said this.

Aside from being hilarious in multiple ways (Obama has “grace” and “elegance”?, or even “substance”? — or that the media or Obama would ever tolerate a “great and clarifying debate”? — these are just howlers — you soon realize why we’re in the fix we’re in. Because of nimrods like this who occupy our ruling class.

The great purge is coming.

rrpjr on February 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM

You’re way too young to live the rest of your life like that.

kingsjester on February 26, 2011 at 11:46 AM

People trying to justify the killing of their own children will mock children.

CWforFreedom on February 26, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Because of nimrods like this who occupy our ruling class.

The great purge is coming.

rrpjr on February 26, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Interesting factoid: The bible refers to Nimrod “a mighty warrior before the lord” (Gen. 10:10).

Back to our regular programming.

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 11:53 AM

“ALT” as a Realtor who has helped many people move, I strongly recommend you do NOT attempt to purchase a home in a new locality without being there. Advice from my fellow Texan Katy is spot on. I am currently working with a client who moved here into an apartment. He’s savvy and gave up on the “remote buying” after a few discussions with me. He got a contract for a year, with the ability to “buy out” of it by paying 80% of one month’s rent and 60 days notice. Now, 80% of one month’s rent is a flat out BARGAIN when compared with ending up in a house you hate, or a neighborhood you hate, or a commute you hate… See?

Webrider on February 26, 2011 at 12:01 PM

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Good to note. A descendant of Ham and king of Shinar (next to Shinola, I believe). Perhaps the slang use can represent the degradation both of meanings and of the ruling class from mighty warriors to “idiots, jerks.”

rrpjr on February 26, 2011 at 12:02 PM

I see all the fear about Palin’s electability and am reminded of all the talk about Ronald Reagan in his climb to the nomination. Too old, an “actor” for god’s sakes, dim witted, and one of my favorites, “only a B grade actor”. We all know how that turned out don’t we? Letting fear of Palin (I have some worries about her myself, but don’t see anyone even close to her ability or past performance out there) rule your decision is what I was warning about before. WE CANNOT LET THE MSM CHOOSE OUR CANDIDATE FOR US. How did McCain work out? THINK PEOPLE!

Webrider on February 26, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Non-stop partying at the White House: Another White House Shindig -Gladys Knight Will Perform For Obamas On Monday

I guess there are not enough days in the weekend for little Bammie and his posse. Maybe the Republicans should look at the Wagyu Beef budget line next.

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2011 at 12:11 PM

and she has a cute little short-bus kid to parade around for brownie points.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

When you think people cannot go any lower, Dark-Star appears to prove us all wrong.

portlandon on February 26, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I see all the fear about Palin’s electability and am reminded of all the talk about Ronald Reagan in his climb to the nomination. Too old, an “actor” for god’s sakes, dim witted, and one of my favorites, “only a B grade actor”. We all know how that turned out don’t we? Letting fear of Palin (I have some worries about her myself, but don’t see anyone even close to her ability or past performance out there) rule your decision is what I was warning about before. WE CANNOT LET THE MSM CHOOSE OUR CANDIDATE FOR US. How did McCain work out? THINK PEOPLE!

Webrider on February 26, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Time Magazine – March 31, 1980

National opinion polls continue to show Carter leading Reagan by an apparently comfortable margin of about 25%. They also show that more moderate Republicans like Ford would run better against the President. This suggests that Reagan is not the strongest G.O.P. choice for the November election and that he clearly faces an uphill battle.”

Party operatives are plainly unhappy with his selection. In Massachusetts, where both Bush and Anderson defeated Reagan, party leaders are not yet reconciled to the Reagan candidacy. Says one: “There’s a vacuum of leadership at the national level; and what appears to be the Republican Party’s response? A 69-year-old man who has done virtually nothing for years”

“Reagan has a history of committing rhetorical blunders that drive away voters. His quest in 1976 was damaged when he suggested vaguely, without proper research and consideration, that $90 billion in federal programs should be turned back to the states. He then spent months explaining that the affected programs would not be eliminated, only transferred. As Governor, Reagan was outraged by student unrest and once proclaimed: “The state of California has no business subsidizing intellectual curiosity.”

“Worse perhaps than the verbal gaffe is Reagan’s relentlessly simple-minded discussion of complex problems. He is aware that he is charged with this failing, and in his 1967 inaugural address on becoming Governor of California, he asserted: “We have been told there are no simple answers to complex problems. Well, the truth is there are simple answers, just not easy ones.”

portlandon on February 26, 2011 at 12:12 PM

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 11:53 AM

Good to note. A descendant of Ham and king of Shinar (next to Shinola, I believe). Perhaps the slang use can represent the degradation both of meanings and of the ruling class from mighty warriors to “idiots, jerks.”

rrpjr on February 26, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Yeah, it’s a kin to calling someone, whose conclusions are suspect, “Einstein.”

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Looks that way. Palin’s only real ‘merits’ over Ann are that she doesn’t include mass-murder fantasies in her canned talking points, and she has a cute little short-bus kid to parade around for brownie points.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Don’t you have a cake to bake?

ladyingray on February 26, 2011 at 12:19 PM

rrpjr on February 26, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Brother, I sure hope you are right! Briefly, over the last month or so I’ve seen and heard things from the Bushes that turned me against them completely. I never agreed with their governing philosophy, but thought they were decent, well meaning people. The last months have revealed them to me as arrogant, totally out of touch elitists who think they know what’s best and fancy themselves the GOP version of the Kennedies. And they ARE mounting a stealth campaign for Jeb. Even O’Reilly is thumping the Jeb drum. (Not that he’d admit it of course)

JimP on February 26, 2011 at 12:27 PM

rrpjr on February 26, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Rereading most post, it sounded argumentative at the end. Didn’t mean it that way. Only emphasizing my very strong impression/conclusion that the Bushites are going to try and insert Jeb.

JimP on February 26, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Right on, Portlandon. You’ve captured a small sample of what I was talking about (didn’t have time to search, kinda busy) but I remember it well and at the time, I decided if they were that against the man I better give him a second look. I did and voted for him, happily.

Webrider on February 26, 2011 at 12:31 PM

“Palin is Like Google Before It went Public”

Toney Lee, Human Events

Viator on February 26, 2011 at 12:32 PM

Bushites are going to try and insert Jeb.

JimP on February 26, 2011 at 12:30 PM

They’d have more luck inserting an enema tube sideways.

SKYFOX on February 26, 2011 at 1:18 PM

JimP on February 26, 2011 at 12:30 PM

I didn’t find your point argumentative. You were making a reasonable thought experiment based on past history. This is what the Bush elites will want to do, for sure. And they will be desperate as never before. But they do not have the mettle to pull it off. It would fail embarrassingly. These elites can be vicious and sharp but are overmatched now. History is not only not on their side, and not neutral, it is hostile to them. And they are not fighters in the sense that Palin is — openly and honestly. It is all “backroom” with them, snideness, oblique attacks, using catspaws. Out in the open, forget it. And it’s all out in the open now, or will be. Reagan kicked Bush Sr.’s ass in 1980, and Perot did the same in 1992 — out in the open.

rrpjr on February 26, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Looks that way. Palin’s only real ‘merits’ over Ann are that she doesn’t include mass-murder fantasies in her canned talking points, and she has a cute little short-bus kid to parade around for brownie points.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Someone needs to be on the receiving end of a much deserved a$$-kicking, very soon.

Midas on February 26, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Looks that way. Palin’s only real ‘merits’ over Ann are that she doesn’t include mass-murder fantasies in her canned talking points, and she has a cute little short-bus kid to parade around for brownie points.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I don’t even know what to say about that.

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 11:41 AM

Its preferred candidate must be sinking out of sight.

ddrintn on February 26, 2011 at 2:33 PM

NOW do you get it?

Drop your SoCon fixation and

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:22 AM

I will not drop it. I can fight the battle on all fronts. Anyone who thinks they can leave their flanks open to assault, or their supply lines vulnerable to sabotage has absolutely 0 chance of ever winning a war.

Tell me oh great one, battle one on the fiscal front, Generation Baby Boomer is retiring, they voted for all these generous generational transfers of wealth to themselves. How do you convince them to suck it up and live on less unless you convince them that they are being socially immoral by forcing the younger generation to mortgage their entire futures to pay for their leisurely years? You cannot do that. Until you force them to face the fact that they are evil for trying to force someone else to pay for their slovenly ways, they will never vote for fiscal sanity as long as they know that fiscal sanity relies on taking from them.

Battle number two. You are not going to be able to get rid of the generational theft schemes of Social Security and Medicare, because no one saved any freaking money or had any children, both are social issues, not fiscal ones. Since this is going to end up being the case, we keep paying for the slovenly elderly to live, that means to continue stealing from the current working generation. Now explain to me how you are going to convince a large population that is hindered from saving for their own futures while they pay for someone elses, that the programs they are paying for will not be there for them when they want to retire? You will not be able to, not unless you bring forth social issues that force them that as American citizens, they have the social responsibility to pay for their fathers and mothers sins while denying themselves the said same sinful future.

Thus, with a continued degradation of the moral fabric of this nation, you will never stop the fiscal disaster from coming to its culmination of the insolvency of the United States of America. Be it happens in 2020 or if it happens in 2040, so long as no one has the moral character to just say no, it will happen.

astonerii on February 26, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Looks that way. Palin’s only real ‘merits’ over Ann are that she doesn’t include mass-murder fantasies in her canned talking points, and she has a cute little short-bus kid to parade around for brownie points.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Dark-Star = Scum.

Geochelone on February 26, 2011 at 4:45 PM

David Brooks of the NY Times is endorsing Daniels? that’s not going to help in the primary…

But I would like the name of his dry cleaners; clearly they can put a crease in some pants like nobody else.

gekkobear on February 26, 2011 at 5:01 PM

…she has a cute little short-bus kid to parade around for brownie points.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

What a valid point… I mean women who have children should never work; they should be in the kitchen where they belong… right? Women should be second class citizens… or something.

No? Oh, then all children who might be disabled should be removed from the gene-poll forcibly to improve the race, yes? Lets kill all the “undesirables” for the good of humanity… that’s a noble goal… right?

No? Then I can’t see what your point is with this comment.

I’m not sure how having, keeping, and caring for a disabled child is a negative in your world? Is it having the child that bothers you, or caring for it, or not dropping her entire world because she has children?

Simply put. Are you misogynistic to the point where you want to chain women in the home, working for a “purer breed” of human by eliminating all undesirables, or do you simply hold an inconceivable hatred of anyone who might be a little different from you?

You’d have to hold one of those positions for the statement you said to hold any weight at all? So which (you can pick both if you want) of the above are positions you hold?

I’m just curious what sort of sick jerk you are… clearly one or the other (or just garden variety crazy) must apply. Willing to give clarification or should we guess?

gekkobear on February 26, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Dark-Star is just jealous that his favorite people do not have the children that emphasize their good points like Palin does. That is why he puts this as one of her saving graces, yet in a negative light because he does not support her.

astonerii on February 26, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Looks that way. Palin’s only real ‘merits’ over Ann are that she doesn’t include mass-murder fantasies in her canned talking points, and she has a cute little short-bus kid to parade around for brownie points.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I was also a cute little ‘short-bus’ kid.
I’m may not be a Palinista-but you ARE certainly an a**!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 26, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Speaking of Romney “I like a Republican who can get elected in a blue state”

The problem is that Romney probably can’t get elected in a red state.

roux on February 26, 2011 at 5:46 PM

Wow, I noticed that Dark Star’s original 11:20 am post was removed, and based on what he posted from the quoted responses, I am glad the mods did their job here.

Now for the big question: did Dark Star’s disparaging reference to Palin’s child warrant the ban hammer? I hope so.

karenhasfreedom on February 26, 2011 at 5:49 PM

Now for the big question: did Dark Star’s disparaging reference to Palin’s child warrant the ban hammer? I hope so.

karenhasfreedom on February 26, 2011 at 5:49 PM

I do not think ban hammer is the right route. It only becomes needed when the community as a whole is unwilling to police itself. Enough people here are working to keeping the discussions useful over all.

I got banned on RedState for simply saying that asking for proof of citizenship is not a mental disorder. Now, when you go there, I deleted my link there a while back, all it is is a bunch of ass kissing losers that would not be able to argue themselves out of a wet paper bag if someone left it laying on its side with the top open.

astonerii on February 26, 2011 at 6:19 PM

astonerii on February 26, 2011 at 6:19 PM

More than RS; I’ve noticed that on some other nominally conservative websites there is less tolerance for far right posters than for liberal posters. Sad how they end up being cowed into that.

They still don’t come anywhere near the levels of intolerance for dissenting views displayed at liberal sites though.

slickwillie2001 on February 26, 2011 at 6:36 PM

No? Then I can’t see what your point is with this comment.

gekkobear on February 26, 2011 at 5:07 PM

As the spittle-flecked freakout demonstrated quite well, all Palin has to do is show her kid around and say “duh mean old librulz is hating on mah chyld!”…and in a textbook Pavlovian response, the usual suspects come riding to her ‘aid’, foaming at the mouth.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Are you a child? Seriously. Are you?

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Are you a paid Coulter troll? Seriously. Are you?

Have anything else besides stupid questions, muttwriter?

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 7:23 PM

and she has a cute little short-bus kid to parade around for brownie points.

Dark-Star on February 26, 2011 at 11:20 AM

I don’t even know what to say about that.

pugwriter on February 26, 2011 at 11:41 AM

-
I do… Gee a little punka** posting nasty remarks about a child. Try that sh*t in the real world coward. Obviously your dad forgot to flush… and so you lived.
-

RalphyBoy on February 27, 2011 at 12:32 AM

“Reagan kicked Bush Sr.’s ass in 1980, and Perot did the same in 1992 — out in the open.”

Clinton 43.01
Bush 37.45
Perot 18.91

Based purely on the percentages, Perot threw the election to Clinton.

davod on February 27, 2011 at 7:05 AM

I do… Gee a little punka** posting nasty remarks about a child. Try that sh*t in the real world coward. Obviously your dad forgot to flush… and so you lived.
-

RalphyBoy on February 27, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Gee, you’re as brave as wrong4life, you hog-nosed wingnut.

Dark-Star on February 27, 2011 at 9:08 AM

Our nation fought this battle twice; once because people were being forced to pick cotton and paid nothing, then once again when working men and women were paid almost nothing and treated very little better.

Dark-Star on February 22, 2011 at 1:41 PM

Just remember, folks, Dark-Star equates Wisconsin’s teachers with slaves picking cotton. Is it really surprising he would also hate special needs kids?

runawayyyy on February 27, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Based purely on the percentages, Perot threw the election to Clinton.

davod on February 27, 2011 at 7:05 AM

I vote for Perot in 1992-but in my defense…I was only 22.
Youth is wasted on the young.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2011 at 4:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6