Which GOP frontrunner passes the cap-and-trade purity test?

posted at 12:55 pm on May 11, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

All right, I confess … this race doesn’t really have any fronrunners, does it?  Let’s define this more carefully.  Of the Republican candidates who get the most serious consideration for a presidential bid at this stage of the race, who is the only one not to have supported (or at least flirted with) cap and trade?  According to Dave Weigel, it’s Mitch Daniels:

One of the conventional wisdoms of presidential campaigns is that governors are better candidates than senators; they’ve got executive experience! The downside of that experience, when it comes to an issue like this, is that governing is hard; compromises have to be made; ideas that sound good, and that advisers recommend, get tried out even if a conservative think tank says they’re rotten. Even Sarah Palin created a subcabinet study group on carbon that we’re going to hear about if she runs. (At the time, like most subcabinet study groups, it generated no news.) Is GOP dream candidate Chris Christie safe? Nope; New Jersey’s part of RGGI, too, and only now is he talking about pulling out of it.

Gingrich’s flirtation with cap and trade (and, yes, everyone on this list can say he supported a different version that wouldn’t have Killed American Jobs, like the version that actually passed the House) is probably best explained as one of the many ideas he has found interesting for a while, then moved on from. A cynic might ask if he stopped talking about it because his organizations started taking in huge donations from the energy industry. But the change of heart put him in line with the new conservative orthodoxy on this issue.

Want to guess which potential Republican candidate looks ready to pass the pH test on this? Mitch Daniels. In early 2009, when the issue was ill-defined, he was already arguing against it. That’s a nice arrow in the quiver the next time he’s asked about the “social truce.”

Actually, I’d put Palin in the same category as Daniels, or at least close to it, on the basis Dave uses here.  Asking for a subcommittee study is as significant as a “listening tour” in terms of announced policy.  Palin will have more trouble on this issue dealing with her partnership for C&T advocate John McCain in the 2008 election than she will in explaining a request for a “study group” on carbon.  Like most of the other candidates mentioned by Dave, Palin has had to distance herself from a position, but it’s easier to distance herself from her former running mate’s position on cap-and-trade than distancing one’s self from one’s own positions.

Daniels will most assuredly not have that problem.  While other Republicans flirted with C&T, Daniels forcefully campaigned against it as “imperialism” of the more populous states, specifically in response to the Waxman-Markey bill that ended up dying in the 111th Session of Congress (which I noted two years ago):

Quite simply, it looks like imperialism. This bill would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers — California, Massachusetts and New York — seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly.

The Waxman-Markey legislation would more than double electricity bills in Indiana. Years of reform in taxation, regulation and infrastructure-building would be largely erased at a stroke. In recent years, Indiana has led the nation in capturing international investment, repatriating dollars spent on foreign goods or oil and employing Americans with them. Waxman-Markey seems designed to reverse that flow. “Closed: Gone to China” signs would cover Indiana’s stores and factories.

Our state’s share of national income has been slipping for decades, but it is offset in part by living costs some 8% lower than the national average. Doubled utility bills for low-income Hoosiers would be an especially cruel consequence of the Waxman bill. Forgive us for not being impressed at danglings of welfare-like repayments to some of those still employed, with some fraction of the dollars extracted from our state.

And for what? No honest estimate pretends to suggest that a U.S. cap-and-trade regime will move the world’s thermometer by so much as a tenth of a degree a half century from now. My fellow citizens are being ordered to accept impoverishment for a policy that won’t save a single polar bear.

Tim Pawlenty has done a good job in admitting fault and changing his position.  Other candidates have been less forthcoming on their C&T flirtations.  If the 2012 primary is fought on the basis of economics and government control, Daniels can legitimately claim to have been far ahead of the curve in the Republican field.  But first, of course, Daniels has to decide whether he’s running at all.  If not, Republicans will have to choose among candidates who offer the best explanation for seeing the light.

Update: By 2009, Palin was actively opposing cap and trade, as she did in this 2009 Washington Post essay.


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 2

According to Dave Weigel,

Why give that a-hole attention?

the_nile on May 11, 2011 at 12:57 PM

Actually, I’d put Palin in the same category as Daniels, or at least close to it…

Don’t you dare, Ed! ;)

Anyhoo, the Daniels-deranged will wave this away as nothing worth a look. In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels. Boggles my mind.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

I hope Palin does run maybe Mitch Daniels could run on her ticket as VP – perhaps the Bush faction of the Republican party should remember that in the primaries smear Palin at your own risk. But then again if they don’t get their candidate on the top of the ticket, they are happy to saddle us with 4 more years of Obama.

Dr Evil on May 11, 2011 at 1:00 PM

In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels. Boggles my mind.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

He doesn’t say anything original…

the_nile on May 11, 2011 at 1:03 PM

You are right, Ed.

Sarah Palin decided to have a study done on the Global Warming hype, because if there was even a chance a portion of it were accurate at all, Alaska would be the most at risk due to the geography involved.

When she really began to actively oppose the entire notion was when the Hockey Stick Graph scandal broke out, and it was obvious that what was passed off as science was in fact manipulated figures to serve as political propaganda.

She has been a fierce opponent of Cap and Trade ever since then.

I would note you don’t hear John McCain talking that up much anymore either.

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 1:03 PM

… In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels CRIST. Boggles my mind.

JetBoy on May 11, 2009 at 12:59 PM

Just sayin’

PS: I’m very prepared to support Daniels if need be.

mankai on May 11, 2011 at 1:04 PM

I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels. Boggles my mind.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Charlie Christ is holding for you on line 1.

james23 on May 11, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Actually, I’d put Palin in the same category as Daniels, or at least close to it, on the basis Dave uses here. Asking for a subcommittee study is as significant as a “listening tour” in terms of announced policy.

In the 2008 VP debate against Biden, she unambiguously supported carbon caps. Perhaps not exactly the same as “cap and trade”, but her support went beyond merely appointing a subcommittee.

Hollowpoint on May 11, 2011 at 1:04 PM

more important is rhetoric vs. action, those in power or seriously trying to gain power while the Dems were popular and economy was good under Bush are very likely to have shown some form of rhetorical mention or meaningless support to some carbon initiative.

more important is actually following through with it and being a true believer in global warming.

jp on May 11, 2011 at 1:04 PM

It’s not important to me whether one of them made a mistake in the past, we all do. What IS important to me is how they dealt with that mistake. Do they understand it as a mistake, genuinely? Do they admit the mistake? Have they genuinely changed their position, changed their mind, changed their approach? If so, fine.

That’s why I’m fine with Pawlenty on the C&T issue.

There are lots of things that lots of us thought might be ok, or interesting or a good idea, but upon further study or reflection said “no thanks”. If you had the smarts to investigate further, and the courage to admit you erred, good on ya!

Less on May 11, 2011 at 1:05 PM

Palin will have more trouble on this issue dealing with her partnership for C&T advocate John McCain in the 2008 election than she will in explaining a request for a “study group” on carbon. Like most of the other candidates mentioned by Dave, Palin has had to distance herself from a position, but it’s easier to distance herself from her former running mate’s position on cap-and-trade than distancing one’s self from one’s own positions.

But what is her position?

All she has to do now is say that yes she supported McCain’s policy as his VP, but, “After having studied the issue, I now see that cap and trade would be disasterous for America.”

davidk on May 11, 2011 at 1:07 PM

In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels. Boggles my mind.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Let me try this yet another time:

Social issues truce: bad idea to alienate your own turnout machine, not to mention the morality of it.

VAT: not just no, but HELLS NO!

The fact that so many establishment DCGOP types are pushing him makes me automatically suspicious, as it should you.

He said the other day he is probably not ready to debate Obama on foreign policy. I would like someone who is, and has been already doing it with vigor.

There may be more as time progresses.

These are honest issues I have with what I have seen of him so far.
I am not enthused.

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 1:07 PM

I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels. Boggles my mind.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

He’s solid VP material, done a good job on the economy in Indiana, and good credientials on the federal economy. But he’s a squish. Minimal charisma, and totally limp on foreign policy by his own admission. There needs to be a little excitement on the head of the ticket, and he doesn’t generate it.

Who knows, though, he might come out of his shell and get a little fire in the belly. Time will tell.

iurockhead on May 11, 2011 at 1:08 PM

According to Dave Weigel, it’s Mitch Daniels:

And Dave Weigel has the best interests of the Republican party at heart.

You can just tell…

In other posts, Weigel describes conservatives as using the media to “violently, angrily divide America.” According to Weigel, their motives include “racism” and protecting “white privilege,” and for some of the top conservatives in D.C., a nihilistic thirst for power. [...]

“It’s really a disgrace that an amoral shut-in like Drudge maintains the influence he does on the news cycle while gay-baiting, lying, and flubbing facts to this degree.”

So this guy wants Mitch Daniels?

Gee, I wonder why?

sharrukin on May 11, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Mitch Daniels is not a charismatic or anything resembling an exciting candidate. Daniels is of the Bush school of politics so if people want more of the same they can line up for Daniels. Except Daniels isn’t going to be accused of being a cowboy so what will be his distinctive selling point?

Dr Evil on May 11, 2011 at 1:10 PM

davidk on May 11, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Sarah Palin will have no problem with this issue because she isn’t running.

Hate me now, believer me later.

NickDeringer on May 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Social issues truce: bad idea to alienate your own turnout machine, not to mention the morality of it.

VAT: not just no, but HELLS NO!

Those were merely IDEAS…not rock-solid platform positions. Dear gawd, did you read Ed’s post even? No cheer for not supporting C&T?

Perhaps Daniels needs to go camping with “Octomom” and her kids to gain any credibility, huh?

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Anyhoo, the Daniels-deranged will wave this away as nothing worth a look. In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels. Boggles my mind.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

For starters, he’s not given us a clear indication that he’ll run. As to the other reason… anyone who might pose a threat to the unelectable snowbilly simply won’t be considered at all by a segment of HA “conservatives”.

I’ll give him a serious look if he runs, though I’m a bit concerned about the gaffes he’s made recently. I ain’t wedded to anyone just yet.

Hollowpoint on May 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Ed is just another Establishment Republican telling us that Mitch may be more boring than oatmeal but he’s the RINO we should get behind.

bw222 on May 11, 2011 at 1:13 PM

In the 2008 VP debate against Biden, she unambiguously supported carbon caps. Perhaps not exactly the same as “cap and trade”, but her support went beyond merely appointing a subcommittee.

Hollowpoint on May 11, 2011 at 1:04 PM

In the 2008 VP debate against Biden, she was prepared for the debate by McCain policy advisers.

You know this.

The Washington Post

The ‘Cap And Tax’ Dead End

By Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 14, 2009

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 1:13 PM

You quote Dave Weigel as if he actually had something to say.

SKYFOX on May 11, 2011 at 1:14 PM

This reminds me of ESPN talking about the NFL during baseball season. Patience my darlings.

faraway on May 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Mitch Daniels = GWB’s third term and a placeholder for Jeb until 2016.

bw222 on May 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Sarah Palin will have no problem with this issue because she isn’t running.

Hate me now, believer me later.

NickDeringer on May 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Another Karnac the Magnificent.

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM

You quote Dave Weigel as if he actually had something to say.

SKYFOX on May 11, 2011 at 1:14 PM

Kos didn’t return Ed’s call.

bw222 on May 11, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Hollowpoint on May 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM

Unelectable snowbilly.

You are all class, minus the cl.

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Dave Weigel…? You cannot be serious!

d1carter on May 11, 2011 at 1:16 PM

Perhaps Daniels needs to go camping with “Octomom” and her kids to gain any credibility, huh?

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM

For him , it would be a good start.

the_nile on May 11, 2011 at 1:16 PM

In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels. Boggles my mind.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

Gaaawd….do we have to go through all the reasons….again?

tencole on May 11, 2011 at 1:17 PM

What’s wrong with Citizen Cain?

Patriots must align with an individual who will take the fight first to the GOP, and then to Obama, without reserve and without quarter. We must not afflict ourselves with inside-the-Beltway mentality about the necessity of our “top-tier” candidate having so-called experience in Washington or other councils of government. Look where that mentality has brought us. Nor must we buy in to the empty cult of celebrity that so easily seduces the left.

In short, we must support and advance the candidacy of a capable citizen who not only speaks the language of freedom and democratic republicanism, but also lives it. We must support someone who has the wonderful temerity and capability to defend what is worth defending. If we are serious about really changing the American political culture, we must support and advance the candidacy of Herman Cain, citizen.

flyfisher on May 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Hold on to year dreams and keep reaching for the stars.

NickDeringer on May 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM

In the 2008 VP debate against Biden, she unambiguously supported carbon caps. Perhaps not exactly the same as “cap and trade”, but her support went beyond merely appointing a subcommittee.

Hollowpoint on May 11, 2011 at 1:04 PM

Boy, you’re not too bright sometimes.

“In the 2008 VP debate against Biden”…..with VP being the important word.

tencole on May 11, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Palin will have more trouble on this issue dealing with her partnership for C&T advocate John McCain in the 2008 election than she will in explaining a request for a “study group” on carbon.

Kudos to Mitch Daniels for taking a strong and consistently correct position on this issue, but we shouldn’t fault Sarah Palin for requesting a “study group”.

“Global Warming” alarmists are continuously claiming that “warming” will hurt polar areas of the world more than temperate or tropical areas, so as Governor of the northernmost state, part of which is above the Arctic Circle, Palin was responsible enough to “study” the science before blindly jumping on either bandwagon (for or against Cap and Trade) before she had studied the issue for herself.

Although Palin is now considered the “Drill Baby Drill” candidate, as a member of the Oil and Gas Commission, and later Governor of Alaska, she fought AGAINST a consortium of large oil companies trying to “corner the market”, and changed regulations in order to make the oil and gas market more competitive and fairer.

On the Cap and Trade issue, and energy issues in general, Sarah Palin is probably the most knowledgeable Republican candidate, because she is NOT in the pocket of Big Oil, and because she DID HER HOMEWORK and STUDIED the issue BEFORE reaching her position, which is the opposite of what ideologues like Al Gore or Newt Gingrich have done (remember Newt and Nancy Pelosi in their global-warming loveseat)?

This is not to say that Sarah Palin is the best Republican candidate on other issues, but her credentials and credibility are impeccable on energy development.

Steve Z on May 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Gotta give Mitch credit. Wish more in GOP understood the issue as clearly as he.

…proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy

Cap ‘n’ trade would redistribute wealth from the largely Republican Middle America to the largely Democrat areas in big cities and along the coasts.

petefrt on May 11, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Kudos to Mitch Daniels for taking a strong and consistently correct position on this issue, but we shouldn’t fault Sarah Palin for requesting a “study group”.

Daniels takes a consistent strong stand, and Palin wants a “study group”…

’nuff said.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Steve Z on May 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Well said.

As I noted earlier, when the Hockey Stick Fraud Scandal broke out, she attacked the entire global warming movement as based on fraudulent science used as propaganda, and has fiercely opposed cap and trade in the WaPo, on TV and social media ever since. That WaPo op-ed she wrote prompted a response from John F’n Kerry who served in Vietnam the next Monday.

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 1:29 PM

This is not to say that Sarah Palin is the best Republican candidate on other issues, but her credentials and credibility are impeccable on energy development.

Steve Z on May 11, 2011 at 1:22 PM

Yep and what front and center of a big concern to Americans today? The price of gas and the lack of an energy plan. Will that be any different in the summer of 2012?

Energy is going to be a hot button issue in 2012 – Obama has permitoriums he has to overcome, and you know loaning money to Brazil to drill so we can buy their oil. Exactly what would Sarah Palin as a candidate have to overcome? I mean besides a very good record up in Alaska. Drill Here Drill Now? Drill Baby Drill. I wonder which energy positions Americans will chose/

Dr Evil on May 11, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Palin is THE best on the energy issue. Hands down.

When she runs, she will have an sensible energy plan for this nation and SHE WILL DO IT !

stenwin77 on May 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Yep, what is front and center, and of a big concern to Americans today?

Dr Evil on May 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Daniels takes a consistent strong stand, and Palin wants wanted a “study group”… in 2007.

’nuff said.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 1:26 PM

FIFY

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Gov. Daniels’s position on Crap and Tax is welcome, but I’m really tired of those politicians whose only arguments against the folly are economic.

I’m still waiting for the one candidate with the guts to stand up and declare the entire ‘climate change’ (née ‘global warming’) nonsense the utter fraud that it really is, a hoax designed to impose top-down Marxist principles on the entire Western world.

/Mr Lynn

MrLynn on May 11, 2011 at 1:31 PM

In Indiana, coal is really important to the economy. I would think that Daniels and Palin both would have a decent record on this because of where they come from.

Terrye on May 11, 2011 at 1:32 PM

davidk on May 11, 2011 at 1:07 PM
Sarah Palin will have no problem with this issue because she isn’t running.

Hate me now, believer me later.

NickDeringer on May 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM

You are SO VERY WRONG.

Beefing up her campaign staff.
Making major policy speeches overseas.
Presenting a major “Palin doctrine” outline to the troops.

So she can open a tanning salon in AK? Ummmm, I don’t think so.

stenwin77 on May 11, 2011 at 1:34 PM

“Got VAT” Mitch Daniels?

stenwin77 on May 11, 2011 at 1:34 PM

… In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels CRIST. Boggles my mind.

JetBoy on May 11, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Just sayin’

PS: I’m very prepared to support Daniels if need be

Yeah, Mitch Daniels is just like Charlie Crist. Except for the fact that Mitch just signed into laws stripping Planned Parenthood of all public funding in the State.

And the fact that he just got a law passed reforming our public education to limit collective bargaining rights for teachers, tie teacher pay to student performance, and provide universal access to vouchers. The phrase “most comprehensive education reform in the United States” has been tossed around.

Oh, and the fact that he got a constitutional amendment passed capping our state’s property taxes.

Well, and then there’s the fact that he privatized our State’s toll road for $4 billion, which fully funded all of our State’s highway projects for a decade.

My gosh, I almost forgot about the fact that has lowered our State’s spending by $800 million over the last two years, and just got a budget passed that will have a $1 billion surplus over the next two years.

I could go on about what he has done for the State.

And in terms of the VAT, my understanding is that he has talked about this issue not in terms of adding a VAT to our current tax system. But reforming the system to switch to a consumption tax (or a consumption tax and flat tax) as the main revenue source.

Bru on May 11, 2011 at 1:34 PM

What’s wrong with Citizen Cain?

flyfisher on May 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Mostly the fact that he’s never once won an election.

Judged purely on substance, his performance in the debate was underwhelming.

Hollowpoint on May 11, 2011 at 1:35 PM

I’m not a fan of litmus tests, but in particular I think that the AGW bandwagon is a poor one to use. A lot of politicians fell for the bad science, as they often do with a lot of bad or poorly reported science (such as embryonic stem cell research). They tend to be quick to jump on these bandwagons because they want to be perceived as smart and forward-looking. What matters is how they untangle themselves from it once the mask has been removed. And, to be fair, the public has been slow to come off the AGW bandwagon, so why would we expect politicians to be quicker?

So I’d kind of give all of the Rs a bogey on this stuff.

But Mitch Daniels loves him some ethanol and he was willing to ask the EPA to increase the amount of ethanol blended in gasoline a couple of summers ago. And he seems immobilized on the issue of gas taxes and gas prices in Indiana, which I was reading last week are the highest in the country.

That’s not to say Daniels is a fatally-flawed candidate, I just don’t see that he is any closer to perfection than most of the others on energy issues. I suspect Palin is probably the best-positioned on that score (and, no, I’m not a big Palin supporter, but fair is fair).

Y-not on May 11, 2011 at 1:36 PM

In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels. Boggles my mind.
LALALALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALA

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

FIFY

fossten on May 11, 2011 at 1:43 PM

And in terms of the VAT, my understanding is that he has talked about this issue not in terms of adding a VAT to our current tax system. But reforming the system to switch to a consumption tax (or a consumption tax and flat tax) as the main revenue source.

Bru on May 11, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Your understanding? Got a link to back this?

fossten on May 11, 2011 at 1:45 PM

I think a lot of people don’t like Mitch b/c he doesn’t make people feel warm and fuzzy when he talks like Obama did. The fact is, as soon as Daniels took office he stripped many rights from the unions. He just defunded Planned Parenthood. He has made Indiana even more business friendly, while our neighbors Illinois and Michigan are basically begging businesses to leave. Is he perfect? Hell no, he’s human. But he was a big shot in the corporate world prior to public office (Eli Lilly, maybe? don’t remember). Yes, he’s not real strong on the social issues…but again, we’re not going to have a perfect candidate. I would certainly support him over a majority of the pretenders we’re offering up so far…….

search4truth on May 11, 2011 at 1:45 PM

In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels. Boggles my mind.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

I used to like Daniels. I really did. Then he let slip that he thought adding a VAT to the income tax would be a good idea. That was it for me.

Some folks would never vote for Giuliani because he was OK with abortion. I liked Giuliani and argued that his position on that was immaterial because even as president, he most likely could not affect policy in that area. A VAT, on the other hand, is a completely different story.

I will vote for Daniels if he is the nominee because Øbama is way worse, but I’ll do it with my nose firmly pinched shut, much the same way I voted for McCain. However, I would never, ever support him in the primaries.

Kafir on May 11, 2011 at 1:46 PM

Yeah, Mitch Daniels is just like Charlie Crist. Except for the fact that Mitch just signed into laws stripping Planned Parenthood of all public funding in the State.

Well that doesn’t seem like such a tough decision for a state like Indiana.
Almost seems like a no brainer to me……
THAT’S RIGHT I SAID IT!

tencole on May 11, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Well now, since uber-staunch-conservative Dave Weigel says Daniels is OK, then I’m jumpin’ on the bandwagon!

/sarc

Seriously though, why do we even care what Dave Weigel, of the odious and hyper-partisan Washington Post, has to say?

RocketmanBob on May 11, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Your understanding? Got a link to back this?

fossten on May 11, 2011 at 1:45 PM

Yeah, I do. But I’m not sure how reliable the link is, so consider the source:

All Daniels is suggesting, I take it, is replacing the brackets with a single income tax rate of, say, 15% and then dropping, say, a 10% VAT on goods and services, which would in theory make tax collection vastly more efficient while giving taxpayers an extra measure of control in deciding how much tax they pay. Want to reduce your debt to Uncle Sam this year? Simple — under a VAT, you’d just spend less.

Bru on May 11, 2011 at 1:50 PM

fossten, I’m not a big Daniels fan, but I’ve read at many places that his VAT idea was coupled to tax code simplification. Here’s a link I found (circa Oct 2010) after a quick search:

Daniels, once the Hudson Institute’s chief executive, described himself as an acolyte of Kahn’s and marveled at the creative thinking evident in his 1982 book, “The Coming Boom.”

Daniels recited from Kahn’s book: “It would be most useful to redesign the tax system to discourage consumption and encourage savings and investment. One obvious possibility is a value added tax and flat income tax, with the only exception being a lower standard deduction.”

“That might suit our current situation pretty well,” said Daniels

Y-not on May 11, 2011 at 1:51 PM

I used to like Daniels. I really did. Then he let slip that he thought adding a VAT to the income tax would be a good idea. That was it for me.

Is he pushing for VAT right now?

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 1:55 PM

Daniels never pushed for a VAT on TOP of the income tax. That is a lie. He pushed it as part of a simplification of the tax code, while lowering the income tax rate to a flat system.

cdog0613 on May 11, 2011 at 1:59 PM

flyfisher on May 11, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Yeah, I’ll continue my streak of primary losers and back Cain (if he makes it to the NC primary intact)… but I can’t imagine a scenario by which he gets the nomination.

My preference after that is a governor… which leaves me Daniels, Mittens, Palin, Johnson and Pawlenty (at the moment)… not exactly murderer’s row. Of that crew< I'd have to go with T-Paw first.

mankai on May 11, 2011 at 2:00 PM

I get the strange feeling that certain “elements” within conservative GOPers are going to ensure another 4 years of The One…just like they did in 2008.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:01 PM

In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

While Obama has been proven to be all sizzle and no steak, we have to be careful not to overcompensate with a candidate who is all hamburger and no sizzle.

Fallon on May 11, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Seriously though, why do we even care what Dave Weigel, of the odious and hyper-partisan Washington Post, has to say?

RocketmanBob on May 11, 2011 at 1:50 PM

As Rush Limbaugh has said many times, the intensity with which the left attacks a candidate illustrates how much they fear him/her. Who on the left has been attacking Mitch Daniels? Crickets.

bw222 on May 11, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Daniels never pushed for a VAT on TOP of the income tax. That is a lie. He pushed it as part of a simplification of the tax code, while lowering the income tax rate to a flat system.

cdog0613 on May 11, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Shhh…the Daniels-deranged don’t care about the facts of Daniels’ record. They’re writing their own narrative.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:03 PM

Who’s Dave Weigel and why do we care what he thinks?

Daniels isn’t acceptable. He’s too willing to throw us under the bus to appease elites.
I’m really starting to like Herman Cain. And if you disagree you’re a racist!!! (its so much fun to throw that at libs!)

Iblis on May 11, 2011 at 2:03 PM

While Obama has been proven to be all sizzle and no steak, we have to be careful not to overcompensate with a candidate who is all hamburger and no sizzle.

Fallon on May 11, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Never heard it put so…deliciously…

Daniels has sizzle, and he’s no ground chuck. I don’t care if a candidate has all the bells and whistles, it’s about substance, not style.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Why is Daniels’ name on the list of GOP candidates getting the most serious consideration at all?! Daniels, the squish, hasn’t even formally annouced, right? He’s waiting for his boss (aka: the little woman; his better half; the ball and chain) to give him permission. This is BS from the GOP establishment RINOs. Apparently Daniels is a guy who will ‘play ball’ with the Rockefellers. If he has to get permission from his spouse he definitely doesn’t have the fire in the belly to stand up to the Dems and RINOs to do what needs to be done to turn the country around. He obviously is not a leader or his wife would already be on board. Please don’t waste our time governor.

JimP on May 11, 2011 at 2:05 PM

In all honesty, I cannot for the life of me understand why more HA conservatives aren’t backing Daniels.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 12:59 PM

It could have something to do with the fact that every time Mitch opens his mouth he says something to p!ss us off. He has more errors than a quadrapalegic playing third base.

JetBoy, look in the mirror. You aren’t a conservative. You don’t think like we do. You are always behind the most liberal pro-life candidate that doesn’t have a “D” behind his/her name. This time next month you will be pitching Jon Huntsman.

bw222 on May 11, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Right now the (so-called) front runners don’t interest me

ohiobabe on May 11, 2011 at 2:11 PM

According to Dave Weigel,

I stopped reading after that.

Why give this discredited Journolist Obama-hack a**hole the light of day????

Ed, please stop referring to this idiot.

Norwegian on May 11, 2011 at 2:12 PM

JetBoy, look in the mirror. You aren’t a conservative. You don’t think like we do. You are always behind the most liberal pro-life candidate that doesn’t have a “D” behind his/her name. This time next month you will be pitching Jon Huntsman.

bw222 on May 11, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Oh, sure. Mitch Daniels is a liberal.

You’re right about one thing…I do not think like you do. Perhaps you’re not the real conservative.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:12 PM

Besides the VAT tax what I have against Mitch Daniels is Daniels = GWB. That’s just what we want Dumb-Ø to do, right, run against GWB just like he did last time. How did that turn out? Look I’m sick of GWB. I didn’t agree with Medicare part D, no child left behind, and I am especially pissed off about bailing out the banks.
That idiot Daniels is also a loser because he doesn’t care about what happens to his wife if he runs. We saw what the media did to their guy McLame last time. Look at the lies they made up about McLame’s wife. You don’t think that they are going to viciously rip up Sherry Daniels? She has to be unstable in the first place because nobody in their right mind gets up and leaves their 4 kids. Who does this guy care about, his ego or his wife. His first priority should be shielding his wife. After all she came back to him didn’t she.
I’m also sick of the republicans running an old white guy. We need to take that argument away from the Øppressives. I’d rather the republicans run a conservative who minorities feel they can identify with be it a woman, a black, or an Hispanic than a white RINO. It will damage the democrat party for a long, long time. People will feel liberated in getting off of their Øppressive plantation.
Running losers like Daniels or Romney also sets it up very nicely for Jeb in 2016. And I’m sick of Karl Rove. May he get hemorrhoids for a month!

Jayrae on May 11, 2011 at 2:15 PM

If Daniels has sizzle, so did Pat Paulsen (God rest his soul.)

kingsjester on May 11, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Bru on May 11, 2011 at 1:34 PM

AMEN….

People who do not live in Indiana and do not follow Indiana will never understand what he has accomplished here. It is sad that they take one or two comments out of context and turn against the best (possible) candidate in the field, but stand up for Mitt, which way is the wind blowing, Romney, or any of the other 2 faces politicos in the field

The only thing Mitch has done to upset me here in the state is pass that stupid Day Light Saving Time BS….

the_ancient on May 11, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Never heard it put so…deliciously…

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:05 PM

Ah… lunchtime. Seriously, there has to be policy, ideology AND something extra to beat Obama. Daniels, to me, falls short (pun not intended). If you think he has some sizzle, so be it. I just don’t hear it or see it.

Fallon on May 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Jayrae on May 11, 2011 at 2:15 PM

What he or she said.

Fallon on May 11, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Why is a guy with ZERO grassroots organization getting such press?

beatcanvas on May 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM

This is not to say that Sarah Palin is the best Republican candidate on other issues, but her credentials and credibility are impeccable on energy development.

Too bad she’s a losing bet with independents and is considered a national punch line.

Move on.

rickyricardo on May 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM

Sarah Palin will have no problem with this issue because she isn’t running.

Hate me now, believer me later.

NickDeringer on May 11, 2011 at 1:12 PM

I was saying that about a year ago.

But like

stenwin77 on May 11, 2011 at 1:34 PM

I have to believe she is. She’s acting awfully presidential candidate-ish for someone who is not running.

davidk on May 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM

“He has more errors than a quadrapalegic playing third base.
bw222

LOL. Good line.

As for Daniels conservative bona fides in Indiana, for the Daniels supporters here, he doesn’t show the kind of personality needed to accomplish what needs doing. Indiana and DC are NOT the same. Even Dems in Indiana are more conservative and more likely to cooperate with conservatives than Dems in DC with the likes of Pelosi, Frank, Schumer, Reid and a cast of thousands of other commies who help to support statism and the leftward march to total tyranny. Daniels has no fire, no charisma and is a waste of time. So, what he did in Indiana doesn’t matter.

JimP on May 11, 2011 at 2:31 PM

jetboy once again backing the candidate most likely to be endorsed by the NYTimes. how’d that work for ya last presidential election?

chasdal on May 11, 2011 at 2:33 PM

So what? Daniels isn’t in favor of Cap-and-Trade taxes on energy? He sure does love him some other energy taxes:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels opened the door Thursday to supporting both a value added tax and a tariff on imported oil, bold proposals that could cause trouble for him with conservatives as he flirts with a long-shot bid for the presidency.

Daniels also suggested support for increasing gasoline taxes. Kahn wrote, in a passage Daniels read from Thursday, “One fully justifiable tax would be on imported oil. Any large importation of oil by the U.S. raises security problems. There are, in effect, external costs associated with importing oil that a tariff would internalize.

steebo77 on May 11, 2011 at 2:33 PM

This guy needs a reality show and a Facebook page ASAP! Results are so boring.

Chazz on May 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Why is a guy with ZERO grassroots organization getting such press?

beatcanvas on May 11, 2011 at 2:25 PM

Good question. The guy polls, what, 2%? Where did this synthetic Mitch buzz come from?

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 2:40 PM

This guy needs a reality show and a Facebook page ASAP! Results are so boring.

Chazz on May 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Palin didn’t become exciting because she was on television. She was given a television spot because she’s exciting. Charisma is something you either have or you don’t. Daniels doesn’t. Plus, he’s a Bushie. Never.

alwaysfiredup on May 11, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Good question. The guy polls, what, 2%?

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 2:40 PM

2% plus the support of all the GOP Establishment apparently makes one electable, whereas 10-15% support and tons of grassroots excitement make one unelectable. Isn’t it obvious?

alwaysfiredup on May 11, 2011 at 2:43 PM

That idiot Daniels is also a loser because he doesn’t care about what happens to his wife if he runs. We saw what the media did to their guy McLame last time. Look at the lies they made up about McLame’s wife. You don’t think that they are going to viciously rip up Sherry Daniels? She has to be unstable in the first place because nobody in their right mind gets up and leaves their 4 kids. Who does this guy care about, his ego or his wife. His first priority should be shielding his wife. After all she came back to him didn’t she.

Jayrae on May 11, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Way to stay classly by attacking the mental state of Mrs. Daniels back in the mid-90s. Your comment says much more about you than it does about her, Mitch, or the state of their marriage 17 years ago.

Also, I thought that Mitch hadn’t announced because he wanted to make sure his wife was on board, which apparently showed that Daniels is some sort of whimp. Now, he’s an ass for not taking his wife’s feelings into consideration? So very confused.

Bru on May 11, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Too bad she’s a losing bet with independents and is considered a national punch line.

Move on.

rickyricardo on May 11, 2011 at 2:29 PM

This makes I guess about 7,328tht time you’ve posted essentially that same thing. So I guess we can assume that if Palin and Daniels both run, Palin will implode, Daniels will stomp her and that will be the end of that. No worries for you then, right?

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Palin didn’t become exciting because she was on television. She was given a television spot because she’s exciting. Charisma is something you either have or you don’t. Daniels doesn’t. Plus, he’s a Bushie. Never.

alwaysfiredup on May 11, 2011 at 2:41 PM

Palin is “exciting”? I missed that memo.

Daniels is also a Reagan administration veteran. A top adviser to the Gipper he was. The DD’ers don’t like to bring that up tho.

And as for this charisma crud, Daniels has plenty. Did y’all not watch his speech at CPAC? Sounded full of “sizzle” to me.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Way to stay classly by attacking the mental state of Mrs. Daniels back in the mid-90s. Your comment says much more about you than it does about her, Mitch, or the state of their marriage 17 years ago.

Bru on May 11, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Hey, life’s not fair. The media won’t be, either.

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Palin is “exciting”? I missed that memo.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:46 PM

But yet you hit just about all the Palin threads. QED.

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 2:48 PM

But yet you hit just about all the Palin threads. QED.

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 2:48 PM

And y’all hit all the Daniels threads. Your point?

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:49 PM

And as for this charisma crud, Daniels has plenty. Did y’all not watch his speech at CPAC? Sounded full of “sizzle” to me.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:46 PM

Charisma is a visual thing. You don’t “hear” charisma. Her television ratings and our devotion speak to the excitement she engenders, regardless of your not sharing it. And Daniels is not old enough to have been really influential in Reagan’s admin.

alwaysfiredup on May 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM

And y’all hit all the Daniels threads. Your point?

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:49 PM

WRONG.

This is now officially a Palin Thread.

Resistance is futile.

You will be assimilated.

That is all./

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Good question. The guy polls, what, 2%?

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 2:40 PM

Well, crap, then Daniels has no way of winning. I mean just look at history. By December 1991, Bill Clinton had three times the support that Daniels currently has, and we all know how that turned out.

Bru on May 11, 2011 at 2:52 PM

Hey, life’s not fair. The media won’t be, either.

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 2:47 PM

Right, everyone else is doing it so that makes it okay. Nice, I feel like I’m on the Daily Kos.

Bru on May 11, 2011 at 2:54 PM

Charisma is a visual thing. You don’t “hear” charisma. Her television ratings and our devotion speak to the excitement she engenders, regardless of your not sharing it. And Daniels is not old enough to have been really influential in Reagan’s admin.

alwaysfiredup on May 11, 2011 at 2:50 PM

Charisma is not simply visual either. It’s a combination of everything together. Unlike some, I don’t vote based on charisma (which Daniels does have). If I did, I’d be supporting Trump.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM

If I did, I’d be supporting Trump.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM

If you did that, I would question your sanity.

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM

So first Daniels has charisma, then he doesn’t but who cares. Pick a position and defend it!

alwaysfiredup on May 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM

Right, everyone else is doing it so that makes it okay. Nice, I feel like I’m on the Daily Kos.

Bru on May 11, 2011 at 2:54 PM

We Palin supporters are quite familiar with it. Welcome to our world.

Well, crap, then Daniels has no way of winning. I mean just look at history. By December 1991, Bill Clinton had three times the support that Daniels currently has, and we all know how that turned out.

Bru on May 11, 2011 at 2:52 PM

If Daniels is electable, then I don’t see how ANYone can be called unelectable. Agreed?

Charisma is not simply visual either. It’s a combination of everything together. Unlike some, I don’t vote based on charisma (which Daniels does have). If I did, I’d be supporting Trump.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM

So was it Daniels’ charisma that hooked you, or was it the glowing reviews in TWS and from George Will?

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Charisma is not simply visual either. It’s a combination of everything together. Unlike some, I don’t vote based on charisma (which Daniels does have). If I did, I’d be supporting Trump.

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 2:55 PM

So was it Daniels’ charisma that hooked you, or was it the glowing reviews in TWS and from George Will?

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 2:58 PM

In other words, did you know who Daniels was before the punditocracy started pimping him? Or are you just playing follow the leader?

pseudoforce on May 11, 2011 at 3:00 PM

If you did that, I would question your sanity.

Brian1972 on May 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM

If I did that, I’d institutionalize myself :)

JetBoy on May 11, 2011 at 3:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2