Quotes of the day

posted at 10:39 pm on May 13, 2011 by Allahpundit

“I can’t imagine voting for him.

“But Daniels’s presence would improve the 2012 campaign. He’d make Barack Obama a better candidate…

“He is the un-Trump — indeed, the un-Newt. Bluster and bravado are not words that come to mind when you meet Daniels. Short and balding, he has the air of an accountant at a midsized manufacturing firm…

“[C]andidate Daniels would press President Obama to sharpen his focus on getting the debt under control, and to spell out more clearly how that will be accomplished. He would be an especially worthy opponent — even if I flinch at the thought that he might succeed.”

***
“Now, the reason for this is people in Indiana are very much aware that she does not like politics. She just doesn’t like it, and she has said publicly that she has no desire to be first lady or to do any of the things that that job requires. That’s why people were paying attention last night. In fact, I’ll tell you a little secret. In the past six months, I have met with two or three Republican presidential candidates — some who had not announced at the time, some who had — and I asked them all about Mitch Daniels. All of them (and I’m talking maybe three or four) without exception said, “He’s not gonna run. Wife hates it. Wife hates politics. We’re not worried about Mitch Daniels. All this talk with Daniels? At the end of it, Rush, Daniels isn’t running. Wife won’t let him. Wife doesn’t like it, doesn’t like politics, doesn’t like the campaign trail, doesn’t want any part of it.

“‘I said, ‘Are you sure? Why is he acting like he’s acting? Why flirt with this if it’s so a fait accompli?’

“‘I don’t know, Rush. He’s not running.’”

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 3

He did not work with the Democrats. People saying this do not know how the legislative process works in this state. They screwed up bringing that bill up when they did. Once the bill is brought up it has to be voted on in a certain amount of time or it is dead. They made a mistake..there was no debate and the bill died. That was the problem. Daniels wanted them to bring it up later when there was time for debate..and then the Republican majority could pass it.

Terrye on May 14, 2011 at 1:15 AM

Couldn’t keep a state party caucus in line on a crucial vote and this shows leadership skills necessary to be PoTUS how, exactly?

Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence and just makes that red flag on RTW all the more glaring.

If he can’t hold a state party caucus in line on the important issues, why am I to believe he’ll be anymore successful trying to hold a Congressional caucus together on the important issues.

Regardless, the VAT fetish is deal breaker enough for me, so sell the Mitch to someone who doesn’t know what it is or how badly it’ll wreck the economy.

SuperCool on May 14, 2011 at 1:41 AM

The only ones harping on it are those with an animus against her — because they hugely resent the fact she hasn’t allowed herself to be vicitmized out of political viability (and in fact, has mostly mocked her victimizers). The assault on her has been like nothing seen in American political history, and her buoyancy and tenacity in the face of it is more than mealy sacks of mince like well-mannered Mitch Daniels will even be able to contemplate as Obama lowers his billion dollar boom on them.

rrpjr on May 14, 2011 at 1:36 AM

This.

HornetSting on May 14, 2011 at 1:41 AM

All this talk about the pundits forcing McCain on us. As opposed to who? Romney? Huckabee? They were all less than appealing options, minus Fred IMO. And then Fred was out of it by around South Carolina if I recall, so the remaining 45 states didn’t exactly have a lot to work with.

Who did the radio guys even like? I don’t recall too many of them spelling that out. I know who they didn’t like. I recall Huckabee winning Iowa and most of them freaking out, as did I. McCain won NH and they freaked out about him too. So I guess Romney was the default guy, however begrudgingly, and that doesn’t look terribly prescient right now either.

That field really was quite awful. As much concern as we have about this field, it’s already looking better than what we had to work with last time. Hopefully several others join the race as well.

stldave on May 14, 2011 at 1:45 AM

Since we have no control over the liberal media, I will ask one thing of people like Terrye and others who ask Palin drive down her negative numbers before she runs. How about you and the restof the estbalishment people stop attacking her?

I know your strategy, the establishment attacks her at every turn, aids and abets the liberal MSM all to drive her numbers down and then popint to her low numbers as prooof she shouldn’t run. Which is a circular argument. So, you get the establishment stop attacking her and then we’ll see if her numbers improve or not. Deal?

promachus on May 14, 2011 at 1:58 AM

As for questioning her intelelct, do we forget how the left attacked Bush? Did we forget how the independents viewed him? A village in texas misses it’s idiot? But I didn’t remember the establishment saying Bush shouldn’t run ebcause he was called an idiot by the liberal MSM. Sps top with your idiotic double stadnards.

promachus on May 14, 2011 at 2:00 AM

So I guess Romney was the default guy, however begrudgingly, and that doesn’t look terribly prescient right now either.

stldave on May 14, 2011 at 1:45 AM

McCain was ahead in the polls when the financial meltdown of 9/15/08 happened and his previous statements regarding not understanding the economy coupled with the Kabukli theater of suspending his campaign came back to bite him. He never recovered. I’m not Mitt fan either, but I prefer him to Obama, and his financial acumen may have won the day at that moment. We may have won with him.

Kataklysmic on May 14, 2011 at 2:08 AM

Since we have no control over the liberal media, I will ask one thing of people like Terrye and others who ask Palin drive down her negative numbers before she runs. How about you and the restof the estbalishment people stop attacking her?

I have been following this thread for a while now and I don’t see that Terrye was attacking her. What I saw was a pretty genuine defense of Daniels against attacks that he was a RINO, Bush puppet etc.

It looks to me like nearly every candidate gets run down in these threads but Palin has had an unprecedented amount of attacks from the media. I do believe at one point they considered her the greatest threat to Obama’s winning in 2008. I honestly don’t think they believe her a threat now.

All the candidates have flaws Palin included. She has said that herself. I am truly only focused on finding the one with the fewest flaws that will be able to beat Obama. I think that is Paul Ryan but he is not in the race – neither is Sarah Palin though.

msmveritas on May 14, 2011 at 2:11 AM

Think of when you’ve heard Daniels talk and when Obama talks, the libs love the idea of Daniels because the President will talk right over him.

If all of their debates were in writing, maybe a different result.

Speakup on May 14, 2011 at 2:15 AM

Speakup on May 14, 2011 at 2:15 AM

That is my concern about Daniels frankly.

msmveritas on May 14, 2011 at 2:16 AM

Reagan was not hated by all the media, he never had high negatives like Palin does and he did have a record that showed he could work with all sorts of people on all sorts of issues.

And I am tired of this argument.

Terrye on May 14, 2011 at 1:19 AM

Correct me if i’m mistaken but did’nt Palin have an excellent record working with the Dems prior to her going for the VP slot?

heshtesh on May 14, 2011 at 2:17 AM

Correct me if i’m mistaken but did’nt Palin have an excellent record working with the Dems prior to her going for the VP slot?

heshtesh on May 14, 2011 at 2:17 AM

Facts are irrelevant to those bitterly clinging to their narratives.

powerpro on May 14, 2011 at 2:25 AM

I always find it ironic that the topic of the post is totally indiscernible on the final pages of a late night HA post. My recommendation would be to go back to first page default.

Connie on May 14, 2011 at 2:49 AM

Tricks to falling asleep:

Old: Counting sheep.
New: Thinking about Mitch Daniels.

HalJordan on May 14, 2011 at 2:49 AM

Connie on May 14, 2011 at 2:49 AM

It didn’t take long for this one to get knee-deep in irony and bitter clinging.

msmveritas on May 14, 2011 at 2:55 AM

HalJordan on May 14, 2011 at 2:49 AM

LOL!

Why I’m not keen on Daniels.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on May 14, 2011 at 3:38 AM

Reminder to the peeps. I think this year, we don’t have a winner take all primary season. I think they are prorating the delegate votes to the % of votes gained in the primary in each state. Therefore, I don’t think we will see a primary season with all but 2 or 3 knocked out in 3 primaries.

The peeps who can raise the most money and have the best GOTV ground game will last the entire primary season.

WHO in the field has that advantage?

karenhasfreedom on May 14, 2011 at 4:22 AM

Sorry for the delay in finding and posting these links re: Daniels and the RTW legislation that passed in the Indiana House but was unable to make it through the IN Senate — for several reasons…

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3

Please note that one of these links discusses that the 2005 EO signed by Daniels to “do away with PEUs” can be overturned by any successor with just the stroke of a pen.

Again, I will say that Daniels has done a lot of good things for Indiana…But, his efforts at keeping the RTW legislation from becoming law along with his discussion of a VAT are 2 areas of concern…for me

Gohawgs on May 14, 2011 at 4:28 AM

How long were the Daniels’ divorced before remarrying?

OmahaConservative on May 14, 2011 at 4:30 AM

Mornin’ OC…

Have a safe round trip…

Gohawgs on May 14, 2011 at 4:38 AM

Why I’m not keen on Daniels.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on May 14, 2011 at 3:38 AM

Wow, that link is an eye opener. Thanks for the heads up AG.

Everyone needs to read that link, very chilling. Once again, going back to the JUDGEMENT issue with Daniels.

karenhasfreedom on May 14, 2011 at 4:40 AM

But candidate Daniels would press President Obama to sharpen his focus on getting the debt under control, and to spell out more clearly how that will be accomplished.

So, Obama is such a failure, she wants Daniels to force Obama to actually step up and DO something?

Um…doesn’t that kind of hint at the fact that Obama doesn’t deserve a second term?

sarainitaly on May 14, 2011 at 5:20 AM

I’m sure the Obamunists would LOVE Daniels, he will play very poorly on TV next to Obama even without the media’s help and the media will be there with bells on to help Barry look and sound great. Physically almost another McCain without McCain’s war hero plusses, and don’t scoff at looking Presidential, he just doesn’t.

clnurnberg on May 14, 2011 at 5:22 AM

rrpjr on May 14, 2011 at 1:36 AM

Frilliant post, thanks much!

Jayrae on May 14, 2011 at 5:24 AM

Reminder to the peeps. I think this year, we don’t have a winner take all primary season. I think they are prorating the delegate votes to the % of votes gained in the primary in each state. Therefore, I don’t think we will see a primary season with all but 2 or 3 knocked out in 3 primaries.

The peeps who can raise the most money and have the best GOTV ground game will last the entire primary season.

WHO in the field has that advantage?

karenhasfreedom on May 14, 2011 at 4:22 AM

There can still be winner take all primaries, but not until April – any primary or caucus before then has to have some proportional awarding of delegates.

But it’s not the delegate counts that gets candidates knocked out before Super Tuesday, it is the perception that their campaigns aren’t gaining traction, the “bandwagon” effect. Super Tuesday is a treasure trove of delegates, but you just don’t see candidates emerging from Super Tuesday with momentum they didn’t have already. ST winners will be among the frontrunners. Thus it has always been.

So the actual delegate counts from early contests don’t mean so much as creating the appearance of being in contention.

Adjoran on May 14, 2011 at 5:33 AM

How long were the Daniels’ divorced before remarrying?

OmahaConservative on May 14, 2011 at 4:30 AM

OmahaConservative:Hope this helps!:)
=====================================

Conservative Naivete about Mitch Daniels’ Marital History
***********************************************************

http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=15186

====================================

Theories on Mitch and The Maha
May 13, 2011
***************

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

Now, the guy from Carmel, Indiana said they never got divorced. Okay, it is CBS. He may have a point. So here’s the story. “They divorced in 1994 and Cheri Daniels married an old boyfriend, only to divorce him and remarry Mitch Daniels in 1997. Neither of them discuss that time in their lives publicly. Daniels told the Indianapolis Star in 2004: ‘If you like happy endings, you’ll love our story.

Love and the love of children overcame any problems.’” Okay. So we’ve got an assertion here that Mitch Daniels never got divorced. We’ve fact checked it. Here’s what we found. “Daniels and his wife Cheri divorced in 1994. She moved to California, leaving Daniels with the four daughters, aged 8 to 14, and married a doctor. She divorced again and moved back to Indiana. She and Mitch remarried in 1997.” So that’s two sources that we’ve gotta fact check. Okay, so this guy, you can tell in his e-mail he’s fit to be tied here. He thinks I’m gonna be hearing from Mitch’s press people. Well, yeah, we should demand to see the certificates. Marriage license, divorce papers and all that.
(More….)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051311/content/01125110.guest.html

canopfor on May 14, 2011 at 5:58 AM

I was a mere child in 1976 when Gerald Ford had just won the nomination and he asked Reagan to come on to the stage and say something. It was obvious to the dullest 4 year old child after Reagan spoke that the entire convention just realized that they had made an error of monumental proportions in nominating “Rockefeller RINO Republican establishment” Gerald Ford.
Reagan gave RINO Republican Ford one hell of a fight. The Republican establishment fought him every step of the way and Ford only merely was able to eek out victory. The Republican establishment thought that they killed Reagan because he was too old never realizing that he would live to fight another day. Feeble Ford went on to lose to pathetic cultural Marxist “most intelligent presidential candidate evah” Jimmah!
Did the Republican elites learn their lesson in 1980? No they tried to shove Wall Street RINO Preston Bush’s son GHWB down our throats. GHWB had the temerity to label Reagan’s trickle down supply side economic plan as “voodoo economics.”
Whoever says that the media didn’t hate Reagan wasn’t around to see it. They bashed him unmercifully. They called him an amiable dunce. When he won by a landslide they said that the electorate had a “temper tantrum.” When he spoke the truth and called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” they called him a rube because cultural Marxists just don’t tell the truth and call a spade a spade. You are supposed to pretend you are fighting them and lead the masses around to “one world order.” If it was up to the cultural Marxist Republican elites we would still have detente and the evil empire would still be around. When Reagan went to Berlin and told Gorbasm to “tear down this wall” the media along with the Republican elites were foaming at the mouth. “Only uneducated rubes speak that way” we heard. To this day the Republican establishment in conjunction with the media will not admit that Reagan broke the Soviet Union. They give the credit to Gorbasm.
Wake the hell up! The Republican party is not your friend. They want your votes but if you want small government you can go to hell as far as they are concerned.
The Republican elites want big government, accept it and move on. If they didn’t GHWB would never have shoved a tax increase down our throat. His stupid, yes I said stupid, progressive poison Ivy League educated son George
would never have worked with Teddie “the swimmer” Kennedy to shove No Child Left Behind down our throat or got Mitch Daniels at OMB to publish bogus numbers for us to accept Medicare Part D.
Hearing Mitch Daniels tell me the era of Reagan is over just means the Republican elites still don’t get it that the Tea Party and Independents gave them new life and put them back in power to govern the way conservatives want them to govern. The Republican elites are just as evil as the Marxists.
I will not hold my nose and vote for Mitch Daniels, Romney or any other Republican elite flavor of the week. If they want to continue shoving these weak candidates who will not fight the community terrorizer-in-chief down our throats then they deserve Øbama. NO MAS!
America desperately needs a true warrior who will fight to the death against Øbama’s cultural Marxism. We have run out of time. Our debt is almost insurmountable. This is it! There is no tomorrow without a true conservative who will fight the corruption in their own party. You all know who that one candidate is. Grow a pair, get a spine, tell the Republican elites to kiss you azz. We can have that shining city on a hill back. It’s your call. If you have the guts to elect her.

Jayrae on May 14, 2011 at 6:30 AM

O/T
====

I thought Team Libs disliked “CowBoy(ing)Up,
as in Bush,talk about 2012 Election Myth
Building!!
———-

Libs Praise the “Cowboy” Obama
May 9, 2011
*************

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: What do you think is more important in the media right now? At least of these two choices. There are probably more choices than this. But, as I gaze and study, and I do that a lot, what’s more important to the media: Trying to convince us that Bin Laden was still in charge of al-Qaeda, or trying to convince us that Obama was in charge of the raid that killed him? You think they’re working harder on that? The latter? They’re working overtime on trying to convince us that Obama was in charge of the raid that killed him even though we all know it was Panetta. It shows leadership. In fact, they’re even calling him a cowboy now. This is Sunday morning on the syndicated Chris Matthews show. They were talking about Obama and the death of Osama, which happened because Obama shot Osama, and there’s this little exchange that they had, it’s David Ignatius of the Washington Post.

IGNATIUS: I felt, watching the President Sunday night, that there’s an American archetype of the strong, silent person, that person is reticent, but conveys…

MATTHEWS: The cowboy.

IGNATIUS: … strength.

MATTHEWS: The cowboy. Gary Cooper. Matt Dillon.

IGNATIUS: I saw Obama as a little bit of that cowboy.

RUSH: (laughing) Oh please. Gary Cooper, Matt Dillon. Being a cowboy? Isn’t that why we elected Obama, to get rid of cowboys? The idea that the American president’s a cowboy, I mean that’s not cool. That’s not good. That’s how we lost our values in the world. That’s how we lost our respect around the world. We had the cowboy guy from Texas. Now, ladies and gentlemen, they can try to convince me a lot, but that Barack Obama is a cowboy? Ha. That almost might put me in a good mood. Of all the things that they are trying.
—————–

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050911/content/01125106.guest.htm

canopfor on May 14, 2011 at 6:52 AM

tricks to falling asleep:

Old: Counting sheep.
New: Thinking about Mitch Daniels.

LOL!! And the winner is…

Dan Pet on May 14, 2011 at 7:48 AM

I have no problem with that..Why should the Palinistas be worried about Daniels?..He is so far back in the polls!?!..Daniels should be no problem..:)

Dire Straits

Scared??? Of MITCH DANIELS?? Yeah…right…Palin, the Palinistas and Obama…we are all just QUAKING in our boots.

Dan Pet on May 14, 2011 at 7:51 AM

I think Palin is delaying her announcement for several reasons:

1. She knows as soon as she announces there will be unrelenting attcaks from the left and especially the media and wants to spare herself and her family that for as long as possible.

2. She is getting fully prepared as she realizes the smallest mistake could kill her candidacy.

3, She is sitting back while her opponents commit suicide. Yesterday Mitt stuck both barrels in his mouth; today Newt said he had no regrets about the commercial with Pelosi and now claims he was debating her. Daniels says something to hack off conservatives (or just something stupid) every week: VAT, truce of social issues, Richard Lugar is my role model, bold letterhead, Condi Rice as running mate.

bw222 on May 14, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Yes. And you can add to the list that each time someone declares, they are the flavor of the week. If she waits until they all get in, she steals the spotlight. But that won’t just last for a week with Palin like it did with Pawlenty and others. It will stay with her all the way to the nomination.

Dan Pet on May 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM

tricks to falling asleep:

Old: Counting sheep.
New: Thinking about Mitch Daniels.

or, counting subpar republican presidential candidates….

ted c on May 14, 2011 at 8:40 AM

Jayrae on May 14, 2011 at 6:30 AM
Dan Pet on May 14, 2011 at 7:56 AM

Why don’t the palinistas be intellectually honest for once? Admit up front that if your choice does not get nominated the GOP cannot count on your vote.
But for heavens sake stop the drooling and fantasizing about what is going on in Palin’s mind. You really don’t know – just projecting and derailing yet another thread of which Palin is not the subject….

Bradky on May 14, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Scared??? Of MITCH DANIELS?? Yeah…right…

Dan Pet on May 14, 2011 at 7:51 AM

Actually, I am scared that we are going to end up with another WTH head-scratching moment. How did McCain Daniels end up the candidate? That will lead to lukewarm Republican organizing and our only hope would be an firebrand VP (which will not be enough to overcome the Democrat/Union organizing.)

There. I said it.

Fallon on May 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM

That will lead to lukewarm Republican organizing and our only hope would be an firebrand VP (which will not be enough to overcome the Democrat/Union organizing.)

There. I said it.

Fallon on May 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM

party unity rocks doesn’t it?

Bradky on May 14, 2011 at 8:57 AM

canopfor on May 14, 2011 at 5:58 AM

I was a mere child in 1976 when Gerald Ford had just won the nomination and he asked Reagan to come on to the stage and say something. It was obvious to the dullest 4 year old child after Reagan spoke that the entire convention just realized that they had made an error of monumental proportions in nominating “Rockefeller RINO Republican establishment” Gerald Ford.
Reagan gave RINO Republican Ford one hell of a fight. The Republican establishment fought him every step of the way and Ford only merely was able to eek out victory. The Republican establishment thought that they killed Reagan because he was too old never realizing that he would live to fight another day. Feeble Ford went on to lose to pathetic cultural Marxist “most intelligent presidential candidate evah” Jimmah!
Did the Republican elites learn their lesson in 1980? No they tried to shove Wall Street RINO Preston Bush’s son GHWB down our throats. GHWB had the temerity to label Reagan’s trickle down supply side economic plan as “voodoo economics.”
Whoever says that the media didn’t hate Reagan wasn’t around to see it. They bashed him unmercifully. They called him an amiable dunce. When he won by a landslide they said that the electorate had a “temper tantrum.” When he spoke the truth and called the Soviet Union an “evil empire” they called him a rube because cultural Marxists just don’t tell the truth and call a spade a spade. You are supposed to pretend you are fighting them and lead the masses around to “one world order.” If it was up to the cultural Marxist Republican elites we would still have detente and the evil empire would still be around. When Reagan went to Berlin and told Gorbasm to “tear down this wall” the media along with the Republican elites were foaming at the mouth. “Only uneducated rubes speak that way” we heard. To this day the Republican establishment in conjunction with the media will not admit that Reagan broke the Soviet Union. They give the credit to Gorbasm.
Wake the hell up! The Republican party is not your friend. They want your votes but if you want small government you can go to hell as far as they are concerned.
The Republican elites want big government, accept it and move on. If they didn’t GHWB would never have shoved a tax increase down our throat. His stupid, yes I said stupid, progressive poison Ivy League educated son George
would never have worked with Teddie “the swimmer” Kennedy to shove No Child Left Behind down our throat or got Mitch Daniels at OMB to publish bogus numbers for us to accept Medicare Part D.
Hearing Mitch Daniels tell me the era of Reagan is over just means the Republican elites still don’t get it that the Tea Party and Independents gave them new life and put them back in power to govern the way conservatives want them to govern. The Republican elites are just as evil as the Marxists.
I will not hold my nose and vote for Mitch Daniels, Romney or any other Republican elite flavor of the week. If they want to continue shoving these weak candidates who will not fight the community terrorizer-in-chief down our throats then they deserve Øbama. NO MAS!
America desperately needs a true warrior who will fight to the death against Øbama’s cultural Marxism. We have run out of time. Our debt is almost insurmountable. This is it! There is no tomorrow without a true conservative who will fight the corruption in their own party. You all know who that one candidate is. Grow a pair, get a spine, tell the Republican elites to kiss you azz. We can have that shining city on a hill back. It’s your call. If you have the guts to elect her.

Jayrae on May 14, 2011 at 6:30 AM

Thank you for one of the best postings ever. People need
to think of their country first and foremost. Who has
the record, the cojones to take on Obama – heck, who has
been taking on Obama for over 2 years already. The answer
is right in front of you. You do not need to have loyalty
to your state’s governor or senator (heaven forbid), to
the repub establishment party, to BOR, Beck, etc. What
other governor in 2 3/4 years established a $15 billion dollar surplus, refused to spend these funds on frivolity,
was saving for a “rainy day” and also made sure that the citizens themselves received compensation in way of a check for the sale of the state owned natural resources?

People, use your God given brains.

Amjean on May 14, 2011 at 9:21 AM

My take.

kingsjester on May 14, 2011 at 9:23 AM

That will lead to lukewarm Republican organizing and our only hope would be an firebrand VP (which will not be enough to overcome the Democrat/Union organizing.)

There. I said it.

Fallon on May 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM

party unity rocks doesn’t it?

Bradky on May 14, 2011 at 8:57 AM

Screw the party worship crap. This isn’t 1884 anymore.

pseudoforce on May 14, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Why don’t the palinistas be intellectually honest for once? Admit up front that if your choice does not get nominated the GOP cannot count on your vote.

I don’t think she’s running anyway. But the Palinistas would be no more forced to vote for that sacred GOP ticket whatever its sorry composition happens to be, than you are required to become a rabid Palinista should she be nominated. Be intellectually honest and admit that if Palin were to be the nominee, you’ll be sitting around snarking about how unelectable she is and how those rubes made such a horrifying mistake. That “unity” garbage seems to work one way.

But for heavens sake stop the drooling and fantasizing about what is going on in Palin’s mind. You really don’t know – just projecting and derailing yet another thread of which Palin is not the subject….

Bradky on May 14, 2011 at 8:50 AM

We have to do something to spice up a dull thread on a dull subject. It’s not our fault Daniels can’t do it.

pseudoforce on May 14, 2011 at 9:34 AM

If Daniels has to get his wife’s permission to run, is he going to have her there to help him with answers in the debates. Where would the help end should he win? Where are the real republican men? Maybe a real republican woman should announce and run.

Kissmygrits on May 14, 2011 at 10:03 AM

What does Daniels have to say about the Indiana Supreme Court nullifying Amendment IV, I wonder.

I know the American courts are as insane as they are totalitarian, but this disrespect for both the law and historical precedent is truly astonishing:

Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes…

The Founders must be rolling in their graves.

I shudder to think of the totalitarian hell the USG has in store for us once the collapse ensues.

Rae on May 14, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Jayrae on May 14, 2011 at 6:30 AM

The first and last political convention that made me cry. Luckily for us, it all turned out okay in the end.

Cindy Munford on May 14, 2011 at 10:03 AM

Bradky on May 14, 2011 at 8:50 AM

How about we have a primary and nominate a candidate first before you start chastising people for what they may or may not do. Why shouldn’t people talk about one non-candidate over another non-candidate? And will you support “the party” regardless of who they nominate?

Cindy Munford on May 14, 2011 at 10:07 AM

No time to read all comments, but I’d simply suggest that Mitch remain Gov of Indiana.
Best for them, and the nation.

pambi on May 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM

pambi on May 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM

I think two terms is all he can get.

Cindy Munford on May 14, 2011 at 10:25 AM

Regardless, Governor Daniels appointed the judge who overturned the 4th Amendment in Indiana.

steebo77 on May 14, 2011 at 10:21 AM

That’s gonna leave a mark.

The last thing America needs is this guy nominating another totalitarian to the SCOTUS.

Rae on May 14, 2011 at 10:29 AM

Daniels has even less foreign policy credentials and knowledge than Obama and Cain. He’s taken social issues off the table. What’s left for him? A truncated Presidency if he wins?

eaglewingz08 on May 14, 2011 at 10:30 AM

Justice Steven H. David was appointed by Gov. Mitch Daniels.
Perhaps he was right to drag out any announcement for a Presidential run.

J_Crater on May 14, 2011 at 10:37 AM

Jayrae on May 14, 2011 at 6:30 AM

Excellent post. Yes, I too, remember all that crap that was, and sometimes still is, thrown out there about Reagan.

And you are absolutely right about her, who shall not be named.

Mirimichi on May 14, 2011 at 10:41 AM

Denninger: Mitch Daniels Disqualifies Himself

Then you no longer have a 4th Amendment in Indiana and Indiana is now both a police state and the United States as a federal government is now in violation of its Constitutional duty to guarantee that each state has a republican form of government.

Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, by not directing his State Attorney General and Prosecutors to drop this case and moot the appeal, has demonstrated through his direct and proximate actions that he is Adolph Hitler personified and is thus disqualified to run for President of the United States.

Rae on May 14, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Gov. Mitch Daniels’ candidacy for President is dead.
He has on himself and his appointment of Justice Steven H. David to blame.

J_Crater on May 14, 2011 at 10:48 AM

Bradky, I couldn’t be more honest. I refuse to vote for the Republican establishment elite’s candidate. Absolutely, positively, without a doubt. I will NOT change my mind. To me 2012 it is not anybody but Dumb-Ø. It is anybody but the Republican establishment elite’s candidate. Anybody but Saurkraut’s candidate. Anybody but Frum or Brooks candidate. Anybody but Rove and Bush’s candidate. What about NO don’t you understand. I also refuse to donate to the RNC.
Whoever wins the Republican nomination is POTUS. It is the perfect time for a conservative. The country has moved too far to the left. It is time for a correction, NOW!
The Republican party is only alive because in 2010 we gave them life. It’s their choice. Either we get a true conservative or they are dead. It is third party time.
The Republican establishment elite is dead, long live conservatism.
It is time for me to payback my ancestors who traveled to America on a ship in steerage to not give their children a better life but their children’s children, and that’s me. You know what they say about paybacks. And I along with plenty of other Independents and Tea Party members are more than ready to take on the Republican elites before we take on Dumb-Ø. I owe it to my grandparents.
Hey capito?

Jayrae on May 14, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Jayrae on May 14, 2011 at 10:54 AM

Another good one. You can articulate what I am thinking. I am not a very good writer or a speaker.

Mirimichi on May 14, 2011 at 11:03 AM

Mitch Daniels has a great conservative record and a great resume. I have been a huge supporter.

But lately his words have given me doubts that he has what it takes to make the case.

He’s not a RINO, but he says things that give that impression.

commodore on May 14, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Daniels is done. The Supreme Court ruling in Indiana finishes him.

rrpjr on May 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Cindy Munford on May 14, 2011 at 10:07 AM

The palinistas are the ones dismissing every other candidate for whatever reason they can dream up. It is clear from some that no sarah=no vote for the gop.
The people not so enamored of Palin are open minded to most every other potential runner. The Palinistas are completely closed to the idea of anyone but sarah and I question their commitment to support the party. No criticism (regardless of how legitimate) of SP is allowed without responding along the lines of “you hate women ,you stinking libtard, you are stupid, you don’t get it, etc.”
The difference you fail to see is that people who may like other potential candidates don’t generally fawn over them to such an embarrassing degree nor do they take criticism of their particular choice so personally.
Sorry but that’s the way many Palinistas present themselves — if that is your alignment so be it

Bradky on May 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Daniels is done. The Supreme Court ruling in Indiana finishes him.

rrpjr on May 14, 2011 at 12:18 PM

It’s only the latest of many nails in the coffin of his presidential ambitions.

steebo77 on May 14, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Palinistas are bad.
Everyone else is good.

Bradky on May 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM

steebo77 on May 14, 2011 at 12:31 PM

The Palinistas are completely closed to the idea of anyone but sarah and I question their commitment to support the party.

Turnabout is fair play. I question the party’s commitment to me. I question the party’s commitment to its country. I question the party, period. I played the good soldier game in 2008. I listened to the bullsh*t about “fight, fight, fight”! The party is now going to understand what “fight” really means — for we will force them into it. They can follow nicely, or they can follow kicking and screaming.

In truth, the commitment to Palin is the true commitment to the party — that is, to save it from itself and its own pathetic compulsions.

rrpjr on May 14, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Bradky on May 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Oh look, another hysterical nut who attacks Palin and then goes into a martyr meltdown when supporters respond.

For the record, I agree with the post that set this guy off:

How about we have a primary and nominate a candidate first before you start chastising people for what they may or may not do. Why shouldn’t people talk about one non-candidate over another non-candidate? And will you support “the party” regardless of who they nominate?

Cindy Munford on May 14, 2011 at 10:07 AM

And I may as well say this: I support the party ONLY insofar as the party supports REVERSING America’s slide toward financial catastrophe and totalitarianism, and frankly the party’s record on this is NOT good lately.

Aitch748 on May 14, 2011 at 1:29 PM

My take.

kingsjester on May 14, 2011 at 9:23 AM

Like on the other thread, the content of your link needs to be posted here for everyone to see. It says it all. Thanks.

Have you ever been set up for a blind date by people who claimed to care about you and were sure that they knew what was best for you?

When you asked them what this individual looked like, they said:

Oh, they’ve got a great personality.

Then, you probably asked:

Okay. So, what’s their personality like?

Scrambling for an answer, your friend or family member responded:

Hey, don’t worry about it. You’ll get along fine. After all, beggars can’t be choosers.

The Republican Elite, aided and abetted by the Main Stream Media, is attempting to set Americans up with a blind date.

His name is Mitch Daniels.

If you are like I used to be, until recently, you had a vague idea of who Mitch Daniels was, but that’s about it.

Allow me to introduce you.

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. was elected as the 49th Governor of the State of Indiana in 2004, in his first bid for any elected office.

Governor Daniels came from a successful career in business and government, holding numerous top management positions in both the private and public sectors. His work as CEO of the Hudson Institute and President of Eli Lilly and Company’s North American Pharmaceutical Operations taught him the business skills he brought to state government. He also has served as Chief of Staff to Senator Richard Lugar, Senior Advisor to President Ronald Reagan and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush.

Daniels’ first legislative success created the public-private Indiana Economic Development Corporation to replace a failing state bureaucracy in the mission of attracting new jobs. In each of its first four years of existence, the agency broke all previous records for new jobs in the state, and was associated with more than $18 billion of new investment. In 2008, Site Selection magazine and CNBC both named Indiana as the Most Improved State for Business in the country, and the state is now near the top of every national ranking of business attractiveness.

On his first day in office, Governor Daniels created the first Office of Management and Budget to look for efficiencies and cost savings across state government. In 2005, he led the state to its first balanced budget in eight years and, without a tax increase, transformed the $600 million deficit he inherited into an annual surplus of $370 million within a year.

Sounds pretty good, huh? Just like the description of a blind date.

Also, if you’re like me, you never really paid any attention to the diminutive (5’4″) Daniels, until he uttered this now-famous gaffe, as related and followed up on by John McCormack at weeklystandard.com on June 8, 2010:

Mitch Daniels told THE WEEKLY STANDARD’s Andy Ferguson that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until economic issues are resolved.

This morning, at the Heritage Foundation, I asked Daniels if that meant the next president shouldn’t push issues like stopping taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare or reinstating the Mexico City Policy banning federal funds to overseas groups that perform abortions. Daniels replied that we face a “genuine national emergency” regarding the budget and that “maybe these things could be set aside for a while. But this doesn’t mean anybody abandons their position at all. Everybody just stands down for a little while, while we try to save the republic.”

To clarify whether Daniels simply wants to de-emphasize these issues or actually not act on them, I asked if, as president, he would issue an executive order to reinstate Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy” his first week in office. (Obama revoked the policy during his first week in office.) Daniels replied, “I don’t know.“

Then, in an interview with nationalreview.com’s Michael Barone, posted October 11, 2010, Daniels came out in favor cutting our National Defense Budget:

As OMB director, Daniels was on the National Security Council, and as governor he’s visited Indiana troops around the world. He says, “It’s important to support the commander in chief” on Afghanistan. But he’s open to cuts in defense spending beyond those Defense Secretary Robert Gates has imposed. “No question that the system is rigged to overspend,” he says, “like health care. No question that defense dollars could be spent better.”

Finally, on October 15, 2010, politico.com reported the following:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels opened the door Thursday to supporting both a value added tax [VAT] 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.

As we get closer to the 2012 Presidential Elections, and the GOP Elite and Main Stream Media get more desperate to maintain the status quo, Mitch Daniels is being singled out as their candidate of choice.

Just this week, while Mitt Romney doused himself with the gasoline known as Romneycare and lit a match, Daniels informed America that he was considering a Presidential run, but, first, he had to get his wife’s permission.

Also, this week, Daniels picked up an endorsement from Speaker of the House, Cryin’ John Boehner. Governors Chris Christie and Scott Walker also quietly snuck upon the bandwagon, privately pledging to lend their support, should Daniels decide to run.

Just as one evaluates accepting a blind date, so should one evaluate a potential presidential candidate.

Speaking for myself, the measurement of a presidential candidate will always be the three-legged stool of Reagan Conservatism: Fiscal Conservatism, Social Conservatism, and National Defense.

As exemplified by the three quotes in today’s post, Mitch Daniels doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Elisa on May 14, 2011 at 2:13 PM

Like I posted on the other Daniels thread:

While I do not care about height, the general voting public has always subconsciously taken height into consideration. 5’4”? Is that true?

Daniels seems like a good man and would be far better than Obama. But we can’t take any chances in this election. He has too many strikes against him, including his wife leaving her 4 children for another man.

And then Newt’s 2 affairs and divorces. Repentance is valued and Newt has done a lot for this country. But his past will not fly with the American public.

The Republican elites need to wake up.

Sarah Palin is “unelectable?” But it seems every other male Republican’s drawbacks can be ignored? Right? We don’t have to worry about them being unelectable?

I’m for Herman Cain right now because my girl Sarah has more of a battle to win in the general. And I think he would make as good a President as she would. But if he falls, I will defend her all I can.

Elisa on May 14, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Hope I didn’t sound too shrill

But I’m fit to be tied here with the Republican elites running the party telling me to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

Elisa on May 14, 2011 at 2:46 PM

5’4″?! I am short myself, and my immediate family members are all short, so I have nothing against being short; however, history shows that the American people vote for the taller of the two candidates and NO WAY in heck are they going to vote for a slight man who is 5’4″ over the 6′something” Obama.

I personally don’t care how tall a candidate is, but I know the majority of voters do, even if subconsciously.

How any one of our GOP overlords thought Daniels should be our candidate is ludicrous.

With all his policy problems, esp. today with the IN SC, I hope this means we never have to hear about Daniels again!

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on May 14, 2011 at 5:50 PM

“the last poll I saw gave Daniels an approval rating of 75%.”

Sarah Palin had a higher rating than that in Alaska, and look what happened to her after the “democrat machine/msm” got done lying, twisting and berating her.

RADIOONE on May 15, 2011 at 9:49 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3