Report: Chris Christie, Scott Walker privately pledge to back Daniels if he runs

posted at 4:13 pm on May 13, 2011 by Allahpundit

Eeeenteresting. Christie and Walker have each issued the obligatory formal denials since the report came out, natch, but they’ve also both cooed over Daniels publicly in the last month. And it’s no big stretch to think that two Republican governors famous for being fiscal-con warriors would gravitate to the other guy in the race (or soon to be in the race) who fits that bill.

I keep thinking Daniels will have a hard time getting the base to warm up to him, but if he hits them with this one-two endorsement punch, maybe not. Christie’s endorsement alone wouldn’t do it — he’s the guy who backed Mike Castle, after all — but toss in the hero of Wisconsin and suddenly there’s a lot of mojo working.

Reflecting what many observers see as weak Republican field, the pressure on Daniels to run has been intense. He has been assured backing from big-money donors who supported George W. Bush, in addition to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, as well as top sitting Republican governors.

Sources tell CBS News popular New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has told Daniels he would back him, as would Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

And as a sign of how important his wife is to the decision, sources tell CBS News that even former First Lady Laura Bush has called Cheri Daniels personally to encourage her to support the effort and offer advice on how to define what her role on the campaign–and potentially in the White House–would be.

If it’s true, and if in fact Daniels gets in, the big loser is obviously Pawlenty. He’s the “other” fiscally conservative midwestern governor in the race, in case Christie and Walker are intent on backing someone with that description, and his viability depends chiefly on being the most electable “Not Romney” in the field. Daniels’s entry would make people ask, “Why Tim instead of Mitch?” Now that Daniels has signed the bill defunding Planned Parenthood, even the presumptive “social truce” answer to that question doesn’t have the same juice that it used to.

Daniels, who was Bush’s OMB chief, also reportedly told well wishers last night that in a perfect world, if he ran, he’d have Condi Rice as his VP. I take that to mean he won’t pick her if he’s nominated, merely that he wishes he could. Which makes sense: She’d bring foreign policy chops to the ticket that he lacks and, of course, racial and gender diversity, but a Team Bush ticket just four years after Dubya left office will make a lot of Republicans nervous. It’ll also compound his problem of having to explain why he should be trusted to right the fiscal ship of state when his old boss contributed to it listing in the first place. Ace also makes an interesting argument that Daniels, uniquely, might have problems putting a woman on the ticket because he’s already seen as a bit too deferential to his wife. I’m skeptical that that’s true: Men who question Daniels’s “toughess” probably won’t question it enough to be driven into the arms of Barack Obama, and meanwhile Condi might help lure women independents out of O’s camp. If Ace is right, though, I think it’s a problem specific to Daniels and his public image, not a problem with U.S. politics generally. A guy like, say, Fred Thompson who’s seen as an alpha male in all other respects could get away with being viewed as a deferential husband. A guy like Daniels, though? Maybe not. That’s a lame double standard, but retail politics is often lame. Besides, there are other reasons to think having Condi on the ticket would hurt him — and none of them have to do with gender.


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 3

I keep thinking Daniels will have a hard time getting the base to warm up to him, but if he hits them with this one-two endorsement punch, maybe not.

The biggest hurdle the Daniels candidacy faces is that Daniels is the candidate. He’s gonna say something(or things) stupid that alienates the base and drives them away. It’s just in his nature.

Doughboy on May 13, 2011 at 4:17 PM

but a Team Bush ticket just four years after Dubya left office will make a lot of Republicans nervous.

i wonder…dear leader is staying the course with most of W’s policies…

cmsinaz on May 13, 2011 at 4:17 PM

It’s gonna be an anyone-but-Obooba election, so it don’t really matter who endorses who or who the candidate is.

Therefore, we can run the most conservative candidate rather than the most electable candidate.

It’s a rare opportunity. I hope we don’t nominate a RINO.

Akzed on May 13, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Daniels, who was Bush’s OMB chief

And Daniels is supposed to be a financial whiz?

tetriskid on May 13, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Christie has said he doesn’t want to run for president. Daniels is an excellent choice and well worth backing. He has been and good governor and knows how to handle public sector unions. As we all know governors make better presidents than legislators.

Tommy_G on May 13, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Rinos rejoice.

chewydog on May 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM

Sources tell CBS News

If it’s true, and if in fact Daniels gets in

Daaang AP, lots of “ifs” and “unknown sources” in this
Eeeenteresting thread….you should know better. :(

tencole on May 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I keep thinking Daniels will have a hard time getting the base to warm up to him, but if he hits them with this one-two endorsement punch, maybe not.

Major misreading of the base and the zeitgeist.

rrpjr on May 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM

If Daniels said that about Condi, that’s another negative mark for him in my book. I’m not a fan of hers at all.

INC on May 13, 2011 at 4:22 PM

AAaaaaannnndddd the ABP machine is firing on all cylinders today.

karenhasfreedom on May 13, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Blah. I prefer TPaw if it comes to that.

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 4:23 PM

and his viability depends chiefly on being the most electable “Not Romney” in the field.

How is a guy who’s still at about 2% support among Republicans ever really going to be “viable”? Seriously now. Bill Clinton he ain’t.

pseudoforce on May 13, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Christie has said he doesn’t want to run for president. Daniels is an excellent choice and well worth backing. He has been and good governor and knows how to handle public sector unions. As we all know governors make better presidents than legislators.

Tommy_G on May 13, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Tommy,Tommy,Tommy…..The only way Daniels will stop Obama from eating him alive, would be to hire Christie to be his bodyguard.

tencole on May 13, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Team player, must be a team player.

Angry Dumbo on May 13, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I’m voting the R ticket no matter who is the candidate.I might be a sell out to “purity” but there is no way on God’s green Earth that I’m going to let Obama have a second term.

sandee on May 13, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Christie has said he doesn’t want to run for president. Daniels is an excellent choice and well worth backing. He has been and good governor and knows how to handle public sector unions. As we all know governors make better presidents than legislators.

Tommy_G on May 13, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Keep saying this. Because it is going to be really hard when the debates start and it is so incredibly boring.

None of the really qualified people have any sizzle.

I keep bouncing between Daniels and Pawlenty… then I get overwhelmingly bored and try to look at the others, like Cain and Huntsmand and Romney… even though I pretty much ruled out Romney months ago… I watched a Daniels tape and though Romney has more sizzle!

You date sizzle, but you marry boring and secure right?

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Reflecting what many observers see as weak Republican field, the pressure on Daniels to run has been intense.

Thereby making an allegedly weak field exponentially weaker. LOL

pseudoforce on May 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM

t’s gonna be an anyone-but-Obooba election, so it don’t really matter who endorses who or who the candidate is.

Therefore, we can run the most conservative candidate rather than the most electable candidate.

It’s a rare opportunity. I hope we don’t nominate a RINO.

Akzed on May 13, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Thread winner folks.

tencole on May 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM

That picture up front

Clown and Superclown?

Schadenfreude on May 13, 2011 at 4:27 PM

If Daniels said that about Condi, that’s another negative mark for him in my book. I’m not a fan of hers at all.

INC on May 13, 2011 at 4:22 PM

Rice voted for Obama.

tetriskid on May 13, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Maybe Huck’s announcement tomorrow is that he will endorse Daniels too? We could be seeing a major play to freeze Romney out before the debates even start.

Rocks on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Why are so many people pushing for this gaffe machine?

Truce? How the freak do you say you’re not prepared to debate the President on foreign policy while considering a Presidential run? These things give me signals that this guy is not ready to fight for 2012.

El_Terrible on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Christie’s endorsement is another negative.

Daniels would be a disaster. IMHO, if he cared about his family, he wouldn’t even put his wife and kids in this predicament because if he thinks the media and the Dems won’t dig up every bit of dirt about their divorce and remarriage and absolutely make his family’s life somewhere beyond miserable, he’s delusional.

Unlike Laura who seemed to grow into being a governor’s wife, Daniels’ wife hasn’t even liked that much minor spotlight.

INC on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

You date sizzle, but you marry boring and secure right?

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM

That’s precisely not how Obama got elected. Or Bush, for that matter; he was a cowboy. That’s pretty exciting.

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Would rather have Mike Castle than Chris Coons!

But go ahead and keep bringing up that Castle endorsement…

nickj116 on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Rice voted for Obama.

tetriskid on May 13, 2011 at 4:27 PM

I also think she gave Bush bad advice (weakened him), I don’t like her stance on Israel and she is way too much into playing the race card.

INC on May 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Would rather have Mike Castle than Chris Coons!

nickj116 on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Why? They’d vote the exact same way, but Castle’s vote would make the GOP look like hypocrites whereas Coons’ doesn’t.

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 4:30 PM

We could be seeing a major play to freeze Romney out before the debates even start.

Rocks on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

you maybe right

cmsinaz on May 13, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Rocks on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

No one is trying to freeze out Romney. Romney is freezing himself out with his refusal to admit MassCare was a mistake.

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Why? They’d vote the exact same way, but Castle’s vote would make the GOP look like hypocrites whereas Coons’ doesn’t.

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Having a Republican vote with you 50% of the time is better than having a Dem who votes with you 5% of the time.

They wouldn’t vote the exact same way. That’s nonsense.

nickj116 on May 13, 2011 at 4:31 PM

He has to get through Rush first after his disastrous speech at CPAC.

Valiant on May 13, 2011 at 4:33 PM

At the end of this Daily Caller piece, an email from Scott Walker’s office denying a pledge to support any candidate or any potential candidate is reported.

thirteen28 on May 13, 2011 at 4:33 PM

Why? They’d vote the exact same way, but Castle’s vote would make the GOP look like hypocrites whereas Coons’ doesn’t.

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 4:30 PM

Oh, and btw. You don’t primary Moderate Republicans with Conservative Republicans in Liberal states. You thank God that Moderates even have a chance to get elected, and ARE in the case of Scott Brown in Mass.

nickj116 on May 13, 2011 at 4:34 PM

I officially submit the picture for this post whenever anyone asks why I don’t support Daniels.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I officially submit the picture for this post whenever anyone asks why I don’t support Daniels.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Seriously. I get that sinking feeling….

Fortunata on May 13, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Forget how he stacks up against Obama. Suppose he wins. He’s going to be towered over by damn near every world leader.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Would rather have Mike Castle than Chris Coons!

But go ahead and keep bringing up that Castle endorsement…

nickj116 on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Is there a difference?

portlandon on May 13, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Rice voted for Obama.
tetriskid on May 13, 2011 at 4:27 PM

Blatant lie based upon literally no concrete evidence whatsoever. I busted this one at Ace’s site only an hour ago.

In an interview with Piers Morgan in January, she said she was happy he won, only in the context of how much of a milestone it was in race relations. She then proceeded to say she was a “committed Republican” and listed several conservative principles she stood for, which so happened to be all things Obama is NOT exemplary of (small government, fiscal conservatism, individual liberty, etc.).

No proof she voted for him. None. A fairly good insinuation she did NOT vote for him. A black woman saying “I’m glad America could look beyond race and elect a black president” =/= “I voted for Obama.”

Vyce on May 13, 2011 at 4:41 PM

It’s gonna be an anyone-but-Obooba election, so it don’t really matter who endorses who or who the candidate is.

Therefore, we can run the most conservative candidate rather than the most electable candidate.

It’s a rare opportunity. I hope we don’t nominate a RINO.

Akzed on May 13, 2011 at 4:17 PM

I won’t be swayed by high profile endorsements unless the candidate is a fiscal & social conservetive. I prefer the Right to Life and the ACU and the NRA endorcements over big names.

fourdeucer on May 13, 2011 at 4:41 PM

You date sizzle, but you marry boring and secure right?

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM

You’re new to presidential campaigns, right?

/s

Seriously, off the top of your head, name 2 POTUS winners in the last 50 years who were seen as more “boring” and “secure” than their opponents.

I’ll wait….

cs89 on May 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Daniels is the epitome of a beta male when we need a true Alpha.

IR-MN on May 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Mitch is such a dork. I can’t help being that petty, but his Dork-Factor goes up to 11.

birdhurd on May 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Condi would be a great VP, however, the black vote will blindly follow Odumbo wherever he may go. The choice here for VP is Rubio. Not sure about the top of the ticket, but Christie would be great and make for an unbeatable combo.

rjoco1 on May 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Forget how he stacks up against Obama. Suppose he wins. He’s going to be towered over by damn near every world leader.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 4:40 PM

The North Korean guy will finally be able to tower over someone.

portlandon on May 13, 2011 at 4:43 PM

You date sizzle, but you marry boring and secure right?

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM

That’s precisely not how Obama got elected. Or Bush, for that matter; he was a cowboy. That’s pretty exciting.

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Yeah. But maybe we learned something since 2008?

At first I was really anti sizzle.

But since I have seen how boring they really are… Obama doesn’t seem to have lost as much of his speaking ability as I thought.

Obama is still more sizzle than Pawlenty or Daniels.

Gingrich?

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:44 PM

Is there a difference?

portlandon on May 13, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Coons is a far-left Liberal loon.

Castle is a Moderate (GASP!) Republican.

As I said, feel free to primary Moderate Republicans in Conservative states, but it’s absolutely stupid to do the same thing in Liberal states.

nickj116 on May 13, 2011 at 4:44 PM

The North Korean guy will finally be able to tower over someone.

portlandon on May 13, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Yea, but he wears stilettos

El_Terrible on May 13, 2011 at 4:45 PM

The North Korean guy will finally be able to tower over someone.

portlandon on May 13, 2011 at 4:43 PM

little man syndrom!

upinak on May 13, 2011 at 4:45 PM

No more career politicians.

Key West Reader on May 13, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Seriously, off the top of your head, name 2 POTUS winners in the last 50 years who were seen as more “boring” and “secure” than their opponents.

I’ll wait….

cs89 on May 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Er. Uh. John McLame.

Key West Reader on May 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Seriously, off the top of your head, name 2 POTUS winners in the last 50 years who were seen as more “boring” and “secure” than their opponents.

I’ll wait….

cs89 on May 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM
Er. Uh. John McLame.

Key West Reader on May 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Whoopsie. I didn’t read “winner”. Wish we had a way to self-delete posts!

My bad.

Key West Reader on May 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Report: Chris Christie, Scott Walker privately pledge to back Daniels if he runs

 
That’s the first time I’ve ever seen “help reelect President Obama” spelled b-a-c-k-d-a-n-i-e-l-s-i-f-h-e-r-u-n-s.

rogerb on May 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Bush 3.0….no thanks. They might as well run Jeb if the Bush gang is getting back together. Obama will tie Daniels to Bush and it will be, like Daniels 8 years in the gov office never happened. It will be Bush, bush, bush from Obama

unseen on May 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Seriously, off the top of your head, name 2 POTUS winners in the last 50 years who were seen as more “boring” and “secure” than their opponents.

I’ll wait….

cs89 on May 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM

Maybe they get better with time. They both got elected, then re-elected. Maybe there is some sneaky humour that we haven’t seen.

They both need personality coaches.

Actually, that is why I was trying so hard with Romney yesterday… as boring as Romney is, he is better than they are in personality.

I think the politics is all so much the same it will come down to personality in the Primary.

Not too hot, not too cold… again, is that Gingrich? He can be charming, yet so often wrong…

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Bush 3.0….no thanks. They might as well run Jeb if the Bush gang is getting back together. Obama will tie Daniels to Bush and it will be, like Daniels 8 years in the gov office never happened. It will be Bush, bush, bush from Obama

unseen on May 13, 2011 at 4:48 PM

I like Jeb.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:49 PM

Castle is a Moderate (GASP!) Republican.

As I said, feel free to primary Moderate Republicans in Conservative states, but it’s absolutely stupid to do the same thing in Liberal states.

nickj116 on May 13, 2011 at 4:44 PM

let’s call a spade a spade here Castle was your typical Northeast progressive republican in the mold of Scot brown and Mitt romney.

No thanks.

unseen on May 13, 2011 at 4:51 PM

No more career politicians.

Key West Reader on May 13, 2011 at 4:46 PM

Yes, because the one thing we don’t need is someone who can get the country back on track, that would be awful!

When I go to the doctor, I always try to get someone who hasn’t been to medical school… same with dentists.

And I’ve had really good luck having the sales kid at ToysRUs, fix the plumbing.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:52 PM

I like Jeb.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:49 PM

[facepalm]

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM

I like Jeb.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:49 PM

jeb will be better than Mitch..

unseen on May 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Herman Cain 2010

Key West Reader on May 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM

[facepalm]

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 4:53 PM

let it go.

upinak on May 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:49 PM

I take it you’re having a bit of trouble coming up with a couple names?

(Hint- “boring” & “secure” doesn’t win elections.)

cs89 on May 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Forget how he stacks up against Obama. Suppose he wins. He’s going to be towered over by damn near every world leader.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 4:40 PM

But just think of all the fun he and Sarkozy could have, down there where the big guys wouldn’t hear them.

cynccook on May 13, 2011 at 4:55 PM

“I keep thinking Daniels will have a hard time getting the base to warm up to him…”

Indeed! Why, ask the RINOs? Because Daniels is the Bush family choice. All of us ‘Base-rs’ got screwed (to sum it up) by the Bushes. Twice. Now comes Daniels, with Laura Bush calling Mrs. Mitch to encourage her to loosen the Presidential campaign ball and chain. Throw in Condi for VP and it’s looking like Bush III. No thank you. I suppose if Mitch gets the nom that I will pull the lever for him, but I will not vote for him in the primaries. I don’t care how much good Daniels did in IN. ‘W’ did good in TX according to Texans. Then he got to DC and whamo, except for cutting taxes he was even worse than his dad on domestic policy, and arguably a screwup in the GWOT.

I’m fed up with the Patrician GOP and their network of flunkies who never suffer during the economic chaos they help to create with the Dems. And then they have the gaul to gripe about we among the base being “nativist”, and whine about us being prejudiced against Hispanics, and being “the forces of intolerance” etc while they serenely cruise through life oblivous and insensitive to the harm they cause and the suffering for which they are responsible.

JimP on May 13, 2011 at 4:56 PM

I like Jeb.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:49 PM

So amnesty and open borders appeal to you?

cynccook on May 13, 2011 at 4:56 PM

let’s call a spade a spade here Castle was your typical Northeast progressive republican in the mold of Scot brown and Mitt romney.

No thanks.

unseen on May 13, 2011 at 4:51 PM

So you like having Coons in the Senate and would have preferred Scott Brown losing to Martha Coakley.

Terrific.

nickj116 on May 13, 2011 at 4:57 PM

So the GOP establishment’s answer on how they are going to defeat Obama is to run bush 3.0. Are these people really that stupid? what part of below 30% approval do these people not get?

the only way to win is to embrace Reagan and not just by words but by actions.

unseen on May 13, 2011 at 4:57 PM

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Actions always speak louder than words. As for the debates, they are outmoded and boring in their own right regardless of who is in them. A smart candidate would avoid them altogether. Being boring, thats a matter of taste. Don’t need someone who’s flamboyant, the country needs someone who can do the job correctly.

Tommy_G on May 13, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Rove’s handwriting is all over this.

huckleberryfriend on May 13, 2011 at 4:58 PM

Who was the last person who won a major party nomination because he was endorsed by someone?

Never happened and never will. Endorsements may not be completely meaningless, but you couldn’t even squeeze a pencil-necked jerk like Obama between them and meaningless.

Silly.

Adjoran on May 13, 2011 at 4:58 PM

I also think she gave Bush bad advice (weakened him), I don’t like her stance on Israel and she is way too much into playing the race card.

INC on May 13, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Y’mean encouraging elections which put Hamas in power was not a good thing?

a capella on May 13, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Blah. I prefer TPaw if it comes to that.

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Absolutely. At least he is a true outsider. The whole Daniels/Bush link is just too incestuous for me. So he’d want Condi Rice as his VP? Not that she’d do it, but really? Not to mention the electability factor. How would he look squaring off with Super Boy at the debates?

cynccook on May 13, 2011 at 5:00 PM

So you like having Coons in the Senate and would have preferred Scott Brown losing to Martha Coakley.

Terrific.

nickj116 on May 13, 2011 at 4:57 PM

what exactly has Brown done to further the cause of the GOP?

unseen on May 13, 2011 at 5:01 PM

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 4:36 PM

I can’t look at it for too long before the giggles/nausea in equal proportion overtake me. Beyond embarrassing.

Bee on May 13, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Y’mean encouraging elections which put Hamas in power was not a good thing?

a capella on May 13, 2011 at 5:00 PM

Not to mention the fact that even while I was watching her schoolmarm Lawrence O’D the other day, I was thinking ‘But you were wrong, Condoleeza, about the WMD, you were wrong.’ I’m not saying that I’m not glad that Saddam Hussein is gone, he was a horrible, horrible man who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds, among others. But can you think of a single greater factor in the recent downfall of the Republican party other than the Iraq war? Without it, would Barack Obama be President today?

cynccook on May 13, 2011 at 5:05 PM

Rove’s handwriting is all over this.

huckleberryfriend on May 13, 2011 at 4:58 PM

yeap and the bushies. Mitt was seen as unelectable. Huck takes himself out, Barbour takes himself out, a whisper campaign is started about daniels, glowing reports of him from Wapo and other mainstream outlets. the RINO media gets behind him. Mitch is seen as hesitant but will do it for the good of the country…..

This is Bush 3.0 and I’m not buying it.

The failed policies of Bush and Obama have lead us to this place, this time and I for one do not, will not be a party to a return of the Bushies to power in any way shape or form.

unseen on May 13, 2011 at 5:06 PM

I can’t look at it for too long before the giggles/nausea in equal proportion overtake me. Beyond embarrassing.

Bee on May 13, 2011 at 5:02 PM

Will he have to stand on a box for the State of the Union?

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Mitch is really just too easy to use. Cheri and her lover used him. Barbara’s little Jeb is using him in 2012. Karl Rove is setting up all the Bush allies to use him. The MSM is set to use him as soon as Rove has gotten their kind help with a favorable story of the day for months. Any one wonder why Mitch is favored by the MSM stories while Sarah Palin, who might just win and block Jeb Bush’s turn, is still being treated as an uneducated failure in life?

jimw on May 13, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Akzed on May 13, 2011 at 4:17 PM

By the way, my comment was in support of your comment not in opposition to it.

fourdeucer on May 13, 2011 at 5:08 PM

karenhasfreedom on May 13, 2011 at 4:22 PM

ABP == Anyone But Pawlenty, right? Yeah, I see what you mean, Mitch would put T-Paw in the back seat.

MJBrutus on May 13, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Will he have to stand on a box for the State of the Union?

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 5:07 PM

You mean because he’s short, right? You so funny.

MJBrutus on May 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM

“Are these people really that stupid? … embrace Reagan and not just by words but by actions.
unseen on May 13, 2011 at 4:57 PM”

Yes, they are that stupid, and they hate Reagan (another indicator of their stupidity).

JimP on May 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 4:49 PM

I take it you’re having a bit of trouble coming up with a couple names?

(Hint- “boring” & “secure” doesn’t win elections.)

cs89 on May 13, 2011 at 4:54 PM

Maybeeee but I bet you liked Perot. At least for a while.

I am still trying to find my candidate! The newbies are too untested, and the experienced are too boring.

Huntsman is a nice balance but he faces such a head wind I don’t think he is going any where.

I think his strategy is to stay in long enough to get the nod for State, but that only works for him if Republicans win.

Even Cain is pretty boring… he is borderline ready.

Honestly any one, even what I consider lower teir could win the Nomination at this point.

But I think the General will be close unless we nominate someone in the middle.

McCain would win against Obama now.

Now Obama is clearly far left. Only the far left even try to pretend otherwise.

Elections are won in the middle. Secure and boring.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM

You mean because he’s short, right? You so funny.

MJBrutus on May 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Get used to it if he runs.

sharrukin on May 13, 2011 at 5:14 PM

So, at this point, how big of an appeal is a Scott Walker endorsement?

hawksruleva on May 13, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Huntsman is a nice balance but he faces such a head wind I don’t think he is going any where.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM

If the media hadn’t proclaimed him to be a fearsome opponent for Obama, would you still feel that way? He’s a Trojan RINO.

hawksruleva on May 13, 2011 at 5:17 PM

yeap and the bushies. Mitt was seen as unelectable. Huck takes himself out, Barbour takes himself out, a whisper campaign is started about daniels, glowing reports of him from Wapo and other mainstream outlets. the RINO media gets behind him. Mitch is seen as hesitant but will do it for the good of the country…..

This is Bush 3.0 and I’m not buying it.

The failed policies of Bush and Obama have lead us to this place, this time and I for one do not, will not be a party to a return of the Bushies to power in any way shape or form.

unseen on May 13, 2011 at 5:06 PM

This one I agree with 100%.

GaltBlvnAtty on May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM

Will he have to stand on a box for the State of the Union?

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 5:07 PM

Not to go all spin-doctor here, but the optics of Daniels vs. Obama in a debate would not win Daniels any points.

hawksruleva on May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM

You mean because he’s short, right? You so funny.

MJBrutus on May 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Cry me a river. It will make a difference, whether you like it or not. It would make less of a difference if this guy were Calvin Coolidge. But, he isn’t.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM

I keep thinking Daniels will have a hard time getting the base to warm up to him

The base? Do you know why they are “the base?” It’s because their votes can be taken for granted. They don’t need to be won over, they’re “the base!” “The base” can be an obstacle in the primaries, but in the end they’re not usually decisive even then. After all, “the base” sure didn’t want McCain, they wanted Huckster last time. “The base” didn’t want Reagan for that matter. So no, a candidate needn’t concern himself too much with “the base.”

MJBrutus on May 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Not to go all spin-doctor here, but the optics of Daniels vs. Obama in a debate would not win Daniels any points.

hawksruleva on May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM

It’s not even spin to point out that the president of the United States needs to be an intimidating figure. Daniels would have trouble intimidating a box of Peeps.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 5:23 PM

Not to mention the fact that even while I was watching her schoolmarm Lawrence O’D the other day, I was thinking ‘But you were wrong, Condoleeza, about the WMD, you were wrong.’ I’m not saying that I’m not glad that Saddam Hussein is gone, he was a horrible, horrible man who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Kurds, among others. But can you think of a single greater factor in the recent downfall of the Republican party other than the Iraq war? Without it, would Barack Obama be President today?

cynccook on May 13, 2011 at 5:05 PM

But if they were right?

Yes they were wrong, the whole world was wrong. Sadam’s own people thought he had WMD.

So what if he had nukes and the terrorists got them? They were wrong but the stakes were so high.

I am glad they did what they did. And I am glad Iraq has a chance at Democracy now.

One thing that makes me a squish… I have been so called, you may be surprised to know…is that I don’t mind if leaders make mistakes now and then. The bad information about WMD wasn’t Bush/Condi’s fault. And with the information they had they made what they thought was the right decision.

Wars are very often started over bad information.

Remember the Main!!! A boiler blew up and we were at war.

And we got Panama. (I think, I don’t want to look it up.)

Obama was wrong about Afghanistan being the important war. Bin Laden wasn’t there, he was in Pakistan. Why is Afghanistan important if we were killing the Taliban for hiding Bin Laden, only it wasn’t them, it was the Pakis?

War is complicated.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 5:23 PM

The base? Do you know why they are “the base?” It’s because their votes can be taken for granted.

MJBrutus on May 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM

Aren’t you a moderate elitist charmer.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 5:24 PM

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM

You misunderstood. I was complimenting you on how clever you are. A box for the SOTU, tee hee.

MJBrutus on May 13, 2011 at 5:25 PM

Here’s the deal. Whoever gets the nomination will win because of TP support. TPers DO NOT like the Bushies. Daniels is the consummate Bushie. Dick Armey will try to sway the TP to support Daniels. He will fail.

NoNails on May 13, 2011 at 5:26 PM

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 5:24 PM

Yeah, you’re right. I take that post back.

MJBrutus on May 13, 2011 at 5:26 PM

The base? Do you know why they are “the base?” It’s because their votes can be taken for granted.

MJBrutus on May 13, 2011 at 5:22 PM

True enough, just ask President McCain.

sharrukin on May 13, 2011 at 5:26 PM

How come noone has brought up the VAT issue. Is that dead around here. I see it as different than the PP issue.

txmomof6 on May 13, 2011 at 5:28 PM

There’s two ways to flop. O is going to have the star/celeb power, terra-watts of it, with the MSM doing their customary role of Dim operatives.

I don’t think anyone we have can win the star power race. So the other is the role of the sober normal person who will re-normalize the country…the “new normal” is not good enough. It takes a sober (accounting type) to do this.

That is a plus for Romney, Daniels, TPaw…mature management types with proven records.

Daniels seems to be to be pushing the envelope on the milquetoast meter. I want to make sure that barry gets grilled during the debates…seriously grilled on what he really thinks, and yes, with some ridicule thrown in. Can Daniels do that? I don’t know.

r keller on May 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM

But if they were right?

Yes they were wrong, the whole world was wrong. Sadam’s own people thought he had WMD.

So what if he had nukes and the terrorists got them? They were wrong but the stakes were so high.

I am glad they did what they did. And I am glad Iraq has a chance at Democracy now.

One thing that makes me a squish… I have been so called, you may be surprised to know…is that I don’t mind if leaders make mistakes now and then. The bad information about WMD wasn’t Bush/Condi’s fault. And with the information they had they made what they thought was the right decision.

Wars are very often started over bad information.

Remember the Main!!! A boiler blew up and we were at war.

And we got Panama. (I think, I don’t want to look it up.)

Obama was wrong about Afghanistan being the important war. Bin Laden wasn’t there, he was in Pakistan. Why is Afghanistan important if we were killing the Taliban for hiding Bin Laden, only it wasn’t them, it was the Pakis?

War is complicated.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 5:23 PM

I think this is the first thing you’ve ever posted that I agree with. That being said, I think Rice has shown herself to be just another Obama-loving squish.

NoNails on May 13, 2011 at 5:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3