April 26, 2011

"If Mitch Daniels is going to run, he is the greatest beneficiary of Haley not running."

"If Mitch Daniels doesn’t run, it will get sprinkled across the entire campaign field."

168 comments:

Original Mike said...

"Barbour came to believe that Democrats would turn the election into a debate on the South and race, to distract from Obama administration policies. Barbour concluded this would be a divisive campaign for the country, and a tough one for Republicans to win. Barbour hopes that now the election will be a referendum on the incumbent, not a race about race."

Oh, they'll still do their damndest to make it about race, but Barbour is probably correct that it would be easy to do with him. We've already seen the narrative they would be pushing.

Chip Ahoy said...

It is my belief that narrative is long past its use by date. We still do hear it of course. Just yesterday I heard it, the very first thought it produces is "You Sir, are the self-identifying racist by making the charge."

Rubber glue bounce stick.

MadisonMan said...

I agree with Chip. The argument won't gain traction.

Unless, say, David Duke (is he still alive) or someone like him somehow becomes the Republican Candidate. But certainly the Republican Party wouldn't be that foolish. Would it?

El Presidente said...

Pawlenty, Daniels and Barbour are the Governors in the race and benefit when one of the other Gov's drops out. If Daniels doesn't run Pawlenty will be the nominee.

traditionalguy said...

That is BS. Barbour had to have known since 2008 that Obama would smash his "Boss Hog " persona without hardly trying. Barbour was a temporary stalking horse to keep the deep south GOP guys available for Indiana Daniels who could come in and continue to block Caribou Barbie's runaway train. The difficult boy, Donald the Terrible, has blown it all up!

El Presidente said...

MadisonMan, The Republican are certainly not dumb enough to nominate a Democrat. Please don't forget that Duke was a longtime D before he became an opportunist R.

Former klan members are Democrats. I think that is a rule or something.

Scott M said...

The difficult boy, Donald the Terrible, has blown it all up!

Sans proof, either produced by his own people or from that upcoming book (don't hold your breath on either account), The Donald has painted himself in a very small corner with the birther issue. Either he produces something utterly shocking, or he looses moderates.

Original Mike said...

"I agree with Chip. The argument won't gain traction."

Yeah, but the way things are going, it may well be the only card in their hand.

vbspurs said...

We've already seen the narrative they would be pushing.

On Memeorandum, yesterday, there was a blogpost entitled "Fat Redneck". I didn't read it, so I have no idea if this was a pro-or-con post, but yeah, we get the picture.

Trooper York said...

Hey Charlie Daniels would be a better President than the jug eared Jesus.

vbspurs said...

MadisonMan wrote:

But certainly the Republican Party wouldn't be that foolish.

This bit is just a comment.

Would it?

This bit is what makes an innocuous comment, insulting.

windbag said...

Pawlenty, Daniels and Barbour are the Governors in the race...

Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico is also in the race. How much of a chance does he have? Probably slim because he doesn't have the fame (or notoriety) the rest of the field has. He's fiscally conservative, but stands for legalization of pot and is weak on immigration.

The Republican base would cast him as a RINO or worse, but he could position himself in a way to capture discontents from both parties.

windbag said...

Clarification: I should have said former Governor. I was surprised that both parties selected Senators in 2008, since Presidents have been executive types instead of legislative types in the latter half of the 20th century.

I expect after this disastrous experiment with a President who has never accomplished anything (what CAN Senators do except form committees and hold press conferences?), the American people are ready again to elect a can-do personality to get the job done. Hence, the appeal of Trump.

Henry said...

I had to click through just to see what "it" referred to.

traditionalguy said...

Scott M ...Are you intentionally stating the false Obamanite media's position that Trump must produce Obama's real birth certificate or he is a clown who loses credibility? Good lord, have you listened to Trump? He simply points out that the truth exists somewhere in Obama's secret world and that Obama himself owes it to us to reveal it. So if no one produces Obama's real birth certificate, then Trump the gutsy debater wins credibility.

garage mahal said...

"Barbour came to believe that Democrats would turn the election into a debate on the South and race, to distract from Obama administration policies

or, more likely, he took a look at the polls showing he had no chance.

Carol_Herman said...

Sorry, but Americans will vote in a "STRANGER."

Even though politics is for politicians. And, this locks out others ... as it's the closest thing we have to an aristocracy ...

The likelihood that TRUMP will win it all. What if the GOP doesn't want him? You think McDaniels carries the day?

How this "STRANGER" thing works, is that Americans are basically law & order people. When the wild west was wild, it got tamed when a STRANGER came to town. Didn't have to talk much. HIGH NOON.

The last century belonged to the democraps. They owned it ... what with Teddy Roosevelt being an outsider. Who coined the term "progressive." Then, he went on safari. Leaving the "store" to Fat TAFT.

In anger, Teddy Roosevelt tried to pull Taft out of his re-run. Does it matter? The Bull Moose didn't win. But he came in 2nd.

Woodrow Wilson, however, was the NEW STRANGER who came to DC. Without any political experience under his belt.

FDR? A progressive, from the family mold. Because he was crippled with polio, all the "insiders" thought he'd lose.

Instead, you had two losers: Harding and Hoover. (Harding "made" Taft a supreme court justice.) And, yes. One branch of government was in the conservative camp.

True, after 2 years in office, FDR tried to "pack the court." He didn't win o this issue. But he got elected to 4 terms. And, because people die, FDR got to select an entirely new court, over time. This time the label was "liberal."

The next STRANGER? Maybe, it will be TRUMP? If it's not Trump, then Obama gets another 4 years. But Congress will become republican territory. Alas, there, only the "elites" with connections ... rise to the top. Karl Rove will keep his job.

Nothing changes all that much on the surface.

Unless Trump wins BIG enough so the election isn't stolen. What? You think this nation lives in Madison, WI?

vbspurs said...

TradGuy wrote:

So if no one produces Obama's real birth certificate, then Trump the gutsy debater wins credibility.

I don't know about credibility. It seems to me that Trump is relying on the good regard of media, whom he has schmoozed these many years. One truly damaging weekend of New York Times/WaPo stories can totally wreck him in the eyes of the poor sillies who actually consider him a viable candidate.

I don't consider Donald Trump a serious candidate. I think Birtherism is a farce. But people are misreading what Trump has opened in our national conversation:

The fact that Obama hides stuff that is normally inconsequential for most of us, i.e., producing a birth certificate openly for all to see, even if it's just to shut critics up. Anyone of us would do that.

So, why doesn't he?

Trump has mainstreamed the very issue of Obama being way too secretive.

Scott M said...

Trad

I think you know my points of view well enough to know that I'm not spewing MSM crap. I'm suggesting that with all the things he's said very recently, ie, "I was just told two days ago that the bc is missing", have got to have something to back them up. Who said that? How do they know?

I'll be the first to admit that I'd love to have President Obama have to stand on a stage with The Donald and be forced to debate him. I think Trump would take him apart. I do not, however, believe him to be electable. The matter of who is the right guy for the job hinges on getting the job in the first place.

That being said, I don't really pay much attention to the bc issue simply because it seems they're able to deflect it effectively.

The Connecticut SSN, though...that's just downright creepy at any level.

garage mahal said...

So, why doesn't he?

He has. Do you think it's a fake?

vbspurs said...

ScottM wrote:

The Connecticut SSN, though...that's just downright creepy at any level.

When I came to the US, I was but a child -- I do recall, though, the immigrations officer saying in the airport, "Now with your green card, you can apply for your Social Security number." Since we had emigrated to Florida, I got a Floridian-based SSN.

So why would an American-born person like Barack Obama, not get a Hawaiian SSN? Can someone explain that to me? It's like his port-of-arrival was in Connecticut...

Could it have been his mother's doing? Some kind of anti-American protest, if not for her because she was later on public assistance, but for her son? Why didn't the grandparents intervene?

So many questions. So few answers. Therein lies Trump's power.

vbspurs said...

No, Garage, the short-form isn't a fake. But people want to know why he doesn't reveal his long-form when anyone of us have to, to get something so innocuous as a passport or a driver's license.

The problem here isn't the authenticity of the document, but the arrogant way it is handled.

Original Mike said...

Obama has a Connecticut SSN?

edutcher said...

CT SSN has yet to be explained, as are medical records and transcripts being made available. It's getting to be a long list.

Daniels hasn't got the stomach for a fight, so the advantage, if any, goes to the one who's willing to fight for it.

Barbour bailed because he couldn't stand the gaff, either. The stuff in the article is nonsense. Anybody who runs against Little Zero is going to be called a racist the first time he is called out on something.

Just as well.

Coketown said...

Also, make sure the long form is embossed with a multi-color seal. Bonus points if it has baby Obama's little footprint! Wouldn't that be so cute!? The baby footprint of America's third-worst president!!!

MadisonMan said...

So why would an American-born person like Barack Obama, not get a Hawaiian SSN? Can someone explain that to me? It's like his port-of-arrival was in Connecticut...

It depends on where the application was filed, and when. Did he apply while at Yale because his parents/grandparents never did?

I don't recall needing a SSN to get a passport -- just a birth certificate.

And I've never understood the difference between a long-form birth certificate and a short-form. When I got mine from PA -- not sure why I got it -- it was just one form. You weren't allowed to choose between long and short, IIRC.

Original Mike said...

"Did he apply while at Yale because his parents/grandparents never did?"

Can't you tell from the number the approximate date it was assigned?

Coketown said...

The CT SSN doesn't bother me. I have what would be a New York SSN despite being born in Nevada. I was assigned it while living in Canada. How long was Obama actually in America after being born? Because if he moved out of the country before being given his SSN, it's common that he'd be given one from a New England state that begins with Zero. How appropriate!

MadisonMan said...

Obama has a Connecticut SSN?

My recollection is that someone impersonated him (not quite the right word -- misrepresented themselves as him?) and got some kind of record that included his SS # and it was a number that would have been issued from CT. (Just like all numbers that start 389- are Milwaukee, and 391- is Madison).

wv: And I sh*t you not: myster

EnigmatiCore said...

Some are satin, some are steel
Some are silk, and some are leather

They're the faces of the stranger
But we love to try them on

Scott M said...

Did he apply while at Yale because his parents/grandparents never did?

Yale? Why Yale? He went to school in Los Angeles then transferred to Columbia in NY. Then Haaavad...which is in Mass. Why Yale and why CT?

Paul said...

"Daniels hasn't got the stomach for a fight, so the advantage, if any, goes to the one who's willing to fight for it."

Tru dat.

There is only one fighter out there. She's already been baptized by fire, and when she announces her candidacy all the talk of the Daniels, Pawlentys, etc., will be immediately forgotten.

That's when the real battle for the soul of the Nation will commence in earnest.

Original Mike said...

Curiouser and curiouser.

rdkraus said...

SSN

In the olden days (when I [and BO] were young) you did not automatically get a SSN when you were born, or even shortly thereafter. I did not get mine until I was at least ten or twelve and (I think) had my first paper route. So, he could have been in CT at the time and got one there.

This is the kind of thing that looks nefarious, until it turns out to be ... nothing. I've seen a lot of issues on cross examination play out just this way, when gotcha turns into ... um, next question.

MadisonMan said...

Oops, my bad. Yale, Harvard, they're all the same to me :)

Original Mike said...

I ask again. Can't you tell from the number when it was issued?

vbspurs said...

MadisonMan wrote:

And I've never understood the difference between a long-form birth certificate and a short-form. When I got mine from PA -- not sure why I got it -- it was just one form. You weren't allowed to choose between long and short, IIRC.

American and British certificates are different, so I can't opine. But I have two: Certificate of Birth and Certified Copy of an Entry of Birth. The former was given to my parents at my birth, the latter, I got so that I could attest that I was registered at birth (which you have to do within a certain time frame, else the parents face a huge fine).

If you knew my place of birth, anyone could get a copy of my registration, even after my death. I'm not sure if one can do that in the USA.

miller said...

I've upped my odds of Barack winning in 2012 from 52-48 (a repeat) to 56-44. (Looking at just the vote D:R & not counting third parties.)

A lot of the crazies and birthers are going to turn off people who just want all the stupid people to shut up.

And nominating Trump? He's crazy. A rich crazy guy, but really - you want him with a finger on red button saying "you're fired"?

I don't think anyone the Republicans could nominate stands a chance. And I think it's quite likely we'll have a third-party run from a conservative who'll drain off votes from the weak Republican candidate. If that happens, we'll see a replay of Clinton-Dole-What's-his-name.

vbspurs said...

Original Mike, and others, here is the supposed Obama SSN: 042-68-4425.

I've tried researching, but in a rush to go out. As ever, the topic is bogged down by forgeries, and half-truths. Good luck to any Althousian that wants to get to the bottom of the bottomless pit of Mr Obama's life story.

Original Mike said...

I didn't say I wanted to do the work. ;-)

The Grand Inquisitor said...

"Daniels hasn't got the stomach for a fight, so the advantage, if any, goes to the one who's willing to fight"

You sound like you're not familiar with Daniels. He's focused directly on issue number 1, which wasn't DADT, but rather the debt. He's quite a fighter on that issue. This rhetoric doesn't mince words, and he took on the public unions on day one and beat them. No, he's a fighter who actually wins his fights.

Some have said he's a squish, but when I ask them for an example, they show me how Daniels has directed energy away from issues other than the debt crisis. They say he should be fighting for DADT, or some other issue like that, but perhaps they should note he continues to fight for getting government out of the way so his state can prosper (and the results speak for themselves).

No, Daniels is a fighter. So is Sarah Palin, but she isn't a Governor, so she's a bit liberated of the realities of day to day dealing with democrats. Daniels has to deal with democrats in order to reduce his state's spending and get out of the way of businesses. That's no slight against Palin... it's just reality.

They are both pretty similar people, and it continues to surprise me to see Daniels fans write off Palin or Palin fans write off Daniels. I can say it's just plain ridiculous to claim Daniels isn't a fighter after year after year of very grueling battles over the budget that he keeps winning.

What exactly is it Daniels is supposed to be fighting? He can't waste his time criticizing Obama when he has a state to run, any more than he already has. He's quite right to continue to insist we focus on the deficit as a nation... that is hardly a sign of weakness or squishiness. Don't let his competitors, almost all of whom lack his success, claim otherwise.

Keep an open mind. See what agenda he has to offer in the debates. Whatever he claims, he has credibility to back up. Daniels fans must similarly keep an open mind. We don't know about Daniels's foreign policy yet. We need to see if his campaign style can account for his political liability (mainly, his physical appearance). We can't write off Palin's liability (the quitter BS) because any nominee will get a similar BS meme. Palin and Daniels are on the same side, and I wish we could combine their attributes (And maybe we will).

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Hooray Mitch Daniels is Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Oh what, what was I saying just a moment ago…something about garden gnomes and the Presidency? Oh yes Mitch Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……

traditionalguy said...

VickiSpurs...I am more attuned to arguments that demand an outcome than I am to fear of the envy factor. By envy factor, I mean the experience of good debaters/Trial Lawyers who win a cases, but make enemies out of the wannabes in the audience. The only antidote to the envy factor is to develop a persona as a less than perfect everyday man. IMO Trump has done exactly that, so the assertions that we should reject him out of envy over his winning cases falls flat in Trump's case. You might watch Anatomy of a Murder and see Jimmy Stewart do that trick.

garage mahal said...

A lot of the crazies and birthers are going to turn off people who just want all the stupid people to shut up.

It's nuts. But I hope Repubs continue to make this one of their top priorities.

rdkraus said...

We should reject Trump because he's not a conservative.

Scott M said...

We should reject Trump because he's not a conservative.

I reject him because he was once a semi-catatonic cat.

MayBee said...

If he applied for a SSN while living in Indonesia, who knows what number he would have been given. Probably would have been processed wherever the consulate sent it.

Comrade X said...

I've upped my odds of Barack winning in 2012 from 52-48 (a repeat) to 56-44.

yes. everyone who voted for him will do so again and some who voted against him will come to see his true greatness.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Also, make sure the long form is embossed with a multi-color seal. Bonus points if it has baby Obama's little footprint! Wouldn't that be so cute!?

The long form, or OFFICIAL birth certificate does not contain foot prints. It is an offical document that is registered at the County or State level.

That is generally on the Certificate of Live Birth, which is the document that Obama has (supposidly) provided which is a souvenier type of document. It is NOT a Birth Certificate.

We are still waiting for him to produce the document that we all have to provide to get a passport or any type of government job.
Try again.

Coketown said...

Original Mike, and others, here is the supposed Obama SSN: 042-68-4425.

Well, if A=0, B=1, etc., then the sum of the groupings of Obama's SSN are:

0+4+2=6= G
6+8=14= O
4+4+2+5=15= P

G.O.P. Oh my God. This is more sinister than I thought.

Original Mike said...

CokeTown has broken the code. Well done, sir.

G Joubert said...

Why when he was a kid living in Indonesia would he have wanted or needed a SSN?

edutcher said...

Certificates of live birth were usually issued by the hospital (mine was).

The birth cert is state-issued. That's the difference.

Also the reason Jan Brewer killed the birther bill in AZ. It would have allowed such nonsense as baptismal and circumcision certs as proof.

The Grand Inquisitor said...

"Daniels hasn't got the stomach for a fight, so the advantage, if any, goes to the one who's willing to fight"

You sound like you're not familiar with Daniels. He's focused directly on issue number 1, which wasn't DADT, but rather the debt.


Gee, can't recall raising DADT. Sounds like somebody wants to build up Daniels.

Wonder why?

MadisonMan said...

Coketown, I bow in your general direction. That was brilliant.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


For me, the problem with Daniels IS the Social Issues…Did Barak SOLELY focus on ObamaCare? Does the Left? Why can’t we fight Abortion AND the Deficit?

And whilst she hasn’t declared, I believe with Palin I can have BOTH, so why would I take Daniels to fight only ONE?

MadisonMan said...

(but I think you should change your name to Pepsitown, or Dairytown, lest you face a boycott)

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Coketown, one quibble, in all that numerology, you missed a couple of opportunities to also end up with “666” which would have been EPIC!

Coketown said...

I suspect this code is multi-layered, as most codes of nefarious origin typically are. If anyone else can decode it further, please do!

peter hoh said...

Obama's DNA spells GOP?

Ezra has that covered.

MayBee said...

Why when he was a kid living in Indonesia would he have wanted or needed a SSN?

I don't know. Maybe his mom thought he needed it for something. Maybe they wanted to open a bank account for him. Maybe someone recommended it when they were in the consulate getting a passport.

Trooper York said...

An empty bottle of Jack Daniels would be a better President than the jug eared Jesus.

garage mahal said...

Trooper, we have a beer waiting for you over at the twitter bar. I poured it myself. So to speak.

Pogo said...

Trooper, that's the old decision: "...rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy"

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't consider Donald Trump a serious candidate.

I don't think Donald Trump does either.

Simon said...

garage mahal said...
"[Why doesn't he release it?] He has."


Question: You mean the image released online, e.g. here?

Trooper York said...

Garage I can't twitter I am just too busy. Like today I am imitating Hitler today.

And I bet you thought only Cedarford did that!

Hoosier Daddy said...

I'd love to have President Obama have to stand on a stage with The Donald and be forced to debate him. I think Trump would take him apart.

That's not a very high bar. My 13 year old is finishing up her first course in general business/economics and could learn him a thing or six.

Phil 3:14 said...

A post on Barbour/Daniels degenerates into a birther discussion. If birther discussion gains traction and all the Republican candidates speak to it, the independants will stay home.

And thus we'll have a two term
non-natural born citizen President

I don't think Mick's heart could stand that!

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't think anyone the Republicans could nominate stands a chance.

Talk to me again at the end of the year if we're at $5/gallon of gas.

Pogo said...

I think Mitch Daniels should run, just not for President.

Scott M said...

A post on Barbour/Daniels degenerates into a birther discussion. If birther discussion gains traction and all the Republican candidates speak to it, the independants will stay home.

This is essentially what I said upthread. With all the noise The Donald is making about the issue, he better put up or shut up at some point soon, or he's toast and will drag someone down with him.

Hoosier Daddy said...

For me, the problem with Daniels IS the Social Issues…Did Barak SOLELY focus on ObamaCare? Does the Left? Why can’t we fight Abortion AND the Deficit?

Because 'we' shouldn't have to. I am a true small government conservative. I don't need them in my wallet or bedroom. Why is whether someone wants to have kids or not or marry someone of the same sex your problem?

traditionalguy said...

Phil 3:14...Don't you see that everyone in the Mods/Indys wants to get rid of Obama too. They just were and are stuck by the fear factor of rejecting the African American's smiling guy, but they have no fear of rejecting a lying weasel who tricked them once already.

garage mahal said...

Question: You mean the image released online, e.g. here?

Factcheck had possesion of the the birt certificate, which is where that scanned image came from.

Then there is George Stephanopoulos showing Michelle Bachmann Obama's birth certificate here, which says 'this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.'

In a sane world that would be the end of it, but of course we don't live in that world.

Coketown said...

If anyone thinks Trump is anything more than a bloated windbag whose fortune comes from his father rather than his own real estate savvy, I've got a $250,000 hole in the ground I'd like to sell them. It'll be a condo someday! I promise.

Simon said...

But Garage, don't you think that an online image is susceptible to manipulation—alteration or outright fakery? For example, the image you apparently just accepted as Obama's birth certificate isn't legit—it's been photoshopped. I know that because I photoshopped it myself. I even left in a glaring error to cue you that something was amiss. Look again: Was Obama born a day after his birth was certified?

You see now why people who want to believe he was born elsewhere find that image inadequate proof?

Pogo said...

"In a sane world that would be the end of it"

In a sane world, the most unvetted person to ever run for President wouldn't have been elected.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Because 'we' shouldn't have to. I am a true small government conservative. I don't need them in my wallet or bedroom. Why is whether someone wants to have kids or not or marry someone of the same sex your problem?

Because without folks like ME, folks LIKE YOU are going to see a very, very large government, telling you how to live, eat, and ACT…even if they don’t worry about your bedroom activities. “Small Government” Conservatives are a MINORITY of the base…..If you mean you’re a Small Government Person…you’re a Libertarian…so we SoCons are going to be here, we can be on the bus with you or we can both be on the side of the road watching the bus drive by…

US Political Conservatism is a three-legged stool…basically you’re sawing off the other two legs, don’t be surprised if the monopod falls over a lot. And that’s just POLITICS of it…there is the Substance of it too…but there’s no need to go there.

Hoosier Daddy said...

In a sane world that would be the end of it, but of course we don't live in that world.

This shouldn't be a newsflash to someone whose party at one point was polled at 30% in believing Bush and Cheney wired the WTC to collapse.

Original Mike said...

I wondered about those dates, Simon.

peter hoh said...

For those of you who reject Daniels because of his talk of a truce on social issues, what do you think that Palin or Pawlenty might do about abortion that you don't think Daniels would do?

Simon said...

And, by the by, since the paper form of that birth certificate is, as you say, prima facie evidence of birth in Hawaii, reasonable minds wonder why Obama won't simply file that birth certificate with the courts in any of the numerous lawsuits challenging his eligibility. Instead, he has fought tooth and nail to keep these cases out of discovery; why not file the certificate and then file a motion to dismiss? It won't shut up the hardcore crazies, but it would allay reasonable people that he isn't hiding something, as Victoria alluded to.

(The answer is because he derives political utility from egging on the birthers; he's playing these idiots, and you and I know that, and it's desperately sad that they don't realize it. It's clever, but it's a mucky play.)

Hagar said...

I don't think the question is so much what country he was born in as on what planet.

"The birther issue" has got traction because the guy is different; there is something not quite real about him that people feel and react to, but can't put into words, so they go with "the birther thing."

Hoosier Daddy said...

Because without folks like ME, folks LIKE YOU are going to see a very, very large government, telling you how to live, eat, and ACT…even if they don’t worry about your bedroom activities.

Sorry but I don't see much difference in the threat to freedom from those who want me to not to cook with Crisco versus those who don't want Frank and Joe to get married.

Point is, none of them should be any concern for conservatives and social conservatives who put those issues in front of the fiscal health of the country are just as dangerous as liberals.

So there. :-p

Original Mike said...

"The answer is because he derives political utility from egging on the birthers"

It's one of the few things he's got going for him at the moment.

Shanna said...

For me, the problem with Daniels IS the Social Issues…Did Barak SOLELY focus on ObamaCare? Does the Left? Why can’t we fight Abortion AND the Deficit?

If Daniels is not going to spend way too much time talking about social issues and rather focus entirely on fiscal (with whatever national security stuff is necessary) than you have pretty much described my ideal candidate and I can start to get excited about him. Maybe even get a bumper sticker (not really, hate those things. But maybe the magnetic removable kind?)

Hoosier Daddy said...

I don't care about the birther issue anyway. For that matter, I know more foreign born who became US citizens who have a greater love and respect for this nation and its founding principles than the guy sitting the Oval Office.

Pogo said...

Not sure how clever, Simon. The larger message is the illegitimacy of Obama as President.

The smackdown utility to the birthers is long past.

traditionalguy said...

The envy factor on Trump is Code Red here today. He seems to be hated for his success in the real world. Maybe we need to just stay in our comfortable imagination that the real world is so safe these days. And what has Daniels done? And what has Pawlenty done? And what has Gingrich done? Nothing in the real world. Romney has done real things, and he is Trump's main opponent. Trump has already attacked Romney for being less successful than Trump in the real world.

Original Mike said...

"And what has Daniels done? And what has Pawlenty done?"

They ran states.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Sorry but I don't see much difference in the threat to freedom from those who want me to not to cook with Crisco versus those who don't want Frank and Joe to get married.

Point is, none of them should be any concern for conservatives and social conservatives who put those issues in front of the fiscal health of the country are just as dangerous as liberals.


Because people like myself think killing 1.5 million babies a year is the moral equivalent to Slavery or the Holocaust, and I really don’t care if the budget is in balance, but we kill lots of babies, too. I think BOTH are abhorrent. Because NO SOCIETY has ever recognized the right of Frank and Joe to get married, and we believe that a society with NO LIMITS, won’t remain a viable society very long…

Bottom-Line: from my perspective, a America with Abortion but a Balanced Budget, is a Nazi Germany with a Balanced Budget, or an America of 1860 with Slavery but a Balanced Budget….

And without my vote, and YOURS we don’t get a balanced Budget, so you’d better get used to the idea of fighting Abortion too….

peter hoh said...

Traditional Guy, did you see Coketown's link? Trumps "accomplishments" are littered with stuff like that. I bet he's played the Kelo card a few times, too.

peter hoh said...

Joe, what do you think your favored candidate can do to end abortion?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
He seems to be hated for his success in the real world. Maybe we need to just stay in our comfortable imagination that the real world is so safe these days. And what has Daniels done? And what has Pawlenty done? And what has Gingrich done? Nothing in the real world. Romney has done real things, and he is Trump's main opponent. Trump has already attacked Romney for being less successful than Trump in the real world.

You mean going bankrupt 4 times is now “success?” You mean paying off political figures so that your business, real estate and casinos is business success in the real world? As to Trump and Romney, are you saying trump is taunting Romney by saying, “h-HA I’ve taken my investors to the bath FOUR times, and you? Not even ONCE! What a piker!”

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Joe, what do you think your favored candidate can do to end abortion?.

Supreme Court appointments, regulations, and Federal Legislation…you know what any other POTUS has to hand……

The Grand Inquisitor said...

"And what has Daniels done? "

I think this is hilarious.

Compared to Donald Trump? Are you serious? Running for President takes more than just saying "I've heard he was a bad student and I heard he has AIDS and I heard he was born in Kenya."

Trump lacks a record of consistent successful leadership. Daniels has served in two white houses and successfully saved a state from a debt crisis, while improving business and employment. Palin has reformed Alaska from major corruption, and generally had popular reforms and successes, though her time in a governorship was quite short.

Trump? He got married 45 times and filed bankruptcy 300 times. You think Daniels support expresses Trump envy? No, Trump wants to win by tearing everyone else down. He has no solutions. He wants to emulate china's construction bubble, rather than reform entitlements. Sure, there's plenty to bash Obama for, but his birth? I don't care about that. I care about alternatives to Obama's leadership.

LOTS of Republicans propose alternatives to Obama's leadership. I think Palin, Daniels, West, Christie, and Perry all have done a good job, and I have an open mind to see who puts forward the best candidacy next year. Trump is already a miserable failure.

Trooper York said...

If any reality show star has a chance to be elected President it is Bethanny Frankel not Donald Trump.

Snookie has fewer skeletons in her closet than the Donald.

He is just doing this for fun.

Original Mike said...

"you know what any other POTUS has to hand……"

Name the last POTUS who persued this issue with vigor.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Name the last POTUS who persued this issue with vigor..

Barak Obama, via SCOTUS and ObamaCare regulations?

Original Mike said...

Clever, though given that it would seem your first priority should be to replace Obama with anybody else. But you, apparently, would rather pout and stay home.

MadisonMan said...

Name the last POTUS who persued this issue with vigor.

My opinion is that the fundraising wing of the Republican Party most emphatically does not want Roe v. Wade overturned.

If it were overturned, how would they raise money?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Clever, though given that it would seem your first priority should be to replace Obama with anybody else. But you, apparently, would rather pout and stay home.

• Why would I want to replace Obama with ANYONE else, I voted for Palin in 2008. Had she not been on the ticket I wasn’t voting. Would you vote for HITLER, he’s not Obama? How about Huckabee, think taxes will fall or rise with him? Will ObamaCare be repealed? Think Comprehensive Immigration Reform won’t have an advocate with HIM? I wouldn’t vote for Lowell Weicker, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Nelson Rockefeller to take Obama’s place. Why would I vote one big government advocate in for another?
• Looks to me like the same can be said for Hoosier and possibly you…No Truce, no vote for Palin. Looks like the Fiscal Cons are saying they value Abortion over Fiscal Sanity, and would rather have more of the same than less Roe…so tell me who’s pouting and going to take their ball home?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Because people like myself think killing 1.5 million babies a year is the moral equivalent to Slavery or the Holocaust, and I really don’t care if the budget is in balance, but we kill lots of babies, too.

Well that’s your opinion. Personally I don’t think anyone who isn’t smart enough to use readily available methods of preventing a pregnancy should be entrusted with raising a productive member of society. The inability of those people who can’t manage to utilize cheap and readily available methods of preventing pregnancy aren’t going to suddenly stop getting abortions because it suddenly becomes illegal anymore than Prohibition stopped drinking. It’s a behavioral matter and it isn’t going to be changed by legislation.

Because NO SOCIETY has ever recognized the right of Frank and Joe to get married,

Actually I think there are a few out there and they haven’t succumbed to anarchy. After all, it’s kind of tough for me to advocate on the ‘sanctity’ of heterosexual marriage when the divorce rate is 50% and the celebrity set make the institution a joke on a daily basis.

and we believe that a society with NO LIMITS, won’t remain a viable society very long…

Put down the strawman Joe, I have an open flame here. Where did I ever suggest a society without limits?

Almost Ali said...

I'd vote for Trump over those Republican deadheads anytime. And talk about a national laugh-candidate, Haley was hysterical.

No, I'll take the bull in the China shop. And OPEC's oil, too.

reader_iam said...

a America with Abortion but a Balanced Budget, is a Nazi Germany with a Balanced Budget,

Are you out of your mind? Since WHEN did the U.S. government ****mandate**** abortions, require and direct that those babies be killed? WHEN??? Set up mass camps where they could be aborted by en masse using government funds and government workers? Since WHEN did the U.S invade other countries and then round up its pregnant women, sending them off to extermination camps?

Your analogy absolutely sucks, you fool. The U.S. is NOT f'n Nazi Germany, not in any respect. Talk about offensively dishonest.

Hoosier Daddy said...

My opinion is that the fundraising wing of the Republican Party most emphatically does not want Roe v. Wade overturned.

If it were overturned, how would they raise money?


Are you serious? You honestly believe GOP funding is predicated on fighting abortion?

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
If it were overturned, how would they raise money?

You figured us out it’s all about the MONEY! *WOW* I guess you’d be saying, in 1860, that the whole Abolitionist thing is about the money, too, right? I mean what would Fredrick Douglas do if Slavery were abolished?

Of course let me turn it around, is all about the money, ON THE OTHER SIDE? I mean if it weren’t for the Pro-Life Forces what would all the folks at NARAL and NOW do for a living?

Finally, we’ll make our money, fighting Abortion at the state and Federal level…got 38 states to make pro-Life and then a Pro-Life Amendment to pass, we’ll be busy for decades!

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Are you out of your mind? Since WHEN did the U.S. government ****mandate**** abortions, require and direct that those babies be killed? WHEN??? Set up mass camps where they could be aborted by en masse using government funds and government workers? Since WHEN did the U.S invade other countries and then round up its pregnant women, sending them off to extermination camps?

Your analogy absolutely sucks, you fool. The U.S. is NOT f'n Nazi Germany, not in any respect. Talk about offensively dishonest.


Well then how about America circa 1860, does that make you feel better, no one mandated SLAVERY either…of course with abortion the Holocaust gets REPEATED EVERY FOUR YEARS, so you’ll understand that after about 8 or so Holocausts I see a whole lot of blood in the streets….

reader_iam said...

Peter Hoh: Don't bother. There's no point with people who apparently believe that a Mitch Daniels or Tim Pawlenty, for example, were to become president, they'd immediately start a short-list of pro-unlimited abortion rights types to nominate for the Supreme Court the minute a vacancy became available.

Sheesh.

Michael K said...

Instead, you had two losers: Harding and Hoover. (Harding "made" Taft a supreme court justice.) And, yes. One branch of government was in the conservative camp.

Harding does not deserve to be in the same category as Hoover. Harding's policies, continued by Coolidge, led to the great boom of the 20s. Left wing historians have demonized Harding, and he did have problems with his appointments of Daugherty and Fall, but the 20s was the equivalent of the Clinton/ GOP Congress years of the 90s.

That period is now being studied and revisions of the history of that period are coming very soon. From Amity Schlaes, for one.

Hoover, on the other hand, was a self important progressive who did the things that Obama is doing and, when Roosevelt carried on in the same way, we got the Great Depression. If Obama is re-elected, I think we will see another ten year Depression.

traditionalguy said...

Seriously, you Trump detractors are like Ray Nitschke detractors who expose all of his dirty plays while he won and won and won for that terrible Wisconsin team named after a packing house. Well I would still take him on my team any day. Today's atmosphere in the US economy facing the coming IMF/China dollar debacle needs a Ray Nitschke approach. What the hell does "governing a State" mean in times like these?

Paul said...

"The envy factor on Trump is Code Red here today. He seems to be hated for his success in the real world."

Trump's fatal flaw is the same as the current POS in the Oval Office.

Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Neither posses the temperament to steward the nation as every act is a calculation aimed toward the singular goal of enhancing one's reflected glory.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Well that’s your opinion. Personally I don’t think anyone who isn’t smart enough to use readily available methods of preventing a pregnancy should be entrusted with raising a productive member of society. The inability of those people who can’t manage to utilize cheap and readily available methods of preventing pregnancy aren’t going to suddenly stop getting abortions because it suddenly becomes illegal anymore than Prohibition stopped drinking. It’s a behavioral matter and it isn’t going to be changed by legislation.

Well I don’t think either in gross or per capita numbers 1.5 million babies died PRE-Roe…

Because NO SOCIETY has ever recognized the right of Frank and Joe to get married,

Actually I think there are a few out there and they haven’t succumbed to anarchy. After all, it’s kind of tough for me to advocate on the ‘sanctity’ of heterosexual marriage when the divorce rate is 50% and the celebrity set make the institution a joke on a daily basis.


Would you care to point ut a society that HAS allowed it for more than a decade?

and we believe that a society with NO LIMITS, won’t remain a viable society very long…

Put down the strawman Joe, I have an open flame here. Where did I ever suggest a society without limits?.


May I marry my own daughter, if not why not? We’ve already had that discussion here? May I marry more than one person, if not why not? These are already moves afoot, now that gay Marriage is Ok’d…check out Reason.com for the SERIOUS discussion of, “If I want to eat someone and someone agrees to be eaten, can society intervene?” Strawmen, I don’t think so…When Griswold was decided someone asked, won’t this lead to abortion and the SCOTUS assured us, “NO”…at least one did, at least. And then that SCOTUS voted FOR Abortion…but sure tell yourself that once we have Gay Marriage then any other union won’t be acceptable. Just please send me your philosophic justification for such an assertion….

MadisonMan said...

Are you serious? You honestly believe GOP funding is predicated on fighting abortion?

I should have said A fundraising wing, not the fundraising wing.

Beth said...

Simon, do you want a certified copy sent via registered mail to every registered voter? Because otherwise, all any of us will see is a digital image.

Original Mike said...

" How about Huckabee, think taxes will fall or rise with him?"

I think Huckabee will be awful on the economy, but if he's the Republican candidate I will be holding my nose when I vote for the lesser of two evils. Given that you think Obama has pursued his abortion preferences vigoursly, you don't think you'd be better off with any of the Republican candidates.

"Looks to me like the same can be said for Hoosier and possibly you…No Truce, no vote for Palin. Looks like the Fiscal Cons are saying they value Abortion over Fiscal Sanity, and would rather have more of the same than less Roe…so tell me who’s pouting and going to take their ball home?"

I don't know what to say to this rant. I'm not voting for or against any "Truce". I hope Palin doesn't get the nomination, because I don't think she can beat Obama, but if she's the candidate in the general I'm voting for her over Obama. I will be voting for whomever is running against Obama

(BTW, no need to thank me for ignoring your ridiculous Hitler reference).

Fred4Pres said...

Meh. I am not sure America is ready for a height challenged president. We like our presidental timber tall.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Peter Hoh: Don't bother. There's no point with people who apparently believe that a Mitch Daniels or Tim Pawlenty, for example, were to become president, they'd immediately start a short-list of pro-unlimited abortion rights types to nominate for the Supreme Court the minute a vacancy became available.

All I can say is, with Palin I get Deficit and Debt Reduction AND Opposition to Abortion, so in the primaries, I’m sure pulling for Palin…and yeah I see Mr Moderate Daniels striking the Great Compromise…on abortion and SCOTUS and the budget….only to be double-crossed by the Democrats….leaving Hoosier and myself unhappy….

And Daniels has been open to a VAT…great idea. Oh sure, he says only in return for comprehensive tax reform…well I’ll support a VAT with another Constitutional Amendment that repeals the Income Tax and SUBSTITUTES the VAT, otherwise Mr. Moderate will simply give us a VAT AND an Income Tax.

Look we’ve been down “Moderate/Pragmatic” Lane before, George Bush ’41 and Bush ’43 and Bob Dole, how about we try a different approach?

Original Mike said...

I should add I don't know if I could bring myself to vote for Trump, but I don't think I'll be facing that dilemma.

Original Mike said...

Ray Nitschke detractors???

MadisonMan said...

Look we’ve been down “Moderate/Pragmatic” Lane before, George Bush ’41 and Bush ’43 and Bob Dole, how about we try a different approach?

Where will that different lane lead you? Past a lot of voters that are needed.

What you need is a Candidate that looks moderate -- say, someone like Scott Walker -- who then turns decidedly less so (because of some "emergency") while in office.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I don't know what to say to this rant. I'm not voting for or against any "Truce". I hope Palin doesn't get the nomination, because I don't think she can beat Obama, but if she's the candidate in the general I'm voting for her over Obama. I will be voting for whomever is running against Obama

(BTW, no need to thank me for ignoring your ridiculous Hitler reference).


You said ANYONE….next time limit yourself. As to voting for whomsoever is not Obama, again HITLER? Dood/Doodette just because they’re not Obama doesn’t make them good for the country…Father Coughlin? Huey P Long? Mayor Curlee? John Brown? H. Ross Perot? Jesse Ventura? ANYONE? REALLY? That’s no better than saying, “Obama is AWESOME.” And at least that is only an internet cartoon.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Where will that different lane lead you? Past a lot of voters that are needed..

Couldn’t pass up the Walker jab eh, Madman…look who won PROSSER!

You mean like FDR and LBJ, I mean they didn’t break new ground programmatically or anything? I always find it funny, the New Deal and the Great Society are WONDERFUL to the Left, but anything else is a “Risky Scheme”….well mayhap we can get the Ryan Roadmap passed in the next few years. Then you can rail against IT, like we’ve railed against the Great Society for 50 years…….

Original Mike said...

"You said ANYONE….next time limit yourself."

I thought I was talking to a sane individual. Good grief.

I agree with, BTW, about the failure of past "moderate" Republican Presidents. They have contributed to the mess we are in. And if Daniels really does support a VAT, I'll be voting elsewhere in the primary.

reader_iam said...

Joe thinks the United States is like Nazi Germany.

I think of Joe the same way I think of lefties who say things like that.

reader_iam said...

I wonder what Sarah Palin would think of someone who says the U.S. is like Nazi Germany, with or without a balance budget. Would she describe that person is a true patriot?

Me, I doubt it.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
Joe thinks the United States is like Nazi Germany.

I think of Joe the same way I think of lefties who say things like that.


In some ways worse, we’ve gotten 40-50 million innocents, all in the name of convenience…..YOU remind me of John C Calhoun, next you’ll be telling us Abortion is a POSITIVE GOOD.

garage mahal said...

You see now why people who want to believe he was born elsewhere find that image inadequate proof?

Actually Beth stole my response. Sorry got sidetracked. I don't think for these people any proof would ever be satisfactory.

BEK477 said...

Ann,
In which case the GOP should put up Jindal and West or Perry and Jindal. Daniels and West would work as well. Also Ryan and Cain would be possible too.

Any of these would present issues for Obama.

One thing we cna count on is Biden not running for VEEP in 2012.

I think that Hillary will bail as SOS as well. Especially if Boehner, Cantor and McConnell guarrentee her that they won't oppose her being named an Associate of the SCOTUS. Just imagine ht eenvy of Willie were Hills to get a Justice appointment when Ginsberg steps down.

And as a member of the SCOTUS she could screw Obama's WH anytime she wanted to do so. And he would have to suffer it.

Pay back is such a Bi*&H.

The Grand Inquisitor said...

"Look we’ve been down “Moderate/Pragmatic” Lane before,"

HAHAHA. If you're suggesting Daniels is more moderate than anyone on fighting debt, I'd like to see how. He's like a laser on this issue. In fact, he's so immoderate on the subject that it may be a political liability. You've got it backwards. Palin's much more moderate on spending and taxation.

Daniels proposed a flat tax combined with a VAT. That's not the same as adding a VAT to our present tax system. The flat tax is a great idea, and you should reconsider. Instead, you just spit out a very dishonest summary of Daniels' position.

If you have to stack the deck dishonestly, you should ask yourself why. I don't think Palin needs that kind of help. She's a good candidate on her own merits.

I could cherry pick Palin's policy on taxation, for example with oil companies, in the way you did with Daniels, but I like Palin and Daniels both. All I ask is that you keep an open mind. Some people have decided that anyone who threatens their favorite, sometimes that person being Palin, needs to be fought in personal and dishonest terms. That doesn't help the GOP beat Obama.

Also, I'm not sure why abortion is an issue in this coming election. Sure, it matters a lot, but we have a fundamental existential crisis. The debt is going to crush our country and we need to focus on it. All candidates need to put forward a full strategy for dealing with it. I think so far, Daniels and Palin have done the best job, but both have some political liabilities.

Just keep an open mind. The idea that you can write Daniels off as a Bob Dole is just plain ludicrous. You might as well say Obama is just like Bush 43. It's just silly and random.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I wonder what Sarah Palin would think of someone who says the U.S. is like Nazi Germany, with or without a balance budget. Would she describe that person is a true patriot?

Me, I doubt it..


But she’ll still take my vote and money, won’t she? And if she wins, and reduces the BUDGET and FIGHTS ABORTION, I’ll be happy, how about you? Will it be a Battle Lost if Abortion is impeded, the budget reduced, and me made happy? I mean obviously my view on America is the single determinant of the success of a Palin Presidency, right? And YOUR opinion of it? It is to laugh….

reader_iam said...

No, I'd never say abortion is a positive good. Never have. Never will.

Original Mike said...

"The idea that you can write Daniels off as a Bob Dole is just plain ludicrous."

At least he didn't compare him to Hitler (or maybe he did, it was hard to follow).

traditionalguy said...

Ray Nitschke and Trump are both not perfect men nor saints. But they both shared a will to win that translates into leadership with a capital L. You don't have to like them, just respect them for what they can do. After the battles are won, then we can fire them and slander them to our heart's content.

Trooper York said...

Original Mike said...
Ray Nitschke detractors???


I agree with you Original Mike. That is beyond the pale. Why hate on guy just because he is gay.

I thought this country has gone beyond this kind of behavior.

Frankly I am shocked.

Original Mike said...

Ray Nitschke was a bear killer. (Civility week is over, right?)

BEK477 said...

Folks I think Perry is going ot take in a run away.

He is a bvery successful governor. He can deliver Texas.

Business loves him.

The hispanics will flock to him because Obama has ignored them.

Energy will be a big issue and Perry has credibility on th eissue.

Palin will support him.

As for his veep it could be West, Daniels, Palin, Paul Ryan, Pawlenty, Huntsman or Cain. West and Cain both neutralize Obama's race card issues.

Bringing West on board will bring Palin's conservative block on board too. If Perry gets the top slot then the Bushes are frozen out of the WH until 2020.

Ryan helps Perry with mid-west and budget issues.

However, West could appeal to mid-western voters as well.

Alternatively, bringing Cantor in as VEEP would be a big move too. I prefer that Cantor not run for VEEP. I need him to challenge SCHUMER or GILbrand.

traditionalguy said...

Daniels would be a very valuable man if we needed another astronaut who does math. He could fit into a space capsule as well as fit into the the oval office. Have you ever seen how small those two actually are? If Alan Ladd can be an actor, then Mitch Daniel can look Presidential.

reader_iam said...

John C. Calhoun? Oh, LOL.

Kirk Parker said...

"Personally I dont think anyone who isnt smart enough to use readily available methods of preventing a pregnancy should be entrusted with raising a productive member of society."

OK, but abortion targets the truly faultless participant in that little dance. "Sorry, kid, your parent is a complete irresponsible moron, so you get to take it in the neck."

Trooper York said...

Original Mike said...
Ray Nitschke was a bear killer. (Civility week is over, right?)

Very true. He liked the willowly slender type. Like a young Lynn Swann. He left the Bears to Andrew Sullivan.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Simon said...

Hoosier Daddy said...
"The inability of those people who can’t manage to utilize cheap and readily available methods of preventing pregnancy aren’t going to suddenly stop getting abortions because it suddenly becomes illegal anymore than Prohibition stopped drinking. It’s a behavioral matter and it isn’t going to be changed by legislation."

I must say that I'm with Joe on this, to an extent (less the more extreme rhetorical flourishes). To be sure, banning abortion will not stamp out abortion, any more than banning any other activity results in a complete cessation of that activity. The crime rate isn’t zero. But what wold happen if we abolished the penal code and enforcement thereof? No one in their right mind would assert that doing so would have no effect on the incidence of now-criminal activities. Criminal law is not ineffectual.

Nor does the analogy to prohibition do quite the work you think it does. So let's consider prohibition. The analogy is imperfect (because the incentive structures at issue are different) but serviceable (because in both instances, government prohibits a choice that had hitherto been within the volition of citizens for many years). During prohibition, some people still drank, but that is a far cry from saying that governmental prohibition of alcohol did nothing to reduce the amount of drinking. Fewer people drank, and those who did drank less. Alcohol consumption dropped, and the industries supporting it collapsed. Obviously we can’t accurately say by what percentage, but let’s take the improbably low figure of 30%. A thirty percent reduction in the number of abortions carried out in the United States would save a great number of lives.

Nor is it true that we must rely on law alone, and another analogy suggests itself to illustrate the point.

Legal change doesn't have to stand in isolation. Cultural change and legal change can enjoy a mutually complimentary relationship. Have you ever watched "Mad Men"? Demand for a deadly product is not a given, as Don Draper’s clients and colleagues might have supposed; in the case of tobacco, a long-term culture war combined with scientific evidence and various interventions of law undermined demand. In thirty years, smoking will probably be all-but illegal—or fully illegal in ten if Obamacare passes. While there will be very few holdouts, changes in law and culture will have all-but destroyed a habit that was ubiquitous fifty years ago.

Abortion can be rolled back; law does make a difference, especially when combined with a culture shift that is already apparent.

Simon said...

BEK, I'm open to hearing more about Perry, but won't the anti-gay anti-immigration wing go schizoid if he's the candidate?

peter hoh said...

Joe, what would President Palin do about abortion that President Daniels wouldn't do?

The biggest impact the next president will have is with SCOTUS nominations. You really think that Daniels is going to pick someone more liberal than Palin might pick?

peter hoh said...

And just to stir the coals, Joe, do you trust Trump on the abortion issue?

Alex said...

Because otherwise, all any of us will see is a digital image.

Digital image will do fine, or a certified copy in Sean Hannity's hands that he can wave at us.

peter hoh said...

Especially if Boehner, Cantor and McConnell guarrentee her that they won't oppose her being named an Associate of the SCOTUS.

BEK477, can you explain the role that Boehner and Cantor play in Hillary Clinton's road to the Supreme Court?

peter hoh said...

More stunning analysis from BEK477:

I prefer that Cantor not run for VEEP. I need him to challenge SCHUMER or GILbrand.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
And just to stir the coals, Joe, do you trust Trump on the abortion issue?

No, I am not voting for Trump, either in the Primary or the General...for many reasons...most of which involve, not voting for someone who either lied to the Pro-Choice folks or is lying to ME...I try to not vote for Liars.

Simon said...

peter hoh said...
"Joe, what would President Palin do about abortion that President Daniels wouldn't do? "

I can imagine Palin more aggressively stretching the office's powers to limit access to abortion. For instance, Daniels might reinstate the Mexico City Policy, but Palin certainly would. I don't think Daniels is much less a social conservative than Palin, but he's not as exercised about it, he doesn't make it the same priority she does. I also think Daniels is more deeply steeped in Constitutionalism, and thus less likely to aggressively push the theoretical limits of Presidential authority than the more pragmatic Palin.

"The biggest impact the next president will have is with SCOTUS nominations. You really think that Daniels is going to pick someone more liberal than Palin might pick?"

I think Daniels is more likely to pick a good conservative lawyer, while Palin is more likely to buy into the bipartisan nonsense that SCOTUS needs "background diversity" and simply appoint a good conservative. I don't want a conservative version of William O. Douglas, I want a legal process conservative. First three names off the top of my head: Sykes (CA7), Easterbrook (CA7), and Sutton (CA6).

Kirk Parker said...

peter hoh,

"do you trust Trump..."

You can end the question right there.

flenser said...

For those of you who reject Daniels because of his talk of a truce on social issues, what do you think that Palin or Pawlenty might do about abortion that you don't think Daniels would do?

Put conservative justices on the Supreme Court?

flenser said...

You really think that Daniels is going to pick someone more liberal than Palin might pick?

If he is serious about this "truce" nonsense, then sure.

And if he's not, why say it?

peter hoh said...

Simon, so we're mostly talking about a difference of style, not substance.

Daniels is a pragmatic conservative, not a moderate. It seems that distinction is lost on a lot of people.

peter hoh said...

Flenser, the truce talk is about winning elections. I can't imagine Pawlenty or Daniels or Palin picking substantially different nominees to fill supreme court vacancies. And if you read Simon's comment, it seems he has trouble predicting much of a difference, either.

MadisonMan said...

I try to not vote for Liars.

How can you tell when a politician is lying?

(Straight line for Trooper)

traditionalguy said...

I seriously want help from Joe and Peter Hoh here. What is the difference between a pragmatic conservative and a liar?? As I contemplate that one my mind has gone into slow motion awaiting a fatal crash of perceptions. Seriously, Mitch Daniels is a great practitioner of group dynamics that gives everyone a chance to make an input into a new plan. But that makes him into a LINO (a leader In Name Only). We need a visionary who sees and communicates the hardships leading to good things for us where he leads us, and therefore he will not give half of it away along the journey.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I try to not vote for Liars.

How can you tell when a politician is lying?

I certainly don’t expect or believe politicians are going to keep EVERY promise, BUT I distrust politicians, Romney, Gore, Trump, who SUDDENLY tell me THIS election cycle, “Oh that was THEN, but this is NOW….” Nah no thanks, I don’t understand Liberals (on DADT or Gay Marriage-Obama) or Conservatives (Romney or Trump) who give politicians a pass…They’re like battered spouses…”Oh he’ll cheat on HER, but not on ME” Oh Romney/Obama is lying to the “rubes” not me….really, what if he’s lying to BOTH of you, or is lying to YOU?

Simon said...

peter hoh said...
"Simon, so we're mostly talking about a difference of style, not substance."

I don't think the differences identified in my comment above could be classified as style rather than substance.

"Daniels is a pragmatic conservative, not a moderate. It seems that distinction is lost on a lot of people."

I agree with that, but it must be said that pragmatism isn't the unqualified boon that it's often supposed by moderates. The japanese internment was a pragmatic decision. Maryland v. Craig was a pragmatic decision. Sometimes it's more important to stand on principle.

peter hoh said...

Simon, maybe I should have said that their differences are differences of degree, not kind.

Other than the appointing judges, there isn't much a president can do about abortion. I think it's silly for pro-lifers to reject Daniels because he isn't turning the pro-life rhetoric up to 11.

Simon said...

Peter, I must disagree again. As I noted last month, the lesson of Gonzales v. Carhart is that the Supreme Court will accept restrictions on abortion. Consequently, the issue becomes as much about Presidential power as abortion caselaw: Are there things the President can do about abortion as a matter of positive Constitutional doctrine on executive authority, and do any of those survive negative limits on government authority over abortion? I think the answer to both questions are yes. The President can't solve the abortion question unilaterally, but neither is it quite right to say that he can't do anything but appoint judges and hope for the best.

Nor can I agree that the difference between a conservative legal process judge, on the one hand, and simply a reliable conservative vote is one of degree rather than kind. They may reach the same result in many cases, but I would argue that a results-oriented conservative is only a little better than a results-oriented liberal. The problem with the courts' drift away from what we could call "legalism" is not that it favors particular results, but because it corrupts the entire enterprise of law and the structure of American government.

reader_iam said...

Nor can I agree that the difference between a conservative legal process judge, on the one hand, and simply a reliable conservative vote is one of degree rather than kind.

You tend to be consistent, Simon, and you also tend to make distinctions. Neither of those tendencies are notably valued things these days.

peter hoh said...

I'm aware of the concept of the results-oriented court. Upthread you wrote that you didn't want a conservative William O. Douglas, but one had to know a little about Douglas to know what you meant.

You would, in this respect, prefer Daniels to Palin, correct?

And while Daniels might not be aggressive about your favored policies in the White House, I suspect that a pragmatic president could do more for your issues than a lightning rod president.

This is related to the mistake of thinking that pragmatic equals moderate (not that I think you are making this mistake).

A liberal friend tells me that Pawlenty scares him precisely because he puts a moderate-looking face on his conservative politics.

If you are thinking purely in terms of identity politics, you might think Bachmann is a stronger conservative than Pawlenty because she drives liberals crazy.

Pawlenty doesn't provoke a reaction like Bachmann, but he gets more done.

peter hoh said...

Traditional Guy, I'll try to answer your question.

A pragmatic politician realizes how much he or she can do about a particular issue at a particular time, and pursues what can be achieved. A pragmatic politician isn't necessarily a principled politician.

Being principled is a separate matter, and that's where Romney seems lacking. His track record doesn't indicate a commitment to core principles -- other than getting himself elected.

You seem to think that Daniels has betrayed conservative values. What do you think Daniels gave up?

To the best of my knowledge, Daniels has been very effective at doing the things he said he would do when campaigning. He didn't campaign on making Indiana a right-to-work state, and he recognized that fighting for that would probably be fruitless, and it would derail some other things he was trying to get done. That seems like a pragmatic decision -- as opposed to abandoning principles.

Simon said...

Reader, thanks. I try to identify neutral principles and apply them fairly.

Peter, I would prefer Daniels to Palin on two levels. First, he can win, she can't. Second, I would be worried that her appointments would be excessively results-oriented. I have nothing against Pawlenty (although, like Ruth Anne, I have some real concerns about his religious affiliations), and between us, I think Daniels will stay out and TPaw will get the nomination. I have an extremely negative impression of Bachmann--an idiot to judge from what I've read.

reader_iam said...

Reader, thanks.

You're welcome.

I very much appreciate all the food for thought yea these now verging on many years: here, there, elsewhere, whatever where and also how. No doubt there.

Danny Haszard said...

The Eli Lilly *Viva Zyprexa" scam occurred 1996-2003 so Mitch Daniels was 4 years in the thick of it.
Eli Lilly Zyprexa can cause diabetes I took Zyprexa a powerful Lilly schizophrenic drug for 4 years it was prescribed to me off-label for post traumatic stress disorder was ineffective costly and gave me diabetes.
Eli Lilly's #1 cash cow Zyprexa drug sale $40 billion dollars so far,has a ten times greater risk of causing type 2 diabetes over the non-user of Zyprexa. So,here we have a conflict of interest that this same company also is a big profiteer of diabetes treatment.
FIVE at FIVE
The Zyprexa antipsychotic drug,whose side effects can include weight gain and diabetes, was sold for "children in foster care, people who have trouble sleeping, elderly in nursing homes."
Five at Five was the Zyprexa sales rep slogan, meaning 5mg dispensed at 5pm would keep patients quiet.
Google * Eli Lilly Zyprexa * and read the links. I took Zyprexa it gave me diabetes and was as addictive as tobacco.How so? Because withdrawal is accompanied by severe insomnia for 6 weeks.
-- Daniel Haszard Zyprexa Whistle-blower

abeer ahmed said...

visit us on lifeandstylemag.com
http://whois.domaintasks.com/lifeandstylemag.com