Mitch Daniels gave a very good response to Obama yesterday. He took the right angles. There was cutting government by reducing spending on the wealthy rather than raising taxes to fund an unsustainably large state. He smartly argue that that Republicans were the party of both economic growth and a stable and fair welfare state while Democrats are the party that favors growth dampening tax increases and (in practice) putting old age entitlements on the road to collapse.
For those who are wondering, this is what drawing “sharp contrasts” really looks like. It isn’t Gingrich wondering about whether Obama has a “Kenyan anti-colonial” mindset. It isn’t Romney complaining about an Obama “apology tour.” The differences between sharply higher taxes, government-run health care and a cronyist/corporatist energy sector on one hand, and (comparatively) lower taxes, market-oriented health care reform and a pro-growth energy policy on the other, are big enough. These are, or course, only some of the differences. If you have real beliefs, you don’t need showy expressions of contempt for Obama that are really expressions of contempt for the people you are trying to get to vote for you.
RUN MITCH RUN
January 25th, 2012 | 8:35 pm
Pete, you’re going to have to convince me re: Mitch.
Re: the Newt’ster he talks and talks about all sorts of statist silliness (cap and trade, obama-commie-care, global warming, et al) but he votes 90% conservative…or so it is said.
Mitch has the look of an apparatchick about to ask the queston:”papers please!”
January 25th, 2012 | 8:47 pm
Bob, I’ doubt I can ever convince anybody of anything or that that is even a reason for these kinds of conversations. It’s mostly just the talking for me. The stuff that comes out of it is more unpredictable and better than being focused on getting somebody to support this or that candidate.
For the last dozen or so years, Gingrich’s conservatism is distinguished by all the stuff you said, plus the Freddie Mac shilling, plus the self-serving hit on Paul Ryan. What more do you want?
I can’t speak for how Daniels looks to you, but he is a budget cutter http://www.npr.org/2011/02/28/134111630/indiana-gov-mitch-daniels-tough-on-budgets
and a health care reformer (in a good way) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704231304575091600470293066.html
Also an education reformer and he got Indiana to pass a tax limitation amendment. All in this century. There is little more self-defeating than this sense that the toughness to lead means sounding like pro wrestling school dropout trying to do an interview about how they are going to rip somebody’s head off during a debate. That is a formula for a party whose leadership is made up of grifters, cynics, and megalomaniacs. But they sure do slap down Juan Williams good. And isn’t that what’s really important?
January 25th, 2012 | 10:56 pm
Pete, feel free to vent, it’s good for the soul.
I’m not sure how Mitch gets into the race so we can have that debate? I’ll wait and see how that works out. I do see Indiana is trying to become a right to work state.
I’m no fan of the Newt, however, should he win, I’ll hold my nose and vote for him simply because of the threat to my country that Barry represents.
The other thing about the Newt, is that the MSM is agin’ him and if you go over the history of events back in his Speaker days it appears they tried arduously to bring him down. In the end, I’m not sure what it was he was allegedly guilty of? On the other hand we see the Bamster walking guns to the Mexican drug cartels in order to force punitive gun control legislation on American citizens. Yea, I think Newt’s morals are significantly better then our marginally documented president.
January 26th, 2012 | 11:59 am
Robert, the MSM aren’t the only ones who wanted to take Newt down. His Republican colleagues overwhelmingly voted no confidence in him. In most jobs, if none of your past colleagues have good things to say about you, that bars getting a promotion. The guy might have been exciting when announcing the Contract With America, but as a leader he was a huge failure. Maybe if he’d spent less time sleeping with his staff members he could’ve gotten more done, but the guy hasn’t displayed discipline in any aspect of his life.
January 26th, 2012 | 4:44 pm
Stephen, I quite agree with much of your analysis, though, I think the attack on the Newtster by the MSM and the commie-Dems was something of a warm up to Sara Palin following similar patterns established in the Borking of Judge Bork. Newt really, really hurt the commie-Dems back in the 90′s (I disagree that “he was a huge failure”, in that he was at the helm when the commie-Dems were ousted from power in the House), and must be given credit for cleansing the Washingtonian stables of a large quanity of encrusted Democrat filth.
No, Newt hurt the C-Dems badly, and they spent a great deal of time and effort in payback.
I would not argue that Newt has something of an ascerbic personality and an over anxious libido (though at 68 if he’s still chasing the skirts he’ll probably have the big one any day).
As I said, I prefer Santorum, however, I’ll cast my vote for Newt, because it APPEARS he’ll actually fight our marginally documented president and his Marxist friends while Romney and even, sadly, Santorum, strike me as timid. And, while Newt he has some really STUPID, statist ideas that he sometimes speakes of publicaly, his voting record is CONSERVATIVE and in the 90 percentile.
January 26th, 2012 | 7:59 pm
“I’m not sure how Mitch gets into the race so we can have that debate?” Getting in would be easy. A path to winning is much much tougher. Still might be worth it (not to him, but to the rest of us.)
“The other thing about the Newt, is that the MSM is agin’ him and if you go over the history of events back in his Speaker days it appears they tried arduously to bring him down. In the end, I’m not sure what it was he was allegedly guilty of” It isn’t something I’ve paid much attention to so I couldn’t tell you. There are plenty of good reason to be against Gingrich (strating with his insane taxing and entitlement policy – no Ryan reforms on Medicare, huge tax cuts, plus a Social Security reform proposal that would add trillions to the deficit…) If you really want to spite Democrats, the best way to do it is to win and enact lasting center-right reforms that the country needs under our current circumstances. Whatever Gingrich was 18 years ago, he is now a huckster working to sell books after he loses.
January 26th, 2012 | 9:03 pm
The first thing Newt/Romney/Mitch gotta do, is undo Barry’s commie healthcare and pronto, even before we secure SS, Med, et al and cut a whole bunch of descretionary spending real deep and mean.
I don’t think Romney has the desire, guts, backbone. He’s a statist, although a GOP statist, and this country desperately needs a real republican.
January 26th, 2012 | 9:17 pm
Bob, good point. The last thing we need is a candidate who changed postions on health insurance purchase mandates cynically in order to go with the flow. Oh, wait a minute…
That is a very good reason to support Santorum over either of Gingrich and Romney. And I do even though I don’t think he would be especially likely to win (though more likely than Gingrich.)
February 19th, 2012 | 7:20 pm
[...] Wednesday Thoughts Part 2 There was cutting government by reducing spending on the wealthy rather than raising taxes to fund an unsustainably large state. He smartly argue that that Republicans were the party of both economic growth and a stable and fair welfare state while … Read more on First Things (blog) [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact