mardi gras skin Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/sane-conservatism-watch.html We believe it wrong ever to take a dollar from a free citizen without a very necessary public purpose, because each such taking diminishes the freedom to spend that dollar as its owner would prefer. When we do find it necessary, we feel a profound duty to use that dollar as carefully and effectively as possible, else we should never have taken it at all......Here I wish to be very plainspoken: It is up to us to show, specifically, the best way back to greatness, and to argue for it with all the passion of our patriotism. But, should the best way be blocked, while the enemy (debt) draws nearer, then someone will need to find the second best way. Or the third, because the nation’s survival requires it. Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers. King Pyrrhus is remembered, but his nation disappeared. Winston Churchill set aside his lifetime loathing of Communism in order to fight World War II. Challenged as a hypocrite, he said that when the safety of Britain was at stake, his “conscience became a good girl.” We are at such a moment. I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying “I told you so” or “You should’ve done it my way.” ... ...We must display a heart for every American, and a special passion for those still on the first rung of life’s ladder. Upward mobility from the bottom is the crux of the American promise, and the stagnation of the middle class is in fact becoming a problem, on any fair reading of the facts. Our main task is not to see that people of great wealth add to it, but that those without much money have a greater chance to earn some. Here's the full transcript of his speech. Some good stuff. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/259623/mitch-daniels-cpac-kathryn-jean-lopez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 That is an impressive speach. I was pegging my hopes on Christie to run, but if that is what Daniels believes I'll have to consider him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 It was a nice speech, but his budget forecast in the Iraq war run-up is something I can't get over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 Who do you like, luckydevil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sounds good, but nobody ever seems to deliver. The only guy I really, really like is Ken Cuccinelli, but he doesn't have a shot. He's way too conservative for most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted February 15, 2011 Author Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sounds good, but nobody ever seems to deliver. It feels like the right time to give a solidly boring, responsible midwesterner a shot. All things being equal, give me a Hoosier for such a time as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sounds good, but nobody ever seems to deliver. The only guy I really, really like is Ken Cuccinelli, but he doesn't have a shot. He's way too conservative for most. Ok, I'll bite. Why do you think that a person who has been the attorney general of a medium sized state (for only one year) would be a decent choice as a presidential candidate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I like Mitch Daniels so far. However his hope is that the SoCons knock each other out and people find Romney too phony I'd put him 4th behind Romney/Palin/Hucks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Ok, I'll bite. Why do you think that a person who has been the attorney general of a medium sized state (for only one year) would be a decent choice as a presidential candidate? I wasn't baiting anyone haha. I was just saying. The reason is because he is one of the most conservative people in the country. Experience is not a priority anymore. Principles are. If someone will actually do what they say and are conservative, I will vote for that person. The size of the state of the candidate is the least of our concerns at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I'd take Daniels. My top choice is Gary Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Experience is not a priority anymore. Principles are. However, experience is how you tell the difference between principals and slogans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 However, experience is how you tell the difference between principals and slogans. Touche, but Cuccinelli already has a very, very strong conservative record. It oozes red-blooded conservatism, and I love it. What you said is true of a lot of Tea Partiers trying to get elected. Also, I didn't say that experience was not important. It's just fairly low down on my list of important attributes, although I wouldn't vote for a candidate who had no opportunity up to that point in which he could prove that he walks the walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I like Daniels and hope he runs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Who do you like, luckydevil? Gary Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Touche, but Cuccinelli already has a very, very strong conservative record. It oozes red-blooded conservatism, and I love it. I guess that is why I can't stand him. Red state - Blue state in a nutshell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 All the Presidential candidates are replaceable. The only difference between them is style. Does anyone really believe that Hucks/Romney/Palin/Daniels would incorporate dramatically different policies? Or that a Hillary Presidency would be much different as well. Politics are driven by the parties, and the President is a figurehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I guess that is why I can't stand him. Red state - Blue state in a nutshell. Yep, except I unfortunately don't live in a red state anymore, at least on a national level. ---------- Post added February-15th-2011 at 12:02 AM ---------- All the Presidential candidates are replaceable. The only difference between them is style. Does anyone really believe that Hucks/Romney/Palin/Daniels would incorporate dramatically different policies? Or that a Hillary Presidency would be much different as well. Politics are driven by the parties, and the President is a figurehead. I agree, and that's why I've been fed up with the Republican Party. It's a machine with an agenda, and they nominate whoever will get them the win. That's politics, but it also prevents people with real ideas and the character to actually go through with them from getting elected. The party will stifle out anyone who might buck the trend a little bit. Sarah Palin, as much as I like her personality, is a product of the party as well, and I wouldn't necessarily want her as president. She is not a new kind of Republican like she is made out to be. She is more conservative (probably) than the average Republican, but she is nothing different. I don't really associate her with the Tea Party either. She seems like a great person, but her politics aren't bucking the trend. I can't see her changing much if given the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sounds good, but nobody ever seems to deliver. The only guy I really, really like is Ken Cuccinelli, but he doesn't have a shot. He's way too conservative for most. Cuccinelli is a slimy POS. When you say "too conservative for most" the reality is that he's an extreme social conservative who's using dubious interpretations of our state constitution to forward his crazy socon agenda. To be brutally honest, I'd be much more likely to simply describe him a bigoted anti-intellectual ******* than anything else. He is such an embarrassment to our great Commonwealth. [/rant] >Libertarian Virginia Military Institute ROTC cadet, not some liberal dip**** in his mother's basement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Cuccinelli is a slimy POS. When you say "too conservative for most" the reality is that he's an extreme social conservative who's using dubious interpretations of our state constitution to forward his crazy socon agenda. To be brutally honest, I'd be much more likely to simply describe him a bigoted anti-intellectual ******* than anything else. He is such an embarrassment to our great Commonwealth. [/rant] >Libertarian Virginia Military Institute ROTC cadet, not some liberal dip**** in his mother's basement. Examples of his deranged agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Examples of his deranged agenda? immediately coming to mind is his extra-constitutional redefining of state college anti-discrimination laws for one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 There are no republican hopefuls, just sacrificial lambs. The hope the Repubs have is for the economy to get worse and for unemployment to remain high or go even higher. I'm hoping for some sort of third candidate to beat the odds and upset both Obama and the Repubs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Sarah Palin, as much as I like her personality, is a product of the party as well, and I wouldn't necessarily want her as president. She is not a new kind of Republican like she is made out to be. She is more conservative (probably) than the average Republican, but she is nothing different. I don't really associate her with the Tea Party either. She seems like a great person, but her politics aren't bucking the trend. I can't see her changing much if given the chance. Ok now you have really lost me. That complete fraud Sarah Palin is a "great person," and you might want her has president, but not necessarily? Oh dear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 I agree, and that's why I've been fed up with the Republican Party. It's a machine with an agenda, and they nominate whoever will get them the win. That's politics, but it also prevents people with real ideas and the character to actually go through with them from getting elected. The party will stifle out anyone who might buck the trend a little bit. Sarah Palin, as much as I like her personality, is a product of the party as well, and I wouldn't necessarily want her as president. She is not a new kind of Republican like she is made out to be. She is more conservative (probably) than the average Republican, but she is nothing different. I don't really associate her with the Tea Party either. She seems like a great person, but her politics aren't bucking the trend. I can't see her changing much if given the chance. Hmmm, I can think of a particular guy who seems to be the exact opposite of "a machine with an agenda". He also meets the "something different" and "bucking the trend" criteria. His name rhymes with Schmon Baul. Gonna have to stick to your guns to vote for him, though. See, he's not a frontrunner, so therefore he can't win. Much easier to pick the latest good-looking cog in the machine with an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Scarborough rips Daniels and I can see why now. "Overlooked by Mr. Daniels’s Upper West Side coterie was the fact that before he was sworn in as governor, Daniels was director of George W. Bush’s Office of Management and Budget during the years that the national debt exploded to record levels. While the media dutifully reported on Daniels’s dark warning concerning the new “red menace” of debt, they somehow overlooked the fact that Daniels himself was a central player on the economic team that led us directly into that very crisis. The “arsonist as fireman” metaphor is a particularly tight fit for Daniels. And while many New York media figures find his candidacy promising, I suspect they will become even more excited if given the chance to write general election headlines involving the Indiana governor. I can see it now: “GOP Nominee Turned $236 Billion Surplus Into $400 Billion Deficit in Two Years.” That page-turner would be followed, I suspect, by a snappy story explaining how Daniels was used by Donald Rumsfeld to discredit cost estimates on the Iraq War that embarrassed the White House. OMB Director Daniels mocked Lawrence Lindsey’s $200 billion Iraq estimate as “very, very high” and assured Congress that the costs would reach only between $50 billion and $60 billion. In Daniels’s defense, it was only a trillion dollars or so off his original estimate. He was not 100 percent wrong about Iraq. His estimate was actually 1,000 percent wrong. But no matter. It was mission accomplished for Bush’s OMB director, as America went along with the invasion, Lindsey got fired and Daniels moved on to the governor’s mansion. Given Daniels’s record on the national debt when it mattered most, you can count me as one Upper West Sider who has yet to be swept up by the excitement of “Mitch Mania.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49509.html#ixzz1E1uuHi9B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Fried Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 Ok now you have really lost me. That complete fraud Sarah Palin is a "great person," and you might want her has president, but not necessarily? Oh dear. I didn't say I might want her as president. If I had to choose from the typical GOP pool, though, I would probably pick her. ---------- Post added February-15th-2011 at 11:02 AM ---------- Hmmm, I can think of a particular guy who seems to be the exact opposite of "a machine with an agenda". He also meets the "something different" and "bucking the trend" criteria. His name rhymes with Schmon Baul.Gonna have to stick to your guns to vote for him, though. See, he's not a frontrunner, so therefore he can't win. Much easier to pick the latest good-looking cog in the machine with an agenda. Oh, I am very familiar with Quon Wall. I used to be a huge fan, then he came out in defense of wikileaks, and I lost all hope for the man. His conservative record is phenomenal, especially in terms of finances, although I'm still not to the point where I don't support getting involved in foreign wars. I still support the Iraq war and always will. He ought to be more open to the fact that sometimes you don't have a choice (not necessarily talking about Iraq). Back on topic though, when he defended wikileaks, I couldn't support him anymore. It's a shame. I still really like his son, though, as long as he keeps a "no comment" position on wikileaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.