« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Yes! Winter’s over and the Silly Season is upon us!!

By: mbecker908 (Diary)  |  April 30th, 2011 at 02:35 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Looks like the Republican Primary maybes are getting warmed up to the task. And a caveat, I don’t consider the following to be “silly” in any depreciating manner, I just enjoy the sight of politicians either defending the indefensible or admitting they screwed up.

Let’s start with Defending the Indefensible. Mitt is the current undisputed champion in this category. I’m sure we’ll have people giving him a run for his money before long, but he IS the standard here. From Reason…

Mitt Romney is still defending the health care overhaul he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts. So are liberal defenders of ObamaCare, an overhaul explicitly modeled after the Bay State’s law.

And from his own lips…

“Overall, ours is a model that works,” Romney said in response to a question after a speech at Iowa State University. “We solved our problem at the state level. Like it or not, it was a state solution.”

This pretty much leaves me speechless. You really should read the whole Reason link, it will give you a good idea just how out of touch with reality Mitt Romney is.

Moving right along to the Oops! category…

We’ve got two early entrants. The first would be Mitch Daniels who, after being invited to a tar and feather party where he brought his own feather pillow named “truce”, it looks like he got the message. As has been documented all over Redstate for the last couple of days, Mitch announced he’s signing the bill that will restrict some abortions and defund Planned Parenthood. He didn’t come right out and say “I was an idiot to talk about a truce.” but this is pretty close.

And then there’s Tim Pawlenty up in New Hampshire. I give him three gold stars for this…

Asked in a public question-and-answer session about his past support for a cap-and-trade-like program limiting carbon emissions, Pawlenty answered: “It was a mistake, it was stupid and I’m sorry.”

And then he kept going.

“I don’t try to defend it. Everybody’s got a couple of clunkers in their record,” Pawlenty continued, repeating: “I don’t try to defend it. It was dumb.”

Good job TPaw.

Oh, and Romney followed TPaw, was asked about RomneyCare and defended it again.

I can’t wait for things to really heat up.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • exitsfunnel

    I don’t agree with the way you characterized the Mitch Daniels situation. There is no evidence for your implication that absent the hubbub over the truce stuff, Daniels wouldn’t have signed HB1210. That’s really just a gratuitous shot at his pro-life bona fides and there is nothing in his record which even suggests that you’re right.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      should just admit they were wrong on health care and truces, respectively. But i do agree with exits’ that Daniels would most definitely would have signed the bill even if hadn’t had the truce hiccup.

      I supported Mitt and then Fred in 2008, and lean to Paws and Cain now, but would probably put Daniels up there if he would simply say that all he meant by the truce was as to emphasis.

      Mitt really disappoints.

    • aesthete

      I don’t think that one had much to do with the other: IMO, even without the “truce” statements, Daniels would have signed the bill.

      • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

        it certainly does work nicely to blunt the “truce” stuff.

        Actually, I have no issues at all with his pro-life record and I happen to agree with him on the “truce”. Especiallly if our candidate happens to have a strong pro-life record. I’d like to go through the ’12 elections and hear absolutely nothing about abortion or Planned Parenthood. The number one problem we’ve got to face up to and do something drastic about is fiscal.

        I’d be comfortable with Daniels as our candidate knowing that life issues, while not being a top legislative priority would still be addressed on a “can be done” basis.

  • davenj1

    Daniels would have signed bill. Actually, I hope he doesn’t go back on “truce” comments. Nothing to be ashamed of… Look at the man’s actions, not a single line uttered somewhere in an interview of editorial

    • acat

      Daniels defended his “truce” several times…. it wasn’t a one-time “57 states” kind of a thing. He meant it, and as far as I know he hasn’t verbally walked it back.

      The conclusion I’m drawing from this is that conservatives missed what Daniels was saying… clearly, he hasn’t declared a truce on abortion… so what could he have been talking about?

      Mew

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        no reason to address the issue. I would be thrilled if he just said that all he meant was that we had to emphasize the econ/debt crisis and that he certainly did not mean that we wouldn’t combat the left on social issues. He hasn’t said that. The jury is still out for me on whether he would be too Bush-like in dealing with the establishment and the libs on too many issues.

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          Check out this video produced by the Indiana Republican Party.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            that unsolicited truce offer bothers me.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            His record as governor didn’t reflect picking a fight with anybody over spending, unions or education.

            On the truce, I think he’s right.

          • Diogenes314

            Way too much so. He never understood the difference between negotiating with Texas Democrats (who still need to get re-elected by Texans) and trying to find a middle ground with the Pelosistas.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            of weakness to the left and an indication of the same kind of desire of Bush that led to caving on vouchers to Teddy. Daniels thinks that caving on social issues will win over Dems to cave on spending. He’s wrong and anyone that thinks that we can fix what ails America through compromise with Dems, ie splitting the differences for the sake of getting an agreement is simply wrong. Its like compromising on treatment of a disease and doing half what needs to be done on two possible diagnoses.

            The issue is not Bush, but he did leave Texas in good shape but He is history. Texas didn’t have the problems that Indiana has. Bush never offered a truce to the left on life and marriage. He did have a loathesome slogan with the redundant compassionate conservatism.. But Bush was honest about his policies as he ran on the Medicare RX plan. I think the only significant issue on which Bush caved was NCLB. The other things he did wrong were not akin to truces.

            The issue now is another governor that has done a good job for his state and who also has a vague slogan with the truce. He needs to explain what his policies would be if the Left doesn’t join the truce. Of course, Daniels is so vague that we don;t know if he meant the truce with Dems or with the moderates in the GOP. If he meant moderates in the GOP, then wouldn’t the logical import of that be that he would endorse a moderate, since he claims to be a social conservative, and I know that he is based on his past.

            So we are left with a man making an unsolicited and unnecessary statement that indicates he would compromise on major issues, the constituency for which has always been essential for Repubs to win majorities.

            It is not a fatal matter to me if left vague, but it sure would be easy for him to explain it away as merely meaning emphasis, not surrender.

            The word truce and his responses to questions about it have been non-informative and shows a Romney-like stubbornness that is not a good quality in this context imho.

            The man is a flake really, but he has done a good job as governor on the whole.

            At this point, I think Paws looks best to me. But I’m mainly into issues and Mitch can and I suspect will clarify his policies over time and thus render the truce statement mostly meaningless except that it, coupled with some of his language about “working together” causes me to worry that he would not be bold enough against the Dems.

            Hope my fears are misplaced if he is elected President.

            In 2008 I had major concerns about Rudy on life, but over time he was asked about issues re judges etc and won me over. I just wish Rudy hadn’t overexposed himself in the long campaign by going on Hannity all the time and talking about pop culture or whatever the news of the day was.

            Rudy and Mitt both campaigned too long and gave up on too many early states. I’m glad the serious candidates are mainly in the Trump joke shadow for now.

          • Diogenes314

            Some of whom probably never read the article it came from.

            ?There are things that I would advance as a candidate that the playbook says are folly?suicidal,? he said. ?We?d have to fundamentally change all the welfare and entitlement programs. What Bush tried to do [in proposing private accounts for Social Security] was mild compared to what needs to be done. You have to have a completely new compact for people under a certain age, for Medicare and Social Security. You?re gonna have to dramatically cut spending across the whole government, including, by the way, national defense. When Bush arrived, we were spending $300 billion on national defense, and he thought that was plenty. Now it?s, what, $800 billion??

            Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Daniels?s telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. He?s an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views don?t matter. ?I don?t know if the CO2 zealots are right,? he said. ?But I don?t care, because we can?t afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isn?t going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.?

            And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, ?would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We?re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,? until the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state. He serves as an elder at the Tabernacle Presbyterian Church, in inner-city Indianapolis, which he?s attended for 50 years. In 1998, with a few other couples from Tabernacle and a nearby Baptist congregation, he and his wife founded a ?Christ-centered? school, The Oaks Academy, in a downtown neighborhood the local cops called ?Dodge City.? It?s flourishing now with 315 mostly poor kids who pursue a classical education: Latin from third grade on, logic in middle school, rhetoric in eighth grade, an emphasis throughout on the treasures of Western Civilization. ?It?s the most important thing I?ve ever been involved in,? he told me. His social-conservative credentials are solid.

            But about that truce .??.??.

            ?He might be one guy who could get away with it,? said Curt Smith, head of the Indiana Family Institute, who?s known Daniels since the 1980s. ?He has a deep faith, he?s totally pro-life, and he walks the talk. And in an acute situation, like the one we?re in now with the debt, he might get away with a truce for a year or two. But to be successful in office he?s going to have to show those folks he shares their vision.?

            The whole article is a great read, BTW. What I get from it is that he thinks that here and now, the economic situation we are in makes everything else secondary. Nothing about appeasement or unilateral surrender.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            is quite troubling. see link in my comment further down the thread.

          • Diogenes314

            Good interview-but I heard nothing troubling in it. Again, he isn’t talking appeasement or surrender, and his comments are targeted to both sides and based on the premise that we are facing an existential economic crisis.

            Like I said in another thread-there are a whole host of issues I feel quite strongly about. I also said I wouldn’t elevate them over the principle of limited Constitutional government. I wouldn’t put them over our economic survival either.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            of what he meant by it makes it worse with his talk of unifying enough people to get the spending cuts via some sort of truce trade-off. That’s pathetic. He said it not me. He said he meant both the pro-choicers in the dem party and the GOP. Which Dems in Congress would vote with tea partiers if only we have a still un-defined truce on social issues? Even if we agreed to allow partial birth abortion at government expense and allowed nationwide threesome gay marriages, it wouldn’t move us closer to solving the debt crisis.

            Its a stupid statement and bespeaks an establishment mentality. If not establishment, then what? He can’t be that naive? Plus, can he do math? We don;t need any more “unity” than to get the votes to control the house, senate and white house.

            I so admired his work in Indy that I wanted him to be my candidate and then he opened his mouth. I can’t ignore what he says and pretend he is what he’s not.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            can do in terms of social issues.

            With respect to abortion, a Republican POTUS can redo the executive orders like Mexico City, etc. He could include defunding PP in conjunction with slashing the budget. There are a number of these kinds of administrative things and beyond that, there’s zip. Right up to the point when a SCOTUS vacancy pops up and then he can actually DO something. And I have every confidence that Daniels would do all of those things.

            With respect to DOMA types of issues, he can sick the DoJ on the courts. And we’re back to about zip else to do. Again, the most important thing a POTUS can do is nominate high quality conservatives for judicial vacancies. Again, I don’t see Daniels not doing all of those things.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            a truce is “necessary” to get “unity” to make the big changes needed to fix the economy and the debt. Meaningless dribble. Pie in the sky platitudes unrelated to how we have solved problems in the past. Smacks of the Bob Dole/Senate kind of mentality of we have to pass a bill that is bi-partisan. His own words thing a truce is necessary? His words, not mine. And that is his explanation of the word truce, not what many of us wish his explanation is. He would get ZERO more votes in Congress from pro-choicers for major spending cuts. Yes, he has been great in Indiana. That is where he should stay.

          • Ausonius

            Quite right!

            When Democrats compromise, it means that Republicans get basically nothing in the end.

            The Republican establishment has often been nervous about its convictions, constantly worried that, if they really do cut or even eliminate, government programs, the Leftist Media will accuse them of robbing the poor, kicking the orphans out of the orphanage, and sending Grandma and Grandpa out to live under a bridge in a refrigerator box.

            Rather than fighting back against such propaganda, they roll over and play dead!

            It is time for real Conservatives to pose the basic questions of Liberty and Personal Independence to the American people, questions, which nearly 3 generations have not properly meditated upon, and to demonstrate the superiority of a Conservative answer to those questions.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            but I would note that on the heels of the truce controversy, Daniels is signing significant restrictions on abortion into law and is defunding PP.

            Find me another Governor who’s done that.

            I really don’t think the guy is a squish. I think he lays out a plan to accomplish meaningful things on an incremental basis, and while I think his “truce” comments were poorly positioned, he’s arguably got a significantly better record on life issues, on fiscal issues, on size and scope of government issues, on education and on dealing with public employee unions than any other potential candidate. He’s just not as flashy or as blunt as Chris Christie.

            From what I’ve seen, and I haven’t studied it in detail, he’s probably the best overall executive in the pack. He’s also likely the strongest, albeit quietest, leader in the pack. The guy lays out a very specific agenda and then lines up the necessary votes to accomplish it.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • rightwingmom52

            like our current POTUS. Perception is everything, and a good leader shouldn’t alienate a large portion of his base. I’m not saying that was Daniels intent, and I agree it probably wasn’t, but in this day and age of spin and with the liberals pouncing on anything to cause a rift, he should have known better. I think all of our GOP potentials need to hone their communication skills in order to unify conservatives, attract independents, and stop the Democrats.

          • acat

            is that the Libs play “gotcha” a lot better than we do.

            Maybe it’s because Pawlenty’s in blue Minnesota while Daniels is in red Indiana, but .. it’s something to consider.

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            1. Daniels statement about “truce” was stupid and his defense of it was worse.
            2. I happen to agree that our number one, two, three, four and five top priority issues are fiscal.
            3. There is a very limited number of things a POTUS can do to impact social issues. All of them are administrative or involve appointments to the courts. I believe Daniels would actually do all of the things available to him.
            4. Social issues cannot be a top priority legislative item in the next administration. There’s not much that can be done, Constitutional Amendments are a total waste of time and we need to keep our eye on the fiscal ball.
            5. A whole bunch of SoCons need to come to some kind of reasonable understanding of what reality is.

          • aesthete
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/05/01/daniels-deems-truce-with-social-liberals-essential-to-fix-debt/

          • acat
          • acat

            I don’t accept Red State as a representative sample, y’see.

            Nothing wrong with Red State at all, far from it! Well run site, solid writers who can actually write readable english, and populated by a reasonably civil group of commenters.

            That, by itself, means the Red State population is not a representative sample, eh?

            Mew

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            in point five, although there are a couple who would probably fit into that category. I’m referring to the broader population that includes SIVVs and their ilk.

            From everything I can see, light research only, Indiana RTL is very happy with Mitch Daniels. It’ll be interesting to see what they have to say as time rolls on.

          • acat

            My concern, on reading point 5, was that you may be looking at too small a sample.

            Otherwise, as I’m a bit closer to Indiana than you are, I can tell you I haven’t heard any complaints from their RTL groups. (of course, it could just be that they’re happy to not have Pat Quinn to deal with … or the noise of the Illinois RTL groaning under Quinn is drowning Indy out …)

            Mew

          • rightwingmom52

            We totally agree on #1, and on the rest for the most part.

            #2 – I think there is some overlap of fiscal and social issues, e.g., the funding of abortions is both – at least for me. Even though the amount cut is just a drop in the bucket, I’m all for cutting big and small. As for the social side, strike while the iron is hot .

            #3 – I agree, but was pointing out that the POTUS can use the bully pulpit to lead in addition to the admin role and appointment of judges.

            #4 & #5 – It sounds as if you are being somewhat dismissive of social conservatives which is exactly the tone we don’t like from Daniels. I am a rock solid conservative on all sides, however, as a Christian, the issues of abortion, traditional marriage, etc. are part of my faith and who I am, and I will not give up on those. Neither do I support big spenders like Huckabee no matter how pro life they are. I would never ask you to give up on your fiscal concerns, and It seems to me that the fiscals like Christie were elected with the help of socials. Seems a wee bit hypocritical that we aren’t given the same courtesy, i.e., don’t support a fiscal conservative who has abandoned the social issues, and again, I’m not accusing Daniels of doing that – just poor communication on his part. Haven’t read the article GC linked yet, but I will do so with an open mind because I need a little convincing from him. A whole bunch of FiCons need to come to some kind of reasonable understanding of that reality.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            And I was just attempting to clarify.

            With respect to the Bully Pulpit, the best BP of all is administrative steps, like reinstating Mexico City, and judicial nominations. I can’t believe Daniels wouldn’t be absolutely solid on those things. And frankly, there’s not much more he can do.

            On things like defunding PP, that I would guess would be a given in the fiscal restructuring.

            I have no issues with SoCons in general, I are one. Been involved in the pro-life movement in various ways since 1975. My issue is with Single Issue Values Voters and fringe SCs who see social issues as the only issue worth casing a vote on. Those fools are typically Huckabee voters. And yes, I consider them fools in every sense of the word, especially the Biblical sense.

            It comes down to a matter of priorities. Right now, if fiscal issues are not our top – note: not “our only” – priority, we won’t be worried about anything but finding something to eat in very few years. And, with respect to Daniels, he appears to have been governing Indiana under the terms of his so-called “truce” for a bunch of years and the Indiana RTL seems only to have good things to say about him.

          • rightwingmom52

            Geraldo reporting on Fox and Obama to speak in about 10 minutes.

            Becker, we agree on a lot now, and I know we’ll both vote for the GOP nominee (except for ____.).

        • aesthete

          He’s made some statements that sound a little too conciliatory towards Dems/establishment (couple days ago said that he wasn’t for cutting ag subsidies, as one example). I like what he did in MI from what I can tell, but statements like that one just make my skin crawl.

          Barbour and Daniels are the two guys (besides Gary Johnson) who really seemed like they were intent on governing for the good of their state in their overall trajectory, rather than angling to become the media’s favorite Republican — or the darling of the media right.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            to uniting enough people to take bold enough action on the debt.

            One has nothing to do with the other. Flawed logic. Washington is not Indy. The bold action needed will have to be done in the divided nation we live in by defeating the libs that won’t accept a truce. There will be no uniting with a truce.

            The Nov 2010 election tells me that the recession and poor performance of the ObamaDems is doing all the necessary uniting we need.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=ZmMyNmZmMDI5MTUyYzQ3NDY2OTFmYTNmOTVmZWMyYjQ=

          • acat

            The Dems aren’t interested in compromise, the Statists in the GOP aren’t either. They can’t be reasoned with, can’t be bought off without selling the soul of the country, they can only be shoved aside, and fiscal sanity implemented over their wails and teeth-gnashings.

            If Daniels does not see this, then .. he’s not going to succeed.

            Mew

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine