Dateline: Tue 15 Feb 2011

When Chris Matthews said Barack Obama gave him a thrill up his leg, it's fair to speculate that conservatives felt the same tickly passion for our man Mitch.

His address before the Conservative Action Politcal Caucus on Friday received the best coverage (but hardly the least) from Maureen Groppe, who covers Washington, D.C., politics for the Indianapolis Star and other Gannett papers.

Here's the part I liked best, from Daniels' speech:

"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."

Other pertinent thoughts, as reported by Groppe: Our huge debt and the red ink we are drowning in is the "new Red Menace."

He identified specific paths to reform which include:

"... restructuring Social Security and Medicare for later retirees, putting at least a moratorium on new regulations, if not adopting a 'self-certification regime,' making the tax code 'lower and flatter,' ramping up domestic energy production and not exempting defense spending from budget scrutiny."

Years ago, a conservative pundit (I've forgotten who) told NPR that George Bush was a disaster as far as conservatives were concerned, because his fiscal policies were totally out of control. "He never met a check he didn't like...Barry Goldwater is rolling over in his grave," he said.

Daniels, I have no doubt, could help staunch the flow; it's his special gift. And, his refusal to engage in conservative "social issues" makes him a breath of fresh air.

As for the 'Solvencey" title here, Groppe reported that a group of young conservatives created Obama-style T-shirts with Daniels face; instead of the word 'Hope,' they used 'Solvency.'

So does the short, bald guy with the reluctant wife -- both from Indiana, yet -- have a crack at the presidency?




hendy [Member] said:

While Daniels refuses to engage in social issues, we're taking on the guise of Arizona's conservative agenda. We're doing vouchers, trying to pass xenophobic legislation, constitutionally ban gay marriage (can you imagine how scared these people are?) and generally make my ancestors roll in their graves-- the ones that fought the madness of the Confederacy, which we are rapidly starting to mime.

Daniels term in the Bush Administration was the start of an out-of-control spending spree after we'd actually had started to roll back the National Debt. This is a man that sold the Toll Road, and is so allergic to taxes that he's willing to roll back Indiana into the early 1930s. Our infrastructure is crumbling, we're the 2nd largest polluting state in the Union, and our public schools suck so bad that we need vouchers.

2011-02-15 10:43:43

Nicolas Martin [unverified] said:

Until Obama broke the bank, the biggest spending post-WWII presidents were all Republicans. There is no reason to think Daniels would be different. Republicans have a special knack for combining free market rhetoric with big government politics.

2011-02-15 10:44:31

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

Oh, Nick, he didn't "break the bank." Geeeesh.

Hendy, you're right--although, in terms of innovative public policy, I like the toll road LEASE (not sale), if the proceeds are spread over a longer time. In effect, he took a 90-year amortization and spent the money up-front. Talk about screwing our grandchildren.

I wanna hate Mitch but I can't. Rush took off on him yesterday, saying MMM cannot ignore the social issues, so there must be some national traction there.

Here's the rub: Mitch worked at Lilly, a progressive company, which has granted same-sex partner benefits for 20 or more years. He understands how that segment of our population is more mobile than ever, and how they're badly needed in an economy, if it's to prosper. You cannot and should not slam doors in their faces, like the Erics want to do (Turner, Miller). It's stupid to turn your back on young folks, who are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex unions, rights, etc. As in: 80%.

The social issues that Limbaugh crows about, are "rights" issues to the under-30-crowd. And that crowd is growing. If we don't keep a good mix of them in Indiana, we age too fast, and budgetarily, we implode.

The answer to your question is "yes." He does have a chance. I don't see how he gets the nomination in his party, whose delegate-selection methods are front-loaded with ultra-conservative states.

We'll see.

I have one request: if he leaves Indiana, can he take the liteGov with him? Fingernails on a blackboard.

2011-02-15 11:03:51

Seneca [Member] said:

If Mitch becomes president, will he refuse to occupy the people's house in Washington as he refuses to occupy the people's house in Indiana?

2011-02-15 12:41:26

Write Man [Member] said:

Hendy has it right on the money...I've long found it interesting how little attention the Star (or IBJ for that matter) has paid to Mitch's 29-month role in W's presidency, or how the deficit mounted under his prudent direction. Maybe Mary Beth Schneider was too busy to notice.

Mitch's response to the WTHR story ("Where are the jobs?") is equally meaningful. (Here: http://www.wthr.com/category/189918/reality-check-where-are-the-jobs?redirected=true and here:http://www.wthr.com/story/12073296/governor-finally-responds-to-questions-about-indiana-jobs).

From the story:

The governor addressed Indiana job numbers just hours after 13 Investigates showed up to 40% of jobs already promoted by the governor have not turned to reality.
"You seem to have a blindingly clear view of what is perfectly obvious," [Daniels] said.

2011-02-15 13:31:10

hendy [Member] said:

Shhhh! Don't talk about THAT!

Don't talk about the IPALCO - AES acquisition!

Don't talk about Lilly's stock price!

Don't talk about any of that stuff! We have a governor to elect to the statehouse so we can get some of that trickle down stuff!


2011-02-15 14:19:53

MorkFrom [unverified] said:

The only possible way Daniels could become POTUS is if he were VPOTUS and POTUS croaked. Or, if space aliens take control and name him to the post. The Donald has more of a chance of being elected POTUS than the Wee One.

The Star did some good reporting about Daniels' questionable economic development accomplishments several years ago, earlier in his admin. As for that low-budget IBJ thing, it seems to be slumping lately into esoteric rather than much in way of investigative stuff.

2011-02-15 17:04:08

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

If the morons in the Indiana GA actually pass the anti-gay marriage amendment, let's see if MD has the stones to vetoe it. Damned if he do, damned if he don't.

A wanker like Eric Miller could be the precipitate cause for ending Mitch's political career.

2011-02-16 06:24:58

hendy [Member] said:

It passed the House. Bosma must be creaming-- his salvation now assured. Imagine when he gets to St Peter's Gates:

St Peter: Brian, what did you do for the Lord?

Bosma: I got the Indiana House to pass a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and found ways to diss those lousy Jews by forcing Christ's prayer down their throats right there in the Indiana House Chamber!

St Peter: So you were a hater, eh? Thought that got you into Heaven, right? Wrong. <sound of trap door opening>

2011-02-16 07:53:13

guy77money [unverified] said:

If Mitch is smart he would veto the crazy bill. Well we're at it lets vote all ten commandments into law and make it illegal to covert another man's wife. Maybe 10 days in jail for the 1st offense. I wonder how many of our blow hard politicians would be in violation of numbers 7 (You shall not commit adultery and You shall not steal) and 8 on the list. God help me what hypocrites!

2011-02-16 09:33:38

John M [unverified] said:

Mitch doesn't have the option of vetoing the anti-gay marriage amendment. Per article 16 of the Indiana Constitution, the procedure is:
1) the amendment must be approved by both houses of the General Assembly;
2) the amendment must be approved by both houses of the next General Assembly (i.e., in 2013-14); and
3) the amendment must be put to the voters at the next general election.

The procedure does not require signature by the governor and does not give the governor the right to veto the proposed amendment.

I think the telling decision for Mitch will be on the immigration bill. It's quite contrary to his views on economic development, but vetoing it could be damaging in the presidential primary. If he signs it, that would strike me as a strong indication that he's running for president.

2011-02-16 10:57:56

Tom Greenacres [unverified] said:

"The procedure does not require signature by the governor and does not give the governor the right to veto the proposed amendment."

John, of course you are right. (Slaps forehead.) Mitch doesn't have to take a position on this. It is a stupid, polarizing issue without benefit to anyone. "The Worst Legislature Money Can Buy" (Harrison Ulmann) can ill afford to piddlefart around with this while our economy, water, air, jobs and future go into the crapper. (But no matter- we will be hosting Super Bore XXVVX.)

2011-02-16 13:07:56

Ms. Cynical [unverified] said:

It is a stupid, polarizing issue without benefit to anyone. (Tom Greenacres notes)

Amazing how much of the Republican legislative machinations fall under this category!

It's much easier than actually grappling with the core issues (see Paul Krugman's NYT piece on "Eating the Future": http://nyti.ms/gnHzrb)

2011-02-16 13:59:53

Tell The Truth [Member] said:

The AG weighed in yesterday, telling legislators they could easily walk all over gays. No big deal. His opinion was neither needed nor sought.

I had hopes. His opinion wasn't needed on the immigration issue, either, but...he stood up and said the proper thing: this is a federal issue. Butt out.

Mitch faces the same social-issue problem within the GOP...more nationally than locally. I don't know the AG's reason for butting into either of these issues, except: when there's a leadership gap at the top (Mitch is gone in two years), the resulting scramble puts otherwise-normal folks in a tizzy. Grandpa used to have a saying (he had many):

Put 'em in a round barn, tell 'em to pee in the corner, and the poor bastards run themselves to death.

Mitch is tinekring with the thought of joining the GOP Round Barn on a National Scale. He'd best bash the gays, too. It's cheap, easy, and appeases the far-right masses.

Rush's and Hannity's egos must be fed. At all costs.

2011-02-16 15:28:44

hendy [Member] said:

And we become the worst of Arizona, each day.

2011-02-16 21:03:16

Comments are closed.


or Register


Syndicate Blog