So Long, Mitch Daniels, We Barely Knew Ya


He'd rather be riding his hog.

Looks like Indiana's motorcycle-riding, Reason-subscribing, ObamaCare-trashing, Postrel-and-Hayek-reading governor, Mitch Daniels, won't be running for the GOP's presidential nomination. From The New York Times:

Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana said early Sunday that he would not become a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, telling supporters in an e-mail message that concerns from his family were the overriding factor in deciding to stay out of the race.

"In the end, I was able to resolve every competing consideration but one," Mr. Daniels wrote. "The interests and wishes of my family is the most important consideration of all. If I have disappointed you, I will always be sorry."

His announcement answers one of the most highly anticipated questions about the 2012 Republican campaign, but introduces new uncertainty into the race. He is the latest in a string of prominent Republicans to decline a presidential bid, leaving the field without a clear front-runner less than eight months before the first voting could begin.

Plenty more from Reason on Mitch Daniels here

NEXT: In a Screwed-Up World, There's REASON to Believe! Subscribe Today!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Is it just wishful thinking, or is it looking more and more like Ron Paul’s losing competition fast?

    1) I hope Paul wins.

    2) I hope once (if) he wins, it turns out that some of his compromise-ridden stances turn out to have been just covers to enable him to become a more palatable candidate, and he becomes a no-intervention-in-social-issues type of guy. YAY.

    1. It’s just wishful thinking. It’s Mitt Romney who now can cruise to the nomination easily, unless Sarah Palin formally decides to jump in.

      1. It’s going to be Cain.

        1. Yet another ignoramus.

          1. Maybe, but winning the nomination isn’t an sat test.

            Cain is the only half way viable candidate with charisma and good speechifying skills, which the election of Obama definitively proves is the only actual requirement for electoral success.

            The republican base is completely sick of establishment pussies and would rather have a candidate go down in flames while fighting, than some triangulating punk like Mutt that stands for nothing but himself.

            Ultimately, the voters will decide who the nominee is, not back room deals.

            I’d prefer Paul to be the nominee, but get real, the republican base is not ready for him and given his behavior, I don’t think that he really wants to win anyway.

            Besides which, Cain can actually beat Obama, while Pawlenty, Mutt and the rest of the establishment assholes hope to lose gracefully.

            The bright side is that Cain does have a business – free market orientation, is immune to charges of racism and will peel off some black votes from Obama.

            1. One of the things I disliked about Cain was his response that Obama, by not defending DOMA in courts, was borderline treason. He strikes me as one of those guys that believes the law is the law, because it’s the law. It’s not like Obama was advocating blatant disregard of the law, he just said it wouldn’t be defended in federal courts. How is that treason?

            2. One of the things I disliked about Cain was his response that Obama, by not defending DOMA in courts, was borderline treason. He strikes me as one of those guys that believes the law is the law, because it’s the law. It’s not like Obama was advocating blatant disregard of the law, he just said it wouldn’t be defended in federal courts. How is that treason?

              1. It’s not treason, but it sets a terrible precedent that the prez can essentially repeal a law by simply choosing not to defend it in court.

                1. The precedent was set no later than by Andrew Jackson.

                  Further, each branch must consent in order to throw someone in jail: the legislature must pass a law, the executive must enforce it, and the judiciary must find them guilty. This is a Good Thing.

                  1. This is a Good Thing.

                    Not when the absence of a law actually removes a restriction on government activity. For instance, no one being prosecuted for violating FISA or laws against torture during the Bush administration is certainly not a Good Thing.

                    And DOMA is a law that restricts federal activity, not a law that puts people in jail.

                2. It’s not treason, but it sets a terrible precedent that the prez can essentially repeal a law by simply choosing not to defend it in court.

                  If it is an unconstitutional law, it’s not a “terrible precedent” to not defend it, it’s the Prez’s sworn duty to refuse to implement it.

                  And, it’s unconstitutional unless it is an explicitly enumerated power in Article I, Section 8. Can you provide the link where defining marriage is an enumerated power granted Congress?

                  No? Then, Obama was right to not defend it, albeit for all the wrong reasons.

              2. How is that treason?

                It’s not treason and Cain knows that. Making such strong statements is way for Cain to garner support from the evangelicals.

            3. I think that Colin was referring to you, Josh.

              1. Maybe,

                I do resemble that remark. But even ignoramuses are right sometimes.

            4. Cain is a TARPer and that’s all I need to know vis a vis his ‘free-market’ anti-establishment orientation.

        2. Going to agree with this.

  2. leaving the field without a clear front-runner less than eight months before the first voting could begin.

    8 months??!??

    Before voting which would determine a front-runner!?!!??!!

    THE HORROR!!!!

    1. Without a clear front-runner before the people speak their choice we at the New York Times are unable to focus our dwindling resources at destroying the upstart to our anointed king.

      1. Well, whichever one wins, they’ll use the same old lines. Since Ford the underlying thrust has always been that the R candidate stupid. While they’re always unwise (sometimes even more so than the D candidate), they’re rarely stupid.

        1. That meme goes back to Eisenhower, the original amiable dunce in the progressive hive mind.

          Never mind, he was the general that planned and executed Overlord, kicked the Germans out of France in six months and ended WWII.

          1. Or that he graduated near the top of his class at one the most competitive academic institutions in America.

            1. >one the most competitive academic institutions in America

              West Point? HAHAHAHAHA! *gasp* HAHAHAHAHA!

              1. You obviously know little about West Point, Pedant.

                1. Seriously, and West Point ain’t what it used to be, even.

              2. Forbes Magazine ranked West Point as #1 in the nation in 2009.

          2. He contributed to that meme. He liked to give the impression that his goal in life was to spend the maximum amount of time playing golf. Most politicians have egos far to large to try to get their opponents to underestimate them.

        2. Stupid, or evil.

          Nixon was evil. Bush they couldn’t make up their minds about whether it was one (with Cheney the evil puppet-master) or both.

          1. Nixon started pulling back on LBJ’s war. He opened the door to China.

            He wasn’t evil. He was just paranoid. LBJ was evil.

  3. I’m seeing annoyingly much fussing over the “no clear front-runner” thing. Remember when Clinton was first elected? During primary season, the democratic candidates were commonly referred to as “the seven dwarves” amidst similar concerns – yet the candidate that emerged was strong enough to be elected twice, all while delivering a balanced budget too.

    I’d love to see Paul win the republican nod, but I won’t be holding my breath. Too many people are republicans for all the wrong reasons, be they neocons or theocons. Still, we’re locked into a two-party system and the only real hope lies in changing one (or both) of the major parties from within, Tea Party style.

    1. a balanced budget

      This is the the greatest evil even ever perpetrated on man kind.

    2. Clinton never got a majority of the popular vote in the general elections. And we haven’t had a balanced budget since 1958 — the closest we got was in 2000 when the deficit was $10B.

      1. “never got a majority” = irrelevant. According to polls at the time, Clinton would’ve won a majority if Perot hadn’t run. And right now, a $10B deficit would look pretty darn good.

        I’m not a Clinton fan, but I have to admit that he greatly exceeded my expectations. When he was first elected and we had democrats in charge of the entire govt, I was expecting the sort of spending spree that we got from Obama. The happiest day of my political life was when Gingrich & Co. took over congress. (The second happiest was when the democrats reclaimed control during the Bush presidency. Divided government is a good thing).

        1. sounds like you have a very sad life.

  4. Damn, who am I not going to vote for now?

    1. Rick Santorum?

      1. Time to get pumped for Santorum!

        1. I’m glad you capitalized the “S” there.

    2. It is all about the Herminator man.

      1. Fuck Herman Cain

        Ron Paul 2012

      2. This rant against Muslims (the westernized kind) is enough to make me strongly question his judgment.

        1. I’ve seen that rant.

          That kind of talk, IMO, increases his chances of winning the GOP nomination. That’s the shit that most of the right-wing base loves to hear.

          If Cain runs against Obama, that video and others like it will be played nonstop by the Dems.

          1. If Cain runs against Obama, that video and others like it will be played nonstop by the Dems.

            …and it will actually peel voters away from Obama.

            1. Right. There were so many people who voted for Obama but really wanted to vote from someone who hates muslims.

        2. from the vid:

          “…the role of Islam in America is for Muslims to practice their religion and leave us alone. Just like Christianity…”

          This is great, if he actually believes it.

          I think the firm stance on not appointing a Muslim is certainly ill-advised on a number of levels, if not downright hateful.

          As far as the pushing of Sharia Law goes: I’m not on top of this issue, but the couple of instances I’m aware of are people who have agreed to use sharia to function as private arbitration, and the Republicans (including Cain) are trumping these cases up.

  5. I guess he was afraid his wife would leave again and then he’d have to marry her a third time afterward.

    1. That shit gets expensive.

  6. I am telling you guys, the wife had something freaky going on in that second marriage Mitch doesn’t want to have to explain.

    1. Yes. Moving 2000 miles away from your young daughters for a man is a bit freaky.

      1. I thought she took the kids with her?

    2. I agree. There has to be more to the story. If the circumstances are as simple as wife leaves hubby; wife re-marries; wife leaves new hubby, returns to first – I don’t see the scandal, at least in the sense that he looks bad.

      Could Mrs. Daniels have been getting a side serving of Mitch, while she was married to the new guy? Was she the creamy filling of a first-second husband cookie? Was one of the Daniels progeny fathered out of wedlock?

      1. I agree. There has to be more to the story.

        And, Mitch Daniels dropped out rather than get pestered about questions about what is likely some rather personal and possibly embarrassing events.

        One of those “So. Not. Worth. It.” Moments.

      2. It’s not gay if it’s a three way.
        If there’s a honey in the middle, there’s some leeway.

    3. I wonder if polyandry would be as frowned upon as a certain mormon candidate’s polygamy?

      1. Neither of the Mormons running is a polygamist, AFAIK. Contempory LDSers are some of the most anti-polygamist people around, officially, because that is the church line.

        1. I’m pretty sure Glenn Beck is a serial polygamist.

  7. I stumbled on this comment to a Roger Simon post about Jews abadoning Obama. Behold the stupid.

    Rabbi Tony Jutner

    I am the leader of NewJudaism, which has replaced traditional Judaism with our platform of Economic Justice, Social Justice, and the Right of Return of Endogenous Peoples, Especially the Palestinians. I am happy to see President Obama cut israel down to size. I will definitely vote for him in 2012 so he can end the so-called special relationship. Most American Jews will vote with me, because we value liberalism over tribal attachments”

    Dude, you are a rabi. The “tribe” is the whole point dickhead. If you don’t believe in the tribe why did you join? I think it is illustriative of the difference between liberals and libertarians and conservatives. A lot of libertarians are atheists. And thus would never consider joining a religious organization. And for good reason, they are atheists. But a liberal will. A liberal will join an organization even though he objects to the basic purpose of the organization. And they do so for the sole purpose of corrupting that organization so that it can be used for liberal ends. You and I look at a Temple and see an organization that functions to give Jews a place to worship and to preserve Jewish culture. A liberal sees a place where people can gather to work for economic and social justice. It is just fucking sick.

    1. There are liberal and conservative Christian churches too, thats the beauty of denominations. If a rabbi wants to end Jewish tribalism, what’s the problem? I think it’s odd that you think all Jewish rabbis should have the same political or social beliefs, or they’ve somehow betrayed “the tribe.” I don’t support Jutner’s economic and social justice policies, but there’s nothing wrong about trying to peaceful convince people to join your cause.

      1. “If a rabbi wants to end Jewish tribalism, what’s the problem?”

        Ending tribalism is ending the group. It is a tribe. That is the whole point.

        1. It doesn’t seem like he’s trying to destroy the whole of Judaism, he’s just saying Israel shouldn’t be the most important thing in the world to Jews. Again, compare this with the million denominations of Christianity, or any religion, all with radically different social beliefs. There’s nothing wrong with having a different viewpoint than the majority of Jews. If others like his ideas, they’ll be convinced. If they don’t whatever. I fail to see how he’s corrupting an organization. Freedom of assembly, if the people above him think he’s corrupting their ideals, they can kick him out.

          1. And they should. That is the point. He is corrupting their ideals. and that is what liberals to, corrupt organizations into tools for liberal ends. This has nothing to do with government.

      2. It is like saying “if a Priest wants to end the supremacy of the Pope, I don’t see the problem”. Having a Pope is kind of what makes Catholics Catholics and not Protestants.

        1. Maybe a majority of Catholics do want to get rid of the Pope, they just were never asked. Traditions only exist as long as people still want to adhere to that tradition. If an organization changes over time, it just happens. You seem to think tradition is an end unto itself, which I would disagree. Tradition is only useful as long as the organization finds it useful. If the majority of a group wanted to change the group (like Catholics removing the Pope) it would be fine for them to do so.

        2. Having a Pope is kind of what makes Catholics Catholics and not Protestants.

          Uh, no. There are a ton of other fundamental doctrinal differences. Catholics with no pope would be roughly equivalent to Eastern Orthodox.

          1. This is actually a pretty good topic to discuss. This NewJudaism guy may very well be a self-described rabbi who just started his own group. The fact that he’s Jewish pretty much gives him the ability to do that.

            Christians have been doing it for years…especially since 1517, when the religion fractured from two main groups into the multitude we have today, more than a few of which were created for reasons other than to worship.

            1. Actually there were a lot of “heretical” Christian groups in the first few centuries AD that sprouted up alongside what we now call Catholicism/Orthodoxy in the region where Christianity first took hold, the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. They mostly disappeared due to the Muslim invasions of their home bases.

              Catholicism/Orthodoxy was simply more conducive to sending out missionaries and holding on to communities that had already been evangelized, which was a huge advantage once the strongholds of early Christianity were lost.

              1. I learned something today. Thanks 🙂

              2. Actually, most early Christian groups were wiped out by other Christian groups that were larger and more powerful, not by Muslims. by the time Islam camr around, Christianity was firmly rooted in the Catholic/Orthodox dichotomy until the late middle ages when we started to see splinter groups.

                1. In the areas of the Middle East beyond Byzantine control (which was most of it) there were a lot of heretic Christians, such as Monophysites, Nestorians, and Monothelites.

          2. Catholics with no pope would be roughly equivalent to Eastern Orthodox.”

            Ah No. It would be closer to the Church of England. The east and west split over a lot more than the Pope. The split over the duel nature of Christ.

            And a Catholic Church without the Pope would not be a Catholic Church anymore. It would be something else.

            1. The East and West ostensibly split over the filioque, the question of whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father only or from the Father and the Son. In reality it was more of a political and personal conflict, with the East pretty much being in bed with the Byzantine Emperor and the West having reason to buddy up with the barbarians who were fighting against him.

              That doctrinal difference has been pretty much ironed out, as both sides seem comfortable with saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The intervening 1000 years have seen some divergence of doctrine as well as plenty of new political/personal grievances, but nothing to compare with the divergence of Protestantism from Catholicism.

              1. Well, all ^^this^^ and because a dude wanted to get a divorce.

                1. That was the Anglican Schism…afaik the Orthodox still don’t recognize divorce.

                  1. My comment was directed at John. I was a little slow on the draw.

                    1. that’s what she said.

                    2. that’s what she said.

                  2. That was the Anglican Schism…afaik the Orthodox still don’t recognize divorce.

                    Some Orthodox do recognize divorce, at least in the US. It may not be official policy, but rather a commonly granted exception to the rules. I’m not sure. There are different ceremonies for second or third marriages, so its not like they just pretend a failed marriage never happened.

            2. That could be fatal because of the duel nature of Christ.

              1. That could be fatal because of the duel nature of Christ.

                Was he partial to swords or pistols at 20 paces?

                (I keed. I keed.)

        3. The closest analogy with Catholics would be a priest supporting shrinking the borders of the Vatican City…which I don’t think would be a problem with their faith, though it might be a practical problem as the VC is so small already that I don’t know how you could shrink it without obliterating it.

    2. I am the leader of NewJudaism, which has replaced traditional Judaism…


      1. Not the NewJudean People’s Front!

    3. Israel != Judaism

      For seemingly the billionth time.

      1. Pretty much yes.

        1. ?????????

          Then how is it wrong for a rabbi to support rolling back Israel’s borders? Israel is, purportedly, a secular state.

          1. Judaism is (almost) uniquely both a national and religious identity.

            Zionism was a nationalist movement, not a religious one. That nationalism, or tribalism if you prefer, was reinforced by several orders of magnitude as a result of the holocaust. There never was any contradiction in Israel being founded as an atheist, secular, socialist state.

            The idea of a rabbi rejecting Israel as part of embracing liberal ideology is more ridiculous on nationalist grounds that it is on religious ones.

            That guy is a fraud.

      2. Yes, but Israel = Jews. A very important distinction.

        1. Uh, no. Equals is a reflexive operation.

          Israel => Jews

          might be correct.

          1. A pedant is a foot fetishist. Sarah Ferguson awaits you.

            A Jew does not necessarily believe in or practice Judaism, Tulpa’s misleading prose notwithstanding.

            I’m still trying to figure out what “endogenous people” are. Autochthonous? As of what date? Out of Africa I or II? How do we count all the mixed genes everywhere? Man, leftists make my head hurt. Pedants, too.

    4. A person can have religious faith, and still value individual liberty. That said, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment about being a part of a religious organization.

      A rational person can independently read the bible, and find no conflict between libertarianism and their faith. When people rely on their religious leaders to interpret their faith for them, this become akin to lawyer after lawyer interpreting the Constitution. Eventually it becomes over analyzed, and twisted to meet a convenient point of view, rather than simply meaning what it says.

      1. Romans 13:3-4

        3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.

        1. Too many people, mostly Christians, look at the wrong words in the bible. They home in on the dreck written nearly a century after Jesus and the instructions of people who never even met the man.

          Jesus’ teachings can square with any philosophy. It’s just in how they are interpreted.

          1. Exactly.

            If one truly believes in the existence of god, the other thing to keep in mind is that the text of the bible would have to be an over simplification of the workings of the universe.

            God speaking to man, especially at the time the bible was written, would be like Brian Cox trying to explain particle physics to a first grader. If God does exist, then he gave man the ability of free thought, and reason. It should be expected that these abilities would be applied to faith also.

            1. Well, yeah, but I don’t get what good this guy teaching particle physics would do anybody, let alone first graders.

              1. Shiste! My verbosity is my downfall once again.

            2. Which completely contradicts your original position that the words mean what they say. Congratulations.

              Also, I don’t know why a bad-guy character actor would know anything about particle physics, but he was in Chain Reaction (which I enjoyed, sorry Epi) so maybe you have a point there.

              1. True. But it doesn’t contradict my greater point, that people should rely on their own gifts of free thought, and reason, to interpret their faith for themselves, rather than relying on the leaders of a particular orthodoxy to do the thinking for them.

                Any modern day religious teachings, are an interpretation, of a translation, of a translation, of an interpretation of an over simplified explanation. The words may not have been captured correctly, but that doesn’t mean that the message isn’t in the ball park, and can’t serve as a starting point for faith.

              2. Also, he was pretty good in Rob Roy. Especially when he wakes Archibald with a wee whiff of quim in the morning.

              3. Which completely contradicts your original position that the words mean what they say. Congratulations.

                Was this directed to me? I don’t think I’ve ever said I ascribe to a literal translation of the bible. Wouldn’t that put me in league with the nutballs that think man and dinosaur walked the earth together and that the universe is like 20,000 years old or something?

                Nope. I’ve got my own beliefs on how the universe began and how we came to be here, and they fit in fine with the tenets of Christianity and the creationist theory.

                1. sloopyinca @1:58, that was directed at free2booze.

          2. Jesus’ teachings can square with any philosophy. It’s just in how they are interpreted.which parts are ignored

        2. I think this is an awful, awful translation. If you take this to mean that Christians should always at all times be obedient to governments and that governments will always reward virtue, then that does not at all fit with the rest of the New Testament.

          In 13:1, Paul uses the phrase, “huperecho exousia,” which means “higher power.” This is usually translated as “governing authority,” or simply “authority.” However, exousia is also translated as power, liberty, right, etc. It expresses a different paradigm of how the people of that time thought about governance. It has more to do with legitimate authority and justice rather than the might makes right concept of government.

          Put into the larger context of Romans, Paul talks about how we can be servants of Christ and freed from sin or servants of Sin and freed from Christ. To put this concept of exousia into a political or at least a purely political context is to read Paul on our terms rather than his own.

      2. If you’re a libertarian, wouldn’t it make sense to apply that philosophy to ALL rulers? A lot of people on this site are against statism, and for good reasons. But why would you worship somebody who wasn’t democratically elected? What separates god from Obama? Scope of power? I am against all coercive rule, even celestial in nature.

        I became an atheist because of my libertarianism. Of course, I have no problem with people who privately believe in God. It’s not my place to force beliefs on others. It’s just to me, the idea of God, the very idea of worship, is antithetical to libertarianism.

        1. Isn’t their a difference between viewing God as a creator, vs as a ruler?

          One of the first point made by Thomas Paine, in the “Age of Reason” was

          I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

          I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

          Paine’s issue with religion, was the corruption of faith by the religious establishment.

          I don’t think you can compare “God’s laws” to statism. First off, the only laws that you can attribute to God (under the assumption that God were to actually exist), would be the laws of the universe. If you want to compare gravity and electromagnetism to statism, their is probably a great argument to be had. As far as the rest of it goes, I view them as a question of choice vs coercive rule.

          1. i certainly have no problem with the deism of the founding fathers then. i was more talking about the idea of heaven and hell, and the first two commandments. My main problem is with worship, or bowing and praising. If I was wrong, and it’s certainly possible, and there was a God, I could certainly respect him. After all, he created the universe. But the idea of submission, that unbelievers would be punished for a thought crime, that’s what turns me off.

            1. Then you and I are in agreement Max. That’s probably why I prefer agnostic over atheist.

            2. Just curious. Are you the new Max that’s been posting once in a while on here? If so, it’s ggod to see you have finally added something to your tag so as to disassociate yourself from the yorkie choad.

              If you are someone else, there’s no need to read the rest of th

              1. No, I chose to name myself after the philosopher. Although that Max guy is a pretty dedicated troll. How can you commit yourself to posting on every single article on a site you disagree with?

    5. As I see it, that rabbi believes that the best way to secure Israel’s future is via a land-for-peace deal. I happen to believe he’s fundamentally correct, even if there are a host of devils in the details. You may believe he’s misguided, but if he genuinely believes he’s working for the best of Israel then he *can’t* be guilty of “betraying his tribe”.

      Being pro-Israel is not the same thing as being pro-Likud or pro-Netanyahu, just as being pro-America doesn’t require you to be a born-again Bush (or Obama) follower. As any libertarian should know, there’s a huge difference between allegiance to one’s country and allegiance to one’s government.

    6. John,

      You know Tony Jutner isn’t real, right? He’s a troll on Forward.com.

  8. so, how many hidden kids does this one have?

    1. change that to boyfriends

  9. Daniels is smart.

    He simply could not rile up the evangelical base. Plus, he carried the “RINO” label.

    I suspect the next person to fall will be Gary Johnson.

    Less competition for RP.

  10. I’ve been looking into T-Paw and he might actually make a decent prez. He doesn’t look like a good campaigner yet, though.

    Those saying this “removes competition for Ron Paul” are living in lalaland. If it came down to Rick Santorum vs. Ron Paul, Santorum would win the GOP nom in a landslide. If Paul actually became a threat to get the nom, there are a slew of silver bullets his opponents have in store to end the threat: his stance on WoD, his age, the newsletter issue, etc.

    1. A friend of mine (who passed away Thursday) has been telling me for years that T-Paw is a RINO.

      1. If your friend was registered, could you please go and vote for him?

        1. I didn’t know you could vote for dead people.

          1. Ever been to Chicago? They often get 102% voter turnout.

          2. Clearly you don’t know everything.

            Mel Carnahan beat John Ascroft for US Senator in Missouri in 2000 after he died.

            1. Oops, forgot about that.

              No wonder Ashcroft was such a miserable SOB after that.

              1. Heh, you’re right, Ashcroft was a miserable SOB. however, if I were a Missouri voter in 2000, I think I would have chosen him over Carnahan. Keeping him in the Senate would have saved us from the horrors of having him as attorney general.

                I live here in Missouri now, and Robin Carnahan got smoked by Roy Blunt last year.

                1. Getting smoked by a Blunt is even worse than getting beaten by a dead man.

            2. You left out this beauty from 2002 — everyone knew she was dead, and she still trounced the Republican:

              Patsy Mink (D-HI) (deceased)
              U.S. House – District 2
              Election results:
              Patsy Mink (D) 56%
              Bob McDermott (R) 40%
              Jeff Mallan (Lib) 3%
              Nicholas Bedworth (NLP) 1%

      2. Plenty of Republicans think Ron Paul is a RINO.

        To be honest, since the Republican Party has no overarching philosophy that it stands for beyond “getting elected” it really is little more than a name. So all Republicans are RINOs.

        1. If being a RINO means you reject the WOT as it is being fought, the WOD, the TSA’s actions, DADT, the FED, the DoE, and federal subsidies for oil, corn, and everything else, then Ron Paul should wear the RINO label as a badge of honor.

          1. Well, yeah. I guess my point was that a RINO is just a Republican with whom the Republican speaking disagrees.

            1. Check out Free Republic. At one point in time, the RINO label has been applied to Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Jan Brewer, every single presidential candidate except Palin, and so forth. And Ron Paul constantly gets the RINO label.

              Tulpa’s definition is spot on.

              Is it bad for Ron Paul to be labelled a RINO? He really is more of a libertarian.

              1. Some libertarians call him a LINO due to his opposition to open borders, abortion, and gay marriage.

              2. Canvassing for RP in 08 I encountered plenty of registered republicans who did the stupid tribe shit – basically saying, he should get out of the party and run as a libertarian. Cocksuckers.

                1. NTTAWWT

    2. T-Paw is a statist. His 2007 “Next Generation Energy Act” imposes a 25% renewable energy mandate on utility companies. In his attempt to bring universal health care to MN, he created a health care task force to look into an individual mandate, and supports drug re-importation from Canada. He has pushed for rail as a solution to MN’s transportation grid lock. Then their is his 2006 comment “The era of small government is over… government needs to be more proactive, more aggressive”.

      1. Drug re-importation would actually be a loosening of state restrictions, not a statist policy. Not everything universal health insurance supporters push for is ipso facto statist. Ditto on rail.

        He has since recovered his sanity on energy policy.

        1. He has since recovered his sanity stuck his finger in the air and sensed the shifting winds on energy policy.


        2. True, but re importation from a country that relies on price controls is not.

          T-Paw has only addressed a small part of his energy act. The law called for a commission to look into cap and trade, which is the part he has apologized for. He has yet to address establishing a framework, establishing greater government intervention into the energy market.

          1. I guess you like your herring cooked rare

    3. No, you’re wrong. The removal of another GOP candidate definitely increases Ron Paul’s chances of winning the nomination. I’m willing to bet a few voters who were behind Daniels will cast their vote for Ron Paul or Johnson. When I say a few, it probably will be like 3 or 4 people.

      Whether this puts it anywhere close to reality is another issue.

      1. Ron Paul has zero–0–chance of winning the nomination.

        Anyone who is in favor of ending the War on Drugs (I’m looking at both of you, Ron and Gary) is not going to win the nomination.

        A nation like the USA is not going to elect some sort of libertarian Philosopher-King for their President.

  11. Ron Paul’s got a chance, sure, but not a big one, and I hope every other contender somehow slips into a coma until the election is over.

    1. Even Gary Johnson?

      1. have to say, not a big fan of GJ especially since it turned out he’s the corporatist candidate. His only chance was to register democrats as republicans and get them to vote in droves, but with the whole “0% corporate tax” shit, I think he’s lost that.

        Aside from the triangulation thing, I can’t support that position, since corporations are creations of the state and actually are the ONLY thing we should tax.

        1. So then would you aregue for a 100% tax rate?

          1. Nope. My position is to have a 15% flat interstate-only corporate tax rate and a 10% flat importation tariff. Personal income taxes would be flat 15% until the national debt is paid off and after that they would disappear unless congress declared war, in which case, it would be paid off by income taxes. That would keep congress from doing stupid shit.

            1. I can dig that.

            2. I like it.

        2. Corporatist? Maybe you ought to look that word up before you start throwing it around. Hint: it doesn’t mean in the pocket of modern corporations. Also, wanting to lessen corporate tax rates does not mean he’s go giving corporations special benefits or rights. It would be a strong move toward increasing employment and economic stability.

    2. The only way Ron Paul or Gary Johnson types have a chance, is if Libertarians invest the same level of energy into the primary process as the righteous righties. The so-cons will never allow RP to become the nominee. With out some countervailing force, you might as well forget about RP.

      1. You forget that Libertarians have our own party and will be selecting our own presidential candidate.

        1. Gary Johnson, or Ron Paul at the top of a GOP ticket, have a much better shot than the eventual LP candidate.

          1. Neither Gary Johnson nor Ron Paul have a snowball’s chance in the Republican Party of being the GOP nominee. They’ll both be a distant memory by autumn, and the LP candidate will still be in the race.

            1. so, why not just have the LP nominate one or the other after they have failed at the republican nod?

              1. Speaking only as one LP member, I’d rather nominate someone who *wants* the LP nomination and campaigns for it – not someone who gets it as a consolation prize for losing some other party’s nomination process.

            2. Will the LP candidate get over 1% this time? Maybe. But definitely not more than 2%.

              1. That’s 1% or 2% more than either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson will get in November.

      2. But Ron Paul does very well among social conservatives. It’s not them but moderates and hawks who are his major opposition.

        1. Not really. The SoCons loathe Paul, and cringe at the thought of even considering him a Republican.

          In 2008 Redstate.com, one of the more popular SoCon hang outs, threatened to delete the accounts of anyone posting about Paul.

          1. I find that actual SoCon voters tend to be open-minded to Ron Paul, but then again my sample is skewed by the social circle.

            1. Agree.

              It’s the neo-cons that hate Paul, because they’r primarily war-mongers.

              A lot of the “leaders” of the so cons are in fact neo-cons.

              1. Yup. The NeoCon/SoCon alliance is alive and kicking. BIGovt conservatism meets BIGod conservatism. It doesn’t get any scarier than that.

  12. his stance on WoD

    The same people who freaked out when Daniels merely suggested “conservatives” might want to set priorities based on something other than telling people what to do will crucify Paul over his plan to forcibly inject school children with heroin.

    ps- Good riddance, Mitch.

    1. The lame stream media wanted Daniels for the Republicans. Need I say more???

      1. Mitch Daniels was the closest thing to a Barry Goldwater conservative the GOP had to offer, that met the criteria of the “Buckley rule”. While not ideal from a Libertarian stand point, Goldwater conservatism is a hell of a lot closer to the ideal than what the So-Cons, and the left, have to offer.

    2. Cut the violent rhetoric, you rube redneck neo-Confederate Confederate neo-rube rube-redneck hybrid.

    3. You misjudge the effects of rhetoric and code language. Saying Republicans should call a truce in the culture war is far more threatening to culture warriors than is the individual recitation of any number of positions that should put one on the wrong side of said culture war.

  13. The FREEDOM IS SLAVERY wing of Republicanism is firmly in control, and whomever they nominate will be our enemy.

    1. I never had you pegged for an Obama boy, P. But your stance has been noted.

      1. How does that make him an “Obama boy”? Historically speaking, it’s entirely normal for the nominees of both major parties to be enemies of freedom.

        1. The enemy of my enemy is my boy.

          1. Saying you won’t vote for a Republican doesn’t mean you will vote for the Democrat in the race. There are several other political parties out there, as well as blank balloting.

            So stop jumping to conclusions.

  14. So the only non-christnut candidates remaining for the GOP nomination are the two libertarians and Sarah Palin. Great.

    1. Don’t let Palin fool ya. She’s a loony religious SoCon that will be in bed with the DOMA and WOD supporters. Her religious fundamentalism scares the hell out of me.

      1. DOMA is an attempt to save federalism from a perverse application of the Full Faith and Credit clause. Don’t even compare it to the WOD. As far as I know no one is in a cage or in a grave because of DOMA.

        1. I agree Tulpa. The purpose of DOMA was to keep the federal government out of marriage, and prevent the states from having to accept another states definition.

        2. DOMA is as much an attack on civil liberties as is the WOD, IMHO. DOMA, and it’s sister DADT have wrecked quite a few lives in this country. Probably not nearly as many as the WOD, but now we’re just arguing degrees of fucked-up violations of individual rights.

          Either way, Sarah Palin would be a train wreck, not because she can’t formulate a sentence (we’ve got a guy in the WH that can’t either), but because she’s a meddlesome religio-fascist that will pander to the SoCon base of Team Red and lead us to more control over our daily lives.

          That, and she’s a huge supporter of the Partiot Act and all the other legislation that has diminished our rights in the WOT.

          1. I’m definitely against Palin so no argument there.

            The only people whose lives can be said to be “wrecked” by DOMA are people who want their foreign same-sex partner to be able to come to the US as opposite-sex spouses are generally allowed to do. Sad cases, no doubt, but nothing compared to the human wreckage wrought by the WoD.

            DADT was a military regulation that had no relation to DOMA other than that gay activists didn’t like either.

            1. You don’t have room in your brain for opposition to different types of assaults on liberty? Maybe gay activists don’t like DOMA and DADT because they single out gay people as second-class citizens in federal law… something I’d think a freedom lover would be concerned about.

              1. I’m concerned with individual rights, not identity-group privileges. DOMA doesn’t violate anyone’s individual rights. Your interpretation that it makes gays second-class citizens can only be due to your own warped perceptions, possibly caused by your mom not diapering you quickly enough.

                1. Forbidding federal and cross-state recognition of gay marriages doesn’t affect anyone’s individual rights?

                  1. DOMA doesn’t forbid cross-state recognition of marriage. DOMA allows each state to decide whether or not they recognize a same sex marriage from another state.

                    How a state defines marriage does not limit freedom. Marriage, as we define it today, does not grant any rights. All marriage does is create a pre-defined contract on the sharing of property. This is not intended to be an argument against same-sex marriage, only that the legal protections provided through a marriage license, can be obtained with out being married.

                    1. I dunno, I’d just assume that the blunt instrument you guys normally wield against federal meddling in private lives would manage to cover DOMA and DADT.

                    2. I dunno, I’d just assume that the blunt instrument you guys normally wield against federal meddling in private lives would manage to cover DOMA and DADT.

                      It does cover it. Tulpa is just being an idiot.

                    3. Wow, compelling argument, Josh.

                    4. How a state defines marriage does not limit freedom. Marriage, as we define it today, does not grant any rights

                      Paying less taxes is equal to more freedom + rights

                  2. last I checked the definition, individual means one. Any marriage, gay or straight – takes two to tango.

                    1. That suggests you ought to reformulate your policy ideas to include more than the individual. Anything that just affects an individual is not policy. (That would be the “poli” part.) We are having a conversation about policy, which by definition affects more than one person.

              2. Tony, given your frothing hatred for the KORPORASHUNS! why do you have such a raging boner for the incorporation of two people, their assets, and whatever offspring they produce or adopt?

                1. Personally I’m not in favor of marriage. I’m just against the government discriminating against gay people.

          2. Sloppy, I don’t disagree that the feds definition of marriage under DOMA, does interfere with individual rights. However, from the perspective of the Constitution, any law that is intended to put the power back to the states is a good thing.

            1. But this sets terrible precedent because it allows one state to refuse to recognize what is a legal and binding contract signed in another. That is absurd.

              First off, government should not be in the marriage game. It’s bullshit and leads to the destruction of equal protection. That said, if they are going to be in the business, then each person meeting the requirement for marriage should be able to marry whomever they want. I say, set the legal age of marriage at 16 (arbitrary, I know but it is in line with most emancipation law). Once one turns 16, they are free to marry whomever they please, and to as many other people who also meet that requirement. Recognition of the contract has always been a part of our society and shouldn’t be changed because a bunch of bigots want to impose their way of life on others who have no direct impact on them.

              The federalism argument is being used as an end around by people who are just too ashamed to admit that they want to impose their moralistic view on society writ large.

              1. But this sets terrible precedent because it allows one state to refuse to recognize what is a legal and binding contract signed in another. That is absurd.

                It’s not absurd. If I sign a contract in PA with a fireworks store to send me 20 Roman candles a month for the next 5 years, that is a valid contract in Pennsylvania.

                If I then move to NYS 2 years later, and the store stops sending me fireworks, I don’t have a prayer of getting NYS courts to enforce the contract because Roman candles are illegal there.

                1. I don’t know about that. Unless the contract had a provision allowing the company to stop shipping unless you moved would force the NYS court to find in your favor and get the company to offer compensation for the remaining value of the fireworks.

                  Any resident contract lawyers want to chime in here and let us know how this would likely end?

                2. Actually, this is a bad analogy.

                  Would you be ok if a person borrowed money to buy a car in PA moved to NY, and the bank wouldn’t be allowed to repossess the car when the buyer didn’t pay because NY passed a law stating cars can’t be repo’d from people who are unemployed?

                  1. I think that would be a stupid law (similar to my feeling about NYS fireworks law) but given that it’s in place, a contract that violates it would not be in force.

                    Of course in that particular example, it would get even murkier if someone repo’ed the car on behalf of the bank and brought it back to PA. What happens when NY demands that PA extradite him to stand trial for grand theft auto?

                    Reminds me of the absolutely awful Baby Emma case, among others, where Utah’s bizarre adoption laws are used to suborn kidnapping.

      2. So any other interesting candidates? I can only think of Rick Perry, but he’s a politician politician, so likely to be coopted with neocons and hawks from Washington D.C.

        1. Based on the reality that their is no perfect candidate, and the GOP won’t nominate “one of their own”, then that would leave Paul Ryan. He’s has cast some shitty votes, but he’s the only one with big enough stones to propose a change to entitlements.

          1. Paul Ryan is going to morph back into a welfare-warfare guy once the GOP gets more power.

            1. You’re probably right.

            2. I give it 50-50 odds. He’s from janesville, and people from janesville really have spunk.

              1. At first I thought you were referring to this Firefly episode:


                but then I googled it and found Ryan actually is from a town called Janesville.

                1. secretly I think I was hoping that about the ex-girlfriend, too.

                2. I suspect Joss intended the name to be a reference to the many “Jamestown” places in the US.

        2. Rand Paul could make a splash but obviously he’s not going to run against his dad.

          1. TBH I think Rand is a better candidate than Ron as he doesn’t have the baggage.

            1. He needs at least 2 years as a senator before he can be president.

            2. Arguably, he has more baggage.

              1. I’ll take Aqua Buddha over the crap that was in Dr Paul’s survival reports any day.

  15. I also hope Paul turns out to be a militant if he wins – since the National Guards are de faco federal military, why not use the for something useful, like detaining and stripping of authority any and all governments/political divisions within the borders of the United States that refuse to repeal all unconstitutional laws immediately?


    1. I’m not too sure the precedent would be good once the next guy takes over.

      1. Yeah, and that’s the issue. Oh, well. Ron Paul 2012!

    2. Posse Comitatus?

      1. pussy coitatus?

  16. Hey, what kind of scam is the ad for the Townhall.com straw poll survey link?? THE VOTE BUTTON FOR 3 CANDIDATES IS COVERED UP BY THE SUBMIT WINDOW!!! Can’t vote for Paul, Romney, or the TX governor! What the fucking fuck?!?!?

  17. I never had you pegged for an Obama boy, P.

    Nor should you have. I am an equal opportunity hater.

    My hatred of politicians is vast and all-encompassing.

    1. I am an equal opportunity hater.

      That’s the best kind of hater!

  18. Speaking of despicable weasels, Mitch McConnell was on this morning, saying the Only the President can sign a bill into law, so the Legislature is helpless before his Might.

    Check again, stupid; the Congress can ram that veto right up his ass if they are willing to show a little backbone.

    1. If the president has more than 1/3 support in one of the houses, Congress can’t do anything direct to nullify the veto. There are indirect methods but those get messy.

    2. Mitch McConnell was on this morning, saying the Only the President can sign a bill into law, so the Legislature is helpless before his Might.

      P Brooks, I’ll have you know that Mitch McConnell is a member of the Congress of the United States. As such, he is not required to understand the separation of powers, nor how vetoes or 2/3 override votes are supposed to work.

      Ignorance of the law is only excusable in lawyers, policemen, and elected officials.

  19. Anyone else more interested in who will be the Dem. nominee in 2016 than which sacrificial lamb will be offered up by the GOP in 2012?

    1. I’m not more interested, but since you brought it up I wonder if it will be Hillary.

      1. She said she won’t run in 2016 when she was announcing that she’s stepping down as SoS after this term.

        1. If nominated, I won’t run. If elected, I will serve.

    2. Obama needs to find more hated foreigners to kill if he wants to stay above 40% approval. November 2012 is a long way off.

    3. Anyone else more interested in who will be the Dem. nominee in 2016…

      They haven’t pulled him out of the muck at Isengard yet.

  20. Anonymous transactions, we hardly knew ye (with bonus govt-by-9/11 nostalgia).

    Prepaid cards attract money launderers

    A safer and increasingly attractive alternative for today’s criminal is electronic cash loaded on what are called stored-value or prepaid cards. Getting them doesn’t require a bank account, and many types can be used anonymously.

    U.S. crimefighters consider the cards a burgeoning threat that regulators haven’t adequately addressed.

    It was bank and wire-transfer records that enabled law enforcement to identify the 9/11 hijackers and their overseas cells. “Had the 9/11 terrorists used prepaid (stored-value) cards to cover their expenses, none of these financial footprints would have been available,” a U.S. Treasury Department report observed.

    The Treasury wants to require any business selling cards that can be used internationally to keep customer identity records and report suspicious transactions. That would affect more than 43,000 U.S. sellers including mom-and-pop groceries and stores such as Wal-Mart.

    1. Like this isn’t already done ‘backdoor’

      1. I want Mitt Romney to win, break down in tears at his victory speech and celebration, and become a strict constitutionalist/libertarian. Biggest mind-fuck ever.

        Short of that, I’m hoping Ron works something up to swing the GOP vote, else his chances of a nomination are going to diminish even further.

        1. Russian spy, that makes Mitt Romney a plant too. I knew there was something bullshitty about the Mormon thing

          1. “Plant?” I thought men like you were usally called a fruit.”

        2. Maybe he can figure out a way to kill some foreigners. Are there any crew openings on honeypot ships hunting pirates off Somalia? A picture of Ron holding an AR-15 next to a dead black guy hanging upside down from a fishhook would probably do wonders for his polling within the GOP.

          1. LOL so true

          2. woulndn’t happen, those pirates are too fleet-footed.

        3. Well, if Mitt Romney wins, the resulting FUBAR would turn a lot of people into strict constitutionalist/libertarians.

      2. I’ve bought prepaid cards with cash before, so this would be nearly impossible. They do usually make you fill out a form with your name and address but you can always write something fake as they never check ID.

        1. They look for anomalies on both the buying, and the usage end:
          Addresses with fake streets, incorrect zip codes, and procurement, including accretion of an unusual quantities of typically ‘single-purchase’ items (prepaid cell phones, electronics…).

    2. “Had the 9/11 terrorists used prepaid (stored-value) cards to cover their expenses, none of these financial footprints would have been available,”

      And if the terrorists had F-16s outfitted with B61s, they could have just nuked their targets. And if the terrorists had used magic, they could have summoned a plague to wipe out New York.

      It would be nice for the technocrats to say they want to record your every financial transaction, if only for the refreshing honesty.

      1. This, plus the seemingly forgotten fact that even with the ability to track expenditures the DOJ/Treasury still didn’t stop 9/11.

  21. Looks like Indiana’s motorcycle-riding, Reason-subscribing, ObamaCare-trashing, Postrel-and-Hayek-reading governor, Mitch Daniels, won’t be running for the GOP’s presidential nomination.

    Uh-huh. I’m sure that’s what the basis of Reason’s editorial line would have been had he actually entered.

  22. The silence about a Rick Perry run is deafening. I think the Democrats and their media pals are praying to the heavens that a recruit Perry movement doesn’t pop up.

    1. Democrats…praying?????

      1. Well, yeah. The blacks and hispanics, duh?

    2. Ugh, I just read Perry was co-chair of the 2008 Giuliani campaign. So I can strike him off my list as well. Remaining: two libertarians and Sarah Palin.

      1. I guess Mitt grew a vagoo then.

        1. Romney is more appealing to libertarians than Palin?

      2. Uhm, also, perry doing that huge boondoggle of a I’ll fucking plow a freeway through your neighborhood bullshit.

    3. If this is true, what we should be doing is lamenting the fact that sanity isn’t a prerequisite for running for president.

      1. It’s even worse – you’d have to be insane to run for president.

        1. That’s just CRAZY talk!

  23. I wish Mrs. Daniels would have made it clear to loverboy that she wasn’t going to let him run before I went and predicted he’d win.

  24. The enemy of my enemy is my boy.

    The Faculty Committee shall hear of your outrageous racism!

  25. I wonder who John Fund is going to favor now.

    1. On “John-Paul” (John Bachelor’s program, which I call that because it used to be John Bachelor and Paul Alexander) tonight he just said it’d be up to whoever can consolidate the anti-Romney forces, and might be a surprise entrant within the next 2-3 mos.

  26. Thoughts on Jon Huntsman, if not electability, then in general terms?

    I like his support of civil unions, and apparently he was a decent governor. But his stance on environmental issues makes me uneasy.

  27. Sorry if this was mentioned upthread already, but he looks REALLY funny on that bike. Maybe he should check out a Honda Rebel or a Sporty or something…cause he looks all Mike Dukakis on whatever version of Garbage Wagon? that is…

    Also, Fuck the Factory. Backstreet Choppers. Yo.

    1. Go old school. I got a 68 Triumph Bonneville about a month ago. Fun as shit.

    2. Not sure if it’s an optical illusion, but it looks like his helmet is on sideways…

      1. His head is HUGE.

        Looks like Rocky Dennis cruising.

        1. To me he looks like TV actor Fisher Stevens.

  28. ?A wise head makes a close mouth.
    Keywords: r4i gold 3ds card

  29. Any Republican running on a platform of cutting Medicare and Social Security is playing Russian roulette with a semi automatic hand gun. You lose before you start.

  30. Pretty nice looking bike that dude has there


Please to post comments

Comments are closed.