‘Obama, Pawlenty and Daniels’
From National Review:
In all likelihood, one of those three individuals will be (or still be) president in 2013, George Will said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“I think we know with reasonable certainty that standing up there on the West front of the Capitol on January 20th, 2013, will be one of three people: Obama, Pawlenty and Daniels,” he said. “I think that’s it.”
What about Newt Gingrich?
“[His] problems are so far beyond just his multiple marriages and all that,” Will said. “This is just not a serious candidate.”
Watch here.
Team Ryan Responds to Newt
From National Review:
Conor Sweeney, Rep. Paul Ryan’s spokesman, tells National Review Online that he is not worried about Newt Gingrich’s comments on Meet the Press. Ryan’s budget, he says, “remains the only serious proposal put forward on either end on Pennsylvania Avenue that saves Medicare.”
“The solutions offered by Chairman Ryan and advanced by House Republicans make no changes to Medicare for those in and near retirement, while offering a strengthened, personalized program that future generations can count on when they retire,” Sweeney says. “Far from claims of radicalism, the gradual, common-sense Medicare reforms ensure that no senior will be forced to reorganize their lives because of government’s mistakes. The most ‘radical’ course of action on Medicare is continue to cling to the unsustainable status quo.”
“Serious leaders,” he adds, without naming names, “owe seniors specific solutions to avert Medicare’s looming collapse.”
Newt Tacks Left, Slams Ryan’s Medicare Plan
From National Review:
Newt Gingrich’s appearance on “Meet the Press” today could leave some wondering which party’s nomination he is running for. The former speaker had some harsh words for Paul Ryan’s (and by extension, nearly every House Republican’s) plan to reform Medicare, calling it “radical.”
“I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering,” he said when asked about Ryan’s plan to transition to a “premium support” model for Medicare. “I don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate.”
As far as an alternative, Gingrich trotted out the same appeal employed by Obama/Reid/Pelosi — for a “national conversation” on how to “improve” Medicare, and promised to eliminate ‘waste, fraud and abuse,’ etc.
“I think what you want to have is a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options,” Gingrich said. Ryan’s plan was simply “too big a jump.”
He even went so far as to compare it the Obama health-care plan.”I’m against Obamacare, which is imposing radical change, and I would be against a conservative imposing radical change.”
In another surprising move, Gingrich also reiterated his previous support for a “variation of the individual mandate” for health care. “I believe all of us — and this is going to be a big debate — I believe all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care,” he said, insisting there is “a way to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy.”
“It’s a system that allows people to have a range of choices that are designed by the economy,” he said. “I don’t think having a free rider system in [health care] is any more appropriate than having a free rider system in any other part of the economy.”
Newt Gingrich’s Rapidly Self-Limiting Campaign Defends the Individual Mandate
From RedState:
Newt Gingrich appeared on Meet the Press this morning and said two things that won’t exactly endear him to the Tea Party crowd or the reform minded movement sweeping the GOP.
First, he endorsed the individual mandate and said he would not bash Mitt Romney over the individual mandate.
Second, he went after Paul Ryan’s proposal to reform Medicare. Your mileage may vary on Ryan’s plan, but he is both offering up one and using the free market, individual choice approach favored by conservatives.
Newt was not happy with the approach.
Gingrich is already going to have to overcome the apprehensiveness of evangelicals and women in the primary. To also have to overcome the free marketers’ concerns may prove problematic.
I’m still struggling to figure out what Newt’s natural constituency is. He seems to want to be the ideas guy, but that really amounts to being a conservative technocrat. If Daniels enters and Mitt is there too, it is a crowded field for the technocrats to fight over.
Time will tell. The transcript of the related remarks is below the fold.
Endorsing individual mandate:
GINGRICH: well, i agree that all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. and i think there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy. i have said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond, or in some way, you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.
GREGORY: but that is the individual mandate, is it not?
GINGRICH: it’s a variation on it.
GREGORY: so you won’t use that issue against Mitt Romney?
GINGRICH: no
Calls Ryan plan “right wing social engineering”:
GREGORY: what about entitle snaents the trust fund is going to be depleted by 2024, five years earlier than predicted. do you think republicans ought to buck the public opposition and really move forward to completely change medicare, turn it into a voucher program where you give seniors some premium support so that they can go out and buy private insurance?
GINGRICH: i don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering. i don’t think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for free society to operate. i think we need a national conversation to get to a better medicare system with more choices for seniors, but there are specific things you can do. at the center for health transformation, which i helped found, which published a book called “stop paying the crooks.” we thought that was a clear enough, simple enough idea, even for washington. we, between medicare and medicaid, we pay between $70 billion and $120 billion a year to crooks. and ibm has agreed to help solve it, american express has agreed to help solve it, visa has agreed to help solve it. you can’t get anybody in this town to look at it. that’s almost a trillion dollars over a decade. so, there are things you can do to improve medicare –
GREGORY: but not what paul ryan is suggesting, completely change medicare?
GINGRICH: i think that is too big a jump. i think you want to have a system where people voluntarily migrate to better outcomes, better solutions, better options, not one where you suddenly impose upon the — i’m against obama care, which is imposing radical change, and i would be against a conservative imposing radical change.
My Man Mitch – Just 7 Years: A World of Change
From HoosierAccess:
Mitch Daniels thrives on the challenge of fixing problems…. oh baby just think what he could do nationally!
RUN MITCH RUN!
Reading between the lines – Mitch Daniels is running for President
From Wrap Your Head Around:
Mitch Daniels is running for president . . . he just hasn’t announced it yet. Last night, the Indiana Republican Spring Dinner was one of the most frustrating nights I’ve had in a while, but it was also one of the most interesting. With a record crowd of over 1100 people in attendance and a plethora of news cameras and journalists on hand for the event, everyone was abuzz with the possibility of Governor Daniels making his announcement that he was entering the race.
He never did, and throughout both his, and his wife’s speech, the crowd was teased with perfect setups for the announcement, only to have them move on to the next topic. Several times throughout the night, people began nudging and whispering to each other with, “here it comes,” and “this is it.” But it never came, thus the frustration of the night.
But despite the frustration, what those in attendance received was a very subtle display of the true leadership of Mitch Daniels. The entire night was preparation for the national stage. He made the statement that he’s “open” to the possibility of a run, an amazing ”commercial” was played highlighting his accomplishments over the past seven years, and Cheri Daniels, a woman who typically shy’s from the spotlight, began practicing for her role as first lady.
Brandi, watching the streaming video from home, was frustrated by the amount of time given to her role at the State Fair, but that’s been her bread and butter for her time as Indiana’s first lady. While I agree, there was a bit too much time spent on that topic, she was basically sticking with what she knows, and using it to get comfortable on the stage. But, she also spoke on a few other topics – children’s literacy and heart health. As Josh Gillespie from Hoosier Access questioned on Facebook, are we hearing the beginning of some policy?
Daniels is ready to run. But he is exercising patience in a well crafted rollout to his campaign. He is steadily gaining national attention and more and more people across the nation are starting to learn his name. His wife is prepping for her role in the campaign. They are allowing the attack groups to start digging for skeletons early so there will be no surprises later on. They are establishing their platform, raising money, and generating a lot of excitement.
When his announcement comes, it will be well timed, well planned, and his campaign will be well established. This is precisely the kind of thoughtful leadership and diplomacy that is needed in the White House and that American’s are clamoring for. While Daniels did not officially announce his run, for those who were reading between the lines and looking critically at last nights event, he’s in.
National leaders call for “Mitch Daniels 2012″
From HoosierAccess:
Many national conservative leaders are hinting that Gov. Mitch Daniels ought to be one of our choices in 2012. Some leaders are whispering about it, quietly rallying troops and donors prepping the field for a Mitch Daniels run. Some are vociferous in online conversation and sharing of Indiana’s successes. And others? Others are using their limelight to down-right demand that Gov. Daniels run, offering his sound record of small government accomplishments against President Obama’s populist government bloat.
As individuals calling for “@MyManMitch” to run, these GOP leaders are certainly cultivating interest from undecideds. They also keep morale high from those of us who strongly believe Mitch to be the most accomplished candidate. But to look at the complete list is rather amazing, so here it is as I rank by influence and likelihood a list of 15 movers and shakers who I view as likely to endorse “Daniels for President”:
15. Gov. Rick Scott – Florida
Gov. Scott is looking to make big fiscal changes with Florida, lessening tax burdens and making it even more attractive to businesses, and he’ll be looking for a president that allows him to do this. A light connection is between he and Daniels, but with no strong ties to other candidates and perhaps some strong influence from former Gov. Jeb Bush as well as Edwin G. Buss, a cabinet member Scott enticed to leave from Indiana’s Department of Corrections, one may conclude that he’ll be influenced toward Daniels.
14. Gov. Bob McDonnell – Virginia
Though there was wide publicity that McDonnell takes issue with Daniels because of the truce comment, the fact is that McDonnell has admitted to focusing on fiscal issues first, though admitting protection of life is close to his heart. Reporting on McDonnell’s take of the presidential prospects, CBS wrote:
[McDonnell said] “four or five great [Republican presidential] candidates right now, most of whom are former governors or current governors.”
McDonnell refused to offer specific names but did say that “governors make great chief executives.”
Particularly since Daniels recently became the only presidential contender to sign a bill to defund Planned Parenthood, a Daniels presidency would allow McDonnell to have the best of both worlds.
Read the rest at HoosierAccess.
Ron Paul: Killing OBL “absolutely was not necessary”
From Hot Air:
Ron Paul’s supporters plan on another run for the presidency from the Texas Congressman, and some are saying that the mainstream has finally begun to embrace his ideas on economics and the Fed. On foreign policy and national defense, though, perhaps Paul is farther out than ever. In a radio interview on Tuesday, reported this morning in Politico, Paul said he would not have greenlighted the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, and would have worked with Pakistan to arrest him instead:
“I think things could have been done somewhat differently,” Paul said this week. “I would suggest the way they got Khalid [Sheikh] Mohammed. We went and cooperated with Pakistan. They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he’s been in prison. Why can’t we work with the government?”
Paul also told WHO’s Simon Conway that the mission “absolutely was not necessary”:
“I don’t think it was necessary, no. It absolutely was not necessary,” Paul said during his Tuesday comments. “I think respect for the rule of law and world law and international law. What if he’d been in a hotel in London? We wanted to keep it secret, so would we have sent the airplane, you know the helicopters into London, because they were afraid the information would get out?”
For one thing, had we found him holed up in London, we would have been able to trust the British intelligence service to cooperate. MI-5 didn’t spend more than a decade helping to build up the Taliban and playing footsie with radical Islamists the way Pakistan’s ISI did, primarily as a bulwark against India. Moreover, as Paul should know, we tried trusting Pakistan once before on an opportunity to target bin Laden when Bill Clinton had a chance to target his compound. The ISI warned bin Laden, and to paraphrase President George Bush, we wound up sending a $10 million rocket into a ten-dollar tent to hit a camel’s butt.
I would have had no problem with capturing Osama bin Laden, or with killing him. He declared war on the United States and continued to pursue it until his last breath. Furthermore, I have no problem with us conducting a military mission in Pakistan to get him. Pakistan has proven themselves unreliable on high-level intelligence matters in the past, specifically on OBL, and we have had little cause to put any more trust in the Pakistani ISI ever since.
Paul has a few good ideas on fiscal policy, but is otherwise a nut. Insisting that we should have asked the Pakistanis to arrest bin Laden proves rather clearly that Paul lives in a fantasy world.
Introducing Herman Cain
From National Review:
‘How many of you think Herman Cain won the debate?”
Twenty hands shot up.
“Well, we can stop right there,” said Frank Luntz, a fast-talking political consultant, as he paced before a Fox News focus group on May 5. “This is unprecedented.”
Luntz pointed to the top row, looking for answers. One by one, South Carolina Republicans in trucker caps and business suits raved about Cain. After watching the 65-year-old spar with fellow GOP presidential contenders, many were itching to join his ranks.
“He’s a breath of fresh air,” explained one gentleman. “He is the godfather of business sense, and he can attack Obama well,” declared a middle-aged lady. Others nodded vigorously.
Luntz was stunned. “[Cain] was not a real candidate before tonight,” he exclaimed. “What happened?”
Read the rest at National Review.
Gov. Daniels on the Verge
From National Review:
Indiana governor Mitch Daniels met with a group of journalists assembled by Bloomberg View in New York City today. Here’s what I picked up from the meeting:
His conservatism is not combative. Daniels was pressed repeatedly about the role of the Bush tax cuts in building today’s federal debt, about the failure of his fellow Republicans to recognize the need for tax increases, about the nuttiness of his party’s birthers, and about its general “reality-denial problem.” Daniels politely disagreed on the Bush tax cuts, said that Republicans weren’t the only people with nutty ideas, and suggested that Obama’s budget was “disappointing” in its denial of reality. But there was no forceful pushback of the type one might have gotten from other conservatives.
He is passionate about cutting entitlement payouts to the affluent. “Why are we sending Warren Buffett a welfare check?” Universal programs have been defended as a means of building social solidarity. What Daniels sees, however, is “cynicism.” The theory that well-off voters won’t support programs to help the poor unless they get a cut themselves is “politically manipulative”: “People are led, still are led, to believe things that aren’t true.” He adds, “The assumption it makes about the American people”—that they are purely self-interested—“is very unfair.”
His foreign-policy details are TBD. Daniels said that “it cannot be illegitimate to ask” if some of the country’s military commitments should be unwound, but he has not yet reached any conclusions about which should be—or, at least, any he is willing to share. On Afghanistan he refuses to second-guess the decisions of the president, to whose greater access to information he defers. On Libya he says only that he has not seen the case for intervention made. One gets the impression of someone who is much more cautious about foreign intervention than Mitt Romney or Tim Pawlenty, but also cautious about saying so. He was asked if he were ready to debate President Obama on foreign policy. “Probably not.” (He is candid.)
His ambivalence about running seems real. “I encouraged four different people to run,” he says, and failed. (He wouldn’t name them but Haley Barbour appears to have been one of them.) At one point he used the words “if I talk myself into this” when discussing a run of his own. Why might he run? “I believe the country’s at a very perilous point arithmetically. And I haven’t yet—still hope to—seen anyone else step up to it. . . . So far my brethren have been a little hesitant.”
But he’s leaning toward running. That’s just the impression I got. If he does run, he says, there will be no exploratory committee, “nothing cute.” “We’ll just get on about it.”
THIS is why the 2nd Amendment must be protected... link #gun_rights- T. Boone Pickens Admits Windmills Are a Waste of Money link #wind_power
- We the People link #Obama #Tea_Party
- Teaching kids how Obamanomics works… link
- Rumors of War III -- Target: U.S. link #Glenn_Beck #Islam #Sharia_Law
- Definition of a Mic Gaffe: Politician Telling the Truth link #Obama
- Obama Regime Moves to Kill Coal Industry link #coal #EPA
- Obama’s Flexibility Doctrine link #Obama
- Obama Kills Atlantic Offshore Drilling For Five Years link #Obama #oil
- Labor Union Meddling in Whitley County Wind Debate link #unions #wind_power
Report us to AttackWatch!
AttackWatch is the latest snitching operation by the Obama campaign. Since we will continue to post the truth, please feel free to report us by clicking the logo:
Precious Metals
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/gold/t24_au_en_usoz_4.gif)
![[Most Recent Charts from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/charts/metals/silver/t24_ag_en_usoz_4.gif)
Weather
| Today | Sunday | Monday | Tuesday |
|---|---|---|---|
 Clear 86°/57° | Clear 90°/64° |  Chance of a Thunderstorm 77°/54° |  Chance of Rain 73°/52° |
