Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

George Will, one of my favorite conservative columnists, displayed both his common sense and his tendency to be a "scold" in today's column. Specifically, he takes to task those Republican presidential candidates who show "vibrations of weirdness" by refusing to bypass the "birther" Kool-Aid. Will singles out Huckabee and Gingrich for criticism in this respect, particularly Newt's references to Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialism." George proceeds to identify Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Haley Barbour as the "at most five plausible Republican Presidents on the horizon." Maybe one "household word" -- Romney -- among them, but no buffoons.

Say what you will about Will, I've always admired his seriousness and sensible approach to public issues. He does not suffer fools gladly. I once saw him skewer a feminist lawyer at an ABA meeting who posed a question that showed her ignorance of Article III of the Constitution. Will is also a fixture at Orioles baseball games. His status as a fan of the Cubs and the O's shows that he can handle adversity!

I've been a Mitch Daniels fan for months. I'd rather see the GOP run someone like him against Obama, and lose, than run someone like Huckabee or Palin and lose worse. At bottom, the American voter is looking for "grownups" to lead the country and a rational comparison of dueling economic and foreign policies. Maybe 2012 will provide that opportunity. Thanks for listening.

Ivytalk wrote:George Will, one of my favorite conservative columnists, displayed both his common sense and his tendency to be a "scold" in today's column. Specifically, he takes to task those Republican presidential candidates who show "vibrations of weirdness" by refusing to bypass the "birther" Kool-Aid. Will singles out Huckabee and Gingrich for criticism in this respect, particularly Newt's references to Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialism." George proceeds to identify Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Haley Barbour as the "at most five plausible Republican Presidents on the horizon." Maybe one "household word" -- Romney -- among them, but no buffoons.

Say what you will about Will, I've always admired his seriousness and sensible approach to public issues. He does not suffer fools gladly. I once saw him skewer a feminist lawyer at an ABA meeting who posed a question that showed her ignorance of Article III of the Constitution. Will is also a fixture at Orioles baseball games. His status as a fan of the Cubs and the O's shows that he can handle adversity!

I've been a Mitch Daniels fan for months. I'd rather see the GOP run someone like him against Obama, and lose, than run someone like Huckabee or Palin and lose worse. At bottom, the American voter is looking for "grownups" to lead the country and a rational comparison of dueling economic and foreign policies. Maybe 2012 will provide that opportunity. Thanks for listening.

Most people I know, no matter their political perspective, like Will because of what you said. He approaches the issues with reason and intelligence.

I hope Huckabee keeps sticking his foot in his mouth. It won't matter how many times Palin sticks her foot in her mouth, her fans are going to love her anyway. I just hope she has the good since to continue her TV career. Romney is troublesome. I think in today's political environment, his positions in Mass and his positions now are going to cause considerable consternation. Barber, and this is from a southerner, he is just too damn southern. As Lenny Bruce once said, we wouldn't have the atom bomb if Einstein "tawked lak dis". I suppose I had better pay attention to Pawlenty and Daniels.

Ron Paul

Agree on Barbour - too many racist skeletons and two fat. Will's assessment is spot on. Unless some dark horse appears, look for a thin white moderate.

kalm wrote:Agree on Barbour - too many racist skeletons and two fat. Will's assessment is spot on. Unless some dark horse appears, look for a thin white moderate.

Southern Republicans have a similar problem that tea party wannabes have. The Hucks and Pals can't tell or won't tell the birthers to go to hell and Southern republicans can't tell the south was right crew the same thing

Recently there was a focus group with a bunch of Iowa GOP activists. None of them see Palin as electable. You have to remember it's a lot different going to vote in the caucus vs. a primary. If Palin can't get the activists to support her she will go nowhere. The same group sees problems for Romney with Massachusetts healthcare issue. Unfortunately most of them see Huckabee ( )as being the winner of the caucus if he runs. All the Jesus freaks in Iowa are motivated and they will be the ones that show up. Daniels was getting some love from the activists as well.

Ivytalk wrote:George Will, one of my favorite conservative columnists, displayed both his common sense and his tendency to be a "scold" in today's column. Specifically, he takes to task those Republican presidential candidates who show "vibrations of weirdness" by refusing to bypass the "birther" Kool-Aid. Will singles out Huckabee and Gingrich for criticism in this respect, particularly Newt's references to Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialism." George proceeds to identify Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Haley Barbour as the "at most five plausible Republican Presidents on the horizon." Maybe one "household word" -- Romney -- among them, but no buffoons.

Say what you will about Will, I've always admired his seriousness and sensible approach to public issues. He does not suffer fools gladly. I once saw him skewer a feminist lawyer at an ABA meeting who posed a question that showed her ignorance of Article III of the Constitution. Will is also a fixture at Orioles baseball games. His status as a fan of the Cubs and the O's shows that he can handle adversity!

I've been a Mitch Daniels fan for months. I'd rather see the GOP run someone like him against Obama, and lose, than run someone like Huckabee or Palin and lose worse. At bottom, the American voter is looking for "grownups" to lead the country and a rational comparison of dueling economic and foreign policies. Maybe 2012 will provide that opportunity. Thanks for listening.

Never heard of Huntsman or Daniels. Barbour often comes across as goofy and has the added handicap of a girl's name. Pawlenty was gone last time before anything of substance came across. Of those five, only Romney has any "name" status, but he's got a major question mark: can he overcome his Mormon status as Kennedy overcame his Catholic status?

As you all know, the only likely GOP candidate who's shown me ANYTHING is Sarah. Of course, libs are so bound and determined to undermine her out of spite that they tend to ignore other potential GOP candidates AND the faux pas of likely Donkey candidates (Biden and Obama immediately come to mind). It's as if Donkeys have a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card with MSM so long as Sarah is around.

SuperHornet wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:George Will, one of my favorite conservative columnists, displayed both his common sense and his tendency to be a "scold" in today's column. Specifically, he takes to task those Republican presidential candidates who show "vibrations of weirdness" by refusing to bypass the "birther" Kool-Aid. Will singles out Huckabee and Gingrich for criticism in this respect, particularly Newt's references to Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialism." George proceeds to identify Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Haley Barbour as the "at most five plausible Republican Presidents on the horizon." Maybe one "household word" -- Romney -- among them, but no buffoons.

Say what you will about Will, I've always admired his seriousness and sensible approach to public issues. He does not suffer fools gladly. I once saw him skewer a feminist lawyer at an ABA meeting who posed a question that showed her ignorance of Article III of the Constitution. Will is also a fixture at Orioles baseball games. His status as a fan of the Cubs and the O's shows that he can handle adversity!

I've been a Mitch Daniels fan for months. I'd rather see the GOP run someone like him against Obama, and lose, than run someone like Huckabee or Palin and lose worse. At bottom, the American voter is looking for "grownups" to lead the country and a rational comparison of dueling economic and foreign policies. Maybe 2012 will provide that opportunity. Thanks for listening.

Never heard of Huntsman or Daniels. Barbour often comes across as goofy and has the added handicap of a girl's name. Pawlenty was gone last time before anything of substance came across. Of those five, only Romney has any "name" status, but he's got a major question mark: can he overcome his Mormon status as Kennedy overcame his Catholic status?

As you all know, the only likely GOP candidate who's shown me ANYTHING is Sarah. Of course, libs are so bound and determined to undermine her out of spite that they tend to ignore other potential GOP candidates AND the faux pas of likely Donkey candidates (Biden and Obama immediately come to mind). It's as if Donkeys have a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card with MSM so long as Sarah is around.

Good article about Daniels. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/10/why- ... niels.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is certainly the best of those on Will's list. All the rest of them are no style no substance no chance.

SuperHornet wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:George Will, one of my favorite conservative columnists, displayed both his common sense and his tendency to be a "scold" in today's column. Specifically, he takes to task those Republican presidential candidates who show "vibrations of weirdness" by refusing to bypass the "birther" Kool-Aid. Will singles out Huckabee and Gingrich for criticism in this respect, particularly Newt's references to Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialism." George proceeds to identify Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Haley Barbour as the "at most five plausible Republican Presidents on the horizon." Maybe one "household word" -- Romney -- among them, but no buffoons.

Say what you will about Will, I've always admired his seriousness and sensible approach to public issues. He does not suffer fools gladly. I once saw him skewer a feminist lawyer at an ABA meeting who posed a question that showed her ignorance of Article III of the Constitution. Will is also a fixture at Orioles baseball games. His status as a fan of the Cubs and the O's shows that he can handle adversity!

I've been a Mitch Daniels fan for months. I'd rather see the GOP run someone like him against Obama, and lose, than run someone like Huckabee or Palin and lose worse. At bottom, the American voter is looking for "grownups" to lead the country and a rational comparison of dueling economic and foreign policies. Maybe 2012 will provide that opportunity. Thanks for listening.

Never heard of Huntsman or Daniels. Barbour often comes across as goofy and has the added handicap of a girl's name. Pawlenty was gone last time before anything of substance came across. Of those five, only Romney has any "name" status, but he's got a major question mark: can he overcome his Mormon status as Kennedy overcame his Catholic status?

As you all know, the only likely GOP candidate who's shown me ANYTHING is Sarah. Of course, libs are so bound and determined to undermine her out of spite that they tend to ignore other potential GOP candidates AND the faux pas of likely Donkey candidates (Biden and Obama immediately come to mind). It's as if Donkeys have a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card with MSM so long as Sarah is around.

Certainly some will have problems with Romney's religion, but that isn't the issue for most. For most it will be how Romney could be pro-choice in Mass and pro-life while running for president. More importantly, it will be how Romeny squares being opposed to Obama-care without being opposed to Romney-care in Massachusetts. I really don't think he will stand a chance. He may get the nomination, but the people in the republican party that are tired of that kind of crap will stay home.

Palin isn't as dumb or bad as the libs present her. But she is still a light weight who is horribly divisive and better serves getting the base excited and giving some entertainment value to the rest of us.

SuperHornet wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:George Will, one of my favorite conservative columnists, displayed both his common sense and his tendency to be a "scold" in today's column. Specifically, he takes to task those Republican presidential candidates who show "vibrations of weirdness" by refusing to bypass the "birther" Kool-Aid. Will singles out Huckabee and Gingrich for criticism in this respect, particularly Newt's references to Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialism." George proceeds to identify Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Haley Barbour as the "at most five plausible Republican Presidents on the horizon." Maybe one "household word" -- Romney -- among them, but no buffoons.

Say what you will about Will, I've always admired his seriousness and sensible approach to public issues. He does not suffer fools gladly. I once saw him skewer a feminist lawyer at an ABA meeting who posed a question that showed her ignorance of Article III of the Constitution. Will is also a fixture at Orioles baseball games. His status as a fan of the Cubs and the O's shows that he can handle adversity!

I've been a Mitch Daniels fan for months. I'd rather see the GOP run someone like him against Obama, and lose, than run someone like Huckabee or Palin and lose worse. At bottom, the American voter is looking for "grownups" to lead the country and a rational comparison of dueling economic and foreign policies. Maybe 2012 will provide that opportunity. Thanks for listening.

Never heard of Huntsman or Daniels. Barbour often comes across as goofy and has the added handicap of a girl's name. Pawlenty was gone last time before anything of substance came across. Of those five, only Romney has any "name" status, but he's got a major question mark: can he overcome his Mormon status as Kennedy overcame his Catholic status?

As you all know, the only likely GOP candidate who's shown me ANYTHING is Sarah. Of course, libs are so bound and determined to undermine her out of spite that they tend to ignore other potential GOP candidates AND the faux pas of likely Donkey candidates (Biden and Obama immediately come to mind). It's as if Donkeys have a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card with MSM so long as Sarah is around.

All she's shown me is that she isn't tough enough to handle the easiest gig in American politics without quitting.

Personally, I'm hoping for a Gingrich/Palin GOP ticket.

Talking about the Huck and Grinch, you gotta love Will.

So the Republican winnowing process is far advanced. But the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons.

George Will is a good central thermometer to help one asses "wing-nut" tendencies...

Example:
Any Democrat or Liberal who doesn't see the sense and honesty in Wills work is sketchy (at best)
Example 2:
Any Republican or Conservative who doesn't see the sense and honesty in Wills work is terrifying (or worse)

Chizzang wrote:George Will is a good central thermometer to help one asses "wing-nut" tendencies...

Example:
Any Democrat or Liberal who doesn't see the sense and honesty in Wills work is sketchy (at best)
Example 2:
Any Republican or Conservative who doesn't see the sense and honesty in Wills work is terrifying (or worse)

Thanks didn't understand a word and we aren't even drinking beer at Bailey's

SuperHornet wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:George Will, one of my favorite conservative columnists, displayed both his common sense and his tendency to be a "scold" in today's column. Specifically, he takes to task those Republican presidential candidates who show "vibrations of weirdness" by refusing to bypass the "birther" Kool-Aid. Will singles out Huckabee and Gingrich for criticism in this respect, particularly Newt's references to Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialism." George proceeds to identify Mitch Daniels, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman and Haley Barbour as the "at most five plausible Republican Presidents on the horizon." Maybe one "household word" -- Romney -- among them, but no buffoons.

Say what you will about Will, I've always admired his seriousness and sensible approach to public issues. He does not suffer fools gladly. I once saw him skewer a feminist lawyer at an ABA meeting who posed a question that showed her ignorance of Article III of the Constitution. Will is also a fixture at Orioles baseball games. His status as a fan of the Cubs and the O's shows that he can handle adversity!

I've been a Mitch Daniels fan for months. I'd rather see the GOP run someone like him against Obama, and lose, than run someone like Huckabee or Palin and lose worse. At bottom, the American voter is looking for "grownups" to lead the country and a rational comparison of dueling economic and foreign policies. Maybe 2012 will provide that opportunity. Thanks for listening.

Never heard of Huntsman or Daniels. Barbour often comes across as goofy and has the added handicap of a girl's name. Pawlenty was gone last time before anything of substance came across. Of those five, only Romney has any "name" status, but he's got a major question mark: can he overcome his Mormon status as Kennedy overcame his Catholic status?

As you all know, the only likely GOP candidate who's shown me ANYTHING is Sarah. Of course, libs are so bound and determined to undermine her out of spite that they tend to ignore other potential GOP candidates AND the faux pas of likely Donkey candidates (Biden and Obama immediately come to mind). It's as if Donkeys have a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card with MSM so long as Sarah is around.

If having the handicap of a terrorists name wasn't enough, I doubt having a girls name will stop Mr. Barbour.

OL FU wrote:

Chizzang wrote:George Will is a good central thermometer to help one asses "wing-nut" tendencies...

Example:
Any Democrat or Liberal who doesn't see the sense and honesty in Wills work is sketchy (at best)
Example 2:
Any Republican or Conservative who doesn't see the sense and honesty in Wills work is terrifying (or worse)

Thanks didn't understand a word and we aren't even drinking beer at Bailey's

You remind me of George Will....

kalm wrote:Agree on Barbour - too many racist skeletons and two fat. Will's assessment is spot on. Unless some dark horse appears, look for a thin white moderate.

I think Barbour would make a formidable candidate, he likes to play the "jes a country boy" routine, but he strikes me as pretty sharp and in touch, and Robert Byrd overcame some pretty big racist skeletons.......and Christie appears to be among the circumferentially gifted and doing OK.....

Pwns wrote:

SuperHornet wrote:
Never heard of Huntsman or Daniels. Barbour often comes across as goofy and has the added handicap of a girl's name. Pawlenty was gone last time before anything of substance came across. Of those five, only Romney has any "name" status, but he's got a major question mark: can he overcome his Mormon status as Kennedy overcame his Catholic status?

As you all know, the only likely GOP candidate who's shown me ANYTHING is Sarah. Of course, libs are so bound and determined to undermine her out of spite that they tend to ignore other potential GOP candidates AND the faux pas of likely Donkey candidates (Biden and Obama immediately come to mind). It's as if Donkeys have a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card with MSM so long as Sarah is around.

Good article about Daniels. http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/10/why- ... niels.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He is certainly the best of those on Will's list. All the rest of them are no style no substance no chance.

Don't count Pawlenty out. National Review did a good cover story on him recently. I guess the hard-line Tea Party types won't forgive his former support for cap=and-trade, but so be it.

Daniels...Daniels...Daniels...








Did I mention Mitch Daniels?

speaking only for myself - Mitch Daniels is the one GOPer who scares me in 2012...

he's a reasoned, measured conservative... he's not crazy, doesn't embrace the lunatic fringe and could be seen by most voters as a reasonable alternative...

for chrissakes, pick Palin, pick the Huckster...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:speaking only for myself - Mitch Daniels is the one GOPer who scares me in 2012...

he's a reasoned, measured conservative... he's not crazy, doesn't embrace the lunatic fringe and could be seen by most voters as a reasonable alternative...

for chrissakes, pick Palin, pick the Huckster...

Yeah, because lord knows, we sure don't need a reasoned, measured conservative running things.

Mitch isn't sufficiently batshit to make it through the primary.

Chizzang wrote:

OL FU wrote:
Thanks didn't understand a word and we aren't even drinking beer at Bailey's

You remind me of George Will....

We wear similar glasses

houndawg wrote:Mitch isn't sufficiently batshit to make it through the primary.

I agree

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:speaking only for myself - Mitch Daniels is the one GOPer who scares me in 2012...

he's a reasoned, measured conservative... he's not crazy, doesn't embrace the lunatic fringe and could be seen by most voters as a reasonable alternative...

for chrissakes, pick Palin, pick the Huckster...

I wouldn't worry too much about Daniels in the current economical & political climate....

"During Daniels' 29-month tenure in the position, the projected federal budget surplus of $236 billion declined to a $400 billion deficit because of an economic downturn and concurrent tax cuts initiated by the Bush administration.[14]

Conservative columnist Ross Douthat has argued that Daniels "carried water, as director of the Office of Management and Budget, for some of the Bush administration’s more egregious budgets [and] made dubious public arguments in support of his boss’s agenda." [17] In 2002, Daniels was involved in a controversial attempt to discredit a report by Assistant to the President on Economic Policy Lawrence B. Lindsey estimating the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom at between $100–$200 billion. Daniels called this estimate "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50–$60 billion.[18][19] As of February 2010 the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq exceeded $700 billion , and the Congressional Budget Office in August 2007 estimated that appropriations would eventually reach $1 trillion and likely much more...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels

Appaholic wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:speaking only for myself - Mitch Daniels is the one GOPer who scares me in 2012...

he's a reasoned, measured conservative... he's not crazy, doesn't embrace the lunatic fringe and could be seen by most voters as a reasonable alternative...

for chrissakes, pick Palin, pick the Huckster...

I wouldn't worry too much about Daniels in the current economical & political climate....

"During Daniels' 29-month tenure in the position, the projected federal budget surplus of $236 billion declined to a $400 billion deficit because of an economic downturn and concurrent tax cuts initiated by the Bush administration.[14]

Conservative columnist Ross Douthat has argued that Daniels "carried water, as director of the Office of Management and Budget, for some of the Bush administration’s more egregious budgets [and] made dubious public arguments in support of his boss’s agenda." [17] In 2002, Daniels was involved in a controversial attempt to discredit a report by Assistant to the President on Economic Policy Lawrence B. Lindsey estimating the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom at between $100–$200 billion. Daniels called this estimate "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50–$60 billion.[18][19] As of February 2010 the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq exceeded $700 billion , and the Congressional Budget Office in August 2007 estimated that appropriations would eventually reach $1 trillion and likely much more...."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels

tl;dr.

(actually i did read it) thing is, that's a level of detail most voters don't get to when choosing a candidate - right or wrong.

take a guy like Chris Christie - now he has stumbling blocks that voters will care about - namely, supporting the ground zero mosque. (is it beyond retarded that the very real issue you presented wouldn't matter and something so frankly trivial would? you bet your ass... but them's the raspberries)