When we home-schooled our kids and taught them history, first we established a matrix including an overall timeline whether of world history, Church history, or American history. Then we plugged into the timelines significant and memorable people and events and slowly but surely a mastery of history was achieved.
When we consider current events it is also essential to establish a matrix into which to plug the people and events. Daniels' speech last night was a current event. Just how credible it was or what its purpose was may be inferred from the context of his life, his career and the circumstances.
To his credit, he was probably a capable budget director for Dubya in an administration not known for allowing tight budgeting. Dubya was the boss and determined the policies and Daniels did what he was told to do. Next, he became governor of Indiana where, according to the credible accounts of several Indiana residents posting here, Daniels did a fine job across the board on many issues dear to conservatives and not just money. That shows what he was willing to do when he was boss and answered only to the voters. Good for him.
Last night he gave the Republican response to the SOTU. Jim DeMint did not give that speech. Nor did Mario Rubio. Nor did Romney (too obvious) or Paul (too crackpot) nor Gingrich (too populist) nor Santorum (too committed to social conservatism as the identifier of his political life). None of those four could have chosen themselves. It was not their choice. Daniels did not choose himself to give that speech. He was chosen. Who does the choosing? Weepy and wimpy John Boehner? Mitch Let's Make a Deal McConnell? Unidentified megabucks types hidden in some board room in Manhattan? Boehner, McConnell and the megabucks boys? I am betting it was the entire group and for reasons upon which we are not eager to dwell.
Why Daniels? First and foremost he is boring and safe. He excites no one among the public. He is as allergic to red meat as Romney and as their mutual sponsors. Daniels, whatever his record as Indiana governor (term-limited and free as of 1/2013 BTW), showed the elite a modest amount of leg at CPAC by calling for the social issues "truce." Those elitists are downright embarrassed that they have to share a political party with us hillbillies who hate abortion and homosexuality and love guns and are serious when we worship God.
All that is just sooooo philistine among the people in their circles. Not only that but many of us fail to understand how desperately necessary (more than anything else actually) it is to bail out investment bankers with such legislation as TARP as often as necessary to prevent Muffy and Skipper from an unthinkable reduction in lifestyle. They are simply TOO BIG TO FAIL and the rest of us need to understand that whatever happens to us as a result, we must stand prepared to pour in cash as needed or wanted to bail out our social and economic "betters."
You are far more impressed with Daniels' speech than I am but that is just a matter of differing tastes. The first minute and a half that we agree was disagreeable is just another instance of Daniels showing a little leg to the elite. Knowing that he is willing to anger the base by buttsmooching Obozo, comforts the elitists because they believe that emotions must NEVER be on display and that we hillbillies just refuse to be civil to our elitist superiors like Obozo. Whether "we hillbillies" includes you or not is up to you.
As a lifelong resident of Connecticut until 2000, I do have some historical perspective for you. In 1971, under the otherwise sainted Governor Tom Meskill, the political powers that be rammed through a state income tax with only partial support from the elitists. Those who were conservative and principled stuck with us. I was part of a small group of inexperienced folks outraged at that income tax sponsored in the State Senate by then freshmen Senators Joe Lieberman of New Haven and Larry DeNardis of Hamden. We resisters put 5,000 people on the state Capitol lawn on a Wednesday at noontime. We had the support of some newspapers like the New haven Register and the Waterbury-Republican/American. The state exploded and the tax was repealed within a month in July, 1971. It was not scheduled to go into effect until October 1, 1971. No one heard of a state income tax again until 1991.
In 1991, the worst excuse for a gummint leader in Connecticut's history, Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., took office as an "Independent" Governor having promised to oppose a state income tax. People were looking at his words and his advertisements and not remembering what scum he had been throughout his despicable career. They did not take note of the context. He took the trouble to recruit the entire elite and to buy them off with verrrrry favorable tax reductions for the wealthy. He bribed and bullied his way to enactment of the tax you are paying today. We put 60,000 people on the state capitol lawn in resistance and had the support of many labor unions in addition to the conservatives and Tom Scott organized a terrific rally but to no avail. One of the elitists who defected said that if he stuck with us his wife would divorce him for rejecting the tax breaks offered by Weicker. That ripped it for me, a child of factory workers, as to working with the worthless self-centered elites. It took nine years but that was a major reason why I left Connecticut for America (even Illinois is better).
You are viewing Daniels' speech out of context. Whatever his good points, he is looking for approval from those elites. With all the good he did in Indiana, he is quite willing to turn his back on rank and file conservatives for the approval of monied elites. Your experiences and mine may differ. I know that sort of sellout when I see it and I won't subsidize it. I am sticking with the insight that the big shots are worried over Romney's failure to excite the base and now have Daniels warming up in the bullpen. As governor, Daniels has a much better record than Romney but is crucially willing to cuddle up to the totally worthless big shots who worry only about themselves and never about non-money principles or us. That's where I stand and I won't change.
As to Rush and Sean, I don't make a habit of criticizing either of them and, now retired, I listen to them every day. OTOH, all their whining about "class warfare" is getting very old and very tired. They don't mind the fact that American's real income has stagnated for forty years on average. They don't mind the fact that private sector labor unions have been crushed. They don't mind that the tax burden has been relentlessly shifted to people of modest means. They come up with scheme after scheme to make those who do not pay income taxes pay them to relieve our poor benighted zillionaires. They DO mind very much if people of modest means fight back (the only thing they recognize as "class warfare").
I certainly don't believe in Obozo's relentless campaign to eliminate the sacred Bush tax cuts for the elite from 38.5 to 35% but I also don't see those cuts as the focal point of the entire conservative movement. After what happened in Connecticut in 1991, crammed down our throats by the children of privilege like Weicker (heir to Squibb, Friendly Ice Cream, Hartford Steam Boiler and many others), saving three and a half percent on the top marginal income tax rates for the same megabucks crowd that betrayed us in 1991 is not a war in which I care to participate.
I love you man, that was an awesome rant :)