Yawn.
If you look at the substance of what he's done, he's more conservative than any of the three remaining in the race.
It would have been more effective had Rush read Mitch’s remarks instead of using the sound bites.
Mitch just drones and makes every valuable thing he had to say sound dull and passionless.
I vehemently disagree. That was a pedestrian delivery of a pre-written speech.
If he were in a preaching class, at best I’d give it 7 out of 10....a low C.
Just another post SOTU suit with no real fire.
Rush is off his game here trying to play both ends against the middle.
Just to see this illegal alien strutting around in front of the cameras makes me sick to my stomach. Both he (Obambi), and the dummycrat party know that he is NOT the president because of his illegal alien status, and it breaks my heart to see him puking all over our government and everything that it stood for.
Again, there was no fire in the belly at all after this pathetic State of the Union speech by that monster.
"Speech" was broadcast on WCOW, Aimes, IA, KTQZ, Prescott, AZ, and KOOO, Corvalis, OR (on a pirate station).
Full text was also carried in the "Daily What" out of Cour de Lane, ID, the "Weekly Snooze" in Defunct, MN, and the wonderful if slightly biased "Top's Courier" in Wherever, ND.
As stated....yawn.
HOWEVER, all of the establishment commentators keep telling us that Newt will have trouble getting the nomination because of the 2 or 3 ballots that he isn't on and his “lack of organization and ground game”. How in the world could we possibly keep talking about bringing in someone new?! And if the Republican party knows what good for it, it will NOT bring us a smokey room, brokered convention candidate that did not receive a SINGLE cast ballot.
I agree with Rush.
There was steel in his speech. It was well constructed and communicated the real need to begin to reunite the country and reject class envy.
Mitch messed up in some of his early speeches but what he’s done fighting for Right to Work in Indiana is very positive.
yea what ever.
Some of it good but delivered as usual wit no passion, no emotion and looked like a robot to turn people off and to sleep.
Mitch now being put out there incase Newt beats Romney, typical establishment crap.
Why the hell can’t the establishment get out of the beltway and the north east and see what we in the real world really want.
Surely there has to be someone who can give a speech with passion, drive and emotion not the usual crap we see on the floor like McConnell
Rush is a RINO. Yeah the content of the speech was excellent but Daniels got no applause from the non audience, he didn’t swear fealty to Newt, he had no mediots to use as foils and he wasn’t juggling 4 balls while dressed as a clown.
Of course, Rush, the Response is getting more attention than the SOTU address.....by that one-third of the Republicans who are said to want Newt derailed and to cut Romney loose and impose Daniels the Other Equally Moderate.
Not true. He was a part of the problem as a member of the U.S. Senate, especially as part of the majority from 2006-2008. That is where our problems truly began, although they existed before this, too.
I am happy his wife allowed him to speak. I guess. Whatever.
Was that Mitch Daniels? I thought is was Tim Pawlenty or maybe Evan Bye. I get the milk toast “moderates” all mixed up.
As the song goes “It’s better to burn out than fade away” I support NEWT purely because he is the only one willing to oratorically tear Obama limb from limb.
Daniels was flaccid and insipid.Herman Cain should have given the GOP reply !
I'm glad he gave the TEA PARTY reply !
"There is a second item on our national must-do list: we must unite to save the safety net. Medicare and Social Security have served us well, and that must continue. But after half and three quarters of a century respectively, it's not surprising that they need some repairs. We can preserve them unchanged and untouched for those now in or near retirement, but we must fashion a new, affordable safety net so future Americans are protected, too.
"Decades ago, for instance, we could afford to send millionaires pension checks and pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us. Now, we can't, so the dollars we have should be devoted to those who need them most.
"The mortal enemies of Social Security and Medicare are those who, in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead Americans that we should change nothing. Listening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode, and take the American economy with them. It will mean that coming generations are denied the jobs they need in their youth and the protection they deserve in their later years.
THIS IS UNMASKED UNRESTRAINED CALL TO TURN SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE INTO A REDISTRIBUTIONIST PROGRESSIVE TAX REGIME. THIS IS PURE SOCIALISM.
And Gov Daniels, Rush Limbaugh, dozens of other blowhard pundits, and hundreds of freepers have openly applauded this stance.
I do not understand how FR's community has fallen so far from the fundamental values of traditional conservative political thought. Turning the UK equivalent of Social Security into a Progressive redistributionist scheme was a step too far for even the hardened Socialists of new Labour during the Blair/Brown/Cook/Milliband eras.
Can anyone chime in on this?
bookmark
Say it isn't so that Republicans are going Obama-Lite.
Gov. Daniels and the other Republicans might begin by reading the following summary of principles, which constitutes a level of discourse that could help Americans to evaluate the grave matters before us in terms of:
"1. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, individual freedom and creativity?
"2. Does this legislation or idea increase, or decrease, the power of some citizens over other citizens?
"3. Does this legislation or idea recognize that the persons who will exercise the power are themselves imperfect human beings?
"4. Does this legislation or idea recognize that government is incapable of creating wealth?
"5. Does this legislation or idea authorize taking from some what belongs to them, and giving it to others to whom it does not belong?
If 'thou shalt not steal' is a valid commandment, can we assume that it is meant to apply only to individuals and not to government (which is made up of individuals), even if those persons in power pass laws which sanction such redistribution of the wealth of others?'
"6. Does this legislation or idea encourage, or discourage, the very highest level of morality and responsibility from the individual?
. . .when government makes actions 'legal' by some citizens at the expense of other citizens, the result may be behavior which would not be considered possible by individuals acting alone.
"7. Does this legislation or idea propose that the 'government' do something which the individual cannot do without committing a crime?"**
**7 principles drawn from James R. Evans book, "America's Choice: Twilight's Last Gleaming or Dawn's Early Light," and reprinted in a Stedman Corporation (Asheboro, NC) booklet entitled "I'm Only One, What Can I Do?"
Here is a transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s comments (aired on his radio show Wednesday, January 25, 2012) about Mitch Daniels’ post-SOTU speech last night.