Mitch Daniels’ response to Obama’s State of the Union: reality or rhetoric?

I must admit that I did not watch Obama’s speech, nor did I watch the response from Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels. I have heard enough of Obama’s empty rhetoric over the years and had better things to do. Nonetheless, Daniels’ response is worth a read. It represents Republicans at their very very best, at least in terms of rhetoric and it is hard for a fiscal conservative to disagree with much of what it contained. While Daniels is not running for President, these are the sentiments (not social policy, foreign policy, or immigration) that should form the basis of Republicans’ pitch to the American people.

That said, it is worth comparing Daniels’ real track record to his rhetoric. Daniels headed up the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush. While not in Obama’s league, Bush was a very big spender as President. Yes, I realize that Congress is in charge of budgets, but Bush didn’t exactly wield an effective veto pen…Also, while Daniels was in office, Bush was promoting his massive Prescription Drug Entitlement and got No Child Left Behind (a massive expansion of the federal role in education) passed. While I can’t blame Daniels entirely for Bush’s policies (and he did resign after just a few years of service), I have no record of Daniels protesting Bush’s big-spending expansions of government, but if a reader has one (or more), please post them in the comments section.

I’m not trying to dismiss Daniels’ track record of public service. He is doing a good job as Gov. of Indiana and I wish he was running for President. I do wish that more Republicans adhered to their rhetoric when it comes to government spending and actually downsizing Washington.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

3 Replies to “Mitch Daniels’ response to Obama’s State of the Union: reality or rhetoric?”

  1. Daniels was certainly not the one to be delivering the rebuttal to Obamas speech. I did watch both of them and it’s obvious that Obama still doesn’t have a clue. However, Daniels doesn’t have much room to talk as discussed in the initial article. Plus the guy has the personality of a turnip and looks like he’s been dead for at least a week. Do we not have anyone that is a true believer, looks presentable, and has a personality in our party? If we don’t watch out Obama is going to win this election in a walk.

    1. Robert,

      Personally, I would have to agree and disagree with your assessment of Mitch Daniel’s rebuttal to the latest State of the Union speech.

      The primary difference between the two speeches, in my opinion, relates to efforts made to play to the listener’s/viewer’s emotions, in Obama’s speech, versus the efforts made in order to play to the listeners/viewers intellect, in Daniel’s speech. Additionally, Paul makes a good point with regard to the overall impact of each of two’s’ credibility. However, emotion seems to trump credibility in either case.

      Again, in my opinion, intellectual honesty, and to some degree, credibility, have to go to Mitch Daniels. Daniel’s is not, and has never been, the country’s Chief Executive. Therefore, and no matter how good or bad the decisions of the previous administration, for which he served, he could never claim full credit for the decisions themselves, or their outcomes…no matter how good, or bad they may have been. Although, and as President, Obama’s credibility must rely strictly on the basis of his administration’s decisions, and their outcomes…regardless of how much his handlers, the dinosaur media and others, attempt to lead the public to believe otherwise.

      Read the two speech transcripts. If the intellectual capacities of each of the two speeches do not become obvious, then something’s wrong. From this perspective, the Daniel’s speech is much more accurate, and compelling, hands down.

      Yes, I did watch both speeches, and no, I’m not saying that you don’t have a point. But here’s the thing, if Americans are going to keep or regain their freedom, and the adherence to the documents that guarantee it, then they must also remain capable of understanding when it has and continues to be taken from them. And if, in mass, we are not currently capable of doing either, then we will learn why we were not, as a consequence of losing it. We must maintain and/develop our ability to see through our political leaders (Republicrat or Democan) garbage, when it is garbage that is being presented to us, time and time again.

      If flowery rhetoric, filled with unicorns, rainbows, and infrastructure projects, paved by gum drops and lolly pops (no mention of this as continued deficit spending, ongoing quantitative easing, or the proceeding movement towards the centralization of banking, needed in order to fund the proposed gum drop infrastructure, and other expanding expenses, no matter how or where or in what percentage the deficit spending continues to be split), is more appealing to the listener’s/viewer’s nature, then Obama’s, written to the 8th grade level, words and carnival barker/snake oil salesman/televangelist tempo and variance of tone, becomes more compelling, hands down…WE’RE BACK, AND YOUR ARE HEALED MY BROTHERS AND SISTA’S!!!

      It’s just that it’s soooooooo insulting! The argument was that war ran up the Bush era deficit, out one side of the mouth, and just as quickly, the sell is on the idea that we should continue deficit spending, beyond that which has already thrown down the rat hole, by both administrations, out of the other side of the mouth, and for infrastructure? Oh, and this time we mean it…shovel ready! Really, no, really…we’re supposed to be that stupid…really!!!

      Or, for example, the whole capital gains tax rates, versus the tax rates on ordinary income (wages), portion of Obama’s nonsense…look, “Warren”, just pay your secretary in stock options (Capital Gains upon their sale), like you pay yourself, and shut your foolish mouth! Let her take the risk on the stock sale, and its timing. Let her know that if her stock sales end with a net loss for the year, then she will be limited in the actual loss that she can claim on her taxes, regardless of the total actual loss, for the year, which could end being a lot more. Let her know that she could actually end up deeply in the red, versus a normal wage, and that this fact may impact the resources that she might have available to pay her bills, for the year…ask her if she’s up for the total risk, each and every year? Still wanna make the victim argument? I’m sure that Obama’s and Warren’s answer would still be, YES, but only when communicated and spun to the 8th grade level. Let’s “be clear”, Warren Buffet can afford to pay her whatever he would like. He could pay her wage and in stock options…heck, he could even adopt her and leave her everything in his will, if he wanted to. The Buffet rule is the rule of propaganda…speak a lie as often as possible, and it will eventually become the truth in the minds of its victims.

      There’s a saying about how and why folks like Warren make, and keep, there money. However, don’t expect the liberal media run “fact checkers” to broach the subjects of continued deficit spending or capital gains vs. ordinary income tax rates, nor the reason for having the rates differ (our pensions’ capital assets, the capital investments needed to attract the investment in factory, farming and other equipment purchases, which create U.S. jobs, etc.). Unfortunately, fact checkers tend to belong to “Big Media”, and Big Media is beholden to regulation of “Big Government”, and Big Government (Democan or Republicrat) doesn’t really want to make it any easier for the masses to understand or care about the facts. Both sides would actually prefer that facts, and the freedom to obtain them, are made more limited and more difficult to actually obtain. It’s simply much easier to control the masses through emotional ploys, plays on our ignorance and fears.

      While it tends to hold statistically that there are more of us for whom the emotional appeal is typically more effective, I would be willing to lay odds that you and I, and everyone else who has taken the time to sift through this latest appeal, would be just as disgusted, if not more so, had its rebuttal been perpetrated to communicate the opposing view in a similar manner, with a similar shyster like tone, tempo and technique…THE COOLAID…THE COOLAID WILL SAAAVE YOU, MY BROTHA’S AND SISTA’S!!! DRINK IT! DRINK IT, MY BROTHA!

      Don’t know about you, but that kind of garbage has the exact opposite effect on me, and while it certainly wasn’t as flashy, I thought Daniels knocked it out of the park.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.