Ryan Streeter writes:
Rush Limbaugh said he was on National Review’s web site this morning and came across an article (he didn’t name the author) praising Mitch Daniels for not being “combative.” Limbaugh mocked the notion that a conservative should be praised for not being combative and asked his Long Island, NY, caller what he thought of the idea. The caller said it made him think Daniels was a wimp. And then Rush got whipped up and riffed on how our founding fathers were combative enough to go to war, etc. etc.
Streeter surmises that Limbaugh was referring to this post of mine. Some of the commenters to the post have made the opposite criticism from the one that Streeter says Limbaugh made: They are appalled that I faulted Daniels for not being combative enough.
In reality, all I did was make an observation: that Daniels isn’t (or at least on this occasion wasn’t) as combative as other conservatives. It seems to me that this quality has its good and its bad sides. For what it’s worth, I would, like Rush, have preferred a little more feistiness from the governor.