Transcript: GOP Response From Gov. Mitch Daniels

NPR ^ | January 24, 2012 | Mitch Daniels

[zzeeman]

...well maybe now people will wake up to the fact that the greatest threat to this nation is it’s debt.

I doubt it. Look at the point we have reached, virtually no one cares.

[Biggirl]

The good news folks is that most Americans DID NOT tune into the President or the GOP response.

Obama, IMHO, is still beatable.

[who knows what evil?]

Weak. Pathetic. Sob sister. Where the hell are the MANLY leaders?

[ari-freedom]

“What part of “track record” do Daniels’ critics not understand? What the hell part of that is not conservative?”

His foreign policy. We’re facing an Iran which wants to shut off the straits of Hormuz, developing nukes and tries to infiltrate Iraq and Mitch has nothing to say...probably because he shares Lugar’s pro-Arab policy.

[who knows what evil?]

His speech on setting aside social issues was, well, a very bad idea, and wrong, but a lot of respondents parrot the same thing over and over to do with his speech an little else.

'Setting aside social issues' is precisely why G-d is kicking this country to the curb. May our end be mercifully quick.

[John W]

“Daniels is the GOP establishment pick for losing candidate in 2012.”

No, that’s Mitt Romney.

[Biggirl]

May this nation see a new springtime of evangelization! AMEN!

[9YearLurker]

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the GOP Establishment proposes to counter Obama:

1) He’s a lovely man and gentleman with a beautiful family,
2) That we got into our current economic mess isn’t his fault in the least,
3) He is however just a tad ‘extreme’ in the ways he wants to ‘change’ America, while not having been quite quick enough in fixing the mess created while our last GOP president was in office.

Yikes!

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Who else do the elites have warming up?

This is a snoozer.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Brown Deer.

[RitaOK]

They always trot out for the Response speech the one *they* have in mind as our next nominee. In this case, Daniels shows plenty of deference to the good will of Marxists? Should they dump Myth and enlist Daniels, I believe I stick with Newt. But that’s just me.

[Notary Sojac]

And your solution to the impending crashes of Soc Sec and Medicare is.....

[yup2394871293]

A special one: none. I’m not picking a candidate until there’s a primary in my state.

[9YearLurker]

The ultimate RINO rallying cry, “”We will advance our suggestions with confidence!”

[Leep]

If it comes down to a BC than Daniels is the best choice of the handful of names I’ve heard floating around. As for the establishment I think they realize Romney is a no sale. I wouldn’t put it past them to pump up Santorum and even Paul to create enough division needed to bring about a BC.
They also know substitutiing a liberal pub with another liberal pub isn’t going to fly with the majority.

[Leep]

I should have said Daniels is the least objectionable of the names I have heard being floated around.

[fortheDeclaration]

None of the establishment candidates are acceptable.

McCain was the final straw.

[Cowman]

Kudos on a nice attempt, but I’m still not interested in surrendering to the Liberals. It’s nice that they have come-up with a new strategy after all of these years, though. It took them a while, but they have a new angle on the whole “Let’s just dump the Social Issues” platform.

Rush has a theory about that. He believes it goes back to these NE Republicans having wives that don't like to be associated with those peasants who go to Wal Mart and fight to be the first in church on Sunday.

Pure Northeast elitism.

BTW has anybody else noticed that all of the proposed solutions require the government to do something and not to have them stop doing something?

[reformedliberal]

The elites have been panicked that Romney is not going to be electable by the base and Daniels is one of those whose name has been floated as a White Knight, along w/Jindal. They want a *moderate* *conservative. Someone who will not excite those unseemly passions, but who can claim to meet the criteria to keep the base quiet until they lose, as usual, after the election.

I believe Rush has been saying this.

I suppose I was unclear in the other post. I was just so frustrated.

[thesearethetimes...]

Thank you BlackElk for the clarification That is what reactionary posting, (without my glasses!), gets me : | Worse still, was neglecting to check out prior posts...

But, having done so now, has only compounded the confusion, and your observation about his hesitancy to state who he IS for is on the mark. Previous posts overall show an interesting mix of commentary; but aside from the post I responded to last night; nothing really out of bounds.

So yup... you don’t like Romney, Yay! Or 0bama ; ) But you don’t like Newt either, and don’t appear to think much of Santorum. Not a Palin fan, or of Herman, never really mentioned Huntsman or Perry and at one point wished for a brokered convention.... Interestingly enough, you discuss Paul a fair amount, but very carefully, generally from an electability standpoint.

So who DO you think needs to be elected, and CAN be elected? And, seriously asked, because as a nation; we do have to get this right this time; are they the same person?

May God guide our course.
FRegards,
Tatt