Posted on 06/15/2010 6:33:26 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Mitch Daniels has grown Indiana state bureaucracies by raising taxes,(for the children).
What good is fighting over gay marriage and affirmative action while our economic livlihoods are being destroyed.
We can get along fine as long as they don’t try to stop us from undoing the damage they’ve done.
I hear he's against all the bloated school construction projects (for the children).
Because most social conservatives ARE NOT fiscal conservatives
See George W
“We can get along fine as long as they don’t try to stop us from undoing the damage they’ve done.”
####
And we’ll need to go back AT LEAST to the mid-sixties, with the kick-off of the disastrous, trillion dollar racist theft known as the “War on Poverty”, with a significant stop at 1973’s Roe-Wade disaster.
Not so, pure baloney.
And an interesting angle that he (and many) miss is that much of the left's social agenda would take a serious hit if we rein in the government and government's spending/entitlements/power.
Shrinking government *is* a vital part of the conservative social agenda. Economics and culture are linked. Apparently a lot of pundits can only think one dimensionally. Which says little for their reasoning capabilities.
Daniels is a nanny stater and is soft in illegals. Financial issues cannot be solved unless the illegal situation is ended.
Too bad really. I was kinda hoping Mitch Daniels would be presidential material.
Well, back to the drawing board... next candidate please ( if there’s anyone acceptable ).
Oh, like Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin?
LOLOLOL. You got it absolutely backwards. See Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Bloomberg, Crist, Schwarznegger etc.
In fact, name me one pol who claims to be fiscal conservative/social liberal that doesn't cave in to the fiscal libs when it's time for a vote.
Tom Ridge might have been one but they are few and far between.
A “truce” on social issues will do for social issues what the Ron Paul love slaves would do for our foreign and military policy. I had thought that Mitch Daniels might make an interesting dark horse. I was wrong. He would be a disaster. The economic issues are merely a matter of money. How much is spent is dependent on the most recent elections. There is never a permanent solution to money issues. OTOH, each baby slaughtered is a baby permanently slaughtered. Each breach in the societal policy on marriage is likely to be permanent. Social issues do not call for pacifism any more than military situations do. Smash Ahmadinijad and smash the domestic social revolutionaries. “Truce” is surrender.
The delusion of “fiscal conservatives” being actual conservatives is rising here. Please do the honors.
You do know the identity of President Reagan’s Chief Political Advisor, right?
Daniels has a point but doesn’t express it very well - somehow, we need to make the New Right Coalition work again.
What good is beating back socialism if we destroy what marriage and the nuclear family are and kids continue to be harmed, dysfunctional and more prone to be wards of the state?
No Republican can win the Presidential nomination without a commitment to fighting for the right to life of the unborn and protecting what marriage is. Get to used it.
When good compromises with evil, only evil can profit.
It's straw man argument. Obama has been pushing his a pro-abortion and pro-homosexual agenda while pushing Obamacare, spending trillions, taking over car companies and, now, pushing for cap and tax.
There is no reason why a Republican President can't implement a pro-life, pro-marriage and socially conservative agenda while tackling the economic problem. Claiming one can't do otherwise is an intentional slap in the face of social conservatives. And, it just cost Daniels any chance he has to win the GOP nomination.
What point is that? The whole comment is an absurd straw man. A President can focus on the economy while at the same time tackling social issues. Obama has done so, albeit in a socialist way.
Daniels made a boneheaded political calculation to slap social conservatives in the face.
I’ve never been particularly impressed by Daniels. He’s too wonky. I’ve argued you can’t ignore any of the legs of Conservatism. Focus exclusively on the social end and the economy can suffer, focus on the economy exclusively and the soul suffers. A little effort and you can cover both, but ignoring one or the other and your Conservative credentials become suspect.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.