Posted on 06/19/2010 4:25:56 PM PDT by GOPGuide
snip
Would Daniels, for example, reinstate the Reagan-era Mexico City policy (banning U.S. foreign aid to groups that provide or promote abortion overseas)? The policy has been suspended and reinstated by executive order by successive Democratic and Republican presidents for the past 20 years.
Daniels’ stunning answer to McCormack’s question: “I don’t know.”
The reply would have been careless for any prospective GOP candidate for the White House; for a reputed social conservative, it was something much worse. It had the feel of a planned surprise – a flight from orthodoxy meant as a symbolic message that a whole array of issues are about to be shelved. Restoring the Mexico City policy would require only a presidential executive order, a stroke of the pen. Presidential pens are not a heavy lift.
The Hoosier governor’s truce talk is wrong on so many levels. It needlessly demeans one portion of the conservative coalition – the “ethnic, Catholic (and, more recently, evangelical) blue collar” vote that Ronald Reagan led into fealty with the GOP’s traditional hawks and economic conservatives. And social conservatives are not just a portion of that coalition – they hold views on issues like federal abortion funding and protecting the definition of marriage that represent a significant majority.
Second, calling for a truce on social issues is a little like asking the kid being pummeled by the schoolyard bully to stand down. All the kid is doing is holding his hands in front of his face to ward off the blows. Social conservatives did not launch campaigns to exploit the definition of marriage for their own gain, whatever that would mean. Instead, they have only fought to preserve the natural and perennial status of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
By “Truce”, Daniels means “unconditional surrender” in the compassionate conservative mold.
Mitch “Unconditional Surrender” Daniels in 2012!
It’s sooooooo sad, we could have had a Richard Lugar Republican, who can draw crowds of over 100 people! And with experience as Bush’s budget director! How will we ever recover from such a blow? /
This man is correct: I WILL NOT support Daniels for POTUS! I was at the Indiana Republican Convention: as a delegate; this weekend (and the moderate leadership wanted us to chant “Run Mitch Run” I just stood there, and I noted that many others did as well..). DeMint/Palin 2012 at this point, IMO!
“White Flag Daniels” My friend. ;-)
He sure isn’t helping his cause much.
Actually, that's code for "cut the military budget to the bone"
Wow...you're brilliant. Reading Code, what next....Mind Reading?
Did you talk to Mitch about this or did it come in the way of a vision or dream?
So no surprise here.
“He’s dead, Jim.”
- JP
How can he call himself an economic conservative when he wants to spend American taxpayers’ money for abortions in other countries?
Your shipload of FAIL has arrived, Mitch. I’m glad it was now rather than a year from now.
“The reply would have been careless for any prospective GOP candidate for the White House; for a reputed social conservative, it was something much worse. It had the feel of a planned surprise – a flight from orthodoxy meant as a symbolic message that a whole array of issues are about to be shelved. Restoring the Mexico City policy would require only a presidential executive order, a stroke of the pen. Presidential pens are not a heavy lift.”
I am reminded of the September 1999 timeframe, when the Republicans in Congress were tussling with Clinton over the budget ... the Republicans in Congress wanted lower spending. Presidential candidate G W Bush talked about ‘compassionate conservatism’ and indicated he didnt approve of the Republican position ... GWB’s non-hardline undercut the fiscally conservative Republicans.
Trillions of added debt later, we realize the consequences of deviancy from conservative principles.
What will be the regrets we have 10 years later when we let deviancy from conservative principles prevail?
Hossiers only run for vice president; their last president was Benjamin Harrison (or did I miss a later one), who was said to have ice water in his veins, a line borrowed by liberals to apply to Reagan also.
Good point. Bush's comment was a "tell" -- a huge one, it turned out. And yet, as long as the GOP primary process remains loaded in favor of East Coast states, crossover Democrats, and plutocratic candidates who can carry their own water through the early races, conservatives will remain severely handicapped. I don't know if there was a conservative who could have kept the nomination out of Dubya's hands in 2000, even though we all knew he was the Yacht Club candidate.
It’s not really that loaded in favor of them. IA and SC aren’t east coast states anathema to conservatives. IA was 88% conservative in 2008. SC was 70%. If someone wins IA and SC in 2012 they’d likely be the nominee.
In retrospect, at least in terms of spending, McCain probably would have been better than W.
I don’t get Daniels’ avoid divisive issue line. Isn’t that what being President is about? What issues aren’t divisve? Imagine if Reagan had said he wasn’t going to deal with the Cold War because it was divisive. Or wasn’t going to cut taxes because it was divisive.
If the GOP does win in 2012 whoever the next President is will be despised by the media and the dems. Not just because all Republicans are, but because it will mean that they’re Messiah was unceremoniously dumped and tossed back to Hyde Park. They’ll be out for blood. A meek Mr Nice Guy let’s avoid tough issues attitude like Daniels’ would get swallowed alive.
I’ll stand with Mark Hemingway on this issue:
“Many Republicans might regard a ‘truce’ as a non-starter, but Daniels’ social conservative bona fides and impressive gubernatorial record might mean he’s the rare politician that deserves the benefit of the doubt as he continues to explain himself.”
It’s early. I’m not thrilled with this truce idea; but I’ll wait to see how it unfolds. We can not afford to start jettisoning candidates just yet. If there were a Reagan in the ranks of those candidates, I might feel differently. But until someone comes forward who thrills me, I continue to include Daniels on my short list.
Upon closer reading on this issue I will say that there is some merit to what he has in mind as a practical matter. He has just packaged it and presented it in an entirely unappealing way. I hate the idea of “truce.” Hate it. But ...
Suppose that Daniels had instead said that he would spend the first 120 days of his presidency focused like a laser beam on repealing Obama Care, eliminating the deficit, etc etc, without taking any of the usual liberal bait on social policy that is so often used to dissemble and distract. Suppose he had said that he thinks there is a broad consensus across the political spectrum that this can and should all be done. Suppose he had said that he believes that if we are focused rather than distracted we can get this done and move on from there to tackle a broad array of other problems, including social issues.
Would folks on this site then be as upset as they are?
Well, as far as I can tell, this was the substance of his remarks. Now ... again ... I am not happy with the way it was packaged and communicated. And I care about those things deeply. I am concerned.
All I am really saying is that I am not prepared to throw him overboard just yet. He has been a reliable, staunch, and very successful conservative, with a strong track record and a single slip, from which he has since backtracked.
And I’m sure he would be the first to say that if a Supreme Court justice died, for example, on the first day of his term that he would have to contend with these issues. He would come through at that point as a true conservative. His historical record tells me that he would be reliable, and in a way that a McCain or Romney or others would not.
This will all pass, I hope. And if it doesn’t, well, then I hope another candidate emerges more to my liking.
Among my close friends, two conservatives voted for Obama because they hated McCain so much; and they claim they would do it all over again. And this sort of muddle headed thinking is a big reason why our country is in such a mess. We must stand on principles without letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It is a tough balance to achieve, but common sense is a reasonably reliable guide.
Mitch Daniels is going to be a serious player in this race, I predict. His conservative bona fides are securely in place. His actions as governor scream “conservative.” Taking up arms against him because of an unfortunate phrasing will succeed only in creating a house divided.
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.