Posted on 04/29/2011 8:18:10 AM PDT by rob777
As you've pointed out, Daniels' action on taking on the state unions which pre-dated what's going on in Wisconsin and his action on health care for state workers are VERY conservative actions.
Those who have Daniels pegged as a RINO are out to lunch. Fiscal conservatism is REAL conservatism and Daniels is far from a liberal where it counts.
I think Daniels will beat him easily, should he choose to run.
There is NO chance that anyone taking the position on abortion and social issues Daniels has taken is going to win a single delegate or state let alone the GOP nomination.
(a) I don't think you know Daniels's record that well; (b) I think you're wrong.
I do agree with you, though, that he needs to sign the bill that's on his desk. But he will. He's been a solid, pro-life governor.
I lived in Indiana for most of his term as governor. He has done next to nothing on social issues for his whole time if office and didn't lift a finger to get a marriage amendment passed.
You don't run on a VAT tax, go soft on abortion and attack social conservatives and win the Republican nomination for President.
And, Daniels has to have the least amount of charisma of any potential candidate.
So how do you propose undoing Roe V Wade. At the county court?
Daniels didn't twist people's arms about the gay marriage amendment, but he's made very clear that he opposes same-sex marriage and same sex civil unions. It's pure nonsense to say that he's done next to nothing on social issues. He's been 100% pro-life, he's been pro-gun; he's anti-union (to the extent that you call that a "social" issue); there is no social issue that he's been bad on. Honestly, I don't know of anyone--particularly in Indiana--that wouldn't characterize him as a social conservative.
If Daniels wants to be President, he needs to return to his Hoosier values and stop listening to the Karl Roves of the world.
I stand corrected. Is it still called a truce when only one side stops shooting?
If you refuse to debate liberals at the Federal level, the issue goes to the state and local level where it should be.
There, as the issue is debated closer to home and not thousands of miles away in Washington the reality of the ramifications of abortions becomes clearer. Churches begin to take the issue on as Federal money dries up and, as people look at abortion differently, the will to reverse Roe v. Wade grows.
Roe v. Wade has a much better chance of being reversed if citizens are forced to face abortion close up, involving state funds and more personal responsibilities IMO.
After reading your short and unhappy life of posts on FR, I’ll just keep a good distance.
Of course, that Palin hasn’t declared yet seems to be good enough to about disqualify her, but Mitch Daniels? No problem!
He never has lifted a finger to push for a marriage amendment in the state of Indiana.
Calling for a truce on social issues is blatant dishonest and a slap in the face of pro-lifers and social conservatives.
Refusing to immediately embrace and sign a bill defunding Planned Parenthood shows exactly where Daniels is on social issues.
If you think any of that is going to fly in a primary or calls for a VAT tax are, you're crazy.
Gosh, was a mature, thoughtful reply. Thank you.
Taking my Palin hat off for a moment ... it looks to me like: Mitch vs. Palin. He has what it takes to melt away support from Romney & Pawlenty, who will both fade.
It’s Game On! In IA, NH, SC. An interesting year it will be.
Agreed on the last two. Plus which, Romney's always had something of an "ick" factor about him, which hurt him last time, and (given his apparently lack of substantial big name support) seems also to be hurting him this time.
Pawlenty ... It's not fair, but it's true: in politics, the name matters, and that's a painful name for a presidential candidate to have. Most people haven't even heard of him.... And although I've heard of him for years, I have no actual sense of the guy at all, and I'm probably far from alone in that. He appeals to a niche group, and it's a small niche.
If it comes down to Daniels vs. Palin ... that would be an interesting thing to watch.
On substance I think Daniels wipes the floor with her: it's not so much a matter of knowledge (though I think Daniels has a significant edge there); or conservataive principles (I think they're about equal). It's more that Daniels has a knack for laying things out in a thorough, understandable way, whereas Palin's tone of voice tends toward shrillness, and her comments tend to scatter themselves all over the map. (She really, really, needs to secure the services of a speech coach!) Among people who pay attention to substance, Daniels has a big advantage.
Palin has a very energized base, though I think it's probably not all that large. In low-turnout situations, I think she does well. So the key strategy for a Daniels campaign would be to increase turnout. Polls show that candidate Palin's negatives are pretty high among Republicans (even though her personal numbers are pretty good). I think there's a genuine fear of what would happen in the general election if Sarah Palin were the candidate, which would tend to increase turnout, to Palin's disadvantage. One would have to think also that a Daniels campaign would play on that fear ... although to be honest they probably wouldn't have to work very hard at it, as the media would do most of the heavy lifting on their own.
I don’t subscribe to this focus of having to sound like a democrat or cow tow to the middle to get anything done. The skill is getting the moderates to sign on with the conservative ideas. It has been successful many many times in the past. I think Mitch would actually be a good president, and he’s done much of what I mentioned above on the state level. If I could just take any one of our candidates and place them in the WH in Jan ‘13, I might pick him. I think he would do very well facing the challenges we are up against. I just don’t think he’s very electable, because he just doesn’t have the ‘IT’ factor required in a presidential election.
I hope he runs because I’d like to see him step up and show that he could be elected. It is not about being confrontational, but being principled and having the ability to communicate well and pull people to your side. In running against this current President and the media, it will also take some fighting skills, because it will take some punches and counter punches to defeat this crew. They are vicious, and there will be a 24/7 effort in every venue to reelected Obama. Our candidate has to rise above the noise, and that will take a skilled campaigner.
Even I don’t buy that and I’d vote for him over Obama.
WHY ISN'T THE INK ALREADY DRY?
Local talk radio said if he didn’t sign he could forget ever running for office again....Think it becomes law even without his signature.
That’s a short putt when it comes to a social issue. He should be picking that one out of the cup and waving to the crowd by now.
“Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels said Friday he will sign
restrictive abortion legislation, making Indiana the first
state to cut off all government funding for Planned Parenthood”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110430/ap_on_re_us/us_daniels_planned_parenthood_8
a small Mitch army has arrived here. We’ll hafta make Palin-believers out of them.
“Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, also the current
leader of FreedomWorks, says he’d endorse Mitch Daniels”
Armey has always been antagonistic toward social issues.
Wonder if he is the one who thought up the term “truce’?
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.