Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: C. Edmund Wright
Here is the offending passage by Daniels that you say was somehow "insulting" to talk radio audiences:

We must be the vanguard of recovery, but we cannot do it alone. We have learned in Indiana, big change requires big majorities. We will need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean. Who surf past C-SPAN to get to SportsCenter. Who, if they’d ever heard of CPAC, would assume it was a cruise ship accessory.

If you think that is insulting, then you don't know the meaning of the word. If you don't like that passage, please tell me what part of it you disagree with.

115 posted on 05/12/2011 1:50:37 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]


To: curiosity

Al Hunt, and he interviewed Mitch Daniels.”A familiar GOP refrain in recent months has been that Barack Obama is weak on foreign policy, a multilateralist who doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism and the like. You praised Obama, as did many other Republicans, for getting bin Laden. Politically, does that take the national security issue off the table?”

DANIELS: If it does, that would be good. What we want is an effective foreign policy, and we want this — I want this president to succeed. I’m very pleased for him and his team at that one victory, and I hope it’s followed by many more. If it is, that’s a great thing for the country.

In other words, Daniels hopes Obama succeeds. In other words, screw Rush and his “I hope he fails” message.


116 posted on 05/12/2011 2:20:51 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

To: curiosity

...oh, and there’s more from HARD RIGHT (cough) Mitch:

DANIELS: We need a lot more revenues. If you take what I believe is a very flawed tax system, way too complicated, too many preferences and gimmicks in it, many of them, by the way, tilted toward upper income people —

Thats right Mitch, that’s what we need, more anti rich rhetoric. That’ll show em.


117 posted on 05/12/2011 2:23:03 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

To: curiosity

...oh, and there’s more from HARD RIGHT (cough) Mitch:

DANIELS: We need a lot more revenues. If you take what I believe is a very flawed tax system, way too complicated, too many preferences and gimmicks in it, many of them, by the way, tilted toward upper income people —

Thats right Mitch, that’s what we need, more anti rich rhetoric. That’ll show em.


118 posted on 05/12/2011 2:23:09 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright (American Thinker Columnist / Rush ghost contributor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson