Posted on 09/23/2011 12:39:50 PM PDT by freespirited
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) disagreed with several of the GOP White House contenders after Thursday night’s GOP debate, saying President Obama is not a socialist.
During the debate, most of the candidates described the president that way.
When asked Friday if he thought Obama had pursued socialist policies, Daniels laughed wryly and simply said, “No.”
He also used the opportunity to warn the contenders to be more careful with their rhetoric.
“At some stage I just think that if you’re interested in results you should just try to be careful to use words that don’t drive anybody away and if possible just take a chance to be more civil, more likeable than the other guy,” said Daniels, who added that he did not see Thursday’s debate.
“The perfectly human temptation is to match insult for insult and strong language for strong language and it feels good for about 10 minutes — but then you realize you probably didn’t add anybody to your point of view,” he said during a breakfast with reporters sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.
Several conservatives have charged that the president’s economic policies, especially his call for the wealthy to pay more taxes, show he is a socialist.
Daniels, the former director of the Office of Management and Budget, has also earned conservative ire with his stance on social issues.
The governor, who decided earlier this year not to run for president, said that while he thought a year ago that Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) would not have been a strong presidential candidate, the political situation has shifted radically since then.
“I’d have thought, ‘Another Texan so soon?’ But boy, do things look different now,” he said. “It’s not about Rick, it’s sort of about where he’s from, but now as desperate as the national situation is I think the door is open.”
He also said that Perry’s centrist stance on immigration is “not going to be a stopper” for him in the GOP primary.
During the breakfast, Daniels warned that while any Republican “who can breathe and speak English” might be able to beat Obama in the next election because of the president’s sliding poll numbers, the problems America faces are so serious that it is important to find the right candidate.
“If it were more normal times, as a partisan I’d say, ‘That’s fine,’” he said of Obama’s decreasing popularity and the GOP field. “Winning the next election without having really prepared the country and rallying the country to go do some big things would really be a lost opportunity.”
He said Obama’s 2008 campaign should be a guiding force for what Republicans should not do this time around.
“That non-specific charisma campaign is not what I hope we as the opposition mount next time,” he said. “The situation is way too important for that.”
Daniels, who is promoting a new book, “Keeping the Republic: Saving America by Trusting Americans,” did not completely shut the door on accepting a vice presidential nomination but became agitated when asked about the possibility.
He said he was becoming tired of the question. He also said he had no timetable for making his own endorsement for president.
Daniels has endorsed his former boss Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), in the Republican primary against Tea Party candidate Richard Mourdock. While being careful not to criticize the Tea Party movement, he called Lugar a “mentor” and an “extraordinary public servant.”
“I’m not sure he’s in that much trouble,” Daniels said. “My sense is he’s likely to win, he’s working hard and he’s an icon in our state.”
When asked about the deep-pocketed fiscally conservative Club for Growth, which is targeting Lugar for defeat, Daniels was circumspect.
“All is fair game,” he said. “I regret the tactics that are often used but it’s not for me to say that people with a strong point of view ought not to be able to express it and participate.”
Ah, never.
Daniels is right. He is a marxist.
But Mitch Daniels...is he a socialist? He must be, defending other socialists from the nasty capitalists.
There are many men who have no stones.
Mitch Daniels is one.
Obama is a social Democrat, which means he supports the kind of welfare state with power highly centralized in the elites that we find in western Europe. Except among the blacks, the feminists, the academics, the government workers, the gays, and the Jews. he has no real base.
You see little guy? That is why no one in the base wanted you to run for President. You are a misinformed cuckold of a man. Now go away and see if you can do something that your wife will be happy about.
Yeah, like when the guy introducing you at event calls a large swath of the population that oppose you S.O.B's. Is that the kind of rhetoric, Mitch, that you need to tone down and disavow? Is that what you meant?
No. But then, if the only people who vote for you are Republicans, you lose all 57 states.
Daniels is absolutely right about the rhetoric. It feels good to say it, it fires up the base, but it does not help with the independents whose support (like it or not) is essential to anyone trying to win the office.
More importantly, there is the issue of governing after you get elected. Unless we get 60 votes in the Senate (ain't gonna happen), we're going to need some Democratic support if we really want to make big, substantive changes in how this country is run. A President who may be an ideologue but doesn't come across as one has the best chance of succeeding.
That was Obama's trick. Sure, the guy's a socialist. but he convinced voters by his demeanor and tone that he was something else. That made it tougher for us to hold the squishy RINO's like the Maine sisters. The result of that is everything we see, including ObamaCare and all this other wacky crap. To reverse that, we need to elect someone who has the right policies but knows how to sell them without looking like an ideologue to independents. And who will be able to attrack support from Senate Democrats nervous about the President's appeal to independents.
Daniels is more conservative than Romney, more electable than Perry, and doesn't alienate most independents. The left hates him because they consider him a wolf in sheep's clothing, which is exactly why he'd have been a good candidate.
Oh well.
It goes to show. Republicans inside the Beltway can’t distinguish the Washington D.C. fog around them from the blue sky beyond. It all looks the same to them.
Buzzzzzzzz Wrong answer Mitch. Try again.
The only left to say is to advice Daniels not to quit his day job.
And to think a mere month or two ago, this guy was thought of as the most even-tempered, deep thinker on this side of Obama.
“Mitch Daniels: Obama not a socialist”
He’s further down the spectrum—he’s a Marxist.
I think Jeff Davis may have asked his fellow Democrats to turn down their rhetoric because it might distract from their marksmanship.
MD is yet another RINO
“He also used the opportunity to warn the contenders to be more careful with their rhetoric.”
Daniels, you idiot suck up...to heck with rhetoric, his deeds speaks volumes.
What he’s saying is that we shouldn’t tell the truth about 0bama because it would be “uncivil”.
This is EXACTLY the environment the left is trying to sandbag us with, and Daniels is acquiescing to it.
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.