Posted on 02/16/2011 8:46:31 PM PST by cartervt2k
Anyone that wants to divide the conservative coalition by calling social conservatives “suicide bombers” is not to be considered Presidential material under any circumstances! That’s just plain offensive (and doesn’t help his chances with the conservative electorate)!
J.S.
What did he do to deserve a zot? Making a reasonable, though out post?
You don’t have to agree with it, but I see no reason to zot him.
Do you really think if we managed to find a Jim Inhofe to run against Boxer or Murray, we would have won? - that the real reason we lost was that the swaths of conservatives in WA and CA stayed home at the chance to unseat these two?
Fine if you don’t want to nominate Daniels - just giving my perspective.
All he was saying was that we need to broaden our coalition if we want to save the republic from economic ruin. Daniels is a social conservative and really has an outstanding pro-life record. Blasting someone because he’s a RINO on one or two issues only weakens us because it pushes independent voters away.
I agree with you. Daniels is, at the moment, my top pick. But you can’t have Christie. We LOVE him here in NJ. We need him to finish this term and then serve a second one right here in NJ. Find another VP. You are right that Christie would seal the win-—there’s something about a guy who is competent, confident, and honest that people just can’t seem to get enough of.
It's not like Katie's questions were that tough. Look at Palin's totally pathetic answer here:
KC: What other Supreme Court decisions do you disagree with? [besides Roe v Wade]
SP: Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …
Couric: Can you think of any?
Palin: Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today.
Ouch. Total bafflegab, and lousy at that. Here I am, a mere guitar player, and I could rattle off a few cases, new and old, that I disagree with. How about Kelo? If you're a libertarian, how about Raich? If you like limited government, how about Wickard? Hell, if you want to be a little zany, how about Marbury? If you don't like Roe, how about subsequent rulings like Casey?
She had NOTHING. Is that too much to ask, that someone who wants to be president has at least the level of knowledge about the SCOTUS as a guitar player?
I'd like to see that same question asked in the GOP primary debates. It was a great question actually, and exposes not just someone's philosophy, but how much they actually understand about this government and its Constitution.
That's funny. Last time around, a vote for anyone but Romney was a vote for McCain. I almost didn't bother to vote in the primary, but somehow mustered the energy and voted for Romney. What a waste of time.
This time, if it comes down to Palin or Romney in the primary, I'm staying home.
Cheney was an awful VP pick. GWB left us with an open primary, and hence, McCain.
True, although he is not really all that charismatic. He just ‘reads real good’. He’s actually pretty cold much of the time. He does have good interpersonal skills one-on-one. Clinton was the master of both.
For 2012, we can’t out speechify Obama, but the person has to be able to draw people in. I am afraid Daniels would just not draw people in. He does have an honest likability factor which could be successful. I look forward to seeing him in the GOP debates if he does get into the race. He could quickly win me over.
Ford(moderate) lost
Reagan(conservative) won
Bush 41(moderate) lost after he was away from Reagan’s coattails
Dole(moderate) lost
W (conservative/moderate) won by running as a conservative
McCain(moderate) lost
You left out Nixon. In 1968 you have to say he ran as (and was perceived as) a conservative. In 1972 it’s not so clear. 1972 might be the exception to your rule, in that Nixon played the moderate against the McGovern lefty (much like McCain vs Obama in 2008). No?
And then your analysis completely breaks down in 1964. Goldwater was the clear conservative and lost big.
I think Oswald had something to do with that...
Yes, you’re right...
“Fine if you don’t want to nominate Daniels - just giving my perspective.”
Giving your perspective is OK. This has been a civil discourse, just as I like ‘em!
Finding a candidate who can win, as you point out, is problematical in some states. I was surprised when Reagan won back in 1980. (I’ve been voting since 1971.) Years afterwards, I had a chance to review how it happened.
Ronald Reagan was a great communicator. He was elected despite the bashing he took from the MSM. Why? Because he convinced a broad swath of the public that he loved this nation, had a positive vision of our future, and told people what he was going to do and then did it.
Reagan was honest and straightforward, and more importantly, he radiated those traits to the extent that even if a person didn’t agree 100% with Reagan’s politics, they voted for him nevertheless.
Conservatism and moral values travel hand-in-hand. Others on Free Republic have stated why much better than I ever will, so I’ll not say more on the issue.
Daniels made a statement about social values that alarmed conservative voters. I doubt he’ll receive much support from strong conservatives if he seeks to be President - just giving my perspective.
Daniels has been a good governor, and I’d take him over any of the crop of pubbie candidates now. He’s pretty low-key which could prevent him from beating Obama. Unless the country implodes I think too many people will vote for a charismatic doofus over a competent leader.
It’s hard to argue with anything you say. My strategy is trying to figure out what the country will go for - I think Daniels has positioned himself well to clean up with the independents and conservatives will turn out for him, no matter what they say Of course, my opinion is subject to change. Either way, I think he would be a gamble - I don’t know of any other candidates talking about entitlement reform, which could either carry us or kill us, depending on the mood of the country and how effectively he can overcome the MSM smear machine and get buy-in from the voters on his ideas. I hope (pray) voters are ready to get serious about entitlement reform.
Thune just just chimed in today seems to want to fill the void on the social issues front, saying today there will be no truce. He seems mainstream enough so that I think he can win independent voters, but he’s had a pretty unremarkable career and isn’t a big draw like Chris Christie. It’s also hard to call Obama a do-nothing loser if you’ve just nominated your own junior senator, but maybe that’s not so important.
Christie’s RINO proclivities on some issues aside, I think he’s our best shot but seems intent on not running (though he could be posturing). He’s really the opposite of Obama in EVERY way - most importantly, he speaks directly and frankly, which will go a long way with voters. If he can hold a 51% approval rate in NJ, he would be lethal to Obama. He would be a fund raising machine. I’m going to go on record and say he will at least be our VP nominee, no matter who we pick.
I kind of wish I could take Gingrich’s wit and expertise, give him Daniels’ record, Christie’s magnetism, and Jim DeMint’s conservatism and combine them into a can’t-lose super-candidate. Stinks we have to choose from what we’ve got, but hopefully we can scrape together enough votes to end this nightmare!
There may very well be a potential candidate out there no one has thought wants to run, and who is just waiting for the right time to announce.
Whoever it may be, I will not vote for man or woman who will not support ‘rule of law’. Illegal aliens have damaged this nation and caused corruption and injustice within our legal system. Our laws should be applied equally to everyone; if you’re here illegally you’re deported, period.
Daniel’s “truce” on social issues with the left is unacceptable, and his rhetoric against us who are social conservatives are not doing him any favors, you might want to get to him and let him know “that”!
J.S.
>>I’m from KY<<
So was my grandma. She always hated being called a brier hopper.
I can’t force you to tell me the truth, but if we put up a weak illegal immigration candidate against Obama, you would actually stay home and not vote? Or, are you talking about primary requirements?
Why would I ever vote for someone who doesn’t believe in upholding the laws of this nation?
It would be like voting for Barak Obama!
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.