My bet is we’re going to have a debate again as to whether he is fit to be on the national stage ( i.e., a Presidential Candidate ).
So, let me put things in perspective as to why he might have a problem with conservatives :
* He is not very enthusiastic about takcling social issues ( he wants a truce in debating the issues ).
You can’t hold a truce (i.e., simply vote “present” ) when issues like abortion come up in the presidential campaign.
YOU HAVE TO TAKE A STAND. Unfortunately, Daniels does not want to do it.
* He is soft on illegal immigration.
The above two issues are going to be his albatros if he were to campaign for POTUS.
“The above two issues are going to be his albatros if he were to campaign for POTUS.”
Perhaps, but I’m confident you would not win an election if you catered to everything we conservatives demand of our representative. The social dynamics have changed with the younger generations and they don’t have a problem with gay marriage, abortion, etc. It’s sad but true and it showed its ugly face in November 2008.
I agree with you. He is something of a libertarian, but to be ready for prime time he’s going to have to resolve his libertarian inclinations with a secure border and a secure womb.
They're the ones who elevated social issues to a Federal one-size-fits all Orwellian status with Roe V. Wade.
We need more social problems handled at the state level to bring more individual responsibility into the picture. Daniels may have the right idea IMO.
Depends on who the other candidates are. But just for argument's sake, I note that Indiana is a socially conservative state. Mitch has relatively high approval ratings in the state and handily won re-election, even when Indiana went for Obama in the Presidential race.
Although we are still awhile off, it seems likely that the economy will be the most significant issue in the 2012 presidential race. If the Republicans want to win, they should nominate the candidate that can speak most credibly to the economic issues facing the country.