Skip to comments.Daniels Closer to 2012 Bid, But Has He Overcome Abortion Truce?
Posted on 05/13/2011 8:25:12 AM PDT by julieee
Daniels Closer to 2012 Bid, But Has He Overcome Abortion Truce?
Indianapolis, IN -- Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels appears closer than ever to indicating he will seek the Republican nomination for president, but, for pro-life voters, one key question remains about his talk of an abortion truce.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
Mitch is a competent statist who uses occasional free market language.
Did he get mommy’s permission yet?
short, bald, boring, moderate. On the flip side, he’s a very good governor. He is going to have to impress the hell out of me in the debates to earn a vote here. Especially with the Bush syndicate getting behind him. With Mitt fizzling (thank God), it looks like the country clubbers are going to get behind Daniels, and that isn’t a positive development, IMO.
John McCain II (heard that Rush hinted that)
Despite all the snark aimed at Daniels, conservatives should seriously consider his honesty and his record.
He has been criticized harshly for suggesting a truce on social issues.
FReepers, if we don’t get our financial and security issues under control, there’s not going to be a free society in which to practice our conservative values and pass them on to our children.
Just something to consider.
Not a Daniels supporter, no dog in the hunt yet, just willing to consider all comers and looking for the strongest candidate to get Obama out of office.
Really wish that Sen DeWitt would run!
I share your concerns.
However, the true conservative vote cannot alone put a candidate in the White House. That’s just a numerical reality.
Whoever we back must also appeal to the middle, to those country clubbers. So I’m looking for the candidate closest to my political beliefs who can get votes.
Lots and lots of votes.
While Republicans in Washington were tweaking the New Deal, the most critical opposition to liberalism came from writers. Russell Kirk claimed that both classical and modern liberalism placed too much emphasis on economic issues and failed to address man's spiritual nature, and called for a plan of action for a conservative political movement. He said that conservative leaders should appeal to farmers, small towns, the churches, and others. This target group is similar to the core constituency of the British Conservative Party.
William F. Buckley
The most effective organizer and proponent of conservative ideas was William F. Buckley, Jr. (19252008), the founder of National Review in 1955 and a highly visible writer and media personality. There had been numerous small circulation magazines on the right before, but the National Review gained national attention and shaped the conservative movement, thanks to strong editing and a strong stable of regular contributors. Erudite, witty and tireless, Buckley inspired a new enthusiasm.
Buckley assembled an eclectic group of writers: traditionalists, Catholic intellectuals, libertarians and ex-Communists. They included: Russell Kirk, James Burnham, Frank Meyer, Willmoore Kendall, L. Brent Bozell, and Whittaker Chambers In the magazines founding statement Buckley wrote: >p> The launching of a conservative weekly journal of opinion in a country widely assumed to be a bastion of conservatism at first glance looks like a work of supererogation, rather like publishing a royalist weekly within the walls of Buckingham Palace. It is not that of course; if National Review is superfluous, it is so for very different reasons: It stands athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no other is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who so urge it.
Disappointing—they’re talking about Mitch. I was hoping for Charlie. ;)
FReepers, if we dont get our financial and security issues under control, theres not going to be a free society in which to practice our conservative values and pass them on to our children.
Gov. Daniels has just signed a bill that makes Indiana the first state in the nation to revoke Medicaid taxpayer funding of the Planned Parenthood abortion business. This is a serious accomplishment. Could it be that his request for a "truce" was just a way to cool the overheated rhetoric on abortion in order to get something DONE? How many other conservative politicians can claim to have accomplished this much?
Like Jedidah, I'm still looking at the candidates and haven't decided yet for whom to vote (though Herman Cain really interests me). But Daniels' fiscal accomplishments as governor are significant, and exceed the actual accomplishments of many, if not all, of his competitors. Actions do speak louder than words, and his actions have reassured me about that "truce" thing.
After seeing what the MSM did to Sarah Palin (she recently had to get restraining orders against a Lefty father-son duo who openly said they wanted to rape her to punish her), it is very reasonable and proper to talk with the family before running. His daughters will get even worse treatment than the Bush girls got, if he is the nominee. Their gloves are off now.
How can he run? He just said he wasn’t ready to debate Obama on foreign policy. Will he magically be ready if he announces? And what a statement to make, anyway—as if Obama is some kind of foreign policy giant/genius??? He’s ticked off all our friends and allies, helped install the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, empowered OPEC and allowed Iran to pursue nukes openly and grossly. Who couldn’t debate *that* record???
That being said, social issues (that do not relate to the economy) will not and should not be the major issues for the 2012 Presidential election. To do this is no different than to make the Birther Issue the number one issue of the election.
The economy needs to be the major issue of this election. If it is not, we are handing the global power to a nation such as China and that is NOT in the interest of those of us who value social issues.
More than 9 million abortions take place in China.
President Obama would LOVE for the Presidential race be all about social issues such as abortion (what he would call “women's health). He may even try to claim that while 9.0% of the American people are jobless in America the republicans are more concerned about denying the government to fund “women's health”.
To focus on anything other than the Obama economy and his ignoring the US Constitution will be to undermine the serious state of our economy which Obama would LOVE for us to to. It will benefit him greatly.
While I think we should elect a candidate who reflects our positions on the social issues, it should not and will not be the primary issues in America (with the exceptions of social issues that could hurt our economy such as Amnesty for Illegals).
Social issues should be more of a priority with who we elect as our Representatives and those we elect in the Senate.
Economically we're in uncharted territory. If we lose this election, the economy will be so bad that Americans will have no choice but to seek help from this government for all of their basic needs. WE DO NOT WANT THAT!
When the elderly voters are facing having to sell their homes and prematurely go into old age homes simply because they cannot afford the oil to heat their homes gay marriage is NOT on their list of priorities. Is it not a social issue to watch a parent to be forced to sell a home because of the price of oil and sign themselves into an old age home that will inevitably shorten their lives?
When parents look at their children and know that for the first time in America the children will grow up in an America that is worse off and not better than the parents had once known.
The seriousness of this economy is about to become a MAJOR social issue in itself and it is the fault of the democrats and Obama.
Bill Buckley was too much of a libertarian on many issues for some “social conservatives.”
Mitch Daniels open to VAT, oil tax hike
Agreed. And given his action on Planned Parenthood this past week it doesn't appear there is. Too many politicos talk the talk and then don't walk the walk. With Daniels, we seem to have the opposite. He chills the language but takes the action. Works for me.
I share your concerns, but not your conclusion. The only time the GOP has won big is when they ran WAY RIGHT of the Dems. Their worst losses always come when they allow the left/right distinction to be blurred by running to the middle.
Big right wins include 80,84, 88 (many thought Bush 41 was a rightie), 94, 2010.
Big moderate disasters include 92 (Bush 41 outed), 96, 98, 2006, 2008.
The GOP actually reaches the “middle” vote more often when they are bold and unashamed of their conservative beliefs. History proves it. That boldness attracts the middle, contrary to the normal inside the beltway strategist play book.
Duh! My mistake! Thanks.
Beyond that, the "truce" thing has been badly mischaracterized by those who are either too lazy, or too dishonest, to discuss Daniels' statement in the context in which it was made.
Add that spicy gossip to the fact that Daniels was the OMB Director for Bush, and all four daughters are active in Christian ministries, and you can see what a HUGE target this family will be if he is nominated. Look at the Palin family smear campaign over the past 2 years (when she was no longer a candidate OR holding public office!!!), and you can see why he might want to consult with his wife extensively before declaring an intention to run. Do the kids really want to be portrayed in SNL skits? Does Cheri (his wife) really want to relive that difficult chapter in her life 700 times over the next year?
That he will leave the decision (of whether he might like to be the most powerful man on the planet) to his wife, all so that she might avoid public exposure, speaks volumes about his character.
>>> Beyond that, the “truce” thing has been badly mischaracterized by those who are either too lazy, or too dishonest, to discuss Daniels’ statement in the context in which it was made. >>>
I would agree with that. However, too many Daniels supporters have been either too lazy, too dishonest or too disonnected with the realities of the national debate to understand how Mitch has stepped into the liberal talking points a few times too many
I’ll keep an eye on him because he’s done some good things, but he’s on “double secret probation” at the microphone. And sadly, with the bully pulpit and limited powers of a President, I’m not sure that today actions do indeed speak louder than words. Not saying it’s a good thing........but it is what it is.
Odd that so many of his supporters here at FR are also freepers that are known as liberals, even as people that prefer Mitt Romney himself to Governor Palin.
From the Weekly Standard:
Mitch Daniels Doubles Down on Truce
Mark Hemingway writes:
I got a call this morning from Indiana Governor and rumored presidential candidate Mitch Daniels. In my column yesterday on his remarks about a truce on social issues, I left the door open to the possibility that the Governors remarks may not have been a rhetorical misstep.
Of course, if you know anything about Mitch Daniels in this respect hes the anti-Obama. Hes far more concerned about communication than rhetoric, hes thoughtful and rarely speaks without consideration. Rhetorical missteps are exceedingly rare.
And indeed, Daniels called me to say that hes dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. It wasnt something I just blurted out, he told me. Its something Ive been thinking about for a while.
I don’t see the reason for a personal attack instead of a response to the fact of Daniels ‘doubling down on the truce’, or ignoring the fact that Daniels is the choice of so many of FR’s liberals.
I think that our liberals here read Daniels very well, Rush is talking right now about the Washington Post’s endorsement of Daniels as the better choice for Republicans.
It seems that the pro-gay, pro-abortion Laura Bush has personally intervened in an attempt to force a Mitch Daniels run for her liberal branch of the GOP.
Laura Bush Is Pro-Choice, Pro Gay Marriage
Former first lady Laura Bush kept mum for eight years on two cornerstone issues of her husband's presidency: gay marriage and abortion. All that changed on Tuesday when she came out in support of both issues.
Please don't use the fact that ALL FOUR DAUGHTERS are ACTIVE in christian ministries as a negative...to be considered a target for opponents and a reason NOT to run for office.
This will be a MAJOR PLUS, not a negatative. It's not nearly in the same realm as the Bristol Palin smears which were for quite the opposite reason.
I'm just curious, do you think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot?
He's spent the better part of three days explaining why we should mistrust Daniels.
I suppose you think you're better informed and smarter than he is........
Not at all. He's quiet and thoughtful, which is different from a lot of others, but he's got a good presence, seems humble, and he's funny. (Check out, for example, his interview on CSPAN Q&A.)
Not according to his actual record.
and keeps using this RINO tactic of dissing the base,
If by "the base" you mean that gaggle of squabbling single-issue zealots who are the single biggest reason why conservatism is on the political ropes, then yes, he "disses them" by pointing out that they're not helping matters and may actually make things worse. But if you go by context (which Daniels' single-issue detractors never seem to do), then his position makes sense. See, for example, his CPAC Speech.
not good if you expect to win anything.
But very good if you expect to win over the larger number of folks who distrust "the base."
I'm just curious, do you think Rush Limbaugh is an idiot?
I think Limbaugh is a very able entertainer and self-promoter. I also think he's a blowhard with a huge ego and an inflated sense of his own influence; and I've found that on matters of verifiable fact he's not a reliable source of information. Limbaugh is not careful with his opinions -- he goes for the sound-bite, rather than real understanding.
Just that would give me pause.
Even the lady from the Washington Post who wants him as the nominee says he's like a gray accountant. I'm sorry, he's short, bald and boring, and unfortunately that's death in a culture that has HD TV. You can claim that's not important, but then you're not dealing with reality. If I want someone who I don't trust as a conservative (and Mitch is untrustworthy) I'll vote for Pawlenty or Gingrich.
I'll vote for Daniels if he wins, but I'll not do so enthusiastically knowing he won't stick up for the things I value. I want a bold candidate who will continue to explain why conservatism and what it stands for is a good thing. I want someone who is going to put forth conservative principles and defend them. I want someone who will convince moderates why they should believe conservative principles, not someone who won't stand up for them. I want someone who shows the bright colors, not the palest of pastels. It's the one who can stand up to the media, rather than one who will bow to media memes that I want.
Mitch doesn't and will never proclaim the bright colored differences conservatives value, and he'll never get beyond being short, bald, boring, inconsistent and uninspiring.
Sorry, them's the facts. He may be a great governor and a great manager, but with the aforementioned facts he can never be elected president in this day and age.
Or something like that.
No, that's just your opinion. And it looks to be an emotional opinion, at that.
As a proud member of the CA Teaparty, if Daniel’s get the nomination, we are screwed. It will be McCain all over again. The establishment GOP just loves to pick the boring old white guy every time, and they always loose.
1. He is 5'4" tall. That's called a short man in the US.
2. He's bald. Unquestioningly bald.
3. Just those two make him look bad on video (fact).
I stand by the rest of it, he's not a candidate to be trusted, hoped for, with any capacity to excite the base. No emotion, just facts (studied and unemotional opinion).
If I'm going to go for a RINO with a resume it will be Gingrich or Pawlenty.
Opinion. I think his video presence is actually quite good, and a welcome change from what passes for politics these days.
I stand by the rest of it, he's not a candidate to be trusted,
You say that because of his record .... oh, wait. His record says you're wrong. So ... opinion.
I hope for a mature, rational, intelligent candidate with a record of accomplishment; a clear view of the problems we face and a vision of how to address them; a demonstrated ability to get difficult things passed; and a willingness to sign them when they do pass. You don't hope for that?
with any capacity to excite the base.
"The base," meaning you. But that's just your opinion, and it's based on an emotional response.
No emotion, just facts (studied and unemotional opinion).
Um, no. Aside from his physical characteristics, none of the things you stated are "facts," they're opinions. And aside from emotional appeals, they're not even defensible opinions.
Someone who calls for a truce on social issues is not to be trusted. Someone who cannot fight verbally for conservative principles is not someone I trust with the bully pulpit. Someone who disses his own base is not someone I trust. That you trust a bland piece of work like this as president says more about you than I care to know.
hope for a mature, rational, intelligent candidate with a record of accomplishment; a clear view of the problems we face and a vision of how to address them; a demonstrated ability to get difficult things passed; and a willingness to sign them when they do pass.
I can handle that. I don't think Daniels is mature, I think he's boring and unelectable.
The base includes many people, none of whom will be excited by him, particularly if he keeps talking about a truce on social issues (I love the way his supporters try to spin that, good luck shilling for him on that one).
Pawlenty would be a much better candidate if you want a moderate.
Someone who keeps repeating that tripe over and over and over again, is not to be taken seriously.
We've been over that one before. I'm not going to waste any more time with you. Good day.
I told you it was fun watching his supporters spin that one. I look forward to him defending that one if he runs, it should be a hoot. He doubled down on it big time, and you just can't admit it.
He did call for a truce on social issues. He won't defend them. He won't use the bully pulpit to advance conservatism. He's the MSM candidate for the GOP, he's the Bush candidate. And you wonder why most conservatives won't trust him?
His record says otherwise. And your characterization of the "truce" is very, very dishonest. YOU are dishonest.
I'm finished with you.
It’s not dishonest, it’s what he said.
You’ve got your head in the sand (or worse) if you can’t deal with what he said. You can pretend he didn’t say it, but it won’t matter much, you can spin that he really didn’t mean it, but it won’t matter much.
Sorry, I don’t want a candidate who can’t speak strongly for conservative issues, or is timid and apologetic. I think we’ve had enough of that kind of candidate for several lifetimes. It’s no wonder he’s the MSM candidate this go round.
Let's try this: Post what Daniels said about a "truce," right here. Provide the full context of his comments.
Let's just see how your little mischaracterization stands up to what he actually said.
You can start here, go ahead and spin away: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mitch-daniels-doubles-down-truce
Post them right here.
In full context.
So everybody can see and discuss them.
Including you. Because I'm beginning to think that you've never read what he actually said.
I just posted a conversation he had with a conservative columnist who claims he said it and doubled down on saying it.
Spin away while we all laugh. He said it. He owns it. Thank goodness he won't sell it to many. Shame on you for buying it.