Daniels Closer to 2012 Bid, But Has He Overcome Abortion Truce?

LifeNews.com ^ | May 13, 2011 | Steven Ertelt

[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.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/05/13/daniels-closer-to-2012-bid-but-has-he-overcome-abortion-truce/

[r9etb]

Actions do speak louder than words, and his actions have reassured me about that "truce" thing.

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.

[Teacher317]

By the way, here is the main issue regarding his wife: She left him and their 4 daughters in the early 90's, to marry a guy in California. Mitch was left to raise them alone. She came back to them a few years later.

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.

[C. Edmund Wright]

>>> 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.

[ansel12]

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 Governor’s remarks may not have been a “rhetorical misstep.”

Of course, if you know anything about Mitch Daniels in this respect he’s the anti-Obama. He’s far more concerned about communication than rhetoric, he’s thoughtful and rarely speaks without consideration. Rhetorical missteps are exceedingly rare.

And indeed, Daniels called me to say that he’s dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. “It wasn’t something I just blurted out,” he told me. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mitch-daniels-doubles-down-truce

[PGR88]

YAWN.

[TheOldLady]

DONATE

[ansel12]

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.

[crosshairs]

short, bald, boring, moderate. On the flip side, he’s a very good governor.

Yep. He could have indesputable, clear cut solutions to the country's problems, but he still can't win based on appearance. Superficiality is everything in this country.

[ansel12]

I see that the Daniels supporters share a lot with the Romney supporters (many are the same people).

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.

[Siena Dreaming]

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

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.

[Lakeshark]

It's easy not to trust Daniels. Not only is he non telegenic and boring, he's inconsistent and keeps using this RINO tactic of dissing the base, not good if you expect to win anything. He's also the GOP candidate as picked by the Washington Post, the NYT, and the Bush family.

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........

[r9etb]

It's easy not to trust Daniels. Not only is he non telegenic and boring

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.)

he's inconsistent

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.

[Mr. Lucky]

Well said.

[Lakeshark]

I noticed you didn't take on the list of those who support him.

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.

[Lakeshark]

I recant, if he were to win the nomination like McCain did by being the last surviving bad candidate, then Bambi wounded Biteme (our brilliant veep) with a gun, then shot himnself two weeks before the election.....he might have a chance...........

Or something like that.

[r9etb]

Sorry, them's the facts.

No, that's just your opinion. And it looks to be an emotional opinion, at that.

[kgrif_Salinas]

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.
WASS

[Lakeshark]

No, they are facts with studied opinion shared my most.

Facts:
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.