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.
http://www.lifenews.com/2011/05/13/daniels-closer-to-2012-bid-but-has-he-overcome-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.
Russell Kirk
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.[90] 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. (1925–2008), 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.[91]
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 magazine’s founding statement Buckley wrote:[92] >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 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.
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.”
Consider this:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43648.html
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.
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.