Posted on 05/13/2011 8:25:12 AM PDT by julieee
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.
hoped for,
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.
Lakeshark, as his post says there, this poster is no conservative, his being so excited about Daniels is all the proof that FR needs to show what the true Daniels is like.
A true conservative who can communicate their solutions wins pretty much every time it is tried. It is a myth that the way to win is to moderate to win the moderates and the independents. We don’t need a 100% ideologue by any stretch, but we need a compelling conservative candidate who can pull the votes over to our side. The moderate candidate approach pretty much is a loser every time it is tried.
You're a dishonest coward.
As I already knew.
As expected.
I'm smiling, that was so pathetic as an argument, and this after you claimed three times to be done with me.......
I do feel sorry for you in your settling on someone so wishy washy and boring. Good luck with your short, bald moderate, you're gonna need it.
Oh, does the fact that I asked you to post Mitch's actual words make you a coward too when you wouldn't?
*rolls eyes*
CHRIS MATTHEWS: We put it to the Matthews Meter, twelve of our regulars including Howard, Katty and Norah, “Which candidate has the best shot to overcome his obvious flaw?” Well this is surprising I guess. Seven said Mitch Daniels. Three said John Huntsman, two, one each for Mitt Romney and one for Pawlenty.
Another MSMer gives us our candidate. I'm sure wtc911 and rtedb (or however you spell it) will be along to explain how smart Matthews really is...........
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.