Posted on 05/16/2011 7:00:35 AM PDT by Bed_Zeppelin
Mitch Daniels has not yet declared that he will run for the Republican nomination for president. In truth, he is an unlikely nominee, despite the half-hearted cheerleading he has enjoyed from the likes of Fox News and National Review, who appear to have latched onto him in lieu of their first love, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. It has been reported that the Bush family is supporting the current Indiana governor and former budget director for the Bush 43 White House, presumably because they understand that neither the nation nor the party has any appetite for a third President Bush – this time Florida Gov. Jeb Bush – after the debacles over which his father and his brother presided.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
I don’t know about the rest of you but we are not letting the GOP elites jam another crapola candidate down our throats this time around. Getting drunk and voting for McCain was the final straw for us. No to TPaw, Mitch and Mitt. We will vote Trump first.
lol.... I was just getting ready to type the same thing. It would be difficult to find a more reputable combination... unless Bob Unruh were somehow added to the mix.
No... she will be our next President.
LLS
What's not "adding up" is that you are obviously letting other people do your thinking for you.
And somebody is lying to you: Daniels didn't throw anybody under the bus at CPAC. You can watch Daniels' CPAC speech for yourself, to find out what he actually said.
Why not check
After reading the linked article, I’d say Mitch Daniels is just too boring and weak to beat a sitting president who can give a heck of a speach while in front of a TelaPrompter. Let’s draft Paul Ryan, young, family man, has a realistic budget plan and can talk without notes. He is good looking too!
Stay out of the Bushes.
But he did throw his brand spanking new Republican legislature under the bus by opposing them on right to work legislation. The he defended the fleabagging democrat legislators by saying leaving town to defeat quorum is a "legitimate legislative tactic."
This probably doesn’t mean anything to others, but it means something to me.
His wife took off and left him, and he had 4 kids to take care of.
She married a Doctor in California.
She left the Doctor in California and went back to Daniels.
A man stupid enough to take back used baggage isn’t smart enough to be President.
I know that isn’t important to many,but I have personal reasons for it meaning something to me. I won’t be voting for him.
It’s nice to see a well reasoned post on FR nowadays. They are getting rare.
Robert Byrd had John Tower arrested in his office and carried into the Senate camber so Byrd could have a quorum and push through legislation in the early 90s. Republicans had fled the capital.
As for the right-to-work legislation, Daniels position was they should work on advancing the agenda they'd actually campaigned on and not allow an opportunistic bill to tank the session. He did tell them to bring it up next time.
No it hasn't. It's completely unethical, no matter who is doing it or when it's been done. Further, Daniels shouldn't be trying to dictate what the Indiana Repbulican legislature's "agenda" should be. After their overwhelming victory they had every right to bring up whatever they felt appropriate based on their knowledge of their electorate. He was clearly pandering to the Unions in both these actions - keep himself RINO clean for a presidential run.
Do which?
If Daniels is a good enough man to take her back, and they're happy about the result (which they evidently are), then who in hell are you to whine to us about your own bad experiences?
He covers the three most important items right from the get go. I stopped reading after # 3.
1. Short
2. Bald
3. Cuckold
Personally, I think the best way to get it passed is via a referendum.
“It has been reported that the Bush family is supporting the current Indiana governor and former budget director for the Bush 43 White House”
Having the Bushes (reportedly) support Daniels is bad enough. In addition, I heard on Rush today that the Indiana Supreme Court Justice who wrote the opinion that homeowners could not defend themselves from wrongful police intrusion in Indiana was a Daniels appointee.
That’s all we need: another Republican President who appoints Supreme Court justices that flout the constitution.
“I don’t know about the rest of you but we are not letting the GOP elites jam another crapola candidate down our throats this time around. Getting drunk and voting for McCain was the final straw for us. No to TPaw, Mitch and Mitt.”
Bump.
But hey, if you think him trying to do what he thinks is best for his kids should disqualify him from public office, I suppose you're entitled to that opinion.
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.