Posted on 05/09/2011 2:55:26 PM PDT by Hojczyk
I don’t blame you for being skeptical of Mitch Daniels. But I live in Indiana and can truthfully say he’s been a succesful governor. We haven’t had the debt problems like the neighboring states have and our tax burden is the lowest in the indistrial midwest. I’m not on board for Daniels yet, but conservatives shouldn’t dismiss him.
They = GOP = 2000 and 2004...
Social issues on back burner?
Supported by Muslim groups?
He’s not my choice.
Mitch ain’t got a prayer.
People tend to forget that the Tea Party was largely successful because of its focus on fiscal issues. Let’s not forget that if we put a fiscal conservative in office who is not quite as socially conservative as we’d like, we can still control the legislation that gets to his desk.
Would I rather have the perfect combination of fiscal and social conervative? Absolutely. Will I vote for a fiscal conservative who will put conservatives on the bench? Absolutely.
In 2012, the primary goal is ousting the un-American, Marxist, POS currently disgracing the WH. It is that simple.
In short ... ANYONE but Obama!
It’s good to hear from someone on the ground, thank you for the input CF.
Based on the current group of folks we’re looking at now, I’d put him in the “upper” tier, FWIW. Let’s see what happens, how this plays out.
Strategically, I don't see the threat of electoral votes in the South. Indiana is a swing state, but most of the South is so red, a few lost votes aren't going to lose the states. And I'm not so sure he would have a hard time bringing NC back.
Rush is decidedly anti-Daniels. They've had their run-ins before. Search the internet for "Mitch Daniels" and "Rush Limbaugh" and there are quite a few articles where Rush is blasting Daniels.
He will have the same weakness that Bush I (2nd run), McCain, and Dole had - his comments and votes will be too easily painted as anti-social agenda.
I understand your point. And it is true that presidents have limited impact on culture.
But just as culture shapes politics, so politics shapes culture. And thus, it is necessary to use our politics to shape our culture better.
Many of the social problems (which are at the root of many of our other problems) are caused or exacerbated by government policies, established by politicians.
Do you think that an illegitimacy rate pushing 40% isn't a social disaster in the US? Do you think that that problem doesn't contribute to the failure of public schools, doesn't contribute to high crime, drug use, mental illness, dependence on the welfare state, abuse of women? Do you not see how an illegitimacy rate of 40% contributes to our fiscal problems, causes folks to push for even more radical liberal solutions, such as all-day schools, subsidized daycare, etc.?
Do you think that the policies of the last half-century, promoting government dependence for women with illegitimate children (”I don't need a husband, the government is my husband.”), promoting sexual promiscuity through the schools, promoting the homosexual agenda through the schools, through “civil rights” laws, etc., the legalization of total abortion on demand, do you think none of these policies contribute to illegitimacy?
The social problems ultimately cause the fiscal problems. Focusing exclusively on the fiscal problems is like having a hole in your boat and focusing all your attention to bailing the water and none of your attention to patching up the hole.
I'm having an intense sense of deja vu. I remember four years ago, all the Rudyites criticizing me for refusing to consider to vote for him, because, after all, terrorism was an “existential threat” to our nation - unlike the social issues - and we wouldn't survive as a nation without Mr. Giuliani.
They got it backwards, too.
I will continue to look at Gov. Daniels. I might even vote for him. He has a good record as governor, and like I said, if “truce” means enacting conservative social legislation, I can live with that.
But I'm unwilling to accede to the baloney that fiscal issues trump social issues.
Just don't buy it.
sitetest
You remember 2008 a little different than I do. Operation Chaos was pro Hillary, designed to stop Obama especially in PA, in order to keep those 2 spending money, keeping their race going longer, keeping them attacking each other. But my memory is fuzzy there. Pretty sure it was pro Hillary, not pro Obama, but I could be wrong there.
“Plus he buckled to the public unions when WI-type reform was tried there, IIRC.”
You do not remember correctly.
On the FIRST DAY of his term in office, Gov. Daniels signed an executive order decertifying the unions representing public workers in Indiana. With regard to public employee unions, this went far further than what Gov. Walker was able to achieve in Wisconsin.
sitetest
You're correct in your memory. Originally, it was to help Mrs. Clinton, who had lost a long string of primaries/caucuses.
However, Mr. Limbaugh called a “pause” in late April 2008, possibly aiding the Kenyan anti-Christ to put the nomination away.
sitetest
What assertion? you are pushing a Daniel’s like candidate.
Listening to you talk about Rush just made that truly soak in for me, that Daniels might just suit you fine.
OMG........That seriously should have had a drink warning issued there LOL...... my brand new keyboard has mt dew spit all over it........
< if he’s NOT standing on a box > and it also reminds me of Legolas asking Gimli if he should get him a box to see......
Thanks for the laugh. Surely needed it ~
Rush was brutal and direct about what a disaster Daniels would be !
Yes, which is why I say we must elect the right political leader who is devoted to decreasing the deficit. This alone will do a tremendous job of re-shaping our culture.
To the degree we get someone who is dedicated to decreasing retirement entitlements, for example, I think that's the degree to which family/social issues will improve.
However, no amount of philosophizing about religious or morality from that same leader at this point will do the trick. In fact, the MSM jumps on philisophical statements and the left tears them apart. But if the same leader gives common sense fical solutions, I believe he/she will be more protected from that destructive MSM force which is always straining to make everything a moral issue (they love an excuse to tear down the religious).
Keep the laser on the fiscal issues as Daniels is proposing. Of course there's room for SOME moral discussion and should be...but I think we need to consider the prospect of allowing the next Chief Executive to make the main focus the fiscal and not get distracted.
A point to go along with this. You say:
Do you think that an illegitimacy rate pushing 40% isn't a social disaster in the US?
Of course. And what largely causes such a dynamic? It was FEDERAL entitlement legislation which grants women MORE money for having kids out of wedlock. Along with Roe V. Wade at the FEDERAL level introduced by liberals. Increase federal entitlement money and social ills will always follow.
If Daniels coul break apart the blocs of money at the Federal level which are feeding social ills and channel it back to the states I think that will do more for illegitimate kids than any amount of philosophizing he does from the bully pulpit on the subject.
I think he knows this approach is the most effective which is why he's already hinting that the deficit will be far and away his first priority. He's not ignoring social ills; he knows this is the most effective way to treat social ills.
The assertion you and Rush are making is that Gov. Daniels is no damned good.
I've failed to see the argument made that that is the case. Rush certainly didn't make the argument in the transcript to which you linked.
Even now, your “argument,” such as it is, begs the question:
“What assertion? you are pushing a Daniel’s like candidate.”
An unspoken premise of your assertion is that Daniels is just no damned good.
The problem is, that's the question that needs to be proved - you can't make that an underlying premise of your argument.
By the way, I'm not actually pushing any candidate. I've just said I'm willing to consider Gov. Daniels. And if he's the nominee, I may just vote for him. That's not "pushing" a candidate.
sitetest
“Yes, which is why I say we must elect the right political leader who is devoted to decreasing the deficit. This alone will do a tremendous job of re-shaping our culture.”
That's not how it looks to me.
Boat. Hole. Bailing. Not patching.
sitetest
Rush made the argument today that the Rinos and the dems both are pushing Mitch Daniels. Why? If the dems want him it’s because they think he is the weakest candidate to face off obama. Read Rush thread for today.
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.