IF DANIELS RUNS?

Dick Morris .com ^ | May 9,2011 | Dick Morris

[campaignPete R-CT]

here is the argument somebody will have to rebut:
1. I, along with others here, only FIGHT the social issues fight.
2. Mitch wants a truce, so he is fighting some other fight, not the social issues fight.
3. Mitch must understand that, therefore, his fight is not my fight and there is no reason for me to spend time fighting to get him the nommination.
4. Even Mitch would agree that there is no reason for a social conservative like myself to support him in the primary season.

also, since he will have folks other than social conservatives manning his campaign, then he does not need my help in the primaries, if he wins, he will have won without me ... so he don’t need me. And if he loses, did he really expect social conservatives to come out of the woodwork to save his failing campaign?

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

A) Daniels was the architect of Bush’s deficits. Tax cuts, NCLB, Medicare drug program, Iraq war under estimated, etc. etc. He was the OMB director. He might be able to run as a fiscal conservative in the primary election. He won’t in the general election.

B) One could easily make a counter argument to yours in that the reason why the social structure of our society is so bad is because we are living in a time of fiscal self indulgence. Imagine if the 10% of GDP deficits were gotten rid of. A lot of irresponsible people would have to make responsible decisions.

[org.whodat]

Not voting for lugars former butt boy, nope, not gonna do it.

[Lakeshark]

Short, bald, boring, cedes the PR battle to the left and is very inconsistent.

Your kind of candidate.

[org.whodat]

Yes, but in a pinch he would make a great golf T.

[Eva]

Inconsistent is the key word. Mitch Daniels decertified public unions in Indiana when he took office then did not support the Wisconsin governor for taking a similar action.

[MontaniSemperLiberi]

Why? I think it’s because as Bush’s OMB director, he can’t run against Obama as a fiscal conservative.

[Lakeshark]

Rush destroyed the MSM article that was pushing Daniels today. I'm sorry, the man is so wishy washy I hope he doesn't gain traction. He's a perfect candidate to lose to Bambi. He won't confront, won't run a spirited campaign, and won't ever win. A pale pastel is not what we need right now.

[Eva]

I think that is exactly the advice that some public relations consultant gave Rick Santorum after he lost his Senate seat. Santorum has been working on sounding tougher ever since and I think that he has been over doing. it.

The toughness needs to be accompanied by a modicum of humor, preferably, self deprecating humor. If Santorum could laugh at himself, he would do a whole lot better.

[Georgia Girl 2]

We just don’t want ya Mitch.

[Clintonfatigued]

The “truce on social issues” remark was a gaffe for sure, pandering to the media IMHO. If he is the nominee, he needs a strong conservative running mate to buttress his credibility.

[okie01]

If he is the nominee, he needs a strong conservative running mate to buttress his credibility.

People who need to have their credibility buttressed generally don't have the convictions to acquire credibility.

[campaignPete R-CT]

I don’t think it was a gaffe. It was pre-meditated.

But the GOP primary is an intramural battle. Our goal right now should be to DEFEAT Mitch and Mitt (not to destroy them). If we cannot defeat Mitch, he is our nominee and we couldn’t destroy him if we wanted to. If Mitch wins the nomination, HE will have to successfully bring social conservatives into his coalition, even if they are unenthusiastic.

I do not see any purpose in starting the race with the presumption that Mitch gonna win, therefore we better start figuring out a way to make nice with him so we can jump aboard his bandwagon. He gotta beat us first before he is in a position to tell us to get in line.

Frankly, I see no reason to believe that he is trustworthy on judges. I assume he’s got the next Souter ready, until he provides some evidence otherwise. I trusted McCain on judges more than Romney and McCain was not entirely trustworthy cause he had guys like Warren Rudman on his team. If Daniels has Sununu on the team, which he will, I would be justified in assuming the worst.

[AuH2ORepublican]

A conservative who can win the Iowa Caucuses and place in NH? Sounds like Tim Pawlenty.

[campaignPete R-CT]

gold, after all this time I still cannot rememeber if you are a chicago GOPer.

Pawlenty is trying to fill that role, but he is floundering it seems. No inspired followers.

It is hard to believe, but at the McCain victory party in Manchester NH (or was I in Nashua?), there were 800 conservatives jumping around cheering. I saw no difference between that crowd and the Buchanan victory party in ‘96. It was a populist uprising for McCain vs. Romney the same as it was for McCain vs. Bush in NH in ‘00.

It is very odd to think that McCain, of all people, managed to get the grassroots riled up for himself. But can you imagine it happening for Pawlenty? No, I cannot see it.

Which means he ain’t going nowhere in ‘12.

[GOYAKLA]

I could/would vote for Jack or Charlie but don’t think of any others.

[curiosity]

I'm deeply bothered by a candidate who would essentially start his campaign by publicly insulting half his base, telling them he won't support their issues.

But that's not what he said. He said he would prioritize fiscal issues over social issues, which I think is very prudent given the magnitude of the looming fiscal crisis.

Politics is about priorities. Not every interest group within the GOP can have its issues prioritized. That's just the reality. I suggest you get used to it.

Besides, there is very little a president can do at the Federal level, anyway, until SCOTUS overturns some bad precedents.

It amazes me how touchy-feely social conservatives have become, wherein they get so easily offended and insulted when a candidate fails to pay them lip service as is honest with them.

Look at it this way. Every GOP president to date has largely focused on things other than social issues when it came to his national policy agenda, even as his paid lip service to the SoCons. Can you seriously point to anything that Reagan, Bush I or Bush II actually accomplished to advance the SoCon agenda, other than giving a bunch of nice-sounding speaches to SoCon audiences?

At least Daniels is being honest with you.

[okie01]

He said he would prioritize fiscal issues over social issues, which I think is very prudent given the magnitude of the looming fiscal crisis.

That may have been what he meant. But he said "call a truce over social issues", which translates to I won't fight for them. Yet, we can be absolutely certain that the Democrats are not going to respect any "truce" over social issues and will maintain their attack on that front.

Besides, there is very little a president can do at the Federal level, anyway, until SCOTUS overturns some bad precedents.

DADT and DOMA are at the federal level. So is de-funding of Planned Parenthood. How would they fare under his "truce"?

It amazes me how touchy-feely social conservatives have become, wherein they get so easily offended and insulted when a candidate fails to pay them lip service as is honest with them.

Please, don't patronize me. For one thing, most social conservatives probably wouldn't consider me a social conservative. But I respect their views. For another, I would've been in agreement IF Daniels had said he was "going to prioritize fiscal issues" over other issues.

But that's NOT what he said. At the very least, Daniels used very poor political judgment in his choice of words. At worst, he doesn't think the social issues are important and doesn't respect the people who believe they are.

Did he simply make a misjudgment? Or did he give us a glimpse into his political soul?

[Chunga]

At least Daniels is being honest with you.

Why do you insist on being such a chump, curiosity?

So now we know, per your excellent analysis, that Daniels is being honest with those of us who aren't you.

Is he being honest with you, as well?

[Polybius]

He would definitely deemphasize social issues. Which would probably broaden his appeal but obviously not among social conservatives. Still, regardless of protest to the contrary if the race came down to Daniels vs Obama I suspect most conservatives would vote for Daniels in a heartbeat.

You do not win the social issues battle by beating Independents over the head with those issues, losing the general election and then getting ultra-liberal Justices like 57 year old Sonia Sotomayor and 51 year old Elena Kagan appointed to the Supreme Court for life.

You win the social issues battle by broadening your appeal with Independents, winning the general election and then appointing conservative Supreme Court Justices for life.

The social conservatives who love to play the Holier-Than-Thou Card have to decide whether it is more important to them to actually win the social issues battle or to brag on the street corner about how morally superior they are when compared to the majority of American voters.

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." . .... Matthew 6:5