« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Mitch Daniels Declares Surrender

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  June 11th, 2010 at 11:03 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I have had great hopes for the Governor of Indiana running for President. Signs are starting to point to a run and in the process Daniels is signaling he is not so much a leader as a technocratic wonk and not so much driven by fiscal conservative principles as by bureaucratically generated data.

A leader would not pick an unnecessary fight with social conservatives before even starting a run for office unless he wanted to start out by marginalizing social conservatives.

Daniels, speaking to reporters in Washington last week, said he wanted to declare a “truce” on social issues with the left. Daniels wants to focus on fiscal issues in Washington. However, in so doing, Daniels is signaling he is not so much of a principled fiscal conservative as he is a technocratic policy wonk.

When asked if he would reinstate the “Mexico City Policy,” which Ronald Reagan put in place to ban federal funding of abortions overseas, Daniels responded “I don’t know.”

If you are really a fiscal conservative, how can you say you don’t know? Why exactly should the federal government spend money funding abortions overseas? How exactly is that fiscally conservative? Well, it’s not.

I would like to think this is Daniels strategically trying to cast himself as a reasonable man for the media, while still maintaining ties to the socially conservative community. If so, he failed.

More troubling, he failed flat out as a leader. The left will not declare a truce, which means Daniels wants to surrender. Social conservatives won’t declare a truce, which means he starts an internal fight for the heart and soul of the party.

Yes, the next President of the United States needs to focus on fiscal issues. But the next Republican nominee will win not by being fiscally conservative at the expense of social conservatives, but by healing the wounds and divisions between the two groups.

Mitch Daniels does not appear to be that man. If he is going to further split the right by unilaterally surrendering on one half of the coalition’s issues, he cannot be allowed to be President of the United States.

And ultimately, if a politician is willing to compromise on life, what else will that politician compromise on? Policy wonks are data driven, not driven by principle — that makes him neither fiscally nor socially conservative. What do I mean? There are some times in life data says a politician should do something, but principle says it must be avoided. It is tougher to stick with the principles in those cases. Policy wonks will always choose the data at the expense of principle because fiscal policy wonks are always looking for efficiencies, regardless of constitutional authority.

Mitch Daniels needs to better explain himself or he becomes both a nonstarter and opens us up to social conservatives hitching their wagon to Huckabee 2012 and potentially seeing the fiscal guys and social guys totally separate.

Tags:
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • RINKER

    …but I told you so. He is not one of us.
    He tried to massively raise taxes early in his administration. When a politician yields so easily on some CORE BELIEFS, they cannot be trusted.

  • BlueStateSaint

    He was my pick for 2012. Bummer.

  • acat

    He was promising on paper, but like so many, when it’s time to really step up, he backs away.

    2012 is still a long way off, and perhaps by then a “policy wonk” is what will be needed – I doubt it, though.

    Alas.

    Mew

  • chihank

    When Daniels ran for Governor in 2004 & 2008, he was endorsed by the IN Right to Life. As Governor did sign restrictions on abortion. So Daniels is not pro-choice like a Rudy Giuliani. That said, I am disappointed in Daniels’s statements. However I am annoyed at the transparent cheap shots that Huckabee is throwing at Daniels to portray himself as the “Christian Tea Party Leader”.

    Despite Daniels’s comments, I prefer him to the 2008 Retreads.

  • earlgrey
  • Bill S

    That was a quick campaign.

  • GopTiger

    A few months back when Erik was posting the glories of Mitch Daniels, I too pointed out that Daniels had shown his “true colors” when he tried to get a substantial tax increase passed when he took office. Of course, some posters on this forum, immediately whacked me for not enthusiastically drinking the kool-aid.

    Of course, I always thought Daniels biggest problem would be the fact he is…how can I put this…”charisma challenged”. Might not mean much to me or you or the other true believers, but it does with that 10% slice of the population that will decide the election in 2012.

    I want to beat Obama as much as any of you. I have considered them all; Palin, Romney, Pawlenty, Gingrich, Paul, Huckabee, Daniels, Jindal. And everytime I keep coming up with the same candidate: John Thune. Eventually, I think the rest of you will arrive at the same conclusion. Imagine Thune leading the ticket with a Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio in the VP slot.
    It is time to pass the torch to a new generation of electable, principled conservatives.

    And one more thing. Thanks, Erik. Thanks for being man enough to admit your initial impressions about Daniels were wrong.

  • http://truthupfront.blogspot.com jsanzone

    There’s still some time for him to salvage his conservative credentials. His heart is ultimately in the right place, and hey, he might be right after all, that first we have to “save the republic” before we can spend political capital focusing on things that won’t matter anyway once we devolve into a third-world hell. Maybe?

  • HawkImNot

    IN’s economy? He turned a big deficit into an even bigger surplus.

    State health care policy? Best in the country.

    70% popularity in a state that went for Obama in 08.

    GOPTiger thinks he’s “charisma challenged”. Regardless of the idiocy of that particular statement, I’d take Daniels everyman demeanor over the “charisma” of the current president. And if he thinks Thune is the “charisma” candidate, I guess I should update the dictionary on my shelf.

    I assume the fact the he’s concerned more with the country’s impending fiscal doom more so than what Mexicans are doing with their unborn children makes him, in Erick’s words, a “technocratic policy wonk.” In my view it just makes him sane.

  • RINKER

    If his first gut reaction is to surrender on taxes or social issues, I don’t want him.

  • Icythus

    Part of me believes that, to paraphrase former French President Jacques Chirac, Mitch Daniels missed an excellent opportunity to shut the h&ll up.

    Another part of me is glad he showed his hand so early, before anyone got seriously invested in his campaign (unlike, say, Mitt Romney).

    Oh well, I guess after November I can always start up a Draft Cheney movement. ;-)

  • redneck_hippie

    Yes, perception becomes the reality. Therefore, badly managed, and needs to be re-thought.

    I’d give him a pass. Can he win with some half-baked “middle way?” Not in my book.

    I just don’t see how the “truce” comment is a game ender. People need to see results in order to believe in genuineness. Throwing mud at social conservatism isn’t demonstrating ability except an ability to kow tow. If Daniels doesn’t have anything nice to say about social conservatism, he should just shut up.

  • RINKER

    it is next to IMPOSSIBLE for a Republican to come from nowhere to win the Presidential nomination. Republicans ALWAYS nominate the “next in line”. Whether that is Palin, Huckabee, or Romney, I don’t know. I agree with Palin the most, but don’t know if 2012 is her time. Romney seems like the best candidate from an outside point of view (definitely not as a true conservative). To sum it up – I’m totally undecided. Who I DON’T want at any cost: Mike “tax-and-spend” Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani.

  • michiganwolverine

    I received an astonishing email today from a concerned friend who has been very influential in the fight to end the scourge of abortion.

    Apparently, a 2012 Republican presidential prospect in an interview with a reporter has made the suggestion that the next President should call for a ?truce? on social issues like abortion and traditional marriage to focus on fiscal problems.

    In other words, stop fighting to end abortion and don?t make protecting traditional marriage a priority.

    Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues. They are moral issues. I didn?t get involved in politics just to lower taxes and cut spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization.

    For those of us who have labored long and hard in the fight to educate the Democrats, voters, the media and even some Republicans on the importance of strong families, traditional marriage and life to our society, this is absolutely heartbreaking. And that one of our Republican ?leaders? would suggest this truce, even more so. Governor Daniels is a personal friend and a terrific Governor, and I?m very disappointed that he would think that pro-life and pro-family activists would just lie down.

    Are you ready to stop fighting for traditional marriage? I cannot. I will not.

    Can you let the tragedy of abortion go unchecked while we get our financial house in order? I cannot. I will not.

    A strong leader doesn?t need to focus myopically on one or two issues ? but a strong leader is willing to fight for and defend their principles while rising to meet new challenges and solve all of the existing systemic problems confronting us.

    For me these issues are critical. Indeed they are founding principles of my personal conservatism and part of the ideological foundation of the Republican Party. If you agree, I am asking you to help me send a signal.

    https://www.huckpac.com/?Fuseaction=Con … rCode=2012

  • euskalherria

    I still choose Daniels.

  • LibertarianHawk

    In fact, it’s a version of something I’ve been arguing for a long time. I’ve been saying that conservatives need to agree to move most social issues to the states.

    Daniels is simply saying that we need a *temporary* truce (the word temporary is important here).

    Now, everybody absolutely must understand that, as Governor, Mitch Daniels has a pristine record on life issues. This is not some social liberal coming and saying that the Republican Party needs to capitulate or moderate on social issues.

    His point is one of simple political pragmatism: if we’re divided over this and other social issues, then we aren’t going to be able to stand united on anything else.

    And we’re going to need to stay united.

    Daniels is absolutely spot-on right. And social conservatives would do well — very well — to give him the benefit of the doubt. He’s not your enemy.

    I remember when GWB was taken to task in 2000 for saying that the country “wasn’t ready” to outlaw abortion. This propelled Gary Bauer into the Republican primary. It caused Dr. Dobson to float the idea of backing a third party candidacy.

    In the end, Bush survived and got elected. And what did social conservatives get for it? Well, among other things, Justices Alito and Roberts.

    The perfect should not be the enemy of the good. It’s a lesson that’s a good one for all of us. But it seems particularly apt here.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You do know what TEA stands for right?

    When Huckabee went to the Democrats and begged them to raise any taxes they wanted, he proved himself an OPPONENT of the TEA Party principles.

  • jenniferjmilleresq

    I don’t like Gingrich at all and Huckabee is not looking less viable to me. IJ think the strongest candidate is obvious and am waiting for everyone to admit it.

  • GopTiger

    Nice try, but I never said Thune was the “charisma” candidate. He is however extremely smooth on television,athletic, and attractive. Electing a president isn’t American Idol, but you do need an attractive persona to be elected to the highest office in the land. Ask Steve Forbes.

    Thune, in my view, is the only candidate who can unite the various factions of the party: social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, the Wal-Marters, the Country Clubbers, the Midwest, the South, etc.

    Daniels, by his own statements, has already failed this test.

    Considering your sarcasm, I’ll reply in kind: you do know that almost every other governor has been able to balance their state’s budget as well, don’t you? And you do know his initial solution was raisint taxes, don’t you?

  • michiganwolverine

    The saying is As goes California, so goes the Nation.

    But lets say As goes Mass, so goes the Nation.

    That would mean we would get Romneycare in every state, gay marriage in every state, and $50 co-pay for abortion in every state.

    Romney was the governor when all of that happened. Imagine it happening to every state as well.

    No to Romney.

  • LibertarianHawk

    Daniels has not governed Indiana as a social moderate — let alone a social liberal.

    He said, early on in his administration, he’d sign a law if the General Assembly passed it, which would effectively ban abortion (in pre-emptive anticipation of a Roe v. Wade reversal). He also signed several pieces of legislation strongly favored by the Right to Life movement.

    Daniels is NOT a Giuliani. He’s not even a Romney or a McCain.

    He’s making a very simple, politically pragmatic point. It’s up to us to take it or leave it. But I think his point is that, if we leave it, it will be counter-productive to the life movement’s interests.

    And I’d say he’s probably right about that.

    Huckabee casts Daniels’ suggestion as demanding that social conservatives to make concessions on their core values.

    He’s done nothing of the sort. Rather, he’s endorsing the Tea Party’s basic view that, at this time in our nation’s history, we’ve GOT to be united on fiscal and economic matters rather than focusing on that which divides us.

    Instead, he’s

  • RedBeard

    Leftists want nothing to do with diminishing federal government power, and are scared to death of states’ rights.

    Secondly, leftists will never give an inch on their agenda, at any level of government.

    With whom, then, is Daniels trying to work a truce?

    I’m saddened by this, because Daniels has wounded himself badly with this ill-advised, and frankly ridiculous, suggestion.

  • LibertarianHawk

    It takes a lot of chutzpah for Huckabee to say these things.

    His 2008 campaign was steeped in left-of-center economic populism.

    And he’s horribly mischaracterized Daniels’ point. Make no mistake about it, folks: Gov. Daniels is the real deal. He’s what the country needs right now.

    We cast him aside at the peril of our party, our movement, and (most importantly) our nation.

  • LibertarianHawk

    …what are your thoughts about Ronald Reagan?

  • LibertarianHawk

    Aside from Chris Christie — who took power in the midst of a veritable fiscal crisis in New Jersey — how many politicians can you name who are genuinely devoted to reduced spending and have the record to show that commitment?

    Not many. Daniels hasn’t just talked about spending less — and about *alternative* ways to raise public funds (such as leasing the Indiana Toll Road, which raised nearly $4 billion for the state) — he can actually point to very real instances of doing it.

    He’s what we need — I promise you.

  • GopTiger

    Is Daniels trying to the Evan Bayh of the GOP?

    If so, he will get about as far as Bayh: state-wide office and nothing else.

    We have been told Daniels is smart. Perhaps.

    But just how smart is it to immediately pick a fight with the people you want to support you?

    This suggest a kind of arrogance that we have seen much too often over the past year and a half.

  • redtillimdead

    He was the candidate I supported because I thought he had the best chance of winning. Now IDK who to support. I don’t see Pawlenty being able to win, not a Huck fan, Romney has ObamaCare issues. Maybe Rick Perry?

  • HawkImNot

    At least 46 states face or have faced shortfalls for the upcoming fiscal year (FY 2011, which will begin July 1 in most states). These come on top of the large shortfalls that 48 states faced in their current budgets (FY 2010).

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711

    Keep *$%^%% that chicken, genius. Sarcasm implied.

    And the point of raising taxes is a valid one, albeit not the point – he has a proven record of turning AROUND an economy. My understanding of economics is mature enough to understand that “no tax increase ever!1!!!” isn’t the wisest course of action in every instance.

    Next.

  • IJB

    Anyone who’s not a three-legged conservative is going to get nowhere with most of us going into 2012 – that’s why most of the 2008 people are already disqualified: they’re deficient on at least one of the three legs.

    Daniels is just another one to add to the ‘deficient’ list.

    But if you’re not firing on all cylinders, you’re not worth our time – the battle we wage isn’t just about $$$ and cents: it’s about culture as well.

    Anyone who doesn’t get that is wasting our time.

  • nepanyrush

    I also do not want Romney. He was my candidate last time, but since then I see him as a weather vane who, if he has deeply felt principles, is all too willing to suspend them to get votes. I also have some personal experiences with him, which I do not want to get into, that suggest his decision making appears to be tied to getting elected rather than principle. But to be fair, he sounds good on economic issues and I do feel that he is opposed to gay marriage. He fought it but what can you do when the courts rule differently?

    Of all the candidates, I resonate most with Palin. In fact, she would be my ideal president and has more guts than any of the other candidates. But I do not feel she is electable because of the animosity she generates in so much of the media and even on the Republican side.

  • texasgalt

    Sure, the Dems will be happy to get along . . . as long as they get THEIR way.

    You’re out Mitch. We need a “war time” President.

  • LibertarianHawk

    But I can speak for me….

    I’m thinking specifically of people like Scott Brown. Brown is, of course, strongly pro-choice. You don’t win statewide election in Massachusetts any other way…which is precisely why Mitt Romney was, too, when he was wooing Massachusetts voters.

    See, I think that Sen. Brown and I would essentially agree on most things. But we disagree on abortion. And it would be counterproductive in those areas we *do* agree for us to come to a stalemate in areas where we don’t.

    Now, I can try to convince him (and, more importantly, those he represents) so as to claim a total victory. Or I can work pragmatically to advance my agenda in different ways.

    So I would approach the Scott Browns of the world and say “What if you and I agreed that abortion is a matter that belongs in the states? We’ll never agree on the underlying issue. And, well, I don’t like the status quo. But we might be able to get a lot done together if we can get this point of contention behind us in a way that doesn’t require *either* of us to dilute our beliefs.”

    Obviously, that would require him capitulating on Roe v. Wade — even while still supporting the legality of abortion.

    Are there enough pro-choice types out there who are, otherwise, not die-hard liberals who could sign on to this such that it might have some impact?

    I think so, yes. You’d be amazed at the number of pro-choicers I’ve talked to who have conceded that Roe and Griswold are predicated upon an unsupportable analysis of law.

  • LibertarianHawk

    They’re receiving what he said as picking a fight.

    Thing is: he’s on *their* side (our side, your side, my side). Daniels is not a pro-choice Republican. He’s been strongly supported by Indiana Right to Life in both of his elections. And he’s taken tangible actions as governor to earn that support.

    I think people need to think a bit harder about what precisely he’s saying. And perhaps he should flesh it out a little more to help them.

    Basically he’s not saying anything different than GWB said in 2000 when he took heat for saying that the country “wasn’t ready” to make abortion illegal.

    That comment prompted Gary Bauer to get into the race — as well as consternation of James Dobson and others. That, of course, was their prerogative. But, in the end, perhaps the best aspect of George W. Bush’s legacy as president are going to be Justices Alito and Roberts.

    Think people. Don’t react — think. There’s a place for pragmatism.

    Sarah Palin seems to get this — which is why she endorsed Carly Fiorina. Instead of rounding up the circular firing squad when actions of political pragmatism are offered, why not instead approach them in good faith in stead of lashing out in horror?

  • LibertarianHawk

    He’s not a three-legged conservative.

    I can’t repeat enough: Daniels has been presented several pieces of definitively pro-life legislation since he’s been governor. He’s signed every single one of them.

    He fought off a lawsuit by the Indiana Civil Liberties Union over a “Choose Life” license plate that he approved.

    He made it clear that he would sign a pre-emptive piece of legislation outlawing abortion, in anticipation of Roe’s reversal, if the General Assembly would pass it.

    I’m going to scream this until I’m blue in face: he is NOT a social moderate (or, for that matter, liberal) in the mold of Giuliani, McCain, Romney or whomever.

    Instead, he’s saying that we’ve all — as conservatives, as Republicans — got to employ a little bit of strategy if we want to advance our cause.

    And that very much includes the causes of social conservatism.

    Can we PLEASE stop letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? It’s our biggest Achilles Heel as a movement. And I can’t figure out, for the life of me, why we can’t seem to get over that hump.

    As soon as we do get over that hump, I think we’ll start seeing more progress on our agenda.

    The left is better than we are at this…which is why they always seem to be advancing the ball. Maybe not as far and as fast as some of them would like.

    But most touchdowns don’t come on one or two big plays. Most of them are the result of many plays — some small gains, some small losses…but always moving in the right direction.

    There is absolutely no deficiency in Mitch Daniels’ conservative bona fides. I assure you. I’m as conservative as they come and have been watching him up close for 6 years now.

    Ask Marlin Stutzman what he thinks of Mitch Daniels.

  • redneck_hippie

    concerned. The statement does seem ill-considered, however. No politician is going to succeed in convincing people committed to life to stop fighting for it. What is at issue here is whether Daniels will allow himself to be cast aside by social conservatives or not. Inviting Huckabee to take the field on his one issue is dumb. It’s not whether Daniels is right on his priorities or wrong. Why on Earth is he alienating the very people he would need in order to be nominated? Has he forgotten that he has to win the Republican primary?

    If the “truce” is a political calculation, I think he miscalculated. Wallets are already closing and we’re over 2 years away from the primaries. I remember how so cons deserted Fred when he refused to mouth the Romney-Huckabee pap on amending the constitution. Daniels needs to start making his case for federalism, not deserting the field and letting the Huckabots run amok.

    We will see if there is a candidate out there who can move the country in the direction of federalism, now that we have seen what one-party centralization has done. If Daniels is willing to lose out in order to support federalism, I say so be it. But calling the truce does smack of appeasement when not explained as a return to fundamental principles of small government, consent of the governed and the return of decisions to the localities close to we the people.

  • LibertarianHawk

    Yes, absolutely, let’s do the smart thing and nominate a candidate with no chance of winning.

    Look, I have absolutely no interest in replaying the nightmare of the McCain campaign (or the Dole ’96 campaign).

    I’m no less conservative (on most issues) than anybody else here and every bit as interested in seeing conservatism advanced as anybody else here.

    But it doesn’t do us a damn bit of good to lose with a more full-throated, full-frontal assault. Now, if we could actually win with a full-throated, full-frontal assault, I’m all in.

    But, first, we’ve got to win. If we don’t do that, then it really doesn’t matter. We’ll be replacing Justice Kennedy (and perhaps Scalia as well, he’s no spring chicken) with somebody nominated by a liberal Democrat president.

    Is that really what everybody here wants? I hope not.

    In our political system, there are no points for second place. It’s high time we all learned that (sometimes hard) reality.

  • HawkImNot

    do nothing but demonstrate why he wants to call a truce on stuff like this – it’s the equivalent of standing in the kitchen arguing with your spouse about how to raise your kids while the house burns down around you.

    It’s a helluva lot easier to advance your social agenda when you aren’t worried about how you are going to finance next week’s grocery shopping. But let’s assassinate a popular governor’s character over a non-committal statement on abortions in Mexico instead.

  • GopTiger

    There have been times when I have had to go to youtube and just watch Reagan clips just to get through the day. Unfortunately, we won’t find another Gipper.

    I am in agreement with much of the other posters. Each of the major candidates-Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty, Paul, Rudy, etc. have major substantive or aesthetic problems. I too am looking for a “fresh face”, who is 1) a principled conservative, 2) can unite the party and various conservative factions, 3) extremely comfortable with the medium of television, and 4) has “experience”.

    I also think it is also important to pick a candidate who will be hard for the Democrats to demonize. Now, obviously, like with Reagan, they will try. But everytime you saw Reagan on television, you couldn’t help but like the man and the over-the-top liberals rants about him melted away, or at least it did with middle America.

    For all the above stated reasons, I support Thune and I do believe he will be the nominee. Paul Ryan is another great, next generation conservative leader whom I also admire and would love to see on the ticket. If you want a budgetary wonk on the ticket, there is your guy!

    I’ll also say this, and I’m sure I’ll catch some flak, but it must be said. The GOP desperately needs a candidate in 2012 who can go toe-to-toe with Obama for the under-30 vote. I’m sorry if it bothers some of you, but Romney, Huckabee, Daniels, and Gingrich are not going to be able to do that. Palin will not run in 2012, so I am left with trying to find a candidate who can. Of all the potential candidates, only John Thune has the experiene, the television persona,and the optimistic conservatism to do this. And his movie start good looks will be a refreshing change after 20 years of Dole, Bush 41, and McCain.

  • LibertarianHawk

    He said we need a united front on the fiscal matters that are absolutely, positively URGENT. If these things aren’t addressed — and in the right way, and soon — then the rest of these questions really don’t matter a whole lot.

    We’ve got to make sure we have a country before we can busy ourselves with what the country looks like.

    This was the lesson of Madison, Jefferson, etal when they (reluctantly) agreed to accommodate slavery in the Constitution. The left uses that, to this day, to invalidate virtually everything else they stood for.

    But what these great men understood was that, without the support of the southern slave states, the new, fragile union would crumble apart before it had the opportunity to even stand.

    That didn’t mean that fierce anti-slavery patriots had to surrender or stop fighting for their beliefs whatsoever. It simply meant the debates had to be put on the backburner while other, more pressing, matters were tended to.

    And they needed unity to tend to them.

    That’s precisely what Daniels is saying here. And he’s right.

    This is not Arlen Specter saying “The Republican Party needs to move to the center if it wants to survive.”

    He’s saying: let’s pick our battles wisely right now…..because there are certain things which unite Republicans and conservatives and certain things which divide us. And now’s no time to be divided.

    Michael Patrick Leahy, one of the leaders of the Tea Party movement, made a very similar point — responding to a broadside by Bruce Bartlett on the Tea Party — yesterday.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/bruce_bartletts_intellectually.html

    We should all take a deep breath and read it. He’s NOT saying that anybody has to surrender or moderate their views. He’s saying that we’ve got to be and stay united in the face of a potentially fatal perfect storm that’s approaching.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    And yet, if we said we were going to give up on the full frontal assault starting with caving on taxes and spending… I bet you wouldn’t be so sanguine on being squishy.

  • LibertarianHawk

    …is that Reagan raised taxes, too.

    It’s true. He cut some and he raised others. The FICA rates we pay today — 7.65% from both the employee and the employer — were signed into law by Ronald Reagan. They were lower than that when he took office.

    He also got rid of a whole bunch of tax shelters…which is another form of raising taxes.

    And, you know what, I think Reagan was a fantastic president — and far more pragmatic than many people (friend and foe) care to remember.

    Daniels did raise the sales tax in Indiana by 1% — but only alongside a commensurate reduction in property taxes.

    His most lasting legacy as governor, though, will be his belt-tightening. The guy is a genuine penny-pincher the likes of which I’ve never seen in high office before.

    And what’s best is that he approaches that endeavor not in a slash-and-burn mentality (that could be used against him politically), but in a creative way.

    Does anybody realize how uncommon it is for a governor who has cut hundreds of millions from education spending to maintain a 65% approval rating?

    He’s utterly bulletproof to the Democrats.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you’re a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt.

    Because you just removed all doubt.

  • HawkImNot

    Refuted nothing, left tactic of slinging insults at the messenger and not the message, and proved that you sniff glue while posting about Google and how it’s going to take over the planet.

    See what I did there?

  • GopTiger

    In 2012, when GOP candidate Daniels (let’s use our imagination) begins to talk about all the taxes Barack Obama supported in 2011 after his Deficit Commission endorsed the VAT and several hundred more tax increases, I am not exactly sure how Governor Daniels when Obama respond, “Well, Mitch, I tried to raise taxes to balance the budget precisely like you did in Indiana.”

    The problem with Daniels is exactly the problem with Romney: they both have tacitly endorsed Obama’s solutions (tax increases, healthcare) to our nation’s biggest problems.

    Of course, this is an academic discussion considering we both know Daniels is toast now.

    That said, it would be interesting to see how Daniels makes this truce with liberals on Supreme Court nominees, federal judges and Justice Department officials.HOW DOES THIS TRUCE WORK, Mitch?

    Next.

  • ssohara

    I don’t think he’s saying we (conservatives) have to compromise with liberals. But he’s saying that there are many flavors of fiscal conservative. There are some who are Libertarian, some who are Scott Brown types, some who are hard-core social conservatives, etc. He’s saying we can all at least agree on the fiscal issues, why not just agree to disagree on the social ones for now.

    Once we are out of the mess we are in fiscally, we can start arguing about social issues again. I see this as a pragmatic position given that, if all the fiscal conservatives united, we could get rid of Obama and his socialist brethren. But if we remain divided because of social issues, we will get another four years of Obama.

    I remember arguing with a friend of mine who would not vote for McCain because McCain cheated on his first wife. I said, “Sure, and I’d prefer a non-adulterer myself, but since the alternative is a socialist…” Well, she voted Obama anyway, because Obama never cheated. And now she regrets not holding her nose and voting McCain.

    My thoughts on Daniels – you can look at his historic positions. Did he ever flip-flop on abortion as Governor, or did he lead in a consistent, pro-life fashion? Since it seems he was consistently pro-life, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

    Bottom line,though, at this point in time I’d vote for a rattlesnake over Obama.

  • RINKER

    Mitt Romney – good on economic issues & foreign policy, but Romneycare is a disaster for the GOP

    Sarah Palin – excites the base but independents are wary

    Mike Huckabee – Tax-and-spender in Arky

    Tim Pawlenty – supported SCHIP as Gov.

    Newt Gingrich – 3 wives and waved the white flag when Obama was elected (initially)

    Anyone else and voters will say, “WHO????”
    Where do we go from here?

  • ciscoguy

    The good news is that there have been some rumors swirling that John Bolton might be running. Especially in light of these comments, Bolton is now my new favorite. I don’t know that you can find a more competent, qualified and articulate conservative freedom fighter than this guy. He would be an absolute rock. Give me him with an accomplished governor (Jindal, Pawlenty, etc.), and I’m a happy man.

  • Jay Foyst

    As a resident of Indiana. Mitch is a conservative. He also knows that if we do not get our “fiscal” house in order, nothing else matters. Mitch is a fiscal hawk. Indiana is one of the few states NOT on the verge of bankruptcy. If you know your history, Mitch can and will be the next Calvin Coolidge, (who Reagan hung a picture of in the oval office) not flashy, not a matinee idol, but does not like government or taxes. Indiana is doing well and many other states would like to be in our position and have our Governor. Remember the roaring 20′s? Thanks to Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge, after the horrible years of Woodrow Wilson. Do we want a Romney, Rudy, or another has been? Don’t give up on Mitch and take a look at his record and Indiana. A proud Hoosier!

  • redneck_hippie

    Let Daniels say these types of things. So cons are going to walk away. Like I said perception becomes reality. Doesn’t matter whether you and I agree or disagree with his statement. The Huckabee wing may not be separable from their god, but they are loud and they are powerful. I agree with Erick that this statement has the result of causing division among Republicans. Daniels isn’t making himself clear. What he says is being used by Huckabee already to carve so cons away. Doesn’t matter if it is justified or not. It is happening. Just like Obama’s image of being a uniter was total bunk. Didn’t matter. He won.

  • LibertarianHawk

    …my reading of the public mood, Neil….not to mention the state of the union.

    My first inclination is to secure victory. Because I long ago came to the (inconvenient, sometimes) realization that you don’t get anything by losing in this contest. There are no consolation prizes. It’s not a golf tournament where the second place guy still makes a nice chunk of change.

    I wholeheartedly supported Palin in her endorsement of Fiorina over Chuck DeVore. And DeVore is clearly closer to where I am on policy matters.

    The problem is that he couldn’t win. And I’m not interested in moral victories.

    Social conservatives have a choice: either they start getting a bit more savvy in the political pragmatism arena, or they get accustomed to losing regularly and prepare themselves to see Scalia, etal replaced by people like Kagan and Sotomayor.

    That is not asking anybody to surrender any beliefs they hold. Nor is it saying they should just surrender politically.

    Rather, it’s to understand that progress usually comes in prolonged periods of small gains and that the important thing is to make sure those gains continue happening.

    Well, they’re not gonna happen from the loser’s bracket. That much seems certain.

  • graciegirl

    Yes for Governor, NO for President. Maybe you have to live in Texas to understand. Agree on your other opinions.

    What about DeMint, Pence, Ryan?

    Actually think Jindal could fix this country but may not be electable at this time. Really can’t wait for Liz Cheney. Listen to her and you will know instantly that she is the most capable woman we have. She gets foreign policy better than most men. Is that a sexist comment? JMO. But also not electable yet.

    Please explain why Thune would be better than these three?

  • GopTiger

    Seriously, how does this “truce” work? Your deffending his statements; how does it work in the real world outside of a press gathering?

    How does it work with Supreme Court nominees? Do liberals get a pick for every pick the conservatives get? How does it work with federal judges? Gays in the military? The Department of Justice appointees? Affirmative action? Climate change?

    If Daniels actually believes the LEFT is going to set all that aside and work with him on budgetary and tax issues, he is smoking something I do believe is still illegal in most states.

    Erik is right about this one! Daniels is trying to play it too cute, too clever, too Mike Dukakis “competence, not ideology”. It is insulting, frankly.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Social rightists are losers.

    Yeah, I’m sure they’re really going to care what you think now.

  • LibertarianHawk

    Nobody’s going to get anywhere with me if I think they’re a non-starter in terms of viability.

    I adore Newt Gingrich — have for a long time. But let’s be realistic. The man is never going to be elected president.

    I could say the same thing about a lot of people who have made or flirted with presidential campaigns in the past. I’d have loved nothing more than to have seen Steve Forbes win the presidency. But it wasn’t hard to see that it simply wasn’t going to happen.

    We can wish that weren’t the case. And, heck, it may be the case with Gov. Daniels. He may not be a viable candidate for the presidency. It’s too soon to tell.

    But that’s the first test for me. Only when we get beyond that critical test can we start evaluating for who would be best for our ideas and agenda.

    And, let’s face it, most of the typical names on the GOP list right now are probably never going to sniff the Oval Office. And I include both Romney and Palin on that count.

    Pawlenty? Maybe. Thune? Maybe. Heck, maybe even Chris Christie or Paul Ryan? I’d be fine with either of them.

    But it’s simply dumb to misinterpret Daniels’ comments here and turn them into an assault on social conservatives. He just realizes that we’re in something of a circular firing squad arrangement right now and would do well to aim our weapons in the same direction.

  • HawkImNot

    as calling for a truce between conservatives, not as a truce between parties. Of course, I’m not a Huckabee supporter looking to tear down anyone more viable as a candidate than he is.

    Romney failed as a governeor. Daniels has not. Look at his record dude. It’s not up for debate. He raised some taxes, lowered others, cut the spending, etc.

    I agree the last thing the federal government needs is a tax increase right now, but that’s consistent with that I said earlier – every situation is different. Daniels raised some taxes, lowered spending A TON, and got the budget on track. IN still has some of the best marginal tax rates in the country for the great services it provides.

    I don’t agree he’s toast. If this statement causes social conservatives to not vote for him should he win the primary, then we deserve everything, as a party, that’s coming to us.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTcwNzg0NTExNGY3NDY1NWQ2MzQ1NTUwMjkxMGYzYzQ=

  • GopTiger

    Many of them said “who” about Obama in 2006 and early 2007.

    Many didn’t know anything about GW Bush (expcept he was the son of 41) in 1998 and early 1999.

    Most people had never heard of the name “Bill Clinton” in 1991.

    Being relatively or virtually unknown to the general public at this point is not a negative, In fact, it might actually be a positive.

  • LibertarianHawk

    Didn’t say that.

    By “loser’s bracket” I mean: by losing elections.

    Why would I call social rightists losers? I am one.

    I’m just one who thinks a good dose of pragmatism would serve our causes well. You’re free to disagree with that, of course.

    I just think that dismissing such pragmatism will relegate us to more loser’s brackets than winner’s brackets and bring us the horror of seeing Scalia or Kennedy replaced by somebody like Elena Kagan.

    Can we all, at least, agree that this is a prospect we’d rather not see?

    This is why I keep bringing up 2000. GWB made comments that ruffled a lot of feathers in the social conservative movement, too — enough so to motivate Gary Bauer into the primary.

    And what did Bush leave us with? Alito and Roberts, thank you very much.

    What would Gore have left us with?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Heh.

    As long as you admit it.

  • HawkImNot

    we have in the Senate right now is Jim DeMint. If he runs for President, we’re toast. I’ve got no qualms with Pence. However, Ryan made a name for himself when he torched Obama on the televised health care debate. I’m sure Erick would classify him as another technocratic policy wonk. I think he’s got some fantastic ideas but is a little green behind the ears.

  • chihank

    This week via Twitter, he was touting his endorsements of Bob Vander Plaats and Chuck DeVore. Notice, he made no mention of Andre Bauer, another candidate he endorsed. Last month, he bragged about backing about supporting Marlin Stuzlman (sp?) and also Rubio. Huckabee wants to be the conservative alternative to Romney.

    Huckabee Twitter

    http://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee

  • LibertarianHawk

    You asked:

    “How does it work with Supreme Court nominees?”

    The answer is: it doesn’t.

    We have to have the picks to make first. You catch my drift?

    He’s talking about crafting a winning political strategy for the 2012 election….not in how he (or another Republican) would govern after the 2012 election.

    What he’s trying to do is free himself up to go after some constituencies that Republicans have, heretofore, had a lot of difficulty reaching. And his calculation is that we’re going to need them to have a shot.

    I think he’s probably right.

    Again: the guy to picture here is Scott Brown. There’s nothing at all wrong with having a Scott Brown in the party. In fact, we wouldn’t have a competitive national party without people like him.

    The problem, though, is when it comes to having to choose sides on divisive issues. If you have too many Scott Browns, then they’re going to demand influence. If you have too few, then you’re probably not in a position to worry about having to make that choice.

    That’s why federalism is such a perfect answer to this conundrum for the Republican Party. If we can kick these things to the states — which would require concessions on venue, but not substance — then we can form a bigger coalition to help propel the rest of our agenda in those areas where we do agree.

    Also, Daniels is under no illusions whatsoever about the left working with him on fiscal matters. Again, imagine him talking to Scott Brown — not Barney Frank.

  • earlgrey

    which leaves us stuck with Palin or Romney or even worse Huckabee. I’d like to see that change. I think it can if we can find the right candidate to rally around and the get the tea party support.

    Unfortunately, Palin is very much tied to the Tea Party. I think she is too risky.

  • LibertarianHawk

    And proudly so.

    That’s how agendas are advanced in this day and age. That’s why I’m a Republican rather than a (large L) Libertarian.

    The Republican Party gets things done because it wins elections. It wins elections because it incorporates pragmatism.

    The Libertarian Party scoffs at pragmatism as much as you do. And, as a result, they may as well not exist. They exist mainly for their own entertainment and self-satisfaction. But the next time the LP actually impacts a substantive debate in this country will be the first.

    I don’t know what you think of Palin. But she’s showed strokes of pragmatism herself in, for instance, endorsing Carly Fiorina over Chuck DeVore. I realize that made a lot of people mad.

    But, rather than having kneejerk consternation about the endorsement, they’d do well to give it a little thought…and, in so doing, remind themselves that Sarah Palin is hardly a RINO.

  • LibertarianHawk

    …you were a big supporter of Marlin Stutzman’s candidacy in the Indiana Senate primary. I supported him as well.

    Have you by any chancy asked Stutzman what his opinion of Gov. Daniels is?

    I’d be interested to hear Stutzman’s thoughts…particularly in light of this latest kerfuffle.

  • chihank

    For 2012, we need a fresh face to combat Obama.

    All of the 2008 Repeats have done things that disqualify them from the White House.

    Romney. History of flip-flopping on every issue, including RomneyCare.

    Huckabee. Forgiving non-repentant murders who continue to kill cops will not endear to the public.

    Palin. I had high hopes for Palin in 2012. But when she decided to quit the Governorship, she ended all hopes for the White House. Most of Redstate posters may be understanding of Palin’s decision. However, independents will not be so understanding.

    Newt. People still remember Newt as the mean old man who tried to shut down the federal govt.

    We need someone new. I think the Fresh Faces would include Rick Perry, Mitch Daniels, and Tim Pawlenty.

  • Darin_H

    WTH Mitch? I’m going to scratch your name off the top of my 2012 list. Yes, you have a good record of turning IN around, and your social and fiscal conservative record is good. But I have no use for a man who won’t FIGHT. Yes, you can compromise a bit on actual legislation, but to give up before the fight bell even rings is just ridiculous!

    Even though he’s pro-choice, I’d take Chris Christie over Mitch because I already know that Christie *FIGHTS*.

  • vital0gy

    It’s obvious that the vast majority of RS readers will parrot whatever Erick says without doing their own investigating into Mitch’s positions. You’re wasting your time trying to explain why there are so many “My Man Mitch” bumperstickers in Hoosierland. It obviously wouldn’t have anything to do with his 60-70% approval rating in a conservative state. I saw screw the naysayers!!! I’d rather have Mitch focus on keeping Indiana as one of the only states in the black than to have Erick, Neil, et al, focus their efforts on tearing down a strong conservative leader. Maybe Neil would like to try and have Mitch recalled in Indiana, and replaced with Marlin.

  • blooch

    Theo Spark, but it’s gone now.

    Hmmmm…probably nothing, and no need to get anyone riled up.

  • GopTiger

    If he didn’t realize how his comments would be taken, then he has failed one of his first tests for national office. Agreed? Maybe he can clarify this a bit, but he is off to a poor start. And because of his comments, he will be scrutinized even further.

    Libertarian, social conservatives are a huge part of the equation in Iowa. I’m am almost certain you know this (your postings indicate your smarter than the average bear). So chart me the Mitch Daniels pathway to the nomination plan.

    If he loses Iowa and Romney were to win New Hampshire again, how exactly does he win this? Is a virtually unknown governor from a mid-size Mid-western state going to have any legs in Dixie if he can’t secure Iowa or New Hampshire? Doubtful.

  • graciegirl

    and Ryan is a little young. But hearing his name more and more; even my local Tea Party folks like him instead of Palin!
    But…why would Thune be superior?

  • redneck_hippie

    Your ideas are pragmatic when considering a candidate for election in California, perhaps.

    We aren’t talking about running Daniels as a governor. I ask, why would any so con be motivated to actively work to nominate him? Other “full-throated” (I read here, Reaganite bold colors conservative) candidates are having success after success in gaining independent voters. I think you are behind the times.

  • earlgrey
  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica
  • GopTiger

    Just a thought. We all know the nomination pathway- Iowa, NH, South Carolina and then some sort of Super Tuesday.

    Regardless of your feelings about Daniels (I personally don’t think he is ready for presidential prime time), how does he win the nomination? I assume Romney is in this and will put every chip on the table to win New Hampshire. Does Daniels win in Iowa? Does he win in Iowa after he has told the social conservatives to play nice with the Christine Todd Whitman faction of the party?

    Chart the path. Frankly, I don’t see it and never have.

  • LibertarianHawk

    …is actually 51 separate elections.

    Daniels is simply saying we should pick up the mantle of the (socially ambivalent) Tea Party movement and use the fiscal moment as our uniting motivation to attract voters who:

    a) We’ll likely need to win

    b) Might never have voted Republican before

    c) May not be as socially conservative as most traditional Republican voters.

    He’s not talking about making peace with the committed left, on social matters or anything else. Rather, he’s saying that Republicans and conservatives should stop the in-fighting and unite around common cause.

    We’ve got a really good opportunity here. And I think the quickest way to blow it is by throwing divisive social matters into the mix.

    That’s precisely why Bruce Bartlett wrote what he wrote about the Tea Party movement he opposes. He knows what we apparently don’t: that he can fracture it and, thus, thwart it by dividing it.

  • michiganwolverine

    Reagan stood firmly on what he believed. Romney blows with the wind. His consultants poll, and he makes a statement afterward.

    The times ahead are going to be very rough. We need a leader, not a weather vane.

  • HawkImNot

    that’s someone else upthread. I’m not a Thune fan.

  • michiganwolverine

    While the main statement at the tea parties is fiscal responsibility and standing with the constitution, there are plenty of pro-life messages.

  • gardenstateeric

    Daniels gets the big picture. He is a proven innovator in key nuts and bolts aspects of government. One key point he simply “Gets” with a capital G the importance of an efficient updated infrastructure. He privatized the Indiana tollway to modernize that road and free up funds for crucial projects, including freshfield interstate highway in the form of Evansville-Indy I-69. Improving the personal mobility of people and freight in Indiana will do more for their future than spending 4 years trying to get a two-minute moment of silence in public school past the ACLU. The guy is an actual statesman. He’d get my vote over the 100 IQ set angling for it in the GOP. You get the size of government right, you grease the skids for private-sector commerce and you are pretty far along the base path as far as I am concerned.

  • gardenstateeric

    Daniels gets the big picture. He is a proven innovator in key nuts and bolts aspects of government. One key point he simply “Gets” with a capital G the importance of an efficient updated infrastructure. He privatized the Indiana tollway to modernize that road and free up funds for crucial projects, including freshfield interstate highway in the form of Evansville-Indy I-69. Improving the personal mobility of people and freight in Indiana will do more for their future than spending 4 years trying to get a two-minute moment of silence in public school past the ACLU. The guy is an actual statesman. He’d get my vote over the 100 IQ set angling for it in the GOP. You get the size of government right, you grease the skids for private-sector commerce and you are pretty far along the base path as far as I am concerned.

  • mbecker908

    is that if you effectively reduce the reach of government – not just “spend less” on the same stuff – you’ve got a foundation to make headway on pro-life issues. As it is, the pro-life movement is, at the federal level, jousting at windmills.

    Mitch Daniels is absolutely right and Huckabee, as usual, is being a jerk.

    And I would happily support Rudy if he’s ready to campaign to win this time.

  • GopTiger

    I love Ryan and Liz Cheney but neither one is going to be running in 2012. Ryand already said so. I agree with the comment that Perry is a great governor but a not so great candidate for President; I think that applies to Daniels as well.

    Pawlenty is just…how can I say it…wishywashy?

    I think DeMint is fantastic. But I frankly have a hard time seeing how a Carolina conservative wins 270 electoral votes. Of course, after Obama, 2012 might be a cakewalk for any GOP candidate.

    I like Thune for a host of reasons I posted way on up this thread. He is a conservative, he is a fesh face, he is smooth as silk on television, he is already beaten a bigtime liberal (Tom Daschle). I think the GOP is going to need a next-generation conservative who can stand toe-to-toe against Obama for the youth vote. I don’t see Romney, Huckabee, Paul, Daniels doing that. We need to pass the torch. And we need a nominee who can unite all factions of the party and conservative coalition.

    Go to the Thune website; he is running for reelection.Watch some the youtube clips where he is standing up to the Obama agenda.

  • RedBeard

    This comment is not a good way to gain new friends, but it is a great way to alienate old ones.

    As Icythus pointed out earlier in this thread, this would have been a great time for Daniels to shut up.

    I still like Daniels, despite his feet of clay. That’s why I am so disappointed to see him behave in a counter-productive manner. And, I presume Daniels himself wishes he could have those few moments back, for editing purposes.

  • LibertarianHawk

    Because, if you don’t think that Mitch Daniels is a tooth-and-nails fighter, then you don’t know the first thing about him. The guy’s got elbows sharper than most anybody I’ve ever seen.

    I want to read to you a quote from a Democratic lawmaker from Gary, back from a big budget showdown that the Democrat majority in the House had with Gov. Daniels last year. Daniels won the showdown, BTW.

    And it honked off a lot of the left-most Democrats in the caucus….but it honked them off at their leadership, not at Daniels:

    Vernon Smith, a hardline Democrat from Gary, said something to the effect of “Daniels may not be a very large man, but he’s a tough fighter — and I respect that.”

    And he is. If you think otherwise, you’re wrong.

  • michiganwolverine

    All the governors lack foreign policy experience as that was not their job as governor.

    However, lets look at executive experience:

    Huckabee successful 10 1/2 years as governor, lt. governor, small business owner-only left office due to term limits. Left office with 65% approval rating

    Romney 4 years as governor, successful venture capitalist, successfully managed winter olympics. Left office with 35% approval rating-might not have been re-elected.

    Palin- 2 1/2 years as governor, mayor, small business owner. Quit elected office half way through term.

    Pawlenty-8 years as governor. Declined opportunity to be re-elected to run for POTUS. Leaving with good approval rating.

  • LibertarianHawk

    …that the kinds of voters who showed up to propel Mike Huckabee to a victory in Iowa in 2008 probably aren’t going to have a very sanguine reaction to his comment.

    Now, I’m inclined to say that’s more their fault than his. Because, again, I think he’s staking out a shrewd approach to a winning strategy on the national stage.

    Because I hasten to point out that Huckabee didn’t get anywhere in his bid.

    I suppose Daniels could try to pull a Romney and put on a facade. It would certainly be easier for him. But (a) that’s not his style…he’s nothing if not straightforward and matter of fact, and (b) I think he realizes that comes at a cost, too.

    What people need to do here is take a deep breath and give a moment’s consideration to what exactly he’s proposing, why he’s proposing it, and what exactly it would mean.

    Best I can tell, people are reacting as if he just said what Arlen Specter said after the 2006 election: that the Republican Party is too conservative, needs to come closer to the center, etc.

    That’s not what he said. He was saying, I think, that the battle gauntlet has been thrown down and it’s up to us as Republicans and conservatives if we want to choose to take up the epic battle of our generation or, instead, continue fighting all of our old ones amongst ourselves.

    We can make the latter choice, I suppose. But it would be a crying shame to do so. Because it will probably mean that we’ll lose the one that’s staring us in the face.

    The Tea Party has shown the way — and it’s been conspicuously silent on divisive social matters (intentionally). Are we smart enough to follow their lead?

  • ciscoguy

    Perhaps that?s what Mitch was trying to do, but there?s still no excuse for playing coy with reinstatement of the Mexico City Policy. The correct answer is, ?Yes, I would, now let?s talk about austerity.?

    Did Bob McDonnell ever back down from his pro-life principles when he buried Creigh Deeds? Deeds tried to corner him with it, but in the end made himself look like a jackass because it seemed like that was the only issue that mattered to him. Pro-abort independent voters will vote for pro-life Republicans if they can help them with the issues that matter: economy, freedom, and security. Since Democrats are by definition terrible on all three of those, you can be a staunch pro-life advocate and win if you make good on those three issues.

  • LibertarianHawk

    And said succinctly, which isn’t my forte.

    Daniels is NOT the enemy of the pro-life movement. He’s governed in both word and deed as a pro-life governor. And he’s done so emphatically — to the point of vigorously defending his “Choose Life” license plate against a suit by the ACLU in court.

    How in the world can we cheer a pro-choice Republican like Scott Brown…and quickly dispense with a pro-life Republican like Daniels, simply because Daniels is thinking strategically?

    You may not agree with the strategy. But we should at least recognize that’s all it is.

  • itrytobenice

    Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line.

    We ignore the basic personality of our party at our peril.

    We have to make sure to get the best person who can reasonably be considered to have ‘done his time’ and been vetted and shove him/her in primary voters’ faces.

  • graciegirl

    but gotta love DeMint. We need a tough guy….Pawlenty, not!
    (And yeah, Liz totally qualifiies.)
    Ryan, VP?

    Hawk…I never did get who you really want.

  • HawkImNot

    Would support Dick Cheney or John Bolton without question. That’s a pipe dream, though.

    Open to Daniels, possibly a few others. I’m not sold on Thune but I’d support him in a general no problem.

    Won’t support Romney, Huckabee, Pawlenty or Palin in a primary. I think Ron Paul is certifiable crazy.

    I love DeMint but, the current president notwithstanding, Senators don’t win national elections. And we need someone with, you know, experience governing. Not to mention that there is a good chance in 2012 DeMint will be in position to be Majority Leader of the Senate.

    We’ll see. I generally don’t make up my mind until I see debates.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    I’d never heard of Mitch Daniels before today.

    When I first read this post — I turned to the hubby and said, “We can’t be a fiscal conservative while being a socially liberal/indifferent” and then we went on to discuss how social programs will always pull on fiscal responsibility and drain the coffers of the nation — which is a matter of national security, in our opinion!

    So, yes — the Mexico City Policy is not only social policy, it’s a fiscal drain.

    But let’s speak of it this way: the Mexico City Policy is the UN Population Fund and another means of redistributing the wealth worldwide and “equalizing” nations.

    Why are we not using the left’s rhetoric and lexicon? Most of them are globalists, socialists, communists — and strangely, the followers (dumb-ass voters) embody the traits of commie-groupies who are required to mindlessly follow the commie ideology. Mark Levin called Obama a globalist, his policies are globalist and he is more sure-footed with the damn international community than he is with protecting our nation.

    That being said — I checked out Jennifer Rubin’s Commentary piece and found his remarks on foreign policy, where “we have to ‘ask questions about the extent of our commitments.’ He said, ‘If we go broke, no one will follow a pauper.’ ”

    Match this against the backdrop of what Mitch said at the ADL where he “spoke out forcefully against growing anti-Semitism from ‘very new and strange quarters’ and ‘the astonishing virulence and widespread nature of anti-Semitism’ ..

    He cited the United Nations, the academic left and some in the African-American community, such as Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan, as examples of former allies against anti-Semitism who now regularly engage in “vigorous attacks” on the state of Israel. …

    ‘And then most dangerously, a very large sector of one of the great religions of this world openly and unapologetically commit to the threatening and hoping for extinction of the state of Israel, not a fringe movement of that religion but a mainstream portion,” Daniels said. “It must be called for what it is.’ …

    Gov. Daniels’ singled out Indiana’s Muslim Alliance for praise because of their immediate response condemning the terrorist attack by Maj. Hasan on his fellow Army soldiers at Ft. Hood.” **end article**

    What Obama is currently doing is nationbuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan. His method is to win the hearts and minds, not win the WOT. This is why he never mentions victory.

    Patraeus reflected this strategy when he spoke to Vanity Fair and at AEI in May — and said the Vietnam War would have been won had we done what we’re doing now — throwing money at the Middle East, because money is “ammunition.”

    Nationbuilding may be great — but it’s not the American spread of democracy. All we’re doing, in my little opinion, is building inroads for radicals to reach the greater muslim population and foment more hate, more jihadists.

    And we’re tanking our economy in the process. To me, that’s an issue of sovereignty. Why aren’t we building up our own nation?

    Nationbuilding has never been proven to work, either. In fact, they may hate us all the more, because they see us as Imperialists. Our enemies transmit this to the muslim population and .. well, there you have it. You cannot change the people who want to kill us — and they are closer to the indigenous population than we are.

    Patraeus tries to make over the army by bringing in NGOs and academia to rework how the soldiers think and act toward the indigenous population and the enemy (Taliban, whomever).

    But we’re going to be there forever. This is a 10-15 year, maybe more, engagement.

    Because that’s Obama’s strategy in quelling terrorism.

    Oh — but’s not terrorism. It’s jihad .. legit. A just war.

    Obama plans on various humanitarian missions like this all over the world, when it’s needed. It’s in his National Security Strategy .. and he’s transforming the military to accomodate this vision, where we are the world’s military.

    That $400 billion going to Palestine is just the latest example — and maybe what Daniels means when he says we have to evaluate our commitments.

    So, it’s our blood and treasure that’ll be farmed out — while kowtowing to the enemy and playing nice with our adversaries, from the position of a weakened America. Obama’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review reflects this — a drive for Obama’s socialist utopia, not for national security and secure global dominance for America.

    There is so much more happening beyond our borders.

    To get my support to the Republican primary, I’m going to see where potential candidates stand on the military, humanitarian intervention, the UN, global warming .. and on American exceptionalism.

    Because most of these politicians are global thinkers, anyway. They have to be to go up against the likes of Boxer, Pelosi, Reid and Frank who have the same global view as Obama.

    It’s time for them to speak plainly to involve the American public, to involve us and not think we’re stupid anymore

    Does this mean I’m in for Daniels?

    I don’t know.

    He was Lugar’s protege.

    And I refuse to believe negotiating with Russia on anything gives America the upperhand.

    Then he wants to decrease the size of the military , which is Obama’s objective as well.

    But he doesn’t like the Church of Scientology and signed a bill barring employers from banning guns on workplace property.

    And he’s called Obama’s incessant wooing of graduates to volunteerism a bunch of caca.

    He’s no Scott Brown, and we supported him, but I think him saying we might want to suspend talking abortion isn’t the same as him saying he likes abortion.

    McCormack’s article doesn’t say Daniels used polls to justify his position.

    And maybe his being as close to the people as he is — 2nd term as Gov, after all — maybe he sensing this is a back issue and wants to work on wooing the sheeple on the left who are walking lock-step with Obama’s socialist ideology.

    Maybe use it as a walk-around to cement the vote.

    Just a voter opinion. I don’t mean to hijack, if that’s the perception of some, but since we’re talking Daniels and Presidentials, I thought it was relevant.

    :P

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    that ended up really, really long.

    I’m sorry, Erick.

    Didn’t think it was that long..

  • LibertarianHawk

    Thing is: I doubt he regrets the notion itself. But he may well regret the way he approached it.

    A better way to have done this would’ve been in conjunction with influential and well-respected leaders from the various conservative factions.

    Instead, he seems to have blindsided them. So, in that regard, I agree with you.

    But, so far as the substance of his underlying point, I agree with him.

  • IJB
  • Bill S
  • BA Cyclone

    Frankly I hope his “strategy” is merely poorly worded.

    He’s been cast as one of the most unexciting, yet effective candidates the GOP could field – a real executive.

    But I think in terms of profile he simply must be careful of answering the 3-legged conservative questions carefully as national attention gathers. Even if we have to drag him into the race, he must not go Guiliani or McCain on this and try to triangulate a warm-fuzzy compromise of centrism at the outset.

    We must find someone who is both effective and committed to winning as a conservative candidate. Someone who sells the vision and articulates it easily will win the day, I am certain of that.

    I am just not certain Daniels fits that whole profile…however I am mostly sure that the 2008 retreads are no better than Daniels in that regard, if not worse.

  • BA Cyclone

    Frankly I hope his “strategy” is merely poorly worded.

    He’s been cast as one of the most unexciting, yet effective candidates the GOP could field – a real executive.

    But I think in terms of profile he simply must be careful of answering the 3-legged conservative questions carefully as national attention gathers. Even if we have to drag him into the race, he must not go Guiliani or McCain on this and try to triangulate a warm-fuzzy compromise of centrism at the outset.

    We must find someone who is both effective and committed to winning as a conservative candidate. Someone who sells the vision and articulates it easily will win the day, I am certain of that.

    I am just not certain Daniels fits that whole profile…however I am mostly sure that the 2008 retreads are no better than Daniels in that regard, if not worse.

  • Bill S

    Then get out.

  • houstoneagle

    spend more time and money and energy on supporting conservatives in the primaries (e.g., Buck for Senator in Colorado, Benishek for Representative in Michigan, etc.), and less on useless cotton candy debates about how much Huckabee sucks (he doesn’t) or how much Daniels sucks (he doesn’t either) or woe is me I dont like anybody (ridiculous), then maybe we could take the House and the Senate this fall. Because if everyone is as wasteful as the commenters in this section (including me probably now that Ive written this), we aren’t even going to stand a chance at winning the House back.

    It’s 2010 folks. Let’s act like it.

  • graciegirl

    Which is why I’m disappointed to hear Ryan has definitely ruled it out. For some time people have been saying the R’s don’t have “anyone.”
    Not so! we have excellent people coming up and would I love to see them exchange their ideas in debates.

    How I wish we could get rid of this horrible primary tradition. It’s just not fair! for the first few states to chose the nominee for all of us! Wonder when that will ever change?

    Would also love DeMint to replace McConnell but Dan Perrin reminded me it’s not likely DeMint would challenge him..

    Where IS Dan Perrin anyway??

  • taxpayer1234

    from this expatriate Hoosier!

  • vital0gy

    I state my opinion that the level of vitriol directed at Mitch Daniels is over the top considering how Hoosiers view him, and I’m the condescending jerk. You despise me so much then contact the mods to have me banned.

  • streiff

    that what “Hoosiers” think about Daniels is totally irrelevant to this story. Daniels is obviously auditioning for 2012 and therefore what one minor state thinks about him ceases to make any difference.

    We discussed your banning offline, just so you won’t feel ignored. If you want to keep pushing your luck it’s fine with me.

  • vital0gy

    Appreciate the advice, but there’s no reason for me to leave. I worked hard campaigning for Mitch in the last two elections, so I do get worked up over comments that seem designed to tear down a very good conservative leader. If one looked at the comments in this thread you would think that we Hoosiers are a bunch of idiots for ever electing Mitch in the first place.

  • vital0gy

    but I’m not out seeking attention. If you feel it’s best to ban a guy who agrees with 97.5% of this site then it’s fine with me. I’ll still work to elect Indiana Republicans whether you allow me to be a member of Redstate or not.

  • RedBeard

    vitalOgy, in addition to being condescending, seems to be missing the major point. A lot of us, myself included, like Daniels, but we cringe when he makes a boneheaded statement like this “truce” nonsense.

    I hope Mitch dusts himself off and gets back up on his horse after this spill. Indiana needs him, and the country could do far, far worse.

  • davidabippus

    We really need to focus on the 2010 mid-terms above all else right now. I certainly enjoy speculating on the 2012 presidential race and coming up with different scenarios to achieve victory. But first and foremost, we need to focus on November of 2010. All of this speculation is becoming a distraction.

    That being said, I am concerned that our side is SO obsessed with finding the 100% perfect candidate that we never will. I think it would serve us well to recall Reagan’s thought that if we agree 8 out of 10 times we are not opponents. If we do not support a candidate – like a Mitch Daniels where we can agree on 8 out of 10 issues – then we will end up with a re-tread candidate from 2008 who has name recognition and possibly end up with four more years of BHO. Does anyone want that? That is where we are headed if we keep eating our own. There are a host of Governors out there that need to be considered – Daniels, Jindal, Rounds, Barbour, Hoeven, etc. I do not think that a legislator is the answer. We need an executive. Executives sometimes have to make unpopular decisions – but we need to focus on the big picture, which right now is spending, debt, entitlements and growth ….. the economy. We don’t need to pull a guy like Paul Ryan out of the House to run as VP and waste his talents in a useless position (I refer to what John Adams thought of the position of VP). Keep the Ryans, Pences, Hensarlings, etc. in place. First and foremost we need a strong and conservative legislature – that is where everything starts and where the focus should be. The president should be a chief magistrate and not all of the things (being everything to everybody) that are currently attached to the notion of the role.

    We have a long way to go and we need to keep an open mind about candidates and not derail them before we even get started. Otherwise, as I mentioned previously, be prepared for Re-Tread 2012.

  • RedBeard

    Take that chip off your shoulder and stop acting like a victim. That nonsense is for liberals.

    The sun is over the yardarm, so maybe a beer would help.

  • vital0gy

    Mitch should not have used the wording that he did. However, he’s one of the smartest men I have ever met, and I believe that he might have some deeper reason for saying what he said. The guy rarely makes mistakes.

    To the condescending remark, I’m a very angry guy in real life, and it has a tendency to spill over in my online behavior. All of the years of counseling still haven’t helped with that. I admit always quick to fight is not a good way to make online friends.

  • RedBeard

    …and I don’t even live in Indiana any longer. And I would do it again.

    My Hoosier roots go back nearly 200 years, and I still own property there, so don’t play that circle-the-wagons game of “we Hoosiers” being all put-upon and unfairly treated by the bad ol’ out-of-staters.

    I still don’t think you understand the reason for this thread, nor do you understand why Mitch supporters like me are a bit upset with his “truce” comment.

  • vital0gy

    because I’ve only lived here since starting at Purdue in 96. I’m not playing the victim here like you suggested upthread. I also said I don’t think he should have used the wording he did. I’ve rarely seen the guy make a mistake, so I admit he confused me (easy to do).

  • Bill S

    since you smeared them/us as mindless Erick Erickson automatons. So if you think so little of the community, perhaps you shouldn’t be part of it.

    I’d be glad to facilitate that for you, if you like.

  • vital0gy

    I’ll still continue to read daily unless you’d like to contact my employer about that too.

  • aesthete

    who were burned by Bush’s conservatism, for starters. Blue-staters who hold a childish view of social conservatives as evil fire-and-brimstone preacher types. Libertarians who made up part of Reagan’s coalition in the 1980s. Moderates who are wishy washy on social issues, but worry about Obama’s handling of the economy and the possibility of us being 2030′s Greece more than whether or not Tom and John can get married. There are several benefits to a moratorium on social issues that the Focus on the Family crew, God bless ‘em, are myopically not seeing. At any rate, social conservatism’s biggest issues are resolvable under a Federalist system and an originalist SCOTUS, so I don’t see how this is even a sacrifice for them.

    Ultimately, arguing about social conservatism at this juncture is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I want a leader who understands that and responds accordingly, and not another pol who wants to be all things to all people.

  • Darin_H

    Was that the showdown where he won by raising taxes (Lowering them later of course)? There were plenty of times that George W Bush fought (especially in the War on Man Made Disasters™), but he always thought that he could get along domestically with the Democrats nationally the same way he did in Texas with the Democrats there. When it comes to domestic policy, I would never refer to W as a fighter.

    This statement by Mitch is politically stupid at the very least.

  • aesthete

    Rome burns all around, and social conservatives, social liberals, and social libertarians are arguing about the song Nero’s playing on his fiddle.

  • aesthete

    but after his “deficits don’t matter” statement, and his de facto signing off on Bush’s fiscal agenda, he wouldn’t be the right person for the WH, even if he were viable. I don’t know enough about Bolton (just that he tweaked the noses of various UN hoity-toities) to have an informed opinion.

    Ron Paul = Teh crazy. The less said about him, the better.

    I don’t Pawlenty, Palin, Romney, or Huckabee to put our fiscal house in order (and yes, they’re in order from the one I trust most to the one I trust least).

    I would support any of them, except for Huckabee, and probably Ron Paul, in the general.

    We need DeMint in the Senate. God knows what the animals in there would do without him.

  • johnm

    Mitch Daniels is like too much of the Republican “leadership”.

    They are career politicians not principled statesmen. If they faithfully defended the Constitution, they would not would not tolerate unconstitutional leftist policies and thinking without clearly standing against it.

    If your choice is taking a principled stand or getting reelected, what would you do?

  • AceInTX

    I’ve been planning on writing on this but haven’t been able to since I am working in Houston and now working on moving to NE Texas.

    Anyway…this shows something I’ve said for quite a while in a round about way. There is an element of the Party Establishment who hold the 70% of the Republican Party who hold traditional values in high regard in utter contempt.

    These jerks would rather attack and pick unnecessary fights with the base of the party than win elections and defeat the Democrats.

    WHY BRING THIS UP AT ALL….last time I checked….no one has been vocally pushing Social Issues….there is utter silence on social issues as since we are standing aghast as Obama turns this one great country into Europe.

    But here comes big tent crowd beating those of us who think we need to stop slaughtering American children to the tune of 1.5 million a year when we’re not even making any noise or making any demands on ANYONE on our issues at the moment.

    I’ve got a better Idea for Mitch Daniels and his ideological loser friends in the RMSP…why don’t you just shut the hell up and work on beating the Democrats…and leave the rest of us alone…..and if you’re interested in wining elections…why don’t you work on embracing some of the social issues that enjoy majority support amongst the American People like ending live birth Abortions…and parental consent laws instead of joining the Democrats and mouthing their talking points against the majority of your own party!

  • aesthete

    God, I hate our national gubernatorial nomination process. It makes absolutely no sense to have a state of peripherally socially conservative big government populists determining momentum. We really should have a different nomination process, so that the Fred Thompsons, Mitch Daniels, and others of their calibur aren’t lost to the prejudices of voters who don’t care about the principles of limited government.

  • aesthete

    but yeah, I can work with you on electing conservatives, because conservatives (of either your preference or mine) are infinitely more likely to support fiscal solvency and reduced government than moderates or (DUN DUN DUUN!) liberal would be.

    Hey, that almost sounds like a truce :)

  • aesthete

    He’s signed every piece of pro-life legislation that’s hit his desk during his tenure as IN’s Governor.

    This is a tactics issue, not a principles one. Our mountain of debt and overreaching government is the issue of the times. There is absolutely no hope for the unborn or the defenders of traditional marriage if the federal government goes belly-up, just as there is no recourse for those against the war on Drugs or whatever social issue peaks your interest. I’m going to be supporting a candidate who wants to bring frakking Prohibition back in Nevada: not because I love that idea so very much, but because we don’t have the luxury to wait for the 100% ideal candidate. If it looked like McCain was going to lose to that nobody councilman from Tucson, I’d vote for him and (maybe) help him out: not because he’s so darned charming, but because he’s one more vote against Obama. I’ve lived in Democrat cities all my life, and I’ve lived in Europe, and trust me, you don’t want the US to become a poor facsimile of either.

    Mitch Daniels (and maybe Haley Barbour) are our best chances to get out of the fiscal hole in 2012. I don’t think that we have much of a chance in ’12, but if we’re to treat the race as a serious one, we need to nominate the guy who can best get us out of the hole. Nothing else matters, at this point, and I am 100% certain that Mitch would nominate good judges along the vein of Alito and Thomas.

  • AceInTX

    We won’t beat the Democrats in November and beyond by making half or more of the Republican Party disinclined to vote for you at best…or mad as hell and ready for your head on a platter by unilaterally attacking the positions they hold most dear….ESPECIALLY when social issues aren’t even on anyone’s RADAR at the moment anyway…

    Daniels is pandering to a leftist pro abortion press with this crap and he should be called on it!

  • redneck_hippie

    Refreshing change from pro- and anti-

    Palin
    Huckabee
    Romney
    McCain

    Maybe there’s hope for us, after all.

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    heh

  • Bill S
  • Bill S

    a lack of attention to those issues is equally dangerous to Rome’s destiny. If the moral fabric of the nation is ripped to shreds, I don’t really care much about its financial condition. It’ll be time to move to a desert island anyway.

  • Bill S
  • AceInTX

    I’m convinced the establishment made a deal with Romney at CPAC agreeing to back him for 2012 if he’d step down and endorse McGoo…

    If you look where all the McCain Staffers and establishment consultants are right now…they’re in the Romney camp.

    I’ll fight like a fiend to prevent it…but I’ll be stunned if the 2012 nominee is anyone but Romney.

  • aesthete

    Bob McDonnell, then.

  • streiff

    the article isn’t about Indiana. The article is about the US in 2012. The fact is that if Daniels runs in 2012 this statement, if he holds to it, is going to kill him in the GOP primary.

    If your point is that you want to keep him in IN, then drive on. If you’d like to see him run for the White House then you need to read Erick’s post carefully.

  • AceInTX

    He fought it but what can you do when the courts rule differently?

    He said it best when he said…something along the lines of “The courts have made their ruling…NOW LET THEM ENFORCE IT!!!”

    The idea that the Courts can tell the chief executive and both legislative bodies how they are to vote and act when making policy makes a mockery of our system of Representative Democracy and is a violation of the separation of powers…

    The fact that Romney knuckled under to such judicial over reach without so much as a wimper of protest…let alone use it as an excuse for his duplicity of focing gay marriage on an unwilling electorate is all the reason I can think of to oppose Romney in 2012….

    BUT THERE IS SOOOOO MUCH MORE to oppose him for!!!

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    Much too early to start deciding who’s in and who’s out for 2012. No idea what’s going to happen in the Nov elections and what the world’s going to look like a year from now.

    Some here would give a warning, some would give a yellow card – but red card is certainly not warranted at this point of the match.

    So let’s all file away this plea by Daniels with whatever weighting we want to give it, and see where he goes from here in the months to come – and discern what strengths are most needed in our next president.

  • aesthete

    at least the 40s, Ace. George Wallace tried challenging such rulings, and look at how well that worked out. It may suck, but that’s the way it goes, until we appoint judges with a proper understanding of their position in a Federalist system.

    There’s a lot to oppose Mitt on, but I don’t see this as an issue.

  • aesthete

    With the exception of Reagan (and conservatives had to fight like devils to get him in), and maybe Bush the Lesser, to some extent, Republicans have a troubling habit of nominating the next guy in line. I predict either Huck or Romney, but odds favor Romney. They don’t call us the Stupid Party for nothing.

  • redneck_hippie

    the above was mostly tongue in cheek. But you are right, we who pay minute attention to all things political need to be wary of bandwagons. Even bandwagons we are ourselves driving.

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    What’s got so many people so hot on this guy?

    Seriously? What’s the attraction?

  • AceInTX

    we’re all locked in the harness trying to pull the cannon up the hill to use on Obama…and Daniels comes out of the blue and declares SoCons have to give up on their issues?

    I mean…Come on….

    SoCons and true believers like myself are the ones always being accused of divisiveness….but who are the people in this party throwing the burning bags off poop on their fellow Republicans when it all comes out in the wash?

  • AceInTX

    how in the world can we cheer a pro-choice Republican like Scott Brown?and quickly dispense with a pro-life Republican like Daniels, simply because Daniels is thinking strategically?

    It’s the preemptive nature of what Daniels did that is at issue here. and I don’t know that all that many are cheering Scott Brown at the moment. A lot of us pinned our hopes on his stopping Obamacare and worked to get him elected…but I haven’t seen much else to cheer about since he took the oath.

  • AceInTX

    because he’s done as well or better than Daniels on the Texas Economy….oh…and his first budget in Texas didn’t start with a Tax Increase.

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth
  • AceInTX

    It’s not about whether Daniels is a Moderate on social issues or not…it’s that he decided to tell SoCons they needed to shut up when they haven’t been all that vocal lately…

    I can tell you…I’m sick to death of being told I need to compromise on life and death issues…why is it that we’re always the ones that are told to go to the back of the bus….

    but it’s more than that….it’s not that we’ve been told we need to give up on our issues…it’s that Daniels decided to tell us all to sit down and shut up when no one was standing up and/or saying anything.

    It was a stupid move to say the least…and it was unnecessary.

    That in and of itself should say something about whether he deserves our support

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    With all this skirmishing around how to interpret Mitch Daniel’s unforced stirring of the social issues pot that wan’t cooking anything, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that we want our Presidential candidate to have intact gonads.

    (Now we may disagree among ourselves about what role the state (Federal, State, local) should take regarding how people employ them and with whom in their private intercourse.)

    But we all can agree that our candidates need them intact and have willingness and experience using them* to govern :)

    Time will tell how intact Mitch’s are, but this was more what one would call a flaccid moment.

    ——————————-
    *Figuratively speaking, of course; we don’t need any more politicians who can’t keep their clothes on when they need to.

  • SteveLA

    civil_truth

    I’m guessing that this was not an unforced error, more a preemptive strike by Mitch Daniels.

    Mitch Daniels is staking out the fiscal and good government turf and signaling that he’s not going to try to out social conservative Hucka Hucka who will run in 2012 on those issues. If Romney is in, he’ll run also on the competent government set of issues and probably not make social issues a big part of this campaign.

    Will Daniels do or say more that signals that he’s not going to court socially conservative SIVV, who knows, but others running in 2012 will.

  • redneck_hippie

    as in finding the market niche, I still think it is ill-advised. Daniels ought to fire his consultants and run as Mitch Daniels. People don’t cotton to phoniness, and his saying he didn’t know if he would support Mexico City smacks of Romneyesque finger-in-the-windedness.

    There is a difference between being a principled Conservative and trying to stake out advantageous political territory.

    Instead of telling why he should be our leader, he showed he only wants to be a leader when it is expedient. Not good.

    The reason the Huckabee candidacy failed wasn’t (only) his Christian Leader schtick. It was his attacks on fiscal conservativism. Daniels seems to have set himself up to make the same mistake, only by attacking social conservatism.
    I sure hope he turns this around because we need quality executive leadership.

  • http://www.lookoutkokomo.com lookoutkokomo

    I’ve seen a couple of references about Reagan in this thread. It was mentioned that he was fortunate to have the support of the libertarian-minded conservatives with which to build a broad conservative coalition. This is absolutely spot on.

    Reagan could only be “Reagan” with these allies. Our next president must gather that kind of support to ultimately succeed in saving our Republic from what is a truly a perilous situation.

    But how did the Gipper garner the support of libertarian conservatives? I’d suggest it wasn’t during the campaign. Reagan often spoke as governor about the threat of liberalism and socialism.. He addressed the people directly. He developed his credibility with these libertarians and beat back years of new deal and great society bad government.

    Mitch can see… any person who is going to be the president needs a broad coalition in order to begin to erase the debt and restore the prospects of America’s survival for future generations.

    Daniels has not announced a bid. He said what he said… I think he’s right. Mitch is in the business of making government sustainable and effective. Most of you would agree that the debt is the greatest threat to our future and those of our children. We need someone like Mitch. I’d back him if he ran… specifically for these comments, especially when they are matched up to his record.

  • AceInTX

    In fact, it?s a version of something I?ve been arguing for a long time. I?ve been saying that conservatives need to agree to move most social issues to the states.

    and he apparently has no problem with the Federal Government funding Abortion over seas…because he can’t seem to decide whether he would sign an executive order prohibiting it is worth his time and consideration…

    so what’s your point? it seems your own argument has put you in a corner because Daniels won’t take the time to decide whether the Mexico city policy is worthy of his notice….how exactly does that play with Federalism?

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    I’m willing to be patient and see where he heads in the next few months before deciding about his agenda here.

    Not to mention I want to see where the country is next year and what leadership skills we will most need before winnowing candidates. 28+ months out is too d*mn early to be decapitating NEW prospective candidates.

    (It’s the opposite with the 2008 reruns, they have to convince me to give them a second chance. And so far they haven’t – except possibly Rudy, though I think he’d do better as a kick-*ss VP.)

  • AceInTX

    why doesn’t the truce apply to those in the Republican Party who insist the pro life plank be removed from the platform…or that we give up on this issue altogether?

    Why is it that every time someone mentions a truce on social issues…the ones who gain most from the truce is the ant SoCons in the Republican Party?

  • SteveLA

    Mitch Daniels can point to his record on pro-life issues and votes he has cast on pro-life issues. Records are funny things, you can stand on them, or try to run from them.

    If Mitch Daniels record on social issues is not good enough for some, maybe he is better off not trying to pander and just stand on his own record. As was pointed out somewhere in this tread, Scott Brown did not hide from his views on social issues any more than Governor Christie did and both were honest about where they stood. To me there is something refreshing with politicians just running on their real record and letting people decide if they support their candidacy based on what their voting record says about what they believe.

  • SteveLA

    civil_truth

    I read the “unforced” into your comment, my bad mistake.

    As you do point out, this is one comment, let’s see what else happens or rather what else Daniels has to say, other than look at my voting record.

  • http://www.lookoutkokomo.com lookoutkokomo

    All Mitch is saying is don’t run in first thing in 2012 and demand a seat at the table when the only issues being discussed are fiscal. Yes. It’s that dire. Government needs to focus on the business of making itself sustainable and effective. Mitch is in the business of doing just that.

    If someone like Mitch reduces government spending and control, I won’t be surprised if the SoCon activists have unprecednted (during my lifetime) ability to advance your causes.

    Hey GOP: “It’s the economy, stupid”

  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    …than to declare an abrupt conversion, especially when conveniently-timed. Or try to be all things to all people.

    Unfortunately, too many voting citizensare more interested in emoting on hearing the right words for them than doing the research (or even reading others’ research). Not compatible for long with representative democracy, as we’re seeing with our current occupant of the White House.

    Thought the worst are SCOTUS nominees who suddenly “see the light” in the hearing room (and then go blind again once confirmed and are set for life).

  • AceInTX

    this is what I don’t get about the compromises in the Party…

    but then…they aren’t really compromising are they?

    They want SoCons to give up on what makes them Republicans in the first place…and THAT is exactly what they refuse to compromise on….we have to give up what WE care about most….and they won’t quit getting in our faces about it…

    Again…this wasn’t an issue…I haven’t seen a whole lot of fussing and fighting about social issues because we’ve all been so focused on beating back the Democrats…but Daniels decided we need to stop fighting about something we’re not fighting about?

    Can’t you see the problem here?

    Or do you just refuse to acknowledge it?

  • AceInTX
  • AceInTX

    We?ve got a really good opportunity here. And I think the quickest way to blow it is by throwing divisive social matters into the mix.

    and isn’t that exactly the point here?

  • AceInTX
  • RINKER

    That depends on how you define “success”. I don’t define it as having a high approval rating. He left office with a MUCH higher tax burden on Arkansans and with a MUCH larger government. He also left it with a Republican party in tatters due to his policies.

  • SteveLA

    michiganwolverine

    George W. Bush had how much foreign policy experience before being elected, and NO you can’t count being part owner of the Texas Rangers as such experience.

  • AceInTX

    It?s obvious that the vast majority of RS readers will parrot whatever Erick says without doing their own investigating into Mitch?s positions. You?re wasting your time trying to explain why there are so many ?My Man Mitch? bumperstickers in Hoosierland.

    as though everyone here is to stupid to think for themselves and see that you are so obviously smarter than all the rest of us…

    Your an ass of the first order….

  • AceInTX

    THAT explains it!!!

    LOL

  • AceInTX

    I still can’t get past the idea that McCain had all but won the nomination before I had a chance to vote in 07

  • AceInTX

    I don’t agree…and can’t believe I even typed it…but I’m willing to consider it…

    But what flames my britches is…Social Issues have not been an issue at all…and haven’t even been discussed…..until now….

    Why bring it up?….Why now….

    Why not keep your mouth shut about something that is bound to inflame the passions of 70% of your base as this has so obviously done?

    It was a stupid move…but it’s typical of the crap we are dealing with as a party….the establishment is in a constant war with the SoCon Base and this is just one more example of it!

  • AceInTX

    Just kidding about the just once….

    Scott Brown did not hide from his views on social issues any more than Governor Christie did and both were honest about where they stood. To me there is something refreshing with politicians just running on their real record and letting people decide if they support their candidacy based on what their voting record says about what they believe.

    I might even be willing to say Daniels has a point….but I go back to….why make the point at all…because as I see it…we’re doing exactly what Daniels is saying…

    Yeah I’m at war with the Republican Establishment…but it’s not over only Social Issues….I’m at war with them for compromising almost every issue that makes Republicans different from the Democrats.

    But this was Dumb on Daniel’s part…Dumb with a capital D

  • AceInTX

    Wallace challeneged the Federal Courts which could be argued were higher authorities than a Governor and state Legislature…

    In Romne’s case…we are talking about stat Courts ordering a State Legislature to vote a certain way and ordering a State Exetuive to sign the Bill it just ordered the legislature to pass…

    It’s a frigging travesty of the first order…and Romney is a craven coward for participating in the farce!

  • Tbone

    who could bore paint off the wall? I saw this guy talk one time and it was enough to know he couldn’t carry Palin’s luggage.

    You think the public is going to elect a male librarian with the demeanor of an actuary? LOL

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

    silver-tongued schemers have sent America to hell.

    why have you forgotten?

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    Of all the comments, I value this thread with civil_truth and others the most, along with your initial comments earlier.

    Discussed this with hubby, and no, there should be no compromises on principle.

    Make them do it, not us.

    And for those who think all this was useless, we’ve come to know 2 things:

    How much of a principled player Daniels is and where he stands on retraction: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gZpqwBhtZffG5AzADyntyouzxR0gD9G9B14G0

    And that Huckabee is definitely looking at 2012, because he came out swinging, wanting to squish Daniels like a bug:

    “A strong leader doesn’t need to focus myopically on one or two issues,” Huckabee wrote. “But a strong leader is willing to fight for and defend their principles while rising to meet new challenges and solve all of the existing systemic problems confronting us.”

    – from the link.

    I don’t want Huck as President. Personally, I can’t stand him, even if he is pro-life and anti-UN.

    There’s gotta be more than him.

  • mbecker908
  • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

    There just something about him that makes me feel dirty afterwards. And no seductive words from him is going to change that gut revulsion.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    .. and I’m only half kidding.

    Personally, I think he was jealous of that 10-page spread in the Standard.

    He said this about Daniels:

    “I’m very disappointed that he would think that pro-life and pro-family activists would just lie down.”

    That’s not what he said..

    Blunter, nonetheless.

    Now he knows there’s no compromising.

  • houstoneagle

    We can save the petty horse handicapping and presidential preference whining for when our hangover from New Year’s subsides.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    So you only oppose free spending politicians when they FAVOR our values. When they’re spending against what we believe, by all means, let the good times roll, eh?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    There’s no point in arguing with someone as uneducated about the issues as you are.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The Mexico City rule BANS giving federal money to UN and other groups that promote abortion.

    So if you oppose giving money to the UN, you’re FOR the Mexico City rule and Skeptical of Daniels.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    By going wobbly Mexico City, he proves himself a loser on social *and* fiscal issues.

    You can’t be a fiscal conservative and be wobbly on cutting funding to abortion mongering UN groups.

  • Tbone

    First you have to get elected.

  • Tbone
  • texasgalt

    “war time” president in waiting. Waffling on RTL issues, just for the heck of it, doesn’t cut it. Life shouldn’t be negotiable.

    Just to be clear, “war time” president means someone willing to take on the Dems, unions and anarchists, should the Republicans regain control. To “fix” the problems will come at the cost of blood, literally.

    But that will not be the worst challenge . . . that will come when the fiscal situation requires cutting programs and jobs that will make even so called “conservatives” go wobbly. Do we really need an Energy Dept, or Education or even Commerce.

    What about Homeland Defense? How did we ever win WW2 without it?

  • michiganwolverine

    Seriously, now everytime that Mitch Daniels is interviewed he is going to be asked to clarify his original statement. Reporters are going to ask him deeper questions on the issue.

    Daniels should have been more like McDonnell-who is a strong social conservative who emphasized the economy but did not back down on his pro-life/traditional marriage beliefs.

    I think that is all socons are asking for. Don’t back down on your beliefs, and lets get this economy back in order. We are also ficons, but we have a strong voice for the unborn.

    You can fight for both.

  • David123

    who has ever lost a Republican primary and turned around and endorsed the Democrat.

  • http://www.veronicaestrada.com/ Veronica

    and if Daniels is anti-UN and wants to restrict “commitments,” maybe he’s up to banning.

    just sayin’.

    I want to know who else is out there.

  • aesthete

    I oppose statists of all types, whether they invoke mom, apple pie, American familes and the troops to forward their freedom-destroying policies, or healthy living, racism, and global warming as their boogeymen. I’m not sure how you got support for liberals from my statement.

    A pox on all statists’ houses, I say.

  • aesthete

    I wouldn’t mind having some other western states voting earlier, either.

  • aesthete

    I hope (and think) that he’ll rethink that, given his top-notch record on life issues in IN.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    A wobbly almost-statist who can’t be bothered to decide whether we should fund mass infanticide on a global scale?

  • aesthete

    but I can understand where Mitch is coming from: for years, Dobson and co. have demanded absolute, 100% fealty from their candidates on every issue dear to their hearts, regardless of how tenable or how many political points are to be lost. I have yet to be in a Presidential election where he doesn’t suggest throwing the election to the Dems by potentially going third-party. Mitch’s statement is, quite simply, a call for a moratorium on social issues while we get our fiscal house in order. It’s already at statemate at a federal level, anyways: we’ve done all we can for abortion that can be done legislatively, supporters of traditional marriage have already banned gay marriage in (I believe) 48 states, with Iowa probably becoming the 49th, and prayer in schools, religious verbaige, etc. have been frozen in amber since the mid-90s. Mitch’s way of saying it was, IMO, foolish (it would have carried more weight had he gathered some recognized leaders of the social conservative movement, for instance), but the substance of what he said was quite right: libertarians, wishy washy moderates, independents, western conservatives, and the conservative movement need to get their act together if we’re to reduce entitlement spending. Arguing about social issues right now is like labor unions complaining about their wages in Churchill’s UK during WWII.

    That said, I am very concerned that Mitch would even consider not re-instating the Mexico City policy, but that concern is somewhat mitigated by his truly stellar pro-life record in IN.

  • aesthete
  • aesthete

    See, winning libertarians over is actually pretty easy: just try to act like you give a crap about small government and personal liberty. You can absolutely explain pro-life beliefs from a secular standpoint, and in fact, it’s much more effective than arguing from a religious standpoint.

    I wonder if this was an unforced error or positioning. In either case, it was a bad call on Mitch’s part, but not to the point where one should disqualify him.

  • aesthete

    Mitch has a record of cutting government and signing pro-life legislation. The latter is common. The former? Not so much. I’m not ready to take him out of the running just yet, and I refuse to make the Mexico City executive order a litmus test at this juncture, though it is an important issue and depresses my support for Mitch.

  • AceInTX

    Yet the establishment of this party keeps jabbing a finger on our chests and accusing us of causing trouble when we’ve been largely silent and working toward the same goals Daniels and the establishment are pushing for.

    yet here here we are…in the middle of a flame war because Daniels and his consultants thought it would be a good move to pander to the press and achieve a “Sista Solja” type coup by slamming a segment of the Republican Party that does most of the heavy lifting for the party.

    I’ll say it again…this was stupid politics no matter how you sliced it. This has nothing to do with Dobson or any of the other boogey men you want to throw out…Dobson has lost considerable influence with most movement conservatives starting with Harriet Meyers and continuing to his latest screw up allowing Mitch McConnell sucker him into attacking Ron Paul as a Pro Abort hack.

    Daniels is following a pattern that the rest of the Washington establishment of this party has followed of late and that is trashing the base of the party in order to pander to a left wing press…THAT is what this is about…and THAT is what is wrong with the Republican Party going back 6 or more years.

  • sdeakins

    When you compromise ‘your principles’ it just shows you never had any ‘principles’ to begin with.

  • edintexas

    Perfect! The best Conservative potential candidate since Reagan (perhaps better on principles) , and he couldn’t get to 1st Base.

  • finaljeopardy

    When the outcome of the healthcare bill rested on this issue, I don’t recall any hollering for a “truce.” There is sometimes little difference between social and fiscal positions. That some Democrats have to pose as pro-life is clear proof that the GOP is right on this issue. The party platform leaves no wiggle room. It is an issue the country as a whole is coming around to embrace, particularly younger voters. Why should any Republican who wants to win an election feel they should apologize for social conservatives? Yes, there are important issues to focus on, but if anyone asks a Republican candidate running for the party nomination where they stand on the right to life, they shouldn’t flinch.

  • finaljeopardy

    “He said we need a united front on the fiscal matters that are absolutely, positively URGENT.”

    Social conservatives — you claim he is rock solid here — believe abortion is a LIFE OR DEATH issue. Why would he hesitate to reinstate the Mexico City policy? Even on paper, it makes no sense that American taxpayers are paying for abortions overseas. That is wasteful, as well as morally objectionable to the people who believe life begins at conception and should not have to pay for any abortions any more than conscientious objectors should have to fight in a war. Mitch Daniels gave the wrong answer there.

  • finaljeopardy

    She has never said anything that indicates otherwise.

  • finaljeopardy

    Squishes who hate religion and social conservatives loved what they just heard from Mitch Daniels. Those people defected to Obama or a third party candidate in 2008, and they’ve never volunteered for a campaign or donated to the party. They are swing voters, independents, moderates, gullible fools.

  • finaljeopardy

    “Unite” people by telling them to shut up. People love that in a democracy.

  • sharp

    Erick,
    Friendly suggestion/ warning: anyone who aligns with Huckabee will declare himself “irrelevant.”
    Please don’t.

  • finaljeopardy

    Who is voting for Mitch Daniels? How do you foresee him winning the GOP nomination after his comments alienated a good portion of the base and made more people scrutinize him? You’re trying to spin and explain his comments, but you’re just strengthening the arguments made by Eric Erickson, AceinTX, Neil Stevens and most of the regulars here.

    Here’s another question. The majority of American voters want the healthcare bill repealed. If Mitch Daniels is (how does he define “truce”?) unwilling to even talk about part of the party platform and declares a preemptive surrender — can you trust him to fight to repeal healthcare?

  • finaljeopardy

    Nuff said.

  • finaljeopardy

    Funny you can admit Mitch Daniels made an idiot comment, yet you call the regulars here “parrots” for pointing that out. A parrot would make a better candidate in 2012 than Mitch Daniels. At least the bird can speak intelligently.

  • finaljeopardy

    Maybe somebody should contact your employer. I’ve never known a job that tolerates tantrums on the job, and if you’re trying to convince people to vote for your candidate, calling them idiots is the wrong way to go about it. Then again, your candidate tries to get conservatives on board by ordering them to shut up, so maybe Mitch Daniels approves of your efforts.

  • finaljeopardy

    It’s Dobson’s right to demand unwavering commitment to life before he gives his considerably weighty endorsement. The reason why Dobson’s opinion is so sought after is because a lot of social conservatives trust him and will take his endorsement into consideration when supporting a candidate. Think about that for a minute. Your guy just lost a lot of these people, and you’ve admitted most candidates can’t afford to do that.

  • finaljeopardy

    Despite his record in IN, why couldn’t he answer that question?

  • Diogenes314

    “his first act as Governor was to seek a Tax Increase”

    Was that before or after he certified the PEUs?

    From the WS article:

    The reforms began instantly. On his first day Daniels reversed an executive order signed by a Democratic predecessor granting collective bargaining rights to state employees. Union membership plummeted overnight. ?I think they were happy to have the extra thousand dollars that would have gone to dues,? Kitchell said. Decertifying the public-employees? union has spared Indiana pressures that have crippled other state governments. Unhindered by union demands, the governor instituted a ?pay for performance? scheme, rewarding state employees who met explicit goals with raises ranging from 4 percent to 10 percent. The salaries of underperforming employees stayed flat. No one was fired, but every time a job went vacant a supervisor had to justify hiring a replacement. The number of state employees has fallen from 35,000 to under 30,000, back where it was in 1982.

    The effects of reform showed up pretty quick too. The state Bureau of Motor Vehicles, another patronage sump that was routinely ranked one of the worst in the country, was drastically reorganized. ?He likes metrics,? Kitchell said. ?He likes to measure outcomes.? Every line item in the state budget has at least one objective formula attached to it to indicate how well each service is being delivered. Regulatory agencies track the speed with which permits and variances are granted. The economic development agency has to compare the hourly wage of each new job brought to the state with the average hourly wage of existing jobs. In the case of the BMV, the two most important metrics were wait times and customer satisfaction. Now each receipt is stamped with the time the customer arrives and the time his transaction is completed. Wait times have dropped from over 40 minutes to under 10 minutes. Surveys put customer satisfaction at 97 percent.

  • awunsch

    but this was either an amateurish political blunder or a tip off that he is not supportive of the social conservatives. I agree that right now what is important is to get our fiscal house in order but at what price? You don’t need to wander into the pro-life issues to fix our economy. Looks like he won’t be on my list of potential candidates. And if he turns around and says he is pro-life (what is his record in this area in Ind?) we’ll have to wonder if we have another Charlie Crist on our hands. However, better to know now.

  • awunsch

    but this was either an amateurish political blunder or a tip off that he is not supportive of the social conservatives. I agree that right now what is important is to get our fiscal house in order but at what price? You don’t need to wander into the pro-life issues to fix our economy. Looks like he won’t be on my list of potential candidates. And if he turns around and says he is pro-life (what is his record in this area in Ind?) we’ll have to wonder if we have another Charlie Crist on our hands. However, better to know now.