Perhas he has caled a truce thus leaving the status quo in place. Daniels has also been noticeably absent from supporting right to work legislation.

I thought Daniels was a fiscal conservative. How can you be fiscally conservative and not tackle one of the biggest obstacles – public sector unions – to balancing the budget?

I am beginning to sense a lack of backbone in Daniels when it comes to confronting the left.

If Daniels has the public sector unions on the run, then why does he not finish the job and them in the process? Why does he claim other priorities?

Perhaps the answer is, because now he his running for the Presidency, and the quest for the presidency trumps a commitment to even fiscal conservatism.

If not, then please explain his reluctance to pursue the right to work legislation or to curb public section union benefits.

I agree that a good long term plan trumps emotion. However, Daniels has not demonstrated either a long term plan or any other reason for moderating his attack upon public service unions. If he has the votes and if the Republican legislature is going to pursue the measure anyway, then why not support the issue and ensure its passage and free the state from the fiscally destructive policies of the past.

My fear is that Daniels is moving to the center in the hopes of winning the Presidency in 2012. His long range and coldly calculated plan is about getting himsef elected president. We have seen it with his remarks regarding social conservatives. I think we are seeing it again in his attempt to moderate hs policy toward public sector unions.

I think it is a huge miscalculation on his part.

When Daniels rescended the collective bargaining rights, did he also scale back the benefits, pensions, and pay packages that had previously been negotiated by the public sector unions?

Now to the contradiction. You state that the public sector unions will “fight tooth and nail” against the education reforms. So why worry that a right to work law will lead to a “knock down drag out fight” with the same unions?

If he has them on the run, as your previous comment seemed to indicate, then why not push the rout?

Perhaps it is the same political consultant who told him to go out and attack social conservatives and their issues right before the GOP primary.

As I said in the previous post, I think it is a huge miscalculation on his part. But candidates come up with wierd scenarios to snag the nomiation. See Rudy in 2008.

Whether or not Daniels intended it as an attack, the call for a truce and comments like – rabbit hole issues, backburner issues, etc. – led many social conservatives to view it as an attack. Daniels has had ample opportunity to moderate that language and has chosen instead to double down on it.

Now either he has a message problem or he thinks he can win the primary and then the general election without the active and vocal support of the social conservatives. Either way, I think he is in for a rude awakening.

The phrase “coldly calculated” plan was not my own by rather the poster to whom I was responding. My apologies for not putting it in quotes.

At this point, no one really stands out to me for 2012. I have a few I am interested in but I need more information, which I am in the process of gathering.

Several have ruled themselves out to me: Daniels (no surprise I guess), Ron Paul (also no surprise) and Palin. The field is still wide open and a new comer can change the playing field overnight. I have heard recently some touting Walker and Perry.

How about you, acat? Who do you currently like?

You make the assumption that the voters are single issue voters, i.e. social conservatives will only look at the social conservative issues, fiscal conservatives the fiscal issues, etc. The problem is that most social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives and we are looking for the whole package. Certain issues due however trump others but it does not mean the candidates with social conservative positions will thy to out do each other on those issues.

I am not alone in feeling that Mitch Daniels attacked social conservatives when he called for a truce.

http://www.redstate.com/bs/2011/02/03/no-truces-no-trucers/

The first rule of communication is that mis-communication is the fault of the speaker, not the audience. As I said previously, Daniels has not attempted to correct that “mis-communication.” Therefore, I must assume that he meant what he said.

Look up-thread for Goldwater_Conservative. He used he following phrase: “cold, calcualted long term plan”. I added the ly to cold and spelled calculated correctly, which is why your text search failed.

It was a play upon his phrase and I stand by the comment. Excessive? No, not in the context of political calcultions if he is moderating to win votes.

As to your assessment of the GOP field. I concur, although there are certain lines I will not cross well short of Ron Paul.

The “No Need to Beg” is in jest as well. As to adverbs, I will have to refresh my grammar knowledge. : )

Daniels has presented himself as a fiscal conservative yet now he calculates his fiscal conservative principles to win votes – or at least that is my hypothesis. How will he moderate when it comes to running for the second term as President? If self-preservation and advancement is his goal, then why vote for him at all. As you said, he is just another politician. What we need is leadership at this point.

I have to run and pick up the kids. Will respond more later tonight so don’t think I am ignorng any further discussion.

He called a truce on social issues. The left will not abide by the truce. Social conservatives do not want to unilaterally disarm while the social liberals on the left continue to attack.

I take Daniels at his word. He has told me that he will not advance social conservative positions. He may be lying now to get elected – as both you and acat seem to indicate. But I will not risk a truth on issues we are winning.

I have always felt I actually worked for the cat.

As you said, the popcorn factor is in play. Daniels may attempt such a strategy. It will be interesting to see.

Whether it is unilateral disarmament or unilaterally holding our fire, the result is the same. The social liberals will not agree to a truce so even if we have our weapons we are forbidden by Daniels to use them. I am sure there is some comfort in that, somewhere.

How long have you been waiting to use the Roadhouse analogy? : )

I like the Roadhouse analogy but I am not sure that is what Daniels said or meant. He has never stated that position. Instead his comments on the truce are open ended and one sided. For example, how long does the truce hold? At which point do we get to focus on social conservative issues? Is the length of the truce determined by a timeline or by meeting a set of preconceived objectives? If so what is the timeline or set of objectives? What if the fiscal objectives cannot be met? Do social conservative issues then go ignored forever?

The truce also seems a bit one sided. Daniels has targeted social conservatives but not a word about the GOProud attack upon social conservatives or even other presidential hopefuls. Does the truce not apply to the social liberals like GOProud?

While the truce is being observed, does Daniels commit to holding the line against social liberals? Or will he allow them to attack social conservatives while he focuses on other issues?

Daniels has never answered any of these questions. If he wants me to consider voting for him, he will have to do so.

Cry, Get Ready for Disappointment, and Prepare to Fight the Same Battles We Have Fought the Last Two Years

If the demand that politician be accountable to the voter makes one rabid, then call me rabid. : )

I said rabid for holding the politician accountable to the voter. Did Reagan oppose such accountability? I think not. Do you not intend to hold the politicians you elect accountable for how they vote?

I made a simple comment about voters holding politicians accountable. You responded by accusing me of ignoring Reagan’s 80% maxim. I pointed out that the two were unrelated and asked you a few simple question. You then accused me of wanting to pick a fight and of being counterproductive. Yet, you never answered the questions or showed how the 80% rule means that w cannot hold politicians accountable.

You clearly have some issues either with me or with something I said in the past. Otherwise, you would not be so quick to jump to a fight over a simple statement that I made that had nothing to do with you.