« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Daniels deems truce with social liberals essential to fix budget

By: Mike gamecock DeVine (Diary)  |  May 1st, 2011 at 03:13 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

No such truce was necessary in the Hoosier State as Mitch earned his budget-cutting conservative icon status and there is no evidence that such a truce would garner more budget-cutting votes on Capitol Hill.

I wanted to be an enthusiastic supporter of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, especially given the problems of RomneyCare, Palin’s gubernatorial resignation, Pence and Barbour’s bow-out, and Newt’s occasional bouts with Potomac Fever.

Daniels, along with New Jersey’s Chris Christy, had set the gold standard for conservative state governance in the face of massive budget crises akin to what we face as a nation. Moreover, Daniels, unlike the Garden State’s socially liberal Governor, has been, and still appears to be rock solid in favor of traditional marriage and against abortion.

But then, Mitch turned his eyes toward the Potomac.

Back in June of 2010 he volunteered this seeming non sequitur:

The next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved.

We had hoped that all Daniels meant by his statement was that a Republican presidential candidate should make the economy, deficits, and debt the focus of their campaign. The statement was, after all, sufficiently vague to warrant patience from social conservatives such as myself.

Eleven months later he still hasn’t defined what he means by a truce, our hopes for him were dealt an even worse blow by his recent explanation of why he supports a truce:

“…a tactical suggestion…because its gonna be hard to make changes to restore America’s greatness…we are gonna need to unify all kinds of people…freedom is gonna need all the friends it can get if we are gonna do these things…it is addressed to both sides…”

All conservatives should be more disturbed by Daniels’ perception that we can’t solve our economic problems absent unity with social liberals than social conservatives should be disturbed about the nature of the still un-defined truce.

Unity?

The only “recent” times I can think of that significant numbers of Democrats unified to do the right things were from December 7, 1941 through V-E Day and for a few months after September 11, 2001.

Democrats weren’t even unified in favor of ending de jure racial segregation and the Soviet Union.

Republicans, on the other hand, have declared many unilateral truces, i.e. surrenders, none of which have turned out well:

  • How did the “read my lips, no new taxes” compromise work out for Bush41?
  • Remember the old Hatch strategy on confirming pro-abortion justices Breyer and Ginsburg to the nation’s highest court by near acclimation, “since elections (apparently only of Presidents) have consequences?”
  • What of  the compromise of Mitch’s former White House boss on stem cells?
  • How about that same Bush’s  surrender on school choice that left many children behind, after sharing popcorn and a movie with Ted Kennedy?

One wonders if then Bush Administration budget director Daniels inveighed Rove-like counselling in Washington before a Damascus Road moment on his trip back to Indianapolis.

How did those truces work out for us?

It takes more than one party to declare a truce much as it requires a bride and a groom to be declared man and wife.

The so-called straight talker never actually gets around to defining what he means by a truce (he does say that it does not mean he wouldn’t appoint a strict constructionist to a Supreme Court vacancy), but, wouldn’t it at least have to require that all sides cease attempts to change the status quo on such issues as abortion and legal definitions of marriage in exchange for massive budget cuts, for him to be true to the definition of the word truce.

Again, I see no evidence that there are lots of socially liberal Congressmen in either party waiting to come out of the closet as fiscal conservatives if only there were a truce that leaves taxpayers funding Planned Parenthood abortions and gay, un-recused Proposition Eight Judges re-defining marriage by fiat.

Moreover, no truce on social issues was required for enough voters to unify last November for the biggest conservative wave election victory since 1946.

I would send out a May Day for fear that Daniels’ cognitive dissonance could trump that of many birthers and sink Ship GOP in 2012. But given that so many of We the People discovered that the Democrats’ supposed Messiah couldn’t walk on water just as he made it impossible for so many to afford to drive on dry ground, at this point we think a Paws of the Minnesota Tim variety looks like a better version of Chris and Mitch.

Or we could raise Cain!

Mike DeVine

Legal Editor - The Minority Report

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist for Examiner.com

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Hillbilly Politics, Unified Patriots,  Political Daily and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    The guy declares a truce on social issues and then signs – or will sign – into law arguably the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation and defunds Planned Parenthood in the process.

    Please.

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

    should stay in Indy where he doesn’t feel the need to call for truces and unify the un-unifiable. The supposed unicorn-like social lib/fiscal conservative animal is mostly a myth.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    I don’t know that I’m going to eventually support Daniels in the Primary, but he’s got a solid executive record of conservative actions and accomplishments. As does Pawlenty, frankly.

    The rest of the field is either blathering conservative applause lines to cover up anything from a less than conservative all the way to a liberal record (Palin, Huckabee & Romney), or they have no record (Cain).

    You need new tea leaves.

  • acat

    the importance of social issues to the White House race – and will fail when trying to trade an obviously overinflated currency … or, Daniels is gravely mistaken about the nature of the Left.

    Pawlenty’s experiences in Minnesota, a much bluer state than Indiana, lead me to believe he’d do better at playing hardball with Congress, no matter which party is nominally in charge.

    Mew

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

    Did we like his actions on Bush’s budgets the last time he was in DC?

    His words send a message of weakness to Democrats ever bit as much as many of Boehner’s.

    Did he need to unify all the libs in Indy? No. And he doesn’t have to in DC and even if he did, there is no evidence that his un-defined truce is the way to get more votes in elections of in Congress.

    Could Mitch say anything and still have your support since nothing he says now can change his past actions? Its not “taking words over actions”. Its taking what he says seriously. Most of what Presidents do is talk.

    I too am disappointed that Mitch didn’t have a more innocuous meaning of truce in mind and that he seems to crave unity over defeating libs or that he misunderstands how bills become law with majorities, not unity.

    But he can still redeem himself. So could Mitt.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    The whole point here GC is that you have to look at the totality of the candidate. You’re not.

    Daniels has a very long history of laying out an agenda and following it. Setting priorities and accomplishing them. You view his comments as caving to beltway Dems. I view them as an exercise in setting priorities.

    I’m not uncomfortable with my view because of Daniels history of accomplishments. He’s consistently achieved his top legislative priorities while not in the least neglecting the RTL agenda. It’s simply not his top priority, and again, Indiana RTL seems to really like the guy.

    At this point, he’s miles ahead of the three stooges (P, R &H), lightyears ahead of Newt (who’s supposed to announce shortly), and Cain (who’s never done anything in the political arena).

  • acat

    As evidenced by your last paragraph. Mitt is irredeemable – in political terms.
    (I’ll leave theology to the theologians)

    The other way to judge executives is on who they hire. Thus the saying “Personnel is policy”. I’m sufficiently outside baseball to not know who’s who, but a chap you might have heard of, Erick something or other, seems to think Pawlenty has grabbed the go-to-guy for 2012…

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/04/12/nick-ayers-the-big-news-you-might-not-have-noticed/

    Mew

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    walkout crap as the Wisconsin Ds. Daniels just quietly worked around them and got everything he needed done, done. I think it’s a stretch – at best – to compare him in any way to Boehner.

  • davenj1

    on concentrating on the truce comment. As others have stated, ACTIONS speak louder than words. And the word is truce..NOT surrender. The man speaks political reality. Moot point anyway since the liberals will use the social issues as a wedge issue and the truce will be broken. So everyone needs to chill about this “truce” thing.

  • acat

    Go see what our own Bill S. had to say back in February.

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

    Mew

  • Diogenes314

    Some here would go ahead and creatively edit his quotes to make their point, but you really don’t give that impression.

    From the Hoover Institution:

    Mitchell Daniels: Yeah, and unlike a lot of people who just talked about it, we have actually passed legislation to, in essence, make it more informed, that the law currently requires, more informed in Indiana. Abortion clinics were not regulated ?til I ordered it in Indiana. And so we?ve taken those steps. Don?t take it from me. You can check the Right to Life organizations. They?ve never had, they will tell you, a governor so pro-life. So it?s not that I disagree at all with these folks. And I don?t want to have an argument about it. Bill may well be right. It was simply a tactical suggestion that goes back to the premise we discussed earlier. If you don?t believe that the American republic is mortally threatened, as I do, by this one overriding problem we have built for ourselves, then of course I?m wrong. But if that is the case, then all I was really saying was, ?I don?t want to lose one person? ? you keep talking about how hard it?s going to be, and it is, to make the kind of changes that will restore America?s greatness. And all I was saying was we?re going to need to unify all kinds of people and freedom is going to need every friend it can get if we?re going to do these things.

    Well, first of all, it was addressed to both sides. Mr. McGurn was quite right. I?ve said the same thing many times. The most ? the aggression right now comes from those who are trying to change our social arrangements judicially or somewhere from the other side. But this has nothing to do with ? one of the deepest convictions that I have is about strict constructions of constitutions. It goes to the heart of our rule of law. I?ve only had three shots to appoint judges in Indiana. We have one of those systems in which I am sent a panel, and I have appointees to the panel; so they know what I?m looking for. And fortunately, I?ve always had the opportunity so far; I?ve selected 3 of the most rock-ribbed, unimpeachably strict-constructionist judges Indiana has seen. That?s a non-negotiable item with me and I hope that the next president, whoever that may be, will have that same viewpoint.

    As far as what I gather from all this…

    1) The guy is deadly serious about our economy.
    2) He speaks his mind and the hell with the consequences. What you see is what you get.
    3) The whole ‘truce’ thing is about priorities. No unilateral surrender, no appeasement.
    4) As far as comparing him to either Bush-there is no comparison.

  • Goldwater_Conservative

    and at the same time not giving the right much red meat. His style is somewhat confusing but he stikes me as a guy that wont make the right happy when he is out making speeches but if you were to add up his total score as President of the US he would end up being a very effective conservative President. I think he understands the behind the scenes dealmaking that MUST go on to get anything you want done. I know we here on redstate like to pretend that you dont have to play the games to suceed, but reality stipulates that you must.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    or – at best – mediocre experience and horrible records of accomplishments are touted over executives who have sterling records of real accomplishment because the former make more exciting speeches.

    We deserve the government we get.

  • AceInTX

    if he gets in the White House….and we’ll be left holding the bag

  • AceInTX

    I remember an interview he did with Laura Ingraham a couple of months back were he not only double down on his social issues truce…he declared China is to threat to the US and would not do anything to antagonize them.

    I’ll take him at his word and say no thanks

  • AceInTX

    by bringing up his name when someone asked who he thought would be a good candidate in 2008.

    There is no secret about my feelings toward John Sydney McNasty and the fact that he went out of his way toward praising Pawlenty just after handing the White House to Barry just makes it hard for me to trust him.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    have actually reduced the size of government and taken on the entrenched mainstream in their states. Daniels, Pawlenty and Christie.

    Everybody else is either go-along-get-along from the get go or don’t have the guts to fight the inevitable war with the left.

    If you’re interested in words, we’ll be no better off in four years because none of the latter group – and all but one of them are very, very good playing the crowds – have actually ever done anything even approaching “conservative”.

  • AceInTX

    If Mitch is too stupid to know that…he’s to stupid to be President.

    I’ll also point out that he’s gone back to that well a couple times including on the Laura INgraham show I mentioned above were he also said the Chinese are not a threat to us on trade and defense wise and that he wouldn’t do anything to stop the Chinese from illegal dumping of goods on our shores while blocking our goods from theirs…

    Mitch Daniels?

    No Thanks!

  • acat

    I will expect you to do your own research. I would be surprised if you’d take anyone’s word (especially mine) you were told the sky is blue.

    I’ve been watching Pawlenty since before Ed Morrissey moved over to Hot Air, he’s got a number of pieces archived. In case your google-fu is feeling weak, just plug this “pawlenty site:captainsquartersblog.com” into the search box.

    The nice part is this is all from before or very early in the 2008 election. If you can find anything showing that Pawlenty is another McCain, please post it.

    I’ve been impressed with Pawlenty’s ability to wrangle the Democrat-controlled legislature. I figure that, in the end, is the main thing that we need at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, regardless of which party controls the House and Senate. (Pelosi rolled Obama several times, eh?)

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    and again…when SoCons here we need a “Truce” we have learned that truce word means “SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP”!

  • AceInTX
  • acat

    First, you left out Johnson. Understandably, IMO, but .. he is running.

    Second, you included Christie. Again, understandably, but .. he’s seeking to be drafted, not running.

    Other than that, absolutely agree. I’ll take any of the four over the Retread Clown Posse (Romney, Gingrich, Giuliani) although I think a couple of the all-hat-no-cattle types would make good veep choices. (Palin, Bachmann, Cain)

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    I want someone who’ll at least throw and elbow or to at the Dem’s face

  • acat

    here:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/02/mn-legislature-fails-to-overturn-pawlenty-veto/

    Mew

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    From what little I know about Johnson, I like him. Certainly a whole lot better than all-hat crowd or the retreads. I just have a hard time taking him seriously because I don’t think he can come up with the necessary cash. I wish he could, it would really make things more interesting.

    I tossed in Christie only because he’s got real accomplishments to show for his first term as governor of NJ.

    Other than that, less Palin as a good VP choce, I agree with you.

  • aesthete

    They have bad policies vis a vis trade — so what? They have bad policy when it comes to industrial policy, property rights and agricultural policy, too — should we replicate their failures in those areas, as well? Free trade is one of the few things that Congress has done right over the past 20 years, let’s not reverse that positive trend by saber-rattling with China.

  • Diogenes314

    when SoCons here we need a ?Truce? we have learned that truce word means ?SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP?!

    That doesn’t change the fact that he’s actually saying nothing of the sort. Especially considering the fact that he is a social conservative.

  • Diogenes314

    I mean, tariffs did wonders for our economy in the thirties.

  • aesthete

    I would also note that the “truce” that he is looking for is metaphorical in nature, and directed towards voters, not pols (judging by your first excerpt).

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    He’s also got a better pro-life record than any other candidate in the field. Any of ‘em.

    Other than the governors I listed who actually have done something in their term(s) in office, you’ve so far maybe the following to choose from:

    • Romney. And he stands for just what? Wants to make big government operate more efficiently.
    • Huckabee. A populist who never met a problem government couldn’t solve or a tax he didn’t want to raise.
    • Johnson. Won’t be able to raise the money so his positions – unfortunately – don’t matter.
    • Gingrich. A failed Speaker and the ultimate DC insider.
    • Rudy. Didn’t run last time, won’t run this time.
    • Bachman. ???????? who knows. But has zero executive experience.
    • Cain. Bachman with private sector experience. Who knows if it will translate into a successful administration, but he won’t raise the necessary money anyway.
    • West. Bachman with Army experience. See Cain.
    • Palin. Lousy record as governor, basically all of her signature programs are dead. Ran out the back door like a scalded dog over ethics charges and refused to let the AG defend her. Great red meat server, worst executive of the lot. And may not run after the AK emails come out.

    If you don’t like Daniels, I hope you like TPaw. Good record, admitted cap&trade comments were stupid.

    By the way Ace, I’d note that the folks on the Left gave BO a big pass on actual experience because his words were just right. Or just Left. They’re not happy campers today. I also remember people who thought GWB was a conservative because he said so.

    Oh, and finally, if it’s words you’re resting on, check out what Daniels has said about actually implementing a conservative agenda. There’s a lot more high quality meat there than in his “truce” comments. And they line up well with his actual accomplishments.

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

    Yes, I listened to the whole interview and have heard him expound similarly on 2-3 other occasions, but I have concluded that the real import of his explanations is not about priorities. I had hoped that were it and wish he had said that. He didn’t.

    He ties the truce to his real point, which is his concept of needed “unity.” Which makes me trust him less on all issues in that it smacks of an inside the beltway compromise desiring establishment Bob Dole/Dubya/McCain/Boehner-like attitude.

  • aesthete

    are actual examples of “truces”:

    The first (“read my lips, no new taxes”) was a campaign promise, and an uncompromising one at that. The problem was that Bush 41 *lied*, not that he stuck to a truce. That one was on Bush 41, not on a truce of any kind.

    The second was an example of feel-good Congressional idiocy coming from the king of bipartisan idiocy, Orrin Hatch. It was not an attempt to forward any of the right’s broader goals — not a truce, a unilateral surrender.

    A compromise is not a truce, and it is impossible to function in DC without compromise — that’s just a fact. In Bush’s case, the compromise was appropriate given that he had a Dem Congress and virtually no public support for picking a fight over this issue. Do you think that he could have gotten more? (And I loathed Bush’s domestic record, so you know that I don’t cut him slack on such issues.)

    This was, again, unilateral surrender on Bush’s part right from the beginning. Federal involvement in education is un-Constitutional, and the Republican party has stood for dismantling the DoE for years. Bush reversed course on this issue, and did not advertise it as a truce: on the contrary, it was used by the Bush campaign to demonstrate that he was a different kind of Republican (specifically, the kind who could spend and regulate, otherwise known as “care”, just as much as Dems do).

    None of these are truces. A truce in this context is a decision not to needlessly antagonize or divert resources and attention from fiscal issues to social issues. A similar unspoken truce was in effect for Reagan and liberals/neoconservatives to win the Cold War, even at the expense of some of his spending priorities. Given that the Cold War was won without a bullet being fired in Moscow, I’d call that a resounding success, wouldn’t you? Truces can be and are useful — conservatives cannot win this alone, and will need the support of every libertarian, moderate, independent, and not a few Dems if they’re going to pull through.

  • Diogenes314

    To me what all this boils down to is that he is genuine. Like Paul Ryan, he’s honest about exactly where he stands, and would rather trust in the voters to do the right thing than tell them what he thinks they want to hear for political expediency. And like Ryan, he sees our economic situation as the overriding issue of the day. From the excerpt below…

    If you don?t believe that the American republic is mortally threatened, as I do, by this one overriding problem we have built for ourselves, then of course I?m wrong.

    For the record, he isn’t wrong.

  • aesthete

    Ah, so he’s telling HIMSELF to sit down and shut up! Oh wait…

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

    Bush left Texas in great shape and better shape than he found it and one reason Texas is still doing well is because he did. Daniels has done great with the situation he found in Indiana. Bush did great after 911 on his major DC issue.

    So why does Daniels think he needs to have a truce in DC but not in Indiana and wouldn’t it be nice if he actually told us what the truce means instead of just a few things it doesn’t mean.

    Also, does his repeated use of the term, “those people” when referring to social conservatives, bother you at all? It does me.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • Diogenes314

    He is saying he wants to appeal to all types of people not be something to everyone. And BTW, proposing a truce is not the same as unilateral surrender. And if two groups face a common overriding threat, proposing to work together is a sign of wisdom, not weakness.

    As far as comparing him to your list of whomever, Daniels actually has a record you can judge by. And it is in no way similar to any of the above or in the OP.

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

    would have the chutzpah to get all anal about the definition of truce when all of you insist on reading tea leaves to discern what he means by it! well played

    But then you just dismiss his semi-definition that is the key, ie his desire for “unity” with social liberals.

    That is the story here.

  • aesthete

    I’m surprised by the number of “I believe in free trade, but TEH CHINAZ” people on the right. IMO, China would look something like N Korea if we hadn’t provided incentives for them to move away from slaughtering their own people like animals. Believe it or not, having the CCP treat their own people like fungible commodities is actually a step up from what they had before (and yes, it does suck).

  • AceInTX

    So, what his record is prior to becoming POTUS is irrelevant

    I’ll take him at his word rather than trusting him to lie before becoming POTUS and believing he’ll deal with SoCon concerns once he’s there

  • Diogenes314

    I’m not sure what you mean. I think he is referring to those who oppose him without knowing where he stands, not SoCons in general.

    As far as comparing him to Bush Jr, I’ve pointed out before that he really was a uniter, not a divider. The problem being he was used to working with Texans, not Washingtonians from San Francisco. Daniels record in Indiana would in no way lead one to believe he would turn into some sort of appeaser.

    As far as Bush SR.-when I first heard the ‘no new taxes’ thing it turned my stomach. A real supply sider would have said tax cuts worked-time to double down. It was obvious he was just telling the public what they wanted to hear.

    Again-the opposite of Daniels.

  • aesthete

    and besides some education initiatives, Bush just went along with what the leg wanted — almost exactly what happened in DC, huh?

    In contrast, the exec in IN reserves a more traditional role for the executive, and Daniels dragged the legislature from anemic acceptance/mild hostility over to full acceptance of his agenda.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    All you need to do is take a look at his actions. Find me a governor with a better pro-life record.

  • David123

    1. any pause in conflict, quarreling, etc. [from the dictionary]

    2. Republicans stop fighting the left on social issues, and leftists continue to try to get activist judges to destroy traditional marriage and funnel boatloads of money to Planned Parenthood. [from the real world]

    Since “two’ is the real definition of truce, in practice, Daniels made a mistake.

  • AceInTX

    I think there should be consequences for employing slave labor, export subsidies, dumping goods on our markets below cost, and their currency manipulation…

    It’s the Navile Camberlain “Peace in our time” optimists I’m surprised at

  • AceInTX

    in numerous speaches and interviews…and he’s not making the distinctions or the excuses you make for him when he repeats it. I’ll give him points for honesty, taking a position and sticking to it…but I’ll take him at his word and look elsewhere thank you very much

  • AceInTX

    why is that so hard to grasp?

  • Diogenes314

    Peter Robinson: Well, in other words, does a truce mean that you let Cass Sunstein and Larry Tribe give you the ? or you choose somebody from the Federalist Society? What the heck does a truce mean?

    Mitchell Daniels: Well, if I?m the one who used the word, am I entitled to decide what I was talking about?

    Peter Robinson: Sure you are, yes.

    Mitchell Daniels: Well, first of all, it was addressed to both sides. Mr. McGurn was quite right. I?ve said the same thing many times. The most ? the aggression right now comes from those who are trying to change our social arrangements judicially or somewhere from the other side. But this has nothing to do with ? one of the deepest convictions that I have is about strict constructions of constitutions. It goes to the heart of our rule of law. I?ve only had three shots to appoint judges in Indiana. We have one of those systems in which I am sent a panel, and I have appointees to the panel; so they know what I?m looking for. And fortunately, I?ve always had the opportunity so far; I?ve selected 3 of the most rock-ribbed, unimpeachably strict-constructionist judges Indiana has seen. That?s a non-negotiable item with me and I hope that the next president, whoever that may be, will have that same viewpoint.

  • AceInTX

    That says all that needs to be said…

    Point for GC

  • Diogenes314

    And in context, not just the edited excerpt most were melting over.

    Feel free to post the transcripts of any of these offensive interviews I’ve missed.

  • Diogenes314

    He seemed to take great offense at this offhand comment.

    So now everyone who was dead set on opposing him if he didn’t sign this bill will oppose him anyway.

    For the record, I usually hate it when I’m right.

  • AceInTX

    Texas is in the shape she’s in in large part thanks to Perry….and Bush can than him for vaulting him into The White house

  • Diogenes314

    because it has no basis in reality.

  • aesthete

    one of the most daring pro-life bills I’ve ever seen, such that I (an ardent pro-lifer) have worries that it might not survive a court challenge?

  • aesthete

    Can you explain or unpack this statement for me? Is this a legal thing, or is it the result of the Light Guv traditionally working with the leg in TX? Thanks in advance; depending on the answer that might make Governor Hair a little more appealing to me.

  • AceInTX

    The only way we achieve Unity with the Libertine RINOs in this party is if SoCons sit down and shut up…

    you can play all the verbal games and make excuses for what he said all you want.

    I’ll take him at his word.

  • Diogenes314

    We really don’t think much of cutting off our head to spite China’s face either.

  • AceInTX

    but that bill is a state bill and he SAYS he wants a Social Issue truce on the national level…

    again…I’ll take the man at his word…while you want to say he’s being coy and lying to get elected….and we can count on him to be a SoCon leader if elected…

    To be fair…your not saying that specifically…but you are saying it in so many words

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    He made a measured comment and he’s defended it. The number one priority of the next administration MUST be fiscal.

    And again, if you look at his record in Indiana his number one priority there has been fiscal. He’s advocating a national focus that’s similar to what he’s done as governor and please note: Indiana RTL is very happy with him and there is no governor anywhere with a record better than – or even as good as – his on social issues.

    I’ll take an accomplished executive with the best RTL record in the US over a nice sounding executive with a lousy record or no record. Additionally, Daniels has actually stood up to the unions and reduced the scope of government in Indiana. There are two other governors who can make that claim, Pawlenty and Chrisie who’s not running.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    How about Palin defending Trump going after O’s birth certificate.

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

    with his use of the word unity, which is a code word conservatives use to make clear to the left that runs Capitol Hill that they aren’t a threat. Or it bespeaks an incredible naivete about what good gets accomplished by that method. Let’s ask him if he thinks NCLB and the RX drug bill were good examples of whatever he means by “unity.”

  • Diogenes314

    again?I?ll take the man at his word?while you want to say he?s being coy and lying to get elected?.and we can count on him to be a SoCon leader if elected?

    Actually telling voters what they wanted to hear would fit your description.

    Pretty much the opposite of what he’s doing.

  • AceInTX

    and I can only wish Perry had been as consistent and principled for his entire time.

    But this isn’t about what he’s done…it’s what he SAYS he’ll do.

    Name me one politician in the last century who has under promised and over delivered in his time in office.

    Yet you would have me believe that if he campaigns and wins saying we’ll have a truce on social issues…(which we all know means SoCons will have to give way to the libertine RINO crowd) that he’ll over deliver by doing as POTUS on Social issues what he’s done as GOV?

    I’ve lived too long and followed politics for to long to fall for that one

    sorry!

  • Diogenes314

    Let?s ask him if he thinks NCLB and the RX drug bill were good examples of whatever he means by ?unity.?

    Maybe wait and see what he has to say in the debates and in the next year or so before burning him at the stake?

  • AceInTX

    The Gov is more of a figure head.

    I’ve only lived in Texas for about 12 years and wasn’t taught Texas History…but I know…from those around me at conventions that the Lt. Gov is the real power behind the thrown

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    I don’t think there is one. And he has certainly not compromised on social issues in Indiana in the least.

    What he’s talking about is priorities and anybody who thinks anything but fiscal issues are not our highest priority is a fool.

    Daniels has governed Indiana making fiscal issues and government involvement his number one priorities since the first day of his administration. Even with that, there is no governor with a social record that can stand with his.

  • aesthete

    I just think that you and others are reading things into this proposed “truce” that just don’t make sense.

    The “truce” is not a statement of relations with Democrats going forwards.

    The “truce” is not a matter of compromise or establishmentarian thought. If you’ll note, most of the figures considered “establishment” are doubling down on socon issues (Newt, T-Paw, Romney), not saying that they need to be de-emphasized. (Wonder why…)

    The “truce” as described by Daniels is an attempt to get as many *voters* and *citizens* on board with Republican spending initiatives as possible. The best way to do that is to prioritize spending/government scope while downplaying socon successes: something that he has done in IN with a great deal of success. If you think that voters are jumping to elect and support the guy incessantly blabbing on about abortion, drugs, or other niche issues while the country is ready to collapse, be my guest. I think that voters will find such talk (however true it might be) insane, when the priority should be and will be on spending.

  • aesthete

    Seriously.

    Now you name one who’s governed the country differently than his state.

  • Diogenes314

    Yet you would have me believe that if he campaigns and wins saying we?ll have a truce on social issues?(which we all know means SoCons will have to give way to the libertine RINO crowd) that he?ll over deliver by doing as POTUS on Social issues what he?s done as GOV?

    1) He didn’t say we’ll have a truce, just that we should. It takes two to tango.
    2) Just because you ‘know” this means “surrender to the RINOs” doesn’t make it remotely factual.
    3) If he’s elected president, I suspect he would do those limited things within the power of the president on social issues. Based on his record and statements, strict constructionist judges for starters.

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

    China has declared economic war on us…and the fact that we’re not fighting back doesn’t make it less of a war…

    They are pursuing a hostile and aggressive trade policy with us…we’re already in a trade war with them and we’re stupid and foolish for participating in it.

    I think even Smith/Misses/Hayak and even Ayn Rand would agree…that putting taxes environmental regulations, safety and health regulations and paying for social welfare on the backs of our businesses while opening our borders to a country who is not bound to exist under the same regime of taxes and regulation while that same country is involved in devaluing it’s currency, subsidizing it’s export industry, using slave labor as a means of production and selling it’s goods below the cost of production is foolish if not utterly suicidal.

    As I say…I’m not an absolutist on free trade…any more and I’m an absolutist on Social Issues…or fiscal issues

  • AceInTX
  • Diogenes314

    I think even Smith/Misses/Hayak and even Ayn Rand would agree?that putting taxes environmental regulations, safety and health regulations and paying for social welfare on the backs of our businesses while opening our borders to a country who is not bound to exist under the same regime of taxes and regulation while that same country is involved in devaluing it?s currency, subsidizing it?s export industry, using slave labor as a means of production and selling it?s goods below the cost of production is foolish if not utterly suicidal.

    Except for the taxes part. They need to be cut (along with a lot of regulations). China’s economic suicide is their problem, not ours.

  • AceInTX

    Since the only truce you can have with the RMSP types is if you sit down and shut up and do what you’re told

  • Diogenes314

    And only because you’re only seeing what you want to see.

  • AceInTX

    I’m accusing you of saying he’s really a Social Conservative whole act like a Social Conservative when he gets elected even though he’s campaigning as if he’s not

    sheesh…this is giving me a headache

    heh

  • AceInTX

    Spell Check

  • aesthete

    Ayn Rand would probably sneer at the business owners complaining about such a thing and tell them to create something glorious just to spite them all, and to always pursue their own self-interest.

    Hayek would likely be baffled, and tell us to stop worrying about other countries and to put our regulatory and spending house in order, in order to more fully exploit our comparative advantage on the economic field. He would also off-handedly suggest that China’s misallocation of resources will cause a bubble in the country such that when it pops, their economy will be hurt to a greater extent than they were helped by it in the preceding years. He will note that government is horrible at both investment and allocative efficiency, and that these bubbles are inevitable in a system where central planning dominates the economy (as is the case in China and in its trade policy).

    Mises would just frown and tell you to read more Bastiat :)

    I’d advise you to read Jagdish Bhagwati’s correspondence on the subject of globalization, and of course Bastiat’s excellent “Economic Sophisms” (you can read for free here): http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph.html

    If you can only read one section, I’d suggest the chapter entitled “a negative railroad”.

  • AceInTX

    that’s as good as a surrender because most of them are in your face SocLibs

  • David123

    It sounds like Daniels will be excellent on judges.

    Still, talk of “truces”, “reaching across the aisle”, and similar statements from Republicans is worrisome when we see how the leftists behave.

  • AceInTX

    <—taking a bow

  • AceInTX

    forgive me if I don’t take your word for it that it means something else this time.

  • Diogenes314

    Awesome.

  • AceInTX
  • Diogenes314

    Or to ‘sit down and shut up’ either.

    What I am suggesting is that you might wait and see what comes out on the campaign trail and during the debates, as well as any further clarifications in the future before making your mind up.

    Or not.

  • aesthete

    Still, we did have that discussion somewhere on this thread explaining how TX is executive-light and legislature-heavy. (And apparently, about its de facto exec being the Light Guv.) Jimmy Carter, Ron Reagan, and pretty much every other governor who I can think of governed in DC very similar to how they did in their home states. Promises are all over the map; some pols more or less fulfilled their promises (James Polk), others reneged on almost all of them (Obama, Wilson), and still others were a grab bag of fulfill/not fulfill (Bush). Governing in office indicates future performance in higher office, promises, not so much.

  • carolina

    administration..

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Period.

    He likely won’t be entertaining any legislation on social issues beyond what he can do administratively, Mexico City, the nomination of “rock ribbed conservative” judges and what can accomplished in conjunction with a fundamental restructuring of the budget and the government, think defunding PP. I would also expect that he’ll direct his AG to defend DOMA, again administrative action.

    Now then, as a SoCon, what more can POTUS do? Just what legislation would you like to see in the social area that can’t be accomplished via cutting the budget?

    With respect to abortion, until we get the opportunity to replace a liberal justice, there isn’t anything that can be done at the federal level short of a constitutional amendment which will not pass.

    Basically, Daniels is calling for a truce on stuff that can only be talked to death, not stuff that can be unilaterally done.

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

    substantial way to be totally redeemed and I suspect he will move in that direction with more clear statements of it as an experiment. Look, all our candidates have negatives and so we have to look at the totality.

    For me, Pawlenty is best from what I know now. He has renounced his past cap and trade and he stood up to Dems in MN. He is strong NOW on all conservative issues, with the only exception of ag subsidies and ethanol. Not sure that any candidate in Iowa is not. I hate it but there we are.

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

    implies major compromise.

    I had hoped for months that he would say its priorities but he never does. But I appreciate all the good work of his supporters cutting and pasting his musings to try and make it so. smile

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Romney NOT backtracking one bit on RomneyCare. I don’t consider it gambling, it’s just taking money.

  • AceInTX

    but Mitch hasn’t even tried to persuade me.

    The only people I’m set in stone against is Romney, McCain or Trump.

    If Romney takes this nomination I’ll have as hard a time on it this time as I had with McLoser last time.

    I went off the deep end on McCain…I might not get as off the wall crazy with Romney as I did with McLame…but I’d expect to do some drooling and slobbering in mental anguish this time

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

    He said what he said, not what you all wished he had said. I wish he had simply said its priorities.

  • AceInTX

    he’s either not interested in clearing it up because we’re reading him right…or he has a tin ear and shouldn’t be the nominee because he obviously can’t read the voters

    either way he deserves a big…fat…NOPE!

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

    And he doesn’t confine his truce to just voters. He speaks of needed unity to get the needed laws passed. And it is quite easy to make clear that all he meant was priorities in the campaign. You say: “It was about priorities in the campaign”.

    Instead he rambles about unity.

    I would say that it is still a sleight possibility that he does mean just campaign priorities given his hesitant style and weak verbal skills.

  • AceInTX

    This is what I’m saying…when ANYONE in the Republican Party says Social Issues have to take a back seat to any other leg of the stool…SoCons have learned from DECADES of experience…that we’re going to the back of the bus and th only input we’ll have will be shelling out the money to run the campaign and doing all the work to elect those who refuse to represent us.

    It has been so since I can remember.

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

    I have come to dislike his style and do not see him as presidential material. I also am troubled by his seeming affected aloofness and tinges of elitism.. Being honest on my take after thinking about it a long time. I am surprised I have come to this given my great admiration for his work in Indiana.

  • aesthete

    Specifically, not in the fevered mind of a Chinese Colonel telling his CO what he wants to hear. If we wanted China off the map *now*, we could do it within the year — there isn’t much they could do to stop it. Their AF and Navy are complete and total crap, their defenses for either are limited, they have virtually no allies (certainly none of import who would stand with them in a fight). Their high point is their Army: it is passable at present, but considering that they’ve spent the past 60 years struggling to occupy Tibet and not much else, I wouldn’t exactly call them crack troops, or anything close to our own Army.

    In trade, China has counterproductive policy. The Chinese government has made it so that its economy is dependent on Western demand and innovation to fuel it, and this will not change until the Chinese government and property rights structure do. There is a limit to just how much growth one can wring out of that strategy, and China is coming close to reaching this limit. We should be pitying China, not fearing it.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    We’ve got eight or nine months to get this stuff fleshed out. And it will get fleshed out.

  • AceInTX

    but then I thought…the criteria was…name one governor who?s governed the country differently than his state.

    Bush’s record and talking points as governor gave every indication that he would be far more Conservative as POTUS than he was in fact.

    I would say…Reagan could be pointed to as well…because he wasn’t able to manage the Dems on the Budget as he had in CA…but that can be argued both ways so I left it alone

  • acat

    She’s not qualified to be POTUS, but she does have a gift… veep, especially for a less than telegenic candidate, could actually be a good fit for her.

    Mew

  • acat

    I believe Daniels is overstating the importance of social issues, and therefore is expecting a compromise on them to be worth more than it will really be worth.

    It’s like he’s trying to sell his house in today’s market based on an appraisal from 2007…

    Mew

  • AceInTX

    YOU brought up Mexico city and other policies…he’s apparently your guy…why don’t you get an answer for me….how will he behave on executive orders like the Mexico City Policies if Reissuing the old policies make the RINOS start squealing?

    His statement seems to indicate to me that he’ll tell us to sit down and shut up…

    what indication do you have that I am wrong?

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    to be offended by this. Pointless to discuss at this point.

    As i noted, there’ll be lots of time to hear what he has to say about this and lots of other, much more important, things. The field isn’t going to winnow until the fall and there will be lots of face to face stuff and Q&As with the press and open forums.

    We’ll see how he handles everything, assuming he wants to run, and we’ll have real candidates to compare to. At that time we can carry on.

  • Doc Holliday

    it is a slur and a lie. The small group that lies about fellow conservatives here is hurting the site and our cause. You say this is a three-legged stool, fine. I will bet anyone here that at least 1/3 of RS’ers are of the small government, liberty or death, bent. To call them “libertines” is vile and false. I don’t know why the mods allow this.

    If we used hyperbolic lies about those who call us libertines, we would likely be banned. How would you like to be called a fascist? How would you like to be called the Taliban?

    We should be celebrating today as Americans and Conservatives.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    They are at the top of my list with a slight nod to Daniels.

    I had hoped that Huckabee was going to stay out but now he’s making noises about getting in … blech … would rather have Trump than Huck.

  • acat

    Not before 2016, at least.

    There are too many appearances *on tape* from before 2007 to today with Romney crowing over Romneycare, trying out the “excuse” that “it would have been worse unless…” and “the state has the right to do this…” .. The attack ads write themselves.

    I’ll take Pawlenty over Daniels for a very simple reason – the Minnesota statehouse is largely Dem, the Indiana statehouse is largely GOP.

    Pawlenty is better prepared to execute with a hostile congress regardless of which party is nominally in control* than Daniels.

    Mew

    * Obama got played by a Dem congress…. Daniels has given the appearance of getting played by a Repub statehouse… Pawlenty has successfully governed against a very hostile Dem statehouse… Pawlenty is less likely than Daniels to get rolled by Boehner or the other RINOs.

  • clowngirl

    Staying away from social issues so we can all be “unified” and focus on the budget would imply there’s some kind of unity with the Democrats on budgetary matters and nothing could be further from the truth.

    Obama loves to constantly talk about bogus false choices – but Daniels seems to be presented an actual false choice in suggesting that conservatives must choose between restricting abortion (hopefully eventually ending it) and cutting the budget. There’s nothing whatsoever to indicate that abandoning pro-life goals would make liberals agreeable to repealing Obamacare, reforming medicare, social security, or anything else.

    Btw, thank you for answering the question of what Daniels means by a truce (in that he hasn’t defined it himself) I’d been wondering about that. I’m fine with a truce if it means pursuing incremental reform – like in South Dakota where they passed a law requiring a 3 day waiting period before getting an abortion (the same amount of time allotted to any buyer who would like to change their mind about a product they purchased over the phone) but it sounds more like he’s willing to just leave the issue alone for 4 years— but then that’s not what he’s doing in his own state. So as President – he may not take the lead — but it seems probable that he also would also sign any anti abortion legislation that reached his desk.

    A “truce” is the sort of thing that sounds pragmatic for about half a second until you think about it. The President is likely to have to appoint Supreme Court judges – they will interpret the Constitution in a manner that will either favor legalized abortion or not. There’s no ducking the issue.

    That said, pro-choice, one issue voters are extremely annoying – and it’s understandable to want to get them off the issue and actually thinking about other things. But I doubt many of them are going to trust a Republican anyway– especially as some of them really don’t seem to be that interested in any other issues – and last I heard the majority of Americans are pro-life. Why call a truce on an issue on which you are winning?

    Anyway, thanks for the diary!

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • runner12

    social-liberal/small government fiscal conservative politician. This combo is a myth that does not exist in reality.

    With regards to Daniels, he is somewhat of a puzzle to me and I think he needs a serious vetting during the primaries. When he first made his “truce” statement I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. When he doubled down, I began to feel wary of him. Then when he took a weak position when the Dems went AWOL, he dropped towards the bottom of the list for me.

    Then he signs in sweeping education reform and is set to vote on an aggressive pro-life bill, both of which show courage and leadership. Two things he seemed to be without previously.

    Wad this a strategy all along? Is he just another slick politician or is he really committed to reducing the size of government? All of these questions need to be answered for me and they haven’t been so far.

  • runner12

    That would be “Was” this a strategy all along. Dang Ipad.

  • 20jan2013
  • 20jan2013

    4,000 abortions on demand daily in this country. End that and we can talk truce.

    I can’t believe this guy actually thinks he has a chance to win the nomination.

  • 20jan2013
  • 20jan2013

    List at least 3 specific issues on which Trump holds the conservative position and Huckabee holds the liberal position.

    Then I will understand your “blech” comment.

  • 20jan2013

    should answer it.

    You never would have had to ask that question about Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, or Sarah Palin.

  • 20jan2013
  • 20jan2013

    the rule is only as good as our unflinching infliction of the rare, warranted exception. China deserves such an exception because it is in our best interests as a country.

  • 20jan2013

    Cute and cuddly pandas, one-child only mandatory (screw pro-”choice”) abortions, environmental regulations (completely absent *cough* *cough*), unrealistic monetary policy, and totalitarian anti-democratic regime ASIDE (!), China has these things called nukes. Even if their military were “total crap,” which it most assuredly is NOT, they have a plethora of score-eveners in their silos, all the more to bomb us with, my pretties.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    1. Taxes. Huckabee has never met a tax he didn’t like and wouldn’t be willing to raise. Trump would likely be more conservative.

    2. Government overreach. Huckabee has never seen a problem that couldn’t be solved by the government. Again, Trump would likely be more conservative.

    3. Fundamental honesty. Huckabee is an accomplished liar. I’m not talking “spin”, I’m talking out-and-out lies with video to prove it. Trump will spin, but not get caught in a lie with tape backup to prove it.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And I don’t want to see her in a position where SHE will be an issue in the campaign. The bottom line issue next year needs to be BO with no distractions.

    She’ll also be a much more effective bomb thrower (and fund raiser) if she’s not on the ticket. She’ll be unconstrained. And she also won’t have to deal with the press, who will – one-on-one – make a fool of her.

  • 20jan2013

    on the “niche” issue of life.

    As far as nominating yet another RINO who downplays social issues, count me OUT.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    And in less you’ve got a new crystal ball, I don’t have much faith in that statement. We don’t know if the guy is going to run, and if he does, we’ve got lots of time and lots of venues to clarify his statement.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    First of all, there is a very limited number of things a President can actually do to reduce the number of abortions and absolutely NOTHING he can do to stop them. Nothing.

    There is nothing to indicate that Daniels would not do everything possible on an administrative basis (Mexico City, etc) and there’s nothing to indicate that he wouldn’t support fiscal actions like defunding PP, etc.

    The number one priority of the next Administration must be getting our fiscal house in order and stopping the growth of government and eliminating as much of the currently built up over-reach as possible.

  • acat

    You know, the strategy of making an election all about an unpopular Dem…

    Seriously, while I agree with your second paragraph, we need a candidate who can figure out how to say “It can be morning in America again” – and then let the campaign staff go after Obama.

    Mew

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

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703775704576162560536917424.html

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/266364/gov-daniels-verge-ramesh-ponnuru

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    When I say that BO needs to be THE issue, I’m not talking about “personally” as Dole did with Clinton. His argument was all about integrity, not policy.

    We need to tie the disasters that this Administration is overseeing – economy, unemployment, deficit, over-reach of government, energy, etc – to the policies of BO and his incompetence in office. We have the opportunity to beat the Left on issues and we also have the opportunity to destroy their poster boy for affirmative action.

    I want it all.

  • acat

    Just wanted to be sure…

    Mew

  • aesthete

    then yes, I think your statement is accurate. Ace’s statements do make me a little more interested in Rick Perry, though.

  • aesthete

    You should check out how badly it got its a** kicked when it tried to tussle in Vietnam in late 70s. It wasn’t a proxy war and they were only there for some months, and they were still forced to withdraw.

    Nukes are a factor, but not the only one: they could hurt us, but we would destroy them. Our air power alone would slaughter them, and you better believe that a good chunk of China disappears if we get hit with nukes. China only recently developed land-based ICBM tech. We have more nukes than they do (and they’re better maintained), our ICBMs are way more developed (as is our anti-ICBM system, GMD), and we have more land-based and sub-based ICBMs available than they do. 450 ICBMs are a lot better than whatever amount China could lob our way if they chose to be so suicidal, which would be limited to <30. The flaws of a somewhat pragmatic totalitarian Communist regime, as horrible as they are, are at least mitigated by the desire for self-preservation. Do you really think that China would be that suicidal? If so, why haven’t they tried taking Taiwan or cratering Japan?

  • aesthete

    but I do know that whatever the outcome, America loses.

  • aesthete

    Do you really want to vote for your Rep and President based on that issue while Washington DC is burning?

  • rightwingmom52

    in the arena of ideas with liberals because conservative ideas can win out if conveyed properly. I’m just not sure Daniels has the fire to lead that fight, especially since he seems to have already alienated many in our own party.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
  • 20jan2013

    Federal judicial appointments matter. The bully pulpit of the presidency matters. Even if you are right from a pragmatic perspective, I want someone who will acknowledge the priority that life has over dollars. After that, I understand if his impact functionally and pragmatically is greater on dollar bill issues.

  • 20jan2013

    It was in 1812, and it was in 2001, but not today. We have a money problem that Paul Ryan says is fixable if only we muster the will to make it happen. The re-election of Obama will assure that it does not happen. The election of a RINO or flipflopper Republican will assure that it does not happen. But if we elect a conservative we can save this country for our succeeding generations. It is not too late, as it was too late once the White House was already on fire in 1812.

    There are too many good conservative candidates who go out of their way to acknowledge the primacy of life to settle for a guy who announces a unilateral truce right out of the gate.

    As long as the anti-Huckabee and anti-Palin folks on this site promise not to take THEIR marbles and go home in November 2012 if either of them become our nominee, I promise not to take MY marbles and go home if we get stuck with a Trucer or a Flip McFlopperson.

  • 20jan2013

    to spout generalities. Rise to the occasion of the challenge, which wasn’t even addressed to you anyway, and be specific with your assertions. Your repeated use of the word “never” confirms this should be a simple task for you.

  • 20jan2013

    Huckabee raises a road use tax and you are going to tar and feather him as if he was the reincarnation of old Tax-and-Spend Jimmy Carter? Huckabee is the only guy talking about abolishing the IRS and replacing the income tax with a fairer, flatter, FairTax type of solution.

    Overreach? Never anything a governor has to do to fulfill a legislative mandate to balance a budget would come off as overreach, especially to a libertarian.

    I’m not aware of any lies, documented or rumored. If you mean to call all politicians liars, well, then, yes, he is a politician, yes.

  • 20jan2013

    “but I do know that whatever the outcome, libertines like me lose.”

  • aesthete

    for a strong pro-life bill which will have the effect of cutting his state off from Medicaid funds and embroiling it in expensive court battles would meet that criterion.

  • aesthete

    “There are too many good conservative candidates who go out of their way to acknowledge the primacy of life”

    …such as? Pawlenty maybe, but I have my doubts on his fiscal bonafides for a couple of reasons. The rest of those jokers? Not so much. (I also fail to see where Daniels’ record for pro-life stuff is anything less than excellent.)

    Right now, all you’re complaining about is that some politician told you the truth that right now, no one gives a crap about abortion. That’s just a fact: besides some obsessives on both sides, national politics generally are not made on the basis of abortion when there’s something else going on. Insisting that Daniels talk about abortion a lot more, when he just signed perhaps the most sweeping bill in the nation dedicated to reducing it, is incredibly neurotic in the face of his record, his faith, and his consistency on the issue.

  • powertothepeople

    you are becoming quite obnoxious with your comments towards others especially your “generalities” comment. Wish you would make up your mind as to which candidate you will be a bobble head for, would make it much easier for us to know how laughable much of what you say is.

    Second, a road tax is not the only tax Huck served on his populous. In 2002, he begged the state congress to raise taxes, not for the court ordered school deficit as he claimed (lie he was caught in as MBecker alluded to), but it was to shore up the huge budget deficit. He added a $5 plus per bed tax on old folks in nursing homes then went on to lie about it. He hit his people with a per gallon of gas tax, and then claimed it was not him.He claimed in a speech that he gave his voters 100 tax cuts and saved them 380 million, problem with his lie was that while he did cut taxes it was only 90 taxes and he forgot to add that he raised taxes 21 times. Another problem with that lie was that while his 90 cuts did save 378 million, his tax increases gave a net increase in tax of over 505 million. So he cuts taxes 90 times and only saves 378 million for the tax payer,but in the 21 times he raised taxes, it increased taxes 883 plus million dollars leaving his constituents a net increase of 505 plus million dollars. I would suggest you learn a little more, or as Neil would say, read your history, before trapping at the jaw and posting false facts.

    Third, Flat/Fair taxes are a joke. While anyone with any common sense would agree the tax system in this country is abysmal, only a fool would push the flat fair tax system. And he is by far not the first to push that campaign rhetoric, But what is amazing about his rhetoric is that he made no attempts to set an example in his own state and fix the state tax system with something similar to the flat/fair tax he preached.

    And last but not least, are you trying to say that because their is a mandate to fix the budget, that gives a person free reign to raise taxes or as you state, nothing a gov would do to meet the mandate would be over reaching. This is pure ass nonsense. Any mandate set to balance the budget would be on the congress. It is the gov’s job to push them to set a balanced budget, but a conservative gov would veto any tax increase that puts the job of fixing the budget on the backs of the average citizen, Huckster failed to do that.

    And hate to break it to you, it is obvious from your comments many a time on this site that you have little real knowledge about politics and about the very people you support. So it is not surprising you have no knowledge about what MBecker and others are talking about and your lack of knowledge is not the deciding precedent as to whether it is true or not. Do a little research and not only will you educate yourself a bit, but it will keep you from making nonsense comments.

    HucksRecord

  • spainishirish

    And we can have it all if we don’t get distracted by sideshows.

  • powertothepeople

    that Daniels actions showed he would support an anti abortion bill, but the reality of politics, the reality of the size of the anti abortion/socon voter bloc is that he better learn a big lesson in that he needs to keep his mouth shut more often and not make comments like the truce comment. It is a lesson most hopefuls never learn and it sinks them. His record may be good, it may be great, but words are what many people remember and when they go to the polls and are deciding between a person who may not have as good of a social record as Daniels but has the right words, Daniels will end up on the losing side. The socon bloc is the biggest and while most of us realize that right now the biggest thing facing our country is the spending/debt, at the same time we will not support a person who shuns us or makes it seem he/she will. While I am not with Daniels or anyone at this point, I recognize that he has served social stances well. Many others in my group will see that as well. But a ton will remember his comment and it will hurt him. He does not need to lie or act as if social issues are his priority, but he does need to learn that every word he utters is important, his words need to be quite clear as to their meaning, and he needs to remember everything he states will be under a microscope. And that is why he and many others need to learn to shut up more than they speak.Or at least carefully consider their words.

  • aesthete
  • 20jan2013

    Thank you for the “obnoxious” compliment. I can’t claim credit for being all that obnoxious, unfortunately; perhaps you find it obnoxious that you can’t respond to my arguments, Mister P2P. Yes, perhaps that’s it!

    Second, when you have to balance a budget and don’t have the luxury of printing your own money, you have to have comprehensive solutions. Shouting “tax-raiser!” at a governor who cut spending in exercising his constitutional duties is just intellectually lazy and dishonest.

    Third, give me the “joke” of the FairTax over the current system any day.

    Fourth, Huckabee did what you advocate; you just refuse to give him credit for it.

    Fifth, I guess we agree to disagree about my knowledge or lack thereof about politics and the people who would lead America. I will happily continue to learn and contribute with my alleged “nonsense” comments until 20Jan2013′s change of power or someone with a banhammer silences me.

    Lighten up and smile, powertothepeople! Can’t we all just get along?

  • 20jan2013

    this is one of those cases where it’s not enough to walk the walk, but you have to talk the talk as well. Usually, the problem is the other way around. But it’s still a problem.

    Mitch gets no cookies, brownie points, or credit whatsoever for signing a no-brainer that would have gotten him rightfully ejected from the Republican party had he not.

    NO TRUTHERS! NO BIRTHERS! NO DEATHERS! NO TRUCERS!

  • 20jan2013
  • Diogenes314

    Seriously. You were already there.

  • 20jan2013
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    good leaders as govs in such states have accomplished great things thru persuasion and leadership.

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

    of such nonsense. Rambling without one cognitive line of thought.

    Hate to break it to you, all you have done since day one on this site is post BS and rambling nonsense. I responded to your nonsense, clearly stated where you have no clue as to what you are talking about, provided a link to affirm what I state, and you reply with the joke above.

    Again, you keep saying he cut spending, but that is not true. He did not cut spending nor did he cut taxes. Again, learn a little.

    Give you? Oh good grief. So you take one POS system over another POS system. This was your most “brilliant” answer yet.

    And what do I advocate for Huck to do that he has done? Raise taxes? Act like we need a nanny state? Please explain this nonsensical statement you made.

    And if you wanted to learn and contribute, you would be adult and mature enough to admit you were wrong and MBecker, Aesthete, and others were right. That is what an adult does and what someone who wants to learn does. They were right about his tax loving nanny state nonsense, you were wrong. Instead of admitting your mistake, you just post more nonsense. And not sure what the whole pity seeking “ban hammer” BS comes from, no one has asked for or alluded to you being banned. Again, absolute nonsense from you.

    I get along with most, have no problem with you. But either you are going to keep posting uneducated nonsense because you do not have a clue as to what you are talking about and it will get confronted, or you will be adult and mature enough to admit you were wrong and or learn more about the people in politics and post material filled with facts. Either way, has nothing to do with “lets get along.”

  • powertothepeople

    and that may be a good thing, but the “cool story bro” line does not fit in this instance. But feel free to keep trying, I am sure Neil feels pride a person such as you is playing copy cat.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    He’s great talk on social issues. The SIVVs love him. Of course, he’s never actually DONE anything on any social issue but talk, but it sounds great.

    You’re an absolute fool.

  • 20jan2013

    http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/cool-story-bro

  • aesthete

    Just like no one cared about abortion when the Mexican-American War and 54 40 or fight was going on except some obsessives. Learn the difference between positive and normative statements.

  • 20jan2013

    …and an absolute fool at that….for a true conservative to be our standard-bearer in 2012…not a trucer…not a flip flopper…not a philandering multiple divorcee…not a charisma-less friend of the establishment.. I am an absolute fool for someone who is willing to change up our tax code…someone who will take it right to Obama just like Trump only without the Trump baggage. Huckabee and Palin are the only ones so far who fit the bill of who’s worthy to be a fool for.

    I am an absolute fool for the conservative cause.

    It’s about time you added me to your very long list of personal attack recipients. I was beginning to feel left out, mbecker! I still respect your perspective, but your disrespectful ad hominem was unfortunate. But I ran with it and made lemonade from your lemons, so its OK.

    Friends? *offers handshake*

  • acat

    and it’s an issue that the POTUS, bluntly, can’t do much about.

    Overseas? Yes. Domestically? Show me how the POTUS can do much outside appointing justices who will, long-term, overturn Roe v. Wade… and that’s pretty much only if the more liberal justices die when a conservative is in the white house. Notice how many libs retired right after Obama was elected…

    No, the action on abortion is at the state level – and Daniels has the best record there… with Perry (TX) also being good. Pawlenty and Johnson have nothing to walk back. Show me – with a cite – where Huck is nearly as good on taxes as any of those four (Daniels, Pawlenty, Johhnson, Perry) …

    I’ll wait.

    Mew

  • acat

    Daniels and Perry (TX) have the best executive records on abortion.

    This isn’t really debatable, y’see – it’s based on the fact that, in Indiana and Texas (and, IIRC, Kansas) funding for abortions is not provided by the government.

    Since abortion is your issue, go ahead and show me how Huck limited the Fed ability to pay for abortions on his watch. I’ll wait.

    Mew

  • 20jan2013
  • acat

    Look, you unthinking, reactionary, paleo-con twit, I’ll make it really simple for you.

    Abortions – and I agree they matter – did not go down under Huckabee.

    Higher taxes – and Huckabee raised taxes repeatedly and is now lying about it – is not helpful to family values.

    Lying – and Huck is a serial liar – is not a trait I’d think any conservative would value. I have to conclude you’re either a liberal troll, or an especially ignorant fool … which would you prefer?

    Mew

  • acat

    Because Fred couldn’t even figure out how to win a primary.
    Because Huck couldn’t either.

    Because with Palin, it’s actually true.

    Mew

  • http://www.tooncesthecat.wordpress.com tooncesthecat

    I’m all for Mitch Daniels and hope he gets in the race quickly. This election needs to be about the deficit,the debt, and obamacare. That’s what 2010 focused on and Republicans won. To defeat Obama will require the votes of independents,who may not agree with the Republican Party’s position on social issues. To pass legislation in the Senate, will clearly require the support of Democratic Senators who don’t agree with the Republican Party’s position on social issues. So, do you just want to make a point, or do you really want to fix our countries financial crisis? Are you more interested in denying a few million dollars to NPR or passing a plan to eliminate the $1.6 trillion deficit.

  • Finrod

    I tried it four years ago when I was supporting Rudy, and nobody listened then either. :-/

  • acat

    First, it requires the gimick of the “prebate” .. which is nothing more than a big fat target for the Dems to dink around with. “Special Group X should have a higher prebate”, or “Let’s disconnect the prebate from taxes for people earning less than X”. Every government program that involves paying out cash has gone like this – flood insurance, post office, amtrak, welfare. I don’t believe the prebate would be any different.

    Stripped of the prebate, it’s a national sales tax. So, let’s call it that. I don’t mind sales taxes in general – they’re consumption-based, so if I choose to live simply, I can pay less tax. The problem is, they’re insidious… they can be raised a quarter percent at a time, and since they’re just a couple cents on most small purchases, nobody really notices them. Just another price going up. That’s how Cook County, home to Chicago, ended up with the highest sales tax price in the country – 11%.

    Finally, to really make the fair tax work, it has to be the only tax – and for that to happen requires repealing an amendment… i.e. our government voluntarily giving up power. Hell will freeze over first.

    Mew

  • acat

    “Quantity has a quality all its’ own”. — Stalin

    Seriously, yes, compared unit to unit our armed services are the best of the world… but China has force of numbers… in more ways than one.

    I don’t think they want a direct military conflict with us. That would be foolish.. however, if you also ignore their “broken branches” (young men who have no chance of finding wives due to the birth imbalance) and the tremendous social pressure that’s going to create over the next two decades,

    One possible remedy, and one that’s historically happened when the ratio is imbalanced, is to export those young men as soldiers. Not to the U.S., of course, but to places where they can find wives and can expand the empire… and China seems to be moving into Africa, South America, Afghanistan… places that have natural resources but chaotic governments, and armies or militias that are also numbers-based.

    This doesn’t make them a direct threat to us, but it will mean interesting times for us in the future.

    Mew

  • lineholder

    “I want it all”. Yeah, I think we should be aiming HIGH and pushing the issues HARD. We may end up having to compromise on somethings, but it’s better than aiming LOW from the get-go, right?

  • powertothepeople

    before trying to use them to make a point.

    “?Cool Story, Bro? is a popular catchphrase / image macro used as a sarcastic response to to thread posts, trolls and general comments that are deemed boring, pointless or just too long to read.”

    First, never stated Neil started the fad, simply factually stated you are mimicking him.

    Second, as I stated in my first response, does not fit this post. But maybe you can show me where Diogenes post is so wrong it is deserving of a sarcastic response since you were the fool who used cap locks and got called on it, where he is a troll, that his comment is boring, pointless, or too long. Since you can not, your comment “cool story bro” was a pathetic attempt at emulating Neil and a complete failure.

    Are you allowed to ever hold anything sharp in your hand without adult supervision? Just wondering…….

  • aesthete

    If it hadn’t been for the UK and us, the USSR would have been a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nazi Germany — this, despite Stalin’s numerically-superior army fighting on their own land.

    An army is nothing but a giant target if it isn’t backed up by air power and naval power. China has neither, and there is a limit to what its army can do. It is worth noting that China has achieved little of note in foreign policy through military means — it got a favorable stalemate with India, but that’s pretty much it. We’re not talking about a martial tradition on par with Great Britain’s, here. The idea that the Chinese could defeat us militarily is pure fantasy. IMO, so is the notion of a Chinese empire in the way that you’re describing, especially since the Chinese don’t have much of a navy to speak of.

  • Diogenes314

    [quote]AESTHETE SAYS, “NO ONE GIVES A CRAP ABOUT ABORTION…BESIDES SOME OBSESSIVES.” [/quote]

    Even without the caplock, the use of quotation marks would imply that this is a verbatim quote.

    Or that you’re just an idiot. But your previous posts already demonstrate that part. And BTW, nothing that Aesthete has said would in any way imply nor could anyone with an above room temperature IQ reasonable infer the spin you are putting on his statements.

    In conclusion, not only are you an idiot, but a classless douche. Keep pimping The Huckster by all means. With friends like you, the rest of us have no need to worry about him in the primaries.

  • Diogenes314

    Reactionary or populist would be more accurate.

    I’m pretty sure twits in general are offended as well BTW. Even they don’t want to be lumped in with this clown.

    Dammit. Now the clowns are going to come after me.

  • Diogenes314
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • steve010

    nt

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    There aren’t any. Get over it. Every candidate is going to have pluses and minuses and the work we have to do is understand what those are.

    You’re in for a very long primary season if you think for a second that there’s anybody out there that will ever live up to your “standards”.

  • aesthete

    “Just like no one cared about slavery“…

    Carry on.

  • runner12

    After reading you and Erick’s piece in combination with other news sources, I have made up my mind about Daniels. He is a no-go for me in the primaries. He runs from a fight too easily for me.

  • Diogenes314

    Any idiot who wishes to label me libertine, RINO or whatever is free to do so.

    All I see is a rhetorical white flag.

  • gekster

    Slanderous adhominems?
    Ironic.

  • acat

    As I recall, Asthete, it was the Russians who got to Berlin first.

    Yes, Germany collapsed due to ending up waging a two-front (or three-front, depending) war… and yes, if we hadn’t intervened, they may have been toast.

    Yes, the Chinese don’t have a good marital tradition or navy, but .. give it a decade. Yes, the Chinese army isn’t nearly good enough to take us on… but they’re plenty good to turn Zimbabwe into a satrap.

    Thing is, I agree they’re not a threat *to us* today. I don’t think they will become one. I do think they will – eventually – have to come into conflict with our sphere of influence, with Taiwan and Japan as the “trip wires”.

    Mew

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

    Commandments was on eo the greatest performances of all-time, imho.

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

    of her resignation from the governor’s office and at the time, she had a great record in the past and great statements on the future. Since I highlighted and criticized Daniels’ truce elaboration, he has said that he is not ready to debate Obama on foreign policy and accepted the “non-combative conservative” label. The Becker I came to know was most defined by his rightful revulsion with Dubya’s non-combativeness on issues across the non-war board. Does that Becker still live and does it matter what Daniels actually says?

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    I’m not supporting anybody yet, and likely not for a long time.

    Let’s see if Daniels decides to run and then how he does.

    All in all, I don’t give a tinkers dam about his “truce” statements. I care a whole lot more about lots of other stuff like his statement the other day that he’s not ready to debate Obama on foreign policy.

    Bottom line, he’s got an excellent record as governor, not spotless, but excellent – and very conservative – nonetheless. Let’s see if he’s going to run. Then let’s see what happens.

  • 20jan2013

    Scroll up and read the comment by aesthete on Thursday, May 5th at 1:56AM EDT.

    Have a nice day, Dio! See ya at Huckabee’s convention!

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Of course you took the quote totally out of context, but what the heck.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    why don’t you write a diary about just what Huckabee is going to be able to do about social issues as POTUS.

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

    about Mitch that he would say such a thing? The evidence that he is the total non-Becker candidate is piling up. To me, Becker’s main lessons of the past 9 years that I accepted were the flaws in Bush of unilateral truces with the left and non-combative stance on non-war issues that Daniels seems to go out of his way to claim. Becker, you taught me some things. Dig? And my opposition to Daniels is a natural result of same. Now, could DeVine end up out-Beckering Becker? Yes. I’m that awesome! smile

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    You don’t make decisions about candidates until you’ve got the facts, and we don’t have any real body of facts on any of the “non-retread” candidates yet. We have data, and not much of that.

    I’m willing to register a decision on the people who ran in 08, they all have a public record and we’ve seen them in action in campaigns. For that reason I won’t be casting a primary vote for RonPaul, Palin, Romney, Huckabee or Gingrich. Since I’ve been pretty vocal over the years on all of them I won’t bother to elaborate here.

    On the rest of the field, they’re generally a blank slate. Certainly Daniels and Pawlenty both have good records of accomplishment as two term governors. For that matter so does Gary Johnson. Herman Cain has a great record in the private sector. None of them have experience standing in the klieg lights of a national campaign and based on what I’m reading about their first run at it, Santorum, Pawlenty and Cain handled themselves well and Johnson made a fool of himself. Obviously Daniels wasn’t there.

    We’ve got lots of time to sort out who’s who and where they stand on a whole variety of issues and since I don’t see the field starting to winnow and focus for probably another six months or so, there’s no reason not to give the candidates forums to address all of their various – and individual – issues. Let’s find out who is really running, if Daniels decides to retire this whole thing is moot, and see how they deal with the heat. Then, and only then, will it be time to make a summation because we’ll actually know where they stand on the issues (and we don’t really know those yet either) know how they’ve dealt with their warts, and how they relate to the crowds.

    Right now is just opening statement time. If we were in court, we’d still be wondering how the opposing counsel had their case laid out and what their major points are. It’s not even close to time for a closing argument like you’re making on Daniels.

  • acat
  • 20jan2013

    Huckabee 2012!!! Or Bachmann 2012!!! Or Palin 2012!!! Or Cain 2012!!! I’m not too fussy!

  • acat

    Go ask any Dems you know how well that’s working out for them.

    Seriously, while there’s nothing wrong with wanting a rock star, putting style over substance is a losing play.

    Mew

  • 20jan2013

    I’ll stick to Huckabee…he’s the one with the solid resume…AND he talks a good game…AND he has delivered…AND I like his position on just about everything especially balacing the budget and the fairtax. I trust him. But what do I know, I’m either a liberal troll (unlikely) or an ignorant–excuse me…an ESPECIALLY ignorant fool (a little less unlikely).

  • acat

    Go ahead and show me – with links – where Huck achieved any of the following:

    1) Lowered the number of abortions per year
    2) Lowered taxes
    3) Reduced bureaucratic red tape for business owners

    You’re being lied to, 20jan. That doesn’t make you a fool. Repeating the lies as though they’re true, though …

    Mew

  • 20jan2013
  • gekster

    as Govenor. Will he apply it to the US as president?

  • acat

    I’ll support him in the primary.

    Like you, I want the best candidate possible.

    Unlike you, I’m looking at actual records, and Huck’s record stinks on ice.

    Mew

  • acat

    Meant I’ll support almost any nominee in the general.

    Not supporting Huck in the primary.

    Mew

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

    a strong presidential victory and majority senate. On the budget all you need is 50 Republicans, not any grand unity coalition.

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

    over time during a campaign. But I just judge matters on what they actually say and do. As Scarlett’s said, Tomorrow is another day. I’m not invested in anyone and came into this hoping Daniels was the guy. I loved him before he opened his mouth! I don’t claim a closing argument, but do think his recent machinations have shifted the burden of proof to him.

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

    that would only be dispositive in a close call with another Republican. I am an issues guy and it appears that his stance on how you get sufficient votes in DC as opposed to Indy would make it less likely that we get the results most conservatives desire on issues. But I would also admit that every candidate has major flaws. I am excited that Cain won over SC last night and would love it if he could win Iowa. But I still lean to Paws at this point.

    But really, I usually don’t get into campaign writing but a little at this stage.

    Back to issues till Labor Day, with only a few exceptions.

  • 20jan2013

    I had to look up what “slanderous ad hominems” meant and next to the definition sure enough there’s mbecker908′s mug leering back at me.

  • acat
  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • ssshannon1026

    The truth is that there has never been a better time to fight for social conservatism than now. The economic debate is over – you either support socialism or you don’t. The only economic argument that needs to be made is to make sure everyone understands that Obama is a socialist, his policies are socialist and the democrat party is a socialist party. That should not be altogether difficult to do, considering that it is true.

    That only leaves the social debate. As conservatives we should inextricably link social conservatism to fiscal conservatism. If you want the one, you have to accept the other – its a package deal. And if social conservatism scares you that much than have fun with the socialists.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    Don’t get much news in your cave, huh?

    The economic debate hasn’t even started. The Left doesn’t even acknowledge that we’re spending too much and poll after poll shows the American people don’t want “entitlements” cut.

    The fight hasn’t even started.

  • earlgrey

    I much prefer to the news I have been getting this weekend.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • acat
  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    He beat the hell out of conservatives on MedPtD & NCLB. And he almost got the job done on immigration.

    And, as far as being combative on wars, NOT. Only once did he get even close to “combative” and that was one short speech about the NYT releasing classified information. One one time did he take on a single member of Congress about their lies and he even apologized and agreed with them on the lie about 16 words.

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

    how bad it is likely to be next year was when FDR faced a much more stupid Hooverville-stained GOP. I think FDR’s repeal of prohibition was one of the main reasons.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    TheWon will have a billion dollars and unlimited help from the media. We’ll have to see what we’ve got.

    OTOH, I happen to think that the economy is as good as it’s going to get in the next two years and has the potential to make today look like “the good old days”.

  • steve010

    second rate challenger with phenomenal participation among the African-Americans and the 18-25 yr old groups. In Ohio, he got nearly 100% of the African-American vote. And this economy’s pain is localized on these two groups. The unemployment rate on these two groups is off the charts and not coming down by Oct 2012. Good luck in getting them to stand in line this time.

  • 20jan2013

    They always say the same thing: “It’s [the economy's] not his fault.”

    Race trumps all for an unfortunately large number of folks.

  • earlgrey

    Some are saying that the economy is recovering. Manufacturing especially in swing states has started to add jobs, and the recent jobs report of adding 244,000 jobs, has a lot of people encouraged. Oil also seems to be going down, and the dems are takign credit for increased domestic output of oil.

    Other conservatives seem to think the gas is not going to drop in price, and are worried about the effect of inflation.

    I am not really sure what to believe here. If the economic picture was really good, I would expect to see some chest thumping by democrats, but some conservatives are optimistic on recovery.

    Just learned a major medical device company in my area had significant layoffs from hourly to VP level. Of course the good news is MIdkey D’s is hiring.

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

    what is likely to come even more.

  • earlgrey

    patterns.

    Check out ragingelephants.org. Interesting site for conservative black activism. I support them a bit iwith a small monthly donation.

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

    I recently wrote this column about how more than a year passed between voluntary Bush-bashing and volunteered defenses of Obama on the economy.

    http://hillbillypolitics.com/blog/2011/03/19/but-at-least-obama-has-turned-things-around/

    And then there are the polls and how blacks are voting with their feet.

    http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/04/16/black-white-flight-from-obamavilles/

    Down to 85% is significant and portends a MUCH lower black and youth turnout in 2012.

  • 20jan2013
  • scarlos

    Though this was all of last week (last week of April), so it’s probably gone back up since then.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

  • ssshannon1026

    You actually think that there is anything you could possibly say that would make anyone who doesn’t want entlements cut believe otherwise? What would such an argument sound like? The economy is collapsing all around us, and everyone who cares knows that, and anyone who doesn’t care isn’t ever going to care. The only thing conservatives need to say is “We are going to cut entitlements. Oh, and by the way, we are also going to fight to end federally funded abortions, any recognition of gay marriage, and basically work to overturn the entire humanist political agenda”.
    Let people vote against that if they want to. When the country collapses it will be their fault not ours. We will have been proven right, and we will be the only ones left to reestablish a more robust Jeffersonian society. It is far better to fight for what’s right and lose, than to try to tone down the arguments to persuade the fence sitters to join us.