« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Mitch Daniels in 2009: Stop Disagreeing with Democrats

I am not really sure what is wrong with Mitch Daniels. Two years ago, you would not have found a bigger Mitch Daniels booster in the United States than yours truly. He had bucked national trends to win an landslide re-election and was doing all the right things to demonstrate administrative competence, which is something our party badly needed to demonstrate after the last two years of the Bush administration. Then he started saying crap like this, courtesy of Jenn Rubin:

So, as Republicans were gearing up for their biggest electoral victories in 16 years by fighting Obama and the Democrats tooth and nail on every aspect of their agenda, Mitch Daniels was telling everyone that the way to victory was to forget what a wedge issue even was, and just be nice so that people will like us again. Since then, Daniels has demonstrated that having a political tin ear in his case is a congenital defect rather than an isolated occurrence, telling social conservatives repeatedly to get to the back of the bus and indicating that he would pick Condi Rice – widely vilified as a miserable SecState by Republicans of all stripes – as his VP.

Mitch Daniels, by all accounts, was a very good governor of Indiana. By all those same accounts, he is very bad at understanding what it takes to build a coalition that could win a national election. In another candidate, this shortcoming would not necessarily be fatal. But let us face facts: Mitch Daniels is short, bald, and boring, and he is running against the Central Casting President. Winning over the marginal voters who tend to decide United States Presidential elections is going to be an uphill task for someone like Daniels, who is infinitely less telegenic than even Bob Dole. More than any other potential candidate in the GOP field, he will require a dedicated and fanatical army who will be able to bypass the media/television-induced fog that doomed Dole against Clinton and Nixon against Kennedy and spread the word to their friends and neighbors about why he would be a great President.

Mitch Daniels has shown, again and again, that he has no understanding of how to build such an army. Thankfully for the GOP, the people he is now busy alienating at every opportunity will be able to prevent him from having the opportunity to lose in a landslide to Obama.

COMMENTS

  • Bill S
    • dalebret

      Where do you get the info that so many Repubs thought Condi Rice was a lousy Sec of State? There are Repubs trying diligently to shoot the foot that’s in their mouth but I didn’t think they were friends of Red
      State.

      I hope you are wrong.

      PS I’m “replying” to Bill because RedState ignores the Leave a Comment button; I’m logged in.

      • hoosierclinger

        I think Condi is a smart and wonderful woman.

        Speak for yourself about what ‘Republicans’ thought of her.

        • davidmadison

          I think she’s very intelligent and, can hold her ground with the best of debaters in congress, without getting flustered… I’ve seen her on TV more than once, dealing with an accusatory Democrat, while on the House or Senate floor.

          The only thing I disagree with her about is her (and President Bush’s) insistence on a two state solution with Palestine and Israel. If it was anything close to attainable that way (Peace in / with Israel by Arabs and “Palestinians,” (Many of which are Egyptian ex-patriots, (and their local born children), there would be a Palestinian State already. The Arabs, and “Palestinians” will absolutely not settle for anything less than the total annihilation of Israel (period.) Until the Arab peoples see the Jewish People led out of Jerusalem in chains, and headed for miseries and death, they will not be satisfied or peaceable

          You don’t have to believe me – ask a few Arabs who will speak the truth; they will tell you the same, (even proudly.)

      • earlgrey

        held her ground better than anyone I have seen against Lawrence O’Donnell. He was grasping at his last straws at the end of the interview, but was too smug to realize how bad he looked.

  • gnomechumpsky

    …I’m gonna have to run myself!

    • rickbull

      Do we not have ONE DECENT CONSERVATIVE out there in politico-land?

      • http://www.patriotactionnetwork.com/profile/semperfi sirjason

        ALLEN WEST
        “We the People” have such a man who is a black American retired Army LtCol., serving as a Congressman (R-FL), District 22. Congressman ALLEN WEST has said over and over that, “I will not be intimidated.?
        He is a man of principle, character and unblemished integrity who, is strong and steadfast in his conviction and he can withstand the onslaught of the jackals of the mania media and the progressive socialists banshees who will attempt every way possible from sunrise to sunset 24/7 to rip him apart until he is elected to lead America out of socialism and send the Obama regime to the dust bin of traitors!
        IF you will give him a bit of ink, TV exposure to get his name into the public domain far and wide this is ALL the American patriots and we need!
        Semper Fi

        • glockg22shoots40s

          Alan West has repeatedly said that he does not want to abandon those that put him in the position he is in right now. And, he is still green. Even though, that didn’t stop the Obumbling idiot. If he keeps his attitude and values, he is a president of the future. I have no doubts of that.

          • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull
        • http://www4.webng.com/rickbull/lostlucky/ rickbull

          I am a HUGE fan of Allen West. The problem that we have right now is that we don’t have one with the credentials and experience to sway the public and get elected now. We have many who are currently working to that stature, and I had fairly high hopes for Newt until the past Sunday. Newt not only put his foot in it, he inserted it up to the hip.

        • davidmadison

          But, I like Herman Cain too. Another Black Conservative; one with good business sense, Conservative, and Christian values.

          And, I still haven’t given up on Mrs. Palin. Though, I admit that I’d prefer to see her start her presidential bid with a vice Presidency under her belt.

  • averagevoterdotcom

    Romney fits that bill.

    or, Rick Perry.

  • chbroussard

    and be convincing about how good a president Daniels would be if you aren’t convinced yourself. Sorry to say, I am not convinced.

  • MikeG (Icythus)

    but GOOD LORD!

    I’ve known pet rocks with more charisma.

    Also, he clearly has an active dislike for partisan politics, and we’ll need a Happy Warrior at the top of the ticket if we want to unseat Obama. I think Daniels will discover that he has no stomach for the Fray.

    • Bill S

      All we need is Maverick, Part 2.

      Marvelous.

      • MikeG (Icythus)

        Mitch Daniels seems like a genuinely conservative guy who is committed to public service, while McCain is very much the raging prima donna and grudge-holder par excellence. McCain’s principles, though I would say they are genuine, take a back seat (in non-election years) to his desire to preen in front of the cameras and enjoy the adulation of the MSM. Which is why 2008 caught him so off-guard.

        Daniels’ primary flaw, as I can see it, stems from the fact that he has a heartfelt dislike of political acrimony, and that he believes it is possible to run a good government free of such acrimony. The problem here is that his experience as Indiana governor has confirmed in his mind that this is a viable way of doing business with Democrats, without realizing how vastly different state and federal politics are.

        Daniels’ apparently thinks that, since he was able to ignore “wedge issues” in Indiana, he will be able to ignore these same issues in DC. This makes as much sense as saying that because al-Qaeda is not a security threat in Indianapolis, it is not a security threat in Kabul. Wrong! Indianapolis is safe because we fight the terrorists IN Kabul, and governors of conservative states like Indiana can run exclusively fiscally-focused administrations because “wedge issue” fights are decided in DC.

        I’m sure Mitch Daniels is a great guy, and bless his heart, it would be nice to live in a nation where everyone saw the mind-numbing horror of abortion for what it really is, loved our country and the values that make it great, and was on the same page regarding the existential threat posed by radical Islam and European-style socialism.

        Unfortunately we don’t, and in the world we live in today, we need a candidate and a president who doesn’t hesitate to break out the knuckledusters.

        • Bill S

          regarding his fantasy-charged beliefs that national politics can somehow be the same as IN politics. As you rightly point out: wedge issues are the hallmark of DC, and Daniels isn’t going to single-handedly change that.

          This is where the “executive experience” of governor is actually working against him.

          Oh, and my not-so-veiled McCain reference was only regarding Daniels’ tendency to pointy-stick his GOP constituency…not to imply that he was as squishy as McCain.

          • BA Cyclone

            I totally appreciate and many times parrot the accepted wisdom that being a Governor of a State is an excellent qualification, or even solid training to be President of the United States.

            However the danger, possibly in this case, is when said governor lives in a fantasy land where his local or regional politcal sucess and consensus-building directly translates to Washington, D.C. politics. Even worse, he transmits this “wisdom” as an elitist political line like, ‘it wouldn’t be that way if *I* were President.’

            There are real sharks in those waters and they don’t necessarily have to play nice with you and “just get along”. Heck, even the MSM and some Democrat snakes might play along with your notion during the election, but those figurative rubber bullets always end once you change your address to D.C.

            Daniels appears to be a fantastic and effective Governor for Indiana and apparently has legitimate conservative bona fides — but the propensity for needling supporters makes him sound like a squish. It certainly raises my “trustwhorthiness” antenna.

          • gpclaw

            better than anyone else in the race. He served as Richard Luger’s chief of staff, worked as the executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, served as chief political advisor for Reagan, and of course his time at CBO.

            I’m pretty sure he knows how both national and DC politics work.

          • gpclaw

            I meant to say OMB

          • ffc99

            Mitch Daniels is naive to the ways of DC politics is one of the most ridiculous that I have read on this site.

          • Bill S

            then he clearly does NOT understand DC politics.

          • aesthete

            It would have been darned easy to avoid some of those wedge issues: Schiavio should never, never, ever have come close to national politics, and that was 100% the fault of Republicans! Sure, some wedge issues cannot be avoided, but Republicans have been great at tossing out irrelevant wedge issues to distract from fiscal issues. I would love to move those distractions out of the way if they really have no effect on anything (which is the case with the vast majority of these wedge issues).

          • Bill S

            The President is not in sole control of the agenda. If Daniels thinks he can control the “wedge issues”…again, he doesn’t get it. This ain’t Indianapolis and the state legislature.

          • aesthete

            but to the extent that it can be done, it should be done. Of course, with a legislature full of animals it’s unsurprising that politics looks like a zoo. The appropriate response is not to join in the poo-flinging, but to try to clean up. Paul Ryan didn’t get as far as he did in advancing the debate by looking like a rhesus monkey or screaming at an MSNBC lefty pundit. He got there by looking like an adult, crafting an adult solution, characterizing things as they are, and generally treating people as if they have the intelligence to handle a rational conversation about his issues. The extent to which we succeed depends on how good our candidates are at communicating lucidly and staying away from rabbit trails, not our expertise at joining the cacaphony of incoherence that characterizes national politics. There is no way to excel at screaming inanities (or screaming about inanities); our only way out is to avoid them to the extent possible.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    I was too bored to be outraged by this. Almost fell asleep.
    I’d rather have a caged death match of Newt vs Trump than have to listen to more of this.

    It’s hard to see why we need Mitch in the race.
    The Establishment-third-bush-term candidate is Romney, or so Romney hopes, but maybe Team Bush has other plans, and he manages to make midwest-Governor Pawlenty looks exiting and charismatic in comparison.

    I resisted Herman Cain for a while, thinking ‘electable’ and ‘qualified’ meant someone who has been through the wringer of elections before, but then a debate happened and the guy who made the MOST sense had been in office the LEAST. And the more this goes on, the more I realize a real outsider is needed and that means a REAL OUTSIDER.

    If you are clinging to an establish candidate because you think we need someone with the ‘experience’ of Mitch, or Newt, or a Senator Lugar or Hatch or Gov Pataki, hoping and praying our careerists in our party actually do what we voted them in to do, I got one question …

    “HOW’S WORKING OUT FOR YA?”

    • Tom Anderson
  • wennejunk

    Thanks (still wiping my eyes).

    Holy crap, can you be any more blunt?

    “Thankfully for the GOP, the people he is now busy alienating at every opportunity will be able to prevent him from having the opportunity to lose in a landslide to Obama.”

    Amen.

  • AceInTX

    The RIPON Society is a progressive bunch that sports as it’s most prominent member John Sydney McCain. They model themselves after Teddy Roosevelt.

    This tells me more than anything I’ve seen that Daniels is a Blue Blood RINO to the core

    They are Socially Liberal, “Effective” Government, Environmentalists

    http://www.riponsociety.org/mission.htmLimited but effective government;

    A free enterprise based economy;

    A strong, well-maintained, national defense;

    Social tolerance;

    Conservation of natural resources.

    • AceInTX

      There are a few exceptions to the rule of this being made up of RINOS but here’s the list of RIPON blue blood membership

      U.S. SENATORS

      Pat Roberts (KS) – Senate Chairman
      Roy Blunt (MO)
      Richard Burr (NC)
      Susan M. Collins (ME)
      Orrin G. Hatch (UT)
      Olympia J. Snowe (ME)

      U.S. REPRESENTATIVES

      Thomas E. Petri (WI) – House Co-Chairman

      Pat Tiberi (OH) – House Co-Chairman
      Steve Austria (OH)
      Spencer Bachus (AL)
      Charles F. Bass (NH)
      Judy Biggert (IL)
      Mary Bono Mack (CA)
      Charles Boustany (LA)
      Vern Buchanan (FL)
      Michael C. Burgess, M.D. (TX)
      Ken Calvert (CA)
      Dave Camp (MI)
      Eric I. Cantor (VA)
      Shelley Moore Capito (WV)
      Howard Coble (NC)
      Ander Crenshaw (FL)
      Geoff Davis (KY)
      Charlie Dent (PA)
      Renee Ellmers (NC)
      Jo Ann H. Emerson (MO)
      Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ)
      Jim Gerlach (PA)
      Kay Granger (TX)
      Sam Graves (MO)
      Nan Hayworth (NY)
      Wally Herger (CA)
      Darrell Issa (CA)
      Walter Jones (NC)
      Leonard Lance (NJ)
      Steven LaTourette (OH)
      Jerry Lewis (CA)
      Kevin McCarthy (CA)
      Thaddeus McCotter (MI)
      Candice Miller (MI)
      Randy Neugebauer (TX)
      Todd Russell Platts (PA)
      Denny Rehberg (MT)
      Peter Roskam (IL)
      Aaron Schock (IL)
      John Shimkus (IL)
      Bill Shuster (PA)
      Lamar Smith(TX)
      Mac Thornberry (TX)
      Mike Turner (OH)
      Fred Upton (MI)
      Greg Walden (OR)
      Edward Whitfield (KY)

      MEMBERS OF CONGRESS (RETIRED)

      Bill Frenzel (MN) – Chairman Emeritus
      Bill Archer (TX)
      Henry Bonilla (TX)
      Mike Ferguson (NJ)
      J. Dennis Hastert (IL)
      David Hobson (OH)
      Nancy Johnson (CT)
      Sue Kelly (NY)
      Scott Klug (WI)
      Bob Livingston (LA)
      Jim McCrery (LA)
      Robert H. Michel (IL)
      Susan Molinari (NY)
      Don Nickles (OK)
      Michael G. Oxley (OH)
      Bill Paxon (NY)
      Deborah Pryce (OH)
      Tom Reynolds (NY)
      Tom Ridge (PA)
      E. Clay Shaw (FL)
      Gordon Smith (OR)
      Don Sundquist (TN)
      Tom Tauke (IA)
      Robert S. Walker (PA)
      JOHN TIMMONS
      CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

      JIM CONZELMAN
      PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      LOU ZICKAR
      EDITOR OF THE RIPON FORUM
      AND COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR

      • AceInTX

        he did just go through an election

        I guess he hasn’t joined back up yet

    • cordpt

      Speaking on a Ripon Society – that I’m no fan of – event makes one “a Blue Blood RINO to the core”?

      A week ago Senator Coburn was there doing the exact same thing. I’m fairly sure the guy on your sig did it too. It’s a fairly mundane thing for conservatives and non-conservatives from all over the country to do.

      There’s no reason for over-the-top and over-emotional proclamations. There are many here that should really listen to Daniels very carefully. You win political battles by conquering minds and hearts, not by repelling them.

      • ffc99

        Paul Ryan to that list of Blue Blood RINO’s (and Jeb Hensarling, Tim Pawlenty, Donald Rumsfeld, John Kyl…need I go on).

      • AceInTX

        Either way he comes off looking like a typical Blue Blood RINO with no principles just a propensity for telling people what they want to hear.

        This after his Tax the Rich proposal upon assuming office in IN, after his Truce comments, his stupidity comments and naive stance toward China.

        The McCain wing of the party has been pushing Daniels since 2006 as the second coming and his every utterance points more towards the tribulations.

        So I won’t back off one iota from what I said here and the more I watch him the more he proves my initial instincts right

  • redneck_hippie

    of Daniels’ thoughts on statism and collectivism.

    If his advocacy for having a sunny disposition when talking to our liberal friends and neighbors is an indictment, I don’t see it.
    That is exactly how I talk to my closest liberals. You get more with honey than with vinegar and it works very well.

    Daniels happened to be Reagan’s chief political strategist. Seems he has taken President Reagan’s approach to heart. Even when Reagan called out to Gorby to tear the wall down, it was not delivered in a disdainful, taunting manner, but respectfully and forcefully.

    Just my take, thanks anyway.

    • gpclaw

      First off, Leon stole this from Jennifer Rubin’s latest hit piece on Daniels.

      First off, I would like for Leon to explain to us how going on and on about wedge issues attracts new people to Conservatism? I’m talking about the folks who have never really been exposed to Conservative principles, and might be open minded to to hearing about how these principles are a better alternative to the left.

      Why is it, that people actually listen to, and respect guys like Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn, even if they don’t agree with them. Is it because Ryan and Coburn are in people’s faces, and yelling at everyone who disagrees with them? Or is it because they treat people with respect, and take the time to articulate how Conservative principles can offer a solution to their concerns.

      • redneck_hippie

        Not a particularly useful strategy.

        I’ll just give you one instance of how being even-tempered gets people to look at our side of things. I have a relative who’s always voted D. Well, with some sweet questions, posed over time, she is now at the point where she said, when asked if she would vote for Obama again, “I have a lot of thinking to do.”

        I like to pose questions. They can be the most general or specific. Anything to make people stop and think about what they have been doing, sometimes for their whole lives. I’ve also tried sending links and articles, but that rarely gets through. Being a smartass is off-putting and counterproductive. Most adults know this.

        • powertothepeople

          there is a huge difference between you trying to convince your relative that the way she has voted in the past is wrong or not best for the country and a politician bowing to the left or stating we need to clasp hands and sing love songs. There is no comparison.

          I am not taking a position on Daniels since he barely made my list as possible candidates in the first place. I could care less what republican people vote for as long as they show up in the general with the intent of beating Obama. But lets not play like convincing our friends and family to vote differently is anywhere near the same as the load of crap that keeps coming out of Daniels mouth. Politics is not a fun, friendly game or conversation, it is down and dirty rough. The democrats love when they hear us telling each other to kiss the democrats ass, not pursue valid beliefs, or that we want to sing songs together since it makes their sole goal of stomping our plan into the mud that much easier.

          The day we realize we need a president, whoever he or she may end up being, that is willing to give the middle finger to each and every dem, the better off we will be. Problem with Daniels is that the only group of people he is shooting the bird out is us.

          Keep being respectful and polite to your relatives and to the average voter as that is the way to make them think about the past voting choices, but when it come to politics lets stick to a bully.

          • lineholder

            I agree that Repubs need to be far more firm and assertive than they have been. We definitely need that.

            There’s been no real fire behind them for quite a while. They’re just been moseying along their merry way, going with the flow more than they should have, putting themselves in the position of being considered as political doormats by the Dems.

            I’d like to see us get a few candidates who have an enthusiasm and zeal about the potential of our nation and of its people, and who isn’t in the least bit apologetic about it, who stands their ground and lets it be known that the time of playing the doormat is over and done! I think it would impress the he** out of voters. I genuinely do.

            And the contrast between that and Obama’s obvious lack of confidence and respect for this country would be HUGE!

          • gpclaw

            Good word choice. Doom and gloom doesn’t sell.

          • powertothepeople

            is he is by far not impressing the hell out of anyone other than those who were in his fan club to begin with. And if he did not learn from his trucer comment, whether is was meant the way it was taken or not, then he will never learn when to keep his mouth shut and end up being another O’Donnell.

            Trying to lure in voters is one thing, alienating the largest bloc of the republican party is a sure fire way of making sure you never sit in the presidential seat and that is what Daniels is doing.

          • Bill S
          • earlgrey

            When Obama won the Presidency did he pander to the far left in his campaign?

          • gpclaw
          • lineholder

            I wasn’t referring to Daniels in specific in the qualities I stated. I was referring to general qualities that we need in Repubs right now in order to have a chance of winning in 2012. In other words, if we can get a few candidates who do display some of the kinds of qualities that I’ve mentioned, I think this would impress voters right now, and it could impress some of them enough that they might be more open-minded to voting for a Repub President in 2012.

            Of all things we DON’T need right now is a bunch of political doormats. All they will be offering to the American people is another version of the status quo. If there was ever a time when being confrontational regarding the issues would be seen as a strength, this is it. We just have too many issues that genuinely need to be addressed for candidates to take a non-confrontational approach.

            I’m not in anyone’s fan club just yet. I’m waiting until the debates before I make a commitment to any single candidate.

          • lineholder

            Poll after poll has been indicating a shift to the right. FisCons in particular have been interpreting this as due primarily to fiscal reasons. To some extent that is true, but it doesn’t automatically negate the social emphasis.

            There are socially moderate fiscal conservatives who would be far more inclined to listen to ideas that social conservatives might have about addressing broad spectrum social issues than they will be to buy into the socially liberal agenda. This is a larger group of people than it might seem to be.

            So if ever there was time that social conservatives have the opportunity to present their approach on how these issues can be resolved and have a greater portion of the public be receptive to it, this is that time.

            And I’m hoping that Repub candidates will catch on to the fact that this is part of the political environment we are facing and soon, because they could easily build up a head of momentum going into 2012.

          • powertothepeople

            I agree this is not the time for doormats, in fact, I would say it has never been the time. But, at the same time, we also do not need someone who is so willing to throw the largest contingent of the party under the bus. What do we gain if we pull another 2008 where we get some of the independent vote yet lose the socon vote. McCain did not lose because of the ground swell, the youth vote, higher black vote, etc. He lost because he was so anti socon and such a bad candidate that a large portion of our side simply stayed at home. I was reading where over 12% of the expected republican vote did not vote that did vote just 4 years prior. This is an enormous amount of people who were so turned off to McCain they simply let happen what happened.

            Now jump to 2012. You have a candidate that keeps making truce comments and bow to the moderate/liberal bloc and in doing so he is killing any support he will get from the socon group not too mention should he win, he could face the same problem McCain had in that voters simply salute him with the same finger he gave us and stay home. Not saying it is the right thing to do, but it will happen.

            The reality is this. We do not need to give up socon issues to lure people to the party. We do not need to drop our ficon issues to lure people to the party. People are either tired of the dems nonsense or they are not. If a candidate stating marriage needs to stay between a woman and man keeps them from voting republican, they were not going to vote that way in the first place. If a candidate stating that SSI/Medicare/Medicaid must be reformed and drastic cuts must happen to keep the program solvent causes them to turn to the dems, they were not going to vote our way in the first place. We do not need to kiss a single ass in this election. Either people are on our side because of the devastation they have seen the dems cause or they are idiots and will vote dem no matter what.

            We all need to stick to our principles, we need to recognize that you can not separate social issues from fiscal issues because they are entwined, and we do not need to water down our message for the mysterious swing voter. We can win flying both the socon flags and the ficon flags, but we will lose with the Daniels type comments.

          • LibertarianHawk

            …that now is no time to be throwing anybody under any buses, I strongly disagree that Daniels’ truce proffer amounts to throwing social conservatives under the bus.

            I can totally sympathize with the feeling that that’s what it was. But (a) it has nothing to do with people, it has to do with agenda, and (b) his record on social issues should be enough to reassure wary social conservatives that he’s no enemy.

            All he’s saying is that the social agenda would be put on the backburner while we address the fiscal issue. And he’s saying it for a very specific reason: he doesn’t believe we could muster the political mass to take on the fiscal crisis with social issues there giving people a reason to not sit at the table.

            Agree with that or disagree with it, at the very least understand it.

            That’s not the same as Arlen Specter or Christie Todd Whitman saying that Republicans need to moderate on social issues. It’s about temporarily setting the issues aside to create space for something more urgent (which does not mean it’s more important).

          • powertothepeople

            but the fact is that regardless of what he meant, it is obvious how it was perceived. And if he did not mean it the way it has been perceived, he would have long ago clarified his remarks.

            And you and many other can say we need to moderate on social issues and we will continue to say BS. Most socon issues are entwined with fiscal issues and even if they were not, there is not one valid reason why we should back up and stay silent just to appease the ficons or Daniels. Either people are going to vote for us because they recognize the dems for who they are or they are not. And I hate to remind you that the same calls for moderation are now being thrown at the fiscal issues. Alan West just stated now is not the time to strip funding for Obamacare because it may anger some. We are being told to leave SSI and medicare alone because we may turn off some voters. Are you willing to moderate on those important issues? If not, why should we moderate?

            A person can be fiscally fit and still be upfront with their social beliefs. They can do both equally and still get every vote they would have gotten had they only talked about fiscal issues. The only ones who say different are the Daniels types and they are dead wrong.

          • gpclaw

            So we don’t know if he has learned from the trucer comment or not.

            This video is the second half of the speech. The conversation was about rebuilding the Republican party after they were left for dead from the pounding the party received in the 2008 election.

          • Right Reason

            . . .that given the ruckus the trucer comment originally caused, he would think it prudent to revisit it if he has learned. The fact that he has said nothing indicates to me that he hasn’t changed his position, he merely realizes that it’s probably smarter not to bring it up again – a strategy that will work until it’s brought up for him by another candidate.

          • gpclaw

            He hasn’t officially decided to run. Right now, the only opinion he should be worried about, are the ones that come from the state of Indiana. If he isn’t taking any heat at home over this, then why bring it up?

            Do we even know if his comment is causing any flack in his home state?

            If he does decide to run, either he addresses it right off the bat, or the media does it for him.. We’ll just have to see how he handles it.

          • Right Reason

            His lack of an official announcement has not preculded him from opining on other issues.

            You guys can spin ’til you’re dizzy. Daniels isn’t a viable candidate until he addresses these doubts.

          • gpclaw

            Such as?

            Like I said, if he runs, he will address it. I’m sure the announcement will be followed by an interview on Fox News Sunday, or Meet the Press, or even both. Do you think he’s believes he’s going to make it through an entire interview, with out being asked about the “Truce”?

          • hoosierclinger

            There is no flack here in Indiana… we are looking at the national media on Daniels as a joke.

            Its hilarious to us that anyone would think Daniels isnt a conservative.
            Coming as news to the libs in this state who hate him for his ‘ultra conservative’ record.

          • gpclaw

            as you stated, between speaking to voters and debating your political opposition.

            Any politician who speaks down to, or disrespectfully to a citizen, regardless of party affiliation, is scum.. This becomes even more important when the politician is seeking the Presidency. Like it or not, the President is the leader of the country, not just his/her party.

            Daniels speech was about winning over voters. “People have to like you before they will listen to you”, “The meanest people I see in politics, are on the American Left”, “…better be thinking about those things that unite us”.

            The number of Independents in this country is huge. Most of them have probably never thought very hard about politics, or have a set of principles on which to base their political views. It’s up to the politician to make the argument to these voters, as to why his vision for the country is better than the other guys. You can’t attract people to your way of thinking, if they think your an A-hole.

          • powertothepeople

            you will not win the race alienating the largest bloc of the republican party even if you get all the possible voters on your side. And he is quickly turning off every socon out there and even some outside that bloc.

            And I disagree that his speech was aimed at voters. Nothing I saw was a pandering speech but it was a policy/planned action speech. Either way it matters little since he has done a better job at taking away most if not all of the socon vote in a matter of a few weeks than the dems or any other candidate could have done.

          • rec0n

            And I’ll put my socon values up against anyone elses all day long.

            Rubin’s hit piece didn’t impress me at all – just how seriously am I supposed take a pack of liberal bloggers opinions anyway? I couldn’t believe she even printed it.

            I know the difference between ‘truce’ and ‘surrender’ and I’m also capable of interpreting based on context. Daniels says what he believes, and that statement was in keeping with a theme he – and I – have never lost sight of:

            “If there were a WMD attack, death would come to straights and gays, pro-life and pro-choice,” he told me. “If the country goes broke, it would ruin the American dream for everyone. We are in this together. Whatever our honest disagreements on other questions, might we set them aside long enough to do some very difficult things without which we will be a different, lesser country? I start with a premise that not everyone agrees with — that the republic is threatened as it has not been before, if you don’t count the Soviet nuclear threat. … It is the arithmetic of debt. If unaddressed, it makes national failure a certainty. Beyond some point, you can’t come back.”

            He is RIGHT. And that was why he called for a truce – to address what he terms the new ‘Red Menace’.

            Daniels carries deeply held Reaganite principles, and imho personifies the Reagan values Leon denies him. He’s a statesman, not a politician – not throwing red meat to the cons while calling the other party names and spitting in their faces as Obama does. Show me ANY example of Reagan doing that. And taking the long view, do you honestly think we will hold the Oval for eight if we did? Or would we feed the Indies conviction that both parties are essentially the same? I have zero interest in a ‘bully’ to represent my party. If I wanted a man like that I’d of gotten on board the Trump wagon & we could have our very own Alan Grayson. *Beauty* And if we can’t make the argument & sell it on the merits and require a ‘bully’ instead – we’re the Dems. That describes them, not us. We have a whole lot more ammunition to work with.

            Demonizing him for one word or being short & bald is a CLASSIC example of Republicans tearing defeat from the jaws of victory once again – it’s just not being done in the DC fishbowl, it’s being done by pundits. There isn’t ONE candidate out there that won’t be vilified by some portion of the base, all calling for the next Reagan while cheerfully breaking his 11th commandment. I will vote for *anybody* in the general – whether it’s Mitch, Mitt, or God forbid Olympia Snowe. I’d prefer Mitch but bottom line I will vote *against* Obama – regardless of how that candidate has been shredded by our fearless leaders. Let’s contemplate for a moment how many of our purists will sit ’12 out, b/c their candidate of choice didn’t make the general. They’ve done it before, they’ll do it again, & I’ll leave that rant for another day.

            If you really think Daniels isn’t capable of dealing with belligerent Democrats, you haven’t bothered to research what he’s dealt with thru his term as IN Gov. His Dems are far from fond of him. The day he walked in the door he ended collective bargaining in order to turn services over to the private sector & that relationship has never much improved. If you really think he throws social cons under the bus, you haven’t bothered to research his record. By all means lets ignore his defunding of PP, his new law on abortion limits, his pro-life judicial selection & his interest in re-instituting the Mexico policy. I assure you IN’s Right to Life *does* appreciate him, and I’ll take their word for it – while I ‘refudiate’ the ‘truce’ controversy.

            He’s insured the poor w/private sector plans & instituted tort reform. He’s cut the size of govt down in IN. He’s cleaned house in education, instituted fiscal reforms & supports prayer in public schools, He’s built his own religious school. He’s an elder in his church. He’s required Voter ID’s, is pro 2nd amendment, banned ‘affirmative action’ tuitions & stood against same-sex unions/marriages. And of course he’s also turned IN’s fiscal hole into a surplus, is firmly against Obamacare & the ‘imperialism’ of Cap & Trade, but who cares, right – he has thinning hair & he said ‘truce’. SERIOUSLY? I bet the same bloggers Rubins quoted are really, really enjoying this.

            What’s it going to take to pass the litmus test for you people? That’s an honest question, because this demonization of him for daring to suggest a cease-fire & not meeting your heigth requirement really isn’t cutting it for me. I will be the first to admit that calling for a truce was an utter waste of time – that will never happen in this political world. But I am enough of a grown-up to comprehend the larger context.

            Re: the VAT, again, read the speech ( http://bit.ly/iHnEL2 ) and look at the context. Do I agree that it’s the way to go given the way our political parties operate in govt – no. I seriously doubt Daniels does either, but within *the context* of Kahn’s thoughts, the theory was similiar to the Fair Tax – your spending is taxed, not your income. The *goal* was to incentivize savings, NOT break the bank account.

            Daniels keeps an open mind, which makes him something of a pioneer among Conservatives today, but not among great thinkers. He also walks the walk, both as a Conservative and a Christian. He behaves exactly as he should to uphold both of those things with principle & behave in such a way that his church can be proud of him. He doesn’t demonize, he isn’t vituperative, & his heart is with our Republic. Read the last of his speech at the Hudson Institute again. That WAS Reagan.

            There are a few good con candidate’s entering the field. I like them. I may wind up voting for them. But there are an awful lot of good reasons to vote for Daniels, if you can manage to make it past a sound byte.

          • hoosierclinger

            Amen Brother!

          • redneck_hippie

            There are hours of interviews of Daniels out there from the Heritage Foundation and Uncommon Knowledge in particular. And I’ve linked to some of them here before. I am content to let Daniels and his record speak for itself. According to reports, his fundraising machine is being fired up as we speak.

            Back to our regularly scheduled infighting.

          • Bill S

            Who cares if it’s “cutting it for you?” You must Daniels’ little brother, since you have the same GFY attitude that he does.

          • rec0n

            I think you may be projecting.

      • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

        Why the heck shouldn’t Paul Ryan be our nominee?

        And don’t say it’s because he says no. We could persuade him. We could draft him.

        • gpclaw

          I’m a big fan of Paul Ryan. If he got in the race, he would probably be at the top of my list. Of any candidate I can think of, he brings the total package. I know he has some votes that I wish weren’t there, but he’s done enough to earn my trust that he is a small government guy.

          As far as experience, and coming from the house, I think he is the exception to the rule. His position on the Budget Committee, I’m sure, has provided him great insight to the legislative process. He understands the bureaucracies, and I can think of no one else who can articulate the evil of collectivism as well as he can.

          And the biggest thing Ryan has going for him…. the guy has stones. How many politicians are willing to put out a plan like The Road Map, and stick by it?

          • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

            Six of my very favorite minutes of video of all time:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPxMZ1WdINs&feature=youtu.be

            Only guy in the room who doesn’t suck up to, or cower in front of, that nasty, scowling Chicago mobster.

            Another plus about Paul Ryan is, thanks to all the budget deliberations, he knows his way around the Executive Branch.

      • Aaron Gardner

        Don’t be silly.

      • Right Reason

        Where, exactly, does Leon advocate “going on and on about wedge issues?”

        Daniels’ strategy is to ingore or supress the areas where there is disagreement. But the areas of disagreement are what define us as separate from the liberals. Tell me, how exactly do you expose people to conservative principles when you can’t talk about conservative principles?

        Pardon me, but I have yet to read anything from a Daniels supporter on this board that indicates a true belief in conservatism or conservative principles. If you truly believed in it, you would see no need to tone it down so other people will listen.

        Conservatism is the best philosophy because it is the correct philosophy. Liberalism doesn’t work – PERIOD. You don’t need to tone down 1+1=2 because someone might be truned off by it. You need only to correctly articulate it.

        • aesthete

          Daniels supporters aren’t “true conservatives”. Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Mike Pence? Not true conservatives. Luis Fortuno, Scott Walker, George Will? Again, not true conservatives. Nope, can’t remember any Daniels supporters saying anything that “indicates a true belief in conservatism or conservative principles”.

          Your qualification of “on this board” makes it more, not less, insulting. No Daniels supporter a true conservative? So our regular posters who like Daniels are disqualified from being conservative? You’ve never read a single thing from a single Daniels supporters to indicate that they’re conservative? While they don’t define conservatism, it’s ludicrous to characterize people who regularly frequent RS on a daily/weekly basis (as well as HumanEvents, etc) as not conservative because of their support of a pol whose record is pretty darned conservative, and a guy who until recently was supported by Erick Erickson, Leon, and many of the front-pagers (and for good reason).

    • MikeG (Icythus)

      Before that point, Reagan refused to coddle the Soviet dictators, denouncing them as “the focus of evil in the modern world” and promising that Marxism-Leninism would be left of “the ash-heap” of history. Not very “nice”, as Mitch Daniels would put it.

      Sadly, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama are more like Andropov and Chernenko than they are like Gorbachev. We need somebody who will take as hard a line with them as Reagan did with the aforementioned Soviet dictators.

      The evidence to date screams that Mitch Daniels ain’t that guy.

      • gpclaw

        The “nice” reference has to do with the publics perception of the party. I don’t know if you watched the video, but Daniels includes in this comment “People have to like before they will listen to you” and “the meanest people I see in politics are on the American left”.

        Daniles speech has nothing to do with how elected officials interact with each other. This speech was given six months after Obama took office, and was about how to engage the public, and educate them as to why Conservative principles will do more for them, than what the left can offer.

    • davidmadison

      I tend to be a harsher critic on “progressive” themes and “Statist” ideologies but, I did admire President Reagan’s facitity with the warm and inclusive disposition toward even some of his staunchest critics and political opponents.

      You can attract more bees with honey than vinegar.

      “It’s not that our Liberal friends are ignorant. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” – President Ronald Reagan

  • steve010

    but I wouldn’t call him boring. And the campaign right now might be a little short on cash. He certainly doesn’t have a short term memory. Another question: Did he play short stop in high school?

  • renny

    and stopped pub. unions’ coll. bargaining by fiat and was the darling of you guys 30 secs. ago?

    He can’t be too mild or too unexciting if he could do the above.

    If you wanted a fire breather, you wanted Trump, but you didn’t want hm because he was too flamboyant and loud and not cons. pure.

    Drafting Ryan or Christie or any one else is not a good idea because to go for the pres. you need fire in the belly, as well as breathing a little. Ryan is appealing because he can command facts and speak without notes, which would be successful against a guy who cannot wipe his nose unless the teleprompter tells him to. But Ryan has to want it.

    And Daniels is right in that if you are not likeable, you will not attract voters. Why did the masses vote for our child king? He presented himself as a uniter, a post-racialist, above the fray, no drama obama, a gracious opponent, a lover of America, and a bringer of great tidings of joy.

    little o will have less of a chance of presenting that persona this time around as he barks at reporters, tells supporters to go buy another car to save gas, and lectures everyone on shared sacrifice when what they want is shared prosperity.

    I am waiting for him to have a public meltdown. Supposedly the billion he wants to raise for the election is not quite pouring in as expected. We can only hope.

    • lineholder

      And at this point, it really serves no purpose for him to try to back away from the credentials he does have where his accomplishments regarding social issues are concerned. He should be playing to that as a strength.

      We’ve got too many issues that need to be addressed for Daniels or any other Repub candidate to hold back.

  • oldbird77

    . . . when is Chris Christie going to throw his hat in? (he queried sadly)

    • hoosierclinger

      You want a gun grabbing, cap and trade, illegal immigration amnesty candidate?

      • http://theheartlander.wordpress.com/ heartlander

        Re: Christie, don’t forget Islamist-appeasing!

  • earlgrey

    53% of the country voted for Obama in 2008. They need to be convinced that they made a mistrake without being banged over the head with how stupid of a decision they made.

    Obama won the Presidency by claming to be centrist, and not by throwing tons of read meat to his hard left base (and true instincts).

  • sundaycombo

    Why is it all we do is pre judge folks who may be thinking of running (and giving them a public flogging in the process)?

    Then the only candidates that actually WILL be running are either going to be 1) way too fringe to ever be electable or 2) self absorbed egomaniacs just looking for 15 minutes of fame.

    I will leave to you all to figure out which ones are which (hint-the recently departed Mr. Trump was part of the latter group)

    • Bill S

      Do you understand what “primary” means? This is a freakin’ cakewalk compared to what the Dems will throw at him/them. If Daniels can’t stand some heat, he’d better stay in Indiana. Maybe he won’t have to deal with any “wedge issues” then.

  • hoosierclinger

    so… Daniels has a conservative 7 year record socially and fiscally… but he doesn’t yell at Democrats so he should be discarded? Is this the mentality of Republicans?

    Republicans only have to convince 6% of the population to vote for the Republican… and Obama is gone.
    But Republicans are busy bashing their own.

    Daniels won 68% in his re election in ’08. In a state that went for Obama. He won 30% of the black vote… in a state that went for Obama.

    Wouldnt it be nice to have a president that would FIX the economy and our debt problem?

    I guess some republicans want the nominee to be yelling at people about abortion and gay marriage…. instead of discussing the terrible economy and our future because of Obama.

    (BTW… Indiana is now the most pro life state in America and gay marriage is banned in Indiana…thanks to Daniels)

    Wake up Republicans… the enemy is in the white house..

    • ciscoguy

      You are right. I listen to Mark Levin and others railroad Daniels almost daily yet pull his punches with “mandate” Romney and “right-wing social engineering” Newt. If Daniels said or did those things, he would go nuclear over it.

      Now, I would vote for any of those three guys over Obama. I would vote for the Oval Office desk chair over Obama, and everyone else here would too. So, why the hell are people running down a conservative and successful state executive?

      This is ridiculous. Let the primaries play out, but save all the heavy ammo for the Marxist in the White House. Everybody loses if he is reelected.

    • redneck_hippie
    • Right Reason

      Closely followed by the electability argument, of course.

      It’s like reading the party apparatus textbook.

  • cordpt

    And it’s worked pretty well for the citizens of Indiana. It was Reagan’s approach as well.

    It’s easier to run your mouth to the base. It will be a lot more difficult to have win the next presidential election. We need a candidate that is like Jeff Flake or Tom Coburn, not strindent ones like Bachmann and King. As Daniels says, “people have to like you a little bit before they listen to you”. He’s exactly right. Not understanding this principle should disqualify any candidate running for the republican nomination. Nobody wants to vote for mean persons – that’s one of the reasons why Dems lost so big in 2010 with indies, as Daniels suggest.

    It’s also not surprising that the most staunch supporters of the Bush/Tom DeLay big government and corrupt conservatism are showing themselves the most vocal opponents of Mitch Daniels (and will, I suspect, end up endorsing the ultimate big government republican in Romney). Daniels proven record of not governing with the interest of powerful special interest groups in mind is scary to lots of people.

    • earlgrey

      his liberal base when he was on the campaign trail. It seemed to work for him. I am not saying Mitch should lie. No one does that better than Obama, but I don’t see anything wrong with the substance of what Mitch said.

      The delivery? What was going on there? Maybe he just didn’t want to be there, but it was bad.

    • BA Cyclone

      It?s also not surprising that the most staunch supporters of the Bush/Tom DeLay big government and corrupt conservatism are showing themselves the most vocal opponents of Mitch Daniels

      From my memory, it’s the “Bush wing” types who are totally pushing Daniels to enter the race. I’d fully expect them, or a significant chunk of them to be on board with Daniels in a primary.

      • LibertarianHawk

        So Paul Ryan is now a “Bush wing” type? Dick Armey is a “Bush wing” type? Chris Christie? Nikki Haley? Haley Barbour?

        Who are you kidding — other, I guess, than yourself?

        Trust me on this: Mitch Daniels is NOT a RINO. He’s not even close. It puzzles me to no end that so many conservatives think he is.

        This is a guy who, when asked to list 5 books to read, came up with a list of books by Hayek, Friedman, Charles Murray, and Virginia Postrel! And, further, he discussed them in a way that clearly demonstrated intimate knowledge with the underlying philosophies.

        If you want to oppose him because he’s short and bald, go ahead. If you want to oppose him because he wants to temporarily take social issues off the table, fine.

        But he is most certainly NOT a RINO in any way, shape, or form.

        • Bill S
          • redneck_hippie

            Conservatives can agree on “some” things. :)

            Personally, I think LH wastes his breath trying to elucidate the truce comments. That is for Daniels himself to do, as he has done in several videotaped interviews. If he gets into the race, more people will be exposed to them.

            And to P2TP: I am a staunchly 3-legged stool conservative. Some newbies may be ignorant of that so I wanted to set the record straight. I am a traditionalist conservative. I abhor every last iota of an establishment RINO.

            Okay, now back to our regularly scheduled infighting.

          • Bill S

            As most here know, I abhor litmus tests or even a hint of such, and that’s why I rebel when people start throwing around TARP or other things as THE REASON someone should be disqualified as our candidate. My mantra is “Conservatism isn’t binary”. Now, as has been discussed here ad infinitum, there is a prerequisite that RS contributors be pro-life, and I am – adamantly, and that may be the one thing that would turn me away from voting for a Republican. And this is why even the hint that we should back down on our pursuit of that objective leaves me cold…and is a key reason that Daniels leaves me cold.

            Hypocritical? Perhaps.

          • gpclaw

            I appreciate your comment about labels. I think people should be encouraged to bring up, and discuss any red flags that a candidate may have. As individual candidates travel the country, making their case in town hall meetings and in debates, they will have the opportunity to address them.

            My concern, is that we simply tune someone out, or refuse to give a candidate the opportunity to address a questionable vote, or comment, that we risk missing out on the best advocate of Conservatism.. Of course, this doesn’t mean buying into the reason that a candidate gives.

          • redneck_hippie

            Since there is a plethora of possible candidates who are more vociferous in their support of Life, I think I know where you are coming from. To me, it isn’t about the volume or the quality of speech, but the rubber meeting the road. I don’t like disqualifying candidates on one single issue, either. But, somewhat hypocritically, I have a grudge against Pawlenty for his AGW problems. Again, it isn’t only what he has said, but the legislation he advocated for and passed. He can still make up for it in the coming months, but there are other potential candidates who do not carry that whiff of unacceptability in my mind.

    • adair

      is reported to be delighted that Daniels might decide to run.

      Bush finally only redeemed himself domestically by vetoing a few of the Dem proposals from ’07 to ’09. But then his boys were in the vanguard of the ‘WE HAVE TO DO S O M E T H I N G !!!” chorus that helped spook other Republicans to vote for the porkulus and TARP.

      I’d be more comfortable with Daniels if I thought he retained more of what he learned from Reagan than what he learned from working with Lugar.

      The fact that 18-year-old women can vote makes Central Casting an integral part of Presidential selection.

      • earlgrey
      • redneck_hippie

        across the nation.

        And he’s not even a candidate (yet).

      • hoosierclinger

        JEB Bush is a Daniels fan.

        The elder Bush’s are supporting Romney.

        What has he learned from Lugar? Have you seen Mitch Daniels record at all? Have you taken the 5 minutes it would take to see what he has done?

    • aesthete

      I do agree that some of the conservatives in the media who oppose Daniels are of the neo-conservative big-spender variety (i.e., Rubin), but there are also many conservatives who oppose him for other reasons.

      Some oppose him because they are purists (or oddly selective purists), and won’t accept any candidate who doesn’t perfectly conform to their vision of conservatism. These people are, to be frank, as useless as the dogmatic libertarians.

      Others oppose him because they see a milquetoast. I don’t really see that in a great record (listed partially upthread) which was attained in the face of a Dem House in IN for 4 of Daniels’ years as Gov. Having worked as a mid-level manager, I know that what happens behind closed doors is very different from how you present your company as the face of your corp. Daniels seems to understand this distinction very well, and the Dems in his state aren’t happy with him.

      Still others see him as weak on social issues. This one seems superficially to be the charge with the most “stick”, and it may very well be that other candidates might have initiative on those issues in a way that is not true with Daniels. In terms of results, though, there’s no one in the running with a stronger record than Daniels. If the leg can pass a SoCon bill, Daniels will be there, pen in hand. He won’t be flashy about it, but it will get done.

  • ihateliberals

    egg on my face whichever way i turn these days. At first I was behind Gingrich and then he melted down last Sunday. Then I trough my support behind Mitch Daniels and now this. I have gotten egg on my fact twice this week. I’ve learned my lesson. I am not supporting anyone yet for the Run. I think they all Stink and they are going to have to prove to me they shuld have my support.

    • gpclaw
    • LibertarianHawk

      There’s a whole lot of sliming going on — some of it being officially thrown out there by candidates against other candidates….only by unofficial emissaries.

      There’s nothing, at all, wrong with Gov. Daniels. In fact, the notion that our entire field “stinks” is absurd and a testament to the need for Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment.

      Daniels has been a fine *conservative* governor. I can attest to it first-hand — and I am as conservative as they come. He’s no RINO, he’s no McCain, he’s no Dole.

      For that matter, all of the candidates are — best I can tell — fine conservatives….even when they’re trying to convince you that their competitors are not.

      Don’t fall for the manipulation.

      • Right Reason

        How is any of this “sliming?”

        Daniels advocates suppressing our principles so the other side will like us. We happen to disagree with this – ridiculous – position and we’re sliming him?

        Is this going to be the Daniels version of any criticism of Obama is racist?

        • LibertarianHawk

          Anybody who’s followed his term in office would laugh at the notion that he “advocates suppressing our principles”.

          If you think Daniels is an accommodationist governor, ask Pat Bauer for his opinion. The two clashed time and time again — and, time and time again Daniels came out on top…including when the Democrats held the House majority in Indiana.

          He’s being slimed because these characterizations are not at all accurate of the way he’s governed.

          Do you honestly think that Chris Christie would consider backing a squish? Honestly?

          Try again.

          • Right Reason

            . . .of his own words.

            -and along with the “electability” argument, we get the obligatory clebrity endorsement. It seems you guys can talk about everything but Daniels’ principles, which, to me, are the most important reason to vote for a candidate – or not.

          • LibertarianHawk

            Like I said above, Daniels is asked to name 5 books people should read. And did you see the list he came up with?

            Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Virginia Postrel, Charles Murray, and Mancur Olsen.

            Maybe you’re not familiar with these folks. But, if you are, then I wouldn’t think you’d have much cause for concern about his principles — unless, I suppose, you disagree with the principles of Hayek, etal.

            My point is that no RINO worth his salt would ever think about recommending this kind of reading list.

            Daniels has been a fantastic governor. He’s cut spending significantly — and balanced the budget while also lowering taxes. He’s streamlined government operations, broke ground on an interstate highway that’s been talked about since the 60s, and instituted the most sweeping conservative education reform of any state in the country.

            How a conservative can look at that record and express concern about his “principles” is beyond me.

            He’s the guy we’re looking for. Trust me.

          • Right Reason

            . . .because he professes a willingness to abandon mine in order to accomodate those with whom I disagree.

            As far as his reading list goes – big deal. Any pandering politician can rattle off a list of the correct books. I can list all the leftist tomes you like. Does that make me a liberal?

            Tell me, LibHawk, you’re a big Daniels booster. What are his principles; not the books he likes, not the bills he’s passed, not the endorsements he’s collected – his PRINCIPLES? And when have you ever heard him articulate them? I haven’t. And I wonder why. And I’ll tell you this, before I pull the lever for him in a primary, I want to KNOW why.

          • LibertarianHawk

            Look, if you have a problem with the “truce” just say so. As I said above — and have maintained all along to others in that boat — it certainly is a valid reason for SoCons to support somebody else in the primary.

            Now, I don’t truly think it’s something that ought to cause SoCons much concern. After all, they get dissed by Republican politicians regularly. The major difference this time is that he’s saying up front that social issues would be on the backburner.

            Combining that with his record on social issues, I wouldn’t think that SoCons ought to have that much heartburn.

            Still, I completely understand that such a platform would cause them to look elsewhere.

            But there’s no reason to just pillory somebody, in general, for other unrelated reasons….just because he promises to set your issues aside.

            It’s nothing personal — he just believes that the fiscal situation is an emergency and will require a bigger coalition that we can assemble with social issues on the table dividing us.

            Just don’t call him a RINO and lump him in with the McCains of the world. There’s no similarity there whatsoever.

            As far as his books, you should read the interview. This was not somebody who just cobbled together a list of titles 10 minutes before the interview for the purposes of pandering. He clearly knew the books very, very well.

            Maybe you don’t.

          • Right Reason

            I said nothing of the truce. Why do you change the subject?

            What are his principles?

          • Right Reason

            All you want to talk about is Daniels’ principles, so let’s talk! What are they?!!!

          • LibertarianHawk

            “he professes a willingness to abandon mine in order to accomodate those with whom I disagree.”

            How would you expect somebody to interpret that?

            Of course, I don’t at all believe that the truce has anything to do with anybody abandoning their principles. It has to do with setting an agenda for a finite, specified period of time. It has to do with prioritization.

            That said, what else has he ever done or said that would amount to abandoning principles you hold dear in order to accommodate those who disagree with them?

            FTR, I don’t for a second think he’s laboring under the delusion that a “truce” on social issues would woo over hardcore social liberals. I think he’s aiming it more at people who just don’t have much of a dog in that hunt. There are a lot of voters like that out there.

          • Right Reason

            . . .then why does he need to mention it at all? Your logic doesn’t pass the smell test. If they don’t care, they won’t be turned off. If they will be turned off, then they DO care and hold the opposite views; the exact people you say he doesn’t think he’ll get. It makes no sense.

          • Right Reason

            Insulting your detractors is not a way to make converts. It’s a sign of someone who’s running out of arguments.

          • gpclaw

            And that is why we have primaries, so that a candidate can present their vision for America.

            The reason you haven’t heard Daniels articulate his principles, is because he hasn’t decided to run yet. If you have the time, Mitch has given plenty of speeches that you can find on the inter webs. You can read the his entire CPAC speech. Their is also MitchTV, showing him out on the campaign trail, making his case to the voters.

            I disagree that the bills he has passed has nothing to do with his principles. Anyone can give a speech saying what they believe, but words are meaningless. Legislation is where the rubber meets the road, and defines the conviction of a candidates principles.

          • Right Reason

            Is he conservative now? There is a difference between doing conservative things and being conservative.

          • gpclaw

            It is a policy. If Cuomo cut spending, because he believes in the principle of limited government, then it would be a good first step. If all of his future policy decisions are based on the principle of limited government, than he may be able to make a case.

            I agree that their is a difference, just as their is a difference between saying conservative things, and being a Conservative. A persons legislative history gives you insight to his principles, because it allows you to determine how consistent they are, especially on the big issues.

        • hoosierclinger

          Fiscally we are screwed.. in case you havent noticed. Thanks to Obama.

          You probably havent noticed banning gay marriage, illegal immigration laws, #1 prolife state in the nation.. all happened in Indiana under DANIELS.

          But, hey.. if Republicans want 2012 to be about abortion….
          let me be the first to congratulate Obama on his reelection.

          • powertothepeople

            with this nonsense. Abortion is a major problem in this country, 50 plus million so far and counting, fiscally, abortion costs us a lot of money so it is a fiscal issue as well, and we do not need to stay quiet about something so horrible to appease people like you. If someone is willing to vote for Obama just because they love to kill babies, they were not voting with us anyways ever. All this BS about alienating sets of people if we stay true to our values is absolutely hands down the most moronic nonsense a person can spew, period.

            Daniels is done whether or not anyone wants to admit it. His comments may have not been meant the way they were perceived, but he has sure not clarified them. He is done in nearly if not all of the social conservative states which means he has not chance at winning. And his pandering gained us nothing and not pandering will not lose us a thing.

            The same nonsense you people are saying will happen if we bring up social issues is the same nonsense that is happening with the platform of fiscal issues. We are getting attacked on every side, “kill the old” slogans are all over the place, people are whining about our plans, and yet we are still making gains. The same applies to social issues. Those who are so turned “off” by our social stance were never going to vote for us in the first place. They simply use that as another excuse as to why the vote dem.

          • hoosierclinger

            The Gov who made Indiana the most pro life state in America.

            He has the record of a social conservative… why on earth would that not be enough.

            Talk loudly about the economy and why Obama sucks.

            That will win 2012… not abortion/gay marriage.

            There are millions unemployed who dont care about anything other than the economy.

          • powertothepeople

            reading don’t you. I would really suggest you work on that flaw prior to posting responses.

            How about you work real hard on reading my response again, and then lets start this conversation over. Are you able to do that?

      • runner12

        To say that there is “nothing” wrong with Daniels is intellectually dishonest. For almost.a year now, you have been a consistent shill for him so i think your objectivity is lacking here.

        You are being quite hypocritical when you criticize otheres for pointing out flaws in Daniels and yet fail to even acknowledge that Daniels has thrown people in his own party under the bus.lately. From his truce statements to now he has tried to alienate conservatives and attract liberals. That is not how you win elections, ask John McCain.

        The correct approach is to stay true to your principles both in WORD and action and invite others to join you. You can do this in a polite manner. Daniels will never be a good ambassador for conservatism because he runs away from it when it is inconvenient. The American people will not buy what he is saying when he appeara to be unsure as to whethe he believes it himself.

        • LibertarianHawk

          …get unfairly tarred. If there’s something he actually deserves, fine. But much of what he gets here is wholly unreflective of the governor I’ve come to know and admire.

          Good grief — people love Mike Pence here (as I do, as well). So why wouldn’t they trust Rep. Pence when he says — repeatedly — that Daniels is the “best governor in America”?

          Is that to suggest that, while people like Mike Pence, they don’t really trust his judgment?

          Or, if Pence doesn’t cut it, what about Paul Ryan? Or what about Chris Christie?

          At some point, doesn’t it make some sense to trust the conservatives that we profess to admire?

          I vociferously opposed the McCain nomination. I most certainly do NOT want to see the Republican Party move to the accommodationist middle while the country as we’ve known it perishes.

          And I strongly resent the notion that nominating Mitch Daniels would represent such a move.

          He’s a conservative — and a damned good one. And I’m not going to sit on my hands while other conservatives try to declare otherwise.

          • Right Reason

            . . .but we don’t know. Sure, he’s done things in Indiana that conservatives would like. But he’s also done and said things that we do not like, and that cause us to doubt. And the fact that he steadfastly refuses to articulate his supposed conservatism gives us further doubt.

            The problem for conservatives this cycle is that we cannot afford not to be sure. And with Daniels, right now we cannot be sure.

            And all the endorsements in the world don’t sway me. Jesus Christ himself could lay his hands on Daniels and proclaim his conservatism and I would still check him out for myself.

          • ffc99

            if there is a candidate(s) or potential candidate(s) who you are “sure” about (that is “sure” about his or her fidelity to conservatism)?

          • Right Reason

            Among them, Tim Pawlenty, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann.

            The previous post was, perhaps, poorly worded. Obviously, we will never be completely sure of any candidate. However, we must be as confident as we can be. Each of the aforementioned offer a much greater assurance than does Daniels in this regard.

            Daniels can still be a viable cnadidate in my eyes. But he must prove it to me.

          • ffc99

            I can only conclude from this list that you value words over actions…

          • Right Reason

            And why do the Daniels supporters always end up resorting to insult when their “reasoning” fails to persuade others? If you guys are running out of ammo in May of 2011, it’ll end up being a LONG campaign season.

          • ffc99

            just pointing out the obvious (that is you clearly value words over actions).

          • gpclaw

            Because Daniels is being defined by a line given in a speech, while their are some others, with a pretty destructive track record, are getting a pass.

          • Right Reason

            I don’t see anyone discussed on this site being “given a pass.”

          • gpclaw

            Next Generation Energy Act of 2007
            Renewable Energy Mandates

            Completely separate issue than his support for cap and trade.

          • Right Reason

            Mitch and the truce? – Not so much.

            Pawlenty has one policy error. A large one, I will admit, but, again, one that he has flatly repudiated. And he is not the guy.

            Daniels does one of the best RINO impressions I’ve seen in awhile and we’re not supposed to have the least little worry?

          • gpclaw

            In the debate, he was asked about a provision in the law calling for a task force to study cap and trade. His answer was in response to this provision only.

            What he wasn’t asked about, was the rest of the law. It requires utilities to produce 25% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025. A Study was released last month concluding:

            The study found that Minnesotans would pay $15 billion more for electricity between 2016 and 2025 because of the state?s RPS, as alternative energy is more costly and unreliable than conventional sources such as coal or natural gas. Meanwhile there will be negligible environmental benefit, as it is unlikely that use of renewables ? especially wind, which the state mandates as a large percentage of its RPS ? actually reduces greenhouse gas emissions. The study was prepared by economists at the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University in Boston.

            ?In 2007, Minnesota embraced the proposition that tax subsidies for so-called ?clean? energy combined with forced quotas would magically create clean, abundant and affordable energy?as well as thousands of ?green? jobs,? said Kim Crockett, president of the Minnesota Free Market Institute. ?Our study demonstrates that the promise behind the RPS mandate is an illusion. It takes a first-class, first world economy to protect the environment. ?
            Other insights from the ATI/MNFMI report:

            ? Minnesota?s electricity prices will increase by 24 percent by 2025
            ? By 2025 the state will lose a net of 11,271 jobs
            ? In 2025 the RPS mandate will reduce annual wages by an average of $736 per worker
            ? Due to higher home energy costs, in 2025 annual real disposable income will fall by $1.36 billion

            ?Minnesota?s renewable mandate is an invitation for business and industry to leave for lower-cost states,? said Paul Chesser, executive director of the American Tradition Institute.?The heavy requirement upon Xcel Energy to derive 25 percent of sales from wind power will be a jobs killer.?

            More than a “policy error”. This is the expansion of government, and intervention in free market.

          • gpclaw

            Is the Democrats Plan B

            With cap and trade out of the realm of possibilities, Members of Congress have turned their attention to mandating so-called clean energy.

            Some Members hoped for a lame duck vote on a renewable electricity standard (RES), which would require that a certain percentage of our nation?s electricity production come from wind, solar, biomass, and other government-picked renewable energies. With that looking less likely, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu mentioned a clean energy standard that includes other carbon-free sources of energy as a possible compromise between Democrats and Republicans next year.

            Their is even talk over a compromise, spear headed by Lindsey Graham.. If Pawlenty is the nominee, don’t be surprised if the Democrats propose legislation of this type, just before the election. Who knows, maybe they will copy the Minnesota plan?

          • LibertarianHawk

            I sound like a broken record on this, I know. But it’s a big, big issue for me.

            I think the conservative movement is suffering from this malady — and, what’s more, I fear that it could be our undoing.

            There absolutely is such a thing as ideological apostasy. While it’s most convenient to talk about McCain in that sense, it’s better to think of somebody like David Stockman or Bruce Bartlett. These are people who have genuinely left the ideological reservation.

            Or you have politicians like the Maine sisters, Arlen Specter, Linc Chafee, etal. They were never on the ideological reservation to begin with. And, to wit, many of them have left the party and made it official.

            We should never, ever confuse this with a genuine conservative who is employing political pragmatism as a vehicle for advancing conservative policies. Yes, it can sometimes be hard to tell the difference. But we should give it a try and not treat pragmatism as a dirty word.

            In fact, understanding this is the secret behind the left’s success lo these many years. Not understanding it is the secret behind the Libertarian Party’s political futility.

            If we don’t do a better job making this distinction, then I worry about the future of the conservative movement.

          • Right Reason

            Minnesota stood to gain from green energy. There are several ethanol plants there. Pawlenty was merely being pragmatic in supporting something that would be a net benefit to the Minnesota economy. As governor of Minnesota, that’s his job, isn’t it? Ta da! Pragmatism!

            Pragmatism is not compatible with conservatism. I believe, as I said above, that conservatism is the best philosophy because it is the correct philosophy. Conservative idease WORK. Liberal ideas do not. I believe that you NEVER have to give up conservative principles in order to win; you merely need to correctly articulate those principles. The only reason to advocate “toning down” your conservatism is if you don’t believe this. Daniels clearly advocates toning down his supposed conservatism in order to win voters. That means he doesn’t believe that he can win those voters by articulating those conservative views. A conservative KNOWS that he can do this because a conservative KNOWS that his ideas are the best. If Daniels holds this view then he is no conservative – PERIOD.

          • gpclaw

            You may want to look into Pawlenty a little more.

          • Right Reason

            Is there some specific you had in mind, or are you just “sliming”?

          • gpclaw

            2 posts up.

          • LibertarianHawk

            …something other than a solid conservative.

            He’s yet to do that even once, as far as I’m concerned. And I’m pretty finicky on such matters.

            He’s a conservative. Period. End of story. It’s not even a matter of debate for anybody who would fairly and objectively analyze his tenure in office. Heck, the guy ran a conservative thinktank for a couple years (the Hudson Institute).

            I realize a lot of people are put off by some things he’s said — and, while I sympathize with that, and can certainly understand somebody voting for somebody else because of those comments, I will fight the meme that he’s some kind of RINO or McCainiac Republican.

            He isn’t. The record doesn’t support that in the least. And, if he was, I can’t imagine that somebody like FreedomWorks’ Dick Armey would be supporting him.

          • runner12

            wrong with Daniels, when in reality every potential candidate has an Achilles heel.

            My problem with Daniels has to do with a pattern of behavior that communicates a lack of fortitude when things get tough. People point to his signing of a big pro-life bill, which is commendable. But in reality the legislature did all the leg work. When the Dems went AWOL, he backed down. He showed weakness.

            Often times what you say is as important as what you do. The rhetoric he has been spewing lately makes people wary of him. They have been burned in the past by people who use his same language.

            I for one cannot understand why he seems to be running from his conservatism. It is puzzling to me. He does not have to be a bomb thrower, but at least needs to come across as a man of conviction.

        • gpclaw

          Daniels has thrown anyone under the bus. In his CPAC speech, he was laying out the issues that he views as the most pressing, and his vision for the country. Everyone can judge for themselves if this is something they can support or not. He has said point blank, that if people do not view our current situation the same way he does, then he’s not their guy. Being honest about how he would approach things, isn’t throwing people under the bus.

          Throwing people under the bus, would be to campaign on set of issues, then govern in the exact opposite way once you get the job.

  • brookhaven

    Wow, it’s obvious Daniels is an advocate of the “Big Tent Republican” theory. He many not call it that, or even realize that’s the road he’s headed down, but that it.

    This idea should have been dead and buried a long time ago, but like a zombie it won’t stay down, despite the fact that it’s a rotting, crumbling corpse of an ideas that stinks to high heaven.

    The Big Tent–playing nice, softening our views, and trying to make the party attractive to “moderates” nearly destroyed the GOP in the past. It’s a bad idea that should be left dead and buried. That’s one zombie we don’t want to resurect.

    • runner12
    • gpclaw

      Their is the one that you disagree with, by adopting positions that aren’t in line with Conservative principles, just to bring in enough votes to win election.

      The second type, is finding out what issues are important to a person, then demonstrating to them how your principles can address their problems.

      Putting the role of government back in it’s proper role, and reforming entitlements will require a big tent, but the only ones allowed in the tent need to have the belief that, when it comes to government, less is more. That is the point Daniels is trying to make,

      • Right Reason

        Is that principle negotiable as well in order to win?

        • gpclaw

          Thats just fact, not principle.

          Principles shouldn’t be negotiable. Political positions are based in principle, but positions are not principles.

          • Right Reason

            Let’s be more direct; would you continue to argue for smaller government if holding that position could cost you the election?

          • gpclaw

            As far as I’m concerned, limited government, and liberty are THE principles of Conservatism. These two principles get you to the positions on abortion, property rights, economic freedom, gun rights, the Constitution.

          • gpclaw
          • 20jan2013

            The premise of your question is incorrect, as holding the correct position is not what has ever cost us an election; it is not running on the correct positions that has cost us elections.

          • gpclaw

            acting outside of it’s Constitutional authority is what is damaging the country, then electing someone intent on growing government, isn’t really “winning”.

            Big government is the primary cause of our social and economic problems. It’s time to stop feeding the beast.

      • brookhaven

        There’s no point in even debating the various favors or potential postivies of the Big Tent. All that was done in the past. All the variations and suggestion being made now (even on this thread) were discussed and tried. Nobody here is talking about anything new. The only point that should matter is this: it failed.

        The Big Tent = GOP Failure

        Those that forget the past are destined to repeat it.

        Those that forget the failure of the Republican Big Tent are destined to…

    • hoosierclinger

      How is telling the truth about the fiscal state we are in playing nice and a big tent?

      Do you honestly think we can win the indp vote by yelling and screaming about social issues? Seriously?
      cause.. those are the dopes that fell for ‘hope and change”

      Maybe those dopes, who anyone needs to win, will pay attention to someone not yelling and telling them the truth about our economic future..

      • lineholder

        of social moderates lately? And I’m talking about on a national level, not just within IN. If you haven’t, you might want to do that before you write social issues off as a lost cause.

        • redneck_hippie

          but in the interest of knowing our enemy, the trend is not good on citizen attitudes. Note this doesn’t necessarily translate into voter patterns, as the youth do not move elections in any major way, with the exception of the Obama personality cult, but…

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx

          • powertothepeople

            since just a few years ago gay marriage was trounced in nearly every state, even CA. Please do not try to convince us millions have changed their mind in such a short time.

          • rightwingmom52

            even in the most liberal states. The voting pattern here seems to be vastly different than the poll.

          • aesthete

            in larger percentages than younger and middle-aged people, especially in non-Presidential elections (i.e., special elections and midterms).

          • rightwingmom52

            and yet Prop 8 passed by a solid majority.

          • lineholder

            what we’re likely to be facing in 2012 is that Dems will be pulling every crooked fraud voter trick they know into play. I’m not about to underestimate them on that point.

            I know that my questioning of Daniels’ stand regarding which social issues he will and/or will not address has set up some backs here. I’m very sorry if it has set up yours, because that wasn’t my intention.

            I think that in context of what Daniels may be trying to accomplish, he is correct…we need to try to engage as many people as we can in order to beat Obama in 2012. I do have questions about his approach, because some issues are socioeconomic issues, not solely fiscal issues. The economic context is easy enough to see on the surface. The underlying issues related to that economic context are social. In doing a simple root cause analysis, the best ways to try to begin to resolve the economic reality is to address the underlying social issues. In other words, just pushing the fiscal doesn’t provide solutions.

            There are voters in the social moderate sector who are very much so open-minded to the idea of a conservative candidate who can provide them with some options in ways to resolve these socioeconomic issues.

            The candidate who appreciates this reality and is willing to try to appeal to that sector of our population is the one who will have the greater chance of gaining those votes.

            In some ways, I’d like to see Daniels end up being that candidate. Whether he is willing to try to do that or not is his own choice to make, not mine.

          • redneck_hippie

            If you think that, then let me just state for everyone that I am not endorsing the results of that poll. I specifically stated that it does not imply much, if anything, about voter patterns.

            As I said, I normally wouldn’t have bothered to post it, but thought it a good stimulus for discussion, which it has proved to be.

            As long as the younger pro-gay-marriage citizens change their minds as they mature, we will be fine electorally. I was never the least bit in favor of this, so can’t say what will happen with the 18 to 40-year-old crowd who are socially liberal.

          • lineholder

            I genuinely believe that with Daniels record, he could be the one to pull this off. But I’m a realist to the hilt, and I’m not trying to be offensive to you or anyone else.

            I do agree with the idea of trying to engage as many voters as we can in 2012. Repubs are so accustomed to approaching this a certain way, Redneck, and I’m just not all that sure they are looking at different trends that are developing and seeing the vast scope of potential that exists out there right now.

            Do you ever have moments where you just want to head-slap someone to get their attention? If we start talking about how I’ve felt lately…that describes it pretty well.

          • rightwingmom52

            I’d like to get the attention of my 20 year old son and his friends. While it make me feel better, however, I know patience is what I need. We have seen some signs of maturity over the last year, so there’s hope, especially since I have another year and a half to work on them.

  • gpclaw

    while sticking to ones principles, just watch today’s press conference of PM Netanyahu, politely dressing down Obama. He made his point, with facts and class, and walked away as the superior man.

    • redneck_hippie

      We’re probably both more interested in statesmanship than razzle-dazzle. There are numerous examples of the “speak softly but carry a big stick” style of governing. My favorite is Reagan, but Bibi is another.