« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Time to elect a RINO.

By: mbecker908 (Diary)  |  July 19th, 2011 at 10:49 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

But he’s not running, a victim of his ability to put both feet in his mouth on the national stage and the self-righteous stupidity of one segment of the Party. I recall the frequent epithets hurled at Mitch Daniels when he was considering getting into the fray, and often as not “RINO” was the least of the accusations.

From the Washington Times yesterday…

As Washington stares at rising national debt and projected deficits for years to come, many states are faced with the opposite problem: whether to spend their budget surpluses and, if so, on what.

At least a dozen states ended fiscal 2011 with surpluses. Indiana reported one of the largest, with an extra $1.2 billion in its accounts. Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican, on Friday authorized bonus payments of up to $1,000 for state employees. An employee who “meets expectations” will get $500, those who “exceed expectations” will receive $750 and “outstanding workers” will see an extra $1,000 in their August paychecks.

“No state anywhere comes close to Indiana’s record of spending tax dollars carefully, with total savings over the last six years in the billions. Your spending efficiency has enabled us to stay in the black even as revenues plummeted,” said Mr. Daniels, who recently flirted with a run for the White House but ultimately stayed out of the race.

I’m the first to point the finger at Daniels ability to make ill-conceived statements. But there is no better record of accomplishment out there than his. On fiscal matters AND on social concerns like abortion. It’s unfortunate that we don’t have room for highly credible and extraordinarily competent and conservative Governors like Daniels.
We seem to be looking for someone with marginal accomplishments who can whip up the base.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Seriously Becker, its like you’re fleshing out the fringe. I know you know he bowed out for personal family reasons. So you’re cynical, but are hoping to see reactions? This should be entertaining if it sticks.

    • Finrod

      Mitch Daniels isn’t not running because he’s a RINO, he’s not running because the Left would make his wife regret him running.

      I think he would have done ok if he had run. He wasn’t going to be a shoo-in of course (no one is), but he would have been a serious contender. Some people would have tried to make hay of some of his comments, but I think he would have been able to overcome that.

      Personally, he’d be on the ‘ahead of Romney’ list for me, which is a spot Gingrich, Santorum, and Huntsman wouldn’t be able to claim.

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

        Which is, there is a segment of our Party who pay much more attention to rhetoric than to record.

        And, I don’t know how he’d have held up in the primaries, I don’t even know that I’d have supported him over someone else when all was said and done, but grief that got handed out over “the truce” was totally out of proportion to the totality of his record.

        I would have liked to see him run, if for no other reason than to highlight the fiscal responsibility of Governors in a bright light and the importance of setting a conservative legislative agenda and then doing what needs to be done to see it passed.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          I comment a lot less on this site because I try not to get into it with people that take patriotic rhetoric to heart but ignore the records of their favorite politician… Rhetoric for me counts nor more or less than an ideological understanding… Even Mitt Romney can sound conservative if you take him as his patriotic words… but its one thing to understand what we like to hear, and then doing something that makes the policy happen.

          I’m not looking for a perfect candidate… but I am looking for a serious one that can both walk and talk the conservative path.

        • Finrod

          Mitch Daniels had a legitimate point that unfortunately he mucked up by the way he said it, regarding the ‘truce’. Fiscal issues ARE more important this coming campaign season, and the GOP would do better concentrating its firepower where it would do the most good.

          But some people won’t listen to reason– just look at the kerfuffle here over GOProud’s signing onto a group Tea Party statement about the subject. You would have thought that they were advocating snorting coke and dead fetuses off the back of a naked hooker for the reaction it got.

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

            …

          • Finrod

            I didn’t hear you say word one about the dozen or so Tea Party groups that originated that document that GOProud signed on to. Your strawman is looking more and more decrepit all the time.

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

            I do not think it means what you think it means.

          • cwilson

            …just as soon as you can get somehow achieve a guarantee that the Left will honor it.

            Somehow, in the middle of this period where “fiscal issues trump everything” the Left hasn’t stopped their continued libertine assault. For instance, take the recent gay marriage law in NY — it’s not as if NY isn’t in deep fiscal doo-doo right now. Why didn’t the NY Republicans simply say, “hey, guys, let’s just leave things alone for now and focus on righting the fiscal ship.”

            But nooooo…they had to pass an idiotic law with “religious exemptions” that’ll be struck down, leaving the core law intact but forcing priests to marry gays or be jailed (don’t talk to me about “non-severability” until every judge rules the same way on Obamacare’s “non-severability”). And never mind the religious objections of non-priests: like wedding photographers, caterers, florists, hairdressers (okay, that last one is more hypothetical than realistic [g]…)

            Oh, and will Obama’s friends drop all their assaults on DOMA? Obama has DEMONSTRATED what a “truce” looks like: by refusing to defend DOMA, he’s invited continued, and now sure to be successful, judicial assaults ON it: truce == surrender.

            The “truce” was a dumb idea to even think about — as it shows an astonishing naivete about the Left. In addition, it was incredibly moronic to TALK about — as it shows a similarly astonishing lack of political realism.

            If there’s one thing every Conservative should have learned with their ABC’s, it is that the Left. Never. Gives. Up. There’s no “truce” with the Left; only victory or surrender. Truce == surrender, and if you haven’t learned that, you’re too stupidnaive for elected office, no matter your other princely qualities.

          • runner12

            You are 100% correct cwilson.

          • Scope

            I really could care less about Daniels and anything he did or did not do. He isn’t running, end of story. He is a moot subject.

            The problem is that some seem to not be able to accept that many social issues are directly related to fiscal issues. For example, now allowing gays to serve openly in the military has to be very costly with all the sensitivity training of our troops, retrofitting barracks and whatever other costs will come of it. Didn’t Obama threaten to not pay our military members if the Republicans didn’t remove the defunding of PP from a spending measure, surely social and moral issues.

            As to today’s breaking news that Obama is supporting replacing the word Defense in the DOMA with Respect, in order to cover same sex marriages in the states that allow it, and repealing DOMA as it was originally defined, he can do that easily with an Executive Order. Heck he said that if he can’t get a bill that he supports for the Debt Ceiling, he will take it upon himself to raise the debt ceiling, probably again by EO. I heard that a day or so ago on Fox news radio news.

            The attendance of GOPround at CPAC this year was a joke. They claim to be conservatives, but absolutely are into winning their arguments politically. They are as Neil said above Libertines. The Gay organizations have gotten even more loud and insistent that the country accept their sexual practices as the norm. They scream that the government needs to get out of their bedrooms, yet they are using that same government to “protect their rights.” They don’t make sense.

  • Ned Reck

    This is the first I’ve heard of Daniels bein’ a fatally-flawed flacid RINO Repub. Dang Becker… hear you tell it… you’d think folks think Daniels is actually Olympia Snowe, Jr. I must have missed Rush on that day.

    OK… he may not be a thumpin’ social-con (my preference)… but if it came down to it, I’d much rather have Mitch Daniel’s vast experience as governor/exec… than Michele Bachman’s experience as legislature/lawyer. Can’t have everything, I guess. Besides… we need more walkin’-the-walkers… than talkin’-the-talkers.

    Ned Reck

    • gpclaw

      Mitch wasn’t getting any love on this site back in May. mbecker hits the nail squarely with the sledgehammer.

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

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/05/05/mitch-daniels-the-anti-tea-party-candidate/#comment-107773

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/05/05/mitch-daniels-the-anti-tea-party-candidate/#comment-107783

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/05/05/mitch-daniels-the-anti-tea-party-candidate/#comment-107894

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/05/05/mitch-daniels-the-anti-tea-party-candidate/#comment-107919

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/05/05/mitch-daniels-the-anti-tea-party-candidate/#comment-107868

    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/05/18/mitch-daniels-in-2009-stop-disagreeing-with-democrats/#comment-6638

    http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/05/18/mitch-daniels-in-2009-stop-disagreeing-with-democrats/#comment-6741

    Those took about five minutes to find.

    • Ned Reck

      But I have a big problem….

      I always look at results, deeds and actions… make up my own mind…

      Just had a large business tax client relocate to Indiana… into a bidness climate that has drastically improved in the past eight years. Night and day difference… “results” that anybody can eye-ball.

      To me… there’s only two types of heroes in ANY economy… the job creators… and the political engineers that facilitate job creation.

      My preacher is about as conservative as you can get… believes all the right stuff… lives right… don’t cuss… no vices… good father. But I wouldn’t trust him to balance a check-book… or create a job. Bless his heart.

      Sometimes… I ask myself: “Who’s the better conservative… the person who can theoretically explain job creation, lower taxes, and balancing budgets… or the person who has actually done it?” The greatest morale-building, confidence-inspiring, socially uplifting, patriotic, economically invigorating device that the world has ever known: a capitalistically created real job in the private sector of the U.S.A.

      There’s nothin’ like wakin’ up in the morning… to a real job… in the U.S.A.

      Sure wished we could get back to… Morning in America.

      Sorry to interrupt your post about Daniels. Thanks for saving me the “five minutes”… much obliged. Really good discussions… not necessarily my take on events… but good discussions.

      Ned Reck

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

        Daniels in a second. He’s probably got the best overall record out there and he really gets things done.

        • JSobieski

          Paul Ryan’s medicare reforms are in significant measure based on medicaid reform in Indiana, but Indiana implemented full fledged medicaid vochures, not simply subsidization of individually controlled policies. But what the hell, we can always write in O’Donnell.

          • aesthete

            I really wish that his wife hadn’t talked Daniels out of running — best record by far, besides maybe Gary Johnson, he was saying the most on-point things about the deficit, the economy and austerity, and a heck of a lot of the great GOP governors were very positive about his accomplishments, and would have had a good ally in a hypothetical Daniels administration. No use crying over spilt milk, but I sure wish we had someone in the running with a great record of the same type.

          • gpclaw

            that Daniels didn’t run. Yes, I have no doubt that the Daniels family wasn’t looking forward to having their marital past put under the microscope. That said, if the family issue was the only reason for not running, then Daniels would have ended the speculation much earlier.

            I feel that the reason he decided not to run was the combination of the family issue, combined with the pounding he was receiving from Rush, Jennifer Rubin, and others, for being a “trucer”.

            Taking the risk to expose his family to the scrutiny he would have received was only justifiable if Daniels felt that he had solid path to the nomination. Unfortunately, at the time, to many were fawning over Pawlenty, while buying into the rhetoric that Daniels would be weak on social issues.

          • rightwingmom52

            at any time by clarifying his remark. However, aside from that issue and regardless of his record, he clearly didn’t have the fire in his belly to run, and in this election more than any before, I think we need somebody who will not only stand up for conservative principles, but also will stand up to the liberals and call them on their failed policies.

            Also, several here have commented to other commenters in the heat of discussion, and in particular about one conservative female voice, that you need to grow a thick skin if you want to engage in the discussion, i.e., if you can’t take the heat… Seems to me that Daniels couldn’t take the heat, but apparently in this instance, what’s good for the goose doesn’t apply.

          • gpclaw

            All I know is that he was going to get hammered by both sides. The volume was already turned up to 11, and he hadn’t even decided to run. I don’t disagree that he could have addressed the issue, and I’m sure he would have if he decided to run. However, there is no denying the level of opposition to Daniels throwing his hat in the ring, over an issue that clearly didn’t jive with what the man has done over the course of his political career.

  • jerry39

    Hitler was good for the economy too.

    Daniels is neither Hitler or a RINO as far as I know, but he did make some pretty dumb statements that were sufficient cause for strong pro-lifers to rally against him..

    • acat

      A candidate who had successfully implemented government reforms, who had an outstanding pro-life record, and who had good executive experience reducing the cost of government and growing businesses was run out of the race by pro-lifers who couldn’t accept the idea that Mitch might not mean that they have to back down.

      Mew

      • jerry39

        And given his record I wish he hadn’t made those statements, but he did. If bachman came out tomorrow and said lets have a truce on the way to reduce the debt, 1/2 spending and 1/2 tax increase, she would get the same boot as far as I am concerned. If a huckabee supporter came out and said we should support him because life is the most important issue, and he’s pretty good on the fiscal side – same thing. I’d vote for Daniels, or huckabee for that matter, if it came down to it, just like i voted for mccain, but were not at that point or anywhere near it. Were at the point where all the social squishes lecture prolifers about sacrifice for the good of the team, just like e ery elect cycle in the last 20 years.

        • aesthete

          So far, both the social and fiscal cons have been shafted repeatedly by Republican leadership (though out of the two, social conservatives have definitely gotten more out of the arrangement than fiscal conservatives). I would say that defense conservatives got shafted, as well, considering how little of what we do abroad is in our own interest, but “defense conservatism” in the post-Cold War world has become such a chimera that I’m not sure I could credibly make that claim. I digress: whatever else has happened for the past 20 years, it sure hasn’t been fiscal conservatives running the show at the expense of social conservatives.

          • jerry39

            Said every election cycle we hear the refrain re the social issues. Don’t disagree ficons have also gotten shaft, but ficons tend to pile on with the establishment against socons, which doesn’t happen the other way around.

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

            And, come hell or high water, Mitch Daniels has a better pro-life record of actual accomplishment than ANY figure currently in public life. He is supported by every pro-life group in Indiana, and very strongly supported.

            You refuse to acknowledge that there is a very limited number of things that a President can actually do to impact the number of abortions. Certainly Daniels would do all of the administrative things (Mexico City, etc) that are available. He would sign legislation stopping funding to Planned Parenthood. He would nominate solidly conservative Justices if given the opportunity.

            He also has, across the board, the best record of conservatism and accomplishment of any current or former Governor. Pawlenty is a close second and his pro-life record is as solid as Daniels.

            By rejecting men like Daniels for making a statement about his overall legislative priorities you – and those like you – absolutely diminish the pro-life movement by focusing on talk and completely ignoring action. And that is a pathetic state of affairs.

          • jerry39

            Do you have any comprehension whatsoever how many more abortions will be performed if they are covered under obamacare? How much money will flow into the abortion industry? The cost of an abortion will quadrupple overnight. Do you know that the combined efforts of Obama,s ending the Mexico city policy and seeking to double taxpayer dollars for planned parenthood has been? PP got to spend millions on pro abortion propaganda in pro life countries. I could go on for so e time with example after example. You seriously want to tell me the leader of the free world can’t do much to end abortion and suggest that I am missing the point?

            If you want to make Daniels the second coming, then list his initiatives. There aren’t to many republican governors who could veto pro life legislation whether they wanted to or not, so no I don’t assume someone is lying because they voted differntly in the past. I guess since Obama voted against raising the debt limit in the past we can assume he doesn’t really want it increased?

            Finnally, calling me pathetic while whitewashing Daniels statements beyond recognition is, well pathetic. Does it bother you at all that you must mischaracterize what he said in order to defend it?

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

            Or whitewashing anything either.

            Daniels has the solid support of Indiana right-to-lifers who live in his state and deal with him daily. Take your whining up with them.

            Your completely illogical position is one very solid reason why a lot of people view the pro-life movement as completely irrational.

            Beyond the administrative remedies that I noted, and the limited legislative remedies that I noted, and the nomination of SCOTUS Justices just what do you think the President can do? In case you haven’t noticed, specific laws restricting or abolishing abortion would not make it through the US Senate in any way, shape or form.

            You’re not just missing the point, you’re ignoring it and/or denying it.

          • http://www.ipsnational.com Craig Whitelock

            A POTUS has no remedies other than those you pointed out. Your first point about all politics being local is also exactly the point that needs to be made. If pro-lifers in IN can live with Mitch, pro-lifers in all other states should be able to as well.

            Taking fringe positions leads to nothing. Last I checked we were desperately in need of something positive, such as a move to the Right, not the extreme Right.

          • jerry39

            I just suggested how obamacare could increase abortions more than anything since roe v. Wade and u ignored it. The mere act of a president taking a strong position on abortion will alter the number of abortions. Bush literally changed the majority opinion to pro life, by exposing partial birth abortion.

            But its.obvious u have no response other than to reiterate that you were right and I was wrong. Maybe you should just get out your Rudi butons, because I think its a lost cause with Daniels.

          • aesthete

            on life issues, and the PBA ban was the culmination of lots of hard work from pro-life activists, changing opinions on abortion (a trend that dates back to the 80s), and a solid Republican majority. It was no parting of the Red Seas moment, to be sure.

            Vis a vis Obamacare, any fiscal conservative or libertarian worth his salt, regardless of their stance on abortion, would love to roll back government funding of and intervention in healthcare markets, including the market for abortions, so yours is a moot point. The abortion-specific things that the President can do is startlingly limited.

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

            leaning on the “abortion problem”, you address the issue – which Daniels undoubtedly would have – by calling ObamaCare what it is, an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government. Abortion is not the biggest problem with OCare, unfettered expansion of the powers of the federal government is.

            And, it’s “Rudy”. And if you bothered to pay any attention, Gulliani, for all the rhetoric had a significantly better pro-life record in New York City than Huckabee had in Arkansas. Huckabee was all talk. In NYC during Rudy’s administration, abortions went down significantly. He also committed to reinstate all administrative sanctions against abortion and had a judicial advisory panel who would recommend judicial appointments that was overloaded with pro-life people. In fact, he was arguably the best hope for the pro-life movement in 2008 and had he been elected, we’d have a very conservative SCOTUS right now.

            Unfortunately, like Daniels, he didn’t want to put up with the crap.

            As far as partial birth abortion is concerned, there isn’t a Republican candidate anywhere who would not have taken the same stance that Bush did. In fact, the legislation first passed in 1995 with nearly unanimous support from Republicans and fairly significant support from Democrats but it was vetoed by Clinton. In 2003, it passed the Republican House and Senate and was signed by Bush. This legislation was a Congressional priority, not necessarily an administration priority.

            While GWB was certainly pro-life, he was also a practical man. From an article on the Republican Platform Plank on abortion:

            At the same time, Mr. Bush layered his statement of support for the plank with nuances that made clear that he was not planning an all-out battle against abortion if he becomes president. And clearly recognizing that a completely unyielding position on abortion could hurt him in a general election, he added that the Republican nominee should be ”willing to find a common ground on issues, such as partial birth abortion and parental notification.”

            I’m guessing you’d be lumping him right in there with Daniels given a statement like this. Please note that abortion was not a major issue in 2000, Bush simply did what was available to him. There is no record that he pushed the Congress to pass this legislation, although he certainly supported it – as would any national candidate, Rudy included.

          • jerry39

            Gets credit for being staunchly pro life because he signed a bill into law, but GW had nothing to do with PB ban, because he just signed a bill into law.

          • jerry39

            Obama are is an example of how presidents can affect the number of f abortions, demonstrating that you are wrong to suggest they are essentially poweless over the issue. I’m not suggesting that abortion is the means of attacking Obama care, nor am I suggesting that Daniels is pro Obama care.

          • gpclaw

            endorsement for Daniels in 2008:

            Prior to Governor Daniels, not a single Indiana governor had the courage or conviction to publicly support the sanctity of life of unborn children.

            During his first term, Governor Daniels has signed into law key legislation placing Indiana on the leading edge of national pro-life efforts.

            That included a bill allowing women to see an ultrasound of their unborn child prior to the abortion, a bill to ban human cloning, and a measure establishing an umbilical cord blood bank to advance life-affirming stem cell research using cord blood instead of killing human embryos.

            Daniels also ended 25 years of Indiana abortion clinics operating without any significant health and safety regulations by signing into law new licensure and inspection requirements for abortion centers.

          • jerry39

            http://www.lifenews.com/2010/06/18/state-5202/

            How can you be unsure if you want taxpayers to fund abortions? Its not like it was one statement that could go either way. this isn’t even a political benefit, when 70% disapprove of taxpayer funded abortions.

          • gpclaw

            Politicians are great at telling us what we want to hear, even if it doesn’t jive with their record. Words don’t change the record.

            Like my dad used to say “I’m like Missouri, show me”. Daniels record as governor of Indiana shows all of us what kind of President he would have been.

      • gpclaw

        nt

      • cordpt

        I think it’s unwise to believe that making a lot of noise and being very strident is the better way of achieving policy goals.

        Unfortunately, that’s the mindset of part of the social conservative block.

    • aesthete

      The flaws of his flavor of corporatism only became apparent in the real world during wartime and after some other Latin American states tried the same trick (though classical economists could have predicted the problems with the private-public fusions that Hitler attempted).

      • jerry39

        Eventualy, if have no respect for life it will eventually affect the economy too.

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          http://www.acton.org/global/article/market-economy-and-ethics

          “It is becoming an increasingly obvious fact of economic history that the development of economic systems which concentrate on the common good depends on a determinate ethical system, which in turn can be born and sustained only by strong religious convictions.”

      • Repair_Man_Jack

        to General Motors and General Electric. Two extremely right wing and militaristic names for corporations if you ask me :)

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

          Has he reconsidered his fear of skeletons in the closet and entered the nomination contest?

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            WIle E Coyote would have to expatriate himself to CHina or Brazil to take any of the new jobs that GM or GE have created w/ the Obama stimulus bucks.

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

            I’m simply noting that a sizable minority of our party pay more attention to trivia – and absolutely I’m saying “the truce” is trivia – than to actual accomplishment.

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

            convinces me that it was fear of his personal issues and not fear of RINO labeling that drove his decision. Yes, great track record and I doubt he would have strayed from his pro-life record, but what bothered me about the truce controversy were other statements within that context that were not focused on as much, which statements indicated that he deemed “unity” with the left as essential to solving our problems, getting elected and getting votes. A number of statement indicated to me that he was governing in DC as requiring a quite different approach than in Indiana and that the approach was much like the one he advocated for Bush43 when he worked for Dubya.

            I wrote a number of detailed columns on this at the time and am perplexed as to why i didn’t get a Pulitzer! smile

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    The man figuratively walked onto the national stage, pulled the pin on a hand-grenade, dropped the grenade to the ground, and then dived on it.

    And you want to blame social conservatives for the fact that he was DOA?

    He did the damage to his potential presidential bid. When given the chance to “clarify” the truce comments, he doubled down. When given the opportunity to fire up the base, he talked about reconciling with the Democrats. He did the damage and then he decided not to run. How about a little personal responsibility? How about he and his supporters accept the fact lost the chance on his own? He did not need our help. His political strategy backfired, now his supporters need to live with it and stop trying to blame everyone but Daniels.

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

      Heck, both feet.

      But then again, he might not have realized that he was going to be dealing with narrow minded fools incapable of recognizing real accomplishment from an elected official.

      I don’t blame him for not running.

      • jerry39

        Maybe he was involved in an abortion and his guilt comes out sideways against prolifers. Praying for him is the best course of action.

        • acat

          And .. either Becker, who has been quite vocally anti-abortion on Red State as long as I can remember, or Daniels, who has one of the if not the best pro-life record of any sitting governor.. are now pro-abortion?

          Are you, perhaps, a moby?

          Mew

          • BigRedConservative

            .

        • Repair_Man_Jack

          That’s a pretty serious accusation to make out of thin air. If Becker was ever involved in an abortion, I would imagine it was retroactive.

          If you’ve just thrown this out there w/o substantiating evidence, then you have just borne false witness against your fellow Christians. Hardly the ethical behavior we would expect from a good, upstanding believer. I’ll add you to my prayers.

          • jerry39

            nt

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

          OK jerry. I don’t normally put this stuff out for public consumption because I really don’t like the appearance of patting myself on the back. So please don’t read this as such. Read it as evidence that you’re a complete idiot.

          In 1983 my wife and I lived in New Hampshire and had the pleasure to work with a group of pro-life folks from Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut to start the first abortion-alternative counseling group in New England. It helped thousands of women with “problem pregnancies” find the option of adoption. In addition, we’ve personally counseled hundreds of families in turmoil because of unplanned pregnancies and we’ve opened our home to young women who had no where to turn and no direction in order to help them turn their lives around and to save the life of their unborn child.

          I have, infrequently, consulted with pro-life groups on matters of policy and on business issues.

          I have no issues with the real pro-life movement, they are doing God’s work – literally. I have major issues with idiots and fools.

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

            Bethany Christian Services.

            Vermont – 1 office.
            New Hampshire – 2 offices.
            Massachusetts – 2 offices.
            Rhode Island – 1 office.
            Connecticut – 1 office.

            I’m not by any means taking credit for these offices or the long term success of the organization. I am very pleased that Mrs908 & I had a major hand in getting them off the ground in New England.

          • jerry39

            1. Becker’s primary argument against anybody that disagrees with him on this point, unless of course its a moderator, is to call them idiots, or fools, or extremists, or pathetic, or whatever other insult his thesaurisis chooses for him..

            2. I think that is childish way to discuss issues with people who obviously have a very rational and non-idiotic basis for their position.

            3. I demonstrate the point by saying something childish about Becker, for which I lack the same evidence that becker does when he calls people idiots.

            4. If you dont want to be called names that aren’t true, then dont call people names that aren’t true.

            5. You guys double down on unsupported insults by calling me a Moby, and cannot even grasp the irony.

          • acat

            You’re right. Moby is the wrong term for you.

            Mew

          • Repair_Man_Jack

            of those w/ mental disabilities.

          • gekster

            becker was involved in abortions.
            As in getting fewer of them to happen.
            God bless those who do that.
            Even the crusty ones. ;)

          • acat

            May Becker’s God smile upon him, in all his crusty glory, for a long, long time to come.

            Mew

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

            that too often dominates the bandwidth here. Name calling is a substitute for actual refutation of arguments based on facts or its a substitute for wisely walking away when one has already done so.

          • jerry39

            Its back to the hyperbole. First, I didn’t say he was involved in an abortion. I said “maybe” he was, as an over the top rationalization for his need to end every comment with – and by the way your an idiot (again except in response to moderators or other Redstate bigwigs). I dont for a second think that becker has been involved in an abortion.

            But it wouldn’t have made a point to just call him an idiot back – that would have just been participating in the type of dialogue I am suggesting we don’t need.

            But here on Redstate, I imagine being called a Moby is almost as bad as being accused of being involved in an abortion, and that’s what gets trotted out against me in response. So lets cut the holier than thou, “I cant believe you said that” crap.

            The whole purpose of this post as surmised by some was to create argument on a dead subject. That argument consists primarily of calling pro-lifers idiots who don’t moderate their position to beckers satisfaction. Or if they dont see with the grand vision that becker has, the true meaning of Daniels words – that this was some wink and nod statement to build bridges. Such an approach might have merit in the general or late in the primaries, if Daniels accomplishments were widely known, and if handled a little better. But to make that practically his opening salvo, was such an obvious mistake. Blaming pro-lifers months later and calling them idiots for failing to see the true Daniels as becker imagines – is pointlessly divisive.

            I can respect good-faith debate on this issue. I even agree with part of the premise that the focus of the next president should be reducing spending, and reducing government – not because I place those issues above ending abortion, but because I also agree with the practical reality it is harder to affect abortion as President than these other areas, and it can be done better behind the scenes.

            It is at the margins that we have disagreement. Because abortion is harder to affect doesn’t mean there’s practically nothing that can done about it. A truce does not = a list of priorities, a truce equates to surrender when your troops are still getting slaughtered and you’ve simply agreed to cease efforts to prevent their slaughter. I also don’t agree that the amount of duplicity one must accept in daniels to believe his actions versus his words is worth it. I’d rather have somebody whose words and actions were consistent. For becker to continually call everybody idiots who has these perfectly reasonable disagreements with him is ridiculous.

            Pro-lifers face a constant barrage of this attitude from the media, education system,, and virtually everywhere you turn. That they have to come onto restate and endure it here too is a real shame. You wanna pile on calling pro-lifers fringe lunatics – thats fine, my skin is think. Just don’t be surprised when they call anti-communists “the fringe” and the pro-lifers aren’t around to defend you.

          • acat

            because “he started it” is not a valid excuse for foolishness, nor is “the rest of the world is against me”.

            And yes, rejecting Daniels over the “truce” was a foolish thing. There were, as it turned out, far better reasons to reject him.

            That doesn’t excuse your statement. And, just so we’re clear, that you’re still arguing this means either Becker’s right and it’s *not* a dead issue, as you claim, or you like sowing dissent .. like a Moby.

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            nt

          • jerry39

            First, “he started it” is actually a good excuse and a legal defense. I won’t waste my breath trying to explain again why retailiation wasn’t my goal

            Second, if I was all alone we wouldn’t be having this conversation

            Third, I’m not looking for your forgiveness

            Finally, if your definition of moby is sowing dissent then u have just called Becker a moby. I think he needs underlings who aren’t so easily trapped by their own words

          • Aaron Gardner

            This horse has been beat to death.

          • acat

            (nt)

          • Aaron Gardner

            Until then, this is just Becker looking for hits.

          • acat

            And if you can cite a currently running or “lingering with intent” candidate with an equal record on social issues, fiscal issues, and executive experience, I’ll drop it.

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            The rest of you comment has no purpose to me.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            It is an attack on social conservatives who refused to accept Daniels and bow to his decision by imperial fiat to declare a truce on social issues.

            It is pointless since Daniels’ strategy backfired and he withdrew from consideration.

            His supporters now want to pin the blame on social conservatives when it was the candidate himself who scuttled his campaign.

            In exchange for comprehensive arguments on his behalf, they offer…

            1. Speculation. He did not really say what he said. It all depends on what your definition of truce is? etc

            2. Insults. “narrow minded fools” etc.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Well said.

          • acat

            Where we agree, so far:
            1) It’s not about Daniels. (sorry, Aaron)
            2) Daniels was not a good candidate. (see “wonk, not warrior”)
            3) The word “truce” is emotionally loaded.
            4) The word “truce” was a very poor choice.
            5) Daniels did a dreadful job of defending this and other positions.

            Where we disagree:
            1) The word “truce” does not mean “surrender”.
            2) The word “truce” was a poor reason to reject Daniels as a candidate.

            Is this an accurate statement? If so, then .. as the points we disagree on are not points on which either of us is persuasible, I’d suggest we drop it.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Wise words. Always a pleasure.

        • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

          I am getting so tired of having to put up with people like this.

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

        from what we have learned since his departure, although I do think his expressed desire and supposed necessity for a truce to get unity with the Left would have eroded his tea party bona fides and made him sound more like a Huntsman echo, despite his good record. I think Huntsman also did a good job in Utah. We will never know what would have happened. Reagan was also faced with uncertainty and a prior defeat in 1976. Unlike Daniels, he ran, made his case and won.

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

          or Bush. For starters, let’s take immigration…

          Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor who officially announced his presidential candidacy last week, is widely perceived as the most moderate of the 2012 Republican pack. But on immigration, Huntsman appears to have taken his cue from the tactical shift to the right made in 2007 by U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

          Like McCain, Huntsman is a longtime backer of comprehensive immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country. Also like McCain, he now says the U.S.-Mexican border must be secured first.

          [...]

          “I hate the thought of a fence on the border,” a conflicted Huntsman was quoted as telling the crowd at a town-hall meeting. “I mean, for me, as an American, the thought of a fence to some extent repulses me, because it is not consistent with . . . the image that we projected from the very beginning to the rest of the world.”

          The guy will never be confused for a conservative of any stripe.

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

            issues, but of course I am for right wingers on all issues as per their rhetoric now, policy positions now and would also prefer a track record of same and I prefer a former governor. Of course Huntsman is a non-starter. But despite how Daniels’ unity/truce rhetoric bothered me and despite my personal dislike of his aloof style, I could have been won over had he not backed out. As I recall he looked good in the polls which makes me think it was the fear of the personal issues that drove his decision and not fear of RINO labeling.

          • aesthete

            and his opposition to charter schools, support of a global warming initiative in his state, and jacked-up education spending make it pretty hard for me to call him fiscally conservative, especially when Utah on autopilot would itself be very fiscally conservative.

          • acat

            I presume the “He” in your title here refers to Huntsman…

            I’m under the impression Daniels is pro-voucher and don’t recall Daniels making a global warming blunder…. but.

            In the interest of not assuming, I wanted to confirm.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            nt

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        Let me give you a scenario and see how you would respond.

        Rick Perry announces his presidential run. He has both a solid fiscal and social conservative record. In his announcement speech he makes the statement that we need a truce on fiscal issues because the greatest danger facing the nation is a decline in morality and social values. When given the opportunity to soften the message, he instead restates it and doubles down on it. He then begins to talk about reaching out to and working with big government – tax and spend liberals to accomplish his social conservative agenda.

        How far do you think his campaign would go? Would you support Perry or would you be a narrow minded fool? After all he does have a fiscal conservative record of accomplishment. Would you take his statements at face value or would you listen to his supporters who claim – “I know what he said but look at his record.”?

        • acat

          There are already questions about Perry’s fiscal house… mostly centered on the Trans-Texas Corridor. There was *no* question where Mitch stood prior to his “truce”.

          That said, since pro-life groups are more important than fiscal groups in the early primary process, due to the cultural make-up of Iowa and South Carolina (and New Hampshire, the parts not overrun by refugees from the Peoples’ Republic of Massachusetts) I’m not sure it would make a difference.

          Taking you at face value, I’d just point out that, to the FiCons I’ve talked to, actions speak much louder than words….

          Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Daniels raised the questions himself so please face reality and stop blaming social conservatives who simply took Daniels at his word. He wanted a truce. Social conservatives did not want a truce. Therefore, Mitch Daniels was not their candidate.

            I did not ask about what pro-life groups would do or about the primaries. I asked whether mbecker, you, or other fiscal conservatives would vote for Perry if he made a similar statement.

            As to actions speaking louder than words, I would have a hard time voting for a candidate who took the action of lying to get elected. Basically, you argue that Daniels lied about the truce. I hold the position that his words were sincere. I simply disagreed with him on the issue.

            Now, as to Perry’s record, please feel free to elaborate and provide supporting evidence rather than bland statements. And, for the record, I opposed Perry on the Trans-Texas Corridor – as did most Texans who then re-elected him over KBH and the Democratic candidate.

          • acat

            by, perhaps, typing “acat daniels truce site:redstate.com” into google’s search engine, you’ll see that I did not mistake the word “truce” for the word “surrender”.

            Would I vote for Perry in the primary if he wanted a “truce” ? Maybe. I would not, however, confuse him for saying “let the Dems win”.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Unless Daniels is willing to force the social liberals to abide by the truce then it is simply a call for unilateral disarmament and surrender.

            Daniels never answered that question.

          • acat

            That’s a winning strategery right there.

            Liberals had far more faith in Candidate Obama when he said he was a christian, when he said he was opposed to changing the definition of marriage, when he said he was opposed to abortion, to letting gays serve in the millitary etc. etc. than Conservatives had in Daniels when he suggested trying to find common ground on economic issues.

            Good grief.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I believe you have bemoaned politicians who say one thing and do another. Yet, here you clearly advocate – even hope – that Daniels did exactly that.

            So, according to your statement, Conservatives need a candidate who will campaign as all things to all men and yet still govern as a conservative.

            I am for finding common ground on economic issues – which is not what Daniels said. I am against telling social conservatives that I want their vote even though I plan to ignore their issues by calling a truce.

          • acat

            Because I neither said nor meant what you’ve attributed to me.

            Likewise, you’re reading much into the statements that Daniels made that, at the time, was not evident from them.

            Again, there were reasons to reject Daniels as a candidate. I do not accept the truce as one of them.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Your sarcastic comment: “…telling the opposing side what you are going to do to them…. That’s a winning strategy right there.” implies two things.

            1. The winning strategy is to be all things to all people – even the opposing side – and then stick it to them once you get elected. Hence, the comparison to Mr. Obama.

            2. Daniels lied when he called for a truce and really had no intention of implementing a truce.

            I am taking Daniels at his word. He has not clarified or softened his remarks, even when given the opportunity to do so. You and others may speculate all day – and have – but it remains speculation.

          • acat

            Daniels has an excellent pro-life record. Where is evidence – prior to the truce statement – indicating that he had any intention of selling the pro-life voters down the river?

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Is that your question?

            You mean, Do I have any evidence before he stated his willingness to sell out social conservatives on fiscal issues?

            On a side note: Why does social conservatism always boil down to the abortion issue with you? It is really much more.

          • acat

            Regarding your side note, “social conservatism” does not always boil down to the abortion issue with me. The abortion issue is simply a spot where Daniels has as good a record as any man can have, so appears a good litmus test for this discussion.

            Mew

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

            had run for a third term! smile

            Daniels a burning issue again?

            moving on

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

            ..

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

          because the greatest moral issue facing us TODAY is the fiscal crisis we find ourselves in.

          It is the greatest crisis because we can, in fact, actually do something about the fiscal issue with the passage of legislation in Congress. In addition, the public is overwhelmingly on the side of fiscal restraint while there isn’t the ability to pass anti-abortion legislation.

          In fact, there are very limited things a President can do to influence abortion, see above. There is a very significant amount a President can do to implement fiscal restraint. And, if we don’t exercise fiscal restraint and reign in government, abortion will really be at the very bottom of our priority list, way behind finding shelter, food and ammunition.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            The left has turned the issue of fiscal policy into a social issue. The largest drain on the public treasury and the need for new revenue is due to entitlements and the redistribution of wealth. The left presents these as social issues and moral issues. To them and their propaganda machines, it is not about fiscal policy but “fairness,” “social justice,” and “economic equality.” If you choose to fight the left only on the fiscal elements then you will lose.

            Social liberalism created the fiscal crisis. Only a combination of social conservatism and fiscal responsibility can resolve the mess.

            Thanks for the straight answer. By the way, I would not support a social conservative who called for a truce on fiscal issues either.

            Now, as to abortion, social conservatism is much more than abortion. The President can do a lot impact it. Look at the impact Obamacare will have on the issue. Mr. Obama allows U.S. taxpayer funding of abortion abroad. Mr. Obama supports Planned Parenthood and has kept them from being denied funds. The President can lead on the issue, educate the American public, and move forward.

          • Scope

            DADT. That was a major effort pushed for by Obama. I’ve recently read some headline about Obama wanting to change the Defense of Marriage Act to the Respect for Marriage Act, which I have no idea what that is all about, I honestly didn’t bother to read the article.

            You are very correct that the Liberals/Progressives almost every action and policy is in redistribution of wealth from those who have to those who don’t. Obama has taken redistribution to a new level with taking from our country that has (or had) and redistributing to the countries that don’t, even though many of them are our enemies. That is the very definition of the socialistic moral codes. Retribution, restitution, and redistribution. The liberals have no moral cares or concerns about the plight of the illegal hispanics, they are nothing but votes to them. Obama, as president, has had much say in all of those social actions, which also have fiscal implications as well.

          • aesthete

            Obama had previously stated mild support for DOMA, and his legal department fought the legal suit filed by the Log Cabin Republicans. DADT was a side issue, at best, for Obama, and DOMA doesn’t even register on his radar.

          • Scope

            Press Secy. Carney said today that the President supports the “Respect for Marriage Act” which protects same-sex couples. It will replace the DOMA, which will be repealed.

            http://tornapart.findhornpress.com/?p=4796

            It’s an obscure website, but obviously one that supported and worked for the replacement,.

          • aesthete

            Considering that it’s happening at a time when Obama’s influence is nil, and when it’s a 100% certainty that Republicans will block it, I find this effort about as authentic as Obama’s autobiography (especially since he a) has said nothing about it publicly, and b) has stated opposition to gay marriage in the past).

          • Scope

            to accomplish much of his agenda with Executive Orders. He did EO’s on things much bigger than DOMA. He gets what he wants one way or the other.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            DADT was far from a side issue. It was the beginning of the leftist offensive to take down DADT and DOMA. He needs to infuse some life into his leftist base and that is how he plans to do it.

            According to some sources, gun control measures are on the horizon as well.

          • acat

            I’m sure it’d be on the lips of all the anti-firearm lefties…

            Mew

          • aesthete

            for Obama. The O could have easily passed DADT repeal legislatively, and for that matter a replacement for DOMA. He didn’t budge on the issues until he realized how much it was ticking off his base.

          • Scope

            I thought this whole argument began with the amount of power any president has to affect social issues, with respect to Daniels truce comments, meaning he wouldn’t be able to much about social issues anyway. It seems that it is now going down all the side streets and back alleys with his popularity, what he said or didn’t in the past and etc. If I am not mistaken does it not prove the amount of power a president in fact does have over social issues?

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I think your assessment is spot-on. It seems the supporters of Daniels want to have it both ways. I think Mr. Obama is also proof a President can impact social issues.

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

            negotiating with Dems but he could have refuted my suspicions in a campaign with better answers.

        • cordpt

          is nowhere near Daniels’ one. He couldn’t even fix Texas structural deficit. He required parents to get young girls vaccinated for for the HPV virus. He was never an eloquent advocate of any conservative causes. He’s been a decent governor in the same vein and for the same reasons Bush was a decent governor – mostly because the Texas legislature doesn’t do anything too silly. He’s a leader from behind. That’s why he’d never say anything like that btw.

          Daniels has showed his strategy works and he’s right in stating that the fiscal condition of the country should be the priority (which doesnt’ imply other things don’t get done) and, as he proved in Indiana, that you don’t need to be publicly strident about social issues to score the most important policy victories in that area.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            A truce implies that social conservative issues do not get addressed. He did not call for prioritizing. He called for a truce. A truce means an end to fighting for a time.

            You “don’t need to be strident”? We are not talking about being politically strident. We are talking about abject surrender of social issues. Daniels wanted a unilateral disarmament. He never guaranteed the left would abide by the truce. Nor did he state what he would do if they failed to abide by it.

            Daniels said what he said. Why is that so hard for some to understand?

          • cordpt

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/truce

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/surrender

            The idea that Daniels called for an unilateral disarmament – or even an unilateral truce – is absurd. He didn’t even call for a negotiated peace.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Unless Daniels would enforce a truce on social liberals, then it is unilateral disarmament and abject surrender for our side to call a truce and then abide by it regardless of what the enemy does.

            It is Daniels and his supporters who misunderstand the concept.

          • acat

            Again, kipling, the executive has limited power over the key issue here.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            And then why double down on it in a subsequent interview. Daniels may be a good administrator and governor but he appears to have a tin ear when it comes to national politics and the campaign.

          • acat

            And – again – if your google-fu is up to it, I’ll bet you can find where I said just that. (hint: acat daniels tin ear site:redstate.com)

            Also, I’m not Daniels, and am not associated with his or any other campaign.

            My guess is Daniels was trying to avoid the “Iowa conservative demolition derby” effect. That is, while running on his conservative record and agriculture state record would have easily won in Iowa, and done well in South Carolina, it would leave him typecast for the general election.

            What Daniels seemed to be doing – again, to me, at the time* – was emphasizing that he’s got a fiscal leg (unlike, say, Santorum…) and would be able to compete with expected front-runner Mitt Romey, who lacks a social-conservative leg. This would, however, have required to take a look at his record and accept that, just maybe, he meant “truce”, not “surrender”.

            Mew

            * I have since concluded, like Aaron did, that Daniels lacks a will to win in a fight.. he’s too much a wonk and not enough a warrior.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You may well be right on his attempted campaign strategy. I think you hit the nail on the head with the wonk v. warrior comparison.

          • cordpt

            If the other side doesn’t comply with the truce, then there’s no truce at all. Daniels didn’t call for an unilateral ceasefire.

            Geez, the American military has engaged in truces plenty of times before, this isn’t some sort of novel concept.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Once again the supporters of Daniels are putting words into his mouth. The man never drew the distinction you mentioned. He never clarified his position. All you have is speculation that contradicts what the man actually said.

          • BigRedConservative

            Unless you know something about English that I don’t. Daniels’ statement meant that he was willing to negotiate over social issues in order to keep pressing on the fiscal ones. I can’t support him more on that.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Let us start the negotiations.

            How much in federal funding for abortions would you negotiate for a trillion dollars in cuts elsewhere? How many killings of unborn children should we fund at the federal level in exchange for a trillion dollars in cuts elsewhere?

            How much is the abandonment of traditional marriage worth?

          • BigRedConservative

            I don’t want to kill foetuses, or destroy the institution of marriage. What I do want to do is stop the federal government from going bust and taking America with it. And if this means making minor concessions in social policy that may even be beneficial to the world (giving rape victims contraceptives, allowing homosexuals civil partnerships), then I’m fine with that.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            The Left wants federal funding of abortion. The Left wants the destruction of traditional marriage by redefining it to the point it becomes meaningless. What are you going to do when they refuse to accept a truce or negotiate?

            I would also note that Daniels never specified which social issues he wanted to call a truce on. So, if as you said truce means to negotiate, then Daniels never specified which issues were negotiable.

            He never said abortion was off limits. He never said marriage was off limits. He made a blanket statement.

          • rightwingmom52

            And if Daniels simply meant that he intended to focus on fiscal issues first and table social issues until our fiscal problems were resolved or at least heading in the right direction, why didn’t he just say so?

            He saw the stir he caused and did nothing to alleviate the concern.

        • aesthete

          Say, three judges are retiring and Perry saw the need to get three great judges, or suppose that one of the anti-abortion amendments had a chance at passing the house, I think he’d be a fool *not* to put aside fiscal issues for the time being to concentrate on the special opportunity that he has been afforded to get those things into place.

          A special window of opportunity has opened up on fiscal issues: I think that anyone focusing on other issues is an absolute fool. Daniels’ statements may have been blunt, but they were accurate: we need to prioritize, and in this case that means tabling certain things in order to get the voters on our side on fiscal issues to the greatest extent possible.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Daniels never made those distinctions. Once again you are speculating and adding your meaning to his words.

          • aesthete

            When I read the Weekly Standard article, it was clear that that was what he was saying. All sources that I read, and that I have read since, paraphrased him that way. Most social conservative groups (even some of the ones with sour grapes) took it to mean that. In fact, the only people who really had a problem understanding what the simple statement, “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” were select social conservatives for whom making an issue of small statements seems to be an Olympic competition. Such people’s inability to comprehend a simple statement is no more telling than Stevie Wonder’s inability to see the Sistine Chapel would be an indictment of Michelangelo’s sense of aesthetics.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            ?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?

            Since you do so well speaking for Daniels, please answer the following questions.

            How long is “a little while”?

            What “economic issues” have to be resolved and who decides when they are resolved?

            What happens if the “economic issues” are not resolved?

            What makes him sure the left wants to resolve the economic issues in the same way he would like to resolve them?

            Why should social conservatives call a truce when they are winning or gaining ground on many of the issues?

            What gives Daniels the right to call a truce on anything? If he wants my vote he will address my issues.

            Please enlighten us on Daniels’ way of thinking. Please provide links so that we know you are not just speculating.

          • Scope

            is that voters can’t or shouldn’t walk and chew gum at the same time. Didn’t Obama himself say at one point, I think it was when the TARP vote was coming up, that he was able to concentrate on more than one thing at a time? Shouldn’t the president, who represents all of the countries citizens be able to address the countries myriad problems, including national security, social and fiscal problems, at the same time. Because the country is broke, it doesn’t or shouldn’t mean that only the fiscal issues matter. The other issues don’t go away because the county is broke. It is the responsibility of the president to protect the country from enemies and attacks from within and without? Daniels made the statement that we can’t afford the monies that it would require to protect the country., because we are broke. Daniels entire position falls squarely on fiscal issues, and he would be willing to ignore every other issue other than the fiscal issue. He “was” a single issue candidate that was willing to forsake the country, in order to get more people to save and invest, rather than be consumers. Isn’t it American to consume in order to keep the economy going? but of course it would be consuming American products that should be in the forefront. It appears that Daniels favored cheap products and labor from China, so that the unions high wages and benefits were given more importance than getting a right to work bill passed in his state.

            Give me a break, Daniels put the opportunity for a right to work state legislation bill off the burners so the D’s would return to the legislature. I don’t want to hear the first support of Daniels on this legislation,, He bombed it badly, so he could save face, and get the D’s to return. He was already considering a presidential run at that point, and the D’s leaving the state should have been handled much more like Walker handled it, but of course Walker wasn’t looking at a presidential run. Daniels blew that big time.

          • gekster

            It’s like your kid wants candy before dinner, and then throws a fit because
            you say no.
            It is bad behavior that shouldn’t be rewarded by “giving in” to stop the child from throwing a fit.
            And once the child has learned that by throwing a fit it can get its’ way, then you have lost the battle and any potential future battles with the child,
            because it now knows that throwing a fit works.
            i’m a parent and grandparent.
            I know these things.

          • Scope

            and I very much appreciate your observations coming from a parent and grandparent with respect to child like manipulation, if one doesn’t know or admit that it is happening before their very eyes. Very important observation.

          • gekster

            if you got any of that snow I sent ya last January left over, I sure could use some back.
            LOL :)

      • powertothepeople

        MBecker, that his record was good, the point most are making is that despite all his past accomplishments, Daniels spoke and killed himself. It is a different stage being president than it is being a state gov and when a person wants to be president, you can not go around alienating a large bloc of the population.

        Same would apply to, lets say, Michelle Bachmann. Her past record shows a great conservative person. Lets say tomorrow she comes out in the media and states “we need to just give Obama and open credit account and not fight this battle.” Her chance to be president would be gone. Her past record no longer matters since she is now trying to be the most powerful person in the world and she is buckling to dem pressure. We would be stupid to vote for her if she were to do that. Her past would be erased and we would be rightfully fearful of how she would govern as president.

        Daniels should have backed off the comment. That comment would be no different than one of the social conservative candidates stating they will not pursue fiscal responsibility during their tenure, and will instead make a truce on fiscal issues with the spend loving democrats.

        When a person runs for president, their past counts and counts heavily. But their actions and statements during the run to president are much more important. It shows if their past conservatism was due to being a state leader where the fight is easier and they are under less scrutiny outside of their state or if they are going to take the fight to the dems in the most stressful job in the world. Daniels comment showed he was way to willing to appease rather than fight. And when he refused to clarify or back off of the comment, it only solidified his inability to win.

        • cordpt

          That comment would be no different than one of the social conservative candidates stating they will not pursue fiscal responsibility during their tenure

          Daniels never said he wouldn’t pursue social conservative goals.

          In fact, the reality proves he’s quite good doing that. He’s an achiever when it comes to social conservatism. Others are nothing but talkers. A social conservative who prefers the later isn’t much of a social conservative, in my opinion.

          • powertothepeople

            Truce is not do it second, do it later, do it in good time, it means agreeing to not do it and make peace.

            And to state that a person can not actively pursue both fiscal and social issues at the same time is ludicrous even in the state we are in now. He was calling for an end to social issues during his tenure, you know it, we know it, and he knows it.

            And lets not play coy, if the front runner for president from our side made the same comment Daniels did about fiscal issues, every single one of you would be up in arms about it. So what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

          • cordpt

            And most social conservatives I know, if not all, would support Daniels. Your interpretation of his words is shared by a minuscule minority. I’m pretty sure most of us support Bob Vander Plaats views on this – and as he said about Daniels, “actions speak louder than words”. At least in Iowa. And IIRC the polls correctly, the comment was not causing Daniels any problem at all with social conservatives.

            So please stop with the “us” and “you” crap – you’re not representative of social conservatives. From my own experience discussing this issue, most of the people who made a big deal of Daniels’ comment are mostly Bush conservatives (admittance, this is anedoctal evidence).

            A truce doesn’t mean what you think it means. A truce is a ceasefire, not an armistice.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I mean, you don’t see me going on and on about Mike Pence any more do you?

            Seriously, get over it.

          • cordpt

            Have you actually written you can comment on a diary – that I didn’t author – about Daniels but I can’t because it irks you? You’re joking, right?

          • Aaron Gardner

            But feel free to waste your time in any manner you please.

          • powertothepeople

            and trying to pass Iowa off as the litmus test for social conservatives is quite weak. And polls then have little to do with what would happen now or a week after the poll.You are really way off base here considering his truce comment and the disgust it caused was a major, major conservative discussion point back then. So not sure where you get it was doing no damage.

            And since you seem to want to ride in a boat by yourself, when I use the term us to refer to republicans or social conservatives, I will make sure to exclude you so you do not feel lumped in with us. And if, in your opinion, can not make statements for social conservatives, please do not try to do the same yourself. OK?

            I do find it funny you have become so worked up and flustered over a non contender, but each to his own.

          • Aaron Gardner

            But he quit before he ever started.

          • acat

            While “truce” was a remarkably poor choice of words, it wasn’t the problem – the lack of testicular fortitude on other fronts – not the “truce” – convinced me Daniels was not well suited to the campaign.

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            Had enough of defending weaklings from ’00-’08.

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

    Mitch Daniels, one month in, would be praising Harry Reid for his courage in opposing Jim DeMint’s extremist plans.

    You think I’m kidding? Look up what he said about fleeing Democrats this year.

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

      bodies of fleeing Democrats and I don’t see a problem.

    • gekster

      from:
      http://nation.foxnews.com/union-protests/2011/02/22/gov-mitch-daniels-caves-fleeing-democrats

      By Mary Beth Schneider, IndyStar.com

      Governor says time to dump labor bill

      Gov. Mitch Daniels signaled this afternoon that Republicans should drop the right-to-work bill that has brought the Indiana House to a standstill for two days and imperiled other measures.

      Daniels told reporters this afternoon that he expects House Democrats will return to work if the bill dies.

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

        .

        • aesthete

          you mean that he got every single thing that he and House Republicans wanted (far-reaching private vouchers and charter school bill, some tax cuts and spending cuts), while not getting the one thing that he warned the newbies was a bridge too far? Then yeah, he “folded”. I sure hope House Republicans “fold” as successfully as Daniels did, and I wish that Walker over in WI had been able to “fold” that successfully.

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

            He folded like origami paper.

            We need real leaders like Scott Walker, not backbone-less wusses like Mitch Daniels who don’t know how to stand up for American values or even to protect taxpayer dollars.

          • aesthete

            people are just throwing words around without meaning.

            “He folded!”

            “Um… no, he got exactly what he wanted out of the deal, and all the stuff he got was conservative.”

            “Real America! Real leaders!”

            ???

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

            I was being generous and assuming he was a wuss.

            But you’re telling me he *wanted* to stick up for the radical left unions against legislative conservatives.

            So you’re telling me he’s the opponent of my values. Fair enough. You sold me.

            Mitch Daniels: he stands against Conservatives. Just ask aesthete. He’s a real socialist leader for union America.

          • aesthete

            It’s tiresome to discuss when one party chooses to force the meaning of words to be more elastic than they would otherwise be.

          • JSobieski

            Which is precisely why the NEA opposes merit pay.

            If we could move government to more of a pay for performance model, there would be all sorts of positive externalities.

      • gpclaw

        Your post even says as much:

        Gov. Mitch Daniels signaled this afternoon that Republicans should drop the right-to-work bill that has brought the Indiana House to a standstill for two days and imperiled other measures.

        What other measures were imperiled?

        Here in Indiana we have a very extensive 2011 agenda that these critics, if they took the time to look, would strongly applaud: another no-tax budget, an automatic refund to taxpayers past a specified level of state reserves, sweeping reform of archaic and anti-taxpayer local government, reduction of the corporate income tax, and the most far-reaching reform of education in America, including statewide vouchers for low and moderate income families. We laid all this before the public during last year’s elections.

        In fact, Daniels didn’t oppose RTW

        I suggested studying it for a year and developing the issue for next year. No one had campaigned on it; it was a big issue that hit the public cold. I was concerned that it would provide the pretext for radical action by our Democratic minority that would jeopardize the entire agenda above, with zero chance of passing RTW itself. And that is exactly what has happened.

        • gekster

          Heard something like that somewhere before.
          And if you look at my comment title, it was just for info.
          nothing more.

          • gpclaw

            It was on the Cut Cap and Balance discussion we had earlier! (Joking)

            Sorry if I mischaracterized your statement.

          • gekster

            I’m just sitting on the sidelines watching, errr, reading, and threw in 2 cents.

  • Aaron Gardner

    No wonder we suck.

    • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

      How about you fire them if they fail to meet expectations?

    • aesthete

      nor un-conservative — so long as conservatives see merit in bureaucracy for at least some things, then it’s hardly out of line to discuss bonuses as incentives, esp in the context of non-unionized state employees. More relevant is the point that IN is in the black, as opposed to its peers which are in the red — and that it is so despite having no advantages in terms of natural resources or state workforce over other states. One does not need to be a Daniels booster to acknowledge this conservative success story, any more than one would have to be a Perry fan to note the success story that is the Texas economy on account of generally adhered-to conservative principles.

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

        That’s what it is.

        • aesthete

          Far better to pay public employees $1 a day — I’m sure that that would attract the talent out there in droves.

          • acat

            Ah yes, “Holiday in Cambodia”. Prolly on YouTube.

            My $0.01 (inflation-adjusted) is that there’s nothing wrong with using a merit-based system in the public sector .. provided that it’s done in a provable and open way, unlike – say – Bell, CA’s scandal of recent memory….

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            Bonuses are for those who go above and beyond.

            Also, since when do we support a profit driven government? I mean, if the gov’t is making a profit shouldn’t it a. give it back to the people or b. save it for harder times?

            This just seems like a waste of taxpayer money to me.

          • acat

            See discussion with Kipling below.

            This is more common in sales jobs, i.e. a very low or no base salary with a commission on top, but there’s nothing to say it can’t be used for non-sales.

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            Please stick to some form of reality if you want to play.

          • acat

            So I acknowledge that the pay being “below par” is about as likely as unicorn flatus replacing oil as a major energy source.

            That said, it’d be a good starting point for any local city council types going into a negotiation. “25% across the board pay cut, with ability to earn up to 35% in merit bonuses”.

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            If you ever decide to return to reality we can chat.

          • acat

            Nucor Steel.

            http://www.businessknowhow.com/manage/nucor.htm

            (ugly web site, decent article, didn’t bother googling around for a better layout)

            From the article:

            For example, the steel industry average says an individual should be able to straighten 10 tons of steel an hour. Nucor?s goal is to straighten 8 tons an hour. Employees get an additional 5 percent bonus for every ton over 8 tons they can straighten. They typically average 35 to 40 tons an hour. However, if they are late to work they lose their bonus for the day. And if they miss a day of work during the week they lose their bonus for the entire week.

            Applying this same approach – note, no sales here – to government workers could be very powerful. I doubt Indiana has done this, but .. they could.

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            But once again your example is talking about those who go above a set standard. Those who only hit 8 tons don’t get a bonus.

            I don’t know why this is so hard for you to grasp, other than the not living in reality part.

          • acat

            The base pay is below industry average, just like the base tonnage. Ya gotta exceed the requirement to reach average pay.

            If someone only hits 8 tons, he or she not only doesn’t get a bonus, he or she is significantly underpaid and will likely choose to not remain with the company.

            Do you know that Indiana isn’t doing exactly that, Aaron? Using a bonus to bring the salary up to average to help retain good employees?

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            I will stay in reality.

          • acat

            Because you argued against bonuses based on your assumption that Indiana isn’t using them to bring pay up to average levels.

            While I doubt very much that Indiana is doing so, thus proving my non-tenuous link to reality, your blanket rejection of the very idea, when coupled with repeated insults is … dare I say it, Becker-ian?

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            That doesn’t hurt me in the least.

          • acat

            The phrasing, i.e. “If you ever decide to return to reality we can chat.” is an insult. And no, Aaron. I’m not interested in “hurting you”. That would be a waste of time on my part twice over; you have a proven thick skin, and most of the time we agree on goals if not methods.

            For instance, we agree Daniels was not a good candiate. We do not agree exactly on why he was not a good candidate, but that only matters in the abstract since he’s no longer running.

            What bothers me about your initial assertion and snarky replies is that, rather than look into whether Indiana has done something clever, you assume (rightly, for all I know – as I’ve said twice) that they have not…. then accuse me of not dealing in reality, even though neither of us know which way the wind blows.

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            I actually looked up the pay scales and job descriptions rather than create bs arguments for why, maybe, Daniels was justified in spending tax revenues on bonuses.

            Don’t project your lack of knowledge on me. I actually know what I am talking about.

          • acat

            ,

          • Aaron Gardner

            You can do your own homework.

          • Spiral

            It seems like we are taking a very small detail related to Mitch Daniels’ tenure as Governor of Indiana and putting it under a microscope.

            I think if one looks at Daniels’ overall record as Govenor of Indiana for almost 8 years, his record is pretty darned good. To be sure, having a reasonably conservative electorate and, since January 2011, a Republican controlled legislature helps a lot too.

            I think Daniels is a conservative and if he had been the GOP nominee for President in 2012, I would have supported him against Obama. I think we all would have.

            Is Mitch Daniels the most conservative human who ever walked the face of the earth? No. But he’s no RINO either. (And by the way, neither is the other Mitch, Mitch McConnell.)

            Sometimes we take one issue and get carried away. So, Daniels gave some state workers a bonus. I think we’d all agree that there are large differences between the public sector and the private sector. And no Governor, no matter how conservative can “make Government run like a business.”

            Can’t be done. Government is a monopoly. Most businesses operate under pressure from competitors or, at a minimum, don’t have any guaranteed customers, clients or investors.

            Did Mitch blow it by calling a truce on social issues? Absolutely.

            Lots of Republicans have dreams of being the Presidential nominee while either taking a pro-choice view on abortion or trying to say that social issues are too controversial and, thus, to be avoided.

            It doens’t work. Social conservatives are a force to be reckoned with. A smart Republican tries to meet social conservatives at least half-way. Daniels, despite all his years in politics, didn’t understand that.

            His bad.

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

            However, the issue is not. As is obvious here, there is a core of folks who are freely willing to overlook one of the best records in the country not only on the fiscal side, but on the social side as well. All for rhetoric that is utterly pointless.

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

            socons “half way”, find me a governor with a better record on the issue. Huckabee certainly doesn’t have one and neither does Palin or Bachmann.

          • aesthete

            I’d like for the bureaucracy to be much smaller than it is today, but I would support merit pay and practices analogous to those in the free market for the 30ish government employees who would be left standing if I ever got my hands on a copy of the federal budget and a red pen…

          • Aaron Gardner

            “meets expectations” doesn’t get a bonus in the private sector.

          • gekster

            in the private sector means you get to keep your job.
            Exceeds expectations means you might get a raise,
            and below expectations means you might lose you job.
            But thats in the private sector.

          • aesthete

            used as a form of compensation in the past, as a means to signal to current and future employees that the corp in question is profitable and stable. While I’m not sure how necessary that would be for public employees in this economy, I don’t have a problem in principle with using a similar signal to keep quality employees attached to their employer, so long as it’s reasonable in nature — hence, why I stated that it is neither conservative nor un-conservative. I am more concerned with the implication that those who do not “meet expectations” are not being handled properly by HR, but quite frankly I already assume that any form of government employment is going to retain a larger-than-average grouping of failing employees, whether their employer admits it or not.

          • aesthete

            and it is based on the economics of it. I also recently voted in favor of a proposal that would have raised our mayor’s salary to subsistence level, among other reforms, for that reason. Personally, I find most discussion of bonuses, whether of employees in the private sector or the public sector, to be grossly misinformed and silly, especially compared to how much money they cost compared to structural problems.

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        A bonus usually goes to those who go above and beyond in job performance – not to someone who merely meets expectations. If I hire someone to mow my yard, I don’t pay them a bonus if they cut the grass.

        • acat

          Some companies have experimented with paying lower-than-market salaries and then using bonuses to bring those salaries up to or beyond par.

          The idea being that, if someone really is good, they’ll be making good bucks, if somoene’s mediocre or worse, they’ll make below-market and will leave of their own accord.

          Given the pain in the {ahem} that firing a union employee is, using this kind of a technique makes good sense, actually.

          Your lawnmowing example lends itself nicely – suppose you pay $15 for a mow, but the “employee” does the “extra” (as in “not mowing”) work of getting out the weed whacker and trimming the edges nicely, and edges the sidewalk. Would you still pay $15, or would you throw in a bonus?

          Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            Good thing no one was arguing that in the first place.

          • acat

            is that the employees were, in fact, paid a “competitive wage” without the $500 kicker.

            If that is not true, then ..

            Mew

          • Aaron Gardner

            Maybe Daniels should bring back public employee unions if they aren’t making a competitive wage now that they are gone.

            Seriously, you have lost all touch with reality. Government employees aren’t salesman working on commission. That is one of the most idiotic comparision I have heard in a long time.

          • acat

            . . … . . …

      • Aaron Gardner

        If you feel like addressing my narrow objection, by all means do so.

  • Scope

    The social, fiscal, and national security conservatives in one way or another. The “truce” comments have been well discussed above, but, I would only add that he claimed that no other issues would matter if we are broke, and that included his positions on the defense budget. He said that if we are broke we will not be able to afford to defend the country. He PO’d the national security conservatives saying that he would cut the defense budget even more than the Obama administration has. I don’t believe he made any statements about cutting any other budgets, just defense.

    As to his fiscal positions, he was in support of a VAT. In an interview with POLITICO I believe, he said-

    “It would be most useful to redesign the tax system to discourage consumption and to encourage savings and investments. One obvious possibility is a value added tax and a flat income tax, with the only exception being a lower standard deduction.”

    He said that he supported a VAT only under certain conditions, and that it had to be paired with a flat tax.

    From what I’ve read he also seemed warm to the idea of a tax on imported oil.

    I read a very interesting column back then I think by George Will. He wondered if Daniels being the skinflint that he is, would allow shades on the lamps in the whitehouse.

    With all of the outgoing bombs Daniels seemed to be throwing when he was considering a run, more than once I read column titles such as- “If Daniels decides to run, is he purposely trying to lose the nomination.”

    I think the Daniels family problems and scrutiny were a factor in not running, but, I also think he knew he would be hard pressed to stop his mouth from suffering from diarreha (sp). He lacked discipline.

    • aesthete

      “I don?t believe he made any statements about cutting any other budgets, just defense.”

      Making stuff up is hardly good form.

      On MediCare:

      http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/14/mitch-daniels-on-medicare-we-cant-afford-every-form-of-end-of-life-care-for-everyone/

      On Social Security:

      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703905404576164293594303936.html

      On discretionary spending:

      http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/feb/11/indiana-gov-mitch-daniels-yale-led-group-excellent/

      Medicaid speaks for itself, since its reform has been a Daniels priority for years in his home state.

      That all took me less than 3 min to find, and has been presented to you in the past. (If I recall, you got all huffy from having to acknowledge that SS and Medicare will have to be cut to balance the budget.)

      • Scope

        When I said “I don’t believe”, I should have said “I don’t recall” so shoot me. I wasn’t making stuff up, I didn’t recall, period. It’s been along time since I’ve given Daniels much thought since he eliminated himself from the race. I sure didn’t say with certainty that Daniels only wanted to cut the defense budget.

        As to Daniels saying that we can’t afford every end of life care for our seniors is putting a value on someone’s life. I cannot support that position, it is much more of a liberal position with no respect for human life. From what I understand, the UK socialized medine system, even if you can afford to pay for that end of life care, you are not allowed to. It is all about eliminating the useless eaters. It’s reprehensible.

        As to SS, I have always favored phasing out social security, and implementing a private plan for those under a certain age.

        If I ever got huffy because SS and Medicare needed to be cut to balance the budget, please find any of those statements where I indicated not supporting cutting those item. I have long been in support of entitlement reform and can’t imagine saying anything opposite.

        I took somewhat of a hiatus from commenting here at RS because the constant arguing, and name calling, and the I’m right and you are wrong junk got the best of me. I have learned to refrain from replying to many comments I disagree with simply because it isn’t worth the headache or the bother. I would hope that these huffy types of comments don’t follow me around RS.

  • Vegas_Rick

    Get over it. Why not discuss something that WILL impact the future of our country?

    What a waste of energy!

    • runner12

      We are up to our eyeballs in the debt ceiling crisis. Why argue over a man who is not running for President and who will be out of a leadership position in 2012?

      It does not make any sense to me.

    • earlgrey

      reminds me of some of the silly arguments that the lefties have among themselves. It doesn’t matter. He will not be President.

      I hope everyone that has commented here has also read Cold Warrior’s diary on what we need to do for 2012. We need all hands on deck to save a party that McConnell and company are trying their best to tear down.

      • runner12

        and it is all downhill from there. When will people get that Conservatism is a three-legged stool and not two?

        • Scope

          Conservatism is a three legged stool, not two. Not just here at RS, but seemingly everywhere, it seems that a truce has been called on discussing national security. Seems that defending our country is something we just can’t afford to some.

  • Ned Reck

    Look at what you have done…

    Ya know… bet you’d be a real good drinkin’ Pard to have… as long as a fella didn’t have to follow your pot-stirrin’ a$$ into a biker bar!

    hehehe

    This has been a fine and informational read… very instructive.

    Thanks,

    Ned Reck

  • kowalski

    Mitch Daniels should get back into the idea of thinking he’s a candidate. I’ve always thought he was.

    Too much of the time we worry about things that have been said in the past by professional consultants talking to each other and we don’t think about what a person has to bring to the table in the future. We’re a long way from Election Day and Mitch Daniels should be one of the voices we’re hearing.

  • MNConservative

    I thought you were announcing your candidacy! ;)

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    ..To Decorate my Home!”

    With apologies to David Frizell.

  • Pingback: Herb Beetley

  • Pingback: Halley Oines

  • Pingback: Heriberto Woolwine

  • Pingback: Nilda Zeman