Daniels Sure Sounds Like A 2012 Contender

[Carole]

Another big political story is brewing in Indiana. Last week's decision by Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) not to seek re-election shook up the already shaky Democrats in Washington; putting at risk one of the precious Senate seats they believed they could hold in November. Now Mitch Daniels, the extremely popular Republican Governor of the Hoosier state says he is "open to the idea" of a presidential run in 2012.

Governor Daniels, who served in both George W. Bush's and Ronald Reagan's administrations, is in his second term as Indiana's chief executive. He won re-election in 2008 by a landslide despite the fact that President Obama carried the state in the presidential race. He is a Democrat's nightmare in the current political climate - fiscally conservative but not a fanatic, conservative on social issues but not one who believes those issues should be the driving force of any political agenda. In short, he’s the kind of candidate that could handily win back the independent voters who have quickly become disillusioned with Obama & Company.

Governor Daniels has already spoken out on some national issues. He joined the national debate on cap & trade legislation by writing a brilliant Wall Street Journal opinion piece against the euphemistically named "Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act" calling it "imperialism". He said the bill "would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers - California, Massachusetts and New York - seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly."

That is the kind of honest, straight forward approach to today's issues that will resonate with the majority of Americans much more than the tax and spend, nanny state goals of the Democrats. Recently Governor Daniels asked, “Are we still a country where people would prefer freedom, personal autonomy, with the risks and responsibilities that go with it, or do we want to socialize all the risks we can and settle for what I think is the false security of statism and so forth?" He then added, "I think those questions have got to be presented by somebody."

Sounds like a contender to me.

 

[Deuce]

Cap and Trade is "imperialism?"

....dude needs a dictionary.

 

[Navy Pride]

Another big political story is brewing in Indiana. Last week's decision by Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) not to seek re-election shook up the already shaky Democrats in Washington; putting at risk one of the precious Senate seats they believed they could hold in November. Now Mitch Daniels, the extremely popular Republican Governor of the Hoosier state says he is "open to the idea" of a presidential run in 2012.

Governor Daniels, who served in both George W. Bush's and Ronald Reagan's administrations, is in his second term as Indiana's chief executive. He won re-election in 2008 by a landslide despite the fact that President Obama carried the state in the presidential race. He is a Democrat's nightmare in the current political climate - fiscally conservative but not a fanatic, conservative on social issues but not one who believes those issues should be the driving force of any political agenda. In short, he’s the kind of candidate that could handily win back the independent voters who have quickly become disillusioned with Obama & Company.

Governor Daniels has already spoken out on some national issues. He joined the national debate on cap & trade legislation by writing a brilliant Wall Street Journal opinion piece against the euphemistically named "Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act" calling it "imperialism". He said the bill "would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers - California, Massachusetts and New York - seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly."

That is the kind of honest, straight forward approach to today's issues that will resonate with the majority of Americans much more than the tax and spend, nanny state goals of the Democrats. Recently Governor Daniels asked, “Are we still a country where people would prefer freedom, personal autonomy, with the risks and responsibilities that go with it, or do we want to socialize all the risks we can and settle for what I think is the false security of statism and so forth?" He then added, "I think those questions have got to be presented by somebody."

Sounds like a contender to me.

He does sound interesting.......Do you know his stand on Abortion and Gay marriage?

 

[Carole]

He does sound interesting.......Do you know his stand on Abortion and Gay marriage?

I don't know where he stands on gay marriage but during his recent re-election campaign he was endorsed by Indiana Right to Life - Indiana Right to Life Endorses Pro-Life Gov. Mitch Daniels for Re-Election

 

[disneydude]

He does sound interesting.......Do you know his stand on Abortion and Gay marriage?

The only two issues that are important to the right-wing.... I"ve said it a miliion times. Thank you Navy for confirming it.

 

[Zyphlin]

The only two issues that are important to the right-wing.... I"ve said it a miliion times. Thank you Navy for confirming it.

The left wing obviously are unthinking zombies when it comes to a chance to insult the right, stereotyping everyone in ignorant ways. Thanks for confirming it Disney. You acted like it so naturally all those on the left must act that way.

Oh wait...

Or it could be that the OP posted a lot about his fiscal and govenrmental conservative credentials but there was little concerning his social side, so Navy asked. It would've been idiotic for him to ask "what's his stance on cap and trade" or "what's his views on taxes" when those were already stated. Not to mention a quick search on wiki or OnTheIssues shows many of his fiscal and governmental views but almost nothing about social views, leading one to wonder "what they are", especially someone that cares about social issues.

Unless you're implying that gasp, some republicans actually DO care about social issues in some way, in which case thanks for such an enlightening revolation given to us in an ignorantly hyperbolic way by saying that's ALL the right cares about. I know that steams you up Disney, that whole "Not agreeing exactly with what Disney says" and I know you can NEVER pass up a chance to attack navy, but asking what his stance on two issues that are void of information on a multitude of sources (this thread, wiki, OnTheIssues) hardly equals "Only cares about those two issues".

but then, logic wouldn't help your attack would it?

 

[Navy Pride]

I don't know where he stands on gay marriage but during his recent re-election campaign he was endorsed by Indiana Right to Life - Indiana Right to Life Endorses Pro-Life Gov. Mitch Daniels for Re-Election

Thanks a lot.........I am a fiscal conservative nut social issues are important to me to....

 

[Navy Pride]

The only two issues that are important to the right-wing.... I"ve said it a miliion times. Thank you Navy for confirming it.

DD when you make a post like this it erodes what little creditability you have left..

 

[liblady]

He does sound interesting.......Do you know his stand on Abortion and Gay marriage?

well, he thinks atheism is the root of all evil.

 

[Navy Pride]

well, he thinks atheism is the root of all evil.

I definitely would not go that far but that issue is not important to me one way or the other........

 

[Zyphlin]

well, he thinks atheism is the root of all evil.

Wow, that's a bit crazy. What's the source for this, I'd love to see context.

 

[Hatuey]

Wow, that's a bit crazy. What's the source for this, I'd love to see context.

Our country was founded--this is just an historic fact; some people today may resist this notion but it is absolutely true--it was founded by people of faith. It was founded on principles of faith. The whole idea of equality of men and women [and] of the races all springs from the notion that we're all children of a just God. It is very important to at least my notion of what America's about and should be about and I hope it's reflected most of the time in the choices that we make personally.

. . . People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we're just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power. And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

Everyone's certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion. But yes, I think that folks who believe they've come to that opinion ought to think very carefully, first of all, about how different it is from the American tradition; how it leads to a very different set of outcomes in the real world.

Just some notes.

1. He talks about our nation being founded by people of faith.People of faith who did not believe all men, women and children were equal.

- I really wish there was a single person in all of Washington with the power to go on television and stamp out this myth. When the country was founded the only people who were equal in any sense of the word were land owning English speaking white men for the better part of 250 years. If you were a white woman? You had no right to vote. If you were a slave? You had no rights. If you were black and free? You didn't have many rights. If you were Irish? You were a potato farmer. If you were Polish? You were working in a factory under the most horrible conditions with no rights. At no point in the history of this country that came before the 20th century did ANY group in this country, that wasn't made up for mostly white men reach any kind of real or legal equality with the people who basically owned this country.

2. Hitler was not an atheist. He was a Christian.

Mein Kempf

Adolf Hitler on God: Quotes from Adolf Hitler Expressing Belief & Faith in God - Adolf Hitler had Faith in God that His Agenda was Divinely Ordained

Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan. If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe. The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise.

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

3. There are no real quotations to my knowledge on Mao or Stalin on religion but as a historical facts go, Stalin didn't really oppose the work for the Orthodox Church in Russia as long as they stayed out of government and the same goes for Mao.

 

[mikhail]

I wish Thomas Jefferson was around to debate some of these right wing republicans who talk about what the founders believed.

 

[Zyphlin]

Okay, a bit ridiculous to state, but FAR different than saying Athiesm is the root of all evil.

 

[Hatuey]

Okay, a bit ridiculous to state, but FAR different than saying Athiesm is the root of all evil.

.....Atheism leading to brutality is not as ridiculous? I think the fact that he even says this nation was founded on the "Christian ideals" of "equality" is twice as ridiculous but then again I know a bit about history. The fact that he even calls Hitler an Atheist when the Nazis made strong use of racial creationism by a higher being is just as ridiculous. It shows that he is just one more elected official who doesn't know jack **** about history. The fact that he somehow thinks that the religious have some sort of upper hand on morality is by far more ridiculous than stating that atheism is the root of all evil. At least if he said that we would know he's a nut. Now I have to peg him as one more ignorant Caucasian Christian Conservative man. Which is a lot worse. It's on the same level as a black guy who thinks the government administered AIDS.

 

[bhkad]

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has a few ideas – pretty good ones, actually – about how a Republican candidate should run a campaign for the presidency. But guess what? He says he doesn’t intend to run. “I don’t plan to do it, don’t expect to do it, and I really don’t want to do it.” Daniels says.

Daniels, however, has dropped his Shermanesque stance of refusing to consider a presidential bid. Instead, he told the Washington Post recently that he’s been persuaded to leave open the option of running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

Daniels has two basic ideas for the next Republican presidential candidate. One, the candidate should have a plan for solving the spending, deficit and debt crisis that has “intellectual credibility” and “holds water.” This mean the candidate would “campaign to govern, not merely to win” on what Daniels calls a “survival” issue for the country.

The second idea: The candidate should “speak to Americans in a tone a voice that is unifying and friendly and therefore gives you a chance of unifying around some action.” In his campaigns for governor, Daniels never ran a single negative TV commercial attacking an opponent.

Mitch Daniels' Rules for Republicans | The Weekly Standard

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Another big political story is brewing in Indiana. Last week's decision by Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) not to seek re-election shook up the already shaky Democrats in Washington; putting at risk one of the precious Senate seats they believed they could hold in November. Now Mitch Daniels, the extremely popular Republican Governor of the Hoosier state says he is "open to the idea" of a presidential run in 2012.

Governor Daniels, who served in both George W. Bush's and Ronald Reagan's administrations, is in his second term as Indiana's chief executive. He won re-election in 2008 by a landslide despite the fact that President Obama carried the state in the presidential race. He is a Democrat's nightmare in the current political climate - fiscally conservative but not a fanatic, conservative on social issues but not one who believes those issues should be the driving force of any political agenda. In short, he’s the kind of candidate that could handily win back the independent voters who have quickly become disillusioned with Obama & Company.

Governor Daniels has already spoken out on some national issues. He joined the national debate on cap & trade legislation by writing a brilliant Wall Street Journal opinion piece against the euphemistically named "Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act" calling it "imperialism". He said the bill "would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers - California, Massachusetts and New York - seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly."

That is the kind of honest, straight forward approach to today's issues that will resonate with the majority of Americans much more than the tax and spend, nanny state goals of the Democrats. Recently Governor Daniels asked, “Are we still a country where people would prefer freedom, personal autonomy, with the risks and responsibilities that go with it, or do we want to socialize all the risks we can and settle for what I think is the false security of statism and so forth?" He then added, "I think those questions have got to be presented by somebody."

Sounds like a contender to me.

Why is a fiscal conservative who isn't a rabid social conservative "a Democrat's nightmare"?

As a Democrat, I would absolutely WELCOME a Republican who isn't a rabid social conservative.

I lived in Indiana at the time and voted against Daniels the first time (I didn't trust his Bush ties); but after four years, I voted for him for re-election (splitting my ticket with Obama - a LOT of Hoosiers did).

While there, one of Daniels first moves was signing an executive order protecting the working rights of GLBT employees of the state government - pissing off a lot of his conservative backers and hasn't once bothered to threaten a woman's right to choose.

If anything, he's the nightmare of social conservatives.

I, as a Democrat who lived under his leadership, would consider him in 2012, though I do disagree with him on several things. My nightmare would be living under a president Palin. Not a reasonable, consensus-building Republican like Daniels.

 

[disneydude]

The left wing obviously are unthinking zombies when it comes to a chance to insult the right, stereotyping everyone in ignorant ways. Thanks for confirming it Disney. You acted like it so naturally all those on the left must act that way.

Oh wait...

Or it could be that the OP posted a lot about his fiscal and govenrmental conservative credentials but there was little concerning his social side, so Navy asked. It would've been idiotic for him to ask "what's his stance on cap and trade" or "what's his views on taxes" when those were already stated. Not to mention a quick search on wiki or OnTheIssues shows many of his fiscal and governmental views but almost nothing about social views, leading one to wonder "what they are", especially someone that cares about social issues.

Unless you're implying that gasp, some republicans actually DO care about social issues in some way, in which case thanks for such an enlightening revolation given to us in an ignorantly hyperbolic way by saying that's ALL the right cares about. I know that steams you up Disney, that whole "Not agreeing exactly with what Disney says" and I know you can NEVER pass up a chance to attack navy, but asking what his stance on two issues that are void of information on a multitude of sources (this thread, wiki, OnTheIssues) hardly equals "Only cares about those two issues".

but then, logic wouldn't help your attack would it?

Except Zyph...you are mixing up true conservatives with the right-wing fanatics the control the GOP today. The right-wing fanatics like NP don't give a rat's ass about anything as long as you toe the social agenda, anti-gay rights/anti-choice line. As long as you do that....they'll give you a pass on anything else. Just look at GWB. The 25% that still think he is a "Great and inspired world leader" are those who give him the pass because he promoted their right-wing social agenda.

Believe it or not...I actually respect the true conservatives in the Goldwater vein. I have said THAT a million times as well. I don't necessarily agree wit them, but I respect them. You know...the true small government conservatives....not the small government in some areas and the HUGE government in other areas that so called "conservatives" espouse today.

If the GOP ever were to go back to the Goldwater conservative philosophies....I might even actually vote for one. I respected Romney when he espoused those views...but he started to cowtow the radical rights social-conservative agenda which is a death-knell to me and probably many others.

If the GOP dumped the right-wing fanatics and adopted a fiscal conservative/social moderate agenda, even someone as left as I could support a candidate...but as long as the radical right is only concerned, as NP so aptly demonstrated, about anti-gay issues and anti-choice issues...then let them dig their own grave.

 

[disneydude]

DD when you make a post like this it erodes what little creditability you have left..

NP talking about "creditability"....THAT's a good one......:doh

 

[Navy Pride]

I wish Thomas Jefferson was around to debate some of these right wing republicans who talk about what the founders believed.

I believe there is something like this said in the bible...Not to worry about the speck in your neighbors eye, check your own eye instead........

Basically I will say most of us could care less what a left winger from UK thinks about the USA.....When the time comes and you need us again you will come whinning back and asking for our help........

 

[Navy Pride]

Except Zyph...you are mixing up true conservatives with the right-wing fanatics the control the GOP today. The right-wing fanatics like NP don't give a rat's ass about anything as long as you toe the social agenda, anti-gay rights/anti-choice line. As long as you do that....they'll give you a pass on anything else. Just look at GWB. The 25% that still think he is a "Great and inspired world leader" are those who give him the pass because he promoted their right-wing social agenda.

Believe it or not...I actually respect the true conservatives in the Goldwater vein. I have said THAT a million times as well. I don't necessarily agree wit them, but I respect them. You know...the true small government conservatives....not the small government in some areas and the HUGE government in other areas that so called "conservatives" espouse today.

If the GOP ever were to go back to the Goldwater conservative philosophies....I might even actually vote for one. I respected Romney when he espoused those views...but he started to cowtow the radical rights social-conservative agenda which is a death-knell to me and probably many others.

If the GOP dumped the right-wing fanatics and adopted a fiscal conservative/social moderate agenda, even someone as left as I could support a candidate...but as long as the radical right is only concerned, as NP so aptly demonstrated, about anti-gay issues and anti-choice issues...then let them dig their own grave.

And of course there are no radicals on the left like you, Cindy Sheen, The Rev Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.....As usuaal your post has so many holes in it that its like swiss cheese.........

Personally I am glad you don't like me.....The only difference in you and I is I admit what I am.......You are in a state of total denial...You think your "Bleeding Heart Left Wing attitude" on every issue is so hight and mighty.....I don't really care how you feel anout social issues but what scares me is how you feel about this country and the issues affecting it because the way you feel and the people I mentioned could destroy this country......That is why we get a president elected that has a clue and does not say everything off a teleprompter and is a mental midget without one and that we elect people to congress who really care about this country and the fiscal issues facing it.......

God help us if we don't do that and soon......Obama has done as much damage in one year to this country then Clinton did in eight years....Even Carter who Obama makes look like and Einstein was much better...........

I did not even mention your views on terrorism........

Wake up before its to late DD......

I will probably get gigged for this post.....So be it.........I just had say hw I feel.......

 

[disneydude]

And of course there are no radicals on the left like you, Cindy Sheen, The Rev Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.....As usuaal your post has so many holes in it that its like swiss cheese.........

Personally I am glad you don't like me.....The only difference in you and I is I admit what I am.......You are in a state of total denial...You think your "Bleeding Heart Left Wing attitude" on every issue is so hight and mighty.....I don't really care how you feel anout social issues but what scares me is how you feel about this country and the issues affecting it because the way you feel and the people I mentioned could destroy this country......That is why we get a president elected that has a clue and does not say everything off a teleprompter and is a mental midget without one and that we elect people to congress who really care about this country and the fiscal issues facing it.......

God help us if we don't do that and soon......Obama has done as much damage in one year to this country then Clinton did in eight years....Even Carter who Obama makes look like and Einstein was much better...........

I did not even mention your views on terrorism........

Wake up before its to late DD......

I will probably get gigged for this post.....So be it.........I just had say hw I feel.......

Why would you get gigged for this post...there isn't anything offensive in it.
You have the right to express your opinion...I just think that it is wrong...but hey that is what is great about America.

First of all...I DO like you Navy...(you may not want to hear that...but I do)...I just think that you are horribly misguided...and sometimes I think you live in backwards land. I mean seriously...if you think Clinton did damage to this country (after turning years of Reagan/Bush deficits into record surplusses....) and then thinking that GWB was a "great and inspired world leader"....something is not right.

But hey....fortunately we are on our way back to restoring this country, in spite of people who seek to destroy everything that America stands for.

 

[Deuce]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vr3x_RRJdd4"]YouTube- Free Hugs Campaign - Official Page (music by Sick Puppies.net )[/ame]

(this video makes me tear up every time)