• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Mitch Daniels: 2012 Dark Horse?

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Mitch Daniels is the governor of Indiana, who recently made news for saying that there should be a "truce" on social issues while the focus shifts to solving more pressing fiscal issues. I thought this was pretty obvious (and the entire point of the Tea Party movement), but apparently that's a pretty gutsy thing to say in the GOP and he's now getting a lot of crap for it. He hasn't backed down though:

And indeed, Daniels called me to say that he's dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. "It wasn't something I just blurted out," he told me. "It's something I've been thinking about for a while."

He's emphasized the need to focus like a laser beam on the existential threats facing the country -- the two big issues he's previously identified being the war on terror and the country's precarious fiscal position. "We're going to need a lot more than 50.1 percent of the country to come together to keep from becoming Greece," he said.

He did, however, want to clarify that he's not just singling out controversial social issues. "I'm talking about all divisive issues," he said. Clear and unified priorities are the only way he sees the country rallying around common purposes.

When I pressed him, Daniels did seem to concede that perhaps he hadn't taken into account how the D.C. media would respond to his remarks by playing up the controversy. But Daniels repeatedly affirmed that this is a serious governing proposal, not an electoral strategy or a case where a politician tells people what he thinks they want to hear.

Mitch Daniels is dead serious about his 'truce' | Washington Examiner

His Wiki article is here: Mitch Daniels - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
His approval ratings are around 70%, and he seems to be known for cutting spending and making government more efficient, which would be just what people are looking for right now, though I haven't looked further into any of that. He's said that he's "kept the door open" for a 2012 run, which very few people have actually said.


I don't know why pretty much the only people who get mentioned as possibilities for the GOP nomination are Palin, Romney, and Huckabee (and sometimes Gingrich). I'd bet good money that it won't be any of those people. They might be the only ones getting publicity now, but if I were a presidential hopeful right now, I'd want to avoid publicity as much as possible. The publicized possible candidates are getting torn to shreds and few people really want any given one. The best strategy is to just get your name thrown out there as a possibility, then wait until the bloodshed ends before gaining major name recognition. We'll probably see a whole new slate of talked-about contenders after the 2010 midterms come to a close.
 

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,595
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As I said in the other thread discussing this "truce" its a bull**** plan by statist social cons to get us personal liberty people to give them our votes. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

Burning Giraffe

Active member
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
357
Reaction score
121
Location
Burgaw, NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
As I said in the other thread discussing this "truce" its a bull**** plan by statist social cons to get us personal liberty people to give them our votes. Nothing more, nothing less.

I disagree. The fact is, that most of these "social issues" aren't even problems. Once gay marriage is legalized, we will have won pretty much the last civil rights battle left to us. We might have more luck just getting government out of marriages all together. Either way, I think Mitch Daniels is on the ball here. Let's focus on the economy and government for a while, instead of bickering about abortion and morality.
 

DarkWizard12

Sir Poop A lot
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
11,665
Reaction score
2,499
Location
Tyler TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
As I said in the other thread discussing this "truce" its a bull**** plan by statist social cons to get us personal liberty people to give them our votes. Nothing more, nothing less.
then why is Mitch Daniels geting so much flack. If it's a "plan", it sure has backfired. :rolleyes:
 

Arch Enemy

Familiaist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2005
Messages
7,466
Reaction score
2,083
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This truce idea makes little sense.

According to him, we should put social issues on the back-burner until we win the War on Terror and fix our economy. Does it not ring true with him that the War on Terror and our economic woes ARE social issues?

I think Daniels made the remark so he could remove himself as far away from socialism as possible... even if it makes little sense.
 

Dav

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2009
Messages
5,536
Reaction score
1,813
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Does it not ring true with him that the War on Terror and our economic woes ARE social issues?

"Social issues" are hard to define, and I have yet to see a definition that I'm completely satisfied with. But there are a specific set of issues that most people consider to be "social issues", which presumably were what Daniels was talking about, and neither of those are among them.

Also, from the article:
He did, however, want to clarify that he's not just singling out controversial social issues. "I'm talking about all divisive issues," he said. Clear and unified priorities are the only way he sees the country rallying around common purposes.
 
Last edited:

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This truce idea makes little sense.

According to him, we should put social issues on the back-burner until we win the War on Terror and fix our economy. Does it not ring true with him that the War on Terror and our economic woes ARE social issues?

I think Daniels made the remark so he could remove himself as far away from socialism as possible... even if it makes little sense.

That definition of social issues is pretty broad (though I will admit that some of the surveillance issues surrounding the War on Terror are basically ones of social freedom). "Social issues" is typically taken to mean anything that isn't about the economy/government finances or about foreign/defense policy.

Personally I think the guy is right. We can win the fight for more social freedoms after we bring some semblance of order to the economy and government finances. Time is on our side on the social issues as the younger generations keep getting more and more socially liberal, but the economy and the debt are problems that need to be dealt with sooner rather than later.
 
Top Bottom