Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Republican Presidential Hopeful: Mitch Daniels

  1. #1

    Republican Presidential Hopeful: Mitch Daniels

    [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels[/url] for a detailed bio/resume.

    Reportedly gave a rousing speech at CPAC that was well recieved by the assembled masses that attended.

    Reportedly is the candidate of choice of George Will and Karl Rove.

    Since that speech, has been denounced and derided by Conservative Radio (specificly Rush, Hannity and Levin) as being "not a conservative" due to claimed lack of support for the "Social Conservative/Religious" leg of the three-legged chair of Conservativism.

    Sitting Governor, with what appears (at least) to be a decently solid resume of Public Service.

    What does the masses brains of the JI Poli forum think of Mr. Dnaiels in re: 2012?

  2. #2
    What's Rush's problem with him? Is he pro choice, favors gay marriage? et? If so.. he has shot to win the Republican nom.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=Tyler Durden;3959834]What's Rush's problem with him? Is he pro choice, favors gay marriage? et? If so.. he has shot to win the Republican nom.[/QUOTE]

    He does not pass the muster of the "Social/Faith-based Conservatves" apparently.

    As to why, you'd have to ask one of them. I would suggest Jungle, he would probably be able and willing to explain why, given his strong support of social conservativism and his listening habits of one Mr. Mark Levin (who also doesn't like Daniels).

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3959577][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels[/url] for a detailed bio/resume.

    Reportedly gave a rousing speech at CPAC that was well recieved by the assembled masses that attended.

    Reportedly is the candidate of choice of George Will and Karl Rove.

    Since that speech, has been denounced and derided by Conservative Radio (specificly Rush, Hannity and Levin) as being "not a conservative" due to claimed lack of support for the "Social Conservative/Religious" leg of the three-legged chair of Conservativism.

    Sitting Governor, with what appears (at least) to be a decently solid resume of Public Service.

    What does the masses brains of the JI Poli forum think of Mr. Dnaiels in re: 2012?[/QUOTE]



    FWIW, I called Mitch Daniels as a leading candidate like 8 months ago :D

  5. #5
    Tyler, here's a little background on Daniels and the case for the GOP to vote for him -- from [URL="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/16/mitch_daniels_moment_and_dilemmas_social_conservative_truce_cpac_obama_108918.html"]RealClearPolitics[/URL]:

    [QUOTE]Mitch Daniels' Moment, and Dilemmas
    By David Paul Kuhn
    The man tends to meet the moment in presidential politics. Successors often compensate for struggling presidents weaknesses. George H.W. Bush's aloof feel for the recession was followed by Bill Clinton's common touch. Clinton's personal impropriety paved the way for the most openly religious president in the modern day. The folksy George W. Bush, weighed down by the Iraq war, leads to the professorial president who wooed liberals with his opposition to the same war.

    This is Mitch Daniels' moment. Conservatives' galvanizing cause--fiscal profligacy, debt nightmares, expansive liberal governance--are Daniels' wheelhouse. He is the right's wonk-star that could, and has. The Indiana governor turned deficit to surplus. His stewardship earned Indiana its first ever triple-A bond rating from Standard and Poor's. And he's flourished for the hard choices. Daniels is one of the nation's most popular governors.

    But Daniels has mountains between him and the White House. Profiles tend to note the manifest. Daniels is 5-foot-7 and true to the budget-guru type. There's also the wherewithal question that dogs most potential contenders, can Daniels compete in the money race?

    It's the mountain of Daniels' making that is, perhaps, his most-immediate obstacle. The governor personifies the Republicans most exercised bloc, tea party activists. But he has also riled Republicans' most dependable bloc, social conservatives. (Obama made no gains with white weekly churchgoers in 2008.)

    Last year, Daniels told the Weekly Standard that the next president would have to call a "truce on the so-called social issues" to establish a coalition large enough to master America's debt crisis. He has stood by the comment.

    "Unless he does a mea culpa--I was wrong--he has no chance of winning the nomination," said Richard Land, one of the nation's most politically seasoned social conservative leaders. "You can't win the nomination without pro life and pro family votes and they are not going to vote for him when he says you have to go to the back of the bus. Those days are over."

    Daniels' words awakened social conservatives enduring political anxiety. Christian right leaders-- from Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell to Land--have all expressed to me over the years one unanimous gripe with the Republican professional class: the coalition that courts them to win office often forgets them in office. That critique faded with the younger Bush presidency. "Reagan talked a good game but I think Bush is delivering," Robertson told me in 2006. It's the unique context of the offense that therefore causes offense. "He opened up an old wound; it was not a comment made in a vacuum," Land agreed.

    Daniels should not be in this situation. He has attended the same Presbyterian church for a half century. He helped found a private Christian primary school serving inner city Indianapolis. Daniels has consistently opposed abortion. He is no Rudy Giuliani.

    "Daniels is, to the bone, a moral and cultural conservative," said Michael Cromartie, a longtime analyst of social conservative politics. Cromartie believes Daniels can recover. "There will be meetings that occur with certain religious cultural conservatives where he says if Ginsburg retires, the kind of issues I'm going to want to nominate are the following."

    Daniels' strength would aid those talks. The conservative coalition comingles. Social conservatives are generally fiscal conservatives and highly skeptical of the welfare state. Pew polling found in 2005, hardly a time great debt anxiety, that about six in 10 social conservatives believed the "government today can't afford to do much more to help the needy."

    Daniels is banking on his indirect appeal. There Daniels was Friday night, at the nation's premiere conservative conference, giving a remarkably brave speech. Other 2012 potential contenders --Romney, Gingrich, Pawlenty, Barbour--offered conventional base appeals.

    "Purity and martyrdom is for suicide bombers," Daniels told his audience. "Change of the dimension we need requires a coalition of a dimension no one has recently assembled." But the thrust of his speech, at the aptly named "Ronald Reagan Banquet," was a comparison between today's debt crisis and the "red menace" of Reagan's day.

    Washington Post conservative blogger, Jennifer Rubin, noted that Daniels avoided national security issues and "seemed indifferent to the flap about his support for and then retreat from a ‘truce' on social issues."

    But Daniels' faced the social issue flap, and all his weaknesses, by enlarging his strength. It was textbook political jujitsu. Reagan's unambiguous stance against communism played a critical role uniting the coalition that still bears his name--the Christian right saw communism as the great godless foe. It helped religious Christians forget the divorced candidate from Hollywood who rarely attended church.

    Daniels is likely trying to turn the vice of his virtue into the only virtue that counts. But the right does not view debt in the same existential terms as it did communism. Conservative activists do, however, see the debt in severe terms. The tea party movement attests to that.

    Daniels' offense also carries political upshot. He can authentically claim to have done what few primary candidates dare: he has substantively challenged his base. Neither Obama nor John McCain delivered so bold a speech in 2007. Of course, there's a reason for that. Political bases expect to be wooed, not insulted. Yet, as Land said of his breed of Republicans, conservatives generally "believe in redemption."

    And this is possible partly because of that larger desire, on the right, for fiscal conservative redemption. Columnist George Will noted Friday night, in his introduction of Daniels, that the Indiana governor has the "charisma of competence."

    Daniels has a measure of old-fashioned charisma as well. He can, at least, deliver a speech as well as Mitt Romney and match Romney's executive biography. But it's difficult to imagine Romney regularly staying at constituents' homes, as Daniels famously does. Daniels has reach to white and blue collar alike.

    Still, Daniels' formative asset is competence. It's why he could be a contender. Competence is usually not enough in the television age. Daniels is more the chief financial officer than chief executive. But these are not normal times. The nerd is rising throughout Republican ranks. Debt is at the fore of the American mind. Daniels is viable because it's a wonk's time.[/QUOTE]

    And here's an excerpt from an interview with the [URL="http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/qa-with-gov-mitch-daniels/"]NY Times[/URL]:

    [QUOTE]Q. … what is it that government essentially does too much of now? What’s the common theme here of things that you can get government to stop doing without adversely affecting people’s lives?

    Mr. Daniels: Well, I guess the starting point is a lot more than you think there is…. In my flippant moments, I say things like, “You’d be amazed how much government you never miss.”…

    The government is, essentially, the last monopoly. We Americans distrust bigness – big business, big labor, big government – and for good reason. We don’t like monopolies. We’ve gotten rid of most of them – think telecom, for instance – because monopolies tend to abuse their position. They overcharge and underserve their customers. The government is unavoidably a monopoly in certain ways, but that can certainly lead to all those tendencies….

    Here’s a formula for spending money badly: You take a monopoly; it has no competition. In most of life, the world measures you. Your sales went up or down, your market share went up or down, your stock price maybe went up a bit. In government, I always say you have to transplant or implant accountability, ’cause it doesn’t come naturally.

    * * *

    Q. What should government do, in a sort of philosophical sense?

    Mr. Daniels: It should undertake to enable and facilitate flourishing of private life. That is to say it should protect the liberties and the safety of citizens, first and foremost, and then it should act to make possible … the growth of the private sector, on which everything else depends…

    As we see it, inside that circle of things it should do, absolutely, is be very aggressive about constructing public – or seeing that public infrastructure is constructed and is maintained — well, because this enables the private sector to grow. If you have excellent roads, bridges, rail, and – in this world, broadband – it is more likely that men and women of enterprise will be able to suspend their good ideas, their investments, from that, or build it next to that.[/QUOTE]

    I think he sounds like a pretty viable candidate right now. For the talk show hosts to immediately disqualify him because he's not conservative enough on the social issues is extremely short-sighted - especially when the pool of viable candidates is so thin.
    Last edited by JetsFan2012; 02-16-2011 at 09:49 AM.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Warfish;3959577][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels[/url] for a detailed bio/resume.

    Reportedly gave a rousing speech at CPAC that was well recieved by the assembled masses that attended.

    Reportedly is the candidate of choice of George Will and Karl Rove.

    Since that speech, has been denounced and derided by Conservative Radio (specificly Rush, Hannity and Levin) as being "not a conservative" due to claimed lack of support for the "Social Conservative/Religious" leg of the three-legged chair of Conservativism.

    Sitting Governor, with what appears (at least) to be a decently solid resume of Public Service.

    What does the masses brains of the JI Poli forum think of Mr. Dnaiels in re: 2012?[/QUOTE]

    He's been my early favorite for months. The guy knows how to get things done. I'd like to see a ticket with him at the top and Jindal or Pawlenty as the VP. Daniels is also buddies wth Haley Barbour who, IMO, would be an outstanding Chief of Staff.

    It's all about Governors. I hope the US never nominates another Senator as a presidential candidate. They simply have no idea how to run anything.

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=SONNY WERBLIN;3960304]He's been my early favorite for months. The guy knows how to get things done. I'd like to see a ticket with him at the top and Jindal or Pawlenty as the VP. Daniels is also buddies wth Haley Barbour who, IMO, would be an outstanding Chief of Staff.

    It's all about Governors. I hope the US never nominates another Senator as a presidential candidate. They simply have no idea how to run anything.[/QUOTE]

    I think there's definitely something to be said for a presidential candidate who was an executive, and is used to having to create a budget, delegate responsibility, deal with different constituencies, etc.

  8. #8
    So long as Palin isn't part of the ticket or Bachmann!

  9. #9
    I would be open to listen to what he offers as a candidate as long as he does not bring the crazies along. To be honest if Hannity and Limbaugh do not like him then he is probably a center-right candidate and that is a good thing.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    From what I've read so far, sounds promising. And as others have said, the fact that Rush is bashing him probably is a great sign. On the other hand, support by Karl Rove? Scares me a bit.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;3960431]From what I've read so far, sounds promising. And as others have said, the fact that Rush is bashing him probably is a great sign. On the other hand, support by [B]Karl Rove[/B]? Scares me a bit.[/QUOTE]

    yeah that part worries me as well. Rove is slime.

    On the other hand Rove is looking at this in a different vein. He is looking for a candidate that will be electable in the general election. Hannity and the entertainer are playing to a smaller base.

  12. #12
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,566
    Hopefully Daniels can be a guy with the nuts to step forward with real proposals to cut spending that include the wars and senseless deployment of troops around the globe

  13. #13
    he seems like a nice man, but would get absolutely smoked in a general election.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;3960640]I'm proud to know liberals dislike social conservatives even more than they dislike the neo-cons as embodied by Karl Rove. That's how I know for sure that Reagan conservatives are superior to the neo-cons. :D

    Of course I mean philosophically and not as human-beings.[/QUOTE]

    If you have time, I'd be curious to see how you define a "Reagan conservative" and if there is any current politicians who you think can be considered a Reagan conservative, if any.

    In high school I spent a lot time in the vice princepal's office, his secretary was this sweet old women who had a photo of Reagan in a picture frame. I got to talking to her about politics, it was before the 2004 election, she called herself a Reagan Democrat. She told me Reagan was the only Republican she ever voted for, until 2000, when she voted for Bush, but in 2004 was going to vote for Kerry.
    Last edited by Tyler Durden; 02-16-2011 at 03:13 PM.

  15. #15
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,762
    Mitch Daniels told THE WEEKLY STANDARD's Andy Ferguson that the next president "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 economic issues are resolved.

    Great, another RINO ahole for amnesty, compromise etc.
    Like McLain, only weaker on national security/defense...pass

  16. #16
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    11,697
    [QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;3960829]Mitch Daniels told THE WEEKLY STANDARD's Andy Ferguson that the next president "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 economic issues are resolved.

    Great, another RINO ahole for amnesty, compromise etc.
    Like McLain, only weaker on national security/defense...pass[/QUOTE]Sounds logical to me, I hope both sides hear that. Social issues are more or less internal issues; economic issues affect our standing in the world. We've got to maintain that, or nothing else will matter.

    Are you saying that a true republican should fight social and economic issues to a stalemate rather than table one to hopefully make progress on the other? I'm not sure it's that simple, but it's a fresh way of thinking for the current US government.

  17. #17
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    23,197
    [QUOTE=isired;3960895]Are you saying that a true republican should fight social and economic issues to a stalemate rather than table one to hopefully make progress on the other? I'm not sure it's that simple, but it's a fresh way of thinking for the current US government.[/QUOTE]

    Yes.

    The true enemy of America is.....







    .....other Americans. Send money to poor poor oppressed Iraqizoids. Piss and sh*t yourself in anger at the single mom who is a waitress and qualifies for foodstamps.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us