Mitch Daniels: A Sane Republican?

[JB3]

So, I was perusing the web tonight, and I found a story about Indiana's governor Mitch Daniels, and the cold bucket of ice water he had to throw on the ideologues at CPAC. Could there finally be a leader in the GOP that is ready to call a spade a spade and push the reactionaries out?

http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/...calls-for-broad-civil-conservative-coalition/

Intrigued, I also looked for some other articles about him, to see if he was as the article describes.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/10/why-the-gop-should-listen-to-mitch-daniels.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/02/daniels-wants-to-mute-debate-over-social-issues/

There's not much about his personal stance on certain issues, because as a politician he believes that those debates are distracting us from fixing the issues at hand. He's pissed off plenty of reactionaries like Glenn Beck and Limbaugh, because he wants a truce on certain issues to focus on the economy and fixing the governments finances.

So here's my question; is choosing not to pursue ANY agenda on social issues better than pursuing one that either helps or hurts us?

 

[Zu-Mendel]

Not to directly criticize the man, but why is it that the only ones who say things like this always frame it in language that suggests temporary limitations?

"Moratorium" on social issues
"Holding back" on social issues
"Truce" on social issues

It's as if they are implying "Let's get get the fiscal house in order, then we can all go back to blaming queers and blacks again." Either have the balls to say what you mean or GTFO of the public spotlight (though I suppose the truth is the ultimate impediment to political power).

The saddest part is this cowardly, wishy-washy display of begrudging acceptance (need?) is a significant step in the proper direction. All I'm hearing is "At least hate the fags quietly so they might think we give a fuck," and I can't tell how much of that sentiment is the truth or my own natural cynicism.

 

[Kulindahr]

Answer to the question: yes.

He seems to recognize that you don't balance a budget by starting out cutting your income -- a HUGE point in his favor.

 

[T-Rexx]

Daniels is probably about to sign into law an Indiana constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He has the power to veto it, but he probably won't.

Daniels may be more moderate than some Republicans, but he's still an arbiter of hate. He is obligated to maintain a certain amount of bigotry and intolerance in order to remain a member of the Republican Party. They throw out anyone who isn't sufficiently despicable.

"Sane" and "Republican" have been a contradiction of terms for 30 years. So long as that party remains committed to making the USA a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, we will not see reason guiding their path.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
I'll wait to see. If he signs, he's just another variety of dirt.

 

[LGNTexas]

Daniels barely got any votes in the CPAC staw poll where Rep. Ron Paul got nearly 1/3 of the votes. Bachmann, Palin and Huckabee didn't do well either. The latter two didn't bother to attend CPAC this year as well as several conservative groups who were most upset that CPAC had invited GOPride to attend, a Republican gay group.

 

[Kulindahr]

Daniels barely got any votes in the CPAC staw poll where Rep. Ron Paul got nearly 1/3 of the votes. Bachmann, Palin and Huckabee didn't do well either. The latter two didn't bother to attend CPAC this year as well as several conservative groups who were most upset that CPAC had invited GOPride to attend, a Republican gay group.

And something like a third of the people there were 25 or under, which also really skews the poll.

 

[laikaNYC]

Daniels barely got any votes in the CPAC staw poll where Rep. Ron Paul got nearly 1/3 of the votes. Bachmann, Palin and Huckabee didn't do well either. The latter two didn't bother to attend CPAC this year as well as several conservative groups who were most upset that CPAC had invited GOPride to attend, a Republican gay group.

That's completely untrue. Palin and Huckabee skipping this year had nothing to do with GOProud being in attendance. The only bigot who boycotted the event because of that was Jim Demint.

 

[JB3]

Daniels is probably about to sign into law an Indiana constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He has the power to veto it, but he probably won't.

Daniels may be more moderate than some Republicans, but he's still an arbiter of hate. He is obligated to maintain a certain amount of bigotry and intolerance in order to remain a member of the Republican Party. They throw out anyone who isn't sufficiently despicable.

"Sane" and "Republican" have been a contradiction of terms for 30 years. So long as that party remains committed to making the USA a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, we will not see reason guiding their path.

I wouldn't call someone that told people to stop listening to Limbaugh and Beck, and start including others, an arbiter of hate. I mean, at a conference for ideologues he chided them for not being accepting enough of other views, and locking themselves to a group that focuses on excluding people instead of including them.

Since you clearly didn't read the links, I'll spell it out for you; Daniels doesn't let his private views influence his public decisions. I tried diligently to find anything damning about him when it comes to gay marriage, but I couldn't. The only thing I found had to do with that amendment, and it made it clear that Daniels has never supported the effort. He won't sign it, but he doesn't say so because he doesn't want to get involved with it until he has to.

He's the type of politician I could trust, based on what I see now. He believes government should be run like a business, and its working for Indiana. He also has no illusion that the solutions in Indiana will work for the federal government, besides, of course government being run like a business.

Who knows what'll happen though. If anyone finds anything substantive about his views or action on gay rights or anything of that sort, please do post. The article caught my eye because of the fact that it was about a republican and there was barely any mention of social issues. If you find something, please post it.

 

[JB3]

Daniels barely got any votes in the CPAC staw poll where Rep. Ron Paul got nearly 1/3 of the votes. Bachmann, Palin and Huckabee didn't do well either. The latter two didn't bother to attend CPAC this year as well as several conservative groups who were most upset that CPAC had invited GOPride to attend, a Republican gay group.

And? Daniels should wear that as a badge of pride, because it means he's right.

 

[T-Rexx]

Daniels doesn't let his private views influence his public decisions.

If you ask me, it's even worse that he would support gay rights privately, but vote against it publicly.

I tried diligently to find anything damning about him when it comes to gay marriage, but I couldn't. The only thing I found had to do with that amendment, and it made it clear that Daniels has never supported the effort. He won't sign it, but he doesn't say so because he doesn't want to get involved with it until he has to.

If he refuses to state his opinion, how can you say it is "clear that Daniels has never supported the effort"? If he favored lower taxes, but he refused ever to say that, would you believe him? If he was in favor of smaller government, but he refused ever to state that publicly (because he "didn't want to get involved with it until he had to") would you believe he was serious about smaller government?

If a politician refuses to state his position, it is most likely because he doesn't want you to know where he stands. If Daniels is trying to hide his position from other Republicans because he's afraid of getting thrown out of the party for moderation, that's not a good sign for his future as a Republican. And if he's trying to hide his position from the public, that's an even worse sign.

He's the type of politician I could trust, based on what I see now.

I would have trouble supporting someone who refused to tell me where he stood on important issues.

I would love to see a Republican (other than Schwarzenegger) who is not a homophobe and bigot. But that is an extremely rare phenomenon. We have in Daniels a Republican who is reluctant even just to state that he is not a bigot. That's not a good sign.

 

[laikaNYC]

[Quoted post: Removed by Moderator]

He's a big boy, he doesn't need you coming to his rescue. He was insinuating that Palin and Huckabee didn't attend for the same reasons as some of those organizations.

 

[chrisrobin]

Sane? Republican? Indiana?

 

[swerve]

Are you KIDDING ME???

Mitch Daniels???

He is the ONE that SOLD Interstate 80 in Indiana to a FOREIGN CONGLOMERATE!!!

THAN used all the money received in a 20 year lease to shore up HIS budget...

NOT TO MENTION -- that for a truck -- TOLLS INCREASED from $11.60 to about $28.00 to drive the 160 mile stretch...

ALSO NOT TO MENTION that HALF of the toll plaza's are ALWAYS out of DEISEL fuel, toilet paper and sometimes even grocery bags...

The move ELIMINATED ALL TOLL ROAD collectors jobs -- as they were replaced with complicated to use machines...

THAT MITCH DANIELS???

Is he THAT MUCH of a SOCIOPATH that he has FOOLED even YOU???

 

[Kulindahr]

Mitch Daniels???

He is the ONE that SOLD Interstate 80 in Indiana to a FOREIGN CONGLOMERATE!!!

THAN used all the money received in a 20 year lease to shore up HIS budget...

NOT TO MENTION -- that for a truck -- TOLLS INCREASED from $11.60 to about $28.00 to drive the 160 mile stretch...

That suggests that the actual cost to maintain that stretch of highway is closer to $20.00, halfway between those figures. And that's probably true only because the initial construction cost was paid already.


I didn't know states could hand over federal highway to private outfits, though.

 

[swerve]

I didn't know states could hand over federal highway to private outfits, though.

I am PART of an organization that was FIGHTING the sale...

It went to court -- the judge rule in FAVOR of the State of Indiana -- no shocker...

The REAL SHOCKER was when he DEMANDED a $1,900,000,000 BOND be posted before the case could move forward...

Now how is that justice???

More about Mitch Daniels BOONDOGGLE can be read here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Moves

Notice -- how they have CLEVER ways of naming HORRIBLE PROPOSITIONS...

 

[swerve]

That suggests that the actual cost to maintain that stretch of highway is closer to $20.00, halfway between those figures.

It doesn't suggest that AT ALL!!!

The state was doing GREAT -- actually making MORE MONEY than they needed to maintain the road at $11.60 (including the SEVERAL HUNDRED EMPLOYEES that now NO LONGER work there)...

The PRIVATE COMPANY wants PROFIT!!!

Just like MY private company...

Maybe I can buy Interstate 65 from them -- or would I be at a DISADVANTAGE since I'm NOT a FOREIGN company...

MITCH DANIELS is a TRAITOR in EVERY sense of the word...

 

[Kulindahr]

Daniels is liked by the Free Congress Foundation, which pushes a 'Christian' social agenda, though not primarily through legislation, rather through building 'Christian' institutions and letting their "excellence" win the country "back". They get criticized by "Christian Dominionists" because they believe that while Christians should be involved in politics, it is not the task of government to promote Christian values, and that control of the government cannot make a nation Christian. That matches his reticence to state his social views publicly.

I was trying to find if there's any connection between him and the whole dominionist movement, which believes that only Christians have any business in government -- extreme dominionists, like Pat Robertson. don't even think non-Christians should get hired by the government (makes me wonder what he thinks about the armed forces).

I did uncover the tidbit along the way that three or four dominionists sit on the Supreme Court. I think Scalia is an obvious one; Roberts is almost certainly one (one site I was at was proud of GWB for appointing only dominionists to federal judgeships).

 

[rareboy]

Daniels is liked by the Free Congress Foundation, which pushes a 'Christian' social agenda, though not primarily through legislation, rather through building 'Christian' institutions and letting their "excellence" win the country "back". They get criticized by "Christian Dominionists" because they believe that while Christians should be involved in politics, it is not the task of government to promote Christian values, and that control of the government cannot make a nation Christian. That matches his reticence to state his social views publicly.

I was trying to find if there's any connection between him and the whole dominionist movement, which believes that only Christians have any business in government -- extreme dominionists, like Pat Robertson. don't even think non-Christians should get hired by the government (makes me wonder what he thinks about the armed forces).

I did uncover the tidbit along the way that three or four dominionists sit on the Supreme Court. I think Scalia is an obvious one; Roberts is almost certainly one (one site I was at was proud of GWB for appointing only dominionists to federal judgeships).

Dominionism is so contrary to the aims of the Constitution that it beggars the imagination that the SC justices would even want to be identified as actually being the handmaidens of christian fundamentalism.

 

[Kulindahr]

[/B]


Dominionism is so contrary to the aims of the Constitution that it beggars the imagination that the SC justices would even want to be identified as actually being the handmaidens of christian fundamentalism.

I doubt they label themselves that way, at least in public. But it shows all over in Scalia's opinions, where he sets (his version of) Christian morality above the Constitution, even to the point of lying to support his decisions. I haven't tracked Roberts enough to see anything clear, but just the fact that he was appointed by Bush is suspicious.