Mitch Daniels: A Sane Republican?

[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.

For that matter, it's so foreign to anything Jesus said it defies imagination that anyone calling himself a Christian would be there. It has nothing to do with love or mercy, nothing to do with the Gospel or forgiveness. It is pure and simple lust for power, a self-righteous arrogance that spits in God's face.

 

[JB3]

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

Daniels has never done so.

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?

Because numerous legislators have stated that Daniels has told them in private to drop the amendment because it wasn't the right thing to do. Because he has stated publicly that debates like the one the Indiana legislature is having is distracting from real issues at hand. Its pretty much common sense where he stands; all you have to look at what the man has said and what he wants the government to do.

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.

Apparently you didn't bother to read anything linked to or posted. (again) Daniels doesn't believe that the issues brought up by anti-gay politicians deserve enough merit for discussion, so he doesn't. The absence of an opinion doesn't mean he holds one thats negative, or that he's hiding something. In his case, its because he doesn't want any part of what's going on with those people.

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.

Or, you're just so blinded by your preconceived notions about what he is 'supposed' to be, since he's a republican, that you refuse to acknowledge that he might just not give a crap about what the bigots have to say.

 

[JB3]

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???

What's your point? Can the private company do a better job maintaining the road? Was it more economically viable to have them take it over than for the state to keep control of it? Were there any benefits to the company taking it over that the state would not have?

Roads cost money to maintain, and they cost money to traverse. Its as simple as that. Drop the emotional BS.

 

[JB3]

Here are some more of his comments:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20031629-503544.html

This one stood out, because it echoes some of his previous comments on the far right, that they would like to see America fall so that they can say 'I told you so' about current policies and the fact that they don't support them.

"Purity and martyrdom is for suicide bombers," he said. "I, for one, have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our republic and saying, 'I told you so.'

And another:

He also called for more thoughtful rhetoric and urged conservatives to "distinguish carefully sketicism about big government from contempt for all government."

"I submit as we ask Americans to join us on a boldy different course, it would help if they liked us just a bit," he said.

Regardless of what you think of him, its at least good to see someone high-profile wanting to cut out the far right and certain parts of the religious right, like the cancer they are.

 

[opinterph]

… 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?

It appears to me that Governor Daniels’ proposal to suspend contemplation of social issues is not dependent upon the outcome associated with a sooner resolution of those issues. He seems to be suggesting that other issues are presently more important. Maybe “what is better” depends upon how long folks are willing to wait for resolution.

I am trying to engage the topic of this thread.

 

[JB3]

It appears to me that Governor Daniels’ proposal to suspend contemplation of social issues is not dependent upon the outcome associated with a sooner resolution of those issues. He seems to be suggesting that other issues are presently more important. Maybe “what is better” depends upon how long folks are willing to wait for resolution.

I am trying to engage the topic of this thread.

I'd agree, and I'm not too sure myself. I agree with him that a lot of these proposals, and the focus by the right on social issues, is distracting from important issues like our debt and budget problems. But I don't think (and judging from his comments, I'm not sure he thinks either) that we should stop pursuing to goal of ensuring equal rights for all.

I think context is everything for his comments; while he does talk about a 'truce' with the other side to focus on the issues at hand, he focuses most of his comments on backing off to the Republicans and the religious right. The same goes for his comments about stopping the divisive comments and attitudes.

 

[rareboy]

^ All I see is well deserved damnation by faint praise.

And the singular defense of this unremarkable man just strikes me as sad.

 

[JB3]

^ All I see is well deserved damnation by faint praise.

And the singular defense of this unremarkable man just strikes me as sad.

Sometimes the most unremarkable men do the most remarkable things.

 

[opinterph]

… he focuses most of his comments on backing off to the Republicans and the religious right. The same goes for his comments about stopping the divisive comments and attitudes.

That seems kinda weird – almost schizophrenic.

On the other hand, I’m glad someone in the Republican Establishment is trying to help Congress focus a little more on the business of its purpose.

I'm not sure he thinks either

It doesn’t matter. If we are always focused upon the origin of ideas and filter them according to our perceptions, we miss stuff.

Stuff can be important. And it appears to me that you raised a legitimate topic in this thread.


My own perception is that this “energy” is a desirable component in the Republic Party’s attempt to figure out what it represents.

 

[swerve]

What's your point? Can the private company do a better job maintaining the road? Was it more economically viable to have them take it over than for the state to keep control of it? Were there any benefits to the company taking it over that the state would not have?

Roads cost money to maintain, and they cost money to traverse. Its as simple as that. Drop the emotional BS.

There are a LOT of points here...

The private FOREIGN company may or may not be able to maintain the road more efficiently -- but they're in business to make a profit -- Tolls have INCREASED 241%...

We ALREADY PAY for roads to be built and maintained through FUEL TAXES, FET, etc, etc, etc -- just ONE truck ON AVERAGE pays $13,200/year for roads...

The benefit for Indiana was taking 20 years of CONSISTENT income and getting it ALL UP FRONT (which was then spent IMMEDIATELY) at a substantial DISCOUNT given to the "investors"...

The fact that the concept of selling our basic infrastructure -- which the U.S. taxpayers have ALREADY paid for -- to corporations, let alone foreign corporations, is considered by you to be emotional BS baffles me...

Although, even if it was, THIS forum would be the PERFECT place to EXPRESS IT!!!

 

[Kulindahr]

The benefit for Indiana was taking 20 years of CONSISTENT income and getting it ALL UP FRONT (which was then spent IMMEDIATELY) at a substantial DISCOUNT given to the "investors"...

There's the real idiocy of it: they did a lot of good all at once, but before those 20 years are up the roads they fixed and upgraded are going to need attention -- and their income from the road is gone.

Just another quick fix like sacrificing the future of your company to get a good quarterly report.

 

[rareboy]

Sometimes the most unremarkable men do the most remarkable things.

And sometimes, like Daniels, they really only achieve the most mediocre of things when all is said and done.

 

[JB3]

And sometimes, like Daniels, they really only achieve the most mediocre of things when all is said and done.

Considering that Indiana, which is home to the majority of the rust belt population, is among only a few states NOT to be struggling financially, your point is not only invalid, but it is not accurate. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

 

[Kulindahr]

Considering that Indiana, which is home to the majority of the rust belt population, is among only a few states NOT to be struggling financially, your point is not only invalid, but it is not accurate. [Text: Removed by Moderator]

Ideology skews observation.

If we expect nothing else of government, we ought to expect it to run a bit in the black. The way things are these days, achieving that is no mean accomplishment. Thus, by a very basic measure, this governor is not mediocre.

Shortsighted, maybe, but not mediocre.

 

[rareboy]

So there you have it. Mitch Daniels is the most amazing man to have ever governed.

For having managed to apparently achieve the impossible, ie, balancing revenue and expenditure, he is the greatest political figure to have emerged in the last decade.

By virtue of this reasoning, Bill Clinton was the greatest president of the last 50 years.


I stand corrected.






BTW. I certainly didn't ask for any baiting remark to be removed from the OP's last post.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Where the frak did all that come from?

 

[swerve]

^ Where the frak did all that come from?

I know that you've run into some of the homeless population in Portland...

At times one of them will engage you with their rants...

Rather than try to discuss the merits of their insanity driven theories, its sometimes better to just smile, nod your head, and move along...