Sorry This Is From Faux News, But... 'How to Lose the Presidential Nomination in Two Days'

[WillyT]

How to Lose the Presidential Nomination in Two Days
By Frank Cannon
June 18, 2010
FOXNews.com

<snip>

Mitch Daniels, a man not given to making many national headlines, finally did so with a remark that the next American president will need a truce on the “so-called social issues” while he deals with the economy. Ever since the Indiana Governor’s comment appeared in a magazine piece in which he was touted as potentially that next president, the “truce talk” raced through the blogosphere like an electric current.

Daniels is no obscure political figure in a heartland red state. He has been a quietly effective and unusually popular Republican governor with a well-earned reputation for cost-cutting and health care innovation. With a federal debt approaching $13 trillion, Daniels is apparently seen by many as just what Washington needs.

The “truce” comment might have been a one-day story were it not for Weekly Standard blogger John McCormack, who caught up with Daniels shortly after the magazine piece appeared. To clarify, he asked Daniels if he meant that social issues would be de-emphasized if he became president, or if he would actually refuse to act.

Would Daniels, for example, reinstate the Reagan-era Mexico City policy (banning U.S. foreign aid to groups that provide or promote abortion overseas)? The policy has been suspended and reinstated by executive order by successive Democratic and Republican presidents for the past 20 years.

Daniels’ stunning answer to McCormack’s question: “I don’t know.”

The reply would have been careless for any prospective GOP candidate for the White House; for a reputed social conservative, it was something much worse. It had the feel of a planned surprise – a flight from orthodoxy meant as a symbolic message that a whole array of issues are about to be shelved. Restoring the Mexico City policy would require only a presidential executive order, a stroke of the pen. Presidential pens are not a heavy lift.

The Hoosier governor’s truce talk is wrong on so many levels. It needlessly demeans one portion of the conservative coalition – the “ethnic, Catholic (and, more recently, evangelical) blue collar” vote that Ronald Reagan led into fealty with the GOP’s traditional hawks and economic conservatives. And social conservatives are not just a portion of that coalition – they hold views on issues like federal abortion funding and protecting the definition of marriage that represent a significant majority.

<snip>

More: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/06/18/frank-cannon-mitch-daniels-republican-governor-indiana-social-conservative/

Good-Bye Mitch!!!

:evilgrin:

[dkf]

1. Maybe the tea party isn't all nutso on abortion though.

I can't imagine Rand Paul would support the government forcing women to have babies.

[Chulanowa]

2. If it gets him elected, he would impregnate them himself

Besides, to minds like his, it's the government forcing women to have abortions. Very bizarre mindset

[ellenfl]

3. but he does. he's anti-choice like his pa.

i have never understood how these anti-choice people can oppose abortion with the same breath that they scream for individual freedom from government intervention.

ellen fl

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. I wouldn't count out Daniels just yet.

He's a big time Pharmaceutical industry whore, and thanks to Opie Roberts and the other 4 Bush Crime Family flunkies on the Supreme Court, a vile criminal industry with deep pockets is going to be able to buy whatever nominee they want. And Daniels doesn't have that pesky "weird religion" problem like Willard the dog abuser does.

Don't forget that Poppy Bush originally campaigned as "pro-choice" in 1980. By the time he had assimilated the Reagan campaign in a way the Borg would have been proud of (including their religious reich "street cred") it was long forgotten. And so it probably will be with Poppy's buddy Mitch.

Now whether he will be able to compete against BP's Repuke candidate, that's another matter.