A man most likely...

MaggieMae

Reality bits
Apr 3, 2009
24,043
1,635
48
To become a GOP nominee for President is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. At least at this point, he has some solid ideas sans all the rhetorical BS coming from GOP leadership for the past year and a half. Daniels doesn't appear the type to kowtow to one conservative "movement" over another. He seems to simply want to solve the problems by getting things done and is smart enough to realize that takes compromise. Imagine that.

A Republican Stimulus That Just Might Work - Newsweek

Meanwhile, the administration is primed for something not far from what Daniels has laid out: It supports allowing businesses to write off capital investment, it has proposed a line-item veto similar to the “impoundment” procedure Daniels envisions, and it’s called for a freeze in the federal government’s discretionary spending. As for the payroll-tax holiday? Jason Furman, deputy director of the National Economic Council, says the White House would be open to it. “The president is willing to do whatever it takes to accelerate the pace of job growth and income creation,” he told me. The only thing that it’s hard to imagine the administration supporting is Daniels’s idea for a temporary pause in enforcing environmental regulations.

What’s harder to imagine is Boehner and the House Republicans joining with the administration to offer a major new stimulus package. There’s a good chance that John Boehner will be Speaker of the House when Congress reconvenes in 2011, but he’ll have gotten there by directing his flock to oppose most everything over the past two years. That’s left him and his party with precious little they can actually support once burdened with the responsibility of actually governing.

Daniels sees his proposal as requiring something from both sides. “Republicans have to accept the responsibility to step forward constructively, and Democrats have to accept that we’ve been headed in the wrong direction with the expansion of government,” he says. That sounds like a lot less compromise from the Democrats than the Republicans. Shouldn’t constructive engagement be expected from our politicians?
 
To become a GOP nominee for President is Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana. At least at this point, he has some solid ideas sans all the rhetorical BS coming from GOP leadership for the past year and a half. Daniels doesn't appear the type to kowtow to one conservative "movement" over another. He seems to simply want to solve the problems by getting things done and is smart enough to realize that takes compromise. Imagine that.

A Republican Stimulus That Just Might Work - Newsweek

Meanwhile, the administration is primed for something not far from what Daniels has laid out: It supports allowing businesses to write off capital investment, it has proposed a line-item veto similar to the “impoundment” procedure Daniels envisions, and it’s called for a freeze in the federal government’s discretionary spending. As for the payroll-tax holiday? Jason Furman, deputy director of the National Economic Council, says the White House would be open to it. “The president is willing to do whatever it takes to accelerate the pace of job growth and income creation,” he told me. The only thing that it’s hard to imagine the administration supporting is Daniels’s idea for a temporary pause in enforcing environmental regulations.

What’s harder to imagine is Boehner and the House Republicans joining with the administration to offer a major new stimulus package. There’s a good chance that John Boehner will be Speaker of the House when Congress reconvenes in 2011, but he’ll have gotten there by directing his flock to oppose most everything over the past two years. That’s left him and his party with precious little they can actually support once burdened with the responsibility of actually governing.

Daniels sees his proposal as requiring something from both sides. “Republicans have to accept the responsibility to step forward constructively, and Democrats have to accept that we’ve been headed in the wrong direction with the expansion of government,” he says. That sounds like a lot less compromise from the Democrats than the Republicans. Shouldn’t constructive engagement be expected from our politicians?

Good article Mags.

Seems the Dems must have been reading Daniels playbook especially when Ol'BO suggested quite a few of the same solutions Daniel's has.

I find it hard to believe any of the idiots he's surrounded himself with would be smart enough to even THINK these are good ideas. After all. Its not taxing the shit out of everyone.

One has to wonder if the Reps are smart enough to see the good ideas Daniels has and are smart enough to vote for them even if the Dems propose em.

I guess we'll see if the welfare of the people trumps the Party line. LOL
 
Mitch Daniels is just another wacko faith based christian fundimentalist. He has spoken out against non believers therefore I could never support him. In fact I would do anything within my power to make sure he fails.
 
Mitch Daniels is just another wacko faith based christian fundimentalist. He has spoken out against non believers therefore I could never support him. In fact I would do anything within my power to make sure he fails.

If Republicans plan to install a President in 2012, I would much rather see someone like Daniels in the position (regardless of his religious beliefs) than someone the Tea Partiers believe is capable.
 
Mitch Daniels is just another wacko faith based christian fundimentalist. He has spoken out against non believers therefore I could never support him. In fact I would do anything within my power to make sure he fails.

Could you expand on that? When? Where? How? Link?
 
Mitch Daniels is just another wacko faith based christian fundimentalist. He has spoken out against non believers therefore I could never support him. In fact I would do anything within my power to make sure he fails.

Could you expand on that? When? Where? How? Link?

There are many links. I googled "Mitch Daniels religious?"

here's one:

Letter to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels Concerning Atheist Bashing | Center for Inquiry

Mellinger: Is there part of you that is bothered by the aggressive atheism of a [Sam] Harris, a [Christopher] Hitchens, a [Richard] Dawkins? And what I mean is... this atheism is a little different than atheism has been in the past because it does seek to convert people.

Daniels: I'm not sure it's all that new. People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we're just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power.

And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

Everyone's certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion. But yes, I think that folks who believe they've come to that opinion ought to think very carefully, first of all, about how different it is from the American tradition; how it leads to a very different set of outcomes in the real world.

You consider that 'bashing' or 'speaking out against non-believers'? Is there anything else, or are you basing your opinion entirely on that one statement?
 
Could you expand on that? When? Where? How? Link?

There are many links. I googled "Mitch Daniels religious?"

here's one:

Letter to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels Concerning Atheist Bashing | Center for Inquiry

Mellinger: Is there part of you that is bothered by the aggressive atheism of a [Sam] Harris, a [Christopher] Hitchens, a [Richard] Dawkins? And what I mean is... this atheism is a little different than atheism has been in the past because it does seek to convert people.

Daniels: I'm not sure it's all that new. People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we're just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power.

And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

Everyone's certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion. But yes, I think that folks who believe they've come to that opinion ought to think very carefully, first of all, about how different it is from the American tradition; how it leads to a very different set of outcomes in the real world.

You consider that 'bashing' or 'speaking out against non-believers'? Is there anything else, or are you basing your opinion entirely on that one statement?

Indeed I am in an awkward position. Every NewGOP candidate for the last twenty years has been a product of faith based organizations. They barely if at all resemble the icons of the republican party I knew from my upbringing.

As you devoutly believe in a supreme being I am every bit as convinced there is no such entity. My fundimental beliefs are just as important to me as yours are to you. I cannot support anyone that does not respect my fundimental beliefs.

Would you support any candidate that spoke out on the stupidity of a belief in god?
 
Last edited:
There are many links. I googled "Mitch Daniels religious?"

here's one:

Letter to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels Concerning Atheist Bashing | Center for Inquiry

Mellinger: Is there part of you that is bothered by the aggressive atheism of a [Sam] Harris, a [Christopher] Hitchens, a [Richard] Dawkins? And what I mean is... this atheism is a little different than atheism has been in the past because it does seek to convert people.

Daniels: I'm not sure it's all that new. People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we're just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power.

And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

Everyone's certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion. But yes, I think that folks who believe they've come to that opinion ought to think very carefully, first of all, about how different it is from the American tradition; how it leads to a very different set of outcomes in the real world.

You consider that 'bashing' or 'speaking out against non-believers'? Is there anything else, or are you basing your opinion entirely on that one statement?

Indeed I am in an awkward position. Every NewGOP candidate for the last twenty years has been a product of faith based organizations. They barely if at all resemble the icons of the republican party I knew from my upbringing.

As you devoutly believe in a supreme being I am every bit as convinced there is no such entity. My fundimental beliefs are just as important to me as yours are to you. I cannot support anyone that does not respect my fundimental beliefs.

Would you support any candidate that spoke out on the stupidity of a belief in god?

And thus the reason religion and politics don't mix well. They're like oil and water. I'd say of myself that I believe in the doctrine of Do Unto Others (espoused by most organized religions), but I'm more an agnostic than an atheist. For me, it's always been difficult to believe in a "loving" God when there is so much suffering. But nature (life) doesn't just "happen" either. So...:confused: I usually leave the subject alone, unless someone is a real jerk about it. (I once had a neighbor, a "born again" alcoholic, ask to borrow my vacuum cleaner and she didn't return it. When I finally went to her house to get it, she said it was "God's will that she have it." Seems she "learned" that it was possible to have whatever you wanted if you just asked God. Seriously?)
 
There are many links. I googled "Mitch Daniels religious?"

here's one:

Letter to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels Concerning Atheist Bashing | Center for Inquiry

Mellinger: Is there part of you that is bothered by the aggressive atheism of a [Sam] Harris, a [Christopher] Hitchens, a [Richard] Dawkins? And what I mean is... this atheism is a little different than atheism has been in the past because it does seek to convert people.

Daniels: I'm not sure it's all that new. People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we're just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power.

And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

Everyone's certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion. But yes, I think that folks who believe they've come to that opinion ought to think very carefully, first of all, about how different it is from the American tradition; how it leads to a very different set of outcomes in the real world.

You consider that 'bashing' or 'speaking out against non-believers'? Is there anything else, or are you basing your opinion entirely on that one statement?

Indeed I am in an awkward position. Every NewGOP candidate for the last twenty years has been a product of faith based organizations. They barely if at all resemble the icons of the republican party I knew from my upbringing.

As you devoutly believe in a supreme being I am every bit as convinced there is no such entity. My fundimental beliefs are just as important to me as yours are to you. I cannot support anyone that does not respect my fundimental beliefs.

Would you support any candidate that spoke out on the stupidity of a belief in god?

I understand what you are saying, except that he did not say that your beliefs were stupid, he was offering up his perspective on why he thinks you are wrong, and I really don't see anything all that terrible with his comments. You have no problem offering up why you think believers are wrong, and as a matter of fact, I believe you have called believers stupid in many different ways. Are you unfit for public office because of your comments and how you feel?
 
You consider that 'bashing' or 'speaking out against non-believers'? Is there anything else, or are you basing your opinion entirely on that one statement?

Indeed I am in an awkward position. Every NewGOP candidate for the last twenty years has been a product of faith based organizations. They barely if at all resemble the icons of the republican party I knew from my upbringing.

As you devoutly believe in a supreme being I am every bit as convinced there is no such entity. My fundimental beliefs are just as important to me as yours are to you. I cannot support anyone that does not respect my fundimental beliefs.

Would you support any candidate that spoke out on the stupidity of a belief in god?

I understand what you are saying, except that he did not say that your beliefs were stupid, he was offering up his perspective on why he thinks you are wrong, and I really don't see anything all that terrible with his comments. You have no problem offering up why you think believers are wrong, and as a matter of fact, I believe you have called believers stupid in many different ways. Are you unfit for public office because of your comments and how you feel?

Unfit? No. Unelectable? Yes. There are too many "stupid":lol: members of organized religion out there to allow a very convinced and vocal athiest an opportunity to represent their interests. The first "group" prayer I was asked to participate in we would have a problem.
 
There are many links. I googled "Mitch Daniels religious?"

here's one:

Letter to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels Concerning Atheist Bashing | Center for Inquiry

Mellinger: Is there part of you that is bothered by the aggressive atheism of a [Sam] Harris, a [Christopher] Hitchens, a [Richard] Dawkins? And what I mean is... this atheism is a little different than atheism has been in the past because it does seek to convert people.

Daniels: I'm not sure it's all that new. People who reject the idea of a God -who think that we're just accidental protoplasm- have always been with us. What bothers me is the implications -which not all such folks have thought through- because really, if we are just accidental, if this life is all there is, if there is no eternal standard of right and wrong, then all that matters is power.

And atheism leads to brutality. All the horrific crimes of the last century were committed by atheists -Stalin and Hitler and Mao and so forth- because it flows very naturally from an idea that there is no judgment and there is nothing other than the brief time we spend on this Earth.

Everyone's certainly entitled in our country to equal treatment regardless of their opinion. But yes, I think that folks who believe they've come to that opinion ought to think very carefully, first of all, about how different it is from the American tradition; how it leads to a very different set of outcomes in the real world.

You consider that 'bashing' or 'speaking out against non-believers'? Is there anything else, or are you basing your opinion entirely on that one statement?

Indeed I am in an awkward position. Every NewGOP candidate for the last twenty years has been a product of faith based organizations. They barely if at all resemble the icons of the republican party I knew from my upbringing.
....And, they're gettin' better, AT it!!!!

"One might wonder why the Girl Scouts have been spared the painful attacks that have been launched upon the Boy Scouts by the Left in recent years. The reasons are simple: the Girl Scouts allow homosexuals and atheists to join their ranks, and they have become a pro-abortion, feminist training corpshttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfmoms/detail?entry_id=72169. ... If the Girl Scouts of America can't get back to teaching real character, perhaps it will be time to look for our cookies elsewhere."
 

Forum List

Back
Top