Mitch Daniels: No, seriously, we need a “truce” on social issues

posted at 5:33 pm on June 15, 2010 by Allahpundit

A follow-up to last week’s culture-war extravaganza, but with a twist. This time he’s emphasizing that it’s not just on social issues where he wants a truce. He wants one on every issue that’s unrelated to solving the fiscal crisis (and terrorism).

Good enough?

Daniels called me to say that he’s dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. “It wasn’t something I just blurted out,” he told me. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while.”

He’s emphasized the need to focus like a laser beam on the existential threats facing the country — the two big issues he’s previously identified being the war on terror and the country’s precarious fiscal position. “We’re going to need a lot more than 50.1 percent of the country to come together to keep from becoming Greece,” he said.

He did, however, want to clarify that he’s not just singling out controversial social issues. “I’m talking about all divisive issues,” he said. Clear and unified priorities are the only way he sees the country rallying around common purposes.

Still no word on what a “truce” will mean in practical terms but Mark Hemingway insists that MD will have something concrete in mind if/when he finally announces his candidacy. Question: Isn’t this really just a canny way for a dark horse to get some attention among a Republican field that’s dominated by big names like Palin and Romney? He probably figures, and rightly so, that he’ll be a niche figure next year unless he can somehow reshape the debate so that he’s in the middle of it. The “truce” idea does that for him, casting Daniels as the Great Centrist/Libertarian Hope against an array of opponents who, he hopes, will split “values voters” among themselves. How he plans to win with that strategy once the field starts to thin after the first few primaries, I don’t know; presumably he’ll become so reviled by social conservatives that they’ll unite behind whoever emerges from the Palin/Romney/Huckabee/Gingrich scrum. (Maybe he’s counting on big delegate gains in blue states like California?) But then, being a dark horse means not having to think too far ahead: The first, most important challenge is simply to get in the game, and this helps. The more Daniels can get his would-be opponents to take the bait — and mind you, Huckabee’s already fundraising off of this skirmish — the more “in the game” he is.

Speaking of Huck, he’s pushing a line that I expect Daniels himself will end up pushing when the time comes for him to throw social cons a bone: Namely, that you can’t have a sound public fisc without sound public morals. And yes, of course there’s a donation button at the link.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

War on Drugs” is one of the phoniest and worst things going on in this country.

Notorious GOP on June 15, 2010 at 9:03 PM

.
LOLZ! So the “War of Drugs” is one worst things going on in this country?!! What are you smoking dude? You guys can’t be serious.

Mike OMalley on June 15, 2010 at 9:17 PM

“Seeing as how we’ll never come to an agreement on entitlements spending, and how debate on the subject always produces more heat than light, it’s time to call a truce on those issues and to focus on cutting defense spending first and move on to the more intractable issues later…”

Truces will lead to more truces.

ddrintn on June 15, 2010 at 9:25 PM

This guy is not even on the radar screen to me. He’s lost me already.

silvernana on June 15, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Does this guy work for Axelrod or Rahm Emanuel? looks pretty much like a ploy to split the Republican party (they have seen how much appeal the Libertarian party has and are trying to put the Republicans in the same place), seems to be working, at least in this forum.

neuquenguy on June 15, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Anybody who seriously believes this would be anything but a unilateral truce, anything other than a carte blanche for liberals to keep pushing their social agenda totally unopposed has to be pretty naive, or simply don’t care.
neuquenguy on June 15, 2010 at 9:13 PM

That’s the whole point: Is Daniels asking DEMOCRATS to obey a truce? Hell no. Of course not. No one in his right mind imagines that they will slacken their assault in the tiniest little bit.

He is asking REPUBLICANS to SURRENDER every issue but this one.

I have said the same thing about liberaltarians for years now: When they finally grow one pair of balls among them, and start telling DEMOCRATS they’ll support absolutely every other liberal position if they’d just give up that pesky little Communism bugaboo — I will support them to the freaking hilt.

But when those (with all due respect) pot-smoking draft-dodging tax-evaders come to US and say we should kick all of our core supporters in the ass then (again, with all due respect) they can just go screw themselves.

logis on June 15, 2010 at 9:34 PM

Have you ever noticed that the first one to plead for a “truce” is the one who’s losing????

landlines on June 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM

LOLZ! So the “War of Drugs” is one worst things going on in this country?!! What are you smoking dude? You guys can’t be serious.

Mike OMalley on June 15, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Please, tell me. What are the positive effects of the war on drugs?

In other words, is the price we’ve bad, approximately a trillion dollars, worth the war?

Notorious GOP on June 15, 2010 at 9:38 PM

LOLZ! So the “War of Drugs” is one worst things going on in this country?!! What are you smoking dude? You guys can’t be serious.

Mike OMalley on June 15, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Please, tell me. What are the positive effects of the war on drugs?

In other words, is the price we’ve bad, approximately a trillion dollars, worth the war?

Notorious GOP on June 15, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Notorious: Your argument sounds suspiciously like the old, tired, 60′s anti-war rants we heard from maggot-infested leftists. The argument wasn’t valid then, and has not improved with age.

Have you ever noticed that the Drug Wars (the ones with actual shooting and killing of innocent men, women, and children) are mostly in MEXICO (where the government doesn’t fight back) and not in the USA (where our government does fight back…at least when Republicans are in charge)??

The War on Drugs, just like the War on Terror, is a fight for survival. Without survival, nothing else matters. Get real!!!

/arguing with idiots>

landlines on June 15, 2010 at 9:50 PM

Please, tell me. What are the positive effects of the war on drugs?

In other words, is the price we’ve bad, approximately a trillion dollars, worth the war?

Notorious GOP on June 15, 2010 at 9:38 PM

So should meth labs be a legitimate home business?

ddrintn on June 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Unbelievable. The idea may sound good, but it ignores painful reality. If you want fiscal conservatism, you need to get fiscal conservatives on board. Most fiscal conservatives are also social conservatives, and for that matter, national defense conservatives.

I’m sorry, but if you really want fiscal conservatism, it’s those who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal who are going to have to do the compromising. If you think you can jettison the social conservatives and make it up with social liberals who will vote with you just for fiscal conservative values, then you’re delusional.

The biggest threat we face in the next few elections is that vocal but dense group that thinks fiscal conservatives will be enough to win the election without getting the social conservatives to go along.

Split off social conservatives, and you’ll split the conservative base and wind up with another Democrat majority.

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Split off social conservatives, and you’ll split the conservative base and wind up with another Democrat majority.

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Brilliant comment!

BTW, your last sentence sums up why this site’s proprietors are so enamored of Daniel’s ramblings and why they let their squad of flying monkey trolls have at it so easily.

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 10:09 PM

So should meth labs be a legitimate home business?

ddrintn on June 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Probably not, but it beats treating allergy-sinus medicine as a severely restricted and potentially illegal purchase for the rest of us that are actually buying it for our allergy-sinus problems!

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 10:11 PM

Gov. Daniels is going to have to be less cryptic. What the firetruck is he talking about?

Cindy Munford on June 15, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Gov. Daniels is going to have to be less cryptic. What the firetruck is he talking about?

Cindy Munford on June 15, 2010 at 10:24 PM

Honestly? It’s like AP intimated: Daniels is going to try to be the “I’m not one of those nutcases” candidate. He’ll win the votes of the guys at AmSpectator (those that don’t vote for Romney, anyway), but overall I think it’s a losing proposition.

ddrintn on June 15, 2010 at 10:28 PM

All the dude needed to indicate was his preference with respect to judicial “temperment”. We only need confidence that he would not appoint another Sandra Day O’Connor.

Nice legacy Ronny.

exdeadhead on June 15, 2010 at 10:29 PM

So should meth labs be a legitimate home business?

ddrintn on June 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Probably not, but it beats treating allergy-sinus medicine as a severely restricted and potentially illegal purchase for the rest of us that are actually buying it for our allergy-sinus problems!

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 10:11 PM

The downsides of the War on Drugs is probably the libertarians’ single best argument. I had to laugh at all the melodrama about suspected illegal immigrants being forced to show their papers, when I have to show my driver’s license just to buy 24-hour sinus medicine. It’s literally harder to buy cold medicine than to buy prescription morphine.

Regardless, even here the libertarian argument is a bit simplistic. As long as some drugs are available only by prescription, there will have to be a certain amount of regulation by the government.

I think there’s room for some creative thinking and restructuring to better restrict drugs without some of the flaws in the current War on Drugs. Regardless, but the idea that the government can just step back completely and let drug use run rampant is also naive. We still have to live in the same world with those addicts who have absolutely no self-control. If they were truly destroying only themselves, we could possible skip the War on Drugs. But every strung-out drug user ruins more lives than his own. Ultimately, the best you can do is try to draw the lines a little better. You will still have to draw a line somewhere.

And bear in mind, this is the best argument libertarians have going for them.

There Goes The Neighborhood on June 15, 2010 at 10:38 PM

As a Hoosier if a it’s a choice between Daniels and Obama I’ll leave the ballot unmarked and I have yet to never cast a vote for president and I’m 43 yrs old, would be sad but I can’t stand this guy! I dislike Obama more but Daniels is a cheap labor open borders republican and that won’t get our vote.

PTN 39 on June 15, 2010 at 10:45 PM

Mike Omalley,
Whether you think so or not, Mike Huckabee is a strong Executive leader. He has 13 1/2 years executive experience as Lt. Governor and Governor of Arkansas. Being Governor is a lot like being President except on a much smaller scale. That’s why most of our Presidents were Governors. They have to take the Legislative laws and implement them in their states and they have all the same departments to run as President. They have to make executive decisions for the good of their states, just like the President has to do for the country.

Mike Huckabee has been to Israel over 12 times and visited with the President of Israel. He just recently went to Taiwan and visited with the President. He believes in defending America against terrorism and highly supports our military. Mike Huckabee has more foreign experience than any other Republican candidate (except Newt), and much more than Pres. Obama or President Bush had when they were elected.

The Democratic state of Arkansas was very impressed with how Gov. Huckabee ran their state. He cared about making the state better…not looking over his shoulder at how it would make him look as President (like other Governor we know…Romney). Mike Huckabee had a 67% approval rating when he left office as Governor…Romney had a 78% disapproval rating when he left office in MA. Of course, Romney only served two years out of the four because he left to campaign for President the last two years. Mike Huckabee would not raise taxes as President….the people in Arkansas voted that they wanted him to raise taxes so they could have improvements in Arkansas. He veto was also overrode by the Legislature in Ark. to raise some taxes. So, the record you claim about Mike Huckabee is only part of what really happened their. During the 2008 primary Mike Huckabee pledged not to raise taxes, something none of the other candidates did.

Getting back to the issue of a “truce” on social issues and how that could affect our country. I found a statement on the internet from a person who lives in Sweden and what happened when they had a “truce” on social issues in the 70′s:

“You know, it’s funny this truce thing would come up. We’ve had a truce on social issues in Sweden since the 70′s…

The result? Transsexual MPs, authorities which admit that they would rather see the number of abortions get higher, schools which shows movies like “Dogma” during Religion class, stay-at-home mums are more or less extinct because of the taxes and children are therefore forced to day nurseries and kindergarten. Oh, and did I mention one of our ministers is openly gay? I could go into detail about what we’re taught during sex ed (which has been mandatory for 40 years), but I really wouldn’t like to disgust someone. And you would be disgusted, and rightfully so.

You may call a truce, but don’t expect evil to follow. Evil does not know truces. And abortion, my friends, is the ultimate evil.”

Mike Huckabee is NOT trying to divide the Republican Party. As I showed you in the article MH wrote on morality as part of the economic issues, he is trying to explain to the Republican Party why he believes as he does so they will understand.

We had John McCain, a moderate, who tried to win the general election by ignoring social issues. He lost because we couldn’t trust this “maverick” to pick a Conservative Supreme Court judge if he was given the choice. His other previous decisions as Senator did not show that he was trully against abortion, he just wanted to pass the ball and let the States decide. What happened? He lost because he was advocating Democrat light..so why not go the whole way and vote for Obama which is what people did. The truth in why we lost is because we, as Republicans, did not stand up for what we believe and trully give people a choice.

Mike Huckabee said that to win in 2012, we must get back to our Republican roots, not just go after the moderates and Independents. Mike Huckabee does believe in fiscal conservatism very strongly and thinks that most Social Conservatives want fiscal policies too. But, fiscal conservatives need to promote the platform of the Republican Party and stand for all of it..not just the fiscal part. All of the fiscal conservatives on this site would just listen to how they talk, they might as well vote Democratic because they agree with them so much on social issues. That’s why we need to be Conservatives, both fiscal and social, and we will have a much better chance of winning in 2012. We will give the public a true choice against the Democrats.

Mike Huckabee with Ryan as VP would be the best choice to win against Obama. The last 12 of 14 PPP national Republican Presidential 2012 polls had Mike Huckabee leading higher against Obama than any other Republican. Before you say this was a Democratic poll, Mike Huckabee also won on Rasmussen and Gallup polls.

No matter what I think (I like Gov. Daniels very much) he cannot overcome the fact that he was Pres.George Bush’s Budget Director for 4 years, and the Dems. and Obama would nail Daniels to the cross for that alone. It would be Bush, Bush,Bush again to win in 2012. Most of the Dems and Independents think Pres. Bush was responsible for the bad economy Pres. Obama inherited. They would pin that on Daniels and what could he say!

VFT on June 15, 2010 at 10:47 PM

ddrintn on June 15, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Do you have any idea what we are suppose to be distracted by? Obviously we talk about other things but I am pretty sure most are focused on our fiscal condition. Does he consider Obamacare and Cap & Trade part of the fiscal problem because there are people who consider those a social justice problem?

Cindy Munford on June 15, 2010 at 10:49 PM

Question to all those who think making drugs legal. People who take drugs (not Pot) usually require larger doses in order to attain the desired effect. If they can’t afford while it’s illegal, how are they going to afford it when it is legal and has taxes added to the cost? They are going to commit crimes for money, same as now.

Cindy Munford on June 15, 2010 at 10:55 PM

If they can’t afford while it’s illegal, how are they going to afford it when it is legal and has taxes added to the cost? They are going to commit crimes for money, same as now.

Cindy Munford on June 15, 2010 at 10:55 PM

If controlled substances were legal, the prices would drop like a rock.
It’s their illegality that makes them expensive.
It’s not the addicts that are committing crimes for the most part to feed their habit, but the dealers fighting over lucrative turf.
That would disappear also if you could buy your drugs in a drug store like they do licit drugs.

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 10:59 PM

Regardless, but the idea that the government can just step back completely and let drug use run rampant is also naive.

Is it?
I know what you’re saying, but it isn’t really the government’s business unless you love the Nanny Police State.

We still have to live in the same world with those addicts who have absolutely no self-control.

We live with lots of alcoholics (also addicts) and we get by somehow.

If they were truly destroying only themselves, we could possible skip the War on Drugs.
There Goes The Neighborhood on June 15, 2010 at 10:38 PM

This, I maintain, is largely the truth.
And isn’t it their American right, under the rubric of “pursuit of happiness,” to do so?

Yes, I think so.
America: Land of the Not-so-Free since 1913.
While he was at it, Wilson not only oversaw the first Controlled Substances Act, but the onset of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.
Now the Feds want to control our food, our diet and our weight.
See the problem?

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM

VFT on June 15, 2010 at 10:47 PM

Mike Huckabee is not a conservative in any definition of the term.

He’s a tent show revival preacher and a snake oil salesman. He’s a BIG Government statist. He believes in Big Government just as much as Obama does.

No thanks. He’d be worse than Romney, who would be a disaster.

We need someone who will go in there, kick ass and take names. Someone who will take no prisoners and give no quarter.

We need someone who is ON RECORD SAYING “bi-partisanship if fine, but compromise for compromise sake is unacceptable.”

We need someone with a record of taking on, and taking down corrupt politicians, especially in her own party.

We need someone who not only fights, but is lookin’ for one. Someone who is pissed off and ready to fix things.

We all know who that is, and she ain’t Huckabee, or Mittens, or this squish Daniels. Stop with this nonsense.

gary4205 on June 15, 2010 at 11:13 PM

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Did you see Palin’s take on drugs when she was on Judge Napolitano’s show?

Smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em!

Pretty reasonable.

gary4205 on June 15, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Regardless, but the idea that the government can just step back completely and let drug use run rampant is also naive.

Is it?

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM

Um, yes. It is.

No collectivised economy can give its subject the right to use recreational drugs. If you did that, America would degenerate into chaos practically overnight.

The Welfare state must be dismantled BEFORE you can let people have any other freedoms. Once people have to work for a living, pay for their own medical care, etc., etc…. THEN we can discuss drug laws as a purely elective moral issue, and not one moment before.

This is why – for all practical purposes – liberals and liberaltarians blend into a big fuzzy haze. You give no thought whatsoever as to how to GET to this perfect Utopia you all want to live in.

logis on June 15, 2010 at 11:18 PM

No collectivised economy can give its subject the right to use recreational drugs. If you did that, America would degenerate into chaos practically overnight.

Uhm, America isn’t a “collectivised economy.”
At least not yet, Lenin.
People already have the right to use recreational drugs–they’re called alcoholic beverages.

The Welfare state must be dismantled BEFORE you can let people have any other freedoms.
logis on June 15, 2010 at 11:18 PM

You don’t “let” people have “freedoms!”
Our Constitution is supposed to restrain the government from taking away peoples’ God-given Freedoms.
Are you posting from Russia???

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Did you see Palin’s take on drugs when she was on Judge Napolitano’s show?

Smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em!

Pretty reasonable.

gary4205 on June 15, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Sarah and I share that Libertarian streak!
I love her completely!

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 11:23 PM

Mike Huckabee is not a conservative in any definition of the term.
gary4205 on June 15, 2010 at 11:13 PM

Actually, Huckabee does meet one incredibly narrow definition of the term conservative.

As Fred Thompson said during the primaries: “Huckabee is strongly opposed to abortion – and that’s great. But can anybody name ONE other thing he’s conservative about?”

It seemed to me that the Republican Party was Balkanized during the 2008 Primary. Every candidate – except one – had a single issue about which he was hard core. McCain had defense; Romney had his business success; Huckabee wanted to be America’s Reverend In Chief…

There was only one Reagan-style conservative in the mix. Unfortunately he turned out to be a “lazy actor.” And, as everyone knows, that made him unelectable.

logis on June 15, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Are you posting from Russia???
Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 11:22 PM

Speaking of which: how’s that “truce” working out for you druggies so far?

logis on June 15, 2010 at 11:32 PM

Speaking of which: how’s that “truce” working out for you druggies so far?

logis on June 15, 2010 at 11:32 PM

I don’t use illicit drugs.
And I have no idea what you mean by a “truce.”
Perhaps you are the one smoking the funny stuff…?

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Every candidate – except one – had a single issue about which he was hard core. McCain had defense;

John McCain had bupkis.
I don’t remember a single issue that he was either “hard core” about, much less Conservative.
He yapped alot about certain earmarks, though.

Romney had his business success; Huckabee wanted to be America’s Reverend In Chief…

These are not issues, nor should they be.
The President is not elected to be either a business man or a minister.

There was only one Reagan-style conservative in the mix. Unfortunately he turned out to be a “lazy actor.” And, as everyone knows, that made him unelectable.

logis on June 15, 2010 at 11:29 PM

I gave money to Fred’s campaign, but he just couldn’t get his campaign going…or something.
Still like him immensely and listen to his radio show sometimes.

Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 11:45 PM

Well, butterfly kisses and teddy-bear hugs all around! Now that we know Daniels is an idiot, we can move on to someone who want to win and destroy the Left.
`
“The best thing in life is ‘To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of the women.’” ~ Conan the Barbarian

Adjoran on June 15, 2010 at 11:49 PM

And I have no idea what you mean by a “truce.” Perhaps you are the one smoking the funny stuff who knows how to read a headline…?
Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Actually, that would tend to explain quite a lot.

logis on June 15, 2010 at 11:51 PM

Dear Mitch,
Sir you have been a disappointment. If we are not for “life”, what are we for? If you are looking to run as President, I can’t support going forward.

Thank you.

antisocial on June 15, 2010 at 11:59 PM

If controlled substances were legal, the prices would drop like a rock.
It’s their illegality that makes them expensive.
Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 10:59 PM

I am going to have to look into situations where the government got involved and prices went down.

Cindy Munford on June 16, 2010 at 12:03 AM

Mitch has sound morals, they would inform his policy decisions. All he’s saying is to work on the issue that much of the country is agreeing on.

If we could reduce the size and scope of government, that would have a positive effect on most social issues, anyway.

hawksruleva on June 16, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Well, butterfly kisses and teddy-bear hugs all around! Now that we know Daniels is an idiot, we can move on to someone who want to win and destroy the Left.
Adjoran on June 15, 2010 at 11:49 PM

It’s the only option they give us.

Now, if a DEMOCRAT offered to stop trying to wreck America’s social fabric for two freaking seconds in a row, I might at least consider the possibility of putting down my throat-slitter for a minute and (warily) taking a seat at the negotiating table with him to talk about abolishing the Welfare State.

But when liberals are fighting every single issue just as fanatically as they ever have, and someone who claims to be on “my side” tells me I should give away things I believe in so that HE can get along better with “our” enemy… Um, no. I think I’ll keep the sharp stuff right here handy thank you very much.

logis on June 16, 2010 at 12:11 AM

All he’s saying is to work on the issue that much of the country is agreeing on.
hawksruleva on June 16, 2010 at 12:10 AM

Um, OF COURSE that’s not all he is saying.

Because, obviously, if he were ONLY talking about the economy, then he would ONLY be talking about the economy, now, wouldn’t he?

Oh, and hey, here’s an idea: he could simply NOT bring up anything else, at all.

How hard would that be?

But, you see, that’s not what he’s doing. Instead, he is – repeatedly – bringing up every other subject in the world BESIDES the economy, and telling us all how he wants to surrender on all of those issues.

Now, do you see the part where that’s not talking about the economy?

logis on June 16, 2010 at 12:34 AM

Gary 4205,
The only problem with having someone like Sarah who as you say wants to “take on” the Dems, she is considered to be very confrontational. You may think that’s good, but many people think she is filled with hate. Why do you think she scores so high in unfavorability ratings in polls? She might be able to win the Republican nomination with all that hatred, but she would never be able to win the general election because the moderates and Independents can’t stand her. She is always putting those people down….does she think they will all of the sudden vote for her in a general election? No way!

My spouse and I helped out at two different alcohol and drug meetings where we met several times a week with the participants of these programs. Most of the people were court ordered to attend. I learned a lot! These people all started with pot and admitted that soon they wanted to get more of a high and started getting cocaine, meth, etc. These people sometimes would come out of jail and start dealing or getting drugs immediately. Their lives were a mess, and they are so addicted to these “highs” they want that no matter the consequences. I worked at a very good job in the Human Resources Dept. and I guarantee you anybody with a record or a drug problem would never be hired. These people ruined their lives as far as getting a good job. If we get drugs legalized, there would be thousands more addicts who will miss work, use too much to hold down a job, not be there for their family because the drugs are more important, etc. Our society is bad enough now without asking for more problems like legalizing more bad habits.

VFT on June 16, 2010 at 1:04 AM

If controlled substances were legal, the prices would drop like a rock.
It’s their illegality that makes them expensive.
Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 10:59 PM
I am going to have to look into situations where the government got involved and prices went down.

Cindy Munford on June 16, 2010 at 12:03 AM

I mean really? A layup so easy like this one, and no one’s bitten yet? See Alchohol, Price of, 6 Dec 1933.

flashoverride on June 16, 2010 at 1:07 AM

Our society is bad enough now without asking for more problems like legalizing more bad habits.

Good evening, Mr. Orwell.

flashoverride on June 16, 2010 at 1:08 AM

Perhaps you are the one smoking the funny stuff who knows how to read a headline…?
Jenfidel on June 15, 2010 at 11:42 PM

Actually, that would tend to explain quite a lot.

logis on June 15, 2010 at 11:51 PM

I’m tired, it’s been a long day and I have a lot on my mind.
Sue me.
As usual, the topic of the thread got lost in other “issues” like the War on Drugs…

Jenfidel on June 16, 2010 at 3:31 AM

Have you ever noticed that the first one to plead for a “truce” is the one who’s losing????

landlines on June 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM

You mean like how the social con stance on gay marriage is becoming a losing proposition? Anti-abortion rhetoric is what drives many–probably most–well-educated Democrats into the hands of their economically and historically illiterate party.

thuja on June 16, 2010 at 6:05 AM

LOLZ! So the “War of Drugs” is one worst things going on in this country?!! What are you smoking dude? You guys can’t be serious.

Mike OMalley on June 15, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Please, tell me. What are the positive effects of the war on drugs?

In other words, is the price we’ve bad, approximately a trillion dollars, worth the war?

Notorious GOP on June 15, 2010 at 9:38 PM

.
For emphasis and clarity let us stay on point. In the Summer of 2008 we barely avoided falling into a second worldwide Great Depression and we might very well double dip with that same risk of worldwide Great Depression again. The unemployment rate and under employment rate hover at European socialist welfare state levels, the day has arrived when Social Security’s cash flow goes permanently into the red. Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable and will strip away the USA’s ability to defend itself and will bankrupt this country. We’ve just been Rahmed into a health care trap that will within a decade create conditions that would make Dr. Mengela salivate. We are under attack by Islamic Jihad which has murders maybe as many as 270,000,000 people in 1.400 years, The genocidal Iranian Twelvers may soon obtain nuclear weapons, Venezuela in cooperating with the Iranian Twelvers, the USA continues to have a dangerously unsustainable international trade deficit, The illegitimacy rate in the USA hovers at 1 in 4 births for whites, 1 in 3 for Hispanics and 2 in 3 for black Americans, around 1.4 million unborn American children are kill each year … one can go on and on, but I take it Notorious GOP that you were engaging in rhetorical hyperbola because no mature informed responsible person could possibly say, with sobriety and serious intent that “the “War of Drugs” is one worst things going on in this country”. Wouldn’t you agree?

Mike OMalley on June 16, 2010 at 6:26 AM

Whether you think so or not, Mike Huckabee is a strong Executive leader. He has 13 1/2 years executive experience as Lt. Governor and Governor of Arkansas…VFT on June 15, 2010 at 10:47 PM

.
Thank you for your thoughtful and extended reply VFT. I printed it out and read it with care.
.
We would have been much better served on January 20, 2009 if someone with the executive experience of Gov.s Huckabee or Palin had been sworn in as POTUS. Heck we would have been better served if liberal African American Democratic mayor of Washington DC, Adrian Fenty had become POTUS! Examples of the candidates I was alluding too would be: Rudy Guliani. Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfelt, all of whom are today unelectable and each of whom would require comprise for me.
.
I’ve no preferred viable candidate for POTUS going into this round. I’m open to giving Huckabee a second look. For background I’m a former radical Leftist and a long time conservative Republican NeoCon. I’m also a Mass attending Roman Catholic. Generally mass attending American Catholics find much to like in Evangelical American politicians. We noticed right off however that “Huck” was unable to convey his thoughts in more neutral natural law argument form unlike Mitt Romney. Huck however is saying things that Americans need to considered and unfortunately Libertarians are once again “acting out” like useful idiots and doing more damage than good. These guys spend too much effort indescriminately damaging their coalition partners and rarely do they seem (IMHO) to be able to get their act together to make a net positive contribution to American politics.
.
(IMHO) They need to grow up and get serious.

Mike OMalley on June 16, 2010 at 7:36 AM

So Daniels wants a bigger tent by playing down social issues, and by attempting to enlarge the Republican base, he alienates large swathes of the already existing Traditional base…does he know how dumb he sounds? No we aren’t children, and we aren’t stupid.

Obama is ahead of the Republicans, when he got that lousy health care bill passed. When the Republicans were talking jobs as a priority. Obama basically said that they – the Democrats could walk and chew gum at the same time, take on more than one issue at a time. I guess Daniels isn’t that politically limber GRIN.

Dr Evil on June 16, 2010 at 8:07 AM

Mike Huckabee said that to win in 2012, we must get back to our Republican roots, not just go after the moderates and Independents. Mike Huckabee does believe in fiscal conservatism very strongly and thinks that most Social Conservatives want fiscal policies too. But, fiscal conservatives need to promote the platform of the Republican Party and stand for all of it..not just the fiscal part.

Then why did he run as a fiscal liberal in the last presidential primary. Evangelicals who back Huckabee are kidding themselves into thinking he is conservative on any issues but gay marriage and abortion. He is a populist, which means liberal most of the time. It means entitlement programs and spending. I haven’t heard his position on immigration, but would not at all be surprised to find that he is for a “nuanced approach” (meaning amnesty). He would be a horrible president. If he were to win the primary, I would be hard pressed to vote for him. His tenure as governor of arkansas was of a tax and spend liberal. He raised both taxes and spending. How anyone can see that and kid themselves that he is some kind of conservative is the same as the people who looked at Obama and thought he would be a centrist. Past actions demonstrate what someone will do in the future. His past actions demonstrate that he will tax and spend. And, any speeches he gave on economic issues showed his economic illitericy. He generally parroted keynsian beliefs.

Monkeytoe on June 16, 2010 at 8:30 AM

Have you ever noticed that the first one to plead for a “truce” is the one who’s losing????

landlines on June 15, 2010 at 9:35 PM

You mean like how the social con stance on gay marriage is becoming a losing proposition? Anti-abortion rhetoric is what drives many–probably most–well-educated Democrats into the hands of their economically and historically illiterate party.

thuja on June 16, 2010 at 6:05 AM

What world are you living in? Poll after poll shows the public, at best evenly split on abortion, but a vast majority with pro-life veiws on anything past the first trimeter.

As to gay marriage, every poll and referendum shows the vast majority supports the traditional definition of marriage.

Neither gay marriage or abortion are my main issues, and I am happy to let the state’s decide those issues. But to claim they are “losing” for conservatives is to wish away reality.

Monkeytoe on June 16, 2010 at 8:33 AM

We would have been much better served on January 20, 2009 if someone with the executive experience of Gov.s Huckabee or Palin had been sworn in as POTUS. Heck we would have been better served if liberal African American Democratic mayor of Washington DC, Adrian Fenty had become POTUS!
Mike OMalley on June 16, 2010 at 7:36 AM

Right around 98% percent of the US population would have made a better President than Barack Hussein Obama. Even if the ONLY criteria you allowed yourself to look at were executive experience, there are still literally millions of people infinitely superior to Obama in that regard.

That’s why talking in those terms is defeatist. As he is so very fond of reminding us, Obama WON.

A man utterly unqualified for a position of any responsibility whatsoever was elected President of the United States of America only because he fully embraced and personified the liberal ideology.

In America today, over TWICE as many people describe themselves as “conservative” as describe themselves as “liberals.”

So maybe, just maybe, it’s time to quit arguing about who is “better” than Obama in one area or another area, and start talking about which candidate is the most conservative — in every aspect of that word.

logis on June 16, 2010 at 8:35 AM

Kiss my vote good-bye in the primary if you decide to run for president and my gut says you have made the decision to run with this short sighted request. If you can’t stand the heat Daniels, turn off the stove and go live a comfortable life in retirement on your nice government retirement checks.

devolvingtowardsidiocracy on June 16, 2010 at 8:36 AM

And, to follow up on my above about “educated democrats” and “anti-abortion rhetoric”, most highly educated liberals I know (Post Graduate degrees) are just shy of marxists in their beliefs. They are pro-choice because that is what good liberals are, not because they feel that strongly about it. If the dems went whole on pro-life but kept their wealth redistribution policies, most of the “highly educated” democrats would not bat an eye and would get right on board. It is the socialism they care about passionately, not abortion. They just use abortion as a wedge issue to get ignorant women who believe they are feminists to stay on the plantation.

Monkeytoe on June 16, 2010 at 8:37 AM

So maybe, just maybe, it’s time to quit arguing about who is “better” than Obama in one area or another area, and start talking about which candidate is the most conservative — in every aspect of that word.

logis on June 16, 2010 at 8:35 AM

.
You missed my point, Logis. I was explaining to VFT that while Huck has executive experience and would be without doubt needed improvement over Pres. Obama, Huck doesn’t have the level of experience that I think job of POTUS requires this round.

That’s why talking in those terms is defeatist. As he is so very fond of reminding us, Obama WON.

A man utterly unqualified for a position of any responsibility whatsoever was elected President of the United States of America only because he fully embraced and personified the liberal ideology.

In America today, over TWICE as many people describe themselves as “conservative” as describe themselves as “liberals.”

.
Obama won in no small part because Libertarians and Small-gov’t Conservatives among others got played in 2006 and 2008 with sufficient their numbers staying away from Republican candidates to make the sweep of the Left’s victories possible.
.
I pose you a question Logis. Congressman Bob Barr ran against the Republicans as a Libertarian in 2008 in order to purify the Conservative movement of Social-Con spending and against an active defense in the GWOT. Will Libertarians and Small Gov’t Conservatives now be able to pull and hold together a majority coalition which will rollback enough of the structural damage done in just four years by the Left’s victory to make it worth Bob Barr’s effort? If not why is there no critique among Liberarians et al of Cong. Barr and those who abandoned the coalition in 2006 and 2008?

Mike OMalley on June 16, 2010 at 9:08 AM

In America today, over TWICE as many people describe themselves as “conservative” as describe themselves as “liberals.” logis on June 16, 2010 at 8:35 AM

.
And maybe if Libertarians and Social-Lib-FiscalCons would stop mocking, degrading and undermining coalition partners and L-I-S-T-E-N maybe Libertarians and Social-Lib-FiscalCons might come to understand the Left’s “Long March” through American institutions to victory and why the Left understands how defeat for conservatives in the Culture Wars mean permanent defeat of conservatives.

Mike OMalley on June 16, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Get out of the way for Christie. Huckabee and Palin are already too well known and damaged as a result.

JeffB. on June 16, 2010 at 9:42 AM

So should meth labs be a legitimate home business?

ddrintn on June 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Again, I ask: What are the positive effects of this “War on Drugs?”

Notorious GOP on June 16, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Mike OMalley on June 16, 2010 at 6:26 AM

You’re right. I probably mis-spoke. Probably not the worst things, but it’s a phony war and we should stop pretending it’s doing anything positive for this country. It’s doing more harm than good.

Notorious GOP on June 16, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Again, I ask: What are the positive effects of this “War on Drugs?”

Notorious GOP on June 16, 2010 at 9:43 AM

I prefer the fiscal frame: What return have we realized on our massive investment in the War on Drugs?

Pablo on June 16, 2010 at 9:55 AM

Tilting at Windmills and other noisy stuff!

Sounds like the man on a White Horse err RINO!

Don’t presume to lecture on priorities guv,
its a full court press – and long past due!
Heave the Tea!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on June 16, 2010 at 10:06 AM

What return have we realized on our massive investment in the War on Drugs?
Pablo on June 16, 2010 at 9:55 AM

The Grim Reaper…

Start by counting all the the K’s of Kilos of SH!T
that got incinerated vs. injected into a kids body!

“Let’s Roll”

On Watch on June 16, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Notorious GOP on June 16, 2010 at 9:46 AM

.
Thank you Notorious GOP.
.
Maybe we can pick up the discussion about the War of Drugs some other time. I happen to think it is effective and serves America. But I’ve got no time for that discussion now. :-(
.
You should appreciate however that under Pres. Bush and John Walters the DEA became a very effective anti-terrorist operation.

Mike OMalley on June 16, 2010 at 10:26 AM

It seems to me that most posters truly miss Mitch Daniels point. When your house is on fire you don’t bitch about the neighbors barking dog.

TomLawler on June 16, 2010 at 11:52 AM

It seems to me that most posters truly miss Mitch Daniels point. When your house is on fire you don’t bitch about the neighbors barking dog.

TomLawler on June 16, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Again, maybe if clarified what he means, I could agree with that simple analogy.

Does a truce on “divisive” issues mean that we leave Obamacare as is?

If so, then he is not serious about righting the fiscal ship and deserves no support.

Does it mean we leave border enforcement and illegal immigration as is?

If so, then he is not serious about righting the fiscal ship and deserves no support.

If cap and trade passes, do we leave it as it is because repealing it would be divisive?

If card check passes, do we leave it because repealing it would be divisive?

What does a “truce” mean in regards to supreme court and other judicial appointments? that we only nominate judges the democrats approve of?

And do you really believe that cutting spending and dealing with taxes (either cuts or increases) will not be “divisive”? What entitlements are we cutting that the dems won’t think is divisive? What taxes do we agree to increase in order not to be “divisive”?

What about regulations?

One of the 2 important things facing the country, according to even Daniels, is the defeat of islamic terrorism. Last time I checked, how we go about fighting the war on terror is divisive (rendition, waterboarding, Guantanamo, Iraq). How does he propose to make that non-divisive? Or, as part of the “truce” do we only do those things the democrats agree are o.k.?

Only a simpleton would think you could call a truce on divisive issues. That is why Daniels has just declared himself unfit for the presidency in my book. He is saying one of two things:

1) I will pretty much only do what democrats agree with; or

2) I don’t understand the issues involved.

Monkeytoe on June 16, 2010 at 1:29 PM

I’m curious – if we stop bothering with the “War on Drugs” can we also stop bothering with treating and supporting addicts?

katiejane on June 16, 2010 at 2:09 PM

It seems to me that most posters truly miss Mitch Daniels point. When your house is on fire you go get your baseball card collection first, and leave the baby to die, because what the hell is a baby going to do for you?

TomLawler on June 16, 2010 at 11:52 AM

I translated your translation into what Daniels and his newfound libertarian fans really think.

joe_doufu on June 16, 2010 at 2:11 PM

It seems to me that most posters truly miss Mitch Daniels point. When your house is on fire you don’t bitch about the neighbors barking dog.

TomLawler on June 16, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Yes, because we all know abortion is just a nuisance like your neighbors barking chihuahua. Great analogy! /sarc

Thanks though for nicley illustrating why Daniels have totally blown it with a huge number of Republican primary voters. No wonder why his candidacy is dead on arrival.

Norwegian on June 16, 2010 at 2:20 PM

I translated your translation into what Daniels and his newfound libertarian fans really think.

joe_doufu on June 16, 2010 at 2:11 PM

.
Yep, baby = neighbors barking chihuahua!

Does anyone want to guess why the Left figured that they could roll enough Libertarians to win the 2008 trifecta? (POTUS, Overwhelming control of the House and filibuster-proof Senate)

Mike OMalley on June 16, 2010 at 2:38 PM

Daniels continued, “I chose the word truce because no one has to change their point and no one has to surrender. Simply, we have to come together to address what I believe are the most urgent problems of the country.

The governor’s broader concern about the limits and priorities of government is certainly warranted. Our government hides behind infighting to ignore looming existential crises, and yet is currently micromanaging your salt intake and making sure employers don’t have unpaid interns.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Indiana-governor-right-to-prioritize-debt-over-social-issues-96255944.html#ixzz0r362EXch

If we don’t solve the deficit/debt problem, social conservatives wont have to worry about the “culture war.” The collapse of the federal government and several states will see to it we’re not bothered by questions like abortion, or gay marriage.

Keith_Indy on June 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

If we don’t solve the deficit/debt problem, social conservatives wont have to worry about the “culture war.” The collapse of the federal government and several states will see to it we’re not bothered by questions like abortion, or gay marriage.

Keith_Indy on June 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

On the contrary! The collapse of the Republic will mean we can finally just start shooting the social liberals until they give up on abortion and agree that the judicial branch should apply actual law instead of making it up as they go along. It could be a good opportunity to set things right.

joe_doufu on June 16, 2010 at 4:24 PM

The collapse of the federal government and several states will see to it we’re not bothered by questions like abortion, or gay marriage.

Keith_Indy on June 16, 2010 at 4:16 PM

.
You betcha we won’t have to worry about our current culture war. If the USA experiences financial collapse of government we’ll likely end up with Sharia which provides straight forward bans of abortion and gays gay marriage.

Mike OMalley on June 16, 2010 at 4:29 PM

Monkeytoe,

Mike Huckabee did NOT run as a fiscal liberal in the last election. He ran as a Conservative. All of you need to think about what condition his state was in when he took office. It is a very poor state (Arkansas). The state grew a lot during Gov. Huckabee’s tenure (10 1/2 yrs.) as Governor. That’s why there was more spending because the state did not have much of a staff when he was elected, the state grew a lot; therefore, the spending increased. You all have probably believed the half-truths that Mitt Romney’s ads and Club for Growth ads showed about Mike Huckabee’s record in Arkansas. Go to HucksArmy.com and click on the issues to get the other side of the story about his tenure in Arkansas. He lowered the taxes more than any other Governor had done, but yes he raised taxes too. The people wanted him to improve the state and with no money, he did the best he could. He always stated that he governed Arkansas in a Conservative way, so he did not push his policies as fiscal liberal. If Mike Huckabee were to become President, he would govern as a Conservative. Don’t any of you realize that if Mike Huckabee did anything else, he wouldn’t get a second term?

When he was Governor, he did not push his religion on the people in Arkansas, and promised to not do that as President either. In Hucksarmy, we have athiest, past Democrats, Evangelicals and fiscal conservatives who totally support Mike Huckabee. I have read many statements from people who listened to the bad information about Mike Huckabee and didn’t like him. Then they saw him at debates and giving speeches, and decided to do their own research, and found that the stories were not correct. They firmly believe that he is the best choice of the Republicans to beat Obama. We don’t think he is perfect, no candidate is, but he is far and away the best choice we have in 2012.

I know some of you think he is soft on crime because of the big stink with the four police officer’s deaths in the state of WA last year. The 16 yr. old black boy was convicted for robbery and aggravated assault. He did not use a gun. Yet he was sentenced to 204 yrs. in prison. Mike Huckabee was asked by a judge and the parole board to consider commuting his sentence. He sent the notice out to 7 people who were active in the Ark. government, including the District Attorney, and asked for their input as to whether he should give a commutation to the boy. NOBODY sent back any negative feedback. Gov. Huckabee signed the form to give to the Parole Boarde, and they made the decision to give him a lower sentence. Gov. Huckabee saw many, many injustices in Arkansas in how the judges gave the blacks much higher sentences than the white people for the same crimes. He had no problem with the people getting a guilty verdit, but because the blacks did not have the money for a lawyer, they got a much higher sentence. Yes, he was compassionate, but he didn’t use his religious beliefs to justify his actions. There were 1,044 pardons, commutations, etc, but out of that number, only 236 were given for inmates in prison. The rest were for people who had already served their time, but wanted a pardon so they could get a job.

As far as being a populist, Sarah Palin has been labeled a populist too, and I don’t hear anybody on this site being against her for that!

VFT on June 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM

So should meth labs be a legitimate home business?

ddrintn on June 15, 2010 at 9:55 PM

Again, I ask: What are the positive effects of this “War on Drugs?”

Notorious GOP on June 16, 2010 at 9:43 AM

That didn’t answer the question. Should home meth labs be a legit business?

ddrintn on June 16, 2010 at 5:09 PM

Have you guys even read what he says, or are you only reading what others have commented and opined???

“What we’ve seen in the past year, what I call shock-and-awe statism, has put the American experiment at risk,” he said. “For the first time in my life, the country faces survival-level issues.”

Those would be, along with “terrorism in a WMD world,” the national debt and the recurring federal deficits.

“There are things that I would advance as a candidate that the playbook says are folly—suicidal,” he said. “We’d have to fundamentally change all the welfare and entitlement programs. What Bush tried to do [in proposing private accounts for Social Security] was mild compared to what needs to be done. You have to have a completely new compact for people under a certain age, for Medicare and Social Security. You’re gonna have to dramatically cut spending across the whole government, including, by the way, national defense. When Bush arrived, we were spending $300 billion on national defense, and he thought that was plenty. Now it’s, what, $800 billion?”

Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Daniels’s telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. He’s an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views don’t matter. “I don’t know if the CO2 zealots are right,” he said. “But I don’t care, because we can’t afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isn’t going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.”

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “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 the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state. He serves as an elder at the Tabernacle Presbyterian Church, in inner-city Indianapolis, which he’s attended for 50 years. In 1998, with a few other couples from Tabernacle and a nearby Baptist congregation, he and his wife founded a “Christ-centered” school, The Oaks Academy, in a downtown neighborhood the local cops called “Dodge City.” It’s flourishing now with 315 mostly poor kids who pursue a classical education: Latin from third grade on, logic in middle school, rhetoric in eighth grade, an emphasis throughout on the treasures of Western Civilization. “It’s the most important thing I’ve ever been involved in,” he told me. His social-conservative credentials are solid.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/ride-along-mitch?page=11

Keith_Indy on June 16, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Daniels is the latest in a series of back up candidates the “Anybody but Sarah” moderate/liberal wing is trying to line up if when Mitt falters.

bw222 on June 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM

Have you guys even read what he says, or are you only reading what others have commented and opined???

Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Daniels’s telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance…

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “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 the economic issues are resolved…

Keith_Indy on June 16, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Yes, we’ve read it. Have you?

joe_doufu on June 16, 2010 at 5:46 PM

A. Focus on the debt, cutting spending, cutting taxes, repealing Obamacare. Strict-constructionist, anti-ROE SCOTUS nominees. Other than that, status quo on social issues. America gets out of debt, survives.
B. Spread attention across several controversial issues. Get nothing major accomplished on any issue including the debt. America goes bankrupt and becomes a third-rate power. China the EU, and Russia become the worlds superpowers (none are known for promoting culture of life).

Raisedbywolves on June 16, 2010 at 11:43 PM

A. Crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.

B. Concede defeat the day before the election.

joe_doufu on June 17, 2010 at 12:29 AM

Again, I ask: What are the positive effects of this “War on Drugs?”

Putting worthless human detritus like druggies and potheads in jail, of course. What a silly question.

combatwombat on June 17, 2010 at 1:42 AM

.

Again, I ask: What are the positive effects of this “War on Drugs?”

.
Putting worthless human detritus like druggies and potheads in jail, of course. What a silly question.

combatwombat on June 17, 2010 at 1:42 AM

.
… and reducing debilitating drug use among children, teens and young adults so that fewer of them become “worthless human detritus like druggies and potheads”.
.
Some years ago one Reason magazine published an essay by one of their editors, I recall, conceding that a consequence of “ending the Drug War” would be appreciable increases in debilitating drug use among children, teens and adults. The essayist argued, I recall, that the extent of the consequent increased social damage caused by such increased use of formerly illegal drugs could be contained by the use of social stigma against drug use to be fostered by private groups such as churches. Needless to say I stopped buying Reason magazine shortly thereafter because Reason magazine evidenced ongoing and significant hostility to churches effecting any moral teaching by way of social stigma. It was clear to me that the Libertarians at Reason magazine had no responsible public policy advice to offer on this issue. (Has anything changed?

Mike OMalley on June 17, 2010 at 6:34 AM

The first time the dimocraps have set themselves up for a death blow and Mitch wants to declare a truce. Sounds about as stupid as halting the bombing campaigns in Vietnam every time we took down the north’s air defenses.

Slowburn on June 17, 2010 at 6:36 AM

My spouse and I helped out at two different alcohol and drug meetings where we met several times a week with the participants of these programs. Most of the people were court ordered to attend. I learned a lot! These people all started with pot and admitted that soon they wanted to get more of a high and started getting cocaine, meth, etc. These people sometimes would come out of jail and start dealing or getting drugs immediately. Their lives were a mess, and they are so addicted to these “highs” they want that no matter the consequences. I worked at a very good job in the Human Resources Dept. and I guarantee you anybody with a record or a drug problem would never be hired. These people ruined their lives as far as getting a good job. If we get drugs legalized, there would be thousands more addicts who will miss work, use too much to hold down a job, not be there for their family because the drugs are more important, etc. Our society is bad enough now without asking for more problems like legalizing more bad habits.

VFT on June 16, 2010 at 1:04 AM

There is no evidence that the drug laws have made a statistically significant reduction in drug use, thus there is no evidence that repealing the drug laws will cause a statistically significant increase in drug users. And if the prohibition was lifted, much of the negative results of drug use would be reduced.

Slowburn on June 17, 2010 at 6:50 AM

As far as being a populist, Sarah Palin has been labeled a populist too, and I don’t hear anybody on this site being against her for that!

VFT on June 16, 2010 at 4:51 PM

I’m sorry, I listened to what Huckabee actually said during that primary and things he has said since then. He consistently calls for spending programs and sounds like a liberal on many issues. The only time I hear him sound like a conservative is when he is talking about things like abortion.

You can claim I was lied to by ads from his opponents, but I wasn’t, I listened to things he actually said. And, the defense of why he “had to raise taxes” and “had to increase spending” is weak at best. The nation is still growing. The U.S.’s population increases with every census. Does that mean he will “have to increase spending” and “have to increase taxes” as president? Tax and spenders can always rationalize why they “have to” tax and spend. Apparently there were no other possible solutions in Arkansas. Such a silly argument.

I know the evangelicals love him, and despite what you say, he has almost no supporters who are not evangelicals. But you love him for his religion, not his policies.

Granting clemency to a murderer because he claimed to have found Christ (and giving 10X more pardons then even Clinton), calling the club for growth the “club for greed”, raising taxes, raising spending, support for “cap and trade”, in the past he agreed w/ W’s immigration plans and claimed that hispanic immigration gave the U.S. a chance to prove it was not racist, all combine to show a guy who is not a serious conservative. He is saying most of the right things right now, but I do not believe that he believes any of it, aside from that which flows from religion – i.e., abortion, gay marriage, etc. He is of the “compassionate conservative” ilk that sees gov’t as a way to “help people”, which ultimately is dangerous b/c it leads to entitlement programs and the like.

He’s not a bad guy, just not a true conservative on issues outside of abortion and gay marriage. He would inevitably move to the left if he is elected.

And for someone who claimed that he would put his religion in the background, he sure did bring it up a lot in the primary. I will be sad if the evangelicals allow religion to split the social con vote from qualified conservatives, which will leave us with another McCain type candidate.

Monkeytoe on June 17, 2010 at 8:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3