President Should Call "Truce" on Social Issues

[Julie Marie]

Daniels suggests 'truce' on social issues

Governor: Next president should focus on economy. (LINK)

By Deanna Martin
of The Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS — Gov. Mitch Daniels said his recent comment that the next president should call a "truce" on social issues reflects how urgently he feels about other problems such as the economy, national debt, homeland security and America's role in the world.

Daniels said Friday that the idea of a social truce was just a suggestion.

"I picked the word truce because no one has to change their point of view. No one has to surrender," Daniels said. "We might simply try to come together. I think it will take that if we're going to address what I believe are the most urgent problems of the country."

Daniels riled some social conservatives after The Weekly Standard reported his idea for the truce in a flattering profile this week. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2012, said on his website that social issues are moral issues, not political issues or bargaining chips.

Seems Daniels is waffling on his idea.  You gotta love the "social conservatives" aka bigoted phobes.

"Governor Daniels is a personal friend and a terrific governor, and I'm very disappointed that he would think that pro-life and pro-family activists would just lie down," Huckabee says on his site before asking for donations for his political action committee.

So even a cease fire, at least until things like the economy, BP disaster, foreign affairs, settle down, is out of the question for the likes of Mike Huckabee and other social conservatives.  They want to keep fanning the flames and keep America fighting amongst themselves.

And they say we're the problem?

[justmeinoz]

Is this Huckabee the same one that a Canadian comedian, posing as a journalist interviewed.( See YouTube -"How to talk to Americans".)

He had him congratulate Canada on preventing their Parliament building, supposedly made of ice, from melting by putting it in a giant glass dome.

What the Hell is going on over there?

[Julie Marie]

Mitch Daniels is a loser that is in the back pocket of various industries. Anyone that has any sense in this state knows this.

You're describing most American politicians.  They all have big money pulling the puppet strings.

[Miniar]

'truce' = no changes = the conservatives have their way...

[tekla]

Actually I think a truce would leave most of the US population in a pretty liberal place.  Most of the movement on social issues in the last 30 years has been a retrograde motion.

And, to the degree that the author is thinking that the social stuff is smoke and mirrors to distract people from some very real, pressing, and systemic problems I'm going to agree with them.

[glendagladwitch]

The reason we are so divided and deadlocked over hot button issues is that theses issues are the ones that motivate donors.  Legislation is designed to fail so that the donations will keep poring in. Why would they focus on anything else?

[gennee]

While homeland security, the economy, and the national debt are important,  social issues are just as important and affect many people on a daily basis.

Gennee

[Julie Marie]

The reason we are so divided and deadlocked over hot button issues is that theses issues are the ones that motivate donors.  Legislation is designed to fail so that the donations will keep poring in. Why would they focus on anything else?

Well stated.  There is no doubt politicians, as well as anyone who is trying to get people to rally around them, do so by evoking a strong emotional response.  Claiming things like "you will lose this or that" or the world as we know it will end, get the non-thinking public worked up into a feeding frenzy.  Common sense goes out the door.

While homeland security, the economy, and the national debt are important,  social issues are just as important and affect many people on a daily basis.

Yes they are but the point here is these so-called leaders use social issues to divide and conquer. Then they tell their supporters they will take care of them.  All you have to do is vote for them or make a small donation and everything will be alright.

[Kaelin]

Of course he's going to say this -- his party is the one out of power and hence is the one currently losing ground on this front.  I the economy hasn't improved significantly by 2012, which provides the Republicans their best opening of actually winning the Presidential election (and probably would have gained control of Congress), I expect him to play a different tune (or at least play it much more softly).

Obama, so far, has done us the favor of not starting any wars of choice, so even if achieving the result comes from a lack of action (or rather relying on diplomacy and sanctions), he has done at least that much to bolster "homeland security."

The economy itself is sort of mixed.  Things are looking fairly mediocre and flat for the US, but there are areas in the developed world where things are going quite badly, and a certain amount of "success" may simply be avoiding those more disastrous outcomes.

The national debt is a problem -- our country spends more than it collects in taxes (partly because of nearly flat real GDP, partly because of tax rate cuts, and partly because of increased spending on Republican-friendly and Democratic-friendly programs), and it's difficult to make headway on this matter when the economy isn't growing and two wars are under way.  We may be able to do some little things, but we can't really do much until the economy turns around and/or we are no longer deploying our soldiers in such great numbers.

[LordKAT]

Even better, society call a truce on politicians. It might just go better for a while.

[tekla]

The election is still, in political terms, several lifetimes away.  It can be a real long way to November and recent elections are seemingly mixed repub v. dem, but it's been a hard fight for some of the incumbents.  Then again in many places the extreme base of the pubs have put some real nutjobs on the ballot, thus costing them elections - like Reed in Nevada - that they might well have won had they not been so busy riding the crazy train.  But there are a number of things cookin' on the old threat board right now, both foreign (which we tend to ignore until its way too late) and domestic (many of which are the kind of social issues that have transformed into political platforms on both sides, and have profited neither) that could well change the entire debate overnight.  It didn't seem like the environmental/energy stuff was going to be big this time, but that was last month, now its going to be a huge major issue.  So, it's really too early to say about any sort of major shift.

[gennee]

Well stated.  There is no doubt politicians, as well as anyone who is trying to get people to rally around them, do so by evoking a strong emotional response.  Claiming things like "you will lose this or that" or the world as we know it will end, get the non-thinking public worked up into a feeding frenzy.  Common sense goes out the door.

Yes they are but the point here is these so-called leaders use social issues to divide and conquer. Then they tell their supporters they will take care of them.  All you have to do is vote for them or make a small donation and everything will be alright.

This is why I've soured on politics, Julie. I have found alternative ways of working on these issues. I was a Democrat but I left the party several years ago because it was no longer speaking to me.

Gennee