tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000354369092786842.post7392778428895440580..comments2024-02-16T17:46:42.373-05:00Comments on Makes My Brain Itch: A decision for Mitch and Cheri DanielsScratcherMMBIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02606987419555567377noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000354369092786842.post-67040906203397191632011-05-17T13:41:56.406-04:002011-05-17T13:41:56.406-04:00As a lazy ass myself, I've cut & pasted my...As a lazy ass myself, I've cut & pasted my reply both places, too. :)<br /><br />I’m not worried because he’s an imperfect candidate. Remember, I like Gary Johnson who doesn’t come within a mile of what most R’s would call perfect. And I’m one of the few conservatives who applauded his suggestion of a truce on social issues. (Still do.) In fact, other than considering him a hypocrite about his pot use, I like Daniels well enough. At one point, I was hoping he’d join the fray.<br /><br />But it’s not just our side I’m worried about. That’s just the smallest taste of what’s to come. It’s the publicity in general. If Cheri Daniels found being the Governor’s wife overwhelming (as far as the attention) she’ll never be able to handle running for/being First Lady. Look at how the left has treated the entire Palin family, as a perfect example. I don’t think someone who’s already publicity-shy would get through such abuse – and it *will* come. In fact, they’ll treat Cheri worse. (Think about the schoolyard bully who always always goes after the easy prey. The media/blogs will be on her like sharks after a bleeding swimmer *because* it bothers her more.)<br /><br />To be perfectly blunt, I’m concerned she’ll crack under the pressure. Even if she doesn’t, the strain on their marriage will be enormous. While that’s not my personal problem, I don’t want the President (were he to win) distracted. And how could he not be?<br /><br />I respect and admire that Daniels is looking to his family before making such an enormous decision. And I’ll continue to admire him if he decides the risks to his loved ones and marriage aren’t worth it. (As I would, in his position.)<br /><br />It’s a shame that politics has become a blood sport… but it has, and I doubt it will get anything but worse. And the reality is, not everyone could handle it. I don’t think I could.<br /><br />But rather than view this as just an imperfect candidate – or worrying about so-cons leading to the primary – I see this as a breakdown waiting to happen. And I don’t want it happening in the White House.<br /><br />(Also… I admit to being a big softie at heart… they’ve come through hardships, and emerged at the other end together. That’s something to celebrate and be thankful for, not test further under even worse pressures.)ScratcherMMBIhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02606987419555567377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000354369092786842.post-22015796440568569562011-05-17T02:07:27.019-04:002011-05-17T02:07:27.019-04:00I guess I've just accepted that reality and wo...I guess I've just accepted that reality and would prefer to find a candidate that actually stands for something politically that makes sense; and who prefers to keep his private life - private. <br /><br />But again, I think you may be assuming too much by way of consistency here. The same group that wants to publicly tar and feather Daniels and/or his wife will be the first to jump on his bandwagon if and when the field narrows down to he and Romney. Then the discussion will not be about a man who's been married once to the same woman - once; it will suddenly be all about "conservatism" of the fiscal sort. In an instant, social issues will take a back seat to fiscal ones - just like they have chastised Daniels for suggesting. <br /><br />When one anchors their arguments to the flawed belief that there is but one moral and righteous code of conduct in this country, that person ignores the most Fundamental Principles rooted in the core of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The end result is a political "ideology" destined for inconsistency - and nothing else. That person; those people; are not conservatives. They are the people casting the first stone without an ounce of self-reflection; having never explored what the First Amendment was really all about.Republican Redefinedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456893108719506999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2000354369092786842.post-8330606043746466032011-05-17T02:06:57.002-04:002011-05-17T02:06:57.002-04:00I'm kinda lazy, so I'll post the same comm...I'm kinda lazy, so I'll post the same comment here, I posted over there. <br /><br />I really enjoyed your post Scratch; and no, it wasn't at all what I expected from you when you said you were working on A Daniels piece. <br /><br />I agree with your general point here; I simply believe you are assuming too much about the folks that will "weigh in" on the Daniels personal life. I think you are assuming "consistency" and I think that may be more than wishful thinking. <br /><br />Like I've said here a million times - why would anyone vote for a candidate that "says" he's a "family man", a Christian, a "good guy", or even a "social conservative?" Why do we take anyone at the word? Why do we assume that they would tell us if the converse were true? I suppose where I come down on these matters is to "judge" not the man or woman that the media or political opponents want to paint as something less than desirable, but rather to judge those that go out of their way to "prove" to me and everyone else that they're a "really good guy", a really good Christian, or a really good conservative. It just seems like insecurity manifesting itself in conservative rabble rousing. Frankly, it's lost on me. <br /><br />I guess my feelings on Daniels actually come from a place of respecting his decision(s) not to go out of his way to over-explain the matter. Sure, his weekend event of marching out his wife has been seen by most as a "testing the waters" of sorts, but on the whole, he has remained relatively silent. I respect that. <br /><br />Add that to the fact that his track record of taking actual steps to cut funding to Planned Parenthood in his state and the fact that he was way ahead of the curve on tackling unions in state government and I'd say that many who have "attacked him" for being soft on social issues because he called for a break in social debating are really missing the bigger picture. <br /><br />I guess my point is this. He comes off as a guy willing to do the difficult things in politics and cares very little for "explaining" himself to those who are typically quick to judge. I respect that. I appreciate that. <br /><br />I understand that as a political figure personal lives quickly become very public ones. That's not lost on me. I even understand that people want to know what "makes their candidates tick." I suppose where I become frustrated is with the idea that people really think they're going to find a person with a squeaky clean personal life; or why they'd want them at the end of the day if they found one. In fact, I don't think they'd accept it. Then the candidate would be "too clean." <br /><br />I guess what I'm saying here is I really don't look for saints when I go to the voting station. I accept that men are just that - men; fallible, flawed, human. I look to their politics and balance that against the man behind them. If the end result is more desirable than the alternative... I push the button and pull the lever. <br /><br />I wholeheartedly believe that there is a very substantial portion of the Right-wing world that would prefer a very flawed candidate politically who happened to "appear perfect" in his/her private life as opposed to a candidate with personal scars (not baggage) just like the rest of us. <br /><br />I guess what I'm really saying here is I wonder if there will ever be a time when people begin to understand that the days of squeaky clean candidates is a thing of the past - that didn't exist then either - they just appeared to exist. The Internet, social media, digital photos, and a 24/7 media can paint anyone as something they're not; or at least something they are no longer.Republican Redefinedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09456893108719506999noreply@blogger.com