AOL News has a new home! The Huffington Post.
Click here to visit the new home of Politics Daily!
By far, the most important speech at CPAC was delivered by two-term Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana at Friday night's banquet. It was an eloquently crafted, intellectually compelling call to arms against the red-ink forces of the national debt. Daniels, who was George W. Bush's budget director, proposed dramatically revamping Social Security and Medicare as he called for "an affectionate thank you to the major social welfare programs of the last century."The Republican Party continues to be inneffective unless it can find some passion centered on individual liberties, b) continue debating the Democrat's selective socialism on a national level (like the Tea Party was able to do despite the Republican Party) c) and stop letting its "niche" fringes keep defining the issues - for instance - abortion should be defined as something that needs to go to the states - which is nothing to do about whether someone is pro or against. So, the 15% of the party who demands a candidate say they are pro or against abortion will be forced to do so or lose 15% of his base right of the bat. The problem is when he says he is he will automatically lose 15% of the so-called "moderates" , who generally are really liberals who are looking for reasons not to vote for people, as opposed as reasons to vote for someone. The "moderates" are more prone to let those issues to be determined at state level then a national referendum on religious oriented moralistic laws. Until the Republican party can allow candidates to woo the "non-religious moderates" they will not win against a Democrat candidate who will fool anyone they can to get a vote and win - they know its best to be in power then lose, even if it means lying (which they do). They also know the "intellectual" press (defined as the press who doesn't agree with the stupid Republicans)will support them to the end (because ABC, MSNBC, and CBS said they will).
February 16 2011 at 6:44 AM Report abuse Permalink -2 rate up rate down ReplyDon't really think a Huckabee / Palin ticket could beat Obama because Palin wouldn't atttract more people to that ticket than she would lose because she is such a controversial person, and her leaving midterm as gov of Alaska. I think Romney Huckabee might could beat Obama, but not sure Romney could win the nomination. All these other dark horses just muddy the water. I really can't take Trump, Bachman or Cane seriously at all and thik they are kind of damaging to the political discourse. Ron Paul has no chance of beating Obama. What does anyone think would be the ticket to beat Obama?
February 13 2011 at 9:35 PM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down ReplyWho would you support, another Obama?
February 14 2011 at 7:28 PM Report abuse Permalink -1 rate up rate down ReplyLtCol Allen West has these 2 beat in anty race. We need a military man to run against a community organizer. Yhe Hoax and chains policy of Obama has worked beautifully, the USA is bankrupt ! All according to plan.
February 13 2011 at 9:06 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyI just heard that many of Ron Paul's supporters are college kids. Libertarianism is a harmless stage of development for a bright kid to go through, but someone Ron Paul's age has no excuse.
February 13 2011 at 8:07 PM Report abuse Permalink -2 rate up rate down ReplyThis article was a spin-hit-job, definitely NOT a news story!
February 13 2011 at 6:46 PM Report abuse Permalink +9 rate up rate down Reply7,258 people did NOT even vote. (out of the 11,000 in attendance)
February 13 2011 at 6:44 PM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down Replymike huckabee or ron paul either way.4 me and u.
February 13 2011 at 6:44 PM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down Reply30% out of 3700 votes isn't worth the story and doesn't really represent the conservatives, libertarians, tea partiers or even democrats who would or not vote for Ron Paul.
February 13 2011 at 5:00 PM Report abuse Permalink +3 rate up rate down ReplyGary Johnson would be an outstanding candidate. He's a modern Republican who'd appeal to the below 50 voter and is strongly pragmatic and down to earth.
February 13 2011 at 4:48 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyNever heard of him.. hence that's his problem.
February 17 2011 at 12:21 PM Report abuse Permalink rate up rate down ReplyThank you Layne...glad that someone is listening.
February 13 2011 at 1:13 PM Report abuse Permalink -4 rate up rate down ReplyFollow Politics Daily
POPULAR
News From Our Partners




Top News
More News
More on Aol
Local News
More Blog/Sites
Sites and Services
43 Comments