• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Mitch Daniels ends presidential dreams

RJKarl

Banhammer'd
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
78,116
Reaction score
3,112
Location
HB, CA
Yesterday, Mitch Daniels effectively ended his presidential aspirations by signing a law that defunds Planned Parenthood in Indiana.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20058671-503544.html

By doing so he will alienate millions of moderate women who may have voted for him.

It's all about the math. With Obama getting 93+% of the black vote and 70% of the Hispanic vote, losing millions of women would doom his chances.

He might even be a drag on the ticket as VP with this law.
 
I'm happy about this.

I'm surprised you're sad RJ, the liberal media is begging this guy to run because
1. he's boring
2. he's ugly
3. he'd lose
4. he's a moderate
 
I simply made a statement. I thought Daniels might have been the compromise candidate.
 
Romney gave a speech today saying his healthcare plan was good for MA but shouldn't have been used for the whole country.

Tha'ts not good for him with your guys.
 
Read recently that he wouldn't run anyhow because his wife left him and their four daughters for some bro in California. That ultimately didn't work out and they remarried about four years later.
 
What a bunch of losers.
 
Quote (from the article linked in the op)
-----------------------------------------------
"Any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions," Daniels said in his statement.
-----------------------------------------------


So what's the deal now with PP? No federal dollars are supposed to go to fund abortions, right? Maybe many states have similar policies? So, as I understand it, PP provides "low cost" abortions that many feel are subsidized by their revenues (including from state/federal monies) they receive for reproductive services/etc.. Right?

So the Republican argument is that state/federal dollars are going (semi-indirectly) to fund abortions, yes? So the bill Daniels signed will allow for the funding of the non-abortion activities IF PP creates a more definite fiscal line between their abortion and non-abortion operations. Or if they just stop doing abortions?

Is this what he's saying?
 
They are completely separate entities with completely unique bank accounts.
 
What he's saying makes it seem otherwise, no?

I've no idea if they are truly "completely" separate. Anyone got a credible link that explains their structure and finances?
 
From this NPR story: Planned Parenthood: A Thorn In Abortion Foes' Sides

Quote (of a claim, not a supported fact):
---------------
While the use of federal funds for abortion has been banned since the 1970s, and for the entire history of the family planning program, that is only a technicality to Pence and his anti-abortion allies.

"There's no question that money that Planned Parenthood receives for its operational expenses from the federal government frees up resources that can be used to provide and promote abortions through its abortion clinics," he said on the House floor during a similarly unsuccessful attempt to defund the organization in 2009.
---------------


So that's the contention. And Daniels says that the bill he signed would allow that "Any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions".

Now, not trying to confuse federal/state dollars...let's just consider that under contention is if tax revenue is indirectly "supporting" abortion via PP. Daniels seems to be saying the bill contains language that (presumably) defines HOW an organization might separate abortion from its other services in a way that the bill would no longer restrict tax dollars from flowing to that organization. So, again presumably, PP doesn't separate (currently) these operations in whatever way the bill describes, yes?

Anyhow, this is mostly, if not all, just a political show, IMO. And that's the saddest thing about it.
 
Pence is FOS. If even one penny for the abortion side PP loses ALL of its funding.

This one case where an organization has to be purer than Caesar's wife. You know there are tons of RW groups scouring every penny PP spends.

It isn't happening. This is an attack on women's health. It's disgraceful and disgusting.
 
But doesn't what Daniels is saying suggest that the new law indicates a way that the operations could be (differently and rightly, per the law) separated in order to allow the tax funds to PP to resume? So, anyone here understand what that form of separation involves that PP apparently doesn't currently comply with?

Or does the "separation" per the new law really just mean that PP must end their business as an abortion provider? Would this mean some splinter operation from PP would need to just form a truly totally separate and/or new organization with a different name, board of directors, etc.? Is that what the new law requires?

:noidea:
 
They are already totally complaint with the law that has existed for over thirty years. This is a backdoor to end PP.

I hope the GOP contiues to antagonize one group after another.
 
Yes, but they're apparently not compliant with the degree of separation required by this new law. So my question is still, what does the new law indicate is needed for "separation" that the current federal/other laws don't?

Again, I suspect it may be such a separation that essentially means you have to have a totally separate entity (different board, name, etc.)...but I don't know.

And they're not going to end PP. Possibly change it? Maybe...probably depends on whatever is the legal outcome of all these efforts. But I think it's all really just political theater. These efforts to, apparently, more fully separate organizations that provide non-abortion reproductive services from ones that provide abortion, while they may be somewhat successful in that regard, won't end either PP or abortion, I'm pretty sure.

And they could possibly make low-cost abortions harder to obtain--if the more complete "separation" somehow makes subsidizing of the "low cost" part more difficult. But if that's the case, then there would seem to be some substance to the claim that PP does indirectly subsidize the low cost abortions with tax monies, no?
 
Their objective is to END PP and END Medicare.

This new law is total BS and is intended to dramatically harm their political opponents.

There is no need for this law other thna to punish people they don't like.
 
Or it's to stop punishing people by having them fund things they don't like.


I'm starting to think this right wing left wing thing will best be settled with a whiskey revolt type thing.
 
IMO it's Ron Paul or bust for the GOP.

Anyone else it doesn't matter if you vote for Kang or Kodos.
 
It's May 2011. You're kidding yourself if you think anything that happens now will make or break a presidential election.
 
I don't really care about this particular law one way or the other, but I was hoping (based on his comments at CPAC) that Daniels would would run on fiscal discipline and stay away from the polarizing social issues.
 
Back
Top