In 1993, Cheri Daniels left her husband with their four daughters and married another man in California. She returned a few years later, reconciled with Daniels, and the two were remarried in 1997.Obviously, we want more details, and if he runs he'll have to give them. But why not? He seems too drab right now, and that is un-drab. Figure out a good way to tell the story, and run with it.
May 10, 2011
Is Mitch Daniels reluctant to run because of the strange story of his marriage?
Here's what we know about it now:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
125 comments:
If he runs he'll have to give details? Why? I have never understood why public figures answer these types of questions with anything more than, None of your ___ business.
So, Mitch Daniels is married to a "hot babe." What's the story? All his daughters call her mom.
What BS. Belongs to the republicans, of course. They're looking for a saint.
And, because of the bifocals, they don't see their problems.
Mitch Daniels is TOAST. He's too boring.
And, right after Labor Day, perhaps, Trump will be back in the saddle. It's still so far too early!
Even Ross Perot got on all the ballots before exploding. And, he did it in June of 1992.
Keep waiting. But remember this. You've got to appeal to independents. And, since Reagan did, even a divorced man can win the presidency.
Can Obama win, again?
He is a small man.
Okay, I am being mean to Mitch Daniels.
Really it is nobody's business (other than his immediate family) and I doubt it would be a deal breaker for being president. Even traditionalists will like she came back and married him again.
You handle it with no details. A complete explanation is: We had issues, we broke up, we worked them out, and we are back together.
Here is her web page.
But much is unknown. Why did she leave Daniels? Why did she come back?
Unless they come out and say differently, I would assume that she was caught up in her wild affair and then realized that she'd made a mistake. She wouldn't be the first. (Remember Gary Cooper?) This story has the rare happy ending for stories of its type.
My problem with Mitch Daniels is I think he is not a conservative on fiscal issues. Yes, fiscal issues. I want a guy who can fight and fight hard. But that is me.
Women. You can't live with 'em and you can't live without 'em.
Obviously, there are a lot of pertinent facts not in evidence on this matter. But, generally speaking, I would not be inclined to reconcile. I think it is like Bill and Hillary. That's not a marriage, that's a business agreement. When someone betrays the marriage in that fashion, it will never quite be a marriage again. An arrangement? Maybe. But not a marriage.
it's like Mitch Daniels is the un-Mark Sanford.
Typical Media smear job to protect the democrat party rear end. They have no shame.
If Obama can win the presidency with the years 1961-2005 as a total mysterious blank, I'm sure Daniels can get away with 1993-1997. Then again, in Daniels's case, the media might actually bother to ask.
My mom married my step-dad twice. They divorced because he could not get along with my younger brother and sister. I had already left home and joined the Air Force. She married him back after my brother and sister grew up. I guess she loved him.
Mitch Daniels is one of those horrible apologetic for being conservative conservatives who go down on their knees abjectly beseeching who? COMMIE DEMS! to accept them into the fold of noble idealism. Feh and caca on him.
Mitch is extremely boring and supports the VAT tax and cutting SS benefits.
He's a Republican's dream.
If he runs he'll have to give details? Why?
Because he's a Republican.
I do not want the families and personal lives to be used either for or against politicians this time around.
I do not want to hear Michelle talking about how her husband won't put the butter up, and I don't want to hear why Mitch Daniels' wife came back.
I don't want to see their kids. Having an adorable moppet or two has nothing to do with balancing a budget.
There have been plenty of great presidents who have been lousy husbands or fathers. And I do not like the inequity of one guy being able to hide his infidelities better than the other, and therefore being made to look better.
Mitch is extremely boring and supports the VAT tax and cutting SS benefits.
The Value Added Tax tax? A tax on taxes. That seems like something only a die-hard liberal would support.
So, Mitch Daniels is married to a "hot babe."
Of course she's hairless. God damn it.
Peter
He is as a conservative, just like Obama.
We just need to spend more money and increase the federal debt. We could never end up like Greece.
Obama 2012.
I'm pretty sure Cheri Daniels has always been proud of her country.
I always thought the Clintons helped American voters grow up about the reality of marriage, especially among the rich and/or overachieving. Perhaps not.
I s there anything to indicate that Cherie Daniels is another Hillary in the making?
If not, why should either she or her husband s'plain anything?
Daniels is the most exciting short and dull bald white man that Rove could get for a guaranteed fall guy. Jeb is then supposed to ride in to save the mess in 2016. But that is a risky gamble, since the GOP Congress cannot fix anything unless the Obama veto is defeatable by a 68 vote senate coalition immune to GOP defectors such as Murkowski. We just need some charisma to fight the charisma smile of cool hand Obama, the killer of Osama.
"Is Mitch Daniels reluctant to run because of the strange story of his marriage?"
Might ask Jack Ryan.
I think he ran against Obama once.
A sealed divorce made public.
I can't imagine conservatives being all fired up in 2012 for Mitch Daniels.
Kinda like Dole in '96. Maybe Mitch could borrow Bob's 1996 Slogan "Vote for me, I'm not the other guy -mostly"
As to Daniels marriage, that is his business. Unless they want wants to do a joint reality show on divorce and remarriage, then he is not able to tell anything about his wife being at fault or himself being a hero. So he is stymied into dullsville.
Great. Just great.
A cuckold, that's what we need.
Feh.
...unless the Obama veto is defeatable by a 68 vote senate coalition immune to GOP defecators...
Focus on that goal above all else.
I think the smart move would be to refuse to comment on the story.
I mean, if his wife had left WITH the kids people might whisper that there was something wrong with him, like he was an abuser or a drunk or some such thing. But running off with another man and leaving your husband with the kids? Hard to imagine a scenario where he's the bad guy.
When someone betrays the marriage in that fashion, it will never quite be a marriage again. An arrangement? Maybe. But not a marriage.
Leaving you and your four kids like that does seems like a stab on the back and a stump on the face. Hard to see reconciling after that. "Cold woman" is about the nicest thing I can think about her.
Hard to see reconciling after that.
Maybe he was thinking of the four kids.
Chicklet ...You misspelled defectors, but that is a better word for them.
Maybe he was thinking of the four kids.
Quite possibly. Maybe he was really in love with her and wanted her back (or both). But what she did was lousy, and cruel.
But what she did was lousy, and cruel.
Absolutely. Which is what makes me somewhat impressed with him that he reconciled with her. I don't think I could do the same, and I think that might be a flaw, not a strength.
If we want to speculate on why she left Mitch and 4 daughters, then we need to start at Mitch being a cold fish offering her no emotional connections. He was strong to endure that, and likely learned how to connect emotionally in desperation to get his life back. I respect a man for that. But will Mitch disclose that without her consent. maybe he will if he is desperate to win. I wonder if he wants to win because that would really destroy his alliance with the Bush Family.
If we want to speculate on why she left Mitch and 4 daughters, then we need to start at Mitch being a cold fish offering her no emotional connections.
The wife leaves her kids behind and he's the cold fish?
My guess is that it was more like A Brief Encounter except that the guy wanted to marry her rather than use her for a quick affair before he left the country. (Why anyone thinks that movie is about a mutual romance, I'll never know.)
I don't think I could do the same, and I think that might be a flaw, not a strength.
And you don't have to deal with male pride. He had to.
For me, I just don't think I could feel warmth toward a woman who did that to me. It was a total betrayal.
Given the fact he's supposedly the Conservative only the RINOs love, maybe he can just tell everybody he's just a superstud.
After all, women voted for Jack Kennedy and Willie because they wanted to go to bed with them.
In a bar in Toledo across from the depot
On a bar stool she took off her ring
I thought I'd get closer so I walked on over
I sat down and asked her name
When the drinks finally hit her
She said I'm no quitter but I finally quit livin on dreams
I'm hungry for laughter and here ever after
I'm after whatever the other life brings...
(guess who wrote that)
I don't know what there is to know about it, really. It sounds like we know the story pretty well. She ran off with a guy, married him, and was sorry later. It doesn't really matter to me if she was simply foolish or if dealing with four children made her want to run away... lord knows there are plenty of days when I want to run away.
But what are they supposed to say about it? He can't answer for her motivation and if she says, "Wow, that! So and so's a decent fellow but I realized that I love Mitch and I love my kids." Then it would be all Open Season on Mitch Daniels because he brought his family and children into it.
New rules you know.
If we want to speculate on why she left Mitch and 4 daughters, then we need to start at Mitch being a cold fish offering her no emotional connections.
This only works if you start from the assumption that the woman is only right.
From that premise, the possibilities are endless: "your honor, sure I stabbed him and threw the body in the river, but he once frowned at me in a very contemptuos way! The pain was unbearable!"
Depending who the other man was, a possible Mitch Daniels Presidential Campaign Slogan...
"America: Once you go black, you can go back. My wife did!"
And you don't have to deal with male pride. He had to.
Ha ha ha. You don't know me.
traditionalguy said...
Chicklet ...You misspelled defectors, but that is a better word for them.
Shit, I can't believe I did that again.
Freeman, are you a man?
(*confused*)
edutcher said...
Given the fact he's supposedly the Conservative only the RINOs love, maybe he can just tell everybody he's just a superstud.
He could build a Mr. Big myth to counter the small.
P.S. Kinda like Trooper and his shoe size.
Obviously, we want more details, and if he runs he'll have to give them.
No, he don't. He should just refuse to talk about it. It's a personal matter. The public has no right to know. And the public is better off not knowing.
It would seem a bit exhibitionist, I think, for Daniels to offer any explanation. Doing so would presume that his separation from and reconciliation with his wife is public business. It ain't. Keep it private!
It's not like he was having an extramarital affair with a 23-year-younger staffer while leading the Congressional investigation of the President's affairs... like Newt was.
Because of the manner in which they were committed, Newt's insane sexual misdeeds are certainly a matter of public business.
Freeman, are you a man?
No. But there exist women with an equal amount of what you call "male pride." I would be one of those.
I'd also like to reiterate...
No human on the PLANET can meet the emotional needs of someone with a toddler, much less four young children. This is an insidious lie told to women, that they're supposed to have their emotional needs met and if they aren't met they have leave to leave. OTOH, if you talk about a man's needs for support you're gonna catch it from the feminists - dinner and a foot rub and some physical intimacy? You just hate women don't you.
The best people could do is realize that it's not the other person's fault and refrain from blaming the person you agreed to go through it with when the going gets hard.
He got where he is by being career-oriented, not by being a great family man. She just might've needed more attention.
He could've realized his own culpability in her leaving and take her back. She is the kids' mother, afterall.
@ Freeman
I stand corrected. Hey at least I figured you out yesterday on the not-running-to-Aspen thing, so I'm one-for-two.
He can offer his birth certificate.
I, for one, want to see the long form marriage certificates, divorce decrees, and re-marriage certificates.
mm - interesting choice - the four children line is apt. Crops in the field, probably less so.
Perhaps reconciliation was the right thing to do for the children. I would find it very difficult to trust a woman who was willing to destroy a family just to r-u-n-n o-f-t with someone else.
The bottom line is - Mitch is a weak candidate, a liberal, probably a weak man, favored by the MSM and other assorted communists and one has to assume he will not stand athwart history and say no.
All of which, of course, makes him a shoe-in for the Republican nomination.
WV: aquagn - something Osama could use about now.
In a bar in Toledo across from the depot...
My guess is Kenny Rogers, although the melody I come up with belongs to The Gambler
On a train bound for nowhere, I met up with the gambler...
I think we all should reveal the strange stories of our marriages.
And what about Newt? Not the messing around, or the divorces. That's old news. Everybody makes mistakes.
But his current wife looks like a robot. It's those eyes. Those are not human eyes.
Couldn't 1993-1997 be his Occidental and Columbia years?
@synova,
"if you talk about a man's needs... dinner and a foot rub and some physical intimacy..."
Stop! Oh stop it, woman! I can't take the teasing anymore.
Seriously, your spousal unit is one lucky feller.
"we want more details, and if he runs he'll have to give them."
Marriage certificate -- long form
Truce Daniels is a worm. Worse than that, he is a pretentious worm who condescends to assert that he is the only "grown up" for proudly saying that we should pre-emptively capitulate on practically any issue that might involve a fight.
He's worse than Mitt Weasel.
Liked Bush I, Jerry Ford, and Bob Dole? Then Mitch is your guy.
He's dull and Responsible. No flashy charisma, no populism, and no "weird" social conservatism.
Just straight-forward, moderate, middle-of-the-Road, good for business, won't rock the boat, stand pat, won't really change anything, sober, good for General Motors, Republicanism.
Vote for Mitch, he'll go to bat for VAT. Vote for Mitch, 'cause Romney's too radical.
Its too bad William Howard Taft isn't still alive. Well, at least we got Mitch.
I don't know anythng about him. I thought his selling point was his lack of charisma and extreme whiteness--the true anti-Obama. This story doesn't enhance his image. His wife comes off looking worse, but he also looks bad for choosing her as his mate and a little hapless for taking her back.....Kings in primitive times were chosen for their powers of fertility, and a lot of that remains in our psyche. See JFK, Clinton, and The Golden Bough. The king generates sex scandals. He doesn't suffer them.....There are many possible narratives to this story. I can see many that could make him appear decent and good, but none that make him appear potent and presidential. He's got a good job now. Who needs all the crap that they (i.e. us) will put him through?
Meh.
I am more concerned with Daniels on again off again marriage with fiscal conservatism.
Mitch gave a great interview captured at HuffPo:
http://www.slate.com/id/2293519/
I read that 'his wife doesn't want him to run.' OK I guess I know why now. Good on her. If he gets the vote of everybody with something to be embarrassed about, it'll be a landslide. It's a good thing it'll be a secret ballot because even Obama will vote for him.
What about Aaron Schock, is that his name?
The Men's Fitness spread is amazing.
The above was on Obama's Mama; this is the Mitch interview:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/09/mitch-daniels-once-fired-_n_859699.html
So he surrendered the social issues before he even declared his candidacy. That's a real smart move. It's not like the Dems will smell blood or anything.
Vote for Daniels - A Capitulator & A Cuckold
Well, I must say I'm all jazzed up. Is it too late to go knocking on doors tonight or should I wait till tomorrow?
He's toast in the R primary.
In my mind, he's the most appealing R candidate--hence my previous statement. The Rs would prefer Romney or Huck or one of the talk radio regurgitators (e.g. Palin and Cain).
It is wrong to leave the person you promised to love. It is even more wrong to leave your children. We can assume that Cheri Daniels was a jerk in 1993. Perhaps on the way to 1997 she rehabilitated herself. She will never be a POTUS candidate, so the question is probably unimportant.
I saw this, and I thought , "Marie Osmond." First loves are always a strange attachment. Second chance. Do over. Remedy. Marie even wore the same dress (liberal interpretation of "wore").
My thought: recall "Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore": Don't look back, or you'll turn into a pillar of shit
.
Too bad there's a twenty second amendment.
I'd love to see polling where W was a viable option. Rs seem to be all over the map (e.g. many love Trump one week, but they turn away the next week). Maybe W could assemble a primary plurality.
Daniels should say something like this:
There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and my wife did things that were not appropriate.
Daniels demonstrates the new way for the librul MSM elites to take down a Republican: offer up some weak praise and watch the talk-radio right tear into him.
Cheri Daniels is the granddaughter of Hall-of-Fame second-baseman Billy Herman. Maybe she's worried about the inevitable lame Leno jokes about swinging away, double-play combinations, and her four-year "short stop" with a different husband before heading home.
Daniels wouldn't appear crazy enough for today's Republican, although he did defund Planned Parenthood in IN, which saved literally hundreds of dollars. Which will cost IN 1000s in the long run. So yea, I would say his bonafides are right up there. Pander to crazies, rip them off, and lose their money. It's amazing people still vote Republican.
"It's amazing people still vote Republican."
Unless you are an amazing Democrat!
OK, so why is it we are here talking to each other again?
Cheese and crackers!
Althouse!
Make it work!
Daniels has already said that PP would get its state funding back if it just spun off its abortion operations from the rest of the organization. That only counts as crazy in the fever swamps. If PP doesn't do this, and the feds are vindictive enough to withhold IN's Medicaid funding in retaliation, they'll hand Daniels a campaign speech that writes itself.
Of course, if the Dems are planning to execute the Jack-Ryan's-Divorce gambit on Daniels if he's the nominee, then handing him this cudgel before the primaries begin might actually pay off for Obama.
OK, so why is it we are here talking to each other again?
It's either insomnia or living in the Pacific time zone.
I wonder if liberals like garage get their rocks off just dreaming about abortions...
I wonder why abortion opponents have not deployed the one form of argument that liberals seem to find irrefutable: Abortion is not healthy for children and other living things.
Oh for cripes sake.
Althouse has her head in a flurry.
Instapundit's off, and ED's stuck on, "ON"!
Is there a mechanic in the crowd?
They don't work nights.
"They don't work nights."
So?
So... they work ladies?
From what I have heard from Mr. Daniels, I am completely underwhelmed.
We don't need more droning administrators to 'energize' this country.
'We don't need no thought control...'
I live in Indiana and Daniels has been a good Governor. He has balanced the budget, reformed education to include vouchers and charter schools, he has privatized roads, he has signed the bill to cut funding to planned parenthood, he has also cut property taxes. He has done a good job and hoosiers give him a 75% approval rating.
I have noticed that people like Rush Limbaugh like to take cheap shots at him, in fact I have heard Rush say things about Daniels that I know to be exaggerations or just silly. I asked my husband why Rush would do that..and he said it was because Daniels is not a puppet and could care less what the talk radio people have to say.
That is Daniels, he does what he thinks is right and if other people don't like it ...too bad.
In the case of his wife, it seems he loved his wife and wanted her back. I guess he was willing to do what he thought was right where his family was concerned and to hell with everyone else. It could be she does not want her past to become a campaign issue.
jeanneiboden:
Daniels did not surrender on anything, he surrender did not surrender on social issues. He is a social conservative and always has been.
He just said that considering the dire straights our economy is in, we need to concentrate on getting our fiscal house in order.
I honestly do not understand why this is so hard for some people to understand.
And besides, why would Democrats smell blood in the water with that? They are far more vulnerable of fiscal issues than they are social issues.
The truth is that not all social conservatives think fiscal matters are as important as social matters. They are, after all, "social" conservatives, which should indicate their priorities. Additionally, not all social conservatives actually *are* fiscal conservatives. And given the general strength of social conservatives during the nomination process, it's why we're not seeing many fiscal conservatives in the running. At least not yet.
In this sense, the party base has moved on, but the nomination process is still largely dominated by standard GOP-types. We may need another election cycle before those are removed. Of course, this puts Tea Party-type conservatives in a difficult position when it comes to the presidential election in 2012. They may have to settle for a compromise candidate, even as they continue to dominate the GOP in statewide elections. It takes time to overcome institutional inertia. The problem is that with Obama's spending the way he is, we're a bit short on time.
I don't care why they split. I'm happy they were able to find their way back together.
I blame Clinton for answering that horrible Boxers vs. Briefs question, and the insipid pinhead who asked him. Questions have gone -- er, remained -- downhill since then.
Obviously, we want more details
I don't.
Oh, for crying out loud.
He could share the category of divorced Presidents with Ronald Reagan and have his own category of divorced and reconciled President.
It is an unusual enough situation that I am curious about the circumstances, but don't think it's any of my business.
How odd the press would pick up on this as an issue the first Presidential election after covering up John Edwards' affair. It's almost like the press has different standards for Republicans and Democrats.
Erik said...
"Additionally, not all social conservatives actually *are* fiscal conservatives."
Huckabee, for example.
"Huckabee, for example."
My nightmare scenario is a Obama/Huckabee contest. I won't vote for Obama, but I'm not sure if I can bring myself to vote for Huckabee.
Huckabee's my least favorite Republican candidate, even worse than Trump. He's a spendthrift who is also playing up the cult of personality bullshit.
Aren't we living the aftereffect of that now? And how do we like it? Let's look at what the candidates are going to do in office and skip the the personality worship.
" He's a spendthrift who is also playing up the cult of personality bullshit. "
I'm hoping he likes the money too much to get into the race.
I can't imagine conservatives being all fired up in 2012 for Mi
While I fully understand the nomination process (campaign to the right during primaries then move to the center for the general election) I would love to see a day when the first prerequisite step isn't
getting conservatives all fired up
I live in a state where conservatives have been stuck on all fired up and that's given us:
-Sheriff Joe
-the dang wall
-guns on the campus (well almost)
-County Attorney vs. County Board of supervisors
-and so much more
And maybe Gov Daniels greatest concern is his present marriage and kids. The comments on this thread are but a glimpse of the wonderful "speculation" that would go on during the campaign.
Hell, even if there is no marital issue, our present President has discovered that his political enemies will "speculate" regarding his marriage and kids.
He's a blip on the radar screen as far as running for president goes.
Also, he'll be seen as weak on this issue with his once and present wife.
What kind of self-respect do you suppose a man like that has once his wife has abandoned the family for another man and then takes her back a few years later?
None, as far as I'm concerned.
This guy seems like another one of the Democrats favorite Republicans.
From the McCain, Lugar, Snowe wing.
Not a serious choice.
Which is not to say the lapdog press won't smear him. His marriage is none of our business. At least that's what I heard about Bubba Clinton all the time.
"What kind of self-respect do you suppose a man like that has once his wife has abandoned the family for another man and then takes her back a few years later?"
It's a small minded person who believes understands everything from a single data point.
Trooper York:
Mitch Daniels is more conservative than Sarah Palin is, he is just not a lightning rod. It seems to me that there are some people on the right who can only bring themselves to support someone that they think the everyone else can not stand. If moderates can support the guy, if Independents can support the guy..then screw his record, let's just hate him because they don't.
I live in Indiana, I have watched Daniels over the years and he is an honest to God conservative. In fact he is one of the few candidates out there who never even flirted with cap and trade. He called the Waxman bill, imperialism.
Swede:
You do not even know the man, how can you judge him and say he has no self respect. Maybe he meant it when he said, till death do we part. Maybe he did it for kids..whatever the reason, it is really no one else's business.
Some background on Mitch:
-an Ivy-leaguer: Princeton Grad ('71) Georgetown Law ('79)
-not personally a social conservative -Arrested for Marijuana use (1970); Divorced and remarried
-A DC insider - Senator Lugar's Buddy and principle aide - 1971-1985 and Reagan White House political advisor 1985-1987
-A supportor of Big Business -VP of Global Pharmasuitical Company Eli Lilly and Company - -1990-2001
A Supporter of George Bush and the Iraq War. -OMB Director 2001-2003
-A "neo-con" - President and CEO of the Hudson Institute 1987-1990.
Throw in some attacks on Rush Limbaugh and you can see why David Brooks loves him.
I'd love to see polling where W was a viable option. Rs seem to be all over the map (e.g. many love Trump one week, but they turn away the next week). Maybe W could assemble a primary plurality.
It is almost as if the election were still 18 months away.
Flashback: May 2007
Hillary Clinton 28%
John Edwards 26%
Barack Obama 22%
Bill Richardson 7%
Dennis Kucinich 2%
Joe Biden 2%
Chris Dodd 2%
Mike Gravel 1%
If only Bill Clinton had been allowed to run! Maybe he could have assembled a plurality. Instead the Democrats were forced to settle for Barack Obama winning a solid major by the largest margin in decades. :)
-not personally a social conservative -Arrested for Marijuana use (1970); Divorced and remarried
Er, what?
So were Reagan and Bush not social conservatives either, then? The former divorced; the latter was a former drunk and probable cocaine user.
I will take your word for it Terrye
but being a Lugar guy makes him problematic in my book. Too much of a Washington Insidere for me.
I want Governor Walker to run in a campaign fully funded by the Koch Brothers.
That will be my revenge on Garage Mahal for the Packers winning the Super Bowl.
Anyone worth marrying is worth marrying twice?
I think it makes a brilliant opportunity for Mitch Daniels to say "Leave my wife alone, she's not running for office", and nothing more. And, if necessary, challenge an asshole of a reporter to a formal duel.
Why does he have to give us details? Who gives a flying f#$% ? This is moronic.
The current administration has set the new low for transparency. I'm not holding a Republican to a different standard simply because they're a Republican.
No one has ever asked this President for details about anything in his life before Donald Trump. Or, perhaps, Sean Hannity who had the temerity to question the role of Rev. Wright in the President's world view.
Mitch Daniels is never going to be president. The party had better ask itself more pressing questions at nomination time than why Mrs. Daniels had issues with her marriage.
not personally a social conservative . . . Divorced and remarried
Trying to make that his marriage history isn't socially conservative requires ignoring the actual text of the New Testament. Divorcing your wife and then marrying another woman (or just shacking up) is adultery, because Jesus says your first marriage never ended.
But in Daniels's case, his wife left him and committed adultery. The civil dissolution of the marriage does not violate Biblical commands; Paul is specific about allowing the spouse to depart if the spouse wishes.
Then she came back, he forgave her, and they resumed their (in spiritual terms) still-existing marriage. Since she's the person he was married to in the first place, their remarriage cannot be adultery on his part; it's the same marriage from the Biblical perspective even if not from the civil perspective.
So Daniels's actions were absolutely faultless as a matter of Christian marital and personal ethics. He did not put her away, he let her go when she wished to depart, he remained faithful to her, and he forgave her like Christians are commanded to. If you've got an objection to how Daniels acted, you've got a problem with what the New Testament tells people to do.
Trooper York:
Lugar? Lugar is an institution in this state and a lot of Republicans in Indiana have ties to him. I am sure Pence does too. In fact Lugar used to be mayor of Indianapolis long before he was a Senator.
And as a general rule Lugar is respected in this state. I have always thought it was interesting that conservatives will complain about McCain, but love Palin in spite of the fact that she was willing to share a ticket with him...and then they seem to think that unless Daniels insults a man like Lugar he has no doubt known for 30 years he is some sort of RINO. These incessant Rino hunts are getting tedious.
Pretty much the same thing happened to my best friend (although it was pre-kids). When his wife left he and I got to act like we were back in college. She came back a couple years later, they have two awesome sons now and have been married over ten years.
I do not see it as a sign of weakness more as a sign of personal strength.
Terrye reminds of a 2008 commentator who always pushing for Romney. That person had the same pitch.
Basically, it consists of telling us over and over that:
1)Romney/Daniels/McCain/whoever - no matter what they say or actually did in the past - are REALLY conservative, honest! They've changed, they were misquoted, they were taken out of context, they HAD to do those things, etc.
And if you doubt it, why you're a crazy extreme winger, who's demanding purity tests and a small tent.
At the same time, these same people tell us we need to be moderate, reach out to the center, you can't win with just the base, we need to focus on the "big issues" etc. And that Romney, McCain, Daniels, whoever will do just that.
Its a pitch Republicans love. See Dole, McCain, Ford. Too bad it never ends up with these pragmatic conservatives getting elected.
Rcocean;
I can't imagine conservatives being all fired up
You seem "all fired up".
For Whom?
Mitch Daniels is a creepy looking man. He won't run, I don't believe in his convictions as a conservative and I wouldn't vote for him. He will not be the candidate.
I wouldn't vote for him knowing he took her back. That sound pretty spineless.
marshal that data point is pretty damn huge....
Post a Comment