Posted on 05/11/2011 9:34:57 AM PDT by marcbold
It is a common complaint that politicians say one thing during the campaign but do something entirely different when governing.
Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana is the Benjamin Button of potential Presidential candidates, he turns the whole thing on its head by not talking the talk but walking the walk.
I have been extremely critical of Governor Daniels these past months as he has openly advocated for what has been termed “a truce” on the divisive social issues so we can focus on the pressing problem of debt. He put it this way on the Laura Ingraham radio show.
“If you don’t accept that we face a republic-threatening issue in terms of the debt—and again I would love to conclude one day that I was overreacting—but that threatens every one of us whatever our views on these other questions. I would like to think that fixing it and saving our kids future could be a unifying moment for our country and we wouldn’t stop our disagreements or our passionate belief in these other questions, we just sort of mute them for a little while, while we try to come together on the thing that menaces us all.” (Laura Ingraham show 01/31/11)
Now while I acknowledge the pressing issue of debt and our kids future. But our children need to actually be alive to inherit the debt. I must admit that I was outraged by Mitch Daniels remarks and viewed them as disqualifying for my support as a pro-life Catholic.
At the time, Richard W. Garnett, a professor of law and associate dean at the Notre Dame Law School sent us a mail pointing us to his piece on Daniels saying that pro-lifers should maybe hold their ammo.
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Mr. Daniels could put a bar of soap to sleep.
Good Lord, but he’s dull.
Ugh.
Rush talked about this reversal idea yesterday. Apparently, at the first debate the other day Daniels said something that sounded like mushy RHINO talk and Rush expressed his considerable concerns over the statement. A caller came on who made the same point as this article that Daniels talks like a moderate but he walks (governs) as a true conservative. Whether this is his strategy, I do not know - talking softly but carrying a big conservative stick. I know nothing about the man to be able to judge him.
FWIW...my governor, Mitch Daniels, signed 85 bills into law yesterday, including our new budget. Within the budget, causing much consternation from pro- baby-killers, is a serious reduction in state funds to Planned Parenthood.
“we just sort of mute them for a little while”
We were fed that Kool-aid by Stephen Harper when he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. He went from passively ignoring abortion in 2004, to actively discouraging his members from commenting on it in 2006, to barring any discussion of the issue in 2008. If you ever accept the narrative that social issues are too hot for conservatives to handle, then you will just encourage further suppression of free speech on this and other issues. To liberals and RINO’s, a “truce” means that conservatives unconditionally surrender.
Mitch Daniels is the real deal. Our country would be so incredibly fortunate to have him as its president. And despite any talk of a truce, when it comes time to appoint new justices to the Supreme Court, or to lower courts, it is inconceivable that a “truce” would in any way impede his choice of a true conservative.
Daniels is simply establishing priorities. Some on this site may regret that he isn’t making every plank in the conservative platform an equally urgent item; but realistically, what Daniels is doing strikes me as a no brainer.
Yup, he is. Hoosiers tend to be dull doers rather than exciting talkers. The people and businesses from exciting Illinois need some where close to go.
Well, Mr. Archbold, that's because you didn't think before becoming outraged. Mr. Daniels' statement was both realistic and practical -- and it was very far from being the "surrender" that you and others hysterically made it out to be.
To begin with, you accepted (unintentionally, I'm sure) that your pro-life views are eligible for adjudication by political processes. That has consequences.
And you went on to fail to recognize that political processes are inevitably subject to a process of prioritization. You may not like how that shakes out -- but politics is known as "the art of the possible" for a very good reason. It depends on forging agreements between people who disagree.
Third, by holding everything hostage your single issue, you open the door to inaction on a real, present, and truly existential danger to the republic. Yes, abortion is a terrible crime; but it is not the only crime, and as far as the survival of the nation is concerned its time horizon is not nearly so close as that of fiscal disaster.
Finally, yours is an article that typifies the primary difficulty facing conservatives in America: single-issue politics. Real life is not single-issue; conservatives have got to have a broader view than just the one thing they care about. The alternative is a balkanized movement.... which is what we have now. Putting it in military terms, our tendency to focus on our own narrow interests, and to fight among ourselves over whose single issue must take precedence, is what allows the left to defeat us in detail.
So, Letterman is the exception that makes the rule? :)
Well said, sir.
Letterman is half way Hoosier.....He’s a dull talker.
I don’t know much about Daniels and his record, but I am inclined to think that it may take a “stealth” conservative to win the Presidency, because someone who is openly and enthusiastically an advocate for Christian values is going to be crippled by the media. Just look at what they have done to Sarah Palin, who is good on all the issues. As a result, she now joins RINOs like Romney in a list of candidates many Republicans “would never support.” Remember that 0bama was able (with media help) to conceal his extreme-Left record. No one on our side will get a pass from the media, but let’s not help them by being too outspoken during the campaign. Let them be shocked when our man gets in office.
I’m nor inclined to think that it is either a good idea nor very practical to aim to be a stealth conservative. Daniels can’t exactly hide the fact that legislation he championed just defunded Planned Parenthood, for example. Nor is he likely to get the Republican nomination if he isn’t willing to stand up and at least be counted on conservative principles.
But if you will allow me to modify your point a bit, I do think there is merit in claiming to prioritize fiscal issues over social issues. He can still be a conservative, but his prioritization might ease the concerns of some independents.
We certainly don't want to imitate the treachery of the Left, but let's learn from 0bama, who hid his extreme Marxist policies until he was in office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.