Posted on 08/10/2010 2:28:39 PM PDT by GOPGuide
Alternate headline: “Mitch Daniels’s dark-horse presidential bid dead on arrival.” Here’s what he told the Weekly Standard per the profile Ed flagged yesterday:
Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Daniels’s telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. He’s an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views don’t matter. “I don’t know if the CO2 zealots are right,” he said. “But I don’t care, because we can’t afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isn’t going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.”
And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state. He serves as an elder at the Tabernacle Presbyterian Church, in inner-city Indianapolis, which he’s attended for 50 years.
John McCormack pressed him to elaborate on what he meant by a “truce” and Daniels couldn’t offer any specifics. (“Everybody just stands down for a little while, while we try to save the republic.”) Enter evangelical leader Tony Perkins to lower the boom:
“Not only is he noncommittal about his role as a pro-life leader, but the governor wouldn’t even agree to a modest step like banning taxpayer-funded promotion of abortion overseas — which [former] President Bush did on his first day in office with 65% of the country’s support. Let’s face it. These aren’t fringe issues that stretch moderate America. They’re mainstream ideals that an overwhelming majority of the nation espouses. I support the governor 100% on the call for fiscal responsibility, but nothing is more fiscally responsible than ending the taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion promotion. More than 70% of our nation agrees that killing innocent unborn children with federal dollars is wrong. Yet stopping government-funded murder isn’t a “genuine national emergency?” We cannot “save the republic,” in Gov. Daniels’ words, by killing the next generation. Regardless of what the establishment believes, fiscal and social conservatism have never been mutually exclusive. Without life, there is no pursuit of happiness. Thank goodness the Founding Fathers were not timid in their leadership; they understood that “truce” was nothing more than surrender.”
Other religious conservatives are piling on too: “Something like this will cost him any consideration from one of the key constituencies of the Republican Party,” says the president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Ramesh Ponnuru is right that Daniels is kidding himself if he thinks he can avoid these landmines as president — the first Supreme Court vacancy will thrust him right into the middle of it — and it’s amazingly tone-deaf for an aspiring nominee to propose a “truce” on abortion given how many pro-lifers equate it with murder. But even so, I’m sympathetic to his willingness to prioritize America’s entitlements crisis over everything else, even at the expense of alienating a core wing of the GOP. The hard lesson that Republicans seem to have to learn and re-learn is that, thanks to Roe, there’s not much a GOP president and Congress can do legislatively about abortion, in which case why not temporarily de-emphasize it as a political issue if it’ll buy crucial centrist votes needed to redress a fiscal emergency? (In fact, isn’t that an unstated assumption of the tea-party movement? “Yes, foreign policy and social issues are important, but economic stability is now Job One.”) Unless Daniels means that he’s willing to compromise on a pro-choice Supreme Court nominee, which would be pure political suicide, I’m not sure which social issue he’s supposed to be willing to go to the wall for even if it means detonating a potential political compromise with Democrats to reform social security and Medicare. If McConnell and Boehner come to President Daniels and say they’ve got the votes for a balanced-budget amendment but in return the Dems want the Defense of Marriage Amendment repealed, Daniels is supposed to tell them to hit the bricks?
Sounds to me like what he’s really saying is that we should accept the status quo, whatever it may be, on social issues until entitlements are back on the path to solvency. As for abortion, I suspect his way of squaring the circle will be to argue that, in fact, because fiscal solvency is priority one and because we need lots of young workers to support our federal Ponzi schemes, the moral argument for opposing abortion is actually a very sensible economic argument too. Exit question one: Is this guy done for, assuming he ever had a chance to begin with? Exit question two: He’s pretty much a textbook example of the sort of candidate who’d benefit from a California-style free-for-all primary, isn’t he?
but sadly, most Social Conservatives do not realize that their true battle is at the State level, and that by supporting Small Government Conservatives, they'd get a much easier path to attaining their goals. Instead, they've fallen for the seduction of the ease and power of using the Federal Government to impose their views, since the Progressive Left has been so successful with it.
I can only hope and pray that some candidate can marry the two sides of the Conservative cause by reminding the Social Conservatives of this. There is no other way to get all of the Right to work together... and there is no better way to draw the disillusioned "mushy middle" voters to begin voting again. A platform of lower taxes, less intrusion, more limits on representatives, less paperwork, etc WILL bring back millions of non-voters,most especially this next cycle.
I'm with you, and I like Daniels.
No candidate is perfect...even Reagan wasn't perfect. We have to be united in reversing the disastrous financial path we are on. If we are not, and social conservatives stay away from the polls because they disagree with one or two items in an otherwise acceptable candidate, the republic will not survive.
What kind of social agenda do they think the democrats will put forward? We've been seeing it and it is much much worse than anything fiscal conservatives have proposed.
Politics requires alliances. We need to push for as conservative a candidate as we can get then support whoever comes out of the process. Staying home from the polls just because a candidate isn't perfectly aligned with all of your views is throwing the baby out with the batch water.
Dude, seriously. Either your reading comprehension is on the first grade level, or you are purposefully trying to be an idiot. Either way, I'm done with dealing with you on this. If you want to pitch a fit, go do it somewhere else, eh?
You want marriage defined from state to state? What happens when your neighbor drives over to Illinois with his boyfriend, two girlfriends marries them and then drives back home, how does your state deal with that?
It was a vile post, and rather shocking for a social conservative to have made.
population control started well before, and is far more severe in countries with higher immigration controls (Japan, Europe), than it is for the US.
It’s a global phenomenon part and parcel of the abortion rights movement.
Why don’t we turn this around.
Why are fiscal concerns more important than social concerns. Personally, the litmus test is do you support abortion or not.
The day fiscal conservatives support pro life conservatives, is the day that the conservative movement finally abandons rinos like Snowe, Collins, etc.
Look at the list. Every single RINO who is breaking with the democrats is a social liberal. They are untrustworthy. We need solid conservatives.
Hmmm.
Gee if you want the SoCons to vote for your fiscal issues, might be a good idea to toss ‘em a couple of bones. In fact a lot of “Social Issues” would contribute to cost cutting.
The truth is, this another idiot RINO trying to counter the Tea Parties.
In the long run they're not, but in the short run we have to survive, otherwise we won't be around to see the social reforms we believe are essential.
If we don't unite to elect a fiscal conservative, even if he is a bit soft on the social issues, then this country will crash and burn and the social conservatives will wind up even farther from their goals.
Perhaps some of them; perhaps a large number.
I know large numbers who are just plain old holy rollers, of various flavors, who consistently insult God by wasting the God-given gift of human reasoning.
Sorry, Teacher, there is no separation of ideas. According to the first amendment, Congress shall enact no law respecting any particular religion or limiting the free exercise of religion. Any law passed by Congress that denies an individual the right to pray where ever that person chooses is already an act against the Constitution which is national. That can’t possibly be a state’s rights issue.
Same goes for our belief in the original founding documents. The right to life is the first right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence when it mentions the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Either we believe that as a nation and grant that right to life as a nation to the most helpless of our citizens, babies in the womb or we are liars. This states rights garbage on big issues like this is for those with wishy-washy beliefs who lack courage.
Gay marriage is wrong because govt’s only reason for being involved in marriage at all is for the protection of society’s future (children). Since gays have no part in that, govt. should have no other part in defining marriage. Govt. power should be limited, another tenant of the TEA Party movement.
The Maine twins are my concern. Soft on social issues has been killing us.
Umm, nothing stops them from doing that now, my FRiend.
how does your state deal with that?
The ONLY thing at issue is whether the government recognizes such unions, and what right/benefits are conferred by that joining. Getting government out of the business of treating married and single folks differently makes all of the Gay Marriage issues immediately moot...
But thank you for proving my point. You apparently want to use the Federal Government to promote YOUR social views, and are unwilling to give up a chance at that that power.
You want marriage defined from state to state?
Government should not be defining something that pre-dates its existence. I want them to stay out of the issue entirely. (Just as the Census form ought to have one question and only one blank to fill in, tax forms etc need never ask us about our love lives.) Why are you so insistent on keeping government in authority over how couples relate to each other?
I never said that ALL issues must be done at the state level. Read the Tenth Amendment. Anything not reserved to the Feds goes to the states. As you note, establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, cannot be properly regulated by the Feds. It IS written in the Constitution. the Founders were also aware of homosexuality AND abortion. Since they mentioned neither in the Constitution, and they explicitly wrote the Tenth Amendment, they explicitly reserved this fight to the states. Why are you so afraid of a federal government not having authority over defining religious sacraments?
Same goes for our belief in the original founding documents.
Sorry, no. Our "beliefs" in "funding documents" (outside of those accepted by the several States and the new Congress) have absolutely zero legal bearing.
The right to life is the first right mentioned in the Declaration of Independence when it mentions the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
The Declaration has no legal weight. I understand that you wish to use this easy argument to continue to try to use the overbearing Federal government for your own ends, but you legal argument is beyond new-born-kitten weak.
Either we believe that as a nation and grant that right to life as a nation to the most helpless of our citizens, babies in the womb or we are liars.
Now YOU are telling others what to believe... and hypocrisy has never exactly scared away our politicians. (Further, dichotomies certainly existed at our Founding... like accepting slavery in the "Land of the Free".)
This states rights garbage on big issues like this is for those with wishy-washy beliefs who lack courage.
And blind desire to use the Federal Behemoth as your personal sledgehammer is for those who lack faith in the Founding Documents, and lack faith in your ability at the state level. Perhaps your pridefulness simply won't allow you to give up a chance at forcing hundreds of millions to believe what you believe, rather than just a few.
I, and our Founders, recognize that government is Evil. ("Power corrupts", etc.) However, since it's better than the alternative, it is a necessary Evil. Since it is necessary, they saw the wisdom of limiting that Evil, and keeping it out of most areas of our lives.
I wasn't aware that polygamy was legal yet.
I know what marriage is and without federal law the radical left and liberaltarians will end marriage by making everything marriage and every corner of America will have to comply with whatever the most radical corner has passed because they will be forced to recognize marriages from other states.
Marriage does predate American government and if you meant that marriage (we don't know if marriage did, it may have been one of the reasons people formed law) predated the first government, then everything predated government including forced sex of weak females, child sex, and murder, but government has been defining marriage for at least five thousand years and the institution predates recorded history.
...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness...
I am glad that unlike you, TEA Party members know their history. They understand that the Constitution was not pulled out of thin air and assembled without foundation. The TEA Party uses the Gadsden flag, don’t tread on me, as their symbol. They understand that government derives it power from the consent of the governed and that the people have the right to abolish the government when it no longer understands that their job is to protect the unalienable rights from being violated, that the government is seeking it’s own agenda, no longer concerned about the consent of the governed.
None of these principles are found in the Constitution, but every one of them goes towards understanding that our nation’s Constitution came after an extremely costly war. Families were torn up, fortunes were lost, brothers, sons, and fathers were killed because of their belief in that declaration. After that war ended they assembled men to craft a document that would continue to provide for all the things for which they fought.
Little did they know that a mere 200 some odd years later. There would be people with the nerve to say the Declaration of Independence has no bearing on the laws of this country. Even though TEA Party understands the truth of this document, and that it is the very foundation of our nation and its laws, these people believe it should have no bearing on people at all because its wording is not in the Constitution.
If they had said something about ignoring the principles of Declaration in the Constitution years ago at its founding, look at all the trouble it would have saved us.
The Fifteenth Amendment crafted to finally agree with the Declaration in that all men are created equal, but why did we as a nation ever worry about that at all since in the beginning that was not in the Constitution. They say we should have left that up to the states.
A unborn baby’s life isn’t important even though we as a nation especially of TEA Party members believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, because that too should be left up to the states since it’s not in the Constitution.
Governments are to secure these rights by getting its power from the consent of the governed, but since consent of the governed is not in the Constitution, we should not even try to get anything done on a federal level according to you, because we just need to leave it all up to the states since it’s not in the Constitution.
So sorry but some principles this nation is founded on really are self-evident even though those who will not see refuse to open their eyes and look.
Just because it is not now in the Constitution does not mean it isn’t something important to be dealt with constitutionally. As you have stated they knew about abortion and homosexuality, they also knew about slavery. It took them years to correct that mistake.
You don’t give up just because it’s difficult. You don’t pull a Romney throw your hands up in the air and say let the states deal with it.
To this day we are paying for the 50,000,000 + American citizens (by any definition) we have murdered in the womb with illegals over taking our country. If the founders had known the extent to which this country was going to fall due to abortion and homosexuality, you can guarantee they would have put something in the Constitution about it. They just could not imagine the levels of infant murder and debauchery that exists today. Those things are tearing our country apart and this is going to have to be addressed on a national level because somethings (like slavery) are too important to who we are as a nation to be left to the states.
Some things are inherently wrong -- murder, especially of innocents. Though psychopaths don’t believe murder is wrong, most people do. As I stated before, the right to life is found on a Founding Document as you state, the Declaration of Independence, making it a founding principle. Why should I believe it is something that should be dealt with nationally? Because it is a founding principle of our country. Just because we have not gotten around to handling it properly in the Constitution, does not mean it should only be dealt with on the state level.
Not everything should be dealt with at that level but some things are too important, too much a part of what this country is about to approach it on a state level. I have faith that other individuals in the TEA Party movement have a similar understanding. When government goes awry, it needs to be fixed, and not just on a state level. Unlike you, my faith isn’t in any Founding Document. My faith is in the Creator mentioned in those founding documents.
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.