Mitch in 2012? Jeb thinks so. But what about that “Truce”? I’m optimistic.

The Catholic former governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, who would be a serious GOP presidential contender in 2012 if he had any other last name, told a group of businessmen that Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana is the best candidate presently in the (preliminary) running for the GOP nomination.

I must admit, I’m terribly bummed that Jeb is Dubya’s brother; I think he’d be a much better POTUS than his older brother. That said, I think it’s only right to take his near-endorsement into consideration. So what about Mitch Daniels garnered Jeb’s support, and is Mitch worthy of broader socially conservative support?

Mitch DanielsJeb believes that “Mitch is the only one who sees the stark perils and will offer real detailed proposals.”

The “perils” are the very real problems of the budget crisis. Unfunded liabilities of entitlement programs, coupled with the growth of government bureaucracy and its attendant domination of ever-increasing amounts of the American life, accompanied by the expansion of public sector union who see themselves as entitled to ever-increasing largesse will simply choke this country to death if real and hard steps are not taken to reverse the trends. Jeb contends that Daniels understands that, and is the person best suited to do something about it.

In his keynote speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference he noted that during his administration, even during this economy, Indiana has remained in the black, and they have done so simply by spending less than they take in.

Kathryn Jean Lopez posted a review by Maggie Gallagher of Daniels’ speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in which Gallagher pointedly called Daniels “a serious man.”

Gallagher noted (Click “Continue Reading” not “Read Entire Post”):

Mitch Daniels’ great theme was the urgent, mathematical need to cut spending seriously—or face a national economic crisis of humongous proportions. He called on all of us to unify around facing what he dubbed, “the new Red Menace—this time of red ink.”

Essentially, before there was Chris Christie, there was Mitch Daniels. He’s not as blunt and direct as Christie (and Indiana is not New Jersey by temperament, left-wing political baggage, or media coverage). But he and to be sure Rick Perry of Texas (another name floated for 2012) are the only governnors who have guided their states through this deep recession and have come out relatively unscathed.

But plenty of social conservatives are not ready to anoint the man just yet.

Daniels caused a bit of a furor last year when he said a “truce” will be necessary on social issues so that we can focus on the budget crisis.

Many, many pro-lifers, including Indiana Congressman Mike Pence, a champion on life issues and one whom many conservatives pressed to enter the 2012 presidential field, disagreed with Daniels’ proposed truce.

Said Pence: “I believe with all my heart that Republicans need to continue to fight for the sanctity of life and the sanctity of marriage with everything we’ve got in 2010 and in 2012. …To renew this nation, we must renew the institutions that strengthen her character. We must stand for the sanctity of life.”

I wholeheartedly agree with Pence, but the present crisis, while less fundamental to who we are as a nation, more immediately threatens our ability to sustain our status as the American experiment—our budget deficits, entitlement promises, and pay-outs to public sector unionistas will soon become a millstone around the neck of the body politic pulling us into the economic abyss.

Touching on the “truce” issue in his CPAC address, Daniels explained himself, in part, with an analogy:

If a foreign power advanced an army to the border of this nation, everyone in this room would would drop everything and look for a way to help. We would set aside all other agendas and disputes as secondary. . . that is what those of us here, and every possible ally we can persuade to join us,  are now called to do—it is our generational assignment.

Daniels, and many others, see the financial and budgetary crisis as an existential threat to our country on par with an invasion by an enemy army.

With that as the interpretational key, I think an appropriate interpretation of his “truce” comment would be far more charitable than has happened thus far.

His argument, then, is that while social issues are fundamentally very, very important, they do not, in the immediate short term, threaten the very existence of this country in the way the budget crisis does. With that in mind, it may be wise, if not outright necessary, for those who agree on conservative fiscal principles to spend our political energies fixing the budget mess according to conservative, free-market principles. As part of this “truce,” all efforts to make significant headway on social issues by both sides will be de-emphasized for a time, but no one has to yield an inch on their social issue positions.

In practical terms, this means that if a budgetary fix might be held up by a social issue, that portion of the proposed law should be set aside and taken up separately. Some pro-lifers may see a pitfall here, considering that the status quo excludes the “Mexico City Policy,” Obamacare, and other anti-life measures and rules. I see an potential opportunity. If these issues are re-cast as fiscal matters, and with a moral imperative to curb profligate spending, simply passing it along to our children, a strong case can be made that, in order to right our economic ship and leave the world better than we found it, we need to cast overboard as much spending as possible that cannot be better handled by a private sector solution, does not promote our most pressing international needs, and does not promote true freedom and prosperity. If cast correctly, this would exclude a healthy portion of unnecessary, over-the-top spending, including supporting abortions internationally domestically with our tax dollars.

As for where Daniels’ instincts on social matter lie, according to answers he gave during the 2008 campaign for governor of Indiana, he is pro-life with the typical (and unfortunate) exception for rape and incest, he is opposed to embryonic stem-cell research, but supportive of research on stem cells from adults (but not thrilled about spending government money on it). On marriage issues, you can’t get much better than Daniels–though he is divorced, the woman he first married left him with four girls to marry a surgeon in California, only to realize her mistake, return to Indiana, and Daniels “re-married” her. (It’s in quotes because if it was a valid marriage from the start, they were never “un-married,” they just needed to get the civil paperwork back in order.)

So even when the questions are raised and addressed, Mitch is (mostly) one of us. He just believes that other issues demand a little more public attention these days so that we might have the opportunity to address rightly the moral and social issues of the day.

Considering the unfunny joker who presently occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we need a “serious man” to step forward and lead us in the hard choices.

All things considered, I can join Jeb and support Mitch Daniels for president in 2012.

861 views

Categories:Uncategorized

7 thoughts on “Mitch in 2012? Jeb thinks so. But what about that “Truce”? I’m optimistic.

  1. Bubba Jim Bob says:

    It has been a disaster here in Indiana in terms of services. If you call a state agency that serves the people (Work Force Development, which handles unemployment benefits, for instance) you get the voice prompts which lead you to specified choices. Those choices lead to set answers. If its not what you are looking for, too bad. If you are an employer who wants to call workforce development, then you get a human being.

    IBM was given our welfare system in a three year contract. The focus on profits was so bad and services were so bad that the state had to rescind the contract over Mitch’s howling.

    Daniels put the former head of Bethlehem Steel in charge of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management who has a pile of slag that is on the coast of lake Michigan named after him, “Easterly’s Pile” and the budget of this state agency has been slashed to the bone.

    Education funding was moved to the state level and now local municipalities that were doing just fine have to pay the cost of school corporations that have been run badly.

    The mental health community has been devastated. People are being released from mental hospitals, foster families are being cut and the whole system has taken a huge hit, but we still have been able to cut taxes for corporations and give Mitch enough money to live in a gated community.

    There is no “preferential option for the poor” in this state. Nor is there any service orientation for the people in government, unless you are rich, a corporation or have connections.

    Yeah, other than that, Mitch has been a great governor.

  2. GHU says:

    Sorry, but we need a president who is willing to fight for BOTH social issues AND fiscal issues because they are very much tied together! What is happening in the USA economically is not only due to poor business or government decisions, it’s due in large part to the decline in morality, abortion and the attack on traditional marriage & the family! Daniels and others who want a “truce” on social issues to pursue only economic issues is missing the boat!

    1. Jack says:

      Amen. It has to be both/and. But ultimately, I would rather live in a country with a bad economy where 1.5 million babies aren’t murdered every year than a country with a great economy that slaughters its young. And this is coming from someone who doesn’t have a job and is on unemployment. Yes I’d rather have a pro-life nation than to have a job.

      1. Tom Crowe says:

        If the economy is not addressed post haste, and correctly, you will have neither. No one is suggesting that we abandon the fight for life, but in the cases where a solution to an economic problem is within reach if we simply delay making the perfect action on defense of life, that course of action is morally defensible.

  3. [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by CatholicVote.org, Christopher Smith. Christopher Smith said: Mitch in 2012? Jeb thinks so. But what about that “Truce”? I’m optimistic. http://dlvr.it/Gxfy4 @CatholicVote [...]

  4. Lewis Kapell says:

    I have been reading about Daniels for months now. I agree that his comment about a “truce” was misunderstood and unfairly criticized by pro-lifers. And I agree that no (potential) presidential candidate takes the fiscal crisis more seriously than he does.

    I think the real issue is not whether Daniels is on our side on the moral issues (he clearly is, to anyone who really studies his record). The problem is his communication and leadership skills. A good leader does not needlessly alienate his own followers through a poor choice of words. Daniels has shown a tendency to do just that – the famous “truce” statement is one example. A more recent example would be his poorly-timed comment about the end-of-life care issue.

    If he does run for president, I hope he gets some expert advisers and “handlers” to help him improve his communication skills.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Agreed. I know a number of conservatives who are turned off by his [occasional failure] inability to say well what he means and stumble into saying what he means in the worst way possible. Frankly, I’d rather that than someone who speaks well, says things that make sense and are clear and with which his supporters agree… but whose actions and words have a tenuous, at best, connection.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.