Daniels deems truce with social liberals essential to fix budget

3
280

No such truce was necessary in the Hoosier State as Mitch earned his budget-cutting conservative icon status and there is no evidence that such a truce would garner more budget-cutting votes on Capitol Hill.

I wanted to be an enthusiastic supporter of Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels for the Republican nomination for President in 2012, especially given the problems of RomneyCare, Palin’s gubernatorial resignation, Pence and Barbour’s bow-out, Cain’s un-FAIR Tax and Newt’s occasional bouts with Potomac Fever.

Daniels, along with New Jersey’s Chris Christy, had set the gold standard for conservative state governance in the face of massive budget crises akin to what we face as a nation. Moreover, Daniels, unlike the Garden State’s socially liberal Governor, has been, and still appears to be rock solid in favor of traditional marriage and against abortion.

But then, Mitch turned his eyes toward the Potomac.

Back in June of 2010 he volunteered this seeming non sequitur:

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.

We had hoped that all Daniels meant by his statement was that a Republican presidential candidate should make the economy, deficits, and debt the focus of their campaign. The statement was, after all, sufficiently vague to warrant patience from social conservatives such as myself.

Eleven months later he still hasn’t defined what he means by a truce, our hopes for him were dealt an even worse blow by his recent explanation of why he supports a truce:

“…a tactical suggestion…because its gonna be hard to make changes to restore America’s greatness…we are gonna need to unify all kinds of people…freedom is gonna need all the friends it can get if we are gonna do these things…it is addressed to both sides…”

All conservatives should be more disturbed by Daniels’ perception that we can’t solve our economic problems absent unity with social liberals than social conservatives should be disturbed about the nature of the still un-defined truce.

Unity?

The only “recent” times I can think of that significant numbers of Democrats unified to do the right things were from December 7, 1941 through V-E Day and for a few months after September 11, 2001.

Democrats weren’t even unified in favor of ending de jure racial segregation and the Soviet Union.

Republicans, on the other hand, have declared many unilateral truces, i.e. surrenders, none of which have turned out well:

  • How did the “read my lips, no new taxes” compromise work out for Bush41?
  • Remember the old Hatch strategy on confirming pro-abortion justices Breyer and Ginsburg to the nation’s highest court by near acclimation, “since elections (apparently only of Presidents) have consequences?”
  • What of  the compromise of Mitch’s former White House boss on stem cells?
  • How about that same Bush’s  surrender on school choice that left many children behind, after sharing popcorn and a movie with Ted Kennedy?

One wonders if then Bush Administration budget director Daniels inveighed Rove-like counselling in Washington before a Damascus Road moment on his trip back to Indianapolis.

How did those truces work out for us?

It takes more than one party to declare a truce much as it requires a bride and a groom to be declared man and wife.

The so-called straight talker never actually gets around to defining what he means by a truce (he does say that it does not mean he wouldn’t appoint a strict constructionist to a Supreme Court vacancy), but, wouldn’t it at least have to require that all sides cease attempts to change the status quo on such issues as abortion and legal definitions of marriage in exchange for massive budget cuts, for him to be true to the definition of the word truce.

Again, I see no evidence that there are lots of socially liberal Congressmen in either party waiting to come out of the closet as fiscal conservatives if only there were a truce that leaves taxpayers funding Planned Parenthood abortions and gay, un-recused Proposition Eight Judges re-defining marriage by fiat.

Moreover, no truce on social issues was required for enough voters to unify last November for the biggest conservative wave election victory since 1946.

I would send out a May Day for fear that Daniels’ cognitive dissonance could trump that of many birthers and sink Ship GOP in 2012. But given that so many of We the People discovered that the Democrats’ supposed Messiah couldn’t walk on water just as he made it impossible for so many to afford to drive on dry ground, at this point we think a Paws of the Minnesota Tim variety looks like a better version of Chris and Mitch.

Mike DeVine

Legal Editor - The Minority Report

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist for Examiner.com

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern Conservative, Hillbilly Politics, Unified Patriots,  Political Daily and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Mike gamecock DeVine
A trial lawyer for two decades in South Carolina; owner of Ati Vista LLC since 2002 now associated with Lupa Law Firm; VP & Counsel for Buddy Allen Roofing & Construction Inc. since 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia; and a freelance writer, DeVine was the conservative voice of the Charlotte Observer from 2006-8 and has been the owner of HillbillyPolitics.com since 2009.
www.devinelawvista.com
Previous articleObama – The Thief of Hope
Next articleMay 1: Happy Commie Union Thug Day!
A trial lawyer for two decades in South Carolina; owner of Ati Vista LLC since 2002 now associated with Lupa Law Firm; VP & Counsel for Buddy Allen Roofing & Construction Inc. since 2016 in Atlanta, Georgia; and a freelance writer, DeVine was the conservative voice of the Charlotte Observer from 2006-8 and has been the owner of HillbillyPolitics.com since 2009. www.devinelawvista.com

Leave a Reply

Subscribe
Notify of
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bobmontgomery
May 1, 2011 4:22 pm

Your point about the ‘unilateral truce’ is a good one. It shows either naivete or, as HRC said, a willing suspension of disbelief. Similarly, on these pages and many others, it has been recou nted time after time how it is impossible to separate the social from the fiscal – because the social *is driving the fiscal.* Mitch is also a progressive. He is currently teamed with progressives in Indiana to get rid of local layers of government…..for efficiency. He mocks the Indiana constitution of 1851. Funny thing, he was able to do all his good works with the Indiana… Read more »

pilgrim
Editor
May 1, 2011 4:48 pm

The only two right now that do not turn me off with the “I’ve been a Washington insider” arrogance are Herman Cain and Tim Pawlenty. Rick Santorum, Mitch Daniels, and Newt Gingrich have all in one way or another made seeming non-sequitor comments that I could only interpret as a subtle way of letting the insiders know that they share that loathing of those rubes out in the hinterlands with them. Chris Christie is certainly not a socon, but he never has been disparaging to those who are.

A.C. Swiger-AceInTX
May 1, 2011 5:57 pm

I’m starting to warm up to Pawlenty a little myself…though there is still ice that needs to thaw…I’ve been cold toward him since McCain brought his name up right after the 2008 elections….

The fact that McCain brought his name up as a Republican he would support for POTUS makes me weary…