Mitch Daniels Ignores Social Conservatives Again
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels’ Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union address was a fine recitation of the economic failures of the Obama presidency and a workmanlike statement of Republican economic principles. Daniels once worked at President Ronald Reagan’s White House -- he knows Reagan’s lines and if he can’t deliver them with Reagan’s eloquence, we won’t criticize him because few speakers can.
Our disagreement with Daniels’ speech is not what he said or how he said it, but what he left out, namely, any mention of the conservative social agenda or right to life.
There is a gaping chasm between Obama’s pro-abortion social policies and where conservative Americans stand on these issues. It is a divide that has substantial electoral advantages for Republicans and conservatives, particularly in the tier of states around the Great Lakes (where a substantial plurality of voters are pro-life Catholics) and in the South (where a substantial plurality, maybe even a majority, of voters are pro-life Evangelicals).
Yet, at a time when the Obama administration has just announced that Church-related institutions will be required to provide contraceptive coverage for employees in their health-care plans -- guaranteeing a confrontation with the Catholic Church -- and there is growing discrimination against Christians in Egypt and other Muslim countries (which the Obama administration has ignored in the name of realpolitic), Governor Daniels made no mention of the right to life or religious freedom, either here or abroad.
When he was considering a run for the presidency, Mitch Daniels famously (or infamously) said he wanted a “truce” on social issues while Republicans tackled the economy. This suggestion was loudly rejected by social conservatives (such as those supporting Rick Santorum), who see a direct tie between social success and economic success.
In closing, Mitch Daniels used Puritan John Winthrop’s phrase, made famous by President Reagan, that America is a “shining city on a hill.” But unfortunately for Governor Daniels, it appears he never read Winthrop’s passionate statement concerning the basis for American exceptionalism in its entirety: “For we must consider that we shall be as a City upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us. Soe [sic] that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.”
In leaving out any mention of the social conservative agenda, Governor Daniels blithely dismissed one of the four legs of the new conservative coalition that won the 2010 election: constitutional conservatives, economic conservatives, national defense conservatives and social conservatives. Like many establishment Republicans, Daniels is happy to adopt the “City upon a hill” metaphor, but he misses what social conservatives understand: that the second part of Winthrop’s vision is the most important. America becomes and remains that "City upon a hill" only through God’s present help and our adherence to the values that Winthrop brought to this new land.
We've written what we think is a comprehensive and defining pamphlet of principles, purpose and proposals for constitutional conservatives. It articulates some key ways to reclaim the Constitution from scofflaw government, and to preserve American exceptionalism.
social conservative?
How can anyone who supports an unattainable 2/3s of both Houses and 3/4s ot the States to solve abortion as opposed to Paul's plan to get a simple majority of both Houses to remove the federal Court's jurisdiction of abortion possibly be a social conservative instead of insane? This move would also give a shot across the bow of the Court in other areas they don't belong.
Theoretically....
if the Federal govt operated within the confines of the Constitution (which Newt Sanromney clearly DOES NOT subscribe to), aetheists, muslums or the KKK could be in power and we would still be the greatest nation on earth.
When is someone going to
When is someone going to write an article entitled "Richard Viguerie Ignores Conservatives"?
After Ron Paul clearly leads Viguerie's own conservative website's polls by landslide proportions for I-don't-know how long, he endorses non-conservative Santorum? This website and Richard Viguerie are losing credibility in my eyes. I joined this site because I thought it was an outlet for actual conservatism.
POTUS?
I feel sory for any of our politicians that still retain a ounce of integrity and have to address this administration, it's disingenuous way it does biz and the total lack of honesty it operates on. There is no reason to address this occupier of the Oval office as anything other then "mr.", he has no respect for Constituional law since he will not comply by producing the valid document he needs to fulfill the office nor will he allow any public look at his personal records and keeps them in legal restraint. Why is it he is allowed to search and see all your records but maintains a double standard for himself? It's just a nagging suspicion and the rule of law is obstructed when we try and find out the reason for his hesitancy.
Yes, Daniels disappointed social conservatives ...
... of which I am one. At the same time, however, your criticism of Daniels makes me wonder if you're the pot or the kettle.
I refer to the endorsement of Rick Santorum by yourself and a very influential group of evangelical and social conservative leaders. Santorum's a social conservative but a fiscal statist, more than willing to use spending and big government means to achieve "conservative" ends. He's said as much in his writings and his voting record in Congress make it obvious. Such ends, of course, are anything but conservative. And only a President who's both a social and fiscal conservative has a chance of getting us out of the extremely deep hole we've allowed the Left to dig for us.
Newt Gingrich may be a flawed candidate; perhaps deeply flawed. But he's the only one -- the only one -- who at least pretends to believe in all three legs of Ronald Reagan's "conservative stool."
payment
if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause him to withdraw his present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.”
It's already a done deal that our "leaders" have dealt falsely with our GOD! We have begun to reap what our "leaders" have sown!