“Does it please Thee, O God, to deliver into the hands of these beasts the defenseless children whom I have nourished with Thy Love?” - St. Clare of Assisi

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Who Cares About Abortion, There's a Deficit!

Who cares about taxpayer money going to kill babies every three or four seconds, THERE'S A BUDGET DEFICIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That seems to what Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (R) thinks the next President's thoughts should be on social issues. This is especially concerning coming from Mitch Daniels as many believe Mitch Daniels could be the next president.

I hope not.

The Weekly Standard blog has some disturbing takeaways from an interview with Daniels:

Mitch Daniels told THE WEEKLY STANDARD's Andy Ferguson that the next president "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 economic issues are resolved. This morning, at the Heritage Foundation, I asked Daniels if that meant the next president shouldn't push issues like stopping taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare or reinstating the Mexico City Policy banning federal funds to overseas groups that perform abortions. Daniels replied that we face a "genuine national emergency" regarding the budget and that "maybe these things could be set aside for a while. But this doesn't mean anybody abandons their position at all. Everybody just stands down for a little while, while we try to save the republic."

To clarify whether Daniels simply wants to de-emphasize these issues or actually not act on them, I asked if, as presdient, he would issue an executive order to reinstate Reagan's "Mexico City Policy" his first week in office. (Obama revoked the policy during his first week in office.) Daniels replied, "I don't know."
This doesn't sound like the kind of guy who can save a republic. Sounds to me like he thinks the fiscal issues poll a lot higher than the social ones so he thinks telling social conservatives to shut up, take it and smile for a while so he can have his shot at being President.

Not me.

This tension between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives has been a long and difficult one. For too many years, social conservatives accepted so-called truces in the name of electing Republicans which simply meant that social conservatives lost.

Daniels received the endorsement of Indiana's Right to Life PAC in 2008 but it looks like much has changed. It always seems to, doesn't it? But let's face it, if Mitch Daniels isn't going to stand up and fight for life, why should we believe he's anymore serious about anything other than Mitch Daniels.

Your Ad Here

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Maybe he can get the terrorists to lay off for a while so he can concentrate on our budget deficit. Hurricanes, oil spills, wars, and earthquakes will just need to wait their turn while we have President Linear Task Handler at the helm. This man does not have what it takes no matter what side of the issue he sits on.
Susan

Anonymous said...

Mr Daniels, "I" won't be supportin' you on your "journey" to no where, hope not, to hell!!! Busted, disgusted, now can't be trusted!!! Let this country go under then! Rather be humble and broke, than to IGNORE THE EVIL OF ABORTION!!! Oh, by the way, "DO NOT" give satan and moloch my sympathies, as you seem to do!!! Got enough problems as it is with both the left and "right" leaning, so called "Catholic" politicians that support abortion!!! What scummy ponds do all you people crawl out of? Just where is the well formed conscious, ethics and moral character, why heck, where's the integrity? Oh yeah, ya'll lost it a while back, on the way to pedaling self promotion, power, influence and prestige. in other words, when you lost obedience "GOD"! Will continue to pray for YOU now, too!!! SALVE REGINA

John Hetman said...

Ambition in many politicians and professionals often trumps morality and shows that true character of the person. Daniels seems a man more committed to the well being of Daniels than to the lives of innocent unborn children. Not unlike many of our own bishops.

Anonymous said...

Look to the north.

So basically he just wants to change the US's stance on abortion to the canadian position, namely, no position (their PM Harper continuously says there will be no debate on abortion in Canada). This would mean zero protections for any preborn babies.

gbm3

Jerome said...

As a Hoosier I can say Mitch has been an effective govenor. Her is more of a technicrat than a politician, as witnessed by his remarks to the Weekly Standard. Remember, he was Bush43's first OMB Director. Mitch can balance budgets, manage multiple projects, and most certainly run a large scale organization. But as a pol, he will never be elected to a higher office. He lacks the instincts.

The GOP is a large blob of competing organizations, interests, people, and loyalties. The last person to effectively unite this blob was the Gipper. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that a sizeable chunck of the GOP are Pro-Life. While Reagan had a mixed Pro-Life record at best, he was shrewd enough to get these people on his side early. Niether Dole, or Bush41/43 realized this. It is quite difficult to enact an conservative agenda when half of your constituents do not trust you.

Mitch one day may prove to be a good Treasury Secretary, or WH economic advisor. But, his career as an elected politician is coming to a close.

Dr_George said...

I am a conservative and if forced to choose a political party I tend to go with the republicans, but to me, our social and fiscal issues are inseparable. They attest to our values. The right candidate will have the right social priorities and let those determine his fiscal priorities.
Abortion is dead wrong from the get-go. It has to be addressed when righting wrongs or the same errors in our governance will just repeat ad nauseum.

Katie said...

I agree with Jerome (I'm a fellow Hoosier). I don't think Mitch is only invested in himself, as Matt suggests. He's never given me that impression, and honestly, I'd be pretty surprised if he ran for President. I do think he's not really comfortable dealing with social issues, because his strength is, as Jerome pointed out, in balancing budgets, running things, managing multiple projects.

Deirdre Mundy said...

Matt- If you read further, you'll see that he's only 'leaving the door open' so he can give his views on budget a wider airing.

The man is an accountant, not a politician-- and he tends to believe that social issues should be up to the legislature, not the executive.

You're political commentary is usually pretty good, but when it comes to Daniels, you're WAYYYY off.

He just tends to focus on his own area of expertise.. and he actually has no interest in being president.... you'd have to hogtie him and throw him into a sack to get him back to DC at this point... he wouldn't run unless he could telecommute.

But he's a good, solid, completely unisnspiring and too blah-looking for national politics guy.

Honestly, east-coasters just don't get him. (or Indiana, as evidenced by the "isn't this place quaint and exotic' tone of the whole piece.)

Deirdre Mundy said...

Oh, to clarify, I'm also from Indiana (but not a native--I just married one--and then found out why people tend to come here to raise their kids....)

Anonymous said...

Well, this certainly does show he lacks a certain political savvy. I'm with Dr. G - what is inconsistent between so-con and fiscal-con positions? Wouldn't re-instituting the Mex City policy and shutting off funding to PP help balance the budget (I know, drops in the bucket, but you gotta start somewhere)?

matthew archbold said...

Deirdre, I hope you're right. But I don't know of many Governors who don't see themselves as future Presidents somewhere in their imaginings.

And his prescription for the next President would be disastrous. In fact, if the GOP nominee were to follow it, I believe it would split the party and ultimately destroy it.

So here's to hoping that Mitch Daniels never runs.

Renee said...

In Massachusetts GOP candidate for governor is running with a gay marriage/abortion stance, he isn't making past 33%. While our progressive governor who really isn't that great is still earning about 45-50% of the vote in opinion polls. Sen. Scott Brown won leaning to some pro-life issues, meaning restriction on late term and medical conscientious clauses and also voting to allow a vote on the marriage ballot that was eventually denied by the 80% Democratic state legislature. Social conservatives simply sit out on these candidates, if they aren't willing to make baby steps towards a pro-life based public policy. I know I am. Because of the Democrat's platform that places abortion as a sacrament, you can be pretty moderate with restriction and seem like a moderate, I think... . but anything you do to curb abortion unless it more birth control from Planned Parenthood is seen as 'Denying a woman's choice'.

leyla said...

abortion is the litmus test for flushing out those who would try to usurp the conservative votes. glad to see he has revealed himself before the election.

Rick said...

The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. The respect for the unborn is part of "fearing" God. Without that foundation, then only matter exists - so economics will trump morality. And that is how wisdom ends. The RNC better do a bang up job in sifting out these fools.

Anonymous said...

Keep this guy's feet to the fire!

--William

William said...

He MAY be right in as far as it'd be just another distraction given the current climate, but not even cutting off the funding to the Mexico abortions? Who does THAT help?

SarahL said...

If I had a nickel for every time someone has said (within earshot), "Whether or not a candidate is pro-life isn't as important as what he's going to do to revive the country's economy," . . . Rick's got it right. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and defending the unborn is part of that fear of God. It's not "single-issue voting"; it's overriding-issue voting.

scmom (Barbara) said...

Abortion and the economy is all part and parcel for the president. In fact, if you think about 30 million people who would one day be paying taxes, some would say abortion is the cause of a poor economy. And then, of course, there is the punishment for all those deaths. Somebody is going to be leading this country when God points His mighty finger at us.

David L Alexander said...

Neo-cons like Daniels forget that Hitler turned the economy of Germany around, from bankruptcy to world power, in less than a decade. The cost was a social agenda of liquidating undesirables. We've heard this false pragmatism before. "Conservatives" who give abortion a pass have no problem with taxpayer funding for it. How has that helped the economy?

Post a Comment