These days, people say "Season's Greetings," which, when you think about it, means nothing. It's like walking up to somebody and saying "Appropriate Remark" in a loud, cheerful voice.

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

CMR Calls "A Truce" on Daniels' Campaign

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is once again reiterating his plea to call a truce on all those pesky social issues until the economic problems of America are worked out. He said you can still feel passionately about issues like abortion but he wants you to just SHUT UP about them until he can fix the REAL problems facing the country.

Here's exactly what he said on the Laura Ingraham show, according to the Brody File:

"If you don’t accept that we face a republic-threatening issue in terms of the debt--and again I would love to conclude one day that I was overreacting--but that threatens every one of us whatever our views on these other questions. I would like to think that fixing it and saving our kids future could be a unifying moment for our country and we wouldn't stop our disagreements or our passionate belief in these other questions, we just sort of mute them for a little while, while we try to come together on the thing that menaces us all." (Laura Ingraham show 01/31/11)
CMR likes the whole "truce" idea but feel Daniel's puts it in the wrong context.

CMR is urging social conservatives to call a truce on Daniel's budding campaign. We're not for it or against it, we're just going to ignore it. And we won't consider voting for Daniels until Roe v. Wade is overturned. That may take a while but I'm willing to wait. Hope he is too.

In all seriousness, if you're not willing to accept that the right to life is the guiding principle you're not my kind of pol. If killing the unborn is less offensive to you than high taxes and reckless spending then you're probably not getting my vote. It's pretty simple. I'm a simple man that way.

Here's the thing - nominating pro-life judges takes gumption. Lots and lots of gumption because you're going to be hit savagely from all sides. The media, the Democrats, historians, feminists and academics will all be railing at you for personally dragging women by the hair back into the Dark Ages and forcing them into the back alleys. They'll say you're ripping the country apart. They'll call you the most divisive figure of the 21st century. And if Democrats come to you and say they'd be willing to negotiate and give something up on the economy if only you'd consider nominating a "moderate" judge then the question is one of priorities. And everything Daniels' says tells me that he might just go for it because his priority is the economy. And I'm just not there.

So after Roe is overturned I'll be willing to consider Mitch Daniels for President. But until then, it's a truce.

Your Ad Here

15 comments:

D.Amiri said...

Mr. Archbold,

I'm not sure if your blogging style hides your actual thoughts on the issue, but I want to come of the woodwork to have a conversation with you and others about this very difficult issue.

Yes, I am Pro-Life, have attended the March for Life, etc. Now that that's out of the way, let me get to the heart of the issue.

In short, I propose the following simple statement: as important as the issue of abortion (and, more broadly, social issues in general) is, there are still instances in which one may be justified in voting for a pro-choice candidate. One situation that comes to mind is that one lives in a state in which the pro-life candidate poses no challenge. Therefore, one's hope would be merely to get the better pro-choice candidate elected rather than the worse one.

As someone with experience in politics, one may even argue that choosing the pro-life candidate in certain situations would seriously diminish the quality of government. For example, if an elected office had no influence on the issue of abortion, it would be best to choose the candidate that is better qualified for the job, regardless of his stance on abortion.

Like all the above, the decision of whether or not to support Mitch Daniels relies immensely upon the circumstances. What are these circumstances exactly? An economy near the brink. An unsustainable debt. Out of control spending. A brazen liberal base. Looming Obamacare.

The question that should be posed to pro-life voters is not whether Mitch Daniels will fight for the pro-life cause, but whether the crisis situation as outlined above warrants a further analysis. Or, in other words, whether, in the absence of a viable pro-life candidate with outstanding credentials, Mitch Daniels is the better choice. Certainly, not the ideal choice, but merely the better choice?

As for me, considering all the potential candidates that COULD run, Mitch Daniels is appearing remarkably attractive.

Your position would seem to dictate that it would be immoral to vote for Mitch Daniels. Perhaps that's not what you think, but sometimes your lighthearted and passionate blogging is hard to read through.

I would appreciate your response. My argument is deficient on several accounts, but I hope we can work through this problem together.

Sue said...

D. Amiri, this article by Fr. Steven Torraco should answer your question, here is the link;
http://www.ewtn.com/vote/brief_catechism.htm

D.Amiri said...

Sue,

I just want to point out briefly that no one has ever said Mitch Daniels is pro-choice. He has simply not made the abortion issue a primary one in his platform.

I think this letter is perfect: http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/naumfinnresp.htm.

I also want to make the final point that if Catholics across the country vote for pro-life senators and representatives and elect majorities to both chambers, then Mitch Daniel's truce may not be necessary after all, and he may feel more inclined to actively support pro-life measures.

Alipius said...

"I would like to think that fixing it and saving our kids future..."

Help people save our kids future in the womb, dude!

Rick said...

The problem of murdering the unborn is not secondary to any other. That's the problem, candidates have wrong priorities.

Anonymous said...

What Daniels is missing is that the debt problem at the core, is an issue of spiritual poverty. Our culture has become one of taking, rather than of giving.

--Taking money earned and giving it to others
--Taking money earned and spending it frivolously
--Taking money earned and giving it to cronies
--Spending now (personal and government) without being able to pay for it later.
--Taking unborn life rather than preserving life.
--Taking the life of the elderly to "save" money

Daniels wants to have it both ways, and until we as a country begin to reform spiritually, I don't think we can reform financially. They are all the same problem, manifested in different ways.

Deirdre Mundy said...

I would argue that Mitch Daniels is NOT Pro-Choice. He's supported and signed pro-life legislation when it comes up in Indiana-- he just feels that its the statehouse's job to initiate it, and that the Executive's job is to focus on cost-cutting and other hard issues.

One thing you have to understand-- even the "Pro-Choice" people in most of Indiana are fairly pro-life. For a lot of them, their philosophy is "I would never have an abortion. I would never let my daughter, cousin or niece have one. I give to the Women's Care center, and Itry to help out pregnant single moms. There is no way my tax dollars should fund abortion. BUT I don't see how I can tell other people what to do... I mean what if a woman was pregnant with an alien baby and it was going to rip out her throat and then eat her?? I mean, sure, *I* wouldn't have an abortion in that situation, but I don't feel right telling someone ELSE not to............"

So, Mitch Daniels has never really HAD to fight for pro-life legislation. For him, fiscal responsibility means defunding abortion. He wants judges who have a very limited view of Federal powers. Which would LEAD to overturning Roe, and sending it back to the states.

Which, for you Pennsylvania and New York people would probably mean blood running in the streets. For Indiana it would probably mean very strict controls.

Mitch Daniel's problem isn't that he hates babies, but that he doesn't understand what he needs to say to be electable.

Which is why, frankly, he's totally unelectable. That and the fact that he's about 5 foot 3 and has a comb over.

----
Meanwhile, I am relieved and estatic to have Pence running for Governor!

--
Also, keep in mind that Indiana was recently ranked something like 49/50 in terms of 'corruption.' Mitch Daniels is used to clean, honest politics where everyone just states the problem and gets to work.

So, again, not presidential material. Which stinks, because, honestly, I think the judges he'd appoint and the limits he'd try to put on Federal Government would make pro-lifers really happy in the long run, especially in that inevitable future where the Dems are back in charge.......

D.Amiri said...

Again, just want to talk about the degrees of nuance here.

First, if there is a viable outspokenly pro-life candidate, he (or she) has got my vote.

The key word here is "viable," however, and may reflect many complex analyses. My local state senator may be extremely pro-life but he's not going to even come close to winning a presidential election. I also reserve the right to support, in keeping with a conscience informed by natural law, a less pro-life candidate because he or she would be a stronger candidate in the general election against Obama.

Ideally, we could know exactly how each candidate is going to fair and we can make our decisions with perfect knowledge of the future. We can't, however, and we must make the best of the candidates that we have.

Finally, it is not my understanding that Mitch Daniels is pro-choice. If he is, then I retract my already tentative support for him.

Jay Anderson said...

Mitch Daniels' problem is not that he's pro-choice. He's not. His problem is threefold:

(1) that he considers a "truce" regarding the holocaust of the unborn an expedient means to "more important" ends;

(2) that he's willing to run a GOP primary campaign with this "truce" as his centerpiece indicates that he is going out of his way to appeal to those who are, by definition, NOT social conservatives, meaning that if he were somehow to be elected (which he won't be without social conservative support), that he won't feel the least bit beholden to our concerns; and

(3) that he is naive enough (or disingenuous enough) to actually believe a so-called "truce" would work in the first place. Does he think the culture warriors on the left are going to suddenly lay down and stop pushing their agenda just so Mitch can balance the frickin' budget? Heck, I doubt the other side even cares whether the budget is balanced, but they will crawl over broken glass and rusty nails to ensure their unholy "sacrament" is held sacrosanct.

Rick said...

What Jay said: ditto.

This truce talk is a euphemism to put pro-life issues in the back burner - meaning no right to life amendment when the chance presents itself. The pro-abortion mob knows that it cannot push its position with the coming political environment that is dominantly pro-life so, this will be the way to dismiss any initiative that will end abortion in this country.

With Obama showing himself for who he really is, any other candidate becomes viable. Bottom line, the primaries will decide.

paladin said...

(*growl*) For the umteenth time:

Is it not possible for us to walk (i.e. fight abortion by every means possible) AND chew gum (i.e. fight socialism) at the same time??? Daniels is obviously NOT talking about a "minimize the evil, since it's logically and/or physically impossible to avoid it" scenario, so let's dispense with that red herring, shall we?

(*sigh*) Sorry... but some of this "nuance" (the only 6-letter 4-letter word I know) is a pseudo-elegant way to soothe one's not-terribly-well-calibrated moral compass, as one flirts with the idea of indulging one's political tastes at the expense of life. Blithering nonsense.

From (soon to be Blessed) Pope John Paul II:

"Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights--for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture--is false and illusory if the right to life, the most fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination."

D.Amiri said...

Paladin,

What I am saying is that fighting for the right to life with maximum determination might, under certain circumstances, lead one to support a man like Daniels.

Fundamentally, politics is an exercise in the practical and there are thousands of different factors that can influence ones decision on this matter, many of which are uncertain. To be pithy: It is ideal to support someone who is viable and pro-life. Sometimes, it may be necessary to support someone who is viable and not pro-choice.

paladin said...

D.Amiri,

I understand your point; but I disagree with your premise (i.e. that the situation on the ground requires supporting Daniels). Check out the "red herring" description, above. Daniels has NO basis for talking about "truces" in this political environment, and he seems simply to be greasing the skids of the "political nuance machine" for no morally proportionate reason; he's "compromising" where no compromise can be allowed.

I'll gladly allow that, if Daniels eventually becomes the only political option other than someone worse (e.g. Obama, Clinton, etc.), then it may be morally licit to vote for him in the general election. (It would also be morally licit to withhold one's vote, or vote pro-life third-party, etc.) I'm saying that this is precisely why we must NOT yet support him (yes, even if such support would be in the name of "expediency for life"--whatever that means) in his possible presidential aspirations, at least until he gets such relativistic nonsense out of his head... and that we make our displeasure known to him, as early as possible.

BobRN said...

Had the abolitionists committed themselves to voting for only those candidates that held uncompromising positions on slavery, Abraham Lincoln would not have been elected. He was far from a radical abolitionist.

Lincoln was wrong, however, in thinking that he could separate the slavery issue from the struggle to preserve the Union. Eventually, he realized this, and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Even though that, itself, was a compromise, it led inevitably to the 13th, 14th and 15th ammendments.

Daniels realizes the devestating consequences of not getting our fiscal matters under control and the need to make that our top priority, just as Lincoln knew that preserving the Union was the top priority. Perhaps, like Lincoln, he'll come to realize that you cannot separate political realities from moral ones. Had Lincoln preserved a Union that continued to enshrine slavery in its Constitution, what sort of victory would that have been? Should Daniels save the country from fiscal disaster, only to continue the slaughter of innocent millions, what sort of victory would that be?

D.Amiri said...

Paladin,

I doubt that Daniels is calling for a "truce" precisely because of the benefits it might gain him. Perhaps he will gain the votes of moderates and liberals. However, for evidence that this truce has not been politically advantageous to him, I think you can read basically any op-ed on the matter. I find it somewhat incredible that he continues to defend his truce even in the face of intense criticism of him on exactly this point.

Still, one has to wonder what a subtly pro-life Republican president would do differently than an outspokenly pro-life president. I look forward to the particulars of these differences coming out in debates.

Post a Comment