The American Spectator : Scapegoating Mitch Daniels

Text Size

Scapegoating Mitch Daniels

By Philip Klein on 3.17.11 @ 6:11AM

He’s paying the price for a long-standing problem social conservatives have had with the Republican Party.

Over the past year, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has been a case study in how not to seek the Republican presidential nomination — if indeed that is his intention.

Despite having a generally conservative governing record, in the run-up to a possible candidacy, Daniels has managed to alienate all parts of the GOP’s so-called “three-legged” stool. He has rattled economic conservatives by floating the possibility of a VAT tax, unnerved national security hawks by talking about defense cuts and seeming indifferent about foreign policy, and angered values voters by calling for a “truce” on social issues while the country confronts the national emergency of our fiscal crisis.

It’s the latter comments that have drawn the most heat, giving his potential rivals an easy opening at conservative events to say that yes, social issues are a priority.

But while Daniels has become a popular target for social conservatives who understandably don’t want to see their issues downplayed, the reality is that Daniels’ crime was to say explicitly what most of the other potential candidates are saying and doing implicitly — that is, emphasizing the importance of economic and fiscal issues over moral matters.

In a sense, Daniels has become a scapegoat for a gripe that social conservatives have had for decades — that Republicans take them for granted. Politicians count on them to get elected, but then spend most of their time pursuing other issues once in office.

A few days into the Reagan presidency, Washington Post correspondent and later biographer Lou Cannon spoke to someone he identified as a Reagan operative about the new administration’s relationship with Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. Cannon paraphrased the Reaganite as saying “that it was important for the administration to give this faction something so they wouldn’t turn on the president.” When a reporter asked, “What do you want to give them?” the operative responded: “Symbolism.”

During his presidency, Reagan began the tradition of “phoning in” to the largest annual anti-abortion event, the March for Life, a practice that extended into successive Republican presidencies. He nominated Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court over the objections of social conservatives. While he supported amending the Constitution to protect the life of the unborn and allow school prayer, he never exhausted much political capital to pursue those policies.

Another possible 2012 presidential candidate, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, has a strong pro-life record. Yet at the same time, Barbour has deemphasized abortion as a major electoral issue — and came under fire last fall when he defended his long time friend Daniels for his “truce” comments. Last month, in an interview for an upcoming magazine piece, I asked Barbour about this distinction he’s drawn.

“The distinction is the distinction of spokesmanship,” he explained. “When I speak about my record, it is a socially conservative record. I am very pro-life and have been consistently pro-life since [first running for office in] 1982.… Having said that, elections ought to be about the issues that on are on the voters’ minds. If you’re smart in politics you want to be telling the people, ‘Here’s what I want to do to solve the problem that you’re really worried about.’ That’s what I think Mitch was saying.”

Despite the impression one might get from his public statements over the past year, Daniels himself has a pro-life record as governor. In 2005, he signed a law requiring doctors performing abortions to offer pregnant women the choice to view an ultrasound and hear the heartbeat of the fetus. In 2009, with his backing, Indiana enacted harsher penalties for acts of violence against unborn children.

Yet save Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee, most Republican candidates in the 2012 field will tend to emphasize fiscal and economic issues over social issues. Four years ago, Mitt Romney tried to rebrand himself as a social conservative despite his liberal record on those issues. In this year’s speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, Romney spoke almost exclusively about the economy and national security, with just one throwaway line about the unborn.

Even when candidates have courted social conservatives, one has to wonder whether any of their promises are likely to happen were they to be elected president. For instance, Tim Pawlenty has said that as president he would support reinstating the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy.

Yet let’s just say Pawlenty is sworn-in as president in January 2013 with the health care law still in the books, the national debt at over $16 trillion, and unemployment at over 8 percent. In practice, would anybody expect a President Pawlenty to prioritize dealing with the gays in the military issue over repealing ObamaCare, reforming entitlements, or addressing the economy?

The conservative hero of the month, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, has a staunch anti-abortion background. Recently the liberal Mother Jones referred derisively to his “abortion crusade.” Yet after Walker was sworn into office, he didn’t start off with a major scuffle on abortion — he dealt with the fiscal emergency in his state by taking on the public sector unions.

And given the reality of Roe v. Wade, a president has limited ability to fight abortion beyond appointing judges and reinstating the Mexico City policy barring foreign aid from subsidizing abortions overseas (something Daniels supports).

Daniels’ much-derided comments on social issues (and his subsequent failure to frame them more diplomatically) may have been politically stupid. Yet they were largely an expression of the nature of our times — in which fiscal and economic issues are dominant — and a reflection of a broader long-term reality within the GOP.

If his remarks are deeply problematic, then the problem social conservatives have with the Republican Party is much deeper than Mitch Daniels.

About the Author

Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent. You can follow him on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/Philipaklein

Letter to the Editor View all comments (154) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Clint| 3.17.11 @ 6:29AM

Daniels tried to throw Social Conservatives under the bus & is getting the response.

stmichrick| 3.17.11 @ 7:39PM

The social issues are always important. But they won't matter much if we do not deal with the Obama economic meltdown NOW. Then we will return the focus to quality of character issues.

In a way, the criticism of Daniels' approach on this is equivalent of accepting the Obama agenda on everything else! The urgency of ridding the government of functional communism is paramount and should be left to those with a track record, of which Mitch Daniels is one.

jstwndring| 3.18.11 @ 2:22AM

That's the point though, isn't it? We will never do the financially responsible thing if we don't start electing men and women of moral character. Every one else is for sale......

gpclaw| 3.18.11 @ 9:50AM

Your statement is correct, however it is separate from this debate. Take Daniels for example. Would anyone suggest that he has low moral character? Daniels has an impeccable record on social issues, especially abortion. The president of Indiana Right to Life has said as much earlier this year when he stated that "Governor Daniels has been very instrumental in advancing the pro-life cause down the field in his time of governor if Indiana." He continues to state that his organization is "fully confident that when pro-life legislation goes through the Indiana legislature, that Governor Daniels will support it when it gets to his desk. His track record has proven that."

The irony is that while all of these other "pro-life" candidates have been giving a lot of talk on pro-life issues, Daniels has been doing something about it. Governor Daniels has probably taken more action during his time as governor if Indiana, to advance the pro-life cause than any other politician in America.

Hayek| 3.21.11 @ 5:32PM

"...electing men and women of moral character."

I am a social conservative. Frankly, I am sick and tired of politicians (usually Republican) who chum for the votes of social conservatives by being "right" on the litmus test issues - abortion, gay marriage, etc. and end up being anything but the people of moral character they portrayed themselves to be and, worse, are total disasters as legislators. Tom DeLay and Mark Foley are just two examples.

Social conservatives need to wisen up. The future of the Republic is indeed in the balance, but not because of homosexuals or even those who support abortion rights. We have one shot to get our economic house in order.

Debbie| 5.11.11 @ 1:52AM

I agree..got into a discusion about this 2 nights ago with someone. I told him that honesty & true debates, instead of mud-slinging & name calling is what the country would love to see for a change. I was told it was politics, to get use to it. Why should we have to? It has to start somewhere with someone......why can't it start now? It sure would be a great change. As I see it...Mitch has been honest, isn't that what we really want, whether we will admit it or not? If he doesn't take care of the social things now in Ind. while he can, there won't be much time for it when he get to be president. Then he'll be able to spend a lot more time on financial things for our country, & make laws for our borders. I'm glad he's doing this now.

Quartermaster| 3.17.11 @ 7:48PM

Social and economic problems are intertwined. If surrender on the social issues, as the GOP has done repeatedly, you get the shemozzle we have now.

Daniels called it a truce. In reality, the way our political system operates, it amounts to surrender.

stmichrick| 3.18.11 @ 8:28AM

Sorry, I don't see the permanency in the Daniels focus on our immediate disaster. For restoration of the economy and freedom we may well need the votes and support of many who view Republicans and conservatives as too judgemental of their lifestyles. That is where Daniels is coming from.

Obama has already lost the support of many who were swept away last time by his rhetorical style and their own white guilt. Don't drive them back. Now is the time to cultivate them for 2012. You won't get all the swing votes YOU NEED by continuing to focus on lifestyle issues. We're not agreeing with them or selling out. We're playing hardball politics like they do when they get leftists like Obama and the Clintons elected by spinning their images as middle class and mainstream. The swing votes determine elections and if you claim to care about the social issues, you do yourself no favors by losing to these people.

The social decline has been going on since the late sixties. As long as there are liberals running schools, media and government it will continue.

gpclaw| 3.18.11 @ 10:09AM

This is such a false premise, I don't know where to begin.

I understand the reasoning behind your point. Their is a correlation between single parent homes, teen aged mothers, drug usage and their impact on poverty. While this should be a concern to all members of the community, this is not the type of economic crisis we face today.

The economic woes of this country are structural. The size and scope of government has become too big and too invasive. Central planning and burdensome regulations have created an impediment to economic freedom, making it more difficult for individuals to provide for their families and move up the economic ladder.

Anyone who proposes social change through government is pro Big Government. This ideology is the source of our current economic problems, whether it comes from the right or the left. No one can make a principled argument against Social Security, Medicaid/Medicare and Obamacare then turn around and support No Child Left Behind, Medicare part D or the federal War on Drugs. All were good intentioned, but increased the size of government and created unintended social consequences.

stmichrick| 3.18.11 @ 8:13PM

gpclaw; I didn't propose social change through government...only that your vision of social change will come at the expense of electing liberal government. You underestimate the depth of leftist-think in the culture. Those folks often tie their cultural preferences with socialism. We are at a juncture to break that.

The energy for the upheaval in the last election came from the Tea Party, which has purposely sidestepped getting bogged down on the social issues. Think about it.

gpclaw| 3.18.11 @ 10:37PM

stmichrick: Sorry, I was responding to quartermaster's post. I agree with what you wrote.

gpclaw| 3.18.11 @ 10:27AM

Daniels truce does not amount to surrender. The truce is about prioritizing issues and addressing those that generate the most support and have the best chance of success.

The argument for Daniels approach is happening as we speak. When the Indiana GOP tried to advance Right to Work legislation, the democrats fled the state. Upon Daniels urging, the issue was tabled next day, yet the Democrats are still gone. Why? Because prior to all of this, Daniels had proposed a school voucher program that would have passed the legislature. Because of the Right to Work legislation, which Daniels had addressed through executive order, the legislature probably won't be able to pass the voucher program.

We need to first address conservative issues that a majority of Republicans and Independents can get behind. As people begin to see the benefits to many of these ideas, it will become easier to get them on board for the harder issues.

Quartermaster| 3.18.11 @ 6:50PM

As so often happens, the two of you (stmichrick, gpclaw) make the same mistake ignorant conservatives make, failing to recognize the impact of human nature on political matters. With teh Libtards, if you grant any sort of concession, even just a "truce," you are giving up by allowing slack in which they push even harder for their agenda. If you think a truce is not surrender, then I wish you a lot of luck in walking the cat back. With Daniels the intent may not be permanent, but it will turn out that way.

Your attitude has been on display for 40 years against the left. How is it working for you? From my mountain top, you're failing miserably.

stmichrick| 3.18.11 @ 8:19PM

Quartermaster; the libtards could teach you a few things about winning elections. Reagan did not win because he was pro-life. That was a gimme.

gpclaw| 3.18.11 @ 10:31PM

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. How long have socially conservative candidates been promising to deliver on social issues, and what has anyone really done? They haven't done anything about social issues, but they sure have managed to increase the size of the federal government and the federal deficit.

Kenny| 3.17.11 @ 6:30AM

Given the mess in the country, of course economic issues get priority. But that does not mean social issue are abandoned or get ignored.

And don't a lot of social issues dove-tail with economic ones like defunding NPR, Planned Parenthood, and other sordid groups of the left that are currently on the government dole?

Come on, candidates can chew gum and walk at the same time.

NVA Patriot| 3.17.11 @ 10:13AM

Walk and chew gum at the same time? Not Republican Candidates apparently...Walking - sorta crawl, mostly stumble; chewing - yeah they chow down on pork as bad as the Dems; gum - Yep they gum up the message every time...

This is simple:

1. $200Billion of duplicate programs dump them - 0$.
2. Planned Parenthood - $0 as a public safety issue - any time the Dems complain hold up the PA clinic example - bury them
3. NPR - PUHLEEEZE...they fired the only black commentator - Must be racist for firing Juan Williams - can't fund that...
4. National Labor Relations Board? $0 fund that and send a congressional auditor over there to find our how a US public agency accepts in-kind donations from Google; then open up Google's books in a public hearing on Capital Hill under identity theft and fraud protection coupled with bribery – when the liberals squawk tell them you are cracking down on a union busting mega corporation that hides what it’s doing ...Google must need regulation

There's a bunch of easy lay-ups - even President Bracketer-in-Chief Obama understands these once you frame the B-ball example...

simon templar| 3.17.11 @ 1:21PM

Exactly, excellent point!
This notion of emphasizing the importance of economic and fiscal issues over moral matters has been spouted all my life. 'How did it work out,' should be the question. Hmm, not so well. Actually a complete failure for most of the tweintieth century. The progs got everything they wanted from economics to the culture to the educational system. They were not sitting around asking themselves, 'hey, should we concentrate on destroying the culture and transforming it or should we just stick to Marxist economics?' What the hell is the matter with us? Do you want to win or do you?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.17.11 @ 6:36AM

He sounds like George W. Bush, only more well spoken.

When a government can tell you what to eat, drink and how to receive health care it's a double edged dictatorship forcing certain people to accept the government's social solutions, which have never worked, at the expense of a captive political audience who resent having to pay for it.

Ask Mitch Daniels, or any politician pushing "social issues", to name one thing the government has done on a "social" basis that has ever worked.

The problem isn't the citizenry who want more efficient government, it's two political parties who think they know better, all the while ignoring the reality that government is in a failure mode at every level.

When you have a situation like that, how can any politician look the public in the eye and claim "social issues" are valid?

That would take one low down lying snake. Wouldn't it?

loulou| 3.17.11 @ 10:55AM

He is indeed a GWB. I like that motorcycle thing but he's still a RINO. Sorry, no sale.

Fool me once...

simon templar| 3.17.11 @ 1:37PM

Bill, conservatives both social and fiscal conservatives want the same thing. There is nothing contradictory in either of these aims. Social conservatives are simply asking for the federal governemnt to get out of the business of forced social engineering whether that be abortion, homosexual marriage, special protected minority statuses, existence of God, religious expression, the welfare state tc. or our wallets. We are not asking the fed to start a new theocracy or create new laws regulating people's life. What social conservatives want is for the people (the families) of their states and communities to decide about their children's education, their children's view of sexuality, their children's economic futures. Yes, the government can not do anything right most of the time.We want equal time in shaping this culture, making decisions on these matters for ourselves, and participation in the market place of ideas whether that be in the classroom or on the radio. We want the rampant mocking of our values and the aggresive assault on our right to freely express our values to stop. Do you understand where we are coming from?

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.17.11 @ 3:18PM

That's not what Mitch Daniels is talking about. And neither was I. You're welcome to your opinion.

darcy| 3.17.11 @ 3:37PM

I agree with you, simon templar, and would add that, recognize it or not, families in this country are everywhere being increasingly harassed by the state and its agents who have been schooled for more than 60 years in dogma that teaches that the state has determinative rights over children; parental rights, even as I write, are being undermined everywhere -- by an army of busy-bodies trained to believe that the state knows best, in much the same way that the state dictates which lightbulb you buy and what toilet you use and what foods you can eat. One example of the state's increasing power over families is a bill in Washington state that "would allow social workers and other government agents immunity from liability during their investigation of reports
of child abuse or neglect," entitled HB1680.

There are also two notable Federal bills, S.54 and S. 41; the first seeks to establish community health centers whose staffs would be directed to implement -- for families -- state approved (and therefore mandatory) health care guidelines; the second seeks to create a National Office for Social Work Research, Summary: If S. 41 becomes law, it would create a national office within the Office of the Director of National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct, support, and disseminate targeted research concerning social work methods and outcomes related to problems of significant social concerns." Notice the word "outcomes." See hslda.org/legislation/national, for more information.

The tentacles of the state reach deeper and deeper into our lives every single day -- and who pays for it? The taxpayer. Not dissimilar to the Saudi's who use our petro dollars to fund wahhibism, the state uses our tax dollars (no wonder we face a fiscal nightmare) to employ vast numbers of government workers -- at every level of society -- to tighten the noose around the neck of our freedoms.

Strong families do not give up to the state power over their children. Government policies that promote family breakdown, i.e. abortion, homosexual marriage, gays in the military, are all of a piece to dilute the influence of and fragment strong families so that the state can proceed in its grand authoritarian scheme of telling everyone how we should live -- in short, to strip us of our freedom.

And that is why the truce issue stings.

darcy| 3.17.11 @ 3:57PM

The truce issue also stings because what is going on with our fiscal crisis is a direct result of state-sanctioned theft, whereby neighbors use a third party, the state, (in return for votes) to steal from the guy down the street, something he likely would never do directly -- and this, at all socio-economic levels, from the slackers all the way up to the Jeffrey Immelts of the world.

And that, my friends, IS A MORAL ISSUE.

Debbie| 5.11.11 @ 2:15AM

If some of the social things had been taken care of years ago......maybe there wouldn't be such a need for medicaid like there is now, or for the ones that truly need it, it would be there. Unfortunately, there are way too many using medicaid to help them with birth control. And I don't mean the kind in pill form. If the aide wasn't there for him, isn't there a much better chance that they MIGHT be a bit more careful? Then there would be less children needing the help. Which in turn, means less money the government has to pay out. So yes........they both work hand in hand.

Charles Dennison| 3.17.11 @ 6:45AM

I have called Daniels a RINO in the past. I am now going to refer to him as a WEENIE (widdle, egotistical, elite negating insightful electorate) not to be confused with the WEEPIE (wildly, excitable elite poopooing insightful electorate) Boehner.
Ok - I've had my fun for today. Sorry.

Clint| 3.17.11 @ 6:50AM

An Interesting debate & should certain of these issues be better suited to be kicked down to the state level,etc.

"Social conservatives believe in promoting traditional moral values and social mores to preserve and improve American society. They have been especially active in taking traditionalist positions on issues involving sexual standards. Social conservatives oppose abortion and gay marriage. They are doubtful about affirmative action, arguing it too often turns into quotas. They tend to support a strong military and are opposed to gun control.

Most social conservatives oppose illegal immigration, which puts them in opposition to the business community. Social conservatives support stronger law enforcement and often disagree with libertarians. On the issue of school vouchers the group is split between those who support the concept (believing that "big government" education is a failure) and those who oppose the concept (believing that "big government" would gain the right to dictate schools' or sponsoring churches' positions on controversial social issues.)

Social conservatives included Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Trent Lott, Rick Perry, and Sarah Palin, among others."

John Daniel| 3.17.11 @ 7:08AM

Ultimately, economic success rests on a sound ethical foundation (and American exceptionalism squarely on a Judeo-Christian tradition). And for those squeamish about religion, same result through Aristotelian "moral excellence."

Mimi| 3.17.11 @ 7:14AM

Barbour...Daniels...NOPE and NOPE. Nice men, can be of help in the NEW administation..but can't see either as President!
I can't say I'm looking for a growling bull-dog type but a STRONG, sensible, no nonsense constitutional GIANT would work!
As for the social issues it's a big part of a conservative coalition and highly meaningful for a civil , virtuous society. Many stopped voting for DEMS over the Pro-Life issue in the early 70's, and many now are sick and tired of P.C and decline in values. Lotta issue only votes out there.
The " ONE" is yet to emerge !!!

Mimi| 3.17.11 @ 7:32AM

Forget the spit and polish...I want to see this guy at every bus , train and plane stop...red face from energy and PASSION...sleeves rolled up on that white shirt past the elbows..to the biceps...going from town to town fighting for the chance to SAVE AMERICA! He may be one thats out there NOW but has to evolve to that kind of guycomfortable in his own skin and firm and right on his convictions.
URGENCYin the voice....yea a fighter!

Stuart Koehl| 3.17.11 @ 7:58AM

Social conservatives need to understand that there is relatively little that government can do to implement their agenda, whereas there is much that government can do to undermine traditional moral values--if it is given the power and the authority.

Realizing this, they would then recognize that economic conservatism is a necessary prerequisite for social conservatism. A government that intervenes little in economic affairs and lives within its means, does not have the wherewithal for sweeping social change. Such a government must instead rely upon people assuming responsibility for their own lives, which in turn necessarily promotes the traditional values of piety, sobriety, thrift, chastity, charity and fidelity.

Put another way, social conservatism can never succeed in the face of big government. And big government cannot implement social conservatism. But if big government is removed, then social conservatism will naturally reassert itself.

joellen| 3.17.11 @ 8:29AM

If we dont come back morally, if we dont protect the unborn, if we dont re-instill basic dignity and a sense of modesty within our culture, we will never emerge as a great country. To not accept that if we are morally corrupt than we will be ecomomically corrupt is to continue down this path of destruction.

Stuart Koehl| 3.17.11 @ 9:15AM

Free market economics only work within the context of a moral society (read your Adam Smith). Because, in a free market, people must depend both on themselves and each other, the fundamental dignity of people must be upheld; and modesty, sobriety and thrift must be practiced. Otherwise, one sinks into the abyss of poverty and despair. One cannot impose morality from outside, particularly in regard to private actions; rather, social morale is built within the hearts of each individual person. Nothing the government can do will increase respect for the life of the unborn. The rise in opposition to abortion has come despite, not because of government action. People act irresponsibly because government largesse insulates them from the consequences of their folly. Small government cannot do that; it lacks the resources. People thus either learn to live responsibly, or they learn to live in squalor.

simon templar| 3.17.11 @ 1:44PM

You got it, for the most part. Social conservatives do not want the governemnt to implement any social agenda for anyone particularly when it restricts people's basic right of free expression such as prayers, personal references to God in valedictorian speeches, or their tax dollars going to abortions.

Capt G| 3.19.11 @ 9:55PM

Exactly! Never read it any better stated.

Clint| 3.17.11 @ 8:18AM

Interesting, that Big Government finds ways to carries out The Social Liberals' Agenda with Roe v.Wade and now Repealing DADT & finds ways to Screw Social Conservatives.

Bob K.| 3.17.11 @ 8:27AM

Mr. Klein,
Refer back to your 2nd paragraph. You haven't listed anything from his "generally conservative governing record." Show us a few items or write him off like the rest of the Republican electorate has. And if he is serious about a VAT he should be written off!

Teflon93| 3.17.11 @ 8:37AM

What fiscal and economic conservatism have we gotten from Republicans over the past generation?

Has government spending gone down in any year? Has any entitlement program been repealed?

The fact is the GOP has provided nothing but "symbolism" on economic and fiscal matters as well. They are The Stupid Party for a reason.

And they don't only take advantage of social conservatives, who have every right to say "Enough!"

wodiej| 3.17.11 @ 8:38AM

If you think moral issues and financial issues are not connected you are not delving into this too deeply. The overwhelming majority of those in poverty are people who act irresponsibly. Having a one parent home is the biggest cause. Most one parent homes are due to immoral, irresponsible behavior. This behavior is then subsidized by the taxpayers through tax credits, housing assistance, food stamps and monthly cash stipends. There's your connection. If Gov. Daniels cannot figure that out, he best not run for President.

JP| 3.17.11 @ 8:42AM

I think Phillip that you have it wrong. I live in Indiana and I've seen Daniels govern up close. I think it is safe to say that Govenor Daniles public utterances was an attempt to re-enact the McCain strategy of winning the primary nomination by winning Independents first and foremost. Needless to say, that strategy was a disaster for McCain, who during the convention had to do something to appease the grass roots. That something was nominating Palin.

Nixon's old strategy of moving to the Right during primaries and then shfting to the Center during the national campaign still holds today as it did in 1968 and 1972.
Daniels was and is a Centrists on almost all issues. And his focus would still be economics even if we were living through good times. Eighty years ago that held true. But, as we have seen, a politican who is Pro-Abortion is also one who doesn't have a problem borrowing $4 billion a day. And any GOP pol who wishes to call a truce on social issues, will over time cave on everything else (fiscal and economic issues inclusive). Daniels remains a Beltway Insider, and his heart will always be there. Over the last 4 decades, as the Democrats have moved steadily Leftward, they've pulled the GOP with them. The truth be known, today's GOP isn't much different than the old Scoop Jackson Democrats. Conservatives, in the mean time, are left in the learch. Danels, Pawlenty, and Balbour are good examples of this phenomenon as any.

Nick| 3.17.11 @ 3:21PM

JP,

Excellent comments, just excellent.

Politicians who think it is acceptable to let unborn babies get killed with impunity, denying them their God given right to life, these same politicians will certainly have no problem taking the property of those of us who have survived to adulthood.

Show me one pro-abort pol in the House or Senate who doesn't consistantly vote to increase taxes. They don't exist.

Booger | 3.17.11 @ 8:51AM

Mr. Klein misses the obvious questions:
1. With whom would Daniels make this truce?
2. What terms would Daniels receive for this truce?
There is no need to make a "truce" with social conservatives on spending issues; if anything the social conservatives (other than Huckabee, who has had his share of problems) are ardent penny pinchers when it comes to government spending. No, this truce would be with the RINOs. And what might Daniels receive in return? A "promise" to cut back on spending once the RINOs in question are safely ensconced in power. It's a silly little song and dance we've seen for decades in the Republican party, and anyone who is unable (or unwilling) to figure it out by this point in time is not fit to lead on the national level.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.17.11 @ 9:13AM

Might I add, you're damn right!

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.17.11 @ 9:36PM

It's sort of right up there with "negotiating with democrats". Their agenda gets advanced while we're forever holding a "truce". Please let's stop!

JimP| 3.17.11 @ 9:14AM

Daniels turns me off completely. One can argue about him inartfully framing the social issues leg of the stool. But, throw in his comments about the era of Reagan being over, a VAT, and cutting defense and the duck analogy pops into my brain. 'If it looks like...., walks like ....' He's a RINO. IMO, Daniels is most definitely not the candidate we need whether he actually believes what he says or just can't help putting his foot in his mouth.

Derek Leaberry| 3.17.11 @ 9:15AM

Daniels, Klein, Frum, Goldstein and Goldberg want to disown social conservatives while retaining their votes. It is a doubtful endeavor. Without an honorable moral order, the United States deserves collapse. In fact, America's current dire circumstances are a result of a majority immoral people.

Clint| 3.17.11 @ 10:20AM

Yup, there are GOP Ruling Elite Fops, who make a serious mistake, attempting to "Use" Social Conservatives & then try to throw them under the bus.

darcy| 3.17.11 @ 4:26PM

Well said, Derek Leaberry. And I would add that wodiej at 8:38AM is spot on, too, delivering a somewhat more detailed account of cause and effect.

To ask of a Republican candidate that they support strong families by indentifying where government policy has undermined the family must be the very least that we should do and that they should endorse wholeheartedly and earnestly seek to remedy. Otherwise, we must assume that he or she is content to permit -- without a quibble -- the long march of the leftist agenda to proceed apace, and with it, the destruction of America (if we are not already too late to save our nation)

335blues| 3.17.11 @ 9:17AM

The real problem, Phillip, is that every one of the possible republican candidates you mention is WEAK, especially mitch daniels. Your column smacks of a plea to voters "hey people, mitch (or put any of the other rinos you mention here) really isn't that bad". The issue with mitch daniels is that he isn't really that good. Americans are looking at the records of politicians, not their words. Mitch daniels voting record is not one of a solid conservative. The people of America are praying, and waiting) for a real conservative to stand up and fight the marxist obama in 2012. For you, or anyone else, to pick one issue and then proclaim " see, mitch daniels is just like Reagan" is ridiculous. MITCH DANIELS IS NO RONALD REAGAN. There are plenty of real conservatives that republicans should be wooing into the fight against the marxist obama. Stop wasting your time with mitch daniels and write an article about them.

ShawnTzu| 3.18.11 @ 3:21AM

[Mitch daniels voting record is not one of a solid conservative.]

You obviously are not that familiar with his record if you say such things.

[The people of America are praying, and waiting) for a real conservative to stand up and fight the marxist obama in 2012. For you, or anyone else, to pick one issue and then proclaim " see, mitch daniels is just like Reagan" is ridiculous. MITCH DANIELS IS NO RONALD REAGAN.]

Actually, on matters of a fiscal nature (and comparing their records as governor), Governor Daniels runs rings around what Governor Reagan did in California. And on social issues Governor Daniels' record is a hell of a lot better than that of Governor Reagan. So you are right, Daniels is no Reagan. But when you compare their records as state governors, Daniels' record is superior on every score to that of the Gipper. Not that most conservatives today who make excuses for Reagan and lambaste others as "rinos" for acting and governing as Reagan at times really care about letting the truth get in the way of their little coservative nostalgia parade of course.

Capt G| 3.19.11 @ 9:59PM

Quite so.

Dai Alanye | 3.17.11 @ 9:49AM

It is one thing to recognize the overwhelming importance of reining-in government spending at present, but quite another to specifically demean social issues. Both are moral issues, even if one is all-important at present.

The supporters of Daniels are left to argue that he made a stupid political move yet would govern wisely---certainly a tenuous argument.

With the exception of Ron Paul, whose effect upon foreign policy would be disastrous---or Donald Trump---I'd vote for any of the present Repubs in preference to the child who today infests the White House. But please, not Daniels or his ilk.

Michael L. Hauschild| 3.17.11 @ 10:05AM

“Over the past year, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels has been a case study in how not to seek the Republican presidential nomination…..”
Not so, esteemed Danials bandwagoner.
Over the past year the Tea Party People, utilizing their newfound awareness as constituents via the transparency of record provided by the internet, have determined that Danials is another despicable RINO.
He has a lot more problems as a candidate than the SoCons.

David T| 3.17.11 @ 10:12AM

If the GOP nominates Mitch Daniels, it will be on the receiving end of a historic "shellacking."

Anthony| 3.17.11 @ 10:34AM

Since when did insulting the conservative social issues base become a resume enhancer?
Daniels' lack of dexterity in down playing the "social issues", as opposed to his outright hostility to them, shows me he doesn't have what it takes.
This guy would run to the center so fast, he wouldn't have time to become road kill.

Louis Tully| 3.17.11 @ 10:43AM

There are abundant reasons to dislike Daniels as a Presidential candidate. I guess we'll add "claims to be a scapegoat" to the list.

rightasrain| 3.17.11 @ 10:46AM

Sure the fiscal situation is the most pressing problem facing our country today, but why does Mitch Daniels feel the need to unnecessarily and repeatedly antagonize social conservatives? Simply assert your social conservative bona fides and shut up about a "truce" which is meaningless really since he never says how this alleged truce is supposed to work. My dachshund has better political instincts than Daniels has.

Mike | 3.17.11 @ 10:47AM

If Republicans need social conservatives to be elected, they also need independents. And, there is the rub.

JimP| 3.17.11 @ 11:24AM

I have a nascent theory that independents are much more conservative, including socially, than they themselves realize. But, because the GOP is dominated by RINOs who:1) are social liberals; and 2) thus do not frame the debate properly, the independents end up thinking social conservatives are nefarious troglodytes, which the vast majority definitely are not. Anyway, that's my emerging theory. Reagan captured them and he at least talked like a socialcon. So could other Repubs, IF they want to.

Mike | 3.17.11 @ 2:30PM

An interesting theory, Jim.

I'm not convinced that independents are distinguishing between so called RINOs and other Republicans. On the other hand, I think they are distinguishing between Tea Party Republicans and other Republicans. Whether or not this is good for the GOP remains to be seen.

You appear to be doubling down on being more conservative as a winning strategy. I place my bet on most independents being fundamentally centrist. The next election may sort this out for us, unless the GOP manages to nominate a RINO.

Nick| 3.17.11 @ 4:00PM

Mike,

See JP's comment above.

What the centrists can't seem to figure out is that it's the social moderate Republicans, i.e. liberal RINOs, who consistantly vote to raise taxes and increase spending.

I refer you to Snow, Collins, S-P-E-C-T-E-R, Shays, Tom Davis (VA) retired, Lugar, Shamesty Grahmnesty, McLame, Crist, and Romney, to name just a few.

Even President George W. Bush, who's first priorty was to get the tax cuts passed when he assumed office, gave us No Child Left Behind and the Medicare Drug Benefit. He also could have offset the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by eliminating all the unconstitutional programs in the federal government. But, he didn't.

He did immediately reinstate the Mexico City policy of President Reagan and nominate John Roberts to the Supreme Court (although he also put up Harriet Meirs.)

It is the so-called "moderates" who take one step forward (to get elected) and then take three steps back.

Centrists would do well to learn that it is the social conservatives who are also reliably, day in and day out, fiscal conservatives. If taxes and spending are your major issues, then you should vote for a so-con, not a "moderate".

darcy| 3.17.11 @ 4:40PM

I would only add that today's centrist is yesterday's liberal -- the entire political spectrum, among our elected members -- has moved dangerously leftward. So much so that today's conservatives are now "radical."

My point is, centrism breeds a leftward trajectory, and its advocates have intentionally used the "moderate" moniker as bait to lure in the uninformed and easily led to its progressive machinations.

Let's face it. Today's Republican Party establishment is embarrased by its conservative base -- because the RP has turned left too and no longer seeks to protect our Constitution, and our rights, from the aims of Big Brother -- which is to amass as much control of our lives AS WE WILL PERMIT.

I say: Permission not granted.

JimP| 3.17.11 @ 5:00PM

Mike,

If a candidate being Reaganesque is "doubling down on being more conservative" then so be it. However, that is not what I was talking about. If you reread my comment you'll note that I stated that the indies-thoerectically- are more socially conservative than they realize, but have been propagandized in a manner of speaking into seeing "social conservatives" as nefarious troglodites.

Mike| 3.17.11 @ 5:49PM

Jim,

Centrists -theoretically- may be more liberal than they realize. Support for Social Security and Medicare would suggest that such is the case.

JimP| 3.18.11 @ 5:38AM

LOL Gee Mike, I was making an honest effort to have a conversation. I didn't realize you were just here as a gadfly. Sorry I worked your nerve.

Capt G| 3.19.11 @ 10:26PM

Mike is correct and a conservative Republican would do well to run on economic issues at the cost of social issues. First off, as Stuart K says above, the government is largely powerless on these matters and nothing of import is going to happen until society itself moves more socially conservative.
As a practical matter, reducing the size, and dependency upon, government is the best route.

One must get elected to do that and anyone not running on the brokenness of government and all it's spending would be a damn fool of a politician. Independents will rally to that trumpet, and just where exactly are we so-cons to go? I held my nose, and voted for McCain. I'd do so again and I may have to. And I'm hardly betraying my so-con values to say that fiscal issues take precedence. A little Moynihan may be in order here:
"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society. The central liberal truth is that politics can change a culture and save it from itself."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

To the extent that government moves the culture, it does so in one direction; towards more dependence upon government. And it is that corroding factor that animates all our issues today. Only by being economic conservatives will we realize social conservatism, and what's more, we'll bring the independents along.

Charles Stevens| 3.17.11 @ 10:51AM

Every one, repeat Every One of the spending issues we face today as a nation, are the result of progressives cramming their social agenda down our throats. This is what separates Republicans from Conservatives, that the latter recognize this country to consist of a three-legged bench of economic, social, and defense issues, while the former pander to whatever the Old Left Media tells them is the constituency of the moment. Is it any wonder that the feckless GOP has done nothing to stop the progressive onslaught over the last 60-odd years? Maybe Conservatives should start to think about a separate nation, since once any elected official gets to Washington, he loses whatever sense of principle he may have started with, starts pandering to the vile opposition, and makes merry rationalizations for the whole sorry mess.

loulou| 3.17.11 @ 10:53AM

No, Daniels is not being scapegoated. He fully deserves all the scorn he is getting.

When put to the test, he folded. Waved the white flag. He flunked. He should have studied harder.

On the other hand, maybe Daniels was being Daniels. In which case, we should be grateful that he revealed his deficiencies so early in the game.

Dave| 3.17.11 @ 10:59AM

I think it was Rush who I heard say, in response to Daniel's suggested "truce," that the left isn't going to quit fighting the social issues.

I liked Daniels. Now I don't.

Mike | 3.17.11 @ 2:36PM

I will say that the "purity test" is rather stringent among some Republicans.

Deomcrats like this because they really would give their eye teeth to see Palin or Bachmann emerge as the Republican candidate for president in 2012.

Oldefarte| 3.17.11 @ 11:08AM

Philip's editorial is extremely accurate, in that any conservative politicians needs to all but ignore social issues [since same should be the concern of the court system, religious organizations, etc; not governmental administrators]. Or we going to have the government jail abortionists, homosexuals,etc because we disagree rightfully with their words,policies,practicies,etc? No, we are not, and never will do so! We are not Cuba, Russia, Iran,etc. We believe in individual freedom, and if some exercise that freedom contrary to our beliefs, that my friends is called FREE WILL. If however a particular social issue comes into the public/governmental arena, then it should rightfully be changed. It is wrong/incorrect that the government should be paying for abortions or promoting homosexual activity; and same government activity should be stopped immediately. Individuals are free to do as they please [as long as same is legal], but the government has no right to be involved in same. We have too many problems of the fiscal/money/monetary nature within this country without being bogged down with social issues, that should be more adequately dealth with via religion-churches and within families. We tent to wrongly transfer them to governments' responsibilities, instead of looking in the mirror and assigning responsibility for same to ourselves. These social probelms should be rightfully dealth with by individuals using their bully-pulpit abilities against the Hollywood community, the elit-academic universities/colleges, etc. We allow these entities to brainwash our children and ourselves into their preferred social agendas, and then we blame governments for not restricting same. Its up to us to handle these issues, not government!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 1:13PM

But we must undo what the Left has been doing. That includes DADT and changing the definition of marriage etc. After all isn't the problem with the Death Panel a social issue?

Oldefarte| 3.17.11 @ 1:29PM

My POINT is/was that if this current defecit/debt EXPLODES in fiscal bankruptcy, we'll all have plenty of time to contemplate 'death panels' and other social issues!!!!

Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 3:09PM

My guess is that even with Republicans it will continue to explode. It will take more than one or two presidential terms.

Mitch Angoop| 3.17.11 @ 11:16AM

Any behavior that is subsidized (encouraged) will spread because it is rewarded. Any behavior that is penalized will diminish and eventually disappear. As a nation, we have subsidized all the wrong behavior in the misguided 'compassion' that democrats want us to think is unique to them; and the republicans seem ready to do ANYTHING to share. What a crock!

One of the most hateful words in the English language is "ENTITLED", and all the equally hateful derivatives, like "ENTITLEMENTS". Nobody is entitled to MY money; and nobody in this Country is entitled to ANYTHING that is not specifically defined in our Constitution: "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. That's it! It doesn't say that anybody is entitled to financial support, free medical services, free lunches and breakfasts, aid to children or disability payments. (There are SO many more I won't bore you with specifics.)

These things may be desirable, and morally positive, but they are not "RIGHTS", and nobody is entitled to them. We need to get rid of that demented mindset. There is an old line from Sci Fi writer Larry Niven's books: TINSTAAFL! (There is no such thing as a free lunch!) The problem is that more and more Americans (And illegal aliens, who are NOT "undocumented workers", but illegals who are criminals. But, that is a whole other discussion.) pay nothing into the government in taxes, and even get paid OUR tax dollars, and yet they demand a voice in how the government is managed.

The very first thing to happen should be that ANYBODY WHO DERIVES THEIR SUPPORT FROM THE GOVERNMENT, with the exception of programs they have paid into like Social Security and Unemployment Insurance, SHOULD LOSE THEIR VOTE UNTIL THEY ARE GETTING NO TAXPAYER DOLLARS. This is not rocket science; just as TINSTAFFL!

Steve in Ohio| 3.17.11 @ 11:25AM

Mitch is our best choice. The Midwest will decide the election and he has been a successful Midwest governor. He's right that defense needs to be cut. How can we get liberals to agree to cut social programs if we're not willing to cut defense.

Mike | 3.17.11 @ 2:39PM

I agree with your analysis Steve. I think the Democrats would hate to face Daniels in 2012. And, you are correct about the getting spending under control. Everything has to be on the table and the parties will have to compromise.

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.17.11 @ 9:56PM

Forgive me for yelling, don't take it personally: WE WILL NEVER GET LIBERALS TO AGREE TO CUT SOCIAL PROGRAMS! That's not the reason for their existence. Don't count on negotiation! Conservatives need to take charge and use every opportunity to CUT - CUT - CUT! The Constitution demands it! It's not to be negotiated! Force the issue and use every opportunity. Plain and simple. When it doesn't work, we'll ELECT MORE help until the job gets done! We can't woo the democrats. They crave big government.

Mike | 3.17.11 @ 10:30PM

Impeach,

Let us begin with a definition of social programs.

Do you mean Social Security and Medicare into which I have been paying since the age of 16 or do you mean Medicaid? Or, do you mean both?

The members of Congress have negotiated and passed several bills. Some on the left and the right don't like this, but to say that liberals will never negotiate is simply not supported by the facts of recent legislative history. The same is true of conservatives. I am using liberal and conservative instead of Democrats and Republicans.

Show me the part of the Constitution that demands that conservatives CUT-CUT-CUT! I'm not sure the originalist Supreme Court justice, Scalia, would agree with your interpretation of the Constitution.

loulou| 3.17.11 @ 11:35AM

"Mitch is our best choice."
If that's the case, we might was well surrender now!

Steve in Ohio| 3.17.11 @ 12:34PM

Name someone better WHO CAN ALSO BE ELECTED.

Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 1:14PM

How do we know Daniels can be elected?

Steve in Ohio| 3.17.11 @ 2:09PM

He won reelection in a landslide while Obama was carrying Indiana. His openness to defense cuts and emphasis on fiscal issues will appeal to those who voted for Obama in 08, but swithched to the GOP last year.

Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 3:11PM

That is Indiana. He has not done too well so far outside of Indiana. His interview with Ingraham was a big turn off for me. He kept praising China. His capitulations to the fleebaggers while Walker was taking on the fleeparty head on was also a bit disconcerting. I don't see him getting the base too excited.

Capt G| 3.19.11 @ 10:34PM

The "base" will not be the issue; where are they going to go? Independents, Reagan-Democrats if you will, will decide where we go in the next election. And , with all due respect, you're not going to get unemployed independents worried about the fiscal future of the USA "excited" talking about a 1973 Supreme court decision as your lead issue.

loulou| 3.17.11 @ 1:28PM

Didn't you get the message? No more RINOs!

Oldefarte| 3.17.11 @ 1:32PM

IMO, Mickey Mouse would/should be electable over El Chosen One [if taxpayer-voters use their brain cells in November of 2012, instead of acting JACKARSINGLY STUPID as they did in November of 2008]!!!!!

Steve in Ohio| 3.17.11 @ 2:06PM

I'll try one more time. Republicans are a center right party. Any objective observer would put Daniels more toward the right than the center. Maybe the far right--along with the Maine gals and a handful of liberal Repubs--are the actual RINO's.

Nick| 3.17.11 @ 4:09PM

Steve in Ohio,

"Name someone better WHO CAN ALSO BE ELECTED."

Rick Perry (TX) and Haley Barbour (MS) are both successful governors. And both are better than Daniels.

Steve in Ohio| 3.17.11 @ 4:23PM

Nick, yes both good guys, but the media goes after any Southerner who's conservative. We need somebody with appeal in the Midwest and with independents.

Nick| 3.17.11 @ 4:54PM

Steve in Ohio,

From '76-'04, with the exception of G.H.W. Bush, all the presidents were Southern/Western governors, Republican and democrat.

And, who cares what the media does? If the GOP is going cower in fear because of the drive-by media, like Messrs. Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy, and Ryan are currently doing, then we are toast.

Reagan had two landslide victories without talk-radio, a plethora of conservative magazines, Fox News, and the internet.

Also, didn't Bush 41, Dole, and McLame have great appeal with the mushy moderate independents?

Mike | 3.17.11 @ 2:41PM

Democrats applaud your attitude loulou. Better to be "right" than win.

JP| 3.17.11 @ 12:12PM

Funny thing is, Hooser conservatives never considered Govenor Daniels as presidential material. We thought of him as an outstanding public administrator and executive. But most of us never warmed to him not because he didn't espouse conservative social ideas, but because he was silent on them. Personally, I thought we would make a senate run. But loyalty to his old RINO boass Dick Lugar precludes that.

With that in mind, I thought it was really strange that the first memorable things Daniels did when floating his presidential trial baloon was to surrender (call it a truce if you will, but when you say that to the Progressives you are waving the white flag) the social issues platform. From a purely political point of view, this essientially allows other primary opponents to flank him from the Right. And there just are not enough moderates to get one nominated. Electoral Math is that simple.

I really believe that Daniels thinks he can sail to nomination via a McCain Center-Left strategy. With such a weak field, he just might be able to. But, he will find himself in the exact same position McCain did in Sep 2008. Remember that McCain did the poll numbers and found his support on the Right was failing. Voter turn out is key, and without social conservatives, McCain knew he would get his clock cleaned. That was why very late in the game he chose Sarah Palin. Desperate times require desperate measures. McCain could have saved himself alot of grief by courting the Right first. Daniels, who prides himself as a mature, sober politican (really it is just vanity) is a Progressive at heart. And like so many RINOs, Daniels will get rolled by the Dems, like he got rolled by Indiana House Minority Leader Pat Bauer. For the worst thing you can call a RINO is a conservative. Just wait and see.

Steve in Ohio| 3.17.11 @ 12:39PM

Your state is cleaning our clock with many of our businesses leaveing for IN. Hopefully, Kasich will turn that around. Daniels gets a respectable B from the Cato Institute. Seems like he's a more conservative governor than Ronald Reagan ever was. What's your definition of a RINO?

JP| 3.17.11 @ 3:13PM

Steve,
Indina has an unemployment rate over 9%, and inside those manufacturing districts it is nearer to 11%. I'm not sure what jobs are leaving Ohio for Indiana, but they are not in manufacturing. The only growth industry in Indiana these days is Big Corn.

Here's a little secret. Indiana is by and large a conservative to Right-Center state. Evan Bayh's governing record and that of Daniels are pretty much the same. Bayh would have done pretty much what Daniels has done these last 7 years concerning education, taxes, and and spending. The across the board property tax cuts were essientially tax reforms that removed old 1970 tax abatements from the books. In other words, Daniels didn't govern as a conservative per se, but as a moderate. The biggest obstacle that Hoosiers face jobs wise is the fear of unionization (esp in the northern half of the state). Large corporations avoid Indiana by and large, and medium one simply leave when the oppurtunity arises. In my hometown over 100 manufacturing concerns left and didn't just move to China and Mexico. Many are now in places like Texas and South Carolina. I say this because Govenor Daniels has and never will put Right to Work high on his priorities list. Daniels has been pretty shrewd in what he pushes for. If he cannot attract a few Dems to join him, he never considers a fight. Therefore, despite the ailing jobs front in Indiana (which predates the Recession), the last thing on Daniels' mind is taking on the unions. He takes great pride in being considered a competent administrator who is a problem solver. But that pride evolved into vanity. Despite what he has done on the fiscal front, Indiana like Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin is considered the last place a business would wish to relocate to, or remain.

In short, Daniels is a vain politician who can be rolled. Keep an eye on the Indiana legislature. Democrat Pat Bauer will wait out Daniels, and before it is done, Daniels will force House Speaker Bosma to negociate away the GOP agenda. Already, Daniels has allowed his "landmark" education bill to get gutted in the State Senate (with a GOP majority, no less). Daniels is a RINO

Steve in Ohio| 3.17.11 @ 4:21PM

JP,

Thanks for the info. Maybe he is too cautious--time will tell. At least you have Mike Pence to look forward to as your next governor!

darcy| 3.17.11 @ 4:48PM

The base will simply not GOTV for Daniels and many will stay home from the polls because they rightly calculate that Daniels is demlite and useless in rolling back socialism. No matter what he says about our fiscal nightmare, if he can't tackle head on the disease of statism by indentifying its root causes -- and talking about them often and everywhere, then why, how, could voters have any hope whatsoever that he understands the stakes.

Larry| 3.17.11 @ 1:01PM

Contrast Mitch Daniels with Scott Walker in Wisconsin. While Walker has been fighting (and winning) the good fight to take collective bargaining away from public employee unions, Daniels sits on the sideline, poo-poohs the efforts of GOP legislators to pass right-to-work legislation, and basically chokes the life out of any momentum that might have been gained nationwide by supporting such action.

That told me more about the man than anything else. He is NOT an economic conservative, either. He is much more like George W. Bush, his former boss. So he lacks the cahones to do what is needed now with our fiscal situation.

Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 1:10PM

Agreed, along with calling Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura.

loulou| 3.17.11 @ 1:29PM

Bingo. The problem seems to be the cojones or lack thereof.

Steve in Ohio| 3.17.11 @ 2:01PM

Daniels has already gotten rid of collective bargaining--he showed Walkers and others that it could be done.

Impeach Don't Wait| 3.17.11 @ 10:06PM

Bless him. Great contribution. But as Prez one needs to do so much more, and conservatives can't afford someone who lacks fire and commitment they can feel and taste with every word he speaks. The rest of the battle will be long and hard!

Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 1:09PM

I didn't see Obama, Pelosi and Reid saying that only fiscal issues mattered. They went for the whole enchilada. They have a huge number of special interests to satisfy. They have the gays, the feminists, the peace-nics, the environmentalists, the hispanics, the blacks, and on and on. If you were to analyze it, some parts of the coalition is at odds with the other parts.

So in my opinion it is a HUGE mistake to only focus on fiscal conservatism. It is not the only thing getting attacked by the left. We must fight back on all these fronts.

Just don't expect everyone to agree on all things.

The common thread is individual freedom and responsibility. We need to keep driving that concept. When you give power to the central government, you are taking that power away from individuals.

Oldefarte| 3.17.11 @ 1:39PM

Agreed, but first things first. We need to get the government/budget/debt under control; then go to war with them over social issues. In the mean time, conservatives/individuals need to use some 'cojones' in battling these social issues on their own, via religions, community groups, etc [ie Hollywood attacks/brainwashes your children 24-7 through TV and movies]!!!!!

Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 3:14PM

I am not even religious, so I am not seeing that as doing much. I am more concerned about things that affect personal freedom. That address moral issues and responsibility issues.
I am not interested in getting just a more efficient version of a statist government.

Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 3:17PM

In fact I am willing to go so far as to say the thing that scares me the most would be a Jeb Bush presidency. He would just be pushing a more efficient big government.

Wayne | 3.17.11 @ 3:17PM

In fact I am willing to go so far as to say the thing that scares me the most would be a Jeb Bush presidency. He would just be pushing a more efficient big government.

darcy| 3.17.11 @ 4:57PM

I agree totally about Jeb Bush. He wants to "improve" the dept. of education, making it a more effective arm of the state. What we should be doing is ELIMINATING the dept of education with its power to implement nationwide standards -- standards pertaining to what is taught, read that "indoctrination." It's already happening with the safe schools czar designing homosexual-friendly coursework for students even in elementary grades -- to combat discrimination; that's right parents, it matters little what your religious freedoms are and your parental rights to teach your children YOUR values: Your values have just been cancelled out by the all knowing and wise central government.

Brian| 3.17.11 @ 1:52PM

Tell ya what, after 75 years of Democrat rule in Florida the first thing Repubs did when getting power was massssive increases in taxes (fees) and spending. As long as establishment Repubs run the show we're just spinning our wheels.

simon templar| 3.17.11 @ 2:12PM

This notion of emphasizing the importance of economic and fiscal issues over moral matters has been spouted all my life. We have been kicking that can down the street for a long time. 'How did it work out,' should be the question. Hmm, not so well.
Actually a complete failure for most of the tweintieth century. The progs got everything they wanted from economics to the culture to the educational system. They were not sitting around asking themselves, 'hey, should we concentrate on destroying the culture and transforming it or should we just stick to Marxist economics?' They
know damn well how all of this is integrated.What the hell is the matter with us? Do you want to win or do you?
Conservatives, both social and fiscal conservatives, want the same thing. There is
nothing contradictory in either of these aims. Social conservatives are simply asking
for the federal government to get out of the business of forced social engineering
whether that be abortion, homosexual marriage, special protected minority statuses,
existence of God, religious expression, the welfare state, etc. or our wallets. We are not asking the fed to start a new theocracy or create new laws regulating people's lives. Social conservatives do not want the government to implement any social agenda for anyone particularly when it restricts people's basic right of free expression such as prayers, personal references to God in school valedictorian speeches, or their tax dollars going to abortions.
What social conservatives want is for the people (the families) of their states and communities to decide about their children's education, their
children's view of sexuality, their children's economic futures. Yes, the government
can not do anything right most of the time. We want equal time in shaping this culture, making decisions on these matters for ourselves, and participation in the market place of ideas whether that be in the classroom or on the radio. We want the rampant mocking of our values and the aggressive assault on our right to freely
express our values to stop. Remember most of us our both fiscal and socially conservative. I do not see any point in creating fractures. Do you understand where we are coming from?

simon templar| 3.17.11 @ 2:18PM

My apologies for the text format..using note pad to edit my comment..the damn thing screws up my text format.

linda| 3.17.11 @ 2:22PM

All the usual suspects are pushing this guy. He shows me nothing except that he's a good fit for Indiana. I think of him as Dole +. He gets the plus because he has been a governor. Other than that he a huge yawn.

westie| 3.17.11 @ 2:48PM

I had Mitch Daniels on the short list for nomination and would vote for him if he gets the nom....but otherwise I agree that he is a McCain/Bush Repu type and would be of little help in turning the nation around besides he will unlikely survive the leftist defamation if he is nominated.

somnolence| 3.17.11 @ 4:08PM

I wouldn't vote for this version of Obamacare Lite if you paid me.

Nick| 3.17.11 @ 4:38PM

Using four examples from the 20th century, I think I can sum up the GOP's problem as thus: You are either a Roosevelt-Hoover Republican, or, you are a Coolidge-Reagan Republican.

Teddy and Herb were "moderates", i.e. Progressives, and were only elected once, by the way. Coolidge would easily have been re-elected in '28, had he chosen to run.

Silent Cal gave us the Roaring Twenties through tax and spending cuts. Ronnie helped defeat the evil Soviet Union and also chipped away at the New Deal, i.e. deregulation. He also fired the PATCO strikers.

Teddy gave us so-called trust busting and American colonialism. Hoover extended the recession of '29-'30 into a depression and gave us Hoovervilles.

As Rush always says: "Conservatism. It works everytime it's tried."

chris haynes| 3.17.11 @ 4:58PM

If one of these Friends of the Elite runs in 2012, I vote for Obama, praying for a choice in 2016.

If Daniels gets in, we're betrayed for at least 8 more years.

voted against carter| 3.17.11 @ 5:00PM

WAKE UP REPUBLICAN PARTY!! GET SOME BALLS.

This is ONE MORE REASON you NEED Sarah Palin NOW more than EVER.

And I can NOT stress this enough,...

Sarah Palin IS ONE of the ONLY women IN the REPUBLICAN PARTY,...

With the "BALLS" to tell Barry and his UNION masters,...

AND the Dumb-O-cRATs to SHOVE their agenda were the sun does NOT SHINE!!.

just say'n.

Seek| 3.17.11 @ 6:53PM

How about a well-informed man instead of an ill-informed woman? Sorry, but Sarah Palin is selling a lifestyle, not a platform. She's simply not a serious candidate. And by many accounts, some conservative, she's kind of obnoxious, too.

Nick| 3.17.11 @ 7:38PM

If she's not a serious candidate, then there is nothing to worry about, is there? It will all come out in the wash.

Yet, many come here to AmSpec, both liberal and conservative, and type thousands of words to tell us how unserious Mrs. Palin is. I wonder why they do this? If there is nothing to fear, why exert so much energy trying to undermine her?

I won't even get into all those cruel scumbags who write the most vile things against the Palins.

PCP Smoker| 3.17.11 @ 8:23PM

Nailed it.

Seek| 3.18.11 @ 10:56AM

Regardless of her chances of being elected, more conservatives need to understand that Sarah Palin is not a serious candidate. They've been blinded by her manicured, overhyped image as "The One." Unfortunately, thus far she has revealed herself as a mediocre politician with a shrill voice.

Now if she rises above that level, good for her; then I'll change my mind. But so far, she has been little short of fatuous. That's called a judgment, not a smear. And many share it.

PCP Smoker| 3.17.11 @ 8:25PM

You would have no trouble with her if the liberal media wasn't pushing that agenda. The problem is weakling like you worried about how the media is going to portray your candidate.
You are candidate and a scumbag. Fuck you weak ass bitch.

Seek| 3.18.11 @ 10:57AM

Is your screen name an admission of a bad habit?

Jack in Wi.| 3.17.11 @ 8:08PM

What would Mr. Klein and the other neoconservatives say if I said forget about Israel? Most Jewish people vote Democrat and give the Democrats a huge funding advantage. 75% of the Republican vote is prolife. We also get a lot of prolife democrats and independents. It is the main reason that we have been winning a lot elections and are still competitive nationally. The Rinos need us for their fiscal agenda a lot more than we need them. After all what does the Democratic Party stand for but abortion, homosex, sky high taxes, crooked goverment unions, and massive waste. Most people are repulsed by these items. It is a total package that must be pushed that way. This country will never survive as Sodem and Gommorah. The time is late at the fight will be hard but it is the only hope for America.

PCP Smoker| 3.17.11 @ 8:22PM

"Daniels has become a scapegoat for a gripe that social conservatives have had for decades -- that Republicans take them for granted."

Typical crap coming from a DC conservative to promote this pathetic weakling.
The problem is not a grudge as much as realizing he does not have the fortitude to fight the left.

He proved it just recently by dumping on his GOP colleagues relative to a right to work law. By calling a truce when the Left is on the march (homosexuals in the military, early age sex education, rampant drug use, etc.). We see the same weakness in the GOP leadership in passing $105 billions for a program judged unconstitutional and deemed unacceptable by republicans.
No, nothing to do with pop psychology about holding grudges as much as calling it as we are seeing it.
Why don't you guys (Will, Krauthammer, Weekly Std crowd, NRO, et al) stop trying to push garbage down to us and just follow our lead?

Nite| 3.17.11 @ 10:02PM

I was interested somewhat in Mitch Daniels because of his business background. However, that changed when he caved in to the big public unions. I would not vote for him under any circumstances.

JimP| 3.18.11 @ 5:19AM

And as we continue to 'discover' by their statements and actions, the RINOs also favor all those things the Dems stand for.

Dee See| 3.17.11 @ 11:30PM

---Great article!

BTW --everyone noticing how the Globalist-EUGENICS 'friendly' ---Pro RED China, Rockefeller/Murdoch/Turner owned media
is burying what's no doubt the greatest nuclear
catastrophe of all time ---even as those trade winds hit the West coast?

NOT unlike this very jounral.

HUAC meets NUREMBERG ---with all possible speed!

Emma| 3.18.11 @ 12:20AM

Well. I believe I am almost completely persuaded that none of the "conservative" or Republican candidates will ever run for office just saying what they actually think and what they will actually do if elected....so that the voters can choose the one that most closely expresses that voter's priorities. We are now preparing to launch 24/7 for the next two years, with the voters once against serving as the lie detectors, hating what they have to do; and the liars achieving excellence in what they do. I'm getting tired of this.

Hank Rearden| 3.18.11 @ 1:12AM

Philip Klein misses the point. The Tea Party revolution(!) is a movement to reclaim the vision of a limited government of enumerated powers. Social issues are part of an integrated, indivisible tapestry. Once you start off surrendering on social issues, where do you stop? Are the schools one of the social issues on which you are going to surrender? Is immigration a social issue on which you are going to surrender? Why do we have a fiscal crisis? It is because the government has grotesquely overreached on its responsibilities under the guise of solving social issues. They are an integral, non-divisible part of the debate, of the problem. What is going to be the moral force behind cutting spending - and cutting is going to need a moral force - if it is not social issues? Daniels has shown that he does not understand the nature of the problem that we face, just as Bush didn't. Social issues are part of an overall vision of what the country should be. They cannot be separated from the debate. Let's cut to the chase and get on with backing the one leader who really understand this - Allen West,

WM| 3.18.11 @ 1:38AM

You should change your handle if you are going to go on about abortion and social issues. You do see that the contradiction, don't you?

American Elephant | 3.18.11 @ 1:34AM

No one would expect ANY president to prioritize gays in the military over the economy, but that's not how Washington works, and that's not Daniels said. We expect our leaders to walk and chew gum at the same time — handling many issues at once. Daniels has said he wont walk and chew gum, he will forfeit social issues altogether (while you can be assured the left will NOT stop pushing them in every way they can). And for that he deserves to be lambasted.

WM| 3.18.11 @ 1:42AM

The social conservatives don't just have a problem with the Republican Party. They are constantly snarling at the Tea Party and threatening it with doom if it doesn't go socon.

JimP| 3.18.11 @ 5:15AM

I'm not challenging your statement, but I would like to know the who, what, when and where on this re the socons. Thanks.

prosecutor| 3.18.11 @ 2:07AM

We absolutely must make Barack Obama a one-term President -- the stakes are too high to risk a second term, particularly when he will not have to worry about ever facing the voters again. And unfortunately it appears to be the current fashion to call every GOP candidate you disagree with a RINO or such. Competence in fiscal matters isn't the main thing at this point --- it is almost the only thing as we face becoming a third rate power because of our sovereign debt. Someone like Mitch Daniels needs to at least be given a chance and be heard. As much as I agree with many tea party positions, in the end a successful GOP candidate has to win the independent voters. With that in mind I beg people to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Bob Grant| 3.18.11 @ 10:46AM

Daniels' ill-advised statement about calling a truce on social issues was regrettable and I'm sure in private he would admit it was a mistake. Politically, it was not smart, and red flags should be raised about his ability to keep these type of misstatements to a minimum.

If he wanted to travel down that path he should have simply stated that the economic problem and social ills of the country are intertwined and must be approached separately and prioritized. The economic problem is the most urgent and that's where his focus of attention will be and people with social concerns should look at his pro-life record.

I'm willing to give him a pass this time but keep an eye on how disciplined he is on his messaging.

paul| 3.18.11 @ 10:54AM

His working for the Pinko Sen Lugar is what bothers me!

CalMark| 3.18.11 @ 3:14PM

Oh, those darned, pesky, irritating, frothing-at-the-mouth "social conservatives." Don't they see that their uncompromising stands on unimportant stuff leads us to doom? Standing on that ridiculously passe and restrictive social agenda during a bad economy , when people don't care about stuff, nobody can win.

...like Reagan, for instance.

sundesy| 3.19.11 @ 1:34AM

Hyphenated conservatives are nothing but closet moderates/liberals. They lack fundamental values and resort to taking easy positions. When in power they get easily pushed around. The net result is even under so called conservative leaders governments continue grow in size, border not secured and rampant corporate cronyism. They don't have the courage to cut spending and support job killing/exporting environmental laws.

Every culture celebrates the conception of babies by mothers. The family and friends eagerly wait the birth of the baby. Despite the painful process the mothers are elated when the baby come out of the birth canal. It is utter nonsense to deny the baby in mothers womb human status. It is nothing but criminal to kill that.

Taking the nuance stand "not social conservative" but "fiscal conservative" is nothing but con-job.

Bottom line never trust hyphenated and north-east conservatives with power.

Jim Hlavac | 3.19.11 @ 2:24AM

And what on earth are the "social issues"?

1) - abortion -- you heterosexuals are killing your babies. Among them are gay folks -- 5% -- we say stop this slaughter, so we might boost our number.

2) Divorce, out of wedlock babies, kidnapping, kid killing, abandonment -- there's so much I can't list them all -- you heterosexuals are responsible for 100% of this. You all have entire TV shows about the different aspects of this.

And then we come to 3) sissy smooching -- the most unimportant issue ever confronting the American public. We're gay, you're not. You're not happy, we keep pleading. You want us straight -- and you don't even have enough women to give us -- 10,000,000 adult gay men, and not any pool of available 10,000,000 spinsters. And this you will not see. No.

And weirdly, from the looks of Newt, The Donald and many others, so many others -- numbers 1 and 2 are so or irrelevant to the debate on "social issues."

And so what's the social issue that consumes the nation? Sissy smooching. Sissies. This is the "social" issue you all care about. Bizarre.

And we wonder what on earth? How could 5% or less of the population possibly be this important?How could we be a threat? We cut hair, put up drapes, and put on Broadway shows. But we're the "social issue" of import. Weird.

It's delusion. Sheer mad delusion I tell you, that you seem to believe that you'll all turn gay the moment you cease this culture war against us.

You are weird people. Very weird.

NJJim| 3.20.11 @ 12:37AM

Daniels is from the Bush/Rockerfeller Republican mode despite Klein's protests. He ran up budget deficits working under Bush, promoted an Obama care like healthcare plan in Indiana and has raised taxes in the past.
He follows the inside the beltway logic of blaming social conservatives for GOP problems. I'm not personally motivated as a conservative by social issues but they are important when the fabric of our society is under attack. Look at the Gay marriage issue. If the public votes against it on an ammendment a judge should not be able to nullify that vote by creating civil rights that do not exist.
So these issues are importannt to mantaining a civil socirty. From strictly a political perspective why would Daniels attack a segment of your own party? What's the purpose to divide our own? To beat Obama the GOP will need every vote.
I'm tired of candidates who court conservatives votes yet are embarassed to represent us and/or are too stupid to understand conservative position on issues (See Jeb and all the Bush's family moronic statements on immigration).
We need to nominate a candidate in 2012 to understands, practices and can articulate the conservative positions and values on all issues.
In watching Daniels weasel answers after making the press rounds I know he's not that man despite what George Will and others push.

Jeff| 3.20.11 @ 1:25PM

Moral issues are THE reason we think that it is quite all right to saddle our children and their children with our 14 trillion dollar debt so that we can continue to live beyond our means now. We will leave them nothing at all if we continue this IMMORAL spending binge.
Mitch Daniels does not have the required insight to be President.

Dan Jones| 3.20.11 @ 4:29PM

Sorry, my touchstone issue is ethanol, and Daniels and every other mid-west politician fails the test. It tells me everything I need to know about statist tendencies. As far as social issue go, it's pretty simple too. Every social issue we have a problem with is simply the one where the government decided to act as society's nanny. Undo everything the Feds have done in abortion, healthcare, social security, gun control, energy "policy" -- in other words get them out of these areas -- and you social issues problem would be solved.

jw betts | 3.21.11 @ 10:29PM

Wow, silly me; here I have been going on convinced that at this time there really is only one issue: debt/deficit, and this has burst my bubble.
Pretty naive of me, wot?

A conservative voter| 3.25.11 @ 11:04AM

I am a social conservative. I don't agree with Mitch Daniels. He is a nice man. Hope he doesn't run for President.

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:51PM

is good

althea | 12.4.11 @ 10:47PM

Hi! I found your post nice and interesting. Although, it takes time for me to read this article but its worth the read.

Carpet Cleaner Sydney

OfficeCarpetCleaning | 12.5.11 @ 1:00AM

Great post! It is very informative. Thanks.

CarpetCleaningSydney | 12.5.11 @ 3:55AM

Great post!

CateringMelbourne | 12.8.11 @ 1:18AM

Nice post you got here. It is very informative. Thanks.

Latest Headlines

Laying Down My Pen

Quin Hillyer|6 comments

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|132 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|143 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|63 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|18 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|25 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|41 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|16 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Muslim, Er, Youth Riots in Sweden

Aaron Goldstein | 12:41AM

Good Luck Quin

Aaron Goldstein | 12:13AM

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 5.23.13

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 5.23.13

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.23.13

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5.23.13

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 5.23.13

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 5.23.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Political Hay