Would I vote for Governor Daniels if he runs...
"Across my lifetime I've been voting for men who claimed to be anti-abortion but after taking office did nothing to oppose the slaughter. I'm tired of it. I don't want to be lied to any more. Daniels isn't lying to me."
(Tim) Readers will remember my basic rule about voting: I won't vote for a county dog-catcher who isn't pro-life.
That said, if I were to make an exception, it might be for our Governor Mitch Daniels. A few months ago I got a call from an Iowa man long involved in Iowa politics asking my thoughts on Daniels for president? A couple friends work in the Daniels administration and since that conversation I've been thinking about a potential Daniels candidacy quite a lot. Here's a piece from the Wall Street Journal that has it about right...
Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels believes he faces a taller challenge as he ponders a White House run: Could voters warm to his message that the country is doomed unless it slashes its debt and radically revamps the popular Social Security and Medicare programs?
In any other year, a campaign platform that gloomy would render a politician toxic. Today, with concerns over the nation's fiscal health on the rise, the Indiana Republican's wonkish bravado is making some think he is a good fit for the moment.
If the time is indeed right for Mr. Daniels's get-tough message, the angry budget standoffs in states such as Wisconsin, Ohio and New Jersey are also shining a new light on his credentials as a messenger. Mr. Daniels rescinded collective-bargaining rights for state employees six years ago—long before Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker caused a firestorm by putting the same issue on the table.
Mr. Daniels also cut spending, trimmed the state work force to its smallest in decades, and turned a yawning deficit into a surplus, with only scattered outbursts of popular anger along the way.
He has emerged from all this with high marks from voters, and a profile that sets him apart from the other Republicans mulling a possible 2012 run. An array of conservatives, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, would like to see him enter the 2012 race.
He's the only potential candidate "who sees the stark perils and will offer real detailed proposals," Mr. Bush said last week in praising Mr. Daniels before a Florida business group. Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey on Thursday heaped almost identical praise on his Indiana counterpart.
So would I vote for Governor Daniels if he ran?
Daniels' commitments concerning what he calls "the social issues" are clear and firm...
which is to say Daniels is clear and firm in his commitment to use his leadership for limited government and fiscal reform rather than for justice and truth and mercy to unborn babies. He's made this completely clear.So would I vote for Governor Daniels if he ran?
A long time ago, that wise old owl editor of "Presbyterian Layman," George Booker, took me aside at a Presbyterian Church (USA) General Assembly and said, "Tim, the only thing that will ever reform the PC(USA) is to take away their money."
Years later, I was working with that wise old owl publisher of "World," Joel Belz, to expose and oppose Zondervan's gender-neutered update to the New International Version known as Today's New International Version, and I remember Joel warning me, "Follow the money." In the Evangelical world money trumped doctrine and watching the money was to keep your eye on the ball. When it came to truth, money was a better indicator of reality than words.
So will I vote for Governor Daniels if he runs?
Here's my basic premise about the Republican Party, coined by my late hero and friend, Joe Sobran:
Fool me once, shame on you;
fool me twice, shame on me;
fool me three times--I'm a Republican!
Across my lifetime I've been voting for men who claimed to be anti-abortion but after taking office did nothing to oppose the slaughter. I'm tired of it. I don't want to be lied to any more.
Daniels isn't lying to me.
But also, he has a track record of cutting off the money of the Party of Death and all their dependents who milk the godless government school systems for a living.
True, I learn slowly; but increasingly I'm willing to give wise old owls a chance and cast a vote for discipline, painful though it will be to our nation. I'm willing to vote for cutting off the government money and usurpation of powers that keeps wicked men and women in office and leading our nation. Turn them out of office! Or failing that, cut off their money!
So if Governor Daniels runs, will I vote for him?
I'm ready to try something new--anything to get rid of the leeches who are sucking the lifeblood from our nation both financially and morally. If we can't win the social issues, let's try to win by using limited government and fiscal reform to starve them out of office. Or maybe we'll get lucky and the party of death will all sail for Cuba and stay there through the next congressional term?
What could be better than the Senate and House of Representatives lacking a quorum for two or three years?
So if Governor Daniels runs, will I vote for him?
Just let me say this: I'd vote for Governor Daniels long before I'd vote for Governor Palin or Governor Huckabee or Governor Romney or Congressman Gingrich or... Ron Paul?
Alright, Ron Paul might be even better, but we'll see.
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (18)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Daniel Meyer on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Sue McKeown on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- Fr. Bill on The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away....
- K. Bartholomew on The difference between pro-life and anti-antiabortion...
- Kamilla on Inflammatory rhetoric in the abortion debate...
Comments
I just received an e-mail informing me one of our good readers just commented on his Facebook page concerning this post: "But I think Tim has a very attractive point in his article."
Tell me if I'm wrong, but in my six or seven years of writing here on Baylyblog, I don't think ever before has anyone accused me of having "an attractive point."
I'm star-struck. I'm exhilarated! I'm hyperventilating! Could I be turning over a new leaf?
Before you know it, some other well-intentioned brother will accuse me of being passionate for something or other and I'll have entered the ranks of the numinous.
Well I guess I'll have to agree with the facebook comment you made. With the power of hindsight, it looks like Gov. Daniels made some really smart moves as the governor of Indiana.
He seems like he would be a much better president than all of the people you listed except for maybe Ron Paul. But among the people who actually have a chance, he'd be our best candidate.
I forgot to say something else.
I often find myself wondering what the chances of somebody like Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie getting re-elected if they ever entered in to the oval office.
I could imagine their proposed budget cuts having the appearance of doing terrible damage to the American economy when, in reality, they're the necessary pains we will have to take to get our finances back on track.
I think the average American won't respond too well, and then somebody else will swoop in and woo the American public by making promises that he won't keep. Who knows until it happens, though.
"Before you know it, some other well-intentioned brother will accuse me of being passionate for something or other and I'll have entered the ranks of the numinous."
What will the neighbors think?
Will you agree to forfeit your tax exempt status?
I think this is crazy. I don't think anyone should vote for someone who wants a "truce" on the slaughter of millions of babies. And I don't think that is "honest" either. Daniels knows full well the forces of pro abortion warriors have no plans to put down their arms while he focuses on fiscal issues. So instead of being honest and stating that he will stand on behalf of the unborn (or conversely that he will abandon them), he is attempting to avoid the issue with a silly thought about a truce. Evil doesn't stand still.
Is the Supreme Court going to be dismissed while he is in office? Will he be "fair" and replace liberal justices with liberals?
There are plenty of pro-lifers who will cut the budget. Why in the world would we vote for a man who either has no clue there is a war on the unborn going on or has decided to be an appeaser?
We can do waaaay better than Daniels. I am actually in the anybody but daniels camp.
@ Will:
Just to play Devil's Advocate, mate...
Even if "anybody but Daniels" happens to be a rerun of the current situation?
Seems like the last few go-arounds have been less of "vote for the best guy" and more "vote for the least worst guy"
-Jim
Hi Jim, I think that is a false choice. I don't think that it is Daniels or "same as before". In fact, I think Daniels is "same as before".
How about electing someone who is crystal clear about the need to put SCOTUS picks in place that would rule in a way that would stop the mass murder of children? I have zero confidence that Daniels will do that. Reagan and Bush Sr appointed 'moderates' who turned out to be liberals. Bush Jr would have (Harriet Miers) if it weren't for a GOP revolt. How much more would Daniels sell out if he campaigns as a sell-out calling for truce?
I am no Huckabee fan but he has been solid in his support for the unborn. I am no Ron Paul fan but he understands that Life is a fundamental right. I could name many others in the field who are substantially more trustworthy on the issue. I would prefer they be lying about their prolife position - at least that way we know they realize they are beholden to pro-lifers. Daniels will get elected without even being politically beholden to the RTL crowd. In fact, he may interpret his election as a mandate for being socially moderate (by "moderate" we mean continuing to kill 1MM+ babies/yr).
I think that electing someone who is either so foolish or so dishonest as to say that a "truce" is good (or possible) is a disaster for the unborn. I pray it doesn't happen. Anybody but Daniels I pray.
BTW, a truce is when the killing stops at least temporarily. By this definition a truce is when they shut all the abortion mills down. I don't think that is what Daniels has in mind.
Everyone needs to get a clue and vote Constitution Party.
Hi Scott, my opinion on Constitution party is that it looks good because it has no record. Compromise doesn't happen until you get power. They have never had power and therefore have never had to compromise. I would rather vote for a Republican who has served in office and shown the strength to do the right thing in the face of political pressure (ie Walker, Christie, etc) than to vote for some "perfect" Constitution candidate who has proven nothing.
I see your point but, I think the Republicans have had plenty of time to do the right thing. I'm willing to give the "perfect" candidate a chance.
It is sad that we have come to expect our leaders to compromise/lie when they "get power".
Say it isn't so. I'm all in favor of effusive praise for bold budget balancers. I'm all in favor of up to the eyebrows cynicism about the sundry candidates from the stupid party. But nothing, nothing is worth giving up on what I believe to be our shared commitment- no man will ever receive my vote who is not committed to doing everything in his power to protect every, every unborn child. Your mistake is believing the press releases of the NRTL, and getting disappointed. Give up on them and their worthless, even damning imprimatur. But stay true to the babies. They are the least of these.
OK, Daniels hasn't been vocal about support for the unborn--is he PCUSA or PCA or????--but does he have other positions, judicially speaking, which might lead to pro-life justices?
What I'm getting at here is that what is needed is judges and justices with an understanding of the limitations the Constitution ought to provide. Someone who merely looks at the actuarial charts is going to bobble this one. However, someone who understands that our actuarial disaster is rooted in a failure to heed the doctrines of enumerated powers and the 10th Amendment is going to do very well--perhaps striking down any funding for Planned Infanticide and such.
As Doug Wilson posted a couple of days ago, when we understand the limits of force that the Scriptures would impose on us, we do very well in government. Otherwise, not so hot, and the 10th Amendment is one of our Constitution's nods to the Biblical doctrine of limited government.
Maybe I'm simply weary of being lied to and find a man who tells me he won't fight for the unborn a pleasant relief? Give me time and maybe I'll recover from my distemper. Probably shouldn't have written what I did, eh?
The Tenth certainly is foundational. And the children?
Without their protection, the rule of law is an utter sham.
Love,
We mustn't do this (vote for a man like Daniels in light of what he's said) if it represents the idea that we're going to stop stealing from our grandchildren but continue to kill them.
I hope Tim hasn't gone stark raving mad to lead us that direction. But...
The men of Israel tried a frontal attack twice against the wicked men of Benjamin with great losses before setting an ambush and prevailing (cf. the last few chapters of Judges)
The slavery bill that finally broke through in Britain in Wilberforce's time was not the bill for the direct Abolition of Slave Trade but one that tackled some smaller side issue.
But would Daniels be looking for ways to cut away at the murder houses from the financial side, or would it be a 4- or 8-year hands-off time? There's a big difference.
For reference, Daniels' church, Tabernacle Presbyterian, is PCUSA with (it appears) some "emerging" church tendencies. This might explain some shyness on the issue of life.
To put it politely.
Honestly, on the subject of ecclesiastical organizational affiliations of pols, it seems almost inconsequential. Their religion is almost without exception American civic religion which bears no relation to the heresy of mainline religion in the UMC (Bush) or PCUSA (Daniels), nor the conservative patriotic Arminian dispensational heterodoxy of the SBC (Clinton). And what are we to do with Speaker Gingrich?
Yikes.
What you say is probably true, but if indeed ecclesiastical affiliation is inconsequential, we can therefore dispense with the idea that Daniels is telling us the truth about his motives, no?
Hearty AMEN to that last word.
Mitch Daniels IS pro-life. He doesn't make it a priority, but he has a pro-life record.
Scott, he wants a truce. That means he will not fight. The killing continues. Not fighting is pro-abortion.
I'd offer Governor Daniels this counter offer. How about we stop talking about government spending for the next five to ten years and focus on saving the babies?
I must admit that I am not very up to date on the pluses and minuses of each candidate under consideration for the next presidential election. I am far to consumed by the large array of issues I face due to past sin and my dire financial situation. I have God's forgiveness for my sins, and I still able to feed my children, but alas, one must still deal with consequences. I am slowly learning to trust in my Lord despite my weaknesses and the sadness I feel at the unbelievable chaos the world is falling into.
I have, however, always been frustrated by a comment I have heard time and time again... "He would be a great (president, governor, etc.) if he was elected because he is a man of God and strong on both social and fiscal issues and would help put the (county/state) back on track, but he is un-electable". Why do we say he unelectable? Because he is a man of God and strong on both social and fiscal issues and would help put the (county/state) back on track. Why do I think we are so often lied to by Republicans? Because they know that they only need to be (or appear on the surface to be) more conservative than the far-left leaning candidate that the Democratic Party puts forth and they are guaranteed the conservative vote? Why are they guaranteed this vote? Because the person we would like to vote for, the man of God whose is strong on both social and fiscal issues and would help put the (county/state) back on track we feel is unelectable, so we vote for the better of two bad choices. I wonder if we should put our faith in God, vote for the person we truly believe would be the best candidate, and trust God to be faithful. Maybe if more people would vote this way, the Republican Party would be forced to return to their roots, adhere to the constitution, and follow more the will of our Lord if they desired any success at the polls? Or, perhaps I am just naive. Or maybe I am just so certain that government is not going to turn around this country, but only the faithfulness of the saints, and the power of our Lord to change hearts.
I totally understand Tim's weariness at continually being lied to by candidates, because I feel the same way. Not that I would vote for Daniels, but he at least appears to be putting his money where his mouth is. As the election continues to draw closer, I hope to have a better idea of the worth and truthfulness of each candidate, and hope I have the courage to vote for the person who I believe is a man of God and strong on both social and fiscal issues and would help put the (county/state) back on track, even if I think in my earthly wisdom that he is un-electable.
>>Daniels ...at least appears to be putting his money where his mouth is.
Dear Timothy, Maybe a better way to put it is Daniels is putting his mouth where the money is? May God lead us all to your humility and repentance. Thank you, and love,
Well put dear friend.
Grace and Peace
Add new comment