RSS Feed MenuWhen conservatives talk about potential presidential candidates for 2012 (and even 2016) who are not insane culture warriors or political demagogues, one name invariably comes up: Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana. He has balanced the state’s budget, has a reputation for efficiency, and won reelection in the same year that his state gave its electoral votes to Obama. As the former head of the OMB, his policy and wonk credentials are undisputed. And if there is one lesson from the Values Voter Summit, it’s that he will never be able to be president.
In an interview with the Weekly Standard in June, Daniels said the the right “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while.” He received backlash for that comment when it was published, and it made a return at the Values Voter Summit.
Phyllis Schlafly, a famous Reagan-era anti-feminist and social conservative, opened up her speech by calling out Daniel’s remarks as wrong (though she did not call him out by name.) She asserted that despite the focus on economic issues from the Tea Party, the conservative movement has to make room for social conservatives like her. She got a fair bit of applause for that remark.
Curiously Schlafly does care about economic policy. She used her speech to decry the decline of the middle class, and how middle class jobs have been lost due to “bad trade policies.” As far as she was concerned though, this was all due only to the decline of marriage and broken families. (It should be noted that good scholarly work has been done on the topic of how family stability helps economic stability, but clearly it is more than just the decline the marriage that has led to a loss of jobs to China.)
Conservative policy wonks sometimes lament that Mitch Daniels can’t win the presidential nomination because he is short and not charismatic. The real problem is that a large portion of the Republican base simply refuses to support a candidate who dares to take a position close to the mainstream of the country on social issues.
Follow Noah on Twitter: @noahkgreen
Nanotek // Sep 18, 2010 at 5:48 pm
“values voters” indeed
… have to hand it to them, though … they have one of the primary lessons from Thucydides and Machiavelli down to a science: the first war among humans is to control the labels given to things
Oldskool // Sep 18, 2010 at 5:50 pm
It seems obvious that the right needs a Bill Clinton who can move independents into his column with a sister soulja moment. The base isn’t going anywhere so why spend so much energy pandering to them. Some of them might even agree with whoever has the balls to call them out.
JonF // Sep 18, 2010 at 8:17 pm
Ms Schlafly is right that conservatism must have a place for social conservatives. But that doesn’t mean they should be in the drivers’ seat or be allowed a Our-Way-Or-The-Highway veto.
MaxTwain // Sep 18, 2010 at 8:25 pm
Daniels will be fine, a lifetime of social conservative work by Daniels that blows away Romney and Palin will not be negated by one interview in the Weekly Standard.
Daniels is close friends with Huckabee and Pence, and if Daniels were to take on Romney, Gingrich, and Palin in the GOP primary, Huck and Pence can almost certainly be penciled into the Daniels camp, along with Haley Barbour and Jeb Bush.
Huck’s not running, his problems with the fi-cons and the big money donors are too big and his budding TV career too tempting. Pence has his eyes on the Speakers chair down the road, and won’t give up guaranteed power for a longshot bid.
Daniels will soon travel across Iowa and NH in his RV and on his motorcycle and dazzle the folks with his midwestern modesty and his policy brilliance. His retail skills are honed, his organizational skills unmatched, and his boosters; Jeb, Barbour, W, are still the most powerful in the GOP universe.
Daniels will be the GOP nominee, and he will throw a big bone to the Tea Party and Religious Right when he names Senator Marco Rubio the nominee for Vice President.
mpolito // Sep 19, 2010 at 10:26 am
Noah, if Daniels opposed the Iraq war, then you (and most other FrumForum people, including, of course, David) would oppose his nomination. Public opinion has been turned against the war for some time, but you do not counsel conservatives to “move to the mainstream” and oppose the war in retrospect. For better or worse, the war in Iraq is the primary reason the GOP lost Congress in 2006. This does not mean it was bad to support it, but please do not act pragmatic when you have sacred cows too.
The entire idea of a “truce on social issue” is, of course, delusional. Does Daniels really think that if the GOP just stops talking about abortion the Democrats will suddenly embrace big spending cuts, or major changes to Social Security? Furthermore, these issues are so interwoven in our politics that they cannot simply be cut loose on a whim. As Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO pointed out after Daniels made these remarks: “Suppose Justice Kennedy retires, and President Daniels has to pick a replacement. End of truce.” The idea that certain types of issues are easily seperable from the day-to-day goings-on of the federal government is extremely dubious. Daniels’ remark was not just politically damaging but intellectually puzzling, too.
CO Independent // Sep 19, 2010 at 12:07 pm
>> Phyllis Schlafly, a famous Reagan-era anti-feminist and social conservative, opened up her speech by calling out Daniel’s remarks as wrong (though she did not call him out by name.) She asserted that despite the focus on economic issues from the Tea Party, the conservative movement has to make room for social conservatives like her. She got a fair bit of applause for that remark.
>> Curiously Schlafly does care about economic policy. She used her speech to decry the decline of the middle class, and how middle class jobs have been lost due to “bad trade policies.” As far as she was concerned though, this was all due only to the decline of marriage and broken families. (It should be noted that good scholarly work has been done on the topic of how family stability helps economic stability, but clearly it is more than just the decline the marriage that has led to a loss of jobs to China.)
You blew any credibility you might have had on this topic with these two mind-boggling, stupid paragraphs. It is astounding that someone with a degree in Political Science could be this clueless, and in the age of Google there is just no excuse for this kind of intellectual laziness.
Schlafly has been involved in conservative politics since 1952, and her political writing career began in 1964, long before the Reagan era, and is by no means one-dimensional. She has written widely on policy topics as diverse as international trade, intellectual property, constitutional law, and conservative social policy. Whether you love her or hate her, she remains a prolific writer of material that far outclasses the sniping drivel you’ve been posting on this website.
moderategoper // Sep 19, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Values Voters & Racism:
According to The Boston Herald reported in an October 16, 2006, article, “In 2001, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins gave a speech at a meeting of the White Citizens Council, which the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC] considers a hate group.”
Indeed, a Fall 2004 article in the SPLC’s Intelligence Report asserted that Perkins “spoke to the Louisiana Council of Conservative Citizens on May 19, 2001,” during his tenure as a Louisiana state legislator. The SPLC characterizes the CCC as a “white nationalist” organization, and has reported that the group is “the reincarnation of the racist White Citizens Councils of the 1950s and 1960s.”
Also The Nation claims that in 1996, Perkins paid former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke $82,000 for use of his mailing list. At the time, Perkins was campaign manager for Louis E. “Woody” Jenkins, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Louisiana. The Federal Election Commission fined the Jenkins campaign $3,000 for attempting to hide the money paid to Duke.
Picture of FRC President Tony Perkins speaking to the White Citizens Council group with a huge Confederate Flag behind him as he smiles from ear to ear. http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/16535/credibility-fail-frcs-tony-perkins-to-testify-during-kagan-confirmation-hearing
sinz54 // Sep 20, 2010 at 9:50 am
Daniels could never win a televised debate with Obama–because he’s too short.
Obama is 6′1″.
Daniels is about 5′6″
In a televised debate, compared to Obama, Daniels would come off looking like a dwarf. Image-wise, he would be at an inescapable disadvantage compared to Obama.
MSheridan // Sep 20, 2010 at 1:19 pm
sinz54, it is not uncommon for speakers of different sizes to be accommodated with platforms of varying heights. However, you are correct that it is a severe disadvantage.