Who DOESN'T Think Mitch is Jockeying?

I know Mitch Daniels said he's not running for national office in 2012. Then why did the staff of My Man Mitch send out an e-mail a month or so ago touting all of his national press? The intro paragraph reads:

"Mitch has been grabbing all kinds of national attention lately for his focus on reform and results. While other states are cutting education and raising taxes, Mitch has proposed a budget that increases school funding and does not include a tax increase.

You've known how great Mitch is all along, but we couldn't pass up a chance to share some of the recent kudos for our favorite Gov!"

Was it a Freudian slip to say he has been "grabbing" all kinds of attention? I don't think so. A candidate who really doesn't want to run tells his people to shut down the campaign. He doesn't leave national bread crumbs everywhere so people can start following him. In the past six months, Daniels' stories have included:

"What Would Daniels Do?" - The National Review
"Mitch the Knife" - The National Review
"A Hobbled March Forward" - The Economist
"The Idealism of Mitch Daniels" - The Atlantic Monthly
"Can Mitch Daniels Save the GOP?" - The Washington Examiner
"Low-Key Governor Becomes Leading GOP Voice on Climate" - The New York Times
"Mitch Daniels: Republican Revolutionary" - The Washington Post
"Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade - The New York Times
"A Hoosier in the White House?" - The Weekly Standard
"Daniels on Changing the 'Party of No' - National Journal

Somebody is churning Daniels' profile nationally, or these stories wouldn't have run, folks. And given that Daniel's campaign manager was sending out a story about his victory in December of 2008 to Michael Barone of U.S. News and World Report, you can draw your own conclusion on who that might be. (Can anybody explain why an Indiana governor would be sending information about his political strength to a national political writer, if not to raise his own profile?)

Call this "The Anatomy of a 'Draft Me' Campaign." You have your people raise your profile while you completely deny interest. Then you let the rest of the world take over. After all, one Republican nerd with the hots for a beauty queen transformed Sarah Palin into a household name.

Maybe that explains Americans for Mitch, the "Mitch Daniels for President" Facebook page, or the GOPTrunk and Republican Depot's mercs for Daniels (including some nicely-embroidered "Daniels for President" golf shirts. It also explains why Daniels is getting mad kudos in the conservatorati blog sites, like Red State. (The Daily Kos takes a preemptive swipe at Daniels, meaning (a) it's pretty clear that Democrats think Daniels is getting traction; and (b) nobody is buying his "I'm not selling in 2012" mantra.

My Little League baseball coach used to tell us to run as hard as we could can to first base even if we hit the ball right at someone because a defender can bobble the pick-up or make an errant throw, and the first baseman can muff the catch. If you slow down and then try to sprint again after you see the error, you're still going to get thrown out, but not if you run the whole time.

Daniels' people are sure running full speed, and he's sure not coaching them any differently. Maybe he's telling the truth, and he won't serve in another elected office. Can anybody say cabinet secretary Daniels?

Who DOESN'T Think Mitch is Jockeying?

Huffington Post and Daily Kos Misdiagnose Palin’s “City On a Hill”

American history buffs and theocracy fearers rejoice! Andrew Bacevich is talking to you on The Huffington Post, and Daily Kos (ironically) must need some “liberal” arts education.

Bacevich dissects the only philosophically meaningful comment Governor Sarah Palin made during the VP debate:

“And we are to be that shining city on a hill, as President Reagan so beautifully said, that we are a beacon of hope, and that we are unapologetic here.”

As Bacevich notes, the “city on a hill” idea came from Massachusetts Bay Colony Founder, John Winthrop, in 1630. Bacevich lays out the entire text and context for Winthrop’s remark and convincingly argues that unless America is God’s chosen people, a presumption which strikes him (and me) as arrogant, the "city on the hill" comment is inapplicable to the American experiment.

Daily Kos goes a step further and implies that Palin’s "city on a hill" remark is “code” for a fundamentalist conspiracy to create a Christian-based theocracy. D.K. says they (the religious right) have been “slipping this one by us.”

Daily Kos notes:

“The phrase was referenced several times during the 2008 Republican National Convention by Rudy Guiliani and several others, during the nomination of the Republican John McCain.”

Here’s the idea By referring to an “obscure” 1630 sermon that was given at the initiation of a Puritan colony, Republicans are secretly signaling their intentions to other Christians to enforce Christian values in government.

With all due respect, this idea that Republicans are "signaling" through Winthrop is crazy talk. Sarah Palin (and the supermajority of Christians in this country) couldn’t even tell you who John Winthrop is, let alone what he said and why. Without knowing the context of Winthrop's remark, how can anyone draw an association from it?

The stronger "signaling" argument is the one both Bacevich and Daily Kos completely miss. The original source of Winthrop’s oratory is the Gospel of Matthew, verses 14-16 (NIV):

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven."

In other words, Christians should act Christ-like while letting people know they are Christians as a way of gaining more believers. This is an uncontroversial notion that can be summarized as "serve as an example." Winthrop mutilated the original meaning to induce his followers to create a completely Puritan-based government.

"City on a hill" might be a signal, but it's no more a secret to a cultural literate American than "an eye for an eye," "turn the other cheek," or "God Bless America." The fact that Daily Kos, a leader for my party on a lot of issues, has authors who don't know such an obvious reference in the Bible is concerning because I suspect they know Greek and Roman mythology.

Like it or not, the Bible is the best-selling book in the world. Whether you're Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddist, Wiccan, atheist, agnostic, transcendentalist, or accidental tourist, you have GOT to know the Bible as a matter of cultural literacy. Even if you cringe when you hear someone call America a "Christian nation," you cannot dispute that it's a pluralist nation with a supermajority of Christians. As a result, even if you read it as fiction, you HAVE to read it. It's sort of like the Da Vinci Code, except movie adaptions of the Bible are actually entertaining.

(Also, even the culturally illiterate might have driven by the staggering number of churches actually named "City on a Hill." They're in Atlanta, San Diego, Boston, Albuquerque, Torrance, and Knoxville, and that's just the first six Google pulled up among the thousands of links I got in response to my search).

Huffington Post and Daily Kos Misdiagnose Palin’s “City On a Hill”