Two Great and Distinct Speeches From a Presidential Frontrunner

When people find out that I’m one of those dreaded “New Media” types and that, after a walkabout throughout the far reaches of the political spectrum, I find myself firmly planted on the right, a few increasingly standard questions inevitably follow.  One of the most popular question, it seems, is really a gripe in disguise — and I try to do my best to deflect it and put things into perspective.

“Jeff,” they ask, “when do you think that the Republicans are going to finally have a leader?” My standard answer goes something like this:

When a political ideology is rooted in rock-solid principles like those upon which this nation is founded, there is no absolute need for a singular personality to emerge.  There is no need for a gravitational center in a movement already grounded in reason, logic and fact.  On the left, where emotion is paramount and common sense largely forgotten, personality is essential to uniting a hardly cohesive group generally pulled in endless directions by the pursuits of the heart at the expense of the brain. For Republicans–more specifically for a resurgent conservative movement–there is no need for that artificial center.

That being said, as the focus on 2010 turns to 2012, it would be tremendously beneficial for potential frontrunners to emerge so as to be equitably assessed by those of us on the right who have grown tired of the disingenuous and distrustful.  As November turns to December turns to January, I am certain that we’ll begin to see just that.

Speaking a few weeks ago with a campaign adviser for South Carolina State House candidate Peter McCoy–a great guy and great candidate, by the way–it has become apparent that Mitt Romney has been donating quietly to small races across the country.  Similarly, Sarah Palin seemed to be dropping hints recently in Iowa, and rumors have been circulating about folks like Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty, Indiana’s Mitch Daniels and former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum.  There are even folks here in the Palmetto State actively looking to draft Jim DeMint into a White House run in 2012.

Time and time again, though, the name I seem to always come back to is that of Indiana Congressman Mike Pence.  While I’m not certain that he will not forego a shot at the presidency in order to run for governor in Indiana so as to garner executive experience, as he stands right now I don’t know if I can think of anyone in American politics today who excels all around quite as well as does Pence — he’s a great communicator, he’s a principled leader and he’s undyingly conservative.  My worries with regard to Pence as a candidate are two-fold: First, a lack of executive experience presents a problem in that it will be difficult to have argued against Barack Obama’s lack of executive experience in 2008 and give Pence a blanket pass in 2012; and, second, there is the possibility that Pence, like a Rick Santorum, would have a tendency to shift focus to social issues during what will be an election cycle undoubtedly dominated by fiscal concerns.

Nevertheless, when it comes to Mike Pence, it doesn’t take much for me to see that his strengths as a candidate–which come from his strengths as a solid conservative and great representative of the people of Indiana–outweigh any potential weaknesses.  Furthermore, a talented enough communicator will be able to intertwine the social and fiscal constructs, to place emphasis where emphasis needs to be placed based upon need and audience.  Exhibits A and B are below, the former being a speech delivered this past weekend to the folks at the Values Voters Summit, the latter being a speech on the nature of the presidency given on Monday evening at Hillsdale College.

First, as Exhibit A, and also as an example of how he can overcome and find balance with regard to my concern about the injection of social conservatism in a fiscal-heavy election cycle, enjoy video and transcript from Pence’s address from this past weekend at the Values Voters Summit, where he won the presidential straw poll:

I am honored to be invited to address the 2010 Values Voter Summit: the largest gathering of social conservatives in America. Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes. All you really need to know is that I’m the father of three teenagers (hence the white hair), I have been married for 25 years to an elementary school teacher who is the love of my life – Karen Pence – and I’m a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order. What a difference two years makes. I like to say that I’m a conservative, but not in a bad mood about it. But after 2008, it was pretty tough.

After 2008, most Republicans were still sure of our principles, but we were pretty uncertain about the future. It seemed like there was only a remnant of people in this country unbowed by the glamour and the appeal of the new American left.

Unprecedented Democrat majorities in both houses, liberal dominance in the media, our courts, our public schools, our universities. It’s extraordinary. It was the force that seemed indomitable to everybody that didn’t know you. Now look at us. Look at what you’ve done. Historic elections in Virginia, in New Jersey, and in the state formerly known as ‘Taxachusetts,’ we have a Republican member of the United States Senate.

And to these conservative victories, we have ‘When Harry Met Sharon’ playing in Nevada, Joe the Senator in Alaska and Delaware is about to send a conservative to Washington, DC. Who’d have thunk it?

Even Republicans in Congress are getting back to fiscal discipline and reform. Let’s be honest, four years ago Republicans in Congress didn’t just lose their majority, they lost their way. When I opposed No Child Left Behind, when I opposed the Medicare prescription drug bill, and when I opposed the Wall Street bailout, I knew that if we kept acting like big government liberals, the American people were eventually going to go with the professionals. And they did.

The truth is our party in Congress walked away from the principles that minted our national governing majority and the American people walked away from us.

I get asked all the time, ‘have House Republicans learned their lesson?’ After a year that saw every single House Republican vote against the failed stimulus bill, every single House Republican vote against the budget-busting budget and every single Republican oppose that government takeover of health care, let me tell you Republicans in Congress are back in the fight and they’re back in the fight on the right.

So we’ve made great strides in the past year, but there’s a lot more to do. Men and women, let me tell you, despite the exuberant optimism in the polls – MSNBC says Republicans could win a few seats in Congress and the Fox News Channel says Republicans will win 435 seats in the House of Representatives – the truth is, this ain’t over. We cannot rest. We cannot relent until we win the American Congress back for the American people!

These are serious times. A nation conceived in liberty has come of age in bondage to big government. We’ve lost respect to the world. We are going broke. And our social and cultural fabric is unraveling. People are scared.

In the face of their failed leadership, our party must have the courage to produce a vision for a better America that will return our national government to the common sense and common values of everyday Americans.

So, what does that look like? Well first, it means redirecting ourselves to doing what is necessary to defend this nation at home and abroad, giving the American soldiers the resources they need to get the job done and come home safe.

The end of combat operations in Iraq was an important milestone and the president was right to mark it with a national address. But make no mistake about it, we would not have seen this day without the sacrifice of the American soldier, their families and with a commander-in-chief who would not surrender in the face of hardship abroad and withering criticism at home.

Let history record, President George W. Bush’s decision to surge forces in Iraq was right and its opponents, including President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi were wrong, and it’s high time they gave credit where credit is due.

It means giving the intelligence community the tools they need to fight the war on terror like a war. We must stop putting international public relations ahead of public safety. Khalid Sheikh Muhammad and his terrorist cohorts should not be tried in our civilian criminal courts. They should be tried in the military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay.

It means defending those who defend us from being used to advance a liberal domestic agenda. For our soldiers, their families, for readiness, recruitment and unit cohesion, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell must remain the policy of the United States Armed Forces.

And it means being good to our friends and tough on our enemies, not the other way around! Recent criticism of Israel over construction in Jerusalem and acts of self defense was appalling. I never thought I’d live to see the day that an American administration would denounce the Jewish state of Israel for rebuilding or protecting Jerusalem.

Let the world know this, if it knows nothing else: America stands with Israel.

Closer to home, a vision for a better America begins with turning back the big government agenda of this administration, especially when it comes to ObamaCare.

Liberal Democrats may have had their way on the third Sunday in March, but the American people are going to have their say on the first Tuesday in November. And House Republicans will not rest until we have repealed their government takeover of health care – lock, stock and barrel. To those who say it would be too difficult to repeal and replace ObamaCare, I say it’s a two step process. We repeal the Pelosi Congress in 2010 and replace the Obama Administration in 2012.

And a vision for a better America does mean putting our fiscal house in order, reigning in the growth of government with new limits based on our history and the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

We need a conservative majority in Congress that will do the hard work of fiscal discipline and reform, put our pathway toward a balanced budget and end the era of deficits, debts and bailouts once and for all.

While we have to end the era of runaway spending, fiscal discipline alone is not enough. Today’s headlines tell the tale. ‘The economic policies of this administration have failed.’ ‘The US poverty rate rose to a 16 year high.’ As we continue to hear the class warfare rhetoric that the ‘rich get richer,’ now we know their strategy. Under their policies the poor get poorer.

A vision for a better America means preserving and promoting the kind of tax relief that has always and will always get this economy moving. By allowing the American people and small business to keep more of what they earn, we can renew incentive in America, the incentive to create, to build, to achieve and excel.

But you know, that’s not the president’s approach. While the president talked about tax cuts in Cleveland, he also renewed his call for a tax increase on job creators in January of next year.

Mr. President, higher taxes won’t get people hired. Raising taxes on job creators won’t create jobs.

In the worst economy in 25 years, Congress must ensure that no American sees a tax increase in 2011, not one single American.

When I look at the failed economic policies of the past two years, I think most Americans realize (to paraphrase a hero)…a recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose your job, and a recovery is when Nancy Pelosi loses her job.

Finally, a vision for a better America must recognize that our present crisis is not merely economic and political, but moral in nature. At the root of these times should be the realization that people in positions of authority have walked away from the timeless truths of honesty, integrity, an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay and the simple notion that you ought to treat the other guy the way you want to be treated. We will not restore this nation with public policy alone. It will require public virtue, and that emanates from the traditional institutions of our nation – life, family and religion.

Now I know some say that Republicans should stay away from such issues this year…that the American people are focused on jobs and spending and our movement would do well to stand aside, bank the win and return to fight after this fiscal and economic crisis has passed. But we do not live in a world where an American leader can just focus on our financial ledger. A political party that would govern this great nation must be able to handle more than one issue at a time. We must focus on our fiscal crisis and support our troops. We must work to create jobs and protect innocent human life, defend traditional marriage and secure religious liberty.

To those who say that marriage is not relevant to our budget crisis, I say, ‘you would not be able to print enough money in a thousand years to pay for the government you would need if the traditional family continues to collapse.’

To those who say we should focus on cutting spending, I say ‘Ok, let’s start by denying all federal funding for abortion at home and abroad! Stop funding research that destroys human embryos in the name of science, and let’s deny any and all funding to Planned Parenthood of America.’

We must not remain silent when great moral battles are being waged. Those who would have us ignore the battle being fought over life, marriage and religious liberty, have forgotten the lessons of history. As in the days of a House divided, America’s darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles.

Men and women, we must demand, here and now, that the leaders of the Republican Party stand for life, traditional marriage and religious liberty without apology!

Thomas Jefferson said, ‘When the heart is right, the feet are swift.’ We are at our strongest when our movement is grounded in what matters most. Victory comes when we stand together, fighting arm in arm for fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense and traditional moral values.

You have come to our nation’s capital at a historic moment in the life of this still-young republic. If we do not succeed in November, all that once was good and great about this country could someday be gone.

So this is the moment. Now is the time. It’s time for us to do all that we can to preserve what makes this country great.

The Bible says, ‘If you owe debts, pay debts. If honor, then honor. If respect, then respect.’ We owe a debt to history, but not just our nation’s storied history, but to our own personal history. To those who have gone before, and on whose shoulders we stand.

I buried my father 22 years ago. He was an ordinary man who grew up on the south side of Chicago. He married the daughter of Irish immigrants and followed his dream. When the time came, he put on the uniform. Even though he was a gentle soul, he went into battle in Korea. He came back never to speak of it again, and the medals stayed in the drawer.

He built a family and he built a business. My dad said two things more than any others. He reminded myself, my three brothers and my two sisters that, ‘not my will but Thine be done.’ And then he would look at us and say, ‘climb your own mountain.’

Men and women of the Values Voter Summit, we have a mountain to climb. Those who have gone before in your life climbed their mountain. They stood for freedom in harm’s way. They demanded a government as good as our people. Now it’s our turn.

The time has come to take our stand. We must not be afraid and we must fight for what has always been the source of American greatness: our faith in God and our freedom.

And if we hold that banner high, I believe with all my heart the good and great people of this land will rally to our cause. We will win this Congress back in 2010, and we will win this country back in 2012, so help us God.

And then, as Exhibit B, courtesy of Mike Pence and the folks at The American Spectator, here are the prepared remarks for Pence’s speech on the nature of the presidency, delivered yesterday evening at Hillsdale College:

NOTE: Video is available.
Click on Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six, Part Seven,
or Part Eight.

President and Mrs. Arnn, Mr. John Cervini, Mr. David Bobb, Elliot Gaiser, College Republicans and each and every one of the faculty and students of Hillsdale College here today.… As I am sure you know, honor is what allows us to do what is right despite the cost. Even greater honor is required to do what is right in the face of superior power. And the greatest honor is to stand strong even if it means standing alone.

The long fight of Hillsdale College, standing alone — then and now for the proposition that all men are created equal, then with Frederick Douglass, now with Clarence Thomas; then and now in the conviction that, as Americans are not horses, we were not born to have saddles placed on our backs, by anyone, at any time, and for any reason…. This long fight, you have fought for love of ideas that did not come in dreams, or as Reagan said, did not “spring full bloom” from your brow, but “came from the heart of a great nation,” rose in a time of unprecedented stress and genius, and since the founding kept this country whole, prosperous, safe, just, free and good.

It is therefore a high honor for me to stand before you in this place so closely associated with the founding of the Republican Party in opposition to the unforgivable sin of slavery; this place where statesmanship is taught as an art, and where right conduct is seen as its own reward. I thank you, and may God bless you for your bravery and courage.

I rise to pay a debt of honor and a debt to history. My subject today is the presidency, and my hope is that you see that institution in a new light and never despair of the republic.


The presidency is the most visible thread that runs through the tapestry of the American government. More often than not, for good or for ill, it sets the tone for the other branches and spurs the expectations of the people. Its powers are vast and consequential, its requirements — from the outset and by definition — impossible for mortals to fulfill without humility and insistent attention to its purpose as set forth in the Constitution of the United States.

Isn’t it amazing, given the great and momentous nature of the office, that those who seek it seldom pause to consider what they are seeking? Rather, unconstrained by principle or reflection, there is a mad rush toward something that, once its powers are seized, the new president can wield as an instrument with which to transform the nation and the people according to his highest aspirations

But, other than in a crisis of the house divided, the presidency is neither fit nor intended to be such an instrument. When it is made that, the country sustains a wound, and cries out justly and indignantly. And what the nation says — the theme of this address… What it says, informed by its long history, impelled by the laws of nature and nature’s God… What it says quite naturally and rightly, if not always gracefully, is that we as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded. It says that the president should never forget this; that he has not risen above us, but is merely one of us, chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the Constitution and impassioned by the Declaration of Independence.


The presidency must adhere to its definition as expressed in the Constitution, and to conduct defined over time and by tradition. While the powers of the office have enlarged, along with those of the legislature and the judiciary, the framework of the government was intended to restrict abuses common to classical empires and to the regal states of the 18th century.

Without proper adherence to the role contemplated in the Constitution for the presidency, the checks and balances in the constitutional plan become weakened. This has been most obvious in recent years when the three branches of government have been subject to the tutelage of a single party. Under either party, presidents have often forgotten that they are intended to restrain the Congress at times, and that the Congress is independent of their desires. And thus fused in unholy unity, the political class has raged forward in a drunken expansion of powers and prerogatives, mistakenly assuming that to exercise power is by default to do good.

Even the simplest among us knows that this is not so. Power is an instrument of fatal consequence. It is confined no more readily than quicksilver, and escapes good intentions as easily as air flows through mesh. Therefore, those who are entrusted with it must educate themselves in self-restraint. A republic — if you can keep it — is about limitation, and for good reason, because we are mortal and our actions are imperfect.

The tragedy of presidential decision is that even with the best choice, some, perhaps many, will be left behind, and some, perhaps many, may die. Because of this, a true statesman lives continuously with what Churchill called “stress of soul.” He may give to Paul, but only because he robs Peter. And that is why you must always be wary of a president who seems to float upon his own greatness. For all greatness is tempered by mortality, every soul is equal, and distinctions among men cannot be owned; they are on loan from God, who takes them back and evens accounts at the end.

It is a tragedy indeed that new generations taking office attribute failures in governance to insufficient power, and seek more of it. In the judiciary this has seldom been better expressed than by Justice Thurgood Marshall’s dictum that, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up.” In the Congress, it presents itself in massive legislation, acts and codes thousands of pages long and so monstrously over-complicated that no human being can read through them in a lifetime — much less understand them, much less apply them justly to a people that increasingly feel like they are no longer being asked, they are being told. Our nation finds itself in the position of a dog whose duty it is not to ask why, because the “why” is too elevated for his nature, but simply to obey.

America is not a dog, and does not require a “because-I-said-so” jurisprudence to which it is then commanded to catch up, or legislators who knit laws of such insulting complexity that they are heavier than chains; or a president who acts like, speaks like, and is received as a king. The presidency has run off the rails. It begs a new clarity, a new discipline, and a new president.

The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us, we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.

Is my characterization of unprecedented presumption incorrect? I defer to the judgment of the people, which they will make with their own eyes, and ears. Listen to the exact words of the leader of President Obama’s transition team and perhaps his next chief-of-staff: “It’s important that President-Elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” Or, more recently, from the words of the latest presidential appointment to avoid confirmation by the Senate, the new head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wrote last Friday, “President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again.”

“Take power… Rule… Leveling.” Though it is now, this has never been and should never again be the model of the presidency or the character of the American president. No one can say this too strongly and no one can say it enough until it is remedied. We are not subjects, we are citizens. We fought a war so that we do not have to treat even kings like kings, and — if I may remind you — we won that war. Since then, the principle of royalty has, in this country, been inoperative. Who is better suited or more required to exemplify this conviction, in word and deed, than the President of the United States?


The powers of the presidency are extraordinary and necessarily great, and great presidents treat them sparingly. For example, it is not the president’s job to manipulate the nation’s youth for the sake of his agenda or his party. They are a potent political force when massed by the social network to which they are permanently attached. But if the president has their true interests at heart he will neither flatter them nor let them adore him, for in flattery is condescension and in adoration is direction, and youth is neither seasoned nor tested enough to direct a nation. Nor should it be the president’s business to presume to direct them. It is difficult enough to do right by one’s own children. No one can be the father of a whole continent’s youth.

Is the president, therefore, expected to turn away from this and other easy advantage? Yes. Like Harry Truman who went to bed before the result on election night — he must know when to withdraw, to hold back, and to forgo attention, publicity, or advantage.

No finer, more moving, or profound an understanding of the nature of the presidency and the command of humility placed upon it has ever been expressed than by President Coolidge. He, like Lincoln, lost a child while he was president, a son of sixteen. “The day I became president,” Coolidge wrote, “he had just started to work in a tobacco field. When one of his fellow laborers said to him, ‘If my father was president I would not work in a tobacco field,’ Calvin replied, ‘If my father were your father you would.’ ”

While in the White House, President Coolidge’s son contracted blood poisoning from an incident on the South Lawn. Coolidge wrote, “What might have happened to him under other circumstances we do not know, but if I had not been president.…” And then he continues, “In his suffering he was asking me to make him well. I could not.

“When he went, the power and glory of the Presidency went with him.”

A sensibility such as this, and not power, is the source of presidential dignity, and must be restored. It depends entirely upon character, self-discipline, and an understanding of the fundamental principles that underlie not only the republic but life itself. It communicates that the president feels the gravity of his office and is willing to sacrifice himself; that his eye is not upon his own prospects but on the storm of history through which it is his responsibility to navigate with the specific powers accorded to him and the limitations placed upon them not merely by man in his design but by God in His.


The modern presidency has drifted far from the great strength and illumination of its source: the Constitution as given life by the luminous and passionate Declaration of Independence, the greatest political document ever written. The Constitution, terse, sober, and specific, does not, except by implication, address the president’s demeanor, but this we can read in the best qualities of the founding generation, which we would do well to imitate. In the Capitol Rotunda are heroic paintings of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the victory at Saratoga, the victory at Yorktown, and, something seldom seen in history: a general, the leader of an armed rebellion, resigning his commission and surrendering his army to a new democracy. Upon hearing from Benjamin West that George Washington, having won the war and been urged by some to use the army to make himself king, would instead return to his farm, George III said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.” He did, and he was.

To aspire to such virtue and self-restraint would in a sense be difficult, but in another sense it should be easy — difficult because it would be demanding and ideal, and easy because it is the right thing to do and the rewards are immediately self-evident.

A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him. The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it. Other than in a crisis of morality, decency, and existence, such as the Civil War, if he should want to hurry along the Constitution to fit his own notions or designs, he should do so by amendment rather than adjustment, for if he joins the powers of his office to his own willful interpretation, he steps away from a government of laws and toward a government of men.

Is the Constitution a fluctuating and inconstant document, a collection of suggestions the purpose of which is to stimulate debate in a future to which the Founders were necessarily blind? Progressives tell us that even the Framers themselves could not reach agreement in its regard. But they did agree upon it. And they wrote it down. And they signed it. And they lived by it. Its words are unchanging and unchangeable except — as planned — by careful amendment. There is no instruction to the president to override the law and, like Justice Marshall, let it catch up to his superior conception. Why is this good? It is good because the sun will burn out, the Ohio River will flow backwards, and the cow will jump over the moon 10,000 times before any modern president’s conception is superior to that of the Founders of this nation.

Would it be such a great surprise that a good part of the political strife of our times is because one president after another, rather than keeping faith to it, argues with the document he is supposed to live by? This discontent will only be calmed by returning the presidency to the great first principles. The president should regard the Constitution and the Declaration like an obsessed lover. They should be on his mind all the time, the prism through which the light of all questions of governance passes. Though we have — sometimes gradually, sometimes radically — moved away from this, we can move back to it. And who better than the president to restore this wholesome devotion?


And as the president returns to the consistent application of the principles in the Constitution, he will also ensure fiscal responsibility and prosperity. Who is better suited, with his executive and veto powers, to carry over the duty of self restraint and discipline to the idea of fiscal solvency? When the president restrains government spending, leaving room for the American people to enjoy the fruits of their labor, growth is inevitable. As Senator Robert Taft wrote, “Liberty has been the key to our progress in the past and is the key to our progress in the future.… If we can preserve liberty in all its essentials, there is no limit to the future of the American people.”

Whereas, at home, the president must be cautious, dutiful, and deferential, abroad, his character must change. Were he to ask for a primer on how to act in relation to other states, which no holder of the office has needed to this point, and were that primer to be written by the American people, whether of 1776 or 2010, you can be confident that it would contain the following instructions:

“The President of the United States of America bows to no man. You do not bow to kings. When in foreign lands, you do not criticize your own country. You do not argue the case against the United States, but, rather, the case for it. You do not apologize to the enemies of the United States. Should you be confused, a country, people, or region that harbors, shelters, supports, encourages, or cheers attacks upon our country, the slaughter of our children, our mothers, our fathers, our sisters, and brothers… are enemies of the United States. And, to repeat, you do not apologize to them.”

Closely related to this, and perhaps the least ambiguous of the president’s complex responsibilities, is his duty as Commander-in-Chief of the military. In this regard there is a very simple rule, unknown to some presidents regardless of party:

If… and it is perhaps the biggest “if” any president can face, for it will follow not just him but hundreds of thousands or millions of others, not just for the rest of their lives but, in cost of blood and souls, beyond life itself.

If… and it is an “if” that requires long and deep thought, tremendously hard labor at determining the truth of things, a lifetime of education, the knowledge of a general, the wisdom of a statesman, and the heart of an infantryman….

If… after careful determination, intense stress of soul, and the deepest prayer….

If, then, you go to war, then, having gone to war, by God, you go to war to win.

You do not cast away American lives, or those of the innocent noncombatant enemy, upon a theory, a gambit, or a notion. And if the politics of your own election or of your party intrude upon your decisions for even an instant — there are no words for this.

More commonplace, but hardly less important, are other expectations of the president in this regard. He must not stint on the equipment and provisioning of the Armed Forces, and if he errs it must be not on the side of scarcity but of surplus. And he must be the guardian of his troops, taking every step to avoid the loss of even a single life.

The American soldier is as precious as the closest of your kin — because he is your kin, and for his sake the president must, in effect, say to the Congress and to the people: “I am the Commander-in-Chief, it is my sacred duty to defend the United States, give our soldiers what they need to complete the mission and come home safe, whatever the cost.” Of all the hard choices that Congress may have to make to ensure this, which one of these things alone or in combination is more terrible than the sacrifice of our children or the defeat of our nation?

If, in fulfilling this duty, the president wavers, he will have betrayed his office, for this is not a policy, it is probity. And it is not an expedient artifact of my imagination, it is written on the blood-soaked ground of Saratoga, Yorktown, Antietam, Cold Harbor, The Marne, Guadalcanal, the Pointe du Hoc, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sanh, Iraq, Afghanistan, and a thousand other places in our history, in lessons repeated over and over again.

The presidency, a great and complex subject upon which I have only touched, has become symbolic of overreaching. There are many truths that we have been frightened to tell or face. If we run from them, they will catch us with our backs turned and pull us down. Better that we should not flee but rather stop and look them in the eye.

What might our forebears say to us, knowing what they knew, and having done what they did? I have no doubt that they would tell us to channel our passions, simply speak the truth and to do what is right, slowly and with resolution; to work calmly, steadily and without animus or fear; to be like a rock in the tide, let the water tumble about us, and be firm and unashamed in our love of country.

I see us like those in Philadelphia in 1776. Danger all around, but a fresh chapter, ready to begin, uncorrupted, with great possibilities and — inexplicably, perhaps miraculously – the way is clearing ahead. I have never doubted that Providence can appear in history like the sun emerging from behind the clouds, if only as a reward for adherence to first principles. As Winston Churchill said before Congress on December 26, 1941, “He must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below, of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants.”

A long time ago, during the tortured history of Rome, in the fourth century, A.D., Emperor Constantius (son of Emperor Constantine, and of mixed virtue) was faced with an ultimatum backed by what appeared to be a military force impossible to resist. Failure and defeat seemed certain to everyone. But in the morning, when his answer was due, he said to his assembled troops: “Last night, after I retired to rest, the shade of the great Constantine, embracing the corpse of my murdered brother, rose before my eyes, [and] his well-known voice forbade me to despair of the republic.”

We, too, have the voices of shades that emerge from the past. We too, have what Lincoln in his First Inaugural called, “the mystic chords of memory stretching from every patriot grave.” They bind us to the great and the humble, the known and the unknown — and if I hear them clearly, what they say is that although we may have strayed, we have not strayed too far to return, for we are, every one of us, their descendants. The sinews are still there, quite lively, waiting to flex. We can still astound the world with justice, reason and strength. I know this is true, but even were it not we could not in decency stand down, if only for our debt to history, the debt we owe to those who came before, who did great things, and suffered more than we suffer, and gave more than we give, and pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor — for us, whom they did not know. For we “drink from wells we did not dig” and are “warmed by fires we did not build,” and so we must be faithful in our time as they were in theirs.

Many great generations are gone, but I see them in my mind’s eye, and by the character and memory of their existence they forbid us to despair of the republic. I see them crossing the prairies in the sun and wind. I see their faces looking out from steel mills and coal mines, and immigrant ships crawling into the harbors at dawn. I see them at war, at work and at peace. I see them, long departed, looking into the camera, with hopeful and sad eyes. And I see them embracing their children … who became us. They are our family and our blood, and we cannot desert them. In spirit, all of them come down to all of us, in a connection that, out of love, we cannot betray.

They are silent now and forever, but from the eternal silence of every patriot grave there is yet an echo that says, “It is not too late, keep faith with us, keep faith with God, and do not, do not ever despair of the republic.”



  1. whats_up says:

    What I enjoy about Mike Pence, even though I may disagree with some of his policies, is that he doesnt play the blame game that so many politicians do. Notice that he doesnt blame the left but both parties that have gotten us into this mess. Now I know that doesnt go over well with some Conservatives but it is a nice refreshing change. This is a man, who if elected President i would respect, even if I disagreed with his politics because I believe through his actions and words he has the best intentions for all of the country, not just those that believe like him.

  2. Linda C. says:

    I have been championing the “Candidate Mike Pence” banner for quite some time now. Glad to see that others are catching on. Perhaps the Party will agree, instead of running retreads in 2012. Well spoken, articulate with solid principles and values, Mike Pence would make an excellent candidate.

  3. Randy Wills says:

    Thanks, Jeff, a million for posting Mike Pence’s speeches – particularly the second one delivered at Hillsdale. Never have I read a more moving speech. I found myself saying “yes,yes” over and again, sometimes with a mist coming over my eyes.

    As the readers of AR know from my past comments, I have been drawn to Mike Pence for some time and, although I fully understand and agree with your comments regarding executive experience, I am praying that he gets full consideration by the American public prior to the 2012 election. I see in him all of the qualities that would, once again, make an honorable President in the mold of a Lincoln or Coolidge.


  4. Gail B. says:

    Jim DeMint was on Michael Savage (WSB Radio) last night. I was just about to get into the shower, but I heard Senator DeMint say that, when he looks into the mirror, he does not see a president. He sees an ordinary man. (George Washington considered himself an ordinary man, too.) I’ve heard DeMint say that he wanted to get out of politics, but that it looks more and more like that will not be what he will do.

    On the same radio station, I heard the moderator talking about Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. I’ve forgotten who the moderator was, but he mentioned a good candidate for the Republican nominee for President of the United States is Congressman Mike Pence.

    Mike Pence gives the most moving, sincere, down-to-earth, common sense speeches I’ve ever heard. I PRAY that he will throw his hat into the ring to run; I believe he can and will win. I believe he can win in a nationally televised debate with Obama; I believe Pence can inspire on solid ground, not on marshmallow wishes such as Obama tossed out; and I believe Pence can restore America’s economy and faith in Herself.

  5. Boston Blackie says:

    Thanks for your honest opinion of Mike Pence but just one issue I must take offense to “Notice that he doesnt blame the left but both parties that have gotten us into this mess. Now I know that doesnt go over well with some Conservatives but it is a nice refreshing change”. If you’d been paying attention, which I know you have, you’d know that most here at AR have been blaming both parties for this mess we are in for some time now. That in a nut shell is what the Tea Party is all about.

    The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us, we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others. It is neither his job nor his prerogative to shift the power of decision away from them, and to him and the acolytes of his choosing.
    A president who slights the Constitution is like a rider who hates his horse: he will be thrown, and the nation along with him. The president solemnly swears to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. He does not solemnly swear to ignore, overlook, supplement, or reinterpret it.

    Somebody please forward this speech to 1600 Penn Ave, it was awe inspiring to read. Congressman Pence gets it, he really gets it.

    Thanks for the shout out to cousin Cal (actually my husband’s cousin Cal)

  6. Gail B. says:

    Boston gal said:

    “The president is not our teacher, our tutor, our guide or ruler. He does not command us, we command him. We serve neither him nor his vision. It is not his job or his prerogative to redefine custom, law and beliefs; to appropriate industries; to seize the country, as it were, by the shoulders or by the throat so as to impose by force of theatrical charisma his justice upon 300 million others.”

    I wish somebody would tell Obama that!

    Jeff, this has been bothering me all afternoon: By whose authority can a “regulator” dictate how much sugar can be in a soda, whether a restaurant may offer salt to its customers, whether I can use an incandescebt light bulb or not, and on and on. Where does Congress stand? I mean, if we have a president who says what we may have and what we may not have, and czars and regulators to enforce it, what’s the point in having a Congress?

  7. whats_up says:

    @ Boston,

    “you’d know that most here at AR have been blaming both parties for this mess we are in for some time now. That in a nut shell is what the Tea Party is all about.”

    And there are just as many Conservatives here and on other sites who only blame the left, they wont admit that their side of the aisle has been part of the problem as well. I just have to keep reminding them. It took both parties to screw this up, it will take both parties to fix it.

  8. Boston Blackie says:

    “It took both parties to screw this up, it will take both parties to fix it”
    We can only pray that will happen and soon. That’s all the tea party has been asking for.

    BTW Gail,
    I was just highlighting what Rep. Pence said recently in his speech (I forgot to put quotes around it). I can’t imagine speaking that eloquently.

  9. John Buyon says:

    I believe it is the right wing that needs to learn that president is not a teacher or moral leader…

    remember Clinton and Lewinsky…
    “war between good and evil” -Bush

  10. NuMexPhil says:

    Thanks, Jeff! Pence truly is impressive, his thoughtfulness is deeply moving. I noticed some of the comments regarding ‘blame’. Actually, Pence hints at what I believe most Conservative/Tea Party types have concluded:

    WE ARE TO BLAME. We have failed to be diligent, to teach each generation, to openly stand and fight. There has always been a faithful remnant, but this mess is one we have created.

    Many of us now realize that the blame game is nothing but a distraction from the task at hand. We can demand our President honor and defend the Constitution, but until we first demand that of ourselves, and are fully committed to that standard, it won’t happen.

  11. Luke S. says:

    10:19 If one thinks there is NOT a war between good and evil, I am sorry, you are ignorant.

  12. LD Jackson says:

    I have been hearing about Mike Pence from several different sources and I really do wonder if he may be the leader the Republican Party needs. He’s certainly a true conservative and if the Republican establishment will get out of the way, he may have a chance. That’s what worries me. Too many times, we see that establishment push their own choices down our throats (2008 anyone?), when the people would have done much better with a different candidate.

  13. mmm says:

    Don’t forget about Chris Christie. Pence spoke a good message, however, does he have the backbone? Christie does and he’s demonstrated it. I really believe he is our man.


  1. [...] was very much in favor of including social policy in the Pledge.  Without going too deep into my concerns about the possible candidacies of folks like Pence and Rick Santorum and a perceived inability to put social policy on the proverbial back burner, I was glad to hear [...]

Speak Your Mind