Beyond that, the "truce" thing has been badly mischaracterized by those who are either too lazy, or too dishonest, to discuss Daniels' statement in the context in which it was made.
>>> Beyond that, the “truce” thing has been badly mischaracterized by those who are either too lazy, or too dishonest, to discuss Daniels’ statement in the context in which it was made. >>>
I would agree with that. However, too many Daniels supporters have been either too lazy, too dishonest or too disonnected with the realities of the national debate to understand how Mitch has stepped into the liberal talking points a few times too many
I’ll keep an eye on him because he’s done some good things, but he’s on “double secret probation” at the microphone. And sadly, with the bully pulpit and limited powers of a President, I’m not sure that today actions do indeed speak louder than words. Not saying it’s a good thing........but it is what it is.
Odd that so many of his supporters here at FR are also freepers that are known as liberals, even as people that prefer Mitt Romney himself to Governor Palin.
From the Weekly Standard:
Mitch Daniels Doubles Down on “Truce”
Mark Hemingway writes:
I got a call this morning from Indiana Governor and rumored presidential candidate Mitch Daniels. In my column yesterday on his remarks about a “truce” on social issues, I left the door open to the possibility that the Governor’s remarks may not have been a “rhetorical misstep.”
Of course, if you know anything about Mitch Daniels in this respect he’s the anti-Obama. He’s far more concerned about communication than rhetoric, he’s thoughtful and rarely speaks without consideration. Rhetorical missteps are exceedingly rare.
And indeed, Daniels called me to say that he’s dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. “It wasn’t something I just blurted out,” he told me. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mitch-daniels-doubles-down-truce