Skip to comments.Mitch Daniels: We need a “truce” on social issues (Daniels: SoCons are a Distraction)
Posted on 08/10/2010 2:28:39 PM PDT by GOPGuide
Alternate headline: Mitch Danielss dark-horse presidential bid dead on arrival. Heres what he told the Weekly Standard per the profile Ed flagged yesterday:
Beyond the debt and the deficit, in Danielss telling, all other issues fade to comparative insignificance. Hes an agnostic on the science of global warming but says his views dont matter. I dont know if the CO2 zealots are right, he said. But I dont care, because we cant afford to do what they want to do. Unless you want to go broke, in which case the world isnt going to be any greener. Poor nations are never green.
And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. Were going to just have to agree to get along for a little while, until the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state. He serves as an elder at the Tabernacle Presbyterian Church, in inner-city Indianapolis, which hes attended for 50 years.
John McCormack pressed him to elaborate on what he meant by a truce and Daniels couldnt offer any specifics. (Everybody just stands down for a little while, while we try to save the republic.) Enter evangelical leader Tony Perkins to lower the boom:
Not only is he noncommittal about his role as a pro-life leader, but the governor wouldnt even agree to a modest step like banning taxpayer-funded promotion of abortion overseas which [former] President Bush did on his first day in office with 65% of the countrys support. Lets face it. These arent fringe issues that stretch moderate America. Theyre mainstream ideals that an overwhelming majority of the nation espouses. I support the governor 100% on the call for fiscal responsibility, but nothing is more fiscally responsible than ending the taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion promotion. More than 70% of our nation agrees that killing innocent unborn children with federal dollars is wrong. Yet stopping government-funded murder isnt a genuine national emergency? We cannot save the republic, in Gov. Daniels words, by killing the next generation. Regardless of what the establishment believes, fiscal and social conservatism have never been mutually exclusive. Without life, there is no pursuit of happiness. Thank goodness the Founding Fathers were not timid in their leadership; they understood that truce was nothing more than surrender.
Other religious conservatives are piling on too: Something like this will cost him any consideration from one of the key constituencies of the Republican Party, says the president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. Ramesh Ponnuru is right that Daniels is kidding himself if he thinks he can avoid these landmines as president the first Supreme Court vacancy will thrust him right into the middle of it and its amazingly tone-deaf for an aspiring nominee to propose a truce on abortion given how many pro-lifers equate it with murder. But even so, Im sympathetic to his willingness to prioritize Americas entitlements crisis over everything else, even at the expense of alienating a core wing of the GOP. The hard lesson that Republicans seem to have to learn and re-learn is that, thanks to Roe, theres not much a GOP president and Congress can do legislatively about abortion, in which case why not temporarily de-emphasize it as a political issue if itll buy crucial centrist votes needed to redress a fiscal emergency? (In fact, isnt that an unstated assumption of the tea-party movement? Yes, foreign policy and social issues are important, but economic stability is now Job One.) Unless Daniels means that hes willing to compromise on a pro-choice Supreme Court nominee, which would be pure political suicide, Im not sure which social issue hes supposed to be willing to go to the wall for even if it means detonating a potential political compromise with Democrats to reform social security and Medicare. If McConnell and Boehner come to President Daniels and say theyve got the votes for a balanced-budget amendment but in return the Dems want the Defense of Marriage Amendment repealed, Daniels is supposed to tell them to hit the bricks?
Sounds to me like what hes really saying is that we should accept the status quo, whatever it may be, on social issues until entitlements are back on the path to solvency. As for abortion, I suspect his way of squaring the circle will be to argue that, in fact, because fiscal solvency is priority one and because we need lots of young workers to support our federal Ponzi schemes, the moral argument for opposing abortion is actually a very sensible economic argument too. Exit question one: Is this guy done for, assuming he ever had a chance to begin with? Exit question two: Hes pretty much a textbook example of the sort of candidate whod benefit from a California-style free-for-all primary, isnt he?
Watch out for Daniels because the establishment is looking to him to save the Rockefeller wing Republicans if/when Myth Romney flames out.
Social issues are a matter of character and are most definitely not off the table.
Not to mention he’s bald and about 5 foot 5.
Dead is an understatement.
They want to deflect and dilute the Tea Party movement just as much as the left does.
I think Romney is already done. He will have a big problem shaking that whole Romneycare thingy.
Daniels is the Rockefeller-Bush-Gerald Ford wing’s backup RINO.
Why bother? Over half the SoCons vote Democrat anyway.
A nation’s greatness and soundness are directly tied to its goodness in the sight of God.
Daniels still denying a Congressional district in the state a special election?
These RINO's think that taxes and deficits are the only issues that compel voters to support them. NOT!
Yeah, this guy is a mealy-mouthed weasel. No thanks. We have had enough of those.
How can someone say they are pro-life but then see it as a secondary issue? People who are pro-life believe they are fighting murder. How can murder be set aside? People who believe that a fetus is not a baby are ridiculous, but they are not nearly as creepy as those who claim to be pro-life but say it would not affect how they vote or govern. “Yeah, I know it’s infanticide, but we shouldn’t make a big deal out of it.”
Whom should the republican presidential nominee be, in 2012? I think that Mike Huckabee, Dirk Kempthorne, and Haley Barbour will run.
At least he wouldnt be nominating Harriet Meiers to the Supreme Court.
Who the heck is Dirk Kempthorne?
Exactly what conservative social issue is on the advance? Seems like people are just trying to sandbag the levies at the moment. Homosexual marriage is a CHANGE to 4000 years of history. Trying to hold onto what’s left isn’t exactly in your face aggression.
No Daniels will probably put another Souter or John Paul Stevens on the Court, one of those justices who won’t get “distracted” by social issues.
Its going to take some big ones to put the wheels back on the USA and getting stuck on the social issues will NOT do it this time around.
What good is character if you have no country left?
I don't know if Daniels is the guy. Does not really matter.
Unless we FIX the financial problems we have nothing.
If you are a “social issues” voter, you better learn what really matters for the here and now.
It's not abortion or same sex marriage.
I think he would make a great budget director or some such in the Sarah Palin administration....
Whoever wins. I have no clue at this point who that may be. I liked Fred Thompson last time out, that shows how much I know.