The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : More on Mitch Daniels's Truce

Text Size

What sort of a compromise on social issues should conservatives accept in order to cut spending? I suggested that Mitch Daniels's proposed "truce" would be a no-brainer if it meant trading only some rhetoric for installing a real fiscal conservative in the White House. But now I see that Daniels wasn't proposing as modest a trade-off as I thought. John McCormack:

I asked Daniels if that meant the next president shouldn't push issues like stopping taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare or reinstating the Mexico City Policy banning federal funds to overseas groups that perform abortions. Daniels replied that we face a "genuine national emergency" regarding the budget and that "maybe these things could be set aside for a while. But this doesn't mean anybody abandons their position at all. Everybody just stands down for a little while, while we try to save the republic."

To clarify whether Daniels simply wants to de-emphasize these issues or actually not act on them, I asked if, as presdient, he would issue an executive order to reinstate Reagan's "Mexico City Policy" his first week in office. (Obama revoked the policy during his first week in office). Daniels replied, "I don't know."

Failing to reinstate the Mexico City policy would not be a truce. It would be an unconditional surrender. In recent history a party change in the presidency has meant the automatic reversal of the previous administration's policy on the Mexico City rule; an incoming Republican would simply be maintaining the status quo by reinstating it.

View all comments (9) | Leave a comment

Nick| 6.8.10 @ 4:59PM

Bye-bye, Mitch.
We hardly knew thee.

John3| 6.8.10 @ 5:58PM

Why can't anybody: Republican or Democrat understand that being PARTLY wrong is still WRONG. God will vomit the lukewarm! Although I am unhappy with Democrats and Republicans who take every liberal agenda hook, line and sinker; I do have to at least commend their "non-lukewarmness." Governor Daniels, stand up for the whole truth! (and nothing but the truth and hopefully, God will bless this country of ours).

Leila| 6.8.10 @ 7:20PM

One way to win a battle is to seek middle ground where it requires your opponent to abandon the high ground.

It's a good strategy and it works doubly well when your opponent OFFERS to do so.

How confused are we??

Very.

Will| 6.8.10 @ 8:11PM

I'd rather have America go bankrupt and sold off to the Chinese than compromise on my religious convictions. Better yet, I'd really rather bury my head in the sand about our current road to serfdom, and act like the world's problems will be solved when we get rid of all the abortions and ho-mo-sexuals.

Looks like I won't be supporting Mitch for president. Or anyone else with any knowledge of economics whatsoever.

Warrior| 6.8.10 @ 8:16PM

A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality. --Winston Churchill

TonyRaskoon| 6.8.10 @ 9:17PM

I live in Indianapolis. This saddens me. Mitch has been a great governor in my opinion. His management skills are very good and he can articulate the conservative 'narrative' to citizens even through the smog of the media. Even the things he does when people aren't looking are admirable. I hope he misspoke. This doesn't sound like Mitch.

Jocon307| 6.8.10 @ 11:42PM

The problem with his answer really has nothing to do with abortion, assuming that Daniels in not in fact a pro-choicer.

The problem is that REPUBLICANS DON'T PLAY HARDBALL

That is the problem, that is how we got to where we are, and the solution is to find a real knuckleballer (or whatever the proper analogous term is) to play for our side.

Brad| 6.10.10 @ 11:55AM

I agree with your sentiment, but the problem/reason why Pro-Lifers don't play hardball, I think is two-fold. Number one: too many people contracept, and unknowingly, abort, so their consciences are already at odds with the truth. Second, the abortion industry makes BILLIONS of $$$$ (from abortions and big pro-aborts like Gates and Buffet), and thus provides grease to powerful politicians and media types, blunting the sharp edge of TRUTH. So, either way, being a pro-life politician isn't as popular/profitable as it should be.

WM| 6.10.10 @ 3:22PM

Mitch Daniels is, bar none, the best potential candidate out there, and everyone here knows it, whether you want to admit it or not. He has done some truly heroic things in his home state, and we need someone who understands the need and is willing to play hardball against the entitlement state. The Republic is in decline, and nut jobs are having a hissy fit over abortions and gay marriage. Truly treasonous.