Replies

Rush talked about this reversal idea yesterday. Apparently, at the first debate the other day Daniels said something that sounded like mushy RHINO talk and Rush expressed his considerable concerns over the statement. A caller came on who made the same point as this article that Daniels talks like a moderate but he walks (governs) as a true conservative. Whether this is his strategy, I do not know - talking softly but carrying a big conservative stick. I know nothing about the man to be able to judge him.

“we just sort of mute them for a little while”

We were fed that Kool-aid by Stephen Harper when he ran for the leadership of the Conservative Party of Canada. He went from passively ignoring abortion in 2004, to actively discouraging his members from commenting on it in 2006, to barring any discussion of the issue in 2008. If you ever accept the narrative that social issues are too hot for conservatives to handle, then you will just encourage further suppression of free speech on this and other issues. To liberals and RINO’s, a “truce” means that conservatives unconditionally surrender.

Mitch Daniels is the real deal. Our country would be so incredibly fortunate to have him as its president. And despite any talk of a truce, when it comes time to appoint new justices to the Supreme Court, or to lower courts, it is inconceivable that a “truce” would in any way impede his choice of a true conservative.

Daniels is simply establishing priorities. Some on this site may regret that he isn’t making every plank in the conservative platform an equally urgent item; but realistically, what Daniels is doing strikes me as a no brainer.

Now while I acknowledge the pressing issue of debt and our kids future. But our children need to actually be alive to inherit the debt. I must admit that I was outraged by Mitch Daniels remarks and viewed them as disqualifying for my support as a pro-life Catholic.

Well, Mr. Archbold, that's because you didn't think before becoming outraged. Mr. Daniels' statement was both realistic and practical -- and it was very far from being the "surrender" that you and others hysterically made it out to be.

To begin with, you accepted (unintentionally, I'm sure) that your pro-life views are eligible for adjudication by political processes. That has consequences.

And you went on to fail to recognize that political processes are inevitably subject to a process of prioritization. You may not like how that shakes out -- but politics is known as "the art of the possible" for a very good reason. It depends on forging agreements between people who disagree.

Third, by holding everything hostage your single issue, you open the door to inaction on a real, present, and truly existential danger to the republic. Yes, abortion is a terrible crime; but it is not the only crime, and as far as the survival of the nation is concerned its time horizon is not nearly so close as that of fiscal disaster.

Finally, yours is an article that typifies the primary difficulty facing conservatives in America: single-issue politics. Real life is not single-issue; conservatives have got to have a broader view than just the one thing they care about. The alternative is a balkanized movement.... which is what we have now. Putting it in military terms, our tendency to focus on our own narrow interests, and to fight among ourselves over whose single issue must take precedence, is what allows the left to defeat us in detail.