It wasn’t clear to me from the Weekly Standard piece that he wants to run anyway. But I think that all of the attacks on him for this “truce” thing are misreading what he said. He said truce, not surrender. A truce is a two-way street. Now maybe some folks would like him to stay on the offensive, and that’s fine, but let’s not act like he said he wants to roll over and let the left have its way on social issues.
It's just naive prattling, sort of like McCain's "reach across the aisle" crap.
A “truce” on social issues will do for social issues what the Ron Paul love slaves would do for our foreign and military policy. I had thought that Mitch Daniels might make an interesting dark horse. I was wrong. He would be a disaster. The economic issues are merely a matter of money. How much is spent is dependent on the most recent elections. There is never a permanent solution to money issues. OTOH, each baby slaughtered is a baby permanently slaughtered. Each breach in the societal policy on marriage is likely to be permanent. Social issues do not call for pacifism any more than military situations do. Smash Ahmadinijad and smash the domestic social revolutionaries. “Truce” is surrender.