Mitch Daniels Doubles Down on “Truce”

Published



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.”
He’s emphasized the need to focus like a laser beam on the existential threats facing the country — the two big issues he’s previously identified being the war on terror and the country’s precarious fiscal position. “We’re going to need a lot more than 50.1 percent of the country to come together to keep from becoming Greece,” he said.

Daniels, whose spokesman declined my interview requests, leaves a number of questions unanswered. First, what does a truce mean in actual practice? Is he still unsure about whether the next Republican president should immediately reinstate the Mexico City Policy? Should the next Republican president fight to block taxpayer-funding for abortion in Obamacare?

Full midterm coverage.Deeper analysis.

Get unlimited access to Washington Examiner's reporting, expert analysis, and coverage of the midterm elections.

Get Unlimited Access

Cancel anytime.