Re: Mitch Daniels: We need a “truce” on social issues to concentrate on our fiscal cr
It's nice in theory, but unfortunately it's not plausible. I think (though i dislike him often) Ramesh Pomnuru has a good summation of this:
...Truces are usually popular
, and most people see the economic issues as more important than the social ones at this moment. But I'm not sure how a truce would work. If Justice Kennedy retired on President Daniels's watch, for example, he would have to pick someone as a replacement. End of truce.
I also can't help but think of Phil Gramm's presidential campaign in 1996. Like Daniels, Gramm was an enthusiastic budget-cutter. Concern about big government was running strong in the years just prior to that election. Gramm had a solid social-conservative record, but consciously chose not to campaign on it; he famously flew out to Colorado Springs to tell James Dobson, "I'm not a preacher." That approach helped to doom Gramm's campaign.
Daniels, presumably, won't be trying to unite conservatives against the party establishment's candidate, as Gramm was, and so these issues will play out differently next time. But I am not at all sure that the party's grassroots will be less interested in social issues in 2012 than it was in 1996....
you lose the social conservatives, you lose the party. It would have to be someone that side of the fence really
trusts; they've been burned a couple of times now. Given that social conservatism is also very popular
; i'm thinking the next Republican candidate will need to understand how social conservatism leads
to fiscal conservatism and dedication to limited government.