There’s been speculation that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels would be a great Republican candidate for President in 2012. But if Daniels decides to run, some comments he made recently about social issues may come back to haunt him.
In his soon to be released email statement to supporters (The Washington Update) Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has some straight talk for Daniels after Daniels said the next President, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues' until the economic crisis is resolved. 'We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while.’” Read Perkins tough words below:
Tony Perkins email to supporters:
In most parts of the country, sitting politicians aren't enjoying much popularity these days. Hoosier Governor Mitch Daniels (R) has been one exception. Some 590 miles away from the eye of Washington's storm, the Indiana leader is about as beloved as an elected official can be in this climate. His approval rating is consistently above 60%, prompting whispers that he might be "the man" for Republicans in 2012. Unfortunately, comments he made this week raise serious questions about his level of commitment to fundamental issues like life-leading many of us to wonder if he has the ability to lead a unified conservative movement. Tucked in the back of an 11-page exposé with The Weekly Standard, Gov. Daniels made a surprising departure from his pro-family record during a conversation with Andrew Ferguson. When asked about the next president, the Governor said, "'[That person] would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues' until the economic crisis is resolved. 'We're going to just have to agree to get along for a little while.'" As taken aback as some of us were, we wanted to give the Governor time to clarify what we believe are very harmful statements to the pro-family movement. At an event in Washington on Tuesday, John McCormack caught up with the Governor and gave him that opportunity.
"I asked Daniels," McCormack writes, "if [he] 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, [he said], '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 president, 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.'"
That's astonishing. Not only is he noncommittal about his role as a pro-life leader, but the Governor wouldn't even agree to a modest step like banning taxpayer-funded promotion of abortion overseas-which President Bush did on his first day in office with 65% of the country's support. Let's face it. These aren't fringe issues that stretch moderate America. They're mainstream ideals that an overwhelming majority of the nation espouses. I support the Governor 100% on the call for fiscal responsibility, but nothing is more fiscally responsible than ending the taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion promotion. More than 70% of our nation agrees that killing innocent unborn children with federal dollars is wrong. Yet stopping government-funded murder isn't a "genuine national emergency?" We cannot "save the republic," in Gov. Daniels' words, by killing the next generation. Regardless of what the Establishment believes, fiscal and social conservatism have never been mutually exclusive. Without life, there is no pursuit of happiness. Thank goodness the Founding Fathers were not timid in their leadership; they understood that "truce" was nothing more than surrender.