That "big tent" will be too small for the likes of you and I.

Mitch Daniels Has No Regrets on Abortion, Social Issues Truce
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com 12/27/10 4:31 PM

Indiana governor and potential 2012 presidential candidate Mitch Daniels says he has not changed his position on the social issues truce he advocated this summer that drew a sharp rebuke from pro-life advocates.

Daniels, himself a potential candidate to take on pro-abortion President Barack Obama next election, told the Weekly Standard the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues.”

“We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” he said in July.

In a new interview with the Indianapolis Star newspaper, Daniels said “No” when asked, “You haven’t changed your mind that that’s the right course?”

He admitted he received “some” criticism for the comments but added that he “got a ton of positive feedback, too.”

Daniels’ response to the new questions over the truce were curious as his previous comments made it clear to pro-life advocates that he wanted to put aside social issues like abortion. At the time, he also would not commit to overturning President Barack Obama’s reversal of the Mexico City Policy that prevents taxpayer funding of groups that perform and promote abortions overseas, though he later walked back that comment.

In the Star interview, Daniels talked about the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, and said that those who favor repealing the policy would have to get along in a time of war with those who don’t.

“I say that with enormous respect for the people who want to see gay marriage legalized or who have a strong view on some other such question and want to see don’t ask, don’t tell go away,” he said.

The response is curious because it has Daniels making it appear the truce is directed at liberal social activists and not conservatives, though, on abortion, the activists bringing up legislation and talking about the issues are on the pro-life side.

To that end, Daniels repeated but modified his remarks that, during the legislation session, he doesn’t want to see votes on pro-life legislation “get in the way” of votes on his top issues — the economy and the environment — though he admitted he thinks lawmakers can do both.

“Here’s something that hasn’t changed much. Every year people say ‘well that seems like a lot to do’ and I say ‘nah, we can do more than you think we can.’ And we always do,” he told the newspaper. “As long as it [pro-life legislation] doesn’t interfere with one of the largest opportunities –the ones I keep talking about: the big reform categories, the budget. And it needn’t. But that would be my only concern. If it threatened to crowd out or stop business in a way that meant we couldn’t leap forward for our school kids and all these other issues, then I’d have a problem with it,”

Daniels also talked about his timetable for making a decision on seeking the Republican nomination for president.

“I haven’t made any decision, can’t for at least awhile, need to think about it. When we were sitting here a year ago, I guarantee you I had no plans and haven’t made any. But I’m astonished at the number and the caliber of the people who have asked me to consider this,” he said. “I haven’t encouraged it, I haven’t solicited it and I haven’t lifted a finger to do anything about it. There’s no exploratory committee running around out there somewhere.”

“More than that I cannot say. You’ll see. I said, if not a year ago certainly in the course of the year, watch what we do, and we did what we said we would. We tended to our knitting here in Indiana. That will continue to be the case. I’m going to be completely focused on this General Assembly and our agenda, and that’s going to take the next four months,” he added. “I certainly wouldn’t pull any trigger on such a thing till then. Some folks say to me that could be too late. If it is, it is.”

(End of story. My comments follow.)

This is an example of how a victory for Republicans in 2012 (if they even manage to get one) will be a hollow one for those holding conservative social values.

The "big tent" philosophy, often accredited to Michael Steele, will insure that at best the Republican platform for 2012 will be focused only on the nation's pocketbook and not it's soul. Issues such as abortion, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, gay marriage, euthanasia, etc. will all be conveniently placed on a back burner while the "real" issues are wrangled over.

At the end of it all those of us holding traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs will be urged to go along to get along, compromise just a bit for the greater good of the nation and stay mum on any strong opinions regarding social issues.

At best, it'll insure another four years of B.O. and company. Faced with "Democratic Party Lite" the electorate will choose the devil they've come to know vice the two faced entity they don't. THAT is the best that might happen. This is the best scenario because with another four years of the present administration there will still be a strong resistance to it's progress exhibited by the Legislative Branch. This happens along party lines if for no other reason.

At worst, some RINO will be placed at the head of the Executive Branch. We'll see an enthusiastic closing of the ranks from the Congressional Republicans in the name of partisanship. Any prioritizing that places those embarrassing social issues to the fore will be swept away. Concerns for our economy will trump all and promises of new support from the likes of Planned Parenthood, GLAAD, etc. help to push support for those aforementioned social issues into the shadows. Marginalization of Jews, Catholics, Mormons, and other strong proponents of traditional morality will accelerate as "freedom of religion" is increasingly discarded for "freedom of worship".

None of this is inevitable. It's entirely possible that newly awakened social conservatives will take over the Republican Party, some might even say "hijack it" in much the same manner the Democratic Party found itself hijacked by radical liberals back in 1968. We can only hope.

But that also has it's down side. With a strongly emphasized stance on Judeo-Christian values the Republican Party would find itself in a much sharper contrast with the Democrats. Those who champion "gay rights", the right of a "woman's choice" and other evil practices (if they're not evil then what the hell are they?) won't back down readily. They fight and that might entail physical conflict as much as passionate & inflammatory rhetoric. Remember that those who willingly discard morality feel the ends justifies the means.

So under those circumstances, should 2012 end with a return of Democratic leadership in the Oval Office for another four years we'll see an enthusiastic ramping up of attacks on believers in traditional morality. This will be in payback for a very contentious run up to the election.

Again, under these same circumstances, should a Republican Party that is refocused on morality and it's true importance find itself in the White House, we'll see a lot of violence and discord at the grass roots level. This will be done in hopes of turning John & Joan Q. Public against that renewed moral emphasis. The idea of "go along to get along" is very ingrained in the present day cultural mindset. Using that same mindset to ostracize those pesky moralists would be seen as very desirable and feasible.

All in all, it looks like a very contentious time is upon us in this nation and it won't let up soon.

I could always be as wrong as a football bat, in the past I've often been. Who knows, we may see a spontaneous renewal of cherishing morality spring up across this land as an unlooked for time of religious renewal comes upon us. Reading the little bit of history I have shows that it's happened before and there is absolutely no reason it can't happen again.

But I wouldn't bet the farm on it this time.

UPDATE: (Sigh) Here's more of the same coming down the pipe at us: Inclusion of Gays at CPAC Divides Fiscal and Social Conservatives