Thoughts on Mitch Daniels v Mitt Romney
Hmmm:
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.”
This is a disqualifier in my mind — as Charles Mitchell writes, we have a choice:
Of course, if Gov. Daniels were the only option, I’d support him enthusiastically. But he isn’t. There’s another governor in the race who (while I don’t think he’s huge on plate-sized pork tenderloin, based on his figure) not only balanced the budget in a left-wing state with a rabidly hostile legislature, but also stood up on marriage and life issues and doesn’t entertain the idea of surrendering after reaching the White House. Why? Because he knows that these issues are just as important to “sav[ing] the republic” (to borrow Gov. Daniels’ phrase) as cutting government spending, if not more so. That’s our governor, of course, Gov. Romney. He’s the full package. And that’s why we support him.
And I do too.