(I carry no particular brief for Grover Norquist), I will say that Limbaugh’s comments yesterday regarding CPAC, and specifically Gov. Daniels reaching out to non-conservatives to help move forward the conservative agenda, suggests he missed the point.

All this infighting is getting us nowhere. Can we please stop being so doctrinaire and exclusionary? It’ll be the deathknell of our movement.

If we define everybody as RINOs, there will eventually be none of us left. There should be room for debate and disagreement within the conservative movement.

Last I checked, the longtime (outgoing) chairman of ACU was David Keene. Keene is moving over to that insidious left-wing cabal: the NRA.

The incoming chairman is longtime conservative activist Al Cardenas.

So I’m sitting there watching friggin’ conservative icons like Phyllis Schlafly and George Will taking part in this thing: and you’re here saying that conservatives need to “take over” CPAC?

Psst….runner…..we’re all conservatives.

But I did hear the first hour, and so far as his CPAC commentary goes, he focused on Daniels’ speech.

I have no problem with drumming out people for poor character. If Norquist has poor character and thus deserves to walk the plank, fine.

What I’m wary of is all this *ideologically-oriented* infighting. Every time I see it going on, I think of Franklin’s revolutionary comment that “we must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

The last thing this country needs right now is a fatally fractured conservative movement. It needs a growing one — and I think we all have to realize that, in order to grow it, we’re going to have to endure some ideological heterodoxy.

If there were only two kinds of voters out there — basically-stalwart-liberals and basically-stalwart-conservatives — and Daniels’ point was to try to win the loyalties of the basically-stalwart-liberals, I’d be in full agreement with you.

But that doesn’t come anywhere close to describing the electorate. I don’t see how anybody can listen to what Mitch Daniels said in that speech (the whole speech) and say that he’s trying to water down conservatism so as to appeal to people on the left.

What he’s trying to do is open the door to people who are heretofore uncommitted — and, probably, largely uninterested in politics.

Moreover, let’s remember that Daniels is not, say, Rudy Giuliani. It’s easy to make that mistake — that he’s yet another northeastern socially-liberal Republican, etc. etc.

I’m fine with people disagreeing with Daniels’ proffer here (although I do take notice that few of those same people seem to have much issue with the largely social-issue-agnostic Tea Party). What I’m not fine with is people either misunderstanding it or slandering it to mean something other than what it is.

The point is that we’ve got to muster a larger and more diverse political coalition than we’ve previously had if we’re to have any hope of enacting something akin to Paul Ryan’s Roadmap.

I know I want to see that happen. And I assume you do, too. If so, I think you’re kidding yourself if you think we can get there with the conventional conservative coalition.

Either you don’t mean what you say in the first paragraph, or you don’t mean what you say in the third paragraph.

But you can’t mean what you say in both of them.

Believe it or not, I’m as rigid an ideologue as you’re ever likely to come across, L&L. But I’m also quite interested in seeing my ideological values advanced and applied. That necessitates a certain amount of political pragmatism.

That’s why I’m a Republican and not a (capital “L”) Libertarian. The Libertarian Party is a complete and utter waste of resources. It always has been and always will be a refuge for the ideologically pure and the politically irrelevant. I have little use for such folly.

There’s almost nothing that’s “moderate” about me — and I’m certainly not interested in “marginalizing” conservatism. Quite the contrary.

You’re entirely free to question my preferred methods of advancing conservatism. You are not, however, free to question the sincerity of my intent.

What part of it sounds “watered down” in its conservatism to you?

Yes, that speech was aimed towards a conservative audience. But it was hardly a triangulated approach to conservatism. No, it wasn’t a red meat fest, ala Allen West.

We’re talking about finally, and at long last, taking the country in a different direction. I adore Rep. West and believe people like him are entirely necessary. But his approach will not get us to where we want to go. It certainly hasn’t to this point — and one definition of insanity…..

I think the subtext of Daniels’ comments was almost entirely rooted in selling conservatism to people who have heretofore been unconverted.

But it was most certainly not about watering anything down. You can’t read that speech and honestly come away thinking: he’s trying to destroy conservatism.

This is an elected official who, when asked to recommend five books, counted among his recommendations Friedman’s Free to Choose, Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, and a book by Charles friggin’ Murray.

Can we please not confuse people who would offer up such a reading list with the Olympia Snowes and Arlen Specters of the world?

A lot of people have been pointing out lately, correctly, that Reagan raised taxes a number of times. He also, as governor of California, signed into law one of the nation’s most liberal abortion laws (back when states had to do that).

Reagan was a political pragmatist. We forget that at our peril. He’d never have gotten anywhere had he not been.

BTW, (a young) Mitch Daniels was political director in the Reagan White House for a time. He went on to lead the Hudson Institute, a conservative thinktank founded by Herman Kahn.

We’ve been through this before, and I don’t care to spend time rehashing it.

But, yes, I said what I meant and meant what I said. Putting something farther down in the list of priorities is not the same as ignoring it — and it certainly isn’t capitulation.

In fact, as Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out, it seems rather obvious that no “truce” could survive a Supreme Court nomination. At some point, a president is going to have to take sides. I think Daniels’ thrust here has to do with campaigning, not governing.

And I can certainly appreciate why SoCons would be apprehensive about putting trust in somebody who advocates a temporary truce. I would think they’d take some refuge in the fact that he’s governed in a manner that’s quite friendly to their ideals. But maybe not.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: SoCons would do themselves a world of favors if they could do a better job distinguishing between friends who don’t always sound the company line and genuine foes.

When I suggest that abortion should be a federalized issue, left to the states, I’m immediately treated as an apostate and heretic.

To which I respond: if you want to keep on losing, then keep on keeping on.

…or, better yet, watch it.

Yes, his comments about expanding and extending the coalition warrant attention and discussion.

But this was most certainly not a speech tailored to a Taftian conservatism. Quite the contrary. It was one part cautionary about the degree of peril we face because of fiscal matters, and another part instructive about what it will take to fix it.

What he’s trying to do here, I think, is introduce more people to conservatism.

He’s not going to attempt to walk it back. It’s not his style, for one thing. For another, he’s made it clear that he wasn’t speaking off-the-cuff when he made the suggestion.

If you’re looking for him to buckle on this and come begging for mercy, you’re going to be disappointed.

I think he’s perfectly sanguine with the idea that such a proffer would cost him politically, and perhaps even doom his chances at being nominated.

In fact, he addressed that in his speech:

“Purity in martyrdom is for suicide bombers. King Pyrrhus is remembered, but his nation disappeared. Winston Churchill set aside his lifetime loathing of Communism in order to fight World War II. Challenged as a hypocrite, he said that when the safety of Britain was at stake, his ?conscience became a good girl.? We are at such a moment.

I for one have no interest in standing in the wreckage of our Republic saying ?I told you so? or ?You should?ve done it my way.?

So, yeah, he hasn’t made an attempt to “repair the damage” and he isn’t going to. And I think he’s comfortable with that.

I, for one, would rather we got some real traction with conservatism. But I guess it’s more important to some people that we remain ideologically pure, if politically futile.

As Daniels said, King Pyrrhus is remembered…but his nation disappeared.

This should not be taken as a message of diluting conservatism, though. That’s not at all what this is. If it was, I’d be against it too.

Yes, there are those who want to move the Republican Party to the left — I’m well aware of that. I’m not among them, and neither is Gov. Daniels.

“ignoring” something and merely dropping it down the list of priorities for a temporary period of time.

As Ramesh has pointed out, even if the “truce” were successfully enacted, it couldn’t survive a major judicial nomination. Because the president would have to, at that point, choose sides whether he likes it or not.

I think Daniels realized full well that his proffer would go over like a lead balloon with social conservatives. I don’t think he was taken by surprise by the backlash one bit.

And I understand fully the animus towards it, considering how social conservatives have been often left at the altar by Republican politicians.

Just take solace in his record on these matters, as well as the fact that he’s saying this before running for office, not after winning. And, at least, try to understand the intent. It’s not what you think it is, IMO.

He said that Daniels was pushing “conservatism light” and saying that Republicans needed to be less conservative in order to win elections.

That’s not what Daniels was saying — and, thus, Rush missed the point.

Even the caller he was talking to was confused that he was upset by the speech — because she liked what she heard in the speech, as well she should have.

It was a perfectly muscular call for the conservative agenda. Rush took issue with Daniels saying that we needed to appeal to people who don’t listen to Rush, Hannity, etal.

And he’s exactly right: we do. And we’ll be rewarded for it if we do. So will the country.

That does not, however, mean that we have to move left on anything. If that’s what Daniels was suggesting, I’d be as opposed to it as anybody.

You’re, of course, free to disagree with his reasoning here. But I want to make sure you and everybody at least understands it.

His reasoning goes something like this:

1) We’ve got an urgent need to repair our fiscal situation — and the threat it poses is every bit as existential as the Cold War he compared it to

2) It’s going to require a large amount of political mass to do the job

3) The conservative movement, as presently constituted, doesn’t possess enough mass to do it on our own.

4) By keeping divisive social issues off the table for the purposes of building the necessary coalition, we stand a chance of getting the mass we’ll need to do the job.

So it has nothing to do with (a) his not being able to “walk and chew gum at the same time”, or (b) his own feelings about social issues. Rather it has to do with courting a sector of the electorate that he believes can be won over to support the fiscal mission, but are repelled by the conservative social agenda.

This is how I understand it. And, again, there are good arguments to be made against this reasoning. But most of the arguments I’ve seen seem to not even get what he’s saying.

The most salient question for him is this: what do you do when it’s time to nominate a judge? Because no such “truce”, even if it could be successfully implemented for a campaign, could survive such a process.

And I think social conservatives — and others, for that matter — would have every right to a straightforward answer to that question.

Nominating judges is one of the most important things presidents do. And a conservative movement that has seen the likes of John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, and David Souter come from Republican presidencies is justified in being wary of repeating those debacles.

…in the 2008 primaries.

Only kidding — half kidding, anyway. I think Daniels realizes full well that this sentiment will cost him significant social conservative support, should he decide to run. One can only surmise that he believes he can overcome that — and I’d say that the 2008 results would lend support to the theory.

A milquetoast approach to education reform? If there’s a state in the country with a more ambitious education reform under way — let alone one that is likely to pass — I’d be interested in seeing it.

He’s vastly expanding charter schools — even empowering private (ie, religious) colleges to start them. He’s putting in place a statewide voucher program. He’s instituting teacher merit pay, reforming tenure rules, and putting in place a college scholarship for students who finish high school in 3 years.

That’s a milquetoast approach to education reform? I’d like to see what you consider a bold one — particularly one that’s become a reality.

And if his social views are so similar to the Dems, you’d better ring up the Indiana Right to Life and ask them why they’ve endorsed him twice.

Sheesh. There’s no pleasing some people.

I don’t think his intent here is to alienate social conservatives. He’s hoping, obviously, that he can pull this off without alienating you guys. It’s up to you to choose whether or not to be alienated, after all.

And he’s not trying to get you to swallow the bitter pill put forth by Rudy Giuliani in the last round: I believe what I believe, my beliefs differ from yours, I’m not changing them, but vote for me anyway.

He’s simply saying: if I run, I’ll be running a campaign that doesn’t speak much, if at all, to social issues. He’s giving the reason why he would do that and asking people who want to hear about social issues to place their trust in his record.

If you think he’s not really a social conservative, then you have to ask yourself why he’s governed as he has in Indiana WRT social issues. Wouldn’t you think he’d have already shown his true colors were that the case?

You probably haven’t had as much exposure to him as I have. But trust me when I say this: the guy isn’t a BSer. He’s not going to say one thing and do another. He’ll do what he says, and you may not always like what he says.

But we conservatives have become so accustomed to being left at the altar by politicians who promised us the moon that we’ve almost come to expect it.

Have you looked at how Republicans have done with black and Hispanic voters lately?

If social policy issues are our bridge to them, one of the bridges is missing 95% of its planks…and the other is missing about 70%.

Kestrel summed this up better than I could above. Here’s the link: I think he understands the strategic intent of Daniels’ proffer (pay attention to the particular portion of the electorate he’s speaking to — he’s not trying to bury the hatchet between the committed social left and the committed social right):

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/02/15/losers-unite/#comment-102042

But I also think, as I said above, that the 2008 nominating primary suggests that somebody could be nominated without much in the way of SoCon support.

So I suspect he knew full well this would go over like a lead balloon with SoCons. What would he expect them to say? “Sure Mitch. We’ll lay down our swords for a couple years.”

Many sharp observers see it as an unforced error, and perhaps they’re right. Time will tell.

If so, that’s fine. I know that I’m probably not going to convince you guys otherwise. But I at least want everybody to understand the thinking behind it — even if they think it’s stupid or offensive.

My original post here was simply to point out that it didn’t sound, to me, like Limbaugh understood it. He took it as a call to put forward “conservative light” — and that’s not at all what this is.