Mitch Daniels is in favor of reinstating the Mexico City policy. Michael Gerson quotes Daniels as calling government funding for organizations that fund or promote abortions overseas one of "a thousand things we shouldn't be spending money on." Fair enough, but a social liberal might look at the same policy and see it as an attempt to block the ability of poor foreign women to exercise their reproductive rights. That doesn't sound very trucey.
The reality is that there can no comprehensive truce on the social issues (which is not to say that they must dominate the debate all or even most of the time.) What would a President Daniels do to maintain a truce if Anthony Kennedy were to die during Daniels' first term. Abortion, campaign finance restrictions, church and state issues, the Second Amendment, and who knows what else would hang in the balance. Would the Supreme Court Justice be appointed by lottery? Would the appointee have to swear a blood oath not to overturn any controversial precedents?
Having said all that, Daniels seems to be moving in the right directions and I'm going to follow National Review's advice and declare my own unilateral truce on this truce stuff - at least until Daniels says something I really disagree with.
One last point. Hasn't Daniels' approach ensured that his (seemingly orthodox conservative)opinions on the social issues receive more scrutiny than they otherwise would have?