Silent running

The Indianapolis Star reports on how the pressure on Mitch Daniels to take a stand on illegal immigration is growing, from both sides:

“We would absolutely love to hear what he says about this bill. It's one of our top priorities in the tea party movement,” said Monica Boyer, a leader of Kosciusko Silent No More. “It will show courage. It will show strength. Silence is never good on an issue like that.”

Particularly not for a presidential prospect.

[. . .]

Daniels, Fong said, “is a man of vision and tolerance. What I think the bill represents is, at the very least, a lack of understanding of what it would do to our state economically.”

And, he added, it will hurt Indiana's hospitable image.

“The bill goes, I think, contrary to what we want to believe is the best about Hoosiers,” Fong said.

Taking note of the article, Mark Krikorian writes with disapproval in National Review's The Corner blog:

Daniels will eventually have to do or say something, because, as the Star reporter noted, “Democrats no longer control the House, so they can't be counted on to stop this legislation.” But this kind of weaselly equivocation is at least understandable from a guy like Daniels — a corporate Republican, downplaying social issues (though immigration is very much a fiscal issue as well), and former chief of staff for Dick Lugar.

"Weaselly equivocation." Ouch.