I agree. However, based on the references in the article, it appears Mitch Daniels has some significant baggage with respect to contributing to the unholy debt of the US during the Bush years. The left will shred him for his hipocrisy in this regard.
“I agree. However, based on the references in the article, it appears Mitch Daniels has some significant baggage with respect to contributing to the unholy debt of the US during the Bush years. The left will shred him for his hipocrisy in this regard.”
Not to mention essentially selling off his tollway to a foreign company (for what will become confiscatory tolling on the poor drivers), in exchange for a one-time cash infusion to make him look like he know how to “Balance the Budget”.
I have no patience at all for conservatives who act as though they can predict the relative amounts of calumny the left will heap upon our various potential standard-bearers, and who think that we should favor those candidates toward whom the left will presumably be less critical.
This is idiocy at best and, in practice, amounts to collusion with the leftist agenda.
We are conservatives. We have standards. We should examine all of our potential nominees according to our own standards and choose the one we think will be best able to articulate our principles and lead our nation.
The left will shriek ugly, psychotic lies about whoever we nominate. It is foolish (at best) to pretend we can avoid this.
Daniels left the Bush administration well before the massive hike in debt/deficits.
It was after Pelosi got in power that the debt skyrocketed; Daniels was long gone by then, having decided to become executive over Indiana's finances which, because of him, are now in healthy shape.
Daniels made budget recommendations. They were not followed. If he would become the nominee, he’ll have plenty to opportunity to lay that out.