Posted on 05/09/2011 2:55:26 PM PDT by Hojczyk
With only 23% hard name recognition (16-7 favorable), why would Mitch Daniels be a significant candidate with so many better known men and women in the potential field?
There is, of course, his splendid record as governor of Indiana. He has done everything a governor could do. He took a deficit and produced a surplus with no tax increase (although he flirted with one early in his term but dropped the idea). His education choice legislation is the most advanced in the nation and will offer all Indiana children the ability to use state funds to go to the school of their choice after it phases in over three years. He has restricted collective bargaining with public workers a la Wisconsin and sharply limited teacher tenure. His landmark legislation replaces teacher pay based on seniority and advanced degrees with compensation determined by merit and student test scores. It allows school boards, in the event of layoffs, to waive the “last hired first fired” rule in favor of merit as criterion for dismissal. He allows state workers to enroll in Health Savings Accounts with an annual state grant of $2700 for all health care costs and lets the worker keep any unspent portion of the funds. Any medical spending over the flat fee gets a sliding scale of state assistance. Almost two-thirds of state workers have gotten money back at the end of the year. He blocked state funding of Planned Parenthood.
With a record like that, he is probably the most successful conservative governor in America today.
But it is the potential vacuum in the presidential race that generates the most interest in his candidacy. With both Huckabee and Palin weighing whether or not to run, there is a possible opening on the right side of the field.
Mitt Romney, the early front runner, is going to face-off with Donald Trump as the businessman’s candidate. Within the current primary electorate, Romney has the decided edge. But Trump, like Obama and Perot before him, can expand the size of the electorate by attracting independents into the process so one cannot count him out.
But if neither Huckabee nor Palin run, there is room on the right. Newt Gingrich has yet so set the world on fire. He draws a 15% vote share from men but only 7% from women and more than a third of the Republican Primary electorate says he has too much baggage to be elected. All agree that he would be phenomenal in a debate against Obama but he’s got a lot to overcome to get there.
Michele Bachmann is a real comer in the field. As the only candidate currently serving in Congress, she is on the playing field. Her Tea Party-based advocacy of spending cuts and no tax increases wins her supporters, especially as she dissents from the Boehner-Cantor compromises with the Administration. Her blunt, outspoken style attracts a lot of support and she could do much to fill the void on the right. But she is relatively inexperienced and some worry about the very outspokenness that makes her so attractive.
So, if Huckabee and Palin stay out, there is a lot of room for Mitch.
Daniels must take care to avoid Fred Thompson disease. You have to really, really want to be president to run. Does he have the fire in the belly? Certainly Daniels is the only candidate to rival Gingrich in grey cells, but does he really want it badly enough?
Dick Morris (who I loath) makes a lot of good points here. I could support Daniels though.
Ditch Mitch! Go Sarah!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rush spent a great deal of time today on Daniels. I couldn’t decide if he liked or disliked him though. I got the impression that Daniels has made it clear Republicans need to avoid the social issues like abortion.
Plus, it would bring Indiana back into the (R) column this election.
Daniels-about as exciting as watching bread rise.
>>>I could support Daniels though.
Not me. Social issues are not something that can be taken off the table... but they should not be the only thing on the table as they are with The Huck.
I like Daniels, but I don’t think he is going to run.
2012 is all about SCOTUS appointments. If Daniels can guarantee
no more Souters or Harriet Mierses, he deserves consideration.
Absolutely, I think Rush was comparing him to Reagan. Rush was also upset that the Washington Post is pushing him, at least that was my take on it.
He might bring Indiana back and lose more of the South with his stance on social issues.
Daniels isn’t famous enough to win in 2012. He should run if he wants to be President, though. Get known in 2012, get elected later.
In almost two years of non-stop campaigning, did you even once hear Barack Obama make a campaign pledge to end Don't Ask Don't Tell? Did you once hear him make a campaign pledge to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act from legal challenges if elected?
Obama never mentioned these things, but with a wink and nod to his homosexual base, Obama played these issues brilliantly. Before the end of his first term, he has ended DADT, and he's in the process of driving a stake through the heart of DOMA. This, of course, is why homosexuals supported him; They knew full-well that if elected, Obama would deliver on their agenda although he campaigned almost like a conservative on homosexual marriage.
Republicans had better start playing chess rather than checkers, because Dems are always two or three steps ahead. No one should lose sight of the fact that the Republican nominee has only won the popular vote ONE TIME since 1988.
+1!! Thank you.
The fact that Daniels has signed a bill in IN de-funding Planned Parenthood shows that this is not true.
However, Daniels has hinted that it's at the FEDERAL level that we should back off off from abortion activism.
Why? The liberals are the ones who raised social issues like abortion to the Federal level because they knew they could have a never-ending issue as they could have access to unlimited funds. The battle should be fought on the state and local levels and as the arguments hit closer to home we will win on all social issues IMO.
“...and it is obvious that both Republican Washington insiders, as well as Democrat power brokers want the nominee to be Mitch Daniels.”
A quotation of Rush on Daniels. That line alone seems to make Rush’s position clear.
Mitch Daniels at 5’ 2” would be the short president is US history. He’d really stand out in a debate, if he’s NOT standing on a box.
I knew he was short, but I didn't know he was that short. That's almost "go to college for free" short.
I hate to be the "superficial" guy, but we have a very superficial electorate. His height is a big disadvantage.
Gov. Daniels appears to be about to sign legislation in Indiana defunding any organization (including Planned Parenthood) that provides abortions.
That’s pretty good by me.
He may be one of those politicians of whom it may be better to watch what he does than what he says.
I was initially very upset with the whole social issues “truce” talk. But if it’s mostly talk to enable him to attract fiscally-conservative pro-aborts to restrain the deficit and the national debt, and he appoints pro-life justices and judges, and he pushes (perhaps under the guise of “fiscal restraint”) things like defunding Planned Parenthood, I think I’d vote for him.
With moderate enthusiasm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.