Skip to comments.IF DANIELS RUNS?
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 businessmans 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 hes 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.
I was thinking about paint. The libs are pushing him. That means, no way.
What’s a Mitch Daniels? Ron Paul has a better chance.
... And they have only won the electoral vote TWICE since 1988. Then again, there have been only five Presidential races since 1988, and we have won every time someone who took a credible stand on social issues ran.
Daniels is very active in getting absentee fathers to be responsible. That's a social issue.
It's at the Federal level he's leery. And rightly so. The liberals dominate social issues there.
Return social issues to the states and many social problems will be solved. This is anathema to liberals because they will lose.
You must live in an alternate universe. 1992, 1996, 2008.
Daniels really is one of the most successful governors going. While he hasn’t necessarily talked the talk on a lot of conservative issues, he has most certainly walked the walk and got a lot done. Ended public employee collective bargaining, education reform with vouchers, no tax money for planned parenthood, etc, etc.
The problem with Mitch is he is about as exciting and energizing as a tree stump. It is just hard to imagine Daniels generating much enthusiasm on the campaign trail. He could pick someone like West as his VP running mate to turn the crowds out like McCain did with Palin, but I just gotta think we can find a more charismatic standard bearer.
“It's at the Federal level he's leery.”
Then he should be very happy to defund Planned Parenthood at the federal level, in that it's inappropriate to deal with the issue of funding abortion at the federal level.
He should be enthusiastic about defending the Defense of Marriage Act, since all that law does is preserve the ability of the STATES to legislate about marriage as they see fit.
He should be outspoken about overturning Roe, as the states are barred from even asking fundamental questions about abortion “rights” by this decision, and can only legislate around the edges.
I'm open to his candidacy, but if he really wants to call a “truce” on social issues, then I won't be voting for him.
At this point, though, his [good] actions speak louder than his [bad] words.
Officially, 5'7" but the speculation says anywhere from 5'2" - 5'7".
Note to all: IT'S A GETTY IMAGE, WHICH CAN'T BE POSTED HERE.
GMTA. But you beat me.
“The problem with Mitch is he is about as exciting and energizing as a tree stump.”
It might not be too difficult to turn that to an asset this time out:
“You went with charisma last time you voted. Look what that got you: 10% unemployment; Porkulus; GM bailout; DeathCare by Obama; $1.6 trillion deficits as far as the eye could see. This time, go with the guy who knows how to get the job done. Even if he isn't the One who will make the sea levels stop rising, who will heal the earth and who will win a Nobel Peace Prize just for breathing.”
Something along those lines could turn the perception from “dull” to “hardworking and competent.”
More than any other election in my lifetime, this election can be won on the issue of basic competence.
From the Weekly Standard:
Mitch Daniels Doubles Down on Truce
Mark Hemingway writes:
I got a call this morning from Indiana Governor and rumored presidential candidate Mitch Daniels. In my column yesterday on his remarks about a truce on social issues, I left the door open to the possibility that the Governors remarks may not have been a rhetorical misstep.
Of course, if you know anything about Mitch Daniels in this respect hes the anti-Obama. Hes far more concerned about communication than rhetoric, hes thoughtful and rarely speaks without consideration. Rhetorical missteps are exceedingly rare.
And indeed, Daniels called me to say that hes dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. It wasnt something I just blurted out, he told me. Its something Ive been thinking about for a while.
What you WILL find Daniels outspoken about is the fiscal issues. This is where he feels the strongest and rightly so IMO. If we fail there, social issues get much worse. Fix the root...the fruit follows.
Daniels will stand for what's right morally as far as social issues go, but this will not be his central focus. He may very well de-fund Planned Parenthood, etc. If he did it at the state level it follows that he will think it an appropriate action at the Federal level as well.
He's a good man. He's head and shoulders above the Romneys and Huckabees IMO. We could do far worse.
You are correct.
I read that interview in the Weekly Standard.
But I also see him getting ready to defund Planned Parenthood.
So, all I can say is that if that's the meaning of “truce” - to obtain pro-life (and other social conservative) wins - I accept.
Rush was trying to bury Daniels, Rush wants a conservative.
I believe you have it backwards. The root of many of our problems are often social problems, not the economic issues.
Culture is more important than economics. Culture is more important than politics.
A country with a healthy and moral culture can overcome economic and political problems. A country with a diseased and immoral culture is handicapped in addressing other problems.
Many of our economic problems are rooted in our social problems.
Fix the social problems and we will have greater freedom and ability to solve our economic problems.
I could support Mitch Daniels, but he’ll need a strongly conservative running mate to be credible for the grass roots. His successful record as Governor aside, his remarks about social issues were not helpful.
Good to see you, dear friend!
If you fall for campaign positioning then you probably loved 2008 Romney after he turned into the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan.
Rush tears up Daniels here. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050911/content/01125108.guest.html
Don’t know that he’s #1 with me, but most possible GOP candidates would be acceptable to me. The ship needs to be turned around, and if it’s turned 180 degrees or only 150 degrees, I’m still happy, course correction can come down the road.
I live in Indianapolis (am originally from Kansas). I like Mitch. He’s not as conservative on social issues as I’d like; however, with the debt crisis where it is, with paying over $4 a gallon for gas, with the Supreme Court at risk of going ultra liberal, with inflation on the rise, with the housing industry still in a major slump (and keeping me stuck in a house I’d like to sell), Daniels would get my full support if he runs.
Amen to all of that. If you want to know what to do with a state, and what not to do with a state, compare his state with mine. I like what I see across the border. Gov. Daniels is a frequent guest on local radio stations. I like what I hear from him.
What makes me enthusiastic about a politician is not the kind of b.s. he puts out, but the kind of job he has done.
Wouldn't vote for Romney on a dare. I actually canceled my long-time subscription to National Review because they endorsed him.
In some ways, Romney is the opposite of Daniels. Daniels, in some ways, appears to perhaps be the anti-Romney.
Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, gave us pro-abort policies and his own little version of DeathCare. But when it came time to run for president, he was all pro-life, all social-conservative in his rhetoric.
Mr. Daniels seems determined to avoid social conservative rhetoric. But defunding Planned Parenthood, ending collective bargaining for public employees, embracing educational vouchers - these don't seem much like a “social issues truce” to me.
I'm not committed one way or the other. I want to see and hear more.
But I'm open to voting for Gov. Daniels, especially if he lulls the morons of the left to sleep with soft words while achieving actual socially-conservative (and economically-conservative) deeds.
Daniel’s dangerous flaw is that he has a very dry humor and makes lots of remarks off the cuff to get some laughs. Those can be taken out of context to distort who he is.
The guy is turning the education system in Indiana upside down, and that is a very good thing (I love his 3-year high school deal, where the kids are out at age 17, with the $$$ saved available to them for college or vocational training). As he said, there is way too much partying and goofing around in the senior year. Under the 3-year, kids can choose to graduate early (assuming they have compiled the requisite credits. ALL of my kids told me that what they really wanted after their junior year was TO GET OUT AND GET ON WITH LIFE.
My niece is 5’4” tall. She works for Mitch and he is taller but unsure if he’s 5’7”.
As much as I would like my niece to have a white house job, he should be slashing budgets in a conservative state like Indiana not balancing. We need a real conservative not a Bush lite!!
The real Mitch record: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/03/the_case_against_mitch_daniels.html
I am going to vote for the Republican nominee no matter who it is. I may not be thrilled with some of the candidates but whomever wins is going to have my vote either way. If Daniels gets the nomination I will support him, and I get your point about arguing competency over charisma. Still, I believe that ideological conservatism needs a strong standard bearer who can communicate what we stand for to the public. My concern is that while Daniels can walk the walk when he has the votes, he may not be able to talk the talk to persuade people to our side when we need to flip or find votes.
As you visit on Daniel threads, take notice of how many of FR’s famously troll like liberal posters, take a break from trolling on conservative threads such as Palin’s and gush over their man Mitch Daniels, it is worth noticing them as you try to size up the “truce” man.
I read the Rush transcript. Very little substance in it. In fact, it seems pretty much substance-free.
His criticism of Gov. Daniels seems to be that many Democrats are saying that he's a threat and many Democrats view him as being anti-Tea Party, therefore, he's a bad dude.
I only skimmed the transcript, but I didn't find any criticism of particular policies or actions.
As for determining who might be the strongest or weakest candidate, pundits and pols aren't always very good judges.
I remember a fellow with a really wide radio audience who in 2008 ran something called something like “Operation Chaos” with the intention of hurting the “strong” Democrat, Hillary Clinton, by supporting the “weak” Democrat, some moron from Illinois with an odd name.
Funny how that worked out.
Olddeckhand your post 14 deserves post of the quarter consideration.
I’ll be voting for Sarah Palin, Liberty, our Constitution and American Exceptionalism.