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?
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.
We'll see.
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.
sitetest
Link to story with photo of Daniel's about his height.
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.
sitetest
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 Governor’s remarks may not have been a “rhetorical misstep.”
Of course, if you know anything about Mitch Daniels in this respect he’s the anti-Obama. He’s far more concerned about communication than rhetoric, he’s thoughtful and rarely speaks without consideration. Rhetorical missteps are exceedingly rare.
And indeed, Daniels called me to say that he’s dead serious about the need for the next president to declare a truce. “It wasn’t something I just blurted out,” he told me. “It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mitch-daniels-doubles-down-truce
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.
Re #14:
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.
sitetest
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.
sitetest
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.
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.