« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Daniels 2012?

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  February 22nd, 2010 at 09:02 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Around here, we are trying to keep people focused on 2010, and for good reason.  However, over the weekend, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels made an announcement that deserves at least a brief mention. Over the last year, Daniels has repeatedly and unequivocally denied that he will run in 2012. Over the weekend at the NGA meeting, Daniels for the first time expressly indicated an interest in running.

“During an interview at the winter meeting of the National Governors Association here over the weekend, Daniels said he has now been persuaded to keep open the door to a possible candidacy.”

Daniels is not without his flaws – his lackluster television presence being chief among them.  Furthermore, he will never be forgiven by some for raising taxes early in his term (even though he lowered them after the state’s budget was back in the black).  However, he has long been a favorite of good-government types and those who feel (like myself) that by 2012, the country will be tired of flowery speeches and be ready for someone who has demonstrated simple competence at running government.  A year and a half ago, Mark Hemingway at NR encapsulated well the reason so many fiscal conservatives in particular are excited about the possibility of a Daniels 2012 candidacy, and his article in full is well worth the read. (pdf warning) Also, you philosophical types will enjoy Daniels’ no-nonsense commencement address at Butler last year.

Mitch Daniels is clearly not as exciting or sexy as a candidate as many in the potential 2012 field. But for those who are tired of “exciting and sexy” and would prefer simply for the government to be run well, Daniels is certainly worth a second look.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • mikenad

    Daniels is good and much better than Romney. I would vote for him. I still would love to see Palin or DeMint, but Daniels is not a hold your nose pick like Romney! Don’t Settle for Romney!

  • AKSteveB

    I think this would be my guy. He has a great record in Indiana.

  • Darin_H

    “Boring but good”

    • azaeroprof

      Maybe, but I’m not convinced. I’m pretty sure Pawlenty is not. Daniels may be, but see quill67′s comment below.

      Bottom line, though, no matter how incompetent he is, we cannot beat Obama with a low-charisma candidate. Elections are different from governance. The veep slot would be a perfect place for a Daniels if we can get a winning, relatively charismatic, candidate at the top of the ticket. Then, if they do a decent job governing, Daniels could have a shot as a successor.

      • graciegirl

        state! n/t

      • LibertarianHawk

        First of all, I think too much is being made of Mitch Daniels being “low charisma.” He’s may not be Sarah Palin — but he’s not Steven Wright, either.

        But, more importantly, I think contrasts are incredibly important things in presidential elections. If it comes to be that voters will be wanting to move on from the Obama experiment in 2012, then we’ll want a candidate who presents the clearest way of fixing the flaws that people see in Obama.

        I’m not sure there’s a better choice for that than Mitch Daniels. Sure, he may not be able to make cultist followers faint upon sight. But I really think voters are going to be looking for competence and a genuine track record of fiscal restraint.

        There’s a reason that Daniels’ nickname in the Bush White House was “The Blade.” It’s a well-deserved moniker.

        I hope he runs. If he does, he’s my candidate.

      • Darin_H

        but I would love a Daniels/Thune ticket.

  • billybee

    The GOP lineup is good, but not as good as it could be. I keep waiting for someone to step forward who’s been playing it cool the whole time. Is this it?

  • Bham

    Between my wife and me, we’ve known Mitch 40+ years…since he was a Princeton undergraduate, in fact.

    He’s hard working, brilliant and very funny. (His wit is razor sharp, so as he has matured he’s learned to hold spontaneous quips in check to avoid giving opponents opportunities for fake indignation.)

    But Mitch isn’t made-for-tv photogenic, even it that isn’t his fault. (It’s really more my commentary on the shallowness of our political image-making.) And Mitch’s wife isn’t enthusiastic about a “political helpmate” role — never has been, in fact — which I expect would be used against him in a national campaign. Again, it may not be fair…it is what it is.

    All that gossip aside, having known and worked with Mitch over a period of years, my wife and I would vote for him (in a heartbeat) for any elective office he chose to seek. He would make an absolutely wonderful president if he could get elected.

  • RedBeard

    Well, they would, wouldn’t they? He wants to make government live within its means. How horrifying.

  • http://www.lookoutkokomo.com lookoutkokomo

    Mitch Daniels should be at the top of GOP recruiting lists for 2012 presidential candidates because he has put conservative principles into practice in the Hoosier State.The Indiana Governor is leading his state through the kind of systematic reduction in government that most politicians just talk about. While revenues are short during this period of econom ic decline, Indiana will be positioned for growth in technology, manufacturing, and health and life sciences when the national economy rebounds.

  • smitch61

    2012?

    I was laid off in October of 2007 after 5 months of waiting for it.
    I was fortunate to find a job in December of 2007 and started that job January 21st 2008.. I was laid off from that job on January 22nd, one year later 2009.. I was fortunate to find yet one more job and began employment on February 2nd 2009…… laid off from that job two weeks later on February 16th. I have been laid off ever since. I remain positive, and the good news is I have finally been receiving calls for interviews. I am 50 years old, have always been gainfully employed up until this point. No disrespect, but I do not give a damn about Mitch Daniels or 2012. I am only concerned about 2010 and electing any reasonable human beings that intends to cut taxes and stop spending money I do not have…

    • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister
      • Dan McLaughlin

        Eyes on the prize.

        • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

          But around here posts about 2012 can be sorta like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

  • quill67

    Daniels has a great common man appeal and he is an effective campaigner. race in 2008. He won 60% of the vote in his state where McCain lost! (Indiana)
    That’s two positives for Daniels, but for Daniels to be a national leader he needs two things more:

    1) He needs to show that he can shrink the size of government in his state.
    2) He needs to show that his positive approach toward business can bring significant industrial jobs to Indiana. (He is already doing better than the other industrial states that surround him)

    I believe that there is a strong deisre and belief by Americans that we need to do whatever we can to create manufacturing jobs in the U.S., however, I do not think protectionism will sell much better than it has in the past. Therefore, it has to be shown that creating a positive business environment can bring industrial jobs back. If Daniels can do that in Indiana and presents a positive plan for doing the same nation-wide, he will have a very strong shot at the White House.

    • http://www.lookoutkokomo.com lookoutkokomo

      Daniels has:
      1. Championed property tax caps – This will be on a referendum for voters in the fall to make the caps permanent by constitutional amendment..

      2. Forced local governments to become more conservative. In Kokomo, we’ve heard the lefties and RINO’s gripe for two years that their income is low. They’ve been forced to gut wasteful services and finally live within their means.

      3. Spoken in support of local government mergers where cost savings can be found. This may seem obvious, but it has been nearly impossible to get city and county governments to work together to streamline government.

      4. Mitch has cut all non-education related sectors of government, reportedly by 20%. K-12 and Higher ed have been cut by almost $500 million in the last few months.

      This is a systematic shrinking of government that Daniels is providing. They don’t call him the blade for nothing.

      As you point out, he is ahead on the jobs too.

      LOK!

    • BrianinIN

      in his term brought much business to IN. The Honda plant in Greensburg is a shining example. He frequently travels abroad to advertise for our state and to encourage foreign investment here.

      We have a great business tax climate here, due to Mitch!

  • Mayhem

    Daniels never raised taxes early on. He proposed it, but the legislature never put it through. To this day, he regrets ever even mentioning the idea.

    He has however raised sales taxes, but they were offset by an enormous reduction in property taxes. The Daniels property tax reforms will be the envy of the country, mark my words.

    • Dan McLaughlin

      My view is, you raise taxes early to cover a budget shortfall, you owe the voters, big time.

      You can get out of that hole, as Reagan did in California. But it takes work. Daniels seems to have done it.

  • aesthete

    I can more than live with that. (Daniels is my odds-on favorite going into ’12, but ’10 is much more important, IMO.)

  • Wade

    Mitch Daniels is not sexy, and we don’t need more sexy. But we do need vibrant. At this point at least, he doesn’t seem vibrant.

    No matter how bad Big O’s poll numbers are in 2012, the GOP candidate has got to WANT the presidency. Remember Fred Thompson? The guy played so many generals and leader types in movies that a lot of us thought if he could just BE like those guys he played, he would get the nomination. But he wasn’t…vibrant. He didn’t seem to want it.

    Daniels’ denials of running the last year tell me he doesn’t really want it. We don’t need a fakey-sexy-Reagan-impersonator, but we have to have someone who has some electricity in any debate. Daniels’ just isn’t that man.

    But hey, Redstate seems to be diggin’ him. I just don’t think he’ll win.

    • Dan McLaughlin

      in fairness to Daniels, he was focused on his survival until 2008, and in early 2009 there was no reason to think there’d be a place for him in the field until Sanford flamed out. No, he’s not a guy who always wanted to be POTUS, but that’s fine, as long as he commits himself fully if he does run.

  • Illinicon

    as his stewardship of the IN economy has been tremendous, especially considering how much of an economic blackhole the neighboring states are. Being a sucessful Governor of an industrial state would make Michigan much more in play than it has been for us in recent cycles. Also being born in PA cant hurt our chances there either if he is the nominee.

  • RINKER

    He has ZERO chance. I repeat, ZERO chance.
    Republicans ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS nominate the “next in line”. The nominee WILL BE either Romney or Huckabee. I’d much rather have Romney than tax-and-spend Huckster. Am I thrilled? Not thrilled, but not upset, either.

  • curtnisly

    My Man Mitch has been very good for our state of Indiana. I always thought he would be a great president, but he would make a good president, but he is simply to short for that job (most presidents have been over 6′ tall).

    I do agree with this post…maybe by 2012 Americans will be looking for substance over style. If so, Mitch is our man.

  • texman42

    I began to pay attention to Gov. Daniels when he won re-election in 2008, despite the national Obama infatuation. He brought Indiana’s fiscal house under control without growing the government, which is a real plus, given the state of the US economy. He’s also a sensible leader and manager. I’m with George Will; President Mitch Daniels!

  • http://www.scragged.com petrarch

    As important as competence is, that alone isn’t going to give us what we need at this moment in our history. A President Mitch Daniels would do an effective job of running the government and setting things to rights, maybe even making some progress on our national debt. At the end of his terms, the ship would be somewhat righted.

    BUT, the government would have continued its inexorable growth (though more slowly), and its reach and power over every aspect of our daily lives would be lessened not one whit.

    What we need for a president is not a good-government type, but a Margaret Thatcher slash-and-burn sort. We need not to slow the growth of government, but to chop huge chunks out of it, laying off tends of thousands of bureaucrats and shutting down entire departments.

    Otherwise, what’s the point? We’ll still be on the same road to perdition we’ve been trodding for 70 years. Nothing, really, will have changed. We need to start playing for keeps, like the Democrats.

    Nothing against Daniels, but we can do better. We can – because we must.

  • kuksool

    The best bet to oust Obama would be to nominate a fresh face for 2012. The 2008 retreads are 2nd tier candidates. Daniels could put the upper Midwest into play. If the GOP wins states like MI, OH, WI, and MN, then it would hard for Obama to get re-elected.

    The problem with Daniels is that he is considered a Dark House nominee. I think the best scenerio for Daniels & Palin would be for Palin to not run in 2012 and instead endorse Daniels. A Palin endorsement would give the media attention and momentum a Daniels campaign would need to win the primaries. Should Daniels win in 2012, then Palin could be appointed either as Energy Secretary or Energy Czar, where she could develop a record of competence on the national stage.

  • kuksool

    The best bet to oust Obama would be to nominate a fresh face for 2012. The 2008 retreads are 2nd tier candidates. Daniels could put the upper Midwest into play. If the GOP wins states like MI, OH, WI, and MN, then it would hard for Obama to get re-elected.

    The problem with Daniels is that he is considered a Dark House nominee. I think the best scenerio for Daniels & Palin would be for Palin to not run in 2012 and instead endorse Daniels. A Palin endorsement would give the media attention and momentum a Daniels campaign would need to win the primaries. Should Daniels win in 2012, then Palin could be appointed either as Energy Secretary or Energy Czar, where she could develop a record of competence on the national stage.