Mitch Daniels


Michael Barone reports that Dan Coats has hinted that Mitch Daniels is “definitely considering” a run for president in 2012.

That sounds pretty tenuous. But … . I cannot believe that an insider like Coats would have told this to a major pundit and journalist like Barone unless it was serious, and unless it was authorized. It must mean that Daniels is allowing this idea to be floated. So, I take it as a serious piece of news.

If this is true, I am starting to go from “meh” to “whatever” to … actually happy about the prospects for 2012. Mitch is the only Republican who I am enthusiastic about, rather than just voting for anybody-but-Obama.

(Mitch is like the original, more experienced version of one of the few politicians I have ever actually voted for with gusto, Adam Andrzejewski who recently lost the GOP primary here in Illinois. See Adam’s site For the Good of Illinois. We have not heard the last from Adam.)

Mitch is an experienced guy in a throw-the-bums-out election. But unlike most of the insiders and hacks who want to tout their “experience” Mitch’s experience is as a budget cutter and hard-nosed financial realist, who is not from Washington, and who has serious business experience. His resume is almost uncannily perfect. He is a guy that Tea Party people and regular GOP loyalists can all get behind. He won in Indiana the same night Mr. Obama did, which shows he has strong appeal to independents.

As Mr. Barone notes, Mitch would be a very formidable candidate indeed.

And I think, even more importantly, Mitch would be a very effective president.

A lot of us have been waiting for Reagan, Part II. Both Bushes were duds, especially the kid, who spent money with both hands. Reagan himself had to subordinate domestic reform to winning the Cold War. Mitch has the potential to be Reagan II: The Revolution Begins Again. Except this time there is no USSR to worry about, and with a guy who is willing to get into the weeds on domestic programs and budgets and make the numbers work. (I loved Reagan, but let’s face it, he was incapable of bean counting.)

I keep hoping that the Barack and Nancy and Harry Variety Show, currently enjoying abysmal ratings, is about to be cancelled. Fingers crossed. People seem to be waking up. Even the hacks in the GOP, who just want to have their snouts in the trough in front of the Donks, are seeing that their days are numbered, and they have to change their ways or get new jobs.

The stars are shaping up into a very good configuration.

I suppose it is a little too early to put out a yard sign … .

8 thoughts on “Mitch Daniels”

  1. Daniels would be a breath of fresh air compared to the assorted characters of contending GOPer’s. I read yesterday that Ron Paul’s organization had him leading in Iowa. I admire Congressman Paul, but he is not electable on a national ticket. Romney is a no-go, as is Pawlenty; Sanford was “in love,” Huckabee has Paul’s predicament, and Jeb Bush, the only Bush who governed as a conservative, has the burden of his name/family. (With any luck, as a nation, we’ll wait another generation or two (or three) before electing another Bush; Bush the younger may have given up the sauce, but he spent our money like he was drunk.

    I may have left out a name or two, but right now there is only one republican who can draw people and that is Palin—she has star power, and in our media-driven world that is a formidable quality (that was part of the Obama machine–messianic voice through a reverb at most speeches, etc.). Palin isn’t as dumb as the elitist accuse, but she doesn’t come across as her own person.

    Given a choice between Palin and Daniels, I’m with you Lex…Daniels is about the last man standing among GOP governors who isn’t hip deep in debt/mired in controversy, or a RINO.

    Where do I order the lawn sign?

  2. He won’t get my vote. The contempt he has displayed for voters in this state is truly breath taking. His comments on the property tax issues ran the gamut from condescending to contemptuous.

    As far as I can tell he has the same elitist attitude as Obama, whose coat tails he rode to victory this last election. I’m not sure RINO is accurate, it’s more like he’s a cultural democrat.

    Perhaps he could be viewed as whatever the polar opposite of a TEA Party candidate would be. The best I can tell he believes in big government run by “the right people” wisely managing the lives of the little people who are so unsophisticated that they don’t even merit genuine engagement and can be fobbed off with superficial excuses.

    If he’s the best the Republicans can do I predict another round of voting for independents or libertarians and probably another four years of Obama.

  3. All the conservatives running will split the conservative vote and hand the nomination to a “moderate.” :-(

  4. I was hoping that Palin would spend her time with a private think tank as Margaret Thatcher did but I can’t blame her for paying some bills and enjoying the attention. Maybe she would be a possibility in a few years when she looks less like a beauty queen.

    Chris Christie has great potential but I think he would want to spend a few years fixing New Jersey. If he can do that, he will be a GOP powerhouse.

    If Meg Whitman, who is busy buying the California governorship, can actually get something done with this mess, she would be a power house for the first female president but I expect her to waffle when the legislature tries to cut her legs off. If she doesn’t, and she might be tough enough as she is hated by a lot of former eBay employees, she has potential but not in 2012.

    Daniels needs to get some TV time so people are able to tell who he is.

    John Boehner has possibilities. He is clean. I don’t think he has ever taken an earmark. He looks good and speaks well. I don’t know how smart he is but we have guys like Ryan for that. If he is the next Speaker, he will get lots of name recognition.

  5. Michael Kennedy, Good observations…Mike Pence might be a good dark horse, too. Although, I believe he the same goal as Gerry Ford of being Mr. Speaker rather than Mr. President. Boehner is, perhaps, too much the insider. I didn’t include Christie for the reason you listed. And, for all we know, Palin is “studying” with someone. I have her book, but it is in the anti-library pile for now…she has good instincts–so who knows.

    Slightly off-topic, but Fred Thompson really got my hopes up when he toyed with the nomination. But when I saw the photos of him at the Iowa State Fair wearing Gucci loafers, I guessed he was not serious–by then it was too late and I had already sent him too much money. That said, I’m keeping my powder and my rubles dry until…

    And to Mr. Waddell: as for me the Ivy League moniker would be a disqualifying attribute…Reagan went to Eureka College and did a pretty good job

  6. As to Eureka College v. Princeton, find me another Reagan and I’ll vote for him.

    In Reagan’s day, Ivy League admission was based on an old boy network. Reagan was a bright kid and a great athlete. If he had been born twenty years later, he would probably have done well on the SAT, had good references, and gotten into a better school and gotten financial aid. By Mitch’s day admission was based on SAT scores, which are an IQ test. So, the Ivys really do admit smart people. Not as smart as they think they are, but still smart.

Comments are closed.