Should Mitch Daniels Run for President?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jim Pavlik on June 4, 2009 at 3:50pm

The article leading to this question makes a strong case for why any Republican with an actual chance of sitting in the White House one day shouldn't run for it in 2012. The economy is almost sure to improve between now and 2011 which is going to make things look exceptionally good for Democrats across the board and Obama in particular. This is doubly true if Obama can make good on his promise of a massive troop drawdown over the next 18-36 months. Furthermore the Republican Party, as the article says, faces strong national disapproval ratings with no comprehensive or comprehensible pathway back into the public's good graces.

Once you've lost a run for the White House (in the general not the primary) conventional wisdom holds that it's harder to run a second time. Any Republican is facing tough odds in 2012 and with a defeat, practically impossible odds for 2016 or beyond.

Daniels is seen as fiscally conservative and business/free-market friendly. While the Republican Party faces opposing groups in the forms of its Cultural Warriors on one side and its Reaganite Small Government Corp on the other, the latter is sure to emerge victorious, especially in an economic crisis like the one we're in. Mitt Romney has a large favorability rating right now exclusively due to his business acumen while Huckabee, a favorite of the religious right, has seen his sheen fade a little. Daniels, because of his success as businessman and governor along with his experience in Washington working on Bush's OMB, could give Romney a run for his money. Of the other big contenders right now, Palin, Pawlenty, and Huckabee, Daniels easily outperforms all of them -- Only Huckabee, a friend of Daniels with a lot more camera-ready charisma, poses much of a problem. And as we see from this analysis done by political oddsmaker Nate Silver Daniels is one of the most popular governors in the country--certainly moreso than either Pawlenty or Palin.

On the other hand, things are about to get financially awful here in Indiana and Hoosier Democrats, whatever else you may say about them, are not slow to point their fingers at Daniels for any woe that befalls the state and they can be quite vocal too. If things get too bad in Indiana over the next three years, Daniels will take a monster beating in the press. But of his four potential competitors two won't have records of failure because they aren't in office right now (Romney and Huckabee); one is retiring this year (Pawlenty); and the last (Palin) will likely have a fairly successful term as oil prices will almost certainly rise back to $4 a gallon again as the economy improves. That's not only going to provide Daniels tough challenges in the primary, but will plague him again when he goes against Obama who will almost certainly have a bevy of positive economic statistics to prop himself on.

Keeping my own feelings on Daniels well-heeled, I would say his best bet is to survey the landscape over the course of the next two years. Daniels has firm Republican bona fides and his style of Republicanism could go a long way toward recovering a lot of the party's lost dignity. He might do himself, his party, and the state a lot of good just by entering the primary, setting the tone for debate and then stepping down after awhile. The free press won't hurt future runs at the governorship here and he might find himself in a Howard Dean-like role, leading the party machine. However, if the national economic landscape is still pretty dire with little signs of potential improvement by late 2010 or early 2011, then yeah, maybe he should. If Obama can't run on having turned the economy around, then any Republican would stand a good shot and Daniels more than most.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by David Runkle on June 4, 2009 at 4:08pm

Yes, he should. Someone mentioned, get the libertarian party in to gear. As much as I like libertarians, Terrible idea. Thats the reason we were stuck with Bill Clinton for 8 years was because of a third party, Ross Perro! It is certain that liberals did not vote for Perro, it was left leaning repulicans that voted for him. If he hadnt been in the race, we probably wouldnt have ended up with Bill Clinton, and now Hillary, yuck, what a downward spiral. And really this is because of the bigger problem, The Republican Party keeps trying to appeal to moderates, and liberals. They have since Regan left office. we all thought George W. was a good representation of the republican party, and the longer he was in power the more we found out that he wasnt. Examples, NAFT, TARP, and real republican would have Vetoed that bill, and GM and Chrysler in December, thats not liberal thats socialist. Of course we have a socialist in office now as well.
What the Republican Party needs is a man like Mitch Daniels, who has the nads to stand for true republican prinipals, limited governent, balanced bugets, conservative social values on abortion, gay marriage, and gun control, national sovereignty, and individual rights. He just vetoed indianas budget that had way to much spending in it and was certainly going to cause indiana even more problems. I know Mitch Daniels would bring some life back to the party if he ran for president. I know he said he wouldnt, but the people need him too.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jim Pavlik on June 4, 2009 at 4:29pm

NAFTA is a free trade program which is one of the fundamental platform items of the Republican Party. The negotiation and passage of NAFTA made Bill Clinton more conservative, the continuation of it did not make George W. more liberal.

And we don't have socialists in office now. I'm not picking on Mr. Runkle specifically because I see that a lot of people have said or insinuated that Obama is a socialist or a communist. You can dislike his politics and have very sound reasons for doing so, but from a purely political science perspective what he's done is no more socialist than tucking more and more tax dollars into a Department of Homeland Security or increased military spending.

And in what way is the Republican Party, which has continued to get more and more extreme over the last 20 years trying to appeal to moderates? You're the second person to say that in this comment thread and it makes no sense to me. The Republican Senators made absolutely no effort to compromise on Obama's budget, on TARP II, or on the stimulus. Rather Obama made repeated concessions and the Republicans voted unanimously against those bills. In what world is that "appealing to moderates?" In what world is the nomination and appointment of either Roberts or Alito--known conservative activists judges an appeal to moderates? How is flagrant violation of FISA and the gross expansion of executive power an appeal to moderates? How was tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens, the veto of S-CHIP, the continued effort to drill in ANWR, and the denial of higher fuel standards an appeal to moderates? I don't think that the people are who are saying this know what a "moderate" is. If Republicans take away from their 2008 loss that the party has gotten "too moderate" they will never recover because that is exactly the opposite of what is happening. You don't have senators like Specter jumping to the Democrats because the GOP is moving closer to the center. You have him jumping ship because it's moving further away.

Not trying to be offensive or discourteous here. Just trying to figure this out.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Seidle on June 4, 2009 at 7:19pm

Mitch has a great chance to be nominated and will be an incredible candidate if he is successful.

The Republicans are facing the same set of issues the Democrats did in the wake of the fall of the Tip O'Neil House and then the loss of the both houses in 94. Intellectual bankruptcy. It's not becoming too moderate, or too conservative, it's just losing touch with reality, failing to lead with new and better ideas, and not listening to voters.

It will take 10-15 years for the Republicans to win back the congress unless Obama's policies do not work out and the economy is still in the tank and we are still in a foreign policy morass in two years. If Obama's policies have not succeeded when the next presidential election comes up, then Mitch may have a very good shot at winning the White House.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cissi Sherlock on June 4, 2009 at 9:16pm

Give me a break!

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by D. Craig Hamilton on June 4, 2009 at 9:54pm

I don't think so, but I don't think the party is over either. Mitch Daniels is a good guy and I like him as a governor when you weigh everything out. But he should have rejected the TARP funds.

You can't lead a conservative movement while following the liberal money. It's kind of like kissing your wife while you think about her sister. The GOP needs a truly conservative leader and gifted communicator to revive their party. One will emerge, we just haven't seen him/her yet.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michele (Shel) Ritter on June 4, 2009 at 9:57pm

Hell No!.....Mr. Daniels....is not for the people....he is for big corporation control....Bush Puppet! Why do you think we are the mess we are in...first of all....I feel we need get back to the simple life of backyard gardening, more farmer's markets....arts and culture. We live on a sustainable farm by choice. Tonight, I by myself took a walk on our walking paths in nature to see such beauty in weeds, a garner snake, rabbit running across the path, pick fresh water cress and veggies/herbs right outside our front door right before dinner and yes I was an Indy city girl 3 years ago. No more. Now I live on a farm with new32 2 month old chicks, 16 week old guinea chicks and 2 dogs and a cat. We grow our own organic vegetables and herbs. Now I will have fresh eggs daily. We cut our own fire wood. We do not have to worry about heat in the winter. Make our own bio-diesel to run our tractors. We choose to be self-sufficient. If we have a diasater with no power or food would you be prepared to survive...we would be....Mitch Daniels and our government is not preparing you to self-sufficient....think about not having power for several hours or days .... what would you do to survive? You probably have to go to some motel, friends or family home...could not be in your own home. Did you know that Monsanto and other companies have so much control what we eat and what now we can grow in our backyard? We are not up to code? They also want to shut our local farmer markets down so they have total control of everything....very scarey! I am not a college graduate...I am a H.S. Graduate. You do not need to be a brain surgeon. It is important to study and read about power and control and where we are heading in our local news and government.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jeff Zuber on June 7, 2009 at 7:30pm

Shel, I'm happy to hear that you've become self sufficient and are proud of what you have acomplished. However I'm not sure how the conspiracy theory thing fits into this thread. Call me silly but I just don't see the correlation between Monsanto alleged attrocities and our Govenor running for president.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PK Koduri on June 4, 2009 at 11:13pm

Yes he should only if he promises to live in the White House (if elected) and not move the Executive Office to one of the suburban McMansions in MD or VA.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Edward (Ed) Robinson on June 5, 2009 at 10:42am

Remember the Whigs? Gone.
Remember the Federalists? Gone.
The death of the Grotesque Old Part is an opportunity for new parties to form across the political spectrum.
We need real versions of the following parties: Labor, Conservative, Green, Liberal, Libertarian, and Socialist.
Mitch is a mediocre governor -- which as a Republican makes him look pretty good. That snide commencement speech he made at at the Butler University graduation in May showed that he's really just a typical small-minded Republican. Sure -- let him run. It would offer another opportunity to remind people when he was GWB's budget director he projected the the entire Iraq war would cost less than $50 billion. Brilliant.
--- Ed

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cissi Sherlock on June 5, 2009 at 12:55pm

I've heard mention of, and even agreed to, the creation of a (dedicated) Conservative Party.

Do you think it would do better than the Libertarian party, as it seems that they not only have trouble getting peole over to their side, but they have already had corruption, dissension and a watering down of their original tenets,
.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Linda J Ranger on June 5, 2009 at 10:58am

Mitch isn't perfect but he is better than most as a leader. He only was budget director for GWB from 2001 to 2003, and worked hard at keeping the budget in line during the trying times after 9/11. His record is quite impressive and it is good to have someone in charge who actually understands how business works. This site gives you a snapshot of his career. http://www.ourcampaigns.com/CandidateDetail.html?CandidateID=3492

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last