Should Mitch Daniels Run for President?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Denise Meyer on June 5, 2009 at 11:00am

It's refreshing to see that we have a lot of passionate people responding to this post. I'll not state my opinion on the matter, but I do want to pose a question. For those who chose to reply and reveal your thoughts on the matter...how many of you are actively involved in politics and your party of choice? I'm not talking about just sending in a check to support a campaign or showing up to vote. I mean working with the local Democratic or Republican office as a volunteer, getting educated on the issues from both sides so you understand them and can form an educated stance on mattes, participating in political meetings, and fully engaging with the party of your choice. I bet not very many.

It seems to me that the mess our former leaders created over time--on BOTH sides---we allowed politicians to create while we sat idle. We watched it happen without active engagement.

New leaders will not surface --in either party--until we take it upon ourselves to show up and act.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PK Koduri on June 5, 2009 at 11:10am

Well the least one can do is vote in the primaries when one has a reasonable chance of electing a viable alternative if one is unhappy with the incumbents. I have voted in every primary since becoming a citizen.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Ron Brumbarger on June 5, 2009 at 11:37am

Anyone holding tight to a given political party's standings, beliefs and values is mis-informed. Regardless of your political leanings, one party - these days - is simply less bad than the other. Face it and get over your labels. They are meaningless.

Now, to Governor Daniels - YES! Governor Daniels is, by far, one of the smartest men you'll ever meet. He is not afraid to tell those in his own party they are off base. While our Governor will tell you he is not running nor is he interested, the U.S. desperately needs somebody who stands up for the forward-looking, long-term prospects as well as the values upon which our nation was built. I vote YES, Mitch should run.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jim Pavlik on June 5, 2009 at 12:12pm

Yes, our founding principals! I remember a speech I read in middle school where Thomas Jefferson proposed selling off the New York to Savannah thoroughfare to the King of Spain as a method of reaffirming our young nation's right to outsource labor.

Actually I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of toll roads or globalized business (I'm quite for them) but let's not pretend that Daniels is a modern day James Madison fighting for truth, justice and the American way. He is a capable manager of statewide government who hasn't veered too far away from traditional Republican Party values over a fairly long and diverse career. He isn't everything I'd want, but I'm a raging liberal. Nor is the monster that others have tried to paint him as.

But the question was not whether Daniels should be president, the question was whether he should run. To me these are different questions. I don't want him to be president but I concentrated my answer to the question asked.

So I ask this of those following this thread. For those who've said "no, Daniels shouldn't run" you are aware that a Republican will run in 2012 regardless of whether you want a Republican president or not. So if not Daniels, then who would you rather see on the podium? Are you afraid that if Daniels ran he'd win?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by PK Koduri on June 5, 2009 at 12:29pm

I would like to see Mitt Romney - he can't be that bad given he governed MA, what is considered to be the most liberal state in the country after CA

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mark Bucherl on June 5, 2009 at 4:51pm

Yes, I think Mitch should run. True conservative. Nice guy. Wonkish, but personable, polished yet self effacing and possessed of an easy sense of humor. National Review just ran an article on him.
The Corner, NRO

The full article, National Review (subscription required)

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mike Lombard on June 7, 2009 at 9:44am

The Republican Party and all of America would be much better off with Mitch in the White House. However Mitch is too smart to want the job.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Beth Henkel on June 8, 2009 at 9:59am

Although Mitch has some of the Teflon coating that Reagan enjoyed, it is likely that his legacy will be to leave Indiana and its local governments in dire straits. I read this morning that the CIB plan has a $27 million hole in it; also, that the Budget plan that he claims would increase k-12 schools by 2% actually reduces IPS's budget substantially and relies heavily on stimulus money -- which must be spent on select groups, not all children. Does this make sense?

As for the CIB, I agree with Matt Tully that the CIB funding fiasco appears to have been known at the time the leases were negotiated. The state building authority -- Mitch's special agency -- was in charge and knew there was a huge operating loss. There are those who believe that it was brought about to bite Mayor Bart -- and it backfired.

Now, the proposed fix would put the state in charge but would continue to fund it locally. And the new board would be stacked with REpublicans, in case the Dems take the city back. Interesting, eh?

Moreover, the property tax circuit breaker fiasco is looming on the horizon. Mitch's 1-2-3 plan, if put into place, will bankrupt the older cities and towns -- and many school corporations. As assessed values decline, the circuit breakers will cause even more cuts.

Ironically, it was the high tax rates in the older, larger cities that caused the 2007 and 2008 property tax debacle. You cannot solve the problem by slashing these cities' funding. These cities and towns have massive infrastructure needs, and our current policies continue to encourage urban sprawl.

Funding reform must include local government in the solution and also must be based upon regional reform.

Mitch is very talented, but these mistakes will come back to haunt Indiana and may even scratch that Teflon surface.

As for Mitch for president? He has failed to address the healthcare crisis in Indiana, and his privatization bent is just plain scary. And, our environmental record is abysmal. Indiana comes in last on so many lists. And, he has failed to address the mass transit issues in Indiana. We just keep building more roads.

Are these the kinds of approaches we need on a national level?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Julie Grice on July 2, 2009 at 6:25pm

What is scary about privatization?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jim Pavlik on July 2, 2009 at 6:58pm

I'll quickly try to say what may be scary about privatization. No matter how nuanced or academic discussions of privatization get, it sort of always boils down to two sides:

1. Private firms are efficient and rapidly responding entities while government is weighed down by bureaucracy and slow to respond to clouded or non-existent market signals.

2. Private firms are profit-seeking rather than people-serving and tend to fool consumers through slick marketing campaigns they pay for with money earned by selling necessities like water at jacked up prices while government is of, for and by the people and therefore as long as Government owns public resources The People also own them. Costs lost through the bureaucracy are regained though the bare bones style that government manages the service.

There are massive problems with both of these arguments, but it seems that Beth is of the mind that The People should own and operate Public Goods and if profit is to be made from them then it should be The People that earn that profit.

Why Daniel's penchant for privatization might be scary is because privatization seems to be his default position even if that means turning over public goods to what are essentially monopoly enterprises. Monopolies are not encouraged to serve the people and are, in fact, encouraged to raise prices while lowering quality of goods or services as a way of maximizing profits for their investors. Whether or not this happens is left to the good heartedness of the firms in question and not, it would seem, to the thoughtful consideration of MD.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Steve Stuck on June 8, 2009 at 10:13am

The Republican Party is in a massive flushing of itself with those who have labeled themselves but have gone the other way. Many donors I have talked too are very dismayed and are switching their money to more libertarian/constitutional type candidates on the local level.

No matter who runs in 2012, the country will be even more divided politically then most can imagine. The issues will be much more dire since we haven't even seen the coming financial tsunami of our entitlement programs, debt, inflation and more deleveraging by consumers to better situate themselves for these times.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Shelly Arens on June 8, 2009 at 3:21pm

If President Obama just turns out a mediocre effort, he will take the next election in 3.5 years as the "favored" incumbent. Put Sarah Palin on the ticket as the sacrificial lamb and focus on the 2016 election. Yes, I would like to see a Republican candidate who can effect substantial and measurable change for the good of the people in the way that Gov. Daniels has done. What I appreciate about Gov. Daniels more than anything, is that he is more "middle-of-the-road" than extreme Right. I believe most Americans are middle-of-the-road people and need representation other than the extreme Left and Right choices we had in recent elections.

▶ Reply to This

• First
• Previous
• Next
• Last