Indianapolis, Ind. — “If I could wave a magic wand, and change just one thing, it would be to guarantee that every American child could grow up in a two-parent home until the age of 18. That would solve maybe three-quarters of our problems.”
So said Indiana governor and possible presidential candidate Mitch Daniels. The words may surprise those who know only that Daniels has proposed a “truce” on social issues for the 2012 campaign. Daniels, whose pro-life and pro-family credentials could not be more solid, was simply attempting to sketch the nature of the fiscal and economic catastrophe that he says is coming, and that, for now, must take priority. “The debt is a devastating enemy. The threat from the Soviet Union may have been more severe — if you go broke you’re still alive — but it was also less likely.” National bankruptcy, on the other hand, “is a mathematical certainty” if we don’t change course — fast. “The America that we have known is profoundly threatened.”
Advertisement
It’s because the stakes are so high that Daniels has let himself — somewhat reluctantly — be cajoled into considering a presidential run. A parade of political professionals, pundits, and scribblers (including me) has trooped to Indianapolis because the modest, humorous, and mild-mannered Daniels may well be the best chief executive in American government.
After stints as a Senate staffer, a senior adviser to Pres. Ronald Reagan, president of the Hudson Institute, president for North American operations at Eli Lilly, and director of the Office of Management and Budget under George W. Bush, Daniels was elected governor of Indiana in 2004. He was reelected in 2008 (when Obama carried the state), winning more votes than any candidate in the state’s history.
Inheriting a $600 million deficit, Daniels transformed it into a $370 million surplus within one year, without raising taxes. “You’d be amazed how much government you’ll never miss,” he grins. Six years on, Indiana now enjoys a AAA bond rating, boasts the fewest state workers per capita in the nation, enjoys the third-highest private-sector job growth in the nation, has seen property taxes drop by an average of 30 percent, and was ranked first in the Midwest for business climate by the Tax Foundation. Daniels was named Public Official of the Year in 2008 by Governing magazine.
Daniels believes in improving government’s performance — cutting less-important spending in favor of more-important, and keeping close tabs on results. Under his leadership, the state has increased K–12 education funding by 12 percent, hired 800 new child-welfare workers, added 150 state troopers, provided free or reduced-price medications to 288,000 Hoosiers through the Rx for Indiana program, reduced wait times at the DMV to less than eight minutes, funded a $10 billion infrastructure-improvement plan to repair roads and bridges, and improved health care for low-income Hoosiers through the Healthy Indiana Plan, which encouraged healthy behaviors (and which may be unsustainable if Obamacare is not repealed).
If there is one way in which Daniels differs from many conservatives, it isn’t on the importance of social issues, it’s on government. Hanging on the wall of his office are portraits of illustrious Hoosiers, from Eli Lilly to Cole Porter to Gus Grissom. “Our job [in government] is to make it easier for them to do what they do,” he explains. And it’s worth doing well. It matters to Daniels that people have faith in their elected leaders — in the system. “Oh, it’s easy to trash government,” he acknowledges. “I could do it all day. But you have to be careful not to suggest that all of government is corrupt and wasteful and full of knaves. We have some huge problems to solve — many created by government — but government is going to have to solve them too.”
And that brings us back to his reluctance to run for president. Daniels wrote all of his own campaign commercials — as he writes all of his own speeches (or composes them, since he is one of those natural public speakers who need only a couple of index cards). His final commercial in 2008 promised that if voters reelected him, “This is last time you’ll ever have to see me in a commercial.” It was typical of Daniels’s self-effacing humor. But he meant it. And he really hates the idea that Hoosiers would think he was insincere.
My 14-year-old son Ben, upon hearing this, said, “Well okay, tell him not to run commercials in Indiana!” — a solution that might seem a bit lawyerly to the straight arrow from the heartland. For now, he remains undecided, focused for at least the next four months on dramatically improving education in Indiana. After that, perhaps Hoosier voters can extend a waiver about that last commercial . . .
No, he's not even fiscally conservative. He was irresponsible under Bush, and he raised taxes as a solution in IN, instead of doing the hard cutting. Plus, telling a good portion of the GOP to take a hike is not Presidential. That other guy from Indiana though is someone to consider.
That may be the most useless comment I've ever read. At no point has he raised taxes. Nor did he tell the GOP to take a hike. He's been the best governor we've ever had. On top of all that, he had a Democratic House to deal with for much of his term, and he still got stuff done by sticking to his guns when the chips were down.
I was expecting more Daniels' shills to show up; guess people are already falling out of love with him. lulz. Yes, he got through two tax increases in his first year. He proposed a one-year tax increase on people making over 100k. The GOP state House stopped that. Daniels is no Chris Christie, not even close. This is also the same guy who proposed a VAT tax. Try harder Harvath; your shilling needs more work and facts.
I'm from Indiana. I think I know what I'm talking about, and it's shocking just how much ignorance there is about Daniels. Too many conservatives hear his name and think "VAT, truce" when that is not at all what he is about. Those were two incidents that were blown way our of proportion by some on both sides of the aisle. If you ask any Hoosier to describe Daniels in one word, it would "effective."
To imply that he is not fiscally conservative is ludicrous. The man's nickname in the Bush administration was "The Blade," for God's sake. He turned a 670 mil deficit into a 300 mil surplus IN ONE YEAR, and has gotten Indiana a AAA rating in the middle of a recession. Contrary to your absurd contention, he did in fact do a lot of "hard cutting." The education lobby around here is still hoarse from screaming about all the cuts they took. Mitch is exactly who we need handling the nations finances.
Mitch deserves it on his own merits, but a side question is this: if not him, who? I would challenge you to get behind a candidate rather than simply tearing them down.
Harvath nails it. I am also from Indiana, and Mitch Daniels has been a terrific governor. Especially when compared with our neighboring states. He may not be an across-the-board conservative purist, but he is a very effective opponent of excessive spending, and a solid enough conservative on everything else.
We need a President who can bluntly tell the American people "we can't afford these programs anymore" and persuade them to accept major reforms to programs previously regarded as untouchable. We need someone who will stand up to unions and reduce their power and influence. And we need someone who can unite and satisfy all the various factions of our party. Mitch Daniels has done all of those things here, and I believe he is the prospective candidate most likely to get them done at the federal level.
As I've explained in other threads, I'm leaning towards Palin as the strongest alternative to Romney. But of all the likely candidates, I think Daniels would make the best nominee and the best President.
I would readily vote for Daniels, but I don’t think he’s the best candidate. Here’s what I wrote for a previous discussion, and Indianans may correct me if I’m wrong: “I fear, however, that Daniels may be a bit too precious. His stance on the VAT, his ‘truce’ on social issues, and especially his support for so-called merit selection of judges (meaning judges effectively appointed by liberal ABA committees) all seem the mark of someone hellbent on being a maverick. He also has an odd personal story involving the unpalatable breakup of his marriage followed by reconciliation years later -- for which he can hardly be blamed, but it will come up.”
This brings me to Harvath’s question: “Mitch deserves it on his own merits, but a side question is this: if not him, who? I would challenge you to get behind a candidate rather than simply tearing them down.”
The single most salient reason for Daniels not to run is so that Pence will then do so. I believe Pence is better on the issues and a more attractive candidate across the board, but he seems reluctant to challenge his friend. May Daniels come to agree and make way for Pence/Jindal 2012.
I am also a Hoosier, although currently living in another state. I have voted for both Mitch Daniels and Mike Pence as I am from his district. I would be thrilled to have either run and win the presidency. Mitch has proven himself to be a fiscal conservative. He has radically cut spending in the state, and did things that were at the time widely unpopular, but are now seen in a better light. (Hindsight is always 20/20). I am a Ph.D. student and so most of my time is spent in academia. During the 2008 election, I don't know how many people told me that they considered themselves liberal, but were voting for Daniels because they thought he had what it took fiscally to get the job done. If he can attract people like that on a national stage, I think he could very well get elected. He might not look the part, (5'4' and bald?) but I think he's a good choice.
However, I think that Pence might appeal to people who care more about social issues because Daniels is more known for his economic credentials than his social ones. Pence might look and play the part better on a national stage as well as have the conservative gumption to appease the base. He might seem more well rounded on the surface but his lack of executive governing might cost him. (However, it didn't stop BO.)
Interesting, BoilerUp. Do you have an opinion about Daniels's position on judges? That is the most disturbing thing I have heard about him, and I simply don't understand it, because I have always credited the views of those who say that Daniels is in fact a social conservative. How is it possible for him to support a system that is heavily weighted toward judicial activism? (The system that gave Iowa homosexual "marriage," in fact.) Even if Daniels isn't as socially conservative as he is billed to be, why wouldn't he be concerned about the integrity of the Constitution? And why would any governor want to relinquish power to an ABA committee? I am mystified.
As to Mike Pence, I think he'll declare his candidacy in the spring, thus giving himself a head start. He'll need it since he's a dark horse. Daniels never seemed interested in running, and I think if Pence declares before the end of the IN legis session, Daniels might not run.
I think the judges question goes to his tendency to defer to those he believes know better in that area. He is not a lawyer, he was a businessman before being elected, so I would assume he does not feel qualified to screen judges. Having met the man a couple times, I happen to know that one of his strengths is knowing what he doesn't know, and listening to those who do. Were he in the position of appointing a Supreme Court nominee, I am sure we can find good enough counsel for him to be happy with the result.
The maverick bit is simply a misconception. He is not a maverick for it's own sake. He keeps his own counsel, but he is not inherently contrarian. A good example is his privitization of the Indiana toll road. HUGELY unpopular at the time, it has turned out to be one of the smartest things he has done for the state, but he did it because he knew it would work out, not for the sake of appearances.
As for Pence, I think he isn't quite ready yet. I like him, but I think his next step is the governor's office. My dream scenario for 2012 is a Daniels/Ryan presidential ticket and Pece running for governor.
@BoilerUp - we are not Hoosiers, we are from Indiana. Boilermakers never introduce themselves as Hoosiers.
Thanks for your input, Harvath. I’m not mollified, though. You don’t have to be a lawyer to see that Iowa got homosexual “marriage” because of the very same method for selecting judges that Daniels advocates for Indiana. I can’t see any excuse for that.
And it isn’t only the particular outcome in Iowa that I object to, by any means. If ever there has been an example of extraconstitutional judicial activism, the Iowa decision is it. “Merit selection” led directly to an entire court full of judges who believe the Constitution is malleable according to their predilections.
Daniels cannot be so uninformed as to not know all this. Anyway, if he doesn’t feel qualified to choose judges for Indiana, why would he feel qualified to do so for the nation? If, as you suggest, he could consult the experts and come up with good federal judges, why could he not do the same thing for Indiana?
I take your word that Daniels isn’t a contrarian by nature. He still doesn’t add up.
Regarding judicial selection, I don't know that his views on selecting state trial judges tells us much about his views on what makes a good federal judge. Especially at the higher levels.
State trial judges don't have many chances to make policy beyond the immediate case. Most of what they do simply requires a judge with a good legal mind. Their political or judicial philosophy doesn't come into play all that often, and when it does they are subject to appellate review. Elections are problematic because it is tough for the public to learn much about the candidates beyond party affiliation, and many counties are automatic wins for one party or the other. My own view is that a committee of experts is probably the best way to go for local elections, but we should elect appellate judges and rigorously screen federal ones. That may or may not be Mitch Daniel's view, but it'd be consistent with his statements and record.
Also, I believe local conservatives have found his judicial selections to be pretty good so far. And the system in Indiana seems to produce candidates with views roughly in line with those of the appointing governor. All three of the supreme court finalists were at least Republicans.
Under his watch Indiana is indebted to the federal government for $1B. His surpluses have been faked through accounting tricks and misdirection. He diverted stimulus money to the surplus by using it to provide normally scheduled payments to schools. It was not used as money to fund projects above and beyond normal expenditures as intended. In fact, the latest jobs stimulus money had specific language inserted to keep him from doing it again.
Same ol' thing! Elite (R)s trying to cram another mamby-pamby (why can't we get along and grow the "tent") "moderate" RINO down our conservative throats. He is NO conservative, he's more left leaning socially than right leaning fiscally.
We have got to get this party back to the right, not the middle! Now, I also believe, we as TPers have to leave ths social issues out of our platform amd focus on spending restraint and low taxes, but not the R-Party.
And we need a governor next up, but Damiels is worse than Pawlenty. We have got to get executive experience in the resume--see O if you want to see what a person who's never had to meet a budget anywhere can get you.
And BTW, why can't anyone run for RNC chair that their name is pronounacble?
Kentbook, your just raging right now. Daniels is no wishy-washy moderate. He's had more fights than I can count with the Dems in our state, unlike "Across-the-Aisle" McCain. He's not left-leaning socially, he just believes that A) He wouldn't get anywhere by pushing social issues, and B) he would be ignoring a looming debt crisis and hurting economy.
Why do insecure Palin supporters have to comment on every thread? A vote for Palin in the primary will be a vote for four more years of Obama. At some point, people are going to have to put forward a serious candidate. Daniels is one. Palin is not. Get over it.
Mitch Daniels is the only Republican candidate who could credibly* unite libertarians, conservatives, even Democrats, in a coalition that would beat Obama in a landslide.
But "the conservative base" will never let it happen, so get ready for Obama's second term!
Obama's approval rating has been steady between 45 and 50 percent for a year now. Conservatism has 40 percent support. If the 2012 race is again between "liberalism" and conservatism, the "liberal" will still win.
Follow
