And We’re Back. Here is Our Take on Gov. Daniels’ Decision

We decided to take a little time off from our blogging duties. The weather got nice, the politics got stagnant and we decided to check out for a while.

Alas, the dust has settled from the roller coaster ride that was Mitch Daniels considering running for President.  We were sick of hearing about it months ago and are thankful it is finally over.  Obviously, you all already know he opted against a run.

We’re not going to lie. We were surprised he decided against it. That said, we understand the decision to some extent. The Real Clear Politics story shows there was going to be a lot of talk about the Daniels’ divorce and Cheri’s comings and goings. It is understandable that no one would want to relive that time in their lives.

Getting out of the race might take some attention away from the stories, but it won’t stop them. Anybody ever seen Primary Colors? (If you haven’t, go watch it. Right now. We aren’t kidding.) They might not hit it quite as hard but they’ll cover it if it will sell one newspaper. Might as well run for President if they are going to cover it anyway.

We think it is admirable that the Governor cared so much about his family’s feelings on a campaign for President.  We also think he probably shouldn’t have made it quite so clear that the ladies in the family vetoed a run and there wasn’t much he could do about it.  That isn’t exactly our idea of protecting your family–and it was totally unnecessary.

Regardless, the decision has been made and Mitch Watch 2011 is over.  We’re disappointed and looking to see who will step up from the Republican Party.  We’re looking at the field and we do not see a winner right now.  Feel free to tell us if you think we are wrong and push us toward your favorite candidate.

About Washington Street Politics
Covering policy and politics from end to end of Washington Street in Indianapolis

6 Responses to And We’re Back. Here is Our Take on Gov. Daniels’ Decision

  1. DerekTrovi says:

    Right now, the only viable conservative I see if Tim Pawlenty. He was bold in renouncing ethanol subsidies. Herman Cain also seems like a solid conservative, but I’m skeptical of a brand new guy running a winning POTUS campaign.

    Just my two cents.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I’m still depressed and don’t know when I’ll get over it. I watched the other candidates yesterday and could not get remotely excited about any of them. I guess in time I will move on. I would like to know who all the other Mitch supporters will be supporting.

  3. Matt Stone says:

    I have to disagree with my friend, Derek. Pawlentry renouncing ethanol subsidies, when one of the states he should be aiming for is Iowa (since New Hampshire is more likely to go for someone like Romney or Huntsman), is basically a death sentence for his campaign. I like the idea, but it was a dumb political move to announce this early. He also has the personality of a paper bag, at least as far as what I’ve seen of him on cable news.

    The talk radio crowd has recently been fawning over Herman Cain. I don’t think his candidacy is too serious, but he’s an interesting concept.

    As for me personally, I’m warming up to Jon Huntsman, though I know he’s largely seen as Romney lite without the name recognition or the finances. He’s a former governor, so he’s got the executive experience. And as ambassador to China, he has what lots of POTUS candidates lack, foreign policy credentials. He lowered taxes and simplified the tax code while Governor of Utah. His spending habits aren’t exactly my cup of tea, but that’s why we have a checks and balance system to keep the other branches in check. He’s also my kind of conservative on social issues. He supported civil unions while governor, but also signed parental consent for abortion into law. And unlike a lot of candidates, he has a record. And a recent one. Gingrich hasn’t held elective office in over a decade. Romney’s rhetoric has changed drastically since he was governor of Massachusetts, and most of the other candidates are fringe candidates (Bachmann, Paul, Johnson, etc…)

    That said, Huntsman may very well be waiting until 2016 if he thinks Obama might get elected. In fact, I think a lot of GOPers are sitting 2012 out just because how hard it is, nowadays, to take down an incumbent president. There’s several in the wings of the GOP who just got elected to the Senate, or are only a couple of years into their governorships. Give them some time to build up a bit more experience, and I think there could be a very crowded, very qualified field in a GOP 2016 POTUS primary.

  4. DerekTrovi says:

    Don’t think I can vote for Huntsman. He is a unrepentant fanboy of cap and trade and he thinks “the stimulus isn’t big enough”. People said Mitch has a personality deficiency as well, but that’s okay as long as his policy is good — which I believe it is. We need an executive who will lead with fiscal restraint, so that is another area where Huntsman fails. I don’t trust congress to be restrained and history supports that.

    I’m to the point where I think the best foreign policy is principled domestic policy.

  5. I don’t know Matt, ethanol is such a disaster from a policy standpoint, it would be hard to be half-way honest and not criticize it.

  6. With this Republican field, there’s only one candidate that can possibly win in 2012: Barack Obama.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: