The Daily Caller

The Daily Caller

Daniels talks to Indianapolis Star reporters about possible run

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels spoke to Indianapolis Star reporters yesterday and gave strong indications that he might step into the race, while simultaneously noting his concerns.

“His answers made clear what we already knew — that he is giving the question deep thought — and underscored how intently he has worked through the issues that would face him and the messages on which he would base a campaign,” wrote Matthew Tully, political columnist for The Star.

“If he runs,” Tully quoted Daniels as saying, “‘it would simply be because I do think, and I hope I am wrong, that the country has put itself in a very difficult place.’”

Daniels told Star reporters that he would focus on the debt, which he sees as a central issue, and also pointed to the need for Medicare and Social Security reform. These are things Daniels feels need to happen almost immediately.

“We’re starting to run out of time,” he told Star reporters.

Despite predictions to the contrary, Daniels does not seem to be running out of time to make a decision on entering the race.

“It’s amazing that we have the luxury of time,” he told The Star, reiterating that he would make his decision after this session of the Indiana legislature ends later this month.

He joked about the rest of the likely Republican field and how mediocre many people consider it to be, saying “It’s always good to be held to a low standard — ‘At least he’s not a freak.’”

But Daniels expressed serious reservations, calling a presidential campaign a “savage process,” a concern he has voiced before. He concluded of the rest of the field: “I like all these folks, and odds are I will likely end up supporting one of them.”

Nonetheless, Tully wrote, the tone of the meeting suggested that Daniels was likely to step into the race.

  • 24AheadDotCom

    Alexis Levinson should have kept reading (or she decided there were things about Daniels it was best not to mention).

    In the same paper, Daniels goes weak on IN’s AZ-style immig. bill:

    http://24ahead.com/n/10639

    Their reporter won’t get back in touch with me, but it looks like Daniels only supports the part of that bill that’s least likely to have any impact. Which shouldn’t be surprising: “fiscal conservatives” tend to be “good for business”, if you know what I mean.

  • GOPNYC

    I think he should run as an independent on “The National Enquirer Party”. He and Trump can be runninig mates and we can read about their marital adventures and their court proceedings (High, Mitch!? LOL!) in the supermarket tabloids.

    On a serious note, has anybody forgotten that when this guy actually HAD a responsible position, he totally, totally, blew it? Or maybe violated his oath of office?

    When he was head of the OMB in the Bush Administration, he underestimated (or simply lied about) the cost of the war, then compounded it by saying the war would pay for itself with Iraq oil revenues.

    Hello??? What’s going to be the biggest issue of the 2012 campaign??? FISCAL responsibility. Daniels had his chance and he blew it, bigtime.

    Moreover, he sounds strangely amenable to “cooperation” with the Democrats so that “we can all just get along.” (For those of you who don’t speak Democrat, “cooperation” is spelled, “S-U-R-R-E-N-D-E-R”.)

    No way this guy should be president; he’s be a disaster.

    If the GOP establishment is looking for somebody they can trust, who won’t have Snake Worship in the East Room or hunt down Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer with a .3006, but who can still cut the budget and who has GENUINE conservative credentials, they should be looking at George Pataki. Besides being a conservative and a good candidate, he’s also been scoped up and down by the toughest press corps in the country for over a dozen years. No complications in his personal life; no nights in the slammer for possession.

    He’s the safe, smart, bet of the unannounced field.

    • jduvall2816

      Do you have any idea what the director of the OMB even does? Basically, they take the policies that the President says are the agenda, works numbers around so that those policies will be paid for if nothing in the budget gets changed and all revenue collection goes according to plan. That then goes to the President who manipulates and cuts/adds items in the budget before presenting it to congress. Congress takes it and manipulates it more then eventually everyone comes to some sort of agreement and signs it.

      Now, if you’d like to try and blame the budget deficits on Daniels……good luck. OMB doesn’t get a vote and doesn’t get to make adjustments after it leaves his office.

      Daniels has made changes in Indiana that at least 3 other states are trying to mimic right now (Wisconsin/Ohio/Michigan) and there will be more of those ground-breaking policies done in the next 3 weeks.

      I have no problem considering George Pataki….when he begins telling me what is agenda and policies (real ideas…not the rhetoric) will be for a Presidential platform. Until then, Daniels is the only one acting like the current economic policies and condition of the U.S. will take very difficult and most likely unpopular action to fix and needs to be done starting day one in office.

      • GOPNYC

        Were that actually the case, I imagine the president could call in Accountemps to set his budget; its not. Its also a bully pulpit from which one can offer policy critiques of Congress (if one wishes to play safe) or even the president (if one cares more about his country than his job. Remember David Stockman?) Guess which priority Daniels chose?

        Then,when the time came to estimate the cost of the Iraq War, he based it on “Desert Shield” and the 100 hours of “Desert Storm” when he knew — or should have known — that the mission this time was to carry out the mission from which we pulled back in 1991 (i.e., ousting Saddam). That “$40 to $60 billion” figure has now soared clost to ONE TRILLION ($900 billion as of 11/2010).

        And these “Ground Breaking” policies that you speak of…you mean renegging on labor contracts and denying the right to collective bargaining? That should do very nicely among White, Blue-Collar and Pink Collar Democrats that we used to call “Reagan Democrats” — the people that gave Reagan his margin of victory in 1980 and 1984. It might be all well and good to change the laws and do away with collective bargaining for workers who have civil service protections, but I’d rather not work toward November 2012 knowing that I haven’t got a chance of getting my nominee elected. Mitch Daniels would out of the running the day after he’s nominated.

        I won’t even go into the marital history or the run-in with the law.

        Face it: nice guy, personally attractive, but fatally flawed as a candidate. Look at the next guy…

      • GOPNYC

        PS: Saying “We face a challenge” and “Its gonna be tough” does not an economic policy make.

  • borntoraisehogs

    Is he taller than Kucinich? Just the facts ma’am. He has the hair and face for radio and Americans usually elect the tallest and will never elect a short person.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA

    • RosiesSeeingRed

      Which I guess would explain McCain getting the nomination over Romney? Oh wait, Romney is taller and better looking……

      • borntoraisehogs

        Oh yeah, I forgot President McCain.

        • RosiesSeeingRed

          Yes, I’m sure it was his height and hair that lost the election, and Obama got elected because he is tall.

          Seriously??

          I think this country is WAY past this nonsense.

  • RosiesSeeingRed

    Partymanrandy, yeah, I knew this would happen when I saw the headline.

    Let me put it this way:

    1. If Mitch Daniels is not conservative enough for conservatives, then I’m pretty assured conservatives will not think Obama is worthy of their vote, therefore, they WILL vote for whoever is not Obama. That pretty much wraps up the conservatives.

    2. Anyone who is a liberal will vote for Obama — no chance, they’ll even consider voting for the other guy, no matter who it is. That pretty much wraps up liberals.

    3. Then there are the rest of us — the libertarians, the independent thinkers, maybe those who are fiscally conservative but lean liberal on certain social issues. Who will THEY vote for? They will decide the vote. And it’s highly possible that if the candidate is TOO conservative for their tastes, they’ll vote the other way. Is that what conservatives who are searching for the perfect conservative candidate want?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jasmine-Clark/1785223171 Jasmine Clark

    how many people actually care about daniels though? i rarely see people talk about him or news about him. he has a big name recognition problem. he needs to really try to stand out and let people know: what makes him so special, among the others? i just haven’t seen him do that yet.

    • RosiesSeeingRed

      As if the others are special??? Not seeing it….

    • partymanrandy

      He hasn’t started campaigning yet. He hasn’t even decided if he’s running yet. Of course he doesn’t have broad name recognition yet. Obama was a state senator just a few years before becoming President.

  • RosiesSeeingRed

    Before the usuals start posting RINO, please do your homework (start with this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/260474/putting-mitch-daniels-and-right-work-fracas-context-avik-roy). Daniels has a very conservative record. He’s not a “former” anything — he’s current. He’s not a “has been” and he’s very much a fresh new face given he does not get the kind of press someone like Christie gets. Better a new face with an actual resume of accomplishments vs. a newbie. From what I know about him (and I’m still learning), he seems like a real common sense guy.

    I don’t live in Indiana, and no candidate is perfect. I think this guy is worth a second look by anyone who has been dismissing him as a contender.

    • partymanrandy

      I’m from Indiana. The only people that think he isn’t actually conservative are the Bachmann/Mark Levin types. They value bombast over results. Anyone that actually looks at the facts can see that Daniels is about as close as you can get to the ideal conservative.

    • http://twitter.com/CommieJuice CommieJuice

      You are wrong! He is a FORMER chief of staff to big time liberal RINO Dick Lugar! He was Lugar’s Rahm Emanuel.

      “I’m for Dick Lugar, he’s the role model I’ve had,” Daniels said on NBC’s “Meet the Press”. “Folks in Indiana know that I am for him and that I admire him and think if he wants another term he ought to have one.”

      It kinda sounds like Scott Brown’s take on McCain before Brown surpassed him as the leader of the Rino pack.

      Mitch Daniels on a national scale would be more like if you mixed (RINO pack leader) Scott Brown with Ron Paul. If the GOP is that desperate to nominate him, I would hold my nose and vote for him, but he would be on my list even under Newt. Btw, Mitch seems open to the Fairness Doctrine after hearing his CPAC speech, *cough* very conservative principles.

      One more thing… Being president is hugely a popularity contest, see the pathetic man-child in office right now, but America hasn’t elected a bald president since Dwight Eisenhower. I don’t see it happening now unless Herman Cain was to get the nod. That stuff doesn’t matter to us, but apparently it does matter to the drone type voters.

      • partymanrandy

        Hard to argue with that logic. He had the same job title as Rahm Emanuel. Yep, must be a liberal. Howard Dean was a Governor, too. So now Daniels has two strikes against him.

        And he supports the fairness doctrine? Because he said that not everybody listens to Rush, Sean, Glenn, and Laura? The fairness doctrine obviously is not what you think it is. And he’s a mix between Scott Brown and Ron Paul? What the hell does that even mean?

        Rosie, you see what I mean about the caliber of people who call Mitch a RINO?

        • RosiesSeeingRed

          Honest to god, we have a completely inept, in-over-his-head socialist spendthrift for a president, and we’re worrying about a potential candidate’s HAIR? The key sentence though: “I will hold my nose and vote for him…” which is PRECISELY what I’m trying to say… conservatives, you will vote for anyone who is not Obama, so let’s get someone who appeals to all non-liberals, no matter where they fall on the spectrum, and please, keep an open mind!

      • free2booze

        “We have learned in Indiana, big change requires big majorities. We will need people who never tune in to Rush or Glenn or Laura or Sean. Who surf past C-SPAN to get to SportsCenter. Who, if they’d ever heard of CPAC, would assume it was a cruise ship accessory.”

        Yup. Reads like a glowing endorsement for the fairness doctrine, alright. You might want to start working on those reading comprehension skills.