#MyManMitch!

Mitch Daniels, former governor of my state, and now President at my alma mater, Purdue.

Former Gov. Mitch Daniels Takes Biden Administration to Task – PJ Media

The Purdue University president currently has a scathing guest column in the Washington Post, criticizing the Biden administration’s haphazard and often dubious government mandates. The piece received nearly 1,500 comments in its first 18 hours.itch

Good for Mitch.

“A White House approval of ‘booster shots for all’ not only short-circuited the Food and Drug Administration’s ‘gold standard’ approval process, it ignored a contradictory agency recommendation,” Daniels explains. “It was just a simple workaround. Ideas for redesigning the machinery of self-governance are always in order, and sometimes badly needed. But discarding or violating rules while they are still in effect is corrosive of the trust on which all depends. It furthers the already pervasive notion that, rules be damned, the fix is in.”

The former two-term governor closes the op-ed by claiming, “Eschewing ‘working around’ and returning to ‘working within’ would be a step back toward the comity, community and public confidence we now see so little of.”

Political-speak, but well said, in spite of that.

The Obligatory ‘Daniels Is Out’ Post

Well, I talked about Pawlenty and Cain. You didn’t think I was going to skip Mitch did you?

Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) made it official this weekend. He’s not running for President. From his statement:

The answer is that I will not be a candidate. What could have been a complicated decision was in the end very simple: on matters affecting us all, our family constitution gives a veto to the women’s caucus, and there is no override provision. Simply put, I find myself caught between two duties. I love my country; I love my family more.

I am deeply concerned, for the first time in my life, about the future of our Republic. In the next few years Americans will decide two basic sets of questions: Who’s in charge here? Should the public sector protect and promote the private sector or dominate and direct it? Does the government work for the people or vice versa?

I was never a fan of Daniels as a Presidential candidate. I documented some of the reasons in an earlier post. But I also think that the MSM would have tied him to President George W. Bush (R-USA) (Dems still like to run against Bush—they plan on doing it again in 2012), and would have pointed out that his record as a fiscal hawk is severely tarnished by his tenure at the OMB under Bush.

And, there’s the marriage, divorce, re-marriage issue. No, I’m not going to go into the details. If you’ve been following, you know. If not, find out someplace else. This isn’t a gossip blog.

I did think that he would likely have been the de facto frontrunner had he entered, as I mentioned earlier. Right now, I think that role falls to Pawlenty, who clearly has some momentum. Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) can still shake up the race, but I think the window is starting to close on that. Pawlenty and Cain and others are starting to hit their stride in the campaign now. Palin, even with her rabid supporters, will have to play catch up, if she doesn’t officially enter soon. I figure she has until the end of June to make it official. After that, she moves to a spoiler role.

The Obligatory ‘Huck Is Out’ Post

Watch here:

Official statement here.

Who benefits? Not Romney. Probably (in order), Daniels, Palin, and Pawlenty. Daniels, if he enters now becomes the de facto front runner. Romney may be listed as the front runner for a while yet, but after his disastrous defense of RomneyCare he’s not getting the nomination. His candidacy is over. The best “anti-Mitt” will win the day. If Daniels enters, that looks like him, as he’ll also win over the “anti-Palin” crowd from the old guard GOP who fears her. If Daniels stays out, then Sarah likely becomes the prohibitive favorite, should she enter. If both stay out, I think we can start talking about Pawlenty’s general election chances.

One thing that might benefit Palin, even if Daniels enters, is that she’ll likely be better at courting Huckabee and his supporters than Daniels. But that may not be enough, as Daniels is going to be a money machine, from the whales at least.

Why I Don’t (Yet) Support Mitch Daniels

No, it doesn’t have anything to do with his comment about a “truce on social issues”. Couldn’t care less. He was making the very valid point that right now we need to concentrate on the economy and getting our fiscal house in order. His social conservative credentials are up there with just about anyone’s.

Now, a little history.

In 2004, on election day, I stood outside my local polling place in the rain all day long, wearing my green “MY MAN MITCH” t-shirt. I was one of those meet and greet people, “Do you have any questions? Are you sure you’re at the right place? Anything I can help you with?” etc. I’ve voted for Governor Mitch Daniels (R-IN) twice for Governor, and if he could run again, I’d vote for him again. I’m not thrilled with the whole Daylight Savings Time thing, but I understand it, and he did campaign on the issue, so I have no legitimate gripe. He kept his campaign promise.

So, it’s not as if I’m anti-Mitch. I think he’s done a spectacular job as Governor. And I think he’d likely be a good, possibly great, President. I’d happily vote for him for President, if he’s the nominee. And he’s one of only 2 or 3 people I can say that about. I’m just not convinced of his ability to be a good candidate.

I’m gonna pick on Kevin Eder here, who works for the Media Research Center, but he expresses views I’ve heard elsewhere. Here’s a tweet I got from Kevin last night.

@ChrisOfRights I have no issues with his record, but he gets me as excited as a...zzzzzzzzz.

And that’s the truth, and it’s the way a lot of people are going to see Mitch. He’s not dynamic. He’s not charismatic. He’s not even combative. He simply comes out, says what he intends to do, and then does it.

Now I’m gonna pick on Bruce Newman, who follows me on Twitter, and opined on this as well.

@ChrisOfRights @keder I'm wondering if this is the cycle where someone who isn't so glamorous and charismatic can win.The anti-Bama

This is the general rebuttal you get from Mitch’s supporters when presented with statements like Kevin’s. And it does make sense on some levels. President Barack Obama (D-USA) was definitely treated like a rock star by the MSM, and maybe we do need someone who’s more down to earth.

However, there’s a problem. Let’s look at the last 9 Presidential elections. All but one were won by someone with that charisma and flair. Maybe not at Obama levels, but certainly higher than Daniels. We had:

1976: Jimmy Carter
1980: Ronald Reagan
1984: Ronald Reagan
1988: George H.W. Bush
1992: Bill Clinton
1996: Bill Clinton
2000: George W. Bush
2004: George W. Bush
2008: Barack Obama

With the exception of 1988, all of these were pretty charismatic people. Now, you might argue that President George W. Bush (R-USA) didn’t exactly light up a room, but there’s no doubt that he was personable and friendly and genuinely warm. People enjoyed seeing him and being with him. One of the MSM memes at the time was that the pool reporters following his campaign started liking him too much to write bad stuff about him. He’s a likeable guy.

Now, let’s look at the nominees who never were elected President in that same period:

1976: Gerald Ford
1984: Walter Mondale
1988: Michael Dukakis
1996: Bob Dole
2000: Al Gore
2004: John Kerry
2008: John McCain

Pretty much all of these people are dull, dull, dull. Note too, that while President George H.W. Bush (R-USA) won 1988 without much charisma, he was facing someone at just about his same level in Governor Dukakis (D-MA). And he also was running on being the successor to the incredibly charismatic President Ronald Reagan (R-USA). And he lost in 1992, when facing someone with actual charisma, then Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR).

Which group does Mitch fit better with? I think he clearly fits in better with the second group than the first. So, to win, Mitch would not have to be just the anti-Obama, but also defeat a 35+ year trend in Presidential elections.

It’s quite simple, really. In America, we like charismatic Presidents. Yes, that’s stupid, but it’s also undeniably true. I think it’s very likely that to defeat Obama, we’re going to need someone with a similar level of charisma. Do I like that thought? No, but I’m being honest and facing reality.

Now, maybe Mitch will run and start showing some fire and energy. That will certainly help. I hope he can and does. If he does, I will definitely start writing more supportive posts. I’m keeping an open mind on him, but so far I just don’t see it.

(Yes, I know 4 posts are missing from my blog. See here. I can recreate them if I have to and will do so, but am going to wait a bit longer to see if Blogger can restore them for me)

GOP Nomination Process Begins Today

It begins. The circus we call the nomination process.

Today we will have the first of countless GOP debates between the candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination for President. Who’s going to be there?

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, Texas Rep. Ron Paul, businessman Herman Cain and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson will face off in Greenville, S.C., in the Fox News-sponsored debate that begins at 9 p.m.

All names that are on everyone’s short list, I’m sure.

Many people have opined on why most of the major names are not here (Romney, Gingrich), and also on why so many expected candidates (Palin, Daniels) have not even thrown their names in the ring yet. I have no opinion on why, but I do think that it’s about time to get this party started. I think a candidate who has not made an official declaration by mid-summer will likely be in trouble. Time will tell.

Anyway, since this is the start, it’s worth taking a look at something I wrote over 2 years ago:

At this point, a 2-term Presidency for Mr. Barack Obama (D-USA) seems a near certainty.

[…]

What’s the #1 question in voter’s minds when they go to the polls to re-elect an incumbent or vote in a new President?

“Am I better or worse off now than I was 4 years ago?”

It’s hard to see how most people will answer that as “worse”. I certainly hope that most people won’t. That would mean that we really are in a “depression” and not a “recession”. Because otherwise, because of or in spite of Mr. Obama, the economy should have recovered to some degree by then.

Well, we seem to have missed the “depression” many were worried about, but I’m not sure too many people will say that they’re better off then they were in 2008 at this point. We are still at nearly 9% unemployment, and the only reason it’s even that low is because so many people have given up looking for work. Gas prices are through the roof. Inflation is digging deeper into people’s pockets, people that haven’t gotten any raises in three years. The housing market is still in free fall. And people are again talking “recession”. Add all that up, and it’s ugly.

Still, the election is 18 months away from tomorrow. Quite a bit of recovery could occur between now and then. It would be foolish to expect it, based on the recovery we’ve seen so far. But, you never know.

So, tonight the five men listed above will bring up some of these facts, and tell us how they’re going to fix them, and how stupid the other four men are. Be sure to tune in. 9 pm EDT on FNC.