The Daniels Verdict
Troy Senik, Ed. ·
January 25, 2012 at 6:50pm
Two independent events that deserve to be considered in the context of one another:
1. A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows 1/3 of Republican voters would like to see a new candidate enter the GOP presidential race.
2. Last night, Indiana Governor (and Friend of Ricochet) Mitch Daniels -- one the names most often mentioned as a potential late entrant -- delivered the GOP response to President Obama's State of the Union address.
Here's the question: are you more or less inclined to think that Governor Daniels would be a suitable alternative based on what you saw last night?
- Comment (57)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
Nov '10
Re: The Daniels Verdict
Only one out of 3 want this? You really want another 30% slice of this pie?
If anyone goes in I agree with Stuart ... Release the Palin.
Alternatively, balance the ticket with a good VP choice ... or, possibly go all in with one suit. Gingrich/Palin anyone?
Mar '11
Re: The Daniels Verdict
A Daniels post in which Palin, so far, dominates the comments.
Meaningless, I'm sure.
Aug '10
Re: The Daniels Verdict
I think a new candidate at this late date would muddy the waters way too much.
I want to see the current candidates fight it out, and may the best man win.
Re: The Daniels Verdict
What EJ Hill said. But I like it so much, I'll say it again.
Surely most Ricochetians are familiar with "Moneyball" and the principle that, if you want to predict how X will do in task A, look at the record of how X has done in tasks similar to A. On that basis, and ignoring the theatre of last night, Gov. Daniels would be a more-than-suitable alternative.
But (how) can the undecided voter be convinced? Is the American electorate too far gone to recognize and act on the principle?
Aug '10
Re: The Daniels Verdict
Which would be a good good thing, getting to the heart of the matter.
Newt is the accidental beneficiary of the honest convictions of many. He is in no way an honest rainmaker.
Palin redux is sheet-myself-in-sheer-terror inducing for a squish like me, but at least she is a honest fit with the base. My man Jeb sets their teeth on edge too. So be it.
Bush vs Palin Texas Cage Match Convention! Blood and Sand baby!
We have have serious differences of opinion and conviction within this party and this Newt/Mitt sideshow is not adjudicating those.
Let's sort it out for real. If Mitch Daniels is part of that way forward I would be delighted.
Edited on January 26, 2012 at 2:35amRe: The Daniels Verdict
I was already sold on Daniels but agree with another guy I really like:
RT: @RepPaulRyan Mitch Daniels’ had serious solutions for the serious problems facing America. Great msg last night: ow.ly/8FQTS
Feb '11
Re: The Daniels Verdict
My thought after hearing the Mitch Daniels response was this: why is our A-team on the bench while we put up our B-team for President?
I could easily support Daniels for President, but he has to get over his wife's veto. That said, it is likely too late for new entrants barring the long shot brokered convention.
As for Mitch's "boring" tone, after hearing the President's address last night, I can use a dose of boring competence and reality-based thinking instead of empty non sequiturs in support of ever-expanding government. Mitch spoke softly, but whacked Obama's policies with a big stick. That's just what we need in a nominee.
Sep '10
Re: The Daniels Verdict
My thought after hearing the Mitch Daniels response was this: why is our A-team on the bench while we put up our B-team for President?
Because a Republican win torpedoes a 2016 Presidential run. A 2012 loss guarantees Obama has to step down after 2 terms and the chances of them staying Dem in the White House for 3 terms in a row is small -- unless they're trying to replicate 2 terms of the Gipper followed by 1 term of GHWB, but I think Israel may send in Mossad if someone floats a President Biden ticket.
Jul '11
Re: The Daniels Verdict
1. Daniels on the substance was good, on style was, yes, a bit boring. Part of me thinks, "Well isn't what we need a solid, non-threatening conservative who'd made a good president and who will make the election a referendum on Obama, and not a choice?" And it's not as if Daniels hasn't demonstrated his electability in a less-than-red state - he won his reelection in Indiana by a landslide. If that thinking is wrong, and he can't win because of his style, so much the worse for the country.
2. I'd like to take this opportunity to ask that those suggesting Palin actually explain how she could possibly get elected, how she is in fact the answer to all our GOP prayers, rather than just blandly asserting this. No one ever does this and I think it's because it can't be done.
3. I want to push back on the "no means-testing" arguments above. First, Medicare and Social Security will be giving out to today's recipients far more than they paid in. Second, regardless of that, did I and my kids sign up to pay
Oct '10
Re: The Daniels Verdict
Works for me.
Jul '11
Re: The Daniels Verdict
hugely increased taxes simply to make up for promises made to voters in the 60's (when I wasn't yet alive) that, even considering only what's been paid in, may not be able to be kept due to irresponsible leaders? The answer is no. I understand the feeling of being cheated, but there are real people (as well as some who don't yet exist) who will have to suffer to keep this promise they never made.
Dec '10
Re: The Daniels Verdict
I should clarify my previous comment. I would love a President Daniels. I don't see any way that could happen with the current state of the union. I do what I can to convince those around me not to do dumb things (like stand under suspended crane loads or vote for democrats), but it's a tough slog one person at a time. If we're going to do it we must have someone who can make the case to many at once via the campaign.
Sep '11
Re: The Daniels Verdict
Yes.
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 8:26pmJun '11
Re: The Daniels Verdict
The same. I always thought he'd make a great candidate and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
Oct '10
Re: The Daniels Verdict
Yes. I think Daniels would strike the right balance between the bases, meaning he would piss off both bases the least.
And he's articulate enough, and non-threatening enough, to counteract Obama's 'likeability' to the uninterested, uninformed, disengaged squishy middle.
Nov '11
Re: The Daniels Verdict
David Kreps: What EJ Hill said. But I like it so much, I'll say it again.
Surely most Ricochetians are familiar with "Moneyball" and the principle that, if you want to predict how X will do in task A, look at the record of how X has done in tasks similar to A. On that basis, and ignoring the theatre of last night, Gov. Daniels would be a more-than-suitable alternative. ... · 37 minutes ago
Once I would have said the same of Rick Perry, which is why I backed him in the primary even after it became clear that his record didn't matter, only the perception of his speaking abilities.
I'm sure Mitch Daniels would make a fine president, but if his delivery in debates or campaign rallies was like his response, not much progress would be made with the independents.
Newt's rise is due to his ability to say the right things in the right way. Of course, if he doesn't win the nomination it will be due to his tendency to say the wrong things in the wrong way so that sort of balances out.
May '10
Re: The Daniels Verdict
Daniels may have been a good pick originally, but his bowing out early on means, in my book, that he is less deserving in important respects than those who have done the hard work and taken the brutal hits and proved their seriousness and dedication over the course of many months.
That staying power may be fire in the belly; it may be run away ambition. It may also include hefty doses of virtue put in service of a vital cause.
I feel like saying to Mitch Daniels: "Too little, too late."
And, "You'd make a great Treasury Secretary in the Santorum administration."
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 8:49pmDec '10
Re: The Daniels Verdict
Because WE AREN'T THE ONES PUTTING UP PEOPLE FOR THE PRESIDENCY. They have to put themselves forward.
It's the inverse of Groucho's rule that "any club that will let me in, I don't want to join." Any candidate who has to be dragged or pushed into the race isn't going to prepare adequately to campaign to win -- Rick Perry is proof positive.
The only person who's on the sidelines who has the national campaign experience and organization to make a credible late run is Sarah Palin, and she's not stupid enough to throw herself into this meat grinder.
Mar '11
Re: The Daniels Verdict
A.J.,
Regarding your second point (#29) Palin would be the closest thing to an originalist candidate running. She has an indisputable record of fighting entrenched political interests and winning. She took on big oil in Alaska and won. She primaried Frank Murkowski and won. She is a proven reformer and advocates "sudden and relentless reform." She is a limited government, natural law conservative. She has a massive following. She is charismatic and gives barn-burning speeches. She is a masterful retail politician. She is unafraid to take on the media. She has uncanny political instincts. She was governor in a state that gives its governors more sweeping powers than any other state in the Union, yet after dozens of trumped up ethics charges and the media digging through over 24,000 emails, nobody could find an instance of her abusing her power. The exact opposite proved true.
I would match Palin's conservative credentials against any major politician in the country.
Is that explanation enough for you?
Edited on January 25, 2012 at 9:14pmJun '11
Re: The Daniels Verdict
I love my governor, but it would have been uphill. Mitch would have fought Romney for the same 25%-40% of votes. He's not hard-core enough to be most SoCons's second or third choice -- the "truce" comment would have haunted him -- and he wouldn't touch the Paulistas..