I didn’t post about this photo gallery in the Washington Post when it came out a few weeks ago because I assumed there was an editing error that the newspaper would eventually notice and correct. But I checked back just now and saw that the caption of the first photo is the same, so I assume the description of the image is intentional.
In this gallery of people the Post considers possible 2012 Republican candidates for President, the “photo of Haley Barbour” in fact has him a bit off to the side. At the center of the image is Governor Mitch Daniels, who is not even mentioned in the caption. Either the Post is consciously trying to snub him or his profile as a possible candidate is lower than the Mariana Trench.
In either case that’s too bad. He’s got a better resume than any other Republican in the gallery. He’s also smart, practical and not a culture warrior. And in this lousy economy, the state he is governing had a huge budget surplus in 2009 and one of the smallest budget deficits in the country in 2010 (Thanks to Donald for correction). I am afraid of what it says culturally and politically that someone like Daniels isn’t taken as seriously as Sarah Palin or Haley Barbour as a worthy GOP standard bearer.
The man, who sold the Indiana Toll Road?
It is probably inevitable that the Republicans will represent the people, who are most mad that the great American Show is over, and they will support massive public disinvestment, ecological havoc and selling off public resources, to finance one last hurrah for white ex-urbanites, in love with their SUVs and in hate with urban progressives with a stake in the new economy.
Republican governors are going to veto urban (and interurban) rail projects, and promote poisoning the ground water to extract a few ounces of natural gas, and the ocean shore, to extract deep-water petroleum. Why not throw in a sale and lease-back of Yosemite? (There’s ample precedent in Hetch Hetchy, no?)
I expect that the Republican plutocrats will favor an unpopular idiot for the nomination, the better to secure a second-term for Obama, who is working out so well for them. I can’t see the “reasonable” Democrat being good for the country; why should I care which viciously destructive Republican gets the nod?
“a better resume than any other Republican in the gallery.” Maybe. Could you hum a few more bars? Mitt Romney’s resume isn’t shabby, either. I’m not trying to say that Mitt is better than Mitch. I’m just curious.
Having, as I do, the misfortune to live in Indiana, I am somewhat taken aback by any enthusiasm for the man as a candidate for anything. More to the point, though, is the comment that Indiana has a “huge budget surplus.” According to this website (http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/crd/localgov/topics/essays/State_Budget_Outlook.htm), compiled by Purdue University, Indiana has run, in 2009 and 2010, a combined $3.4 Billion budget deficit, on total expenditures of nearly $29 Billion. Now, I don’t think that matters much, one way or the other. In fact, I’d say that running a large surplus in a deep recession would have been downright irresponsible. Daniels *wanted* to run a surplue, but could not, because revenues fell dramatically (currently nearly 10% below 2008).
More to the point, his priorities as governor are not mine, and I’m hoping will not be the nation’s.
I had Daniels as my darkhorse 2012 nominee even before the election was over in 2008. With the Utah governor essentially leaving the party (taking the ambassadorship), SC governor hiking the Appalachian Trail, then-future NJ governor being an unappealing blob, the other NV senator being embroiled in a sex scandal and recently retired MN governor being a spineless wimp, Daniels was the only fresh face left in the ring. The rest included the losers in 2008, plus Palin and Gingrich. Even throwing back in Pawlenty and adding Bolton, that leaves little to be desired for the GOP faithful. Besides, the field is hopelessly divided. The religious nuts still prefer Huckabee, the pragmatists and “capitalists” prefer Romney, “real Americans” still like Palin, Gingrich and now Barbour, but neither Palin nor Gingrich will run no matter how much clatter they make along the way about running-they love money too much and will lose their Fox gigs if they run, at least temporarily (and neither wants their past scandals recounted, undermining their “middle America” appeal). So Barbour it is for the uninformed and racist right. To make matters worse, those who support one of these detest the others, viscerally. So, suppose, after some initial sputter, we lose Bolton, Allen, Pawlenty and perhaps Barbour. The nuts who support the Huckster think Romney is not a Christian. The good ol’ corporatists who support Romney think that Huck is a Socialist. In comes Daniels on a white horse to rescue the party and give the nomination to someone everyone might like-everyone, that is, who is in the Republican Party. Until now, Daniels has been steadfast in his denial any interest in running. But he can be rather easily persuaded.
Now, the fact that I projected and endorsed him as the top candidate for GOP nomination does not mean that I like him. Since my initial projection, he shot himself in the foot and several other appendages by proclaiming that we ought to set aside the culture wars-if only temporarily. GOP gains in midterms proved, if nothing else, that the activists and the elected base are not ready to set aside the culture wars-in fact, they placed quite a few battles on the legislative calendars both at state and federal levels. And Daniels, despite the proclamation, remains a culture warrior and will certainly use it if nominated, despite his proclamations for armistice. He’s sufficiently right-wing-nutty and politically savvy, but unintelligent and anti-intellectual just like the rest of them. He comes from a hick state that had a 2-3 year aberration before returning to its hick roots (Southern Indiana is more like Northern Kentucky than Northern Kentucky). And, ultimately, this is the population that he appeals to the most. There are plenty of them in the US, but they are not the dominant voting force. Still, they are kingmakers on the Republican side.
Being popular with Democrats just doesn’t seem to be an effective route to the Republican nomination. Go figure… That said, he doesn’t seem particularly awful, especially in comparison to some of the candidates the establishment want to puke up. But having Democrats admire him just isn’t going to help him.
I mean, I could say I wonder why the Democrats don’t tap Brian Schweitzer for President. But I don’t, really.
Daniels and Pawlenty look to be the closest things to Main Street Republicans out there - that’s my favorite kind of Republican, so they’re the ones I am most enthusiastic about. Maybe Romney.
Donald: Gold star for you, you got me, or at least you partly did and I am correcting the post. Indiana ended FY09 in the black, but you are right and I am wrong about this year…it will end in deficit (Indiana does though have a huge reserve fund which Daniels has carried along for years and which I was referring to in the post, but it’s smaller than the 2010 gap). In The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities charts of all state budget gaps for FY10, Indiana does indeed has one. It is still the 4th smallest on the chart, so I am still going to credit Daniels for doing pretty well keeping the budget balanced through the 2009-2010 recession.
Ebenezer (p.s. Shouldn’t you be out with three ghosts about now?): As for who is more qualified, Romney or Daniels, this will divide people whether they consider experience in Washington an asset or a drawback. I am in the former camp, and that’s why I consider Romney’s lack of time in DC a relative drawback and Daniels’ time running OMB to be a relative asset. In a television age though, Romney will have a huge advantage because he looks like a tall, handsome action movie star and Governor Daniels looks like a short, quiet CPA.
Buck: I don’t agree with everything you say (e.g., that Daniels is unintelligent), but I think you make a shrewd point about how far the GOP is from having a consensus candidate. This is very unusual historically as you know and as you point out its even more fractious than lacking consensus, there is a positive hostility among the camps.
One thing to remember about politics: it’s all about resource allocation.
Three things to remember about the prevailing political ethos in the United States: government is of, by and for the wealthy.
Two things to remember about electoral politics: elections are theater and Americans love a comeback narrative.
Three words to remember about the likely 2012 Republican nominee: John Ellis Bush.
Keith,
I consider Romney’s lack of time in DC a relative drawback and Daniels’ time running OMB to be a relative asset.
But let’s look at what Daniels did in DC. Among other things, he pushed for the Bush tax cuts, and helped undermine Larry Lindsey, claiming, publically at least, that Lindsey’s estimate of the cost of the Iraq war was far too high. In the event Lindsey’s estimate proved far too low, of course, but it was much higher Daniels’ ridiculous numbers.
So I’m unimpressed with the man’s credentials as a fiscal manager.
Keith,
Three ghosts? Bah, humbug! I met up with three partners about a century ago, who persuaded me to move from retail to wholesale financial services. We run some ginormous hedge funds, which wreak far more misery that I could ever dream of having done in my old business. And the novelists now love me!