My Man Mitch

[Peter]

Ron Paul just will not be elected President. And this guy Mitch might be better.

One drawback to Governor Mitch Daniels is his personal life. His wife divorced him in 94, and left to marry a guy in California, leaving their four daughters with Mitch to raise. She remarried Mitch in 97. Strange. She doesn't seem too flakey.

Anyway, this could be the guy we are waiting for.

Peter Taylor

• My Man Mitch

So now that I've disqualified just about everyone, who is left? Let me just briefly mention a few people I've left out.

You'll notice that I have not talked about Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee, because I don't think either one is going to run. They would risk giving up the significant power and influence they now have. Sarah Palin in particular would probably be better off staying out of the race and using her endorsement to tip the balance later on. (Update: Huckabee just made it official that he won't run.)

I also have not mentioned Michelle Bachmann, who is a less prominent version of Sarah Palin, or Gary Johnson, who is a less prominent version of Ron Paul. Nor have I mentioned John Huntsman. Who is John Huntsman, I hear you ask? That's why I'm not mentioning him.

But there is one so-far-undeclared candidate who is worth mentioning: Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. When he ran for governor, one of his campaign signs read "My Man Mitch," and that's pretty much how I feel about him based on everything I know so far.

I like the fact that he is a former budget director—since the federal budget is the central issue of the day—and that he has a low-key manner that puts substance and competence over flash and showmanship. That will make him a very refreshing and compelling alternative to President Obama. I like the fact that he has fully embraced the need for "reform" to rein in spending on the big middle-class entitlements.

And I really like the fact that he proposed the "truce" on social issues, declaring that spending and the budget are higher priorities. I like this because I'm the kind of person he's making the truce with. Daniels's critics on the religious right have complained that he is proposed a "truce" with the left on social issues, but they've got it wrong. Daniels is proposing a truce with the secular pro-free-marketers. And conservatives ought to recognize that we are making a truce with them, too. We are willing to march arm-in-arm and shoulder-to-shoulder with religious conservatives, if that's what it takes to keep Obama from totally bankrupting the nation. So we want to be confident that a candidate isn't going to take our votes and use them to push for a religious agenda, instead. With Daniels, I have that confidence.

I'm still looking to see more, and I am open to being disappointed. Chris Horner, who has been taking to task all of the other candidates for their previous backing of cap-and-trade, reminded me of a Daniels op-ed from 2009 in which he made a spirited attack on cap-and-trade—but on the grounds of political science, describing it as "imperialism."

This bill would impose enormous taxes and restrictions on free commerce by wealthy but faltering powers—California, Massachusetts, and New York—seeking to exploit politically weaker colonies in order to prop up their own decaying economies. Because proceeds from their new taxes, levied mostly on us, will be spent on their social programs while negatively impacting our economy, we Hoosiers decline to submit meekly.

On the other hand, the article demurs on the science of global warming—and at the end, Daniels boasts of Indiana's embrace of "green energy," including "biofuels" (a code word for the ethanol scam), wind power, and "clean coal," all forms of energy that require massive government subsidies. Then again, this op-ed was written six months before the Climategate scandal broke, an event that radically altered the politics of global warming. Yet it is still sobering to realize how deeply American politics has been corrupted by the global warming scam. Is there a single state governor who has not been bribed by the prospect of "green energy" subsidies for his state?

Daniels seems to have made less of a commitment on this issue than others, but he will need to answer some tough questions. He is also pretty much an unknown on foreign policy issues, and if he runs, that is the first thing we will want to hear about.

If he runs, and that is still an open question. I suspect that he will, because there is no one else in the race right now who takes his core issues seriously. But I also suspect he will not announce for a few more weeks, because he is currently benefiting from the frenzy of speculation about whether he will run. A flurry of reports like this one are giving him the kind of publicity he could not possibly buy, which is very important for a less well-known candidate, and it is sure to make his eventual announcement a big political event.

Moreover, the nature of this publicity is very flattering, because Americans love a reluctant candidate. It's something that goes back to our nation's founding: George Washington kept resigning from positions of power, and Thomas Jefferson kept complaining about how he would rather go back home to Monticello. Americans have always known that the only person who is qualified to wield power is the person who doesn't really want it. And I think voters are particularly going to appreciate the stories about how Daniels's wife, Cheri, generally refuses to appear at political and campaign events, preferring events like milking contests at the state fair—which is precisely the kind of First Lady we like.

As I said, we still need to hear more about Daniels, but I hope he runs—because without him, we're left with a field of candidates who have already been disqualified on the most important issues of the day.—RWT

Edited May 16, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[studiodekadent]

Mitch Daniels is, IIRC, a socially moderate somewhat-free-marketer. Not bad and better than the Santorums, the Palins, the Neocons and all the other horror shows in the Republicans.

But if you want someone electable that is more genuinely libertarian, no one beats Gary Johnson. Former New Mexico state governor, re-elected in a state that is 2-1 democratic leaning, and more socially liberal than most Democrats, and a Friedmanite libertarian advised by Jeff Miron from Harvard.

www.garyjohnson2012.com

[Peter]

Studiodekadent wrote:

But if you want someone electable that is more genuinely libertarian,

End quote

Gary Johnson is politically inept. In one of his first interviews he suggested that Christ was not divine and called for the legalization of drugs . . . very, very Dumb. To start out with that as the forefront of your campaign suggests no desire to win.

He is trying to take some of the influence and money from Ron Paul. It makes as much sense as "writing in the name of Ayn Rand" as President if you voted for him. Disqualified.

Peter Taylor

Edited May 17, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[Mike Renzulli]

The more I read about Mitch Daniels the more I like him. I am also reading that Governor Rick Perry of Texas might jump in the race. However, I think I read at RedState.com that members of Perry's staff are supporting Gingrich with the Governor's blessing.

If Gingrich faulters (which looks likely) I would not be surprised if Perry jumps in. I do not know if I could support Perry as I know little about his record. However, if he decides to run I will support Mitch Daniels for President.

[studiodekadent]

Cato hasn't always been kind to Mitch Daniels. They once rated him a "D."

And hawkish foreign policy is not a position I believe consistent with Objectivism. Most Objectivist analysis of foreign policy I have seen in the wake of the War On Terror has been methodologically collectivist and rationalist... it also makes the mistake of treating people as embodiments of ideals rather than accepting the fact that most people are inconsistent. So I reject the orthodoxy's (and, unfortunately, to a lesser extent, TAS's) demands for hawkishness.

Getting Al Qaeda is legitimate. The constructivist rationalism of nation-building, large scale social re-engineering of the Middle East, is not. Especially when it demands the self-sacrifice of so many individual Americans.

[Peter]

Studiodekadent wrote:

Cato hasn't always been kind to Mitch Daniels. They once rated him a "D."

End quote

I had not heard that. All would have been bared if he had stayed in the race. So long, Mitch.

Oh, man. Who's left? Will someone else step in?

Your name is not a name. Pick a real name or I will name you.

Kadent wrote:

Stud wrote:

Io wrote:

Dek wrote:

Ent wrote: Newt wrote?

Eee I Eee I Oh wrote:

And hawkish foreign policy is not a position I believe consistent with Objectivism.

End of Dent quote

In theory. If limited government, laissez faire capitalism, and only self defense prevail, would we have envious, murderous enemies with the Soviet Union kaput? As long as Israel exists and she is under our defense envelope. As long as Jihad exists. As long as we protect liberty and commerce.

I am hawkish about responding to aggression but with the least expenditure of our soldier's lives (zero is best) and the least squandering of our resources. But "other nation" building could be our hope, but it should NOT be our goal – that should be THEIR goal.

I sometimes think America will need to go through a twelve step addiction program to keep out of other people's businesses

Peter Taylor

Edited May 22, 2011 by Peter Taylor

[algernonsidney]

Rick Perry is just a typical neo-con son of a bitch. He actually signed an order requiring HPV vaccines for girls. That, of course, was at the behest of pharmaceutical companies. He has not gotten very good ratings from Cato either.

[Mike Renzulli]

The last scorecard from Cato shows Perry got a B rating (respectfully) while Tim Pawlenty got an A. Not bad. I would back Pawlenty but I do not think he has as much star appeal as Perry in order to kick out Obama.

Rick Perry is just a typical neo-con son of a bitch. He actually signed an order requiring HPV vaccines for girls. That, of course, was at the behest of pharmaceutical companies. He has not gotten very good ratings from Cato either.

[BaalChatzaf]

The last scorecard from Cato shows Perry got a B rating (respectfully) while Tim Pawlenty got an A. Not bad. I would back Pawlenty but I do not think he has as much star appeal as Perry in order to kick out Obama.

Rick Perry is just a typical neo-con son of a bitch. He actually signed an order requiring HPV vaccines for girls. That, of course, was at the behest of pharmaceutical companies. He has not gotten very good ratings from Cato either.

Question: Is hepatitis contagious?

I could possibly forgive him for require HPV vaccination but I cannot forgive him for advocating Intelligent Design being taught on equal footing with the Theory of Evolution.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited May 23, 2011 by BaalChatzaf

[Mike Renzulli]

I think Lawrence vs. Texas will put the brakes on anymore attempts to try to bring Intelligent Deception ... er ... Design into the classroom. The ruling itself is so specific that there is no way ID can rear its ugly head for long.

The last scorecard from Cato shows Perry got a B rating (respectfully) while Tim Pawlenty got an A. Not bad. I would back Pawlenty but I do not think he has as much star appeal as Perry in order to kick out Obama.

Rick Perry is just a typical neo-con son of a bitch. He actually signed an order requiring HPV vaccines for girls. That, of course, was at the behest of pharmaceutical companies. He has not gotten very good ratings from Cato either.

Question: Is hepatitis contagious?

I could possibly forgive him for require HPV vaccination but I cannot forgive him for advocating Intelligent Design being taught on equal footing with the Theory of Evolution.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[studiodekadent]

The last scorecard from Cato shows Perry got a B rating (respectfully) while Tim Pawlenty got an A. Not bad. I would back Pawlenty but I do not think he has as much star appeal as Perry in order to kick out Obama.

Pawlenty is absolutely TERRIBLE on social issues. He hasn't got a libertarian streak whatsoever.

As an economist I do think Pawlenty at least sounds good on economics (I can only go by the single interview with him that I've watched) but good economic policy is insufficient.

[Mike Renzulli]

The only notable thing that Pawlenty has done that a libertarian might appreciate is that when asked during an interview what he would do for fun, Pawlenty replied he would play hockey and drink beer. That's not saying much. I am impressed with the manner in which he is articulating his economic policies but think it's Pawlenty's stridency on social issues that ultimately will be his undoing.

The last scorecard from Cato shows Perry got a B rating (respectfully) while Tim Pawlenty got an A. Not bad. I would back Pawlenty but I do not think he has as much star appeal as Perry in order to kick out Obama.

Pawlenty is absolutely TERRIBLE on social issues. He hasn't got a libertarian streak whatsoever.

As an economist I do think Pawlenty at least sounds good on economics (I can only go by the single interview with him that I've watched) but good economic policy is insufficient.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I sometimes think America will need to go through a twelve step addiction program to keep out of other people's businesses

Peter,

You can say that again.

This is all fruit of the original Bretton Woods meeting when the world became dollarized for international transactions.

(btw - Ever think about what would happen if all the dollars in foreign banks the world over were suddenly sent back to the USA? Now that would be a hyper-inflation you could shake a stick at. The sad truth is that the USA exported its inflation for the longest time.)

Michael