Report: Chris Christie, Scott Walker privately pledge to back Daniels if he runs

posted at 4:13 pm on May 13, 2011 by Allahpundit

Eeeenteresting. Christie and Walker have each issued the obligatory formal denials since the report came out, natch, but they’ve also both cooed over Daniels publicly in the last month. And it’s no big stretch to think that two Republican governors famous for being fiscal-con warriors would gravitate to the other guy in the race (or soon to be in the race) who fits that bill.

I keep thinking Daniels will have a hard time getting the base to warm up to him, but if he hits them with this one-two endorsement punch, maybe not. Christie’s endorsement alone wouldn’t do it — he’s the guy who backed Mike Castle, after all — but toss in the hero of Wisconsin and suddenly there’s a lot of mojo working.

Reflecting what many observers see as weak Republican field, the pressure on Daniels to run has been intense. He has been assured backing from big-money donors who supported George W. Bush, in addition to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, as well as top sitting Republican governors.

Sources tell CBS News popular New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has told Daniels he would back him, as would Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

And as a sign of how important his wife is to the decision, sources tell CBS News that even former First Lady Laura Bush has called Cheri Daniels personally to encourage her to support the effort and offer advice on how to define what her role on the campaign–and potentially in the White House–would be.

If it’s true, and if in fact Daniels gets in, the big loser is obviously Pawlenty. He’s the “other” fiscally conservative midwestern governor in the race, in case Christie and Walker are intent on backing someone with that description, and his viability depends chiefly on being the most electable “Not Romney” in the field. Daniels’s entry would make people ask, “Why Tim instead of Mitch?” Now that Daniels has signed the bill defunding Planned Parenthood, even the presumptive “social truce” answer to that question doesn’t have the same juice that it used to.

Daniels, who was Bush’s OMB chief, also reportedly told well wishers last night that in a perfect world, if he ran, he’d have Condi Rice as his VP. I take that to mean he won’t pick her if he’s nominated, merely that he wishes he could. Which makes sense: She’d bring foreign policy chops to the ticket that he lacks and, of course, racial and gender diversity, but a Team Bush ticket just four years after Dubya left office will make a lot of Republicans nervous. It’ll also compound his problem of having to explain why he should be trusted to right the fiscal ship of state when his old boss contributed to it listing in the first place. Ace also makes an interesting argument that Daniels, uniquely, might have problems putting a woman on the ticket because he’s already seen as a bit too deferential to his wife. I’m skeptical that that’s true: Men who question Daniels’s “toughess” probably won’t question it enough to be driven into the arms of Barack Obama, and meanwhile Condi might help lure women independents out of O’s camp. If Ace is right, though, I think it’s a problem specific to Daniels and his public image, not a problem with U.S. politics generally. A guy like, say, Fred Thompson who’s seen as an alpha male in all other respects could get away with being viewed as a deferential husband. A guy like Daniels, though? Maybe not. That’s a lame double standard, but retail politics is often lame. Besides, there are other reasons to think having Condi on the ticket would hurt him — and none of them have to do with gender.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 5:13 PM

Lol.

No, my first POTUS votes were for Bush 1. Not a perfect candidate, but better than the alternatives.

What a maroon…

cs89 on May 13, 2011 at 8:13 PM

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 7:54 PM

We all pass judgment on various things daily, so that in and of itself isn’t offensive to me. I considered your post independently from others and selected the portion which struck me as particularly grievous. Then I thanked LiG for replying better than I could have, personally. If that’s me judging you, well…OK.

My parents were engaged when they conceived me, and the ridicule of other Christians and her own family essentially crippled her. She spent her entire life hiding it while teaching me about Christ and working tirelessly at the crisis pregnancy center, no doubt to somehow atone for what she perceived as her own sin. Yet, if it weren’t for her education, I might have chosen a different route when I was raped and conceived my little boy. (An adorable 7 year old getting ready for bed at the moment.) All of this rambling is just to say that conservatives come from many walks of life. We rally around constitutional principles, limited government, personal responsibility and liberty.

But I appreciate your apology. :) Moving on…

Bee on May 13, 2011 at 8:18 PM

What a maroon…

cs89 on May 13, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Mmmmm…macaroons. Oh, wait.

cynccook on May 13, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Where were all you guys this morning when I was being pilloried for pointing out the American public does NOT vote for “little people” for POTUS and it’s an historical fact?

Marcus on May 13, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Do you think that impacts Palin and Bachmann?

GaltBlvnAtty on May 13, 2011 at 8:18 PM

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 7:50 PM

You’re not a conservative. You’re a religious zealot. Religion and conservatism are mutually exclusive, and you demonstrate that concept to a T.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 8:21 PM

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Belated thanks, honey. :)

Bee on May 13, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Religion and conservatism can be mutually exclusive, and you demonstrate that concept to a T.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Fixed.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 8:22 PM

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 8:22 PM

Yep. Ask DarkCurrent, he shames me at conservatism….

ladyingray on May 13, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Yep. Ask DarkCurrent, he shames me at conservatism….

ladyingray on May 13, 2011 at 8:26 PM

Great. On one side we’ve got petunia, the woman who forgives no child born out of wedlock(something they have no control over)…and on the other side we’ve got DarkCurrent, the proud philanderer who thinks fidelity is for suckers.

No wonder our candidate choices are so awful.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

You’re not a conservative. You’re a religious zealot. Religion and conservatism are mutually exclusive, and you demonstrate that concept to a T.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 8:21 PM

I am a religous zealot. But I don’t think religion and conservative are mutually exclusive.

I don’t even think you have to be religious to go to heaven. In fact I think some people have had really bad experiences and have perfectly good reasons to feel badly towards religion.

I hope however, that religion won’t sour you on God.

I was trying to put out there the typical conservative views because people keep acusing me of being liberal. I can’t win for losing!

But the fact that so many were so offended does prove one of my points: conservatives can be conservative without having to believe exactly the same as everyone else.

And most importantly, people should stop judging other people’s conservatism.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 8:35 PM

I am a religous zealot.

Kudos on your honesty.

And most importantly, people should stop judging other people’s conservatism.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 8:35 PM

Practice what you preach.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Great. On one side we’ve got petunia, the woman who forgives no child born out of wedlock(something they have no control over)…and on the other side we’ve got DarkCurrent, the proud philanderer who thinks fidelity is for suckers.

No wonder our candidate choices are so awful.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Once again. I am sorry that sounded like it did. Now you are just making fun of me… but it offends even me that someone would judge like I sounded I was judging… though I did think I was just expressing support for abstinence being include in sex ed…

Actually, I bet liberals feel this same kind of judgment when abortion and stuff comes up…

I’ve always thought we needed to word abortion arguments carefully because of that.

Oh there I go… who’s going to call me a liberal… such a roller coaster!

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 8:41 PM

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 8:29 PM

No fair to defraud DarkCurrent when he isn’t around to defend himself.

Not to mention, there is more than one way to be unfaithful…

ladyingray on May 13, 2011 at 8:41 PM

And most importantly, people should stop judging other people’s conservatism.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 8:35 PM

How about you start with yourself.

ladyingray on May 13, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Practice what you preach.

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 8:40 PM

Well in order to preach… I have been doing the opposite.

It is one of the things that set me off… when people start saying a candidate with a perfectly conservative record… is not conservative! That drives me nuts! Who gets to choose that? Nobody.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 8:43 PM

All of this rambling is just to say that conservatives come from many walks of life. We rally around constitutional principles, limited government, personal responsibility and liberty.

But I appreciate your apology. :) Moving on…

Bee on May 13, 2011 at 8:18 PM

This was my point.

But I keep getting called names because I don’t support Palin…

And your personal story… I have some of those in my family as well…

My husband was adopted, one of my sons is adopted… I have four sisters… lots of stories… I really wasn’t trying to say what it sounded like.

People just keep saying I’m not conservative! I am truly conservative… honest.

I just see others as conservative even if a decision or two they made was not.

Okay…. I lose this round….

I am only right about half the time anyway.

Oh great… a couple of month from now someone is going to pull out that comment and I will have to grovel again.

Such is the life of a non-Palinista… you must expect your words are kept in a hidden vault to be brought out when they think they can hurt you… or you are winning.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 8:50 PM

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 8:50 PM

I don’t think this is all about Palin. I’m a non Palinista (although a growing legit fan of hers, admittedly). I’ve suffered some brutal rounds in the ring, do trust. This is about what you said.

But, you know what? We all say some things we regret on here. I know I have. Not really worried about it. If what you’ve said is true, it’ll be evident in future comments. OK? :)

Bee on May 13, 2011 at 9:06 PM

when people start saying a candidate with a perfectly conservative record… is not conservative!

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Such as?

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Bee, God bless you.

bw222 on May 13, 2011 at 9:21 PM

But, you know what? We all say some things we regret on here. I know I have. Not really worried about it. If what you’ve said is true, it’ll be evident in future comments. OK? :)

Bee on May 13, 2011 at 9:06 PM

So when an old biddy like ladyingray who judges everyone who isn’t a Palinista contantly says I’m a poser that becomes the truth?

I didn’t judge any of you!!!! You judged me. I didn’t say anything personal about anyone. I stated typical conservative views they weren’t directed at anyone.

But look at the names I was called! Go back and read it.

And Madison… that goes for you to. I didn’t judge you. You judged me. Look at all the names just you called me.

I’m not offended at being called a religous zealot but you meant it to be mean. I said nothing mean to you either before or after.

But I’m the one who still has something to prove?

I will say ladyingray you are no lady.

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 9:24 PM

Such as?

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Yeah

ladyingray on May 13, 2011 at 9:26 PM

But I’m the one who still has something to prove?
petunia on May 13, 2011 at 9:24 PM

No. You’ve proved it.

rrpjr on May 13, 2011 at 9:26 PM

bw222 on May 13, 2011 at 9:21 PM

Thank you!

petunia on May 13, 2011 at 9:24 PM

I didn’t judge you. I judged your words, something which we do every time we read and respond to comments here.

Bee on May 13, 2011 at 9:30 PM

I’m holding out for a hero. Mitch Daniels ain’t it. Chris Christie damnsure isn’t.

Herman Cain, America is calling.

NTXLass on May 13, 2011 at 10:18 PM

I’m holding out for a hero.

NTXLass on May 13, 2011 at 10:18 PM

He’s gotta be fast and he’s gotta be strong and he’s gotta be larger than life?

alwaysfiredup on May 13, 2011 at 11:40 PM

Such as?

MadisonConservative on May 13, 2011 at 9:09 PM

Yeah

ladyingray on May 13, 2011 at 9:26 PM

A poser, an elitest, a self-righteous Christian, a religious zealot, someone who forgives no child born out of wedlock. I am offended at that.

All I did was say I went to church and my kids were not born out of wedlock… what does that have to do with anyone else at all.

How is the way I live my life a comment on how you live yours. I can respect you for making different choices than I do. My choices have nothing to do with you.

Lady said I was a poser at being conservative.

Someone is posing but it isn’t me.

Elections are won in the middle.

petunia on May 14, 2011 at 12:03 AM

I keep thinking Daniels will have a hard time getting the base to warm up to him, but if he hits them with this one-two endorsement punch, maybe not. Christie’s endorsement alone wouldn’t do it — he’s the guy who backed Mike Castle, after all — but toss in the hero of Wisconsin and suddenly there’s a lot of mojo working.

Sarah Palin has more “mojo” with the base than both of those combined. :D

HondaV65 on May 14, 2011 at 12:59 AM

Elections are won in the middle.

petunia on May 14, 2011 at 12:03 AM

Simplistic …

Elections are won by TAKING THE MIDDLE – not by pandering to it. Hell woman, the middle never knows what it wants – Conservatism or Socialism – they’ll vote for either one unless you give them a reason to vote CONSERVATIVE.

And to do that – you need a Conservative Candidate. Reagan wasn’t a squishy middle guy – yet he beat Carter in a friggin LANDSLIDE because Reagan WON THE MIDDLE OVER TO HIM. You don’t win the middle by trying to reflect THEIR views – they don’t know what their views are – that’s why they’re in the middle.

HondaV65 on May 14, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Elections are won by TAKING THE MIDDLE – not by pandering to it. Hell woman, the middle never knows what it wants – Conservatism or Socialism – they’ll vote for either one unless you give them a reason to vote CONSERVATIVE.

And to do that – you need a Conservative Candidate. Reagan wasn’t a squishy middle guy – yet he beat Carter in a friggin LANDSLIDE because Reagan WON THE MIDDLE OVER TO HIM. You don’t win the middle by trying to reflect THEIR views – they don’t know what their views are – that’s why they’re in the middle.

HondaV65 on May 14, 2011 at 1:02 AM

Post Of The Year.

NoNails on May 14, 2011 at 8:50 AM

America’s being set up…again.

kingsjester on May 14, 2011 at 9:25 AM

America’s being set up…again.

kingsjester on May 14, 2011 at 9:25 AM

The content of your link needs to be posted here for everyone to see. It says it all. Thanks.

Have you ever been set up for a blind date by people who claimed to care about you and were sure that they knew what was best for you?

When you asked them what this individual looked like, they said:

Oh, they’ve got a great personality.

Then, you probably asked:

Okay. So, what’s their personality like?

Scrambling for an answer, your friend or family member responded:

Hey, don’t worry about it. You’ll get along fine. After all, beggars can’t be choosers.

The Republican Elite, aided and abetted by the Main Stream Media, is attempting to set Americans up with a blind date.

His name is Mitch Daniels.

If you are like I used to be, until recently, you had a vague idea of who Mitch Daniels was, but that’s about it.

Allow me to introduce you.

Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. was elected as the 49th Governor of the State of Indiana in 2004, in his first bid for any elected office.

Governor Daniels came from a successful career in business and government, holding numerous top management positions in both the private and public sectors. His work as CEO of the Hudson Institute and President of Eli Lilly and Company’s North American Pharmaceutical Operations taught him the business skills he brought to state government. He also has served as Chief of Staff to Senator Richard Lugar, Senior Advisor to President Ronald Reagan and Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush.

Daniels’ first legislative success created the public-private Indiana Economic Development Corporation to replace a failing state bureaucracy in the mission of attracting new jobs. In each of its first four years of existence, the agency broke all previous records for new jobs in the state, and was associated with more than $18 billion of new investment. In 2008, Site Selection magazine and CNBC both named Indiana as the Most Improved State for Business in the country, and the state is now near the top of every national ranking of business attractiveness.

On his first day in office, Governor Daniels created the first Office of Management and Budget to look for efficiencies and cost savings across state government. In 2005, he led the state to its first balanced budget in eight years and, without a tax increase, transformed the $600 million deficit he inherited into an annual surplus of $370 million within a year.

Sounds pretty good, huh? Just like the description of a blind date.

Also, if you’re like me, you never really paid any attention to the diminutive (5’4″) Daniels, until he uttered this now-famous gaffe, as related and followed up on by John McCormack at weeklystandard.com on June 8, 2010:

Mitch Daniels told THE WEEKLY STANDARD’s Andy Ferguson that the next president “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until economic issues are resolved.

This morning, at the Heritage Foundation, I asked Daniels if that meant the next president shouldn’t push issues like stopping taxpayer funding of abortion in Obamacare or reinstating the Mexico City Policy banning federal funds to overseas groups that perform abortions. Daniels replied that we face a “genuine national emergency” regarding the budget and that “maybe these things could be set aside for a while. But this doesn’t mean anybody abandons their position at all. Everybody just stands down for a little while, while we try to save the republic.”

To clarify whether Daniels simply wants to de-emphasize these issues or actually not act on them, I asked if, as president, he would issue an executive order to reinstate Reagan’s “Mexico City Policy” his first week in office. (Obama revoked the policy during his first week in office.) Daniels replied, “I don’t know.“

Then, in an interview with nationalreview.com’s Michael Barone, posted October 11, 2010, Daniels came out in favor cutting our National Defense Budget:

As OMB director, Daniels was on the National Security Council, and as governor he’s visited Indiana troops around the world. He says, “It’s important to support the commander in chief” on Afghanistan. But he’s open to cuts in defense spending beyond those Defense Secretary Robert Gates has imposed. “No question that the system is rigged to overspend,” he says, “like health care. No question that defense dollars could be spent better.”

Finally, on October 15, 2010, politico.com reported the following:

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels opened the door Thursday to supporting both a value added tax [VAT] and a tariff on imported oil, bold proposals that could cause trouble for him with conservatives as he flirts with a long-shot bid for the presidency.

As we get closer to the 2012 Presidential Elections, and the GOP Elite and Main Stream Media get more desperate to maintain the status quo, Mitch Daniels is being singled out as their candidate of choice.

Just this week, while Mitt Romney doused himself with the gasoline known as Romneycare and lit a match, Daniels informed America that he was considering a Presidential run, but, first, he had to get his wife’s permission.

Also, this week, Daniels picked up an endorsement from Speaker of the House, Cryin’ John Boehner. Governors Chris Christie and Scott Walker also quietly snuck upon the bandwagon, privately pledging to lend their support, should Daniels decide to run.

Just as one evaluates accepting a blind date, so should one evaluate a potential presidential candidate.

Speaking for myself, the measurement of a presidential candidate will always be the three-legged stool of Reagan Conservatism: Fiscal Conservatism, Social Conservatism, and National Defense.

As exemplified by the three quotes in today’s post, Mitch Daniels doesn’t have a leg to stand on.

Elisa on May 14, 2011 at 1:59 PM

While I do not care about height, the general voting public has always subconsciously taken height into consideration. 5’4”? Is that true?

Daniels seems like a good man and would be far better than Obama. But we can’t take any chances in this election. He has too many strikes against him, including his wife leaving her 4 children for another man.

And then Newt’s 2 affairs and divorces. Repentance is valued and Newt has done a lot for this country. But his past will not fly with the American public.

The Republican elites need to wake up.

Sarah Palin is “unelectable?” But it seems every other male Republican’s drawbacks can be ignored? Right? We don’t have to worry about them being unelectable?

Elisa on May 14, 2011 at 2:01 PM

PS I’m from NJ.

While I get that Christie’s endorsement carries weight with some Conservative people around the country, conservatives here in NJ know he is only conservative on a few issues, because he had no other choice given the state of NJ’s economy. And I believe he got the inspiration and facts to go after the teacher’s union from Bret Schundler, a true conservative.

Not taking anything away from him for the good he’s done (to my pleasant surprise), but let’s not annoint him as our role model just yet. You will be in for a big disappointment long term.

Elisa on May 14, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Hope I didn’t sound too shrill

But I’m fit to be tied here with the Republican elites running the party telling me to “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.”

Elisa on May 14, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Perhaps we might mature enough someday to stop calling our slaughter of innocent pre-borns (and with Obama,post-borns) nice sounding deceit-filled phrases like “social issues.” It’s barbarity far below what most barbarians would do -most barbarians wouldn’t try to cover up what they do by calling it a good thing like “choice” It’s murder of the most helpless, most precious – not much different than all the henious dictators of the last century – except we’ve killed far more.

There is no other issue -including mere money -that supercedes the need to stop our evil. No one who speaks otherwise will ever get my vote.

Don L on May 14, 2011 at 4:18 PM

Elections are won in the middle.

But heaven is won anywhere else!

Don L on May 14, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Christie went after tea party people, strange he claims to be a conservative even has Coulter on his side. But to wants to see the republicans either loss or carry on the same policies as the current administration. If we are not going to get someone that will correct the direction of the country, we might as well leave Obama in the white house. Hopefully we can take the Senate and force Obama to do the right thing. He enjoys taking credit for other people work. So if conservatives take the senate and turn the country around Obama will jump on the band wagon and claim it was his plan all along.

pwb on May 15, 2011 at 8:31 AM

Look at the photo! Daniels next to Obama. I am sorry,
however, the contrast is huge and won’t fly with the televised debates.

Amjean on May 15, 2011 at 10:48 AM

TEA WARS II – Revenge of the RINOs.

Egfrow on May 16, 2011 at 5:51 AM

Not exactly a “dream ticket” but Daniels/Ryan

I think they would bring the budget under control, reduce the size of government, and ensure a 12-16 year small government executive branch.

Keith_Indy on May 16, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Christie’s endorsement alone wouldn’t do it — he’s the guy who backed Mike Castle, after all — but toss in the hero of Wisconsin and suddenly there’s a lot of mojo working

The problem with the hero of Wisconsin is he’s the hero of Wisconsin

When I first saw the headline, I confused him with Scott Brown of Massachusetts, a natural mistake from being paired with Christie.

It really happened.

Now, that;s some bad mojo.

Club GOP was probably humming, but my Lunz-o-meter took a dive. I actually lost a bit of admiration for Walker, because I have to figure what he has in common with Christie.

If it is a lot, oh boy. If it is little, then Walker intersects with the requirement of Club GOP, whose motto is “Anyone who has an agenda besides the economy is no friend of the GOP”

I know they are still fishing but the fish won’t swim to this bait. Bad mix. They could have kept Walker in stasis, like Scott Brown, for future use

entagor on May 16, 2011 at 3:39 PM

The Indiana SC justice who helped decide that our home is no longer our castle is a Daniels appointee. He didn’t exactly support Walker when he was under fire in WI, either. How many other hand wringer moment are in his past?

Kissmygrits on May 16, 2011 at 7:59 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3