Mitch Daniels: Well, Vice President might not be so bad…

posted at 3:25 pm on January 6, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

When the endless question of, “who are you backing in the primary” comes up, I’ve been one of those Eeyore types who sigh and think of the people who either dropped out too soon, (thanks, T-Paw!) or never threw their hat in the ring at all. Among the latter, one name seems to keep cropping up which may be making the news again soon. Brandon Kiser points us to a report out of Indiana involving a name we heard quite often last spring.

Occupants of the governor’s office always have a limited engagement. 2012 will be the last year that Mitch Daniels will occupy room 206 in the Statehouse. When asked if he will approach it differently, he says, “Gonna try not to. Gonna use every single day.”

While he concentrates on the task at hand there will be talk about what comes next. He’s ruled out a run for President but what about Vice President? Is that out of the question? “I don’t know,” the governor answers. “I’ve always felt that no citizen should say in advance if asked to serve, I won’t.”

As Brandon points out, Daniels brings a lot of portables to any such job application. A two term, highly successful governor presiding over solid jobs growth in his state, bipartisan popularity among voters and a rock solid record on addressing national budget and debt questions is bound to be attractive.

The downside? It would be a pick that flies in the face of the “conventional wisdom” which indicates that the eventual nominee (with Bachmann out of the race) is going to be a stereotypical, GOP ROWG. (Rich Old White Guy.) This would tend to support the theory that the nominee will be either a woman or somebody with more appeal to minority voters. (You can insert the names of Rubio, Palin, Susana Martinez and a host of others there.) There’s also the geography question to be considered, as in what swing states might Mitch bring to the table that others wouldn’t.

But if this really is the jobs jobs jobs election and focuses on the economy, Daniels is still a very solid offering. Is his wife OK with it? There were some unpleasant rumors running around while Daniels was originally considering a bid which hinted that family considerations would be an issue. But if he’s not at the top of the ticket, that may be greatly muted.

Of course, the final possibility is that Mitch’s answer in the interview was nothing more than it seemed. He may not even be interested in the position but wasn’t going to be rude enough to just say no to the idea that the next leader of the free world would call on him to serve. If he really doesn’t want to do it, that could easily be sorted out behind closed doors once the nomination is settled and the offer would never be made.

But for those who really wanted him to run originally… hope springs eternal, eh?

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

Is there an easier job in the world than debating Joe Biden?

NoDonkey on January 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Mitch Daniels Mitch Daniel’s wife: Well, Vice President might not be so bad…

portlandon on January 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

As Brandon points out, Daniels brings a lot of portables to any such job application. A two term, highly successful governor presiding over solid jobs growth in his state, bipartisan popularity among voters and a rock solid record on addressing national budget and debt questions is bound to be attractive.

Yeah, it would’ve been great if he had brought that resume to the presidential campaign instead of vying for Veep.

amerpundit on January 6, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Whom does Mitch have to ask for permission to accept the nomination for this office?

de rigueur on January 6, 2012 at 3:32 PM

I’ve always thought a midwestern guy like Daniels or Pawlenty would be a complementary vp nominee for Perry, if Rubio wouldn’t do it .

juliesa on January 6, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Is there an easier job in the world than debating Joe Biden?

NoDonkey on January 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Meghan McCain could do it. With half her brain tied behind her back, just to make it fair.

Lily on January 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

He’d be a solid pick, but he wouldn’t really add anything to the ticket. Indiana is all but a lock for the GOP candidate anyway.

Doughboy on January 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

No. Mitch doesn’t have significant foreign policy experience.

Unless someone wishes to show me otherwise. I can be persuaded. I “like” Mitch over Mitt for the Presidency role.

Midwestprincesse on January 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Run, Mitch, run! You can always find a new wife in the course of the campaign. Just look at Newt. :)

Archivarix on January 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

But for those who really wanted him to run originally… hope springs eternal, eh?

He’d probably be sitting fairly pretty going into NH had he decided to run.

Shame. Damned shame…

JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Good one NoDonkey!

chickie on January 6, 2012 at 3:36 PM

But…he doesn’t yell, run his mouth constantly and say unnecessarily inflammatory things! He’s not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE!

therightwinger on January 6, 2012 at 3:36 PM

The only considerations for the VP pick should be:

a) projects an image of competence/statesmanship
b) won’t commit many gaffes and scare away people
c) compensates the perceived weakest points of the candidate in terms of policy experience (that and nothing else: not gender or ideology or religion or etc.)

The identity/geographical/ideological criteria are a bunch of crap. Look at the history of successful VP picks. You go safe and bland. That always works. The VP pick doesn’t really get many votes, but it can lose them.

So yeah, Mitch Daniels would be a pretty decent choice.

I’d rather take Chris Christie though.

It’ll probably be McDonnell, which is also a decent choice.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 3:38 PM

I wouldn’t hold it against him, but you know the MFM will.

Is there an easier job in the world than debating Joe Biden?

NoDonkey on January 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Nicely done.

Dead Hand Control on January 6, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Nope and thanx for not playing, Mitch!

Valkyriepundit on January 6, 2012 at 3:38 PM

I’m down for that.

DanStark on January 6, 2012 at 3:38 PM

No, and I mean he!! no! If I have to suffer and hold my nose at the top of the ticket, I don’t want to do it for the bottom of the ticket as well!

melle1228 on January 6, 2012 at 3:39 PM

I like Mitch. He’d be a good pick.

darwin on January 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

But…he doesn’t yell, run his mouth constantly and say unnecessarily inflammatory things! He’s not a TRUE CONSERVATIVE!

therightwinger on January 6, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Hahah, good one.

Fully agreed.

Levin, Rush and Tina will hate him. He’s not strident, he never sounds angry and doesn’t even talk about God forcefully.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

The identity/geographical/ideological criteria are a bunch of crap. Look at the history of successful VP picks. You go safe and bland. That always works. The VP pick doesn’t really get many votes, but it can lose them.

Except in the election of 2008.

Midwestprincesse on January 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Lily on January 6, 2012 at 3:35 PM

i think the vp debate dates and taping of NBC’s The Biggest Loser are the same time, so she’s out unfortunately.

GhoulAid on January 6, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Levin, Rush and Tina will hate him. He’s not strident, he never sounds angry and doesn’t even talk about God forcefully.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

If Mitt wins, he will need an excitement VP. Mitch is not that excitement candidate.

Midwestprincesse on January 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Too late, whipped boy.

CurtZHP on January 6, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Oh please let us keep Susana Martinez in NM . Gonna’ take a long time to clean up the state
after Richardson .

Lucano on January 6, 2012 at 3:47 PM

If Mitt wins, he will need an excitement VP. Mitch is not that excitement candidate.

Midwestprincesse on January 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

I’m pretty excited about voting against the smoldering crapstack the Democrats are running.

NoDonkey on January 6, 2012 at 3:47 PM

He’d make a good VP. But I don’t see him generating any excitement among the people who will need to be excited by a Romney nomination.

angryed on January 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Sorry Mitch married a whore and she wears the pants. She wouldn’t be happy having her home wrecking indiscretions aired on the network news after all those Bain Capital ruined my life hit pieces.

bannor on January 6, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Concur with many others. The VP must be the attack dog and have tremendous Tea Party cred. Daniels is not even a possibility.

matthew8787 on January 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Too nice of a guy…

… Whomever the VP pick is, he is going to have to be fearless of the press while taking the fight to Obowma and Biden.

Seven Percent Solution on January 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM

He’s not strident, he never sounds angry and doesn’t even talk about God forcefully.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Nope.

Just goes out and gets the job done.

JohnGalt23 on January 6, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Dumb. As dumb as picking Quayle was for Bush 1. As dumb as picking someone from Wyoming as your GOPVP. You’re gonna carry those states anyway. If you don’t you’re losing very big and it doesn’t matter.

You’re also admitting, like Obama when he picked Biden, that you don’t know much about, well, anything as to how Washington works. It’s a waste of Daniels, who should have a cabinet post were the GOP to win.

Now, Gov Susana Martinez of New Mexico: that’s a smart pick. Swing state, woman, Latino. There you’re getting something.

str8tface on January 6, 2012 at 3:56 PM

All you clowns making fun of Daniels for putting family before politics are just silly.

Ezekiel37 on January 6, 2012 at 3:57 PM

If Mitt wins, he will need an excitement VP. Mitch is not that excitement candidate.

Midwestprincesse on January 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

This. We don’t need TWO soggy potato chips on the ticket!!

SouthernGent on January 6, 2012 at 3:57 PM

If Mitt wins, he will need an excitement VP. Mitch is

not that excitement candidate.

Midwestprincesse on January 6, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Excitement?

We’re electing politicians, not talk-show hosts or pastors.

To me, a combo of competence, knowledge and accomplishment of a conservative agenda is excitingly enough. What exactly do you need? If you need anything else, I think that Mitch isn’t the one with an excitement problem. You are.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM

No thank you 8itch…Mitch!
You did not want to play!
Rather have Newt, Rube, Rick, Bach…
We don’t need you now-you don’t have our permission!

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM

Mitch Daniels is a non-starter. He is not even Tim Pawlenty. Romney needs Sarah Palin.

CoolChange80 on January 6, 2012 at 4:01 PM

You “Fiscal Cons/Libertarians/Moderates/Libs” do realize that Christians make up 75% of this country don’t you? And since Conservatives are the majority political ideology and Chrstians are the overwhelming religious ideology, that means that the “SoCons” (i.e., Reagan Conservatives) that you are so dismissive of, actually outnumber you…greatly. Chew on that.

kingsjester on January 6, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I’m pretty excited about voting against the smoldering crapstack the Democrats are running.

NoDonkey on January 6, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Excited enough to put in tireless hours in a Mitt campaign HQ? That’s what you’re going to need to do.

Excitement?

We’re electing politicians, not talk-show hosts or pastors.

To me, a combo of competence, knowledge and accomplishment of a conservative agenda is excitingly enough. What exactly do you need? If you need anything else, I think that Mitch isn’t the one with an excitement problem. You are.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM

VP is merely a fancy PR position. Any R could do it.

Midwestprincesse on January 6, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Depends whom the presidential nominee is. His record is pretty good. The media are such
fools, however, that they would concentrate their time on
his wife’s past marital history. Which might give a break to
the presidential nominee.

I am getting to the point where I don’t “give a rat’s a$$!”.
Just want it all over with so we can concentrate on defeating
Obama. I would like his record and personal faults to be
aired like dirty laundry for all the world to see. Someone
has to have the balls to do it.

Amjean on January 6, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Heaven help us if he were to take his state education czar with him to the federal level.

But hey, if he extrapolates his I-80 toll road philosophy to the entire interstate system, maybe we can trade some of our debt. Except that we’ll be paying some foreign country for the priviledge to use the roads that we built.

First we dribble around the yard latching on to the latest candidate that we know nothing about. Then comes the inevitable unlatch after spending a week infatuated.

It looks like we deserve the choice of Obama v. Romney.

Carnac on January 6, 2012 at 4:19 PM

Yes, Willard will ask a very special lady from Alaska to be his running mate. He knows the base and he knows he needs somebody to bring energy and excitment to the ticket. But I think in the end Murkowski will decline.

Valkyriepundit on January 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM

I’ve never heard of Susana Martinez, so I wikied her.

She’s Hispanic (first Hispanic, female Gov in the US too…remember it’s only “historic” if you’re a Democrat), Republican, pro-life, opposes ssm, supports balanced budgets and is from what I can tell popular and doing well for New Mexico.

Now I know why I’ve never heard of her.

mapper on January 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Is his wife OK with it? There were some unpleasant rumors running around while Daniels was originally considering a bid which hinted that family considerations would be an issue.

Why should I care if he’s the number two? He’s still doing the bidding of Mitt Romney (who we all know is the real #2.) Mitch Daniels should have run. He didn’t — or, rather, Mrs. Daniels said no.

Mitt will play identity politics by picking a woman, a minority, or both.

SAMinVA on January 6, 2012 at 4:29 PM

You “Fiscal Cons/Libertarians/Moderates/Libs” do realize that Christians make up 75% of this country don’t you? And since Conservatives are the majority political ideology and Chrstians are the overwhelming religious ideology, that means that the “SoCons” (i.e., Reagan Conservatives) that you are so dismissive of, actually outnumber you…greatly. Chew on that.

No, they don’t. Lots and lots of people identify as “Christian” but that doesn’t mean that Christianity has a damn thing to do with how they vote. Religion is just a cultural signifier for a huge number of people, they don’t think or even care that much about it.

Also, “Reagan Conservative” is by no means synonymous with “SoCon”. Reaganism is a direct outgrowth of Golderwaterism, and Goldwaterism didn’t have anything at all to do with religion. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Henry on January 6, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Did Truce clear this with his wife yet?

If not, its meaningless.

Norwegian on January 6, 2012 at 4:31 PM

If Mitt is the candidate, I don’t want him to ask Palin to run as his V.P. I don’t think she would do it anyhow, but remember how McCain’s crew held her down? You think Mitt would allow her to run her way? With the way he likes to play everything so safe? He’d be terrified of Sarah….she might bring some much needed energy to a lifeless campaign and he couldn’t have that. He’s as exciting as a mushroom.

MONACO1121 on January 6, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Daniels? No thanks. Indiana can keep him.

Stoic Patriot on January 6, 2012 at 4:32 PM

No doubt the Mrs. McDaniels will enjoy a campaign for vice president much more than she ever would have enjoyed the presidential campaign she put the halt to for personal reasons.

Vice presidential candidates and their families are never put through the wringer the presidential candidates are.

Right, Sarah? Bristol? Trig?

Lily on January 6, 2012 at 4:32 PM

He’d make a good VP. But I don’t see him generating any excitement among the people who will need to be excited by a Romney nomination.

angryed on January 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM

THIS. An old bald white guy from the midwest is not going to help the RINO nominee at all. He may cream Biden in their debate, but I don’t see him much as an attack dog. But then, we all got spoiled w/ Palin.

I keep going back to Suzanna Martinez.. Hispanic woman Governor from a swing state.

davek70 on January 6, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Now I know why I’ve never heard of her.

mapper on January 6, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Palin endorsed her. She spoke at an event in great support for Martinez too.

Midwestprincesse on January 6, 2012 at 4:46 PM

He’d make a good VP. But I don’t see him generating any excitement among the people who will need to be excited by a Romney nomination.

angryed on January 6, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Well if we are going to go by this criteria, then clearly, the only possible person is Meghan McCain.

She can beat Biden handily in a debate. They both speak the same language after-all. And, as he showed during debates with Sarah Palin, he is easily dazzled by a pretty face. A pretty face along with a hefty set of honkers will probably cause him to collapse completely.

And, she will bring in the twit vote, which as we all know, broke heavily toward Obama in 2008.

I can’t believe no one has thought of this before.

Lily on January 6, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Excitement?

We’re electing politicians, not talk-show hosts or pastors.

To me, a combo of competence, knowledge and accomplishment of a conservative agenda is excitingly enough. What exactly do you need? If you need anything else, I think that Mitch isn’t the one with an excitement problem. You are.

joana on January 6, 2012 at 3:58 PM

you do realize that if the republican ticket just has two boring people on it, going up against the charismatic obama, people who many not pay as much attention to politics and are easily influenced by personality/image will be more likely to be swaywd toward obama, right? you really think two boring people can beat obama, with his flashy hope and change rhetoric and 90% of the media on his side helping him out? come on. i wouldn’t mind mitch as VP i guess but i think we could find someone better than him.

Sachiko on January 6, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Is there an easier job in the world than debating Joe Biden?

NoDonkey on January 6, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Unless you have to look to your wife… for the answers.

KOOLAID2 on January 6, 2012 at 5:11 PM

Mitch is another with a very solid, strong record. I wanted him for POTUS & I’d definitely take him for VP.

Recon5 on January 6, 2012 at 5:18 PM

I like Mitch Daniels. He’s my governor. HOWEVER, I want there to be continuity built into the GOP ticket unlike the Bush/Cheney ticket. Mitch Daniels didn’t want to be POTUS this time. Would he be willing/able in 2020? I want our next GOP candidate to have two full terms and then be succeeded by the VP.

I want Marco Rubio or Allen West. That would seal the deal!

Oink on January 6, 2012 at 5:31 PM

Oh Mitch, you were always my first choice.

southernms on January 6, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Mithch for VP?

No.

This will not attract those that are disenfranchised.

so-notbuyingit on January 6, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Sorry Mitch…. you were needed by you country and your party and you turned down the job…. Eff off.

roux on January 6, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Daniels would have been a very good candidate..I wish he would have run..:)

Dire Straits on January 6, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Dire Straits on January 6, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Me too. He would be a great Veep choice for Mitt but like you, I was really hoping that he would vie for the top spot.

MJBrutus on January 6, 2012 at 6:26 PM

MJBrutus on January 6, 2012 at 6:26 PM

He would be a good choice for VP also..:)

Dire Straits on January 6, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Among the people who were talked about for president last spring, Daniels was and is the only one I would be happy to vote for.

burt on January 6, 2012 at 8:33 PM

Daniels should read the comments on this post.

burt on January 6, 2012 at 8:36 PM

Mitch Daniels is a non-starter. He is not even Tim Pawlenty.

CoolChange80 on January 6, 2012 at 4:01 PM

+1000

catquilt on January 6, 2012 at 9:23 PM

By the way, Romney’s Lt Gov was a woman, a bland, country-club Republican. Her nickname became Muffy (and she was pro-choice).

catquilt on January 6, 2012 at 9:26 PM