By Mona Charen

Mitch Daniels might challenge Obama in 2012; the GOP would be lucky to have him.

On the morning of November 5, 2008, the world rocked to news that the United States had elected Barack Obama to the presidency. That same morning, Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana, joined the list of those most often mentioned as potentially defeating President Obama in 2012.

In what may be a sign of unusual mental health and emotional balance, Daniels persistently declined to be considered a candidate. Among his many reasons, he told C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb, was reluctance to subject his family to the “savagery” of presidential politics. It is great news for the country, if not for him, that he has at last relented and agreed to keep the door open — if only a crack.

He earned his spot on the short list of possibilities the hard way: In a quicksand year for Republicans, he managed to win reelection as governor by 18 points (in a state Obama carried). His supporters included 24 percent of Democrats, 20 percent of African-Americans, 51 percent of the youth vote, 67 percent of the elderly, and 57 percent of independents.

When Daniels took office in 2005, Indiana, which had been enduring Democratic governors for 16 years, was running an $800-million deficit. Four years later, it had a $1.3-billion surplus. Daniels accomplished this without raising taxes (as 66 percent of states have done); in fact, he passed the largest tax cut in state history. Nor did he cut essential services like education, as 40 states have done. As Mark Hemingway reported in National Review, “In the last three years, the state has repaid $760 million to schools and local governments that had been appropriated to finance the state’s deficit spending.” Additionally, Indiana has hired 800 new child-welfare caseworkers and 250 state troopers, all while cutting the rate of increase in state spending from 5.9 to 2.8 percent annually.

Daniels has successfully courted business investment and has welcomed “two Toyota plants, a Honda factory, a $500-million Nestlé facility, and a British Petroleum project that will bring $3.8 billion to the state.”

This is a laboratory of successful conservative governance. As Daniels put it to NR, “Our health-care plan is health savings accounts for poor people. Our telecommunications policy is deregulation. Our infrastructure policy was the biggest privatization in state history.” And his spending policy was less is more.

A former chief of the Office of Management and Budget (under George W. Bush), Daniels is known for his incisive mind and mastery of detail. In addition to government service — he also worked as an aide to Sen. Richard Lugar and as Ronald Reagan’s political director — Daniels has headed a conservative think tank, the Hudson Institute, and served as president of Eli Lilly’s North American operations.

This is not a slick, packaged politician. Daniels writes his own speeches — and they are thoughtful, substantive exercises — and even pens the content of his political ads. His demeanor is friendly, and his posture is forward-looking. He has never run a negative ad. He is a conservative, but not of the grievance variety.

In style, Daniels is low-key and witty without being arrogant. In his first run for governor he traveled the state on his motorcycle or in his motor home, spending the night as the guest of ordinary Hoosiers. His self-deprecating humor made his travels into a popular show — MitchTV — still available on YouTube. He treats every voter, supporter or not, with respect. And he’s not above enjoying himself at a state fair — his wife won a watermelon-seed-spitting contest at one.

He’s been called the “anti-Obama,” but the contrast is not in style. Both men are poised, intelligent, and well-spoken. The most glaring contrast aside from philosophy is Daniels’s wealth of experience and record of governing success.

Daniels has offered the view that a Republican candidate in 2012 must present a credible plan for solving the spending, deficit, and debt crisis the country is in and campaign to “govern, not just to win.”

He’d rather see someone else do it, which is understandable. He promised Hoosiers he would serve out his term and feels duty-bound to abide by his promise. But Daniels has a combination of traits — broad experience, wisdom, skill, and likeability — that are rarer than rare. Surely Hoosiers would release him from his promise if he asked — if we all asked.

Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Courtesy, National Review

3 Responses to “The Anti-Obama?”

1. sue says:

   March 2, 2010 at 8:49 am

   In order to run, Mitch Daniels will have quit the governorship whereby leaving him vunerable to the onslaught of media attacks that he is a QUITTER!

   I will also note that Mitch Daniels has yet to go through the multitude of Marxist lawyers who will dig into every nook and cranny of Mitch Daniels existence to find some skeleton in his closet. Not to mention the multitude of bogus ethic violations he will be forced to confront.

   One main problem with the Republican Establishment plus George Will’s ‘Highly Educated Whites’ is that both always fail to understand that the Left is vicious nor do they understand the Left’s playbook.

   I am not convinced Mitch Daniels has the guts or the nerve to take on the Left; I hope he comes out swinging hard because he will be crucified in an instant.

   Once Mitch Daniels is demonized by the Left, the Highly Educated Whites will against him.

   .
2. sue says:

   March 2, 2010 at 8:56 am

   Correction:

   Once Mitch Daniels is demonized by the Left, the Highly Educated Whites will turn against him.

   Adding; if there is one character trait about the Cult of WF Buckley it is this, Highly Educated Whites in the Cult of WF Buckley cannot stand being associated with the ‘uneducated low-brow’ crowd which makes up the base of the Conservative Party.

   .
3. sue says:

   March 2, 2010 at 9:02 am

   One other point about the Cult of WF Buckley with it’s brigade of Highly Educated Whites; if the Cult was effective in ’standing thwart history yelling stop then there would be no need for the Tea Party Movement.

   The Cult of WF Buckley was so ineffective at ’standing thwart history yelling stop’ that America ended up with one of the most extreme Left-wing government in America’s history.