Mitch Daniels (Or Someone Like Him!) for President

December 11, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (11)

By John A. Farrell, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

I am thrilled to see that the inestimable Steve Pearlstein has joined the "Mitch Daniels (Or Someone Like Him!) For President" movement, which had sadly lapsed during my sabbatical, and is in dire need of fuel.

In his column in this morning's Washington Post, Pearlstein raises the fanciful question of what would happen if grown-ups ran the United States Congress, instead of selfish children.

Pearlstein runs through a list of Daniels's accomplishments as a Reagan and Bush adviser and in his current job as the Republican governor of Indiana. And then, perhaps caught up in the spirit of the holiday season, Pearlstein wonders what might occur if this Mitch was leading the Republicans in the U.S. Senate, instead of the other Mitch—Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

In the debate over our remarkable but hideously expensive and flawed healthcare system, Daniels might actually act to improve things, writes Pearlstein, instead of chanting "No" at every opportunity, like McConnell and his Republican colleagues.

Imagine how good this historic legislation might be if the Republicans dropped their "Don't cut grandma's Medicare!" pose—and pose it is—and actually contributed to the debate. Imagine how reassured the country would be if a bill with real long-term cost controls passed the Senate with 70 or 75 votes. Imagine how independent voters would respond to a Republican who helped cut the federal deficit while saving them from the threat of losing their homes and life savings to catastrophic illness.

That's not McConnell. "The bad Mitch, as most Americans know by now, is the charming and shameless hypocrite who offers up a steady stream of stale ideology and snarky talking points but almost never a constructive idea. McConnell has decided that the only way for Republicans to win is for President Obama to lose, and he will use lies, threats and all manner of parliamentary subterfuge to obstruct," Pearlstein writes. "The Republican Party, along with the country, is likely to come out the losers as a result."

"The good Mitch"—Daniels—"is a principled but practical conservative who respects the intelligence of voters and would rather get something done than score political points," says the columnist.

Well, governors have to get things done, because that is what we pay them to do. And there used to be members of Congress who reached across the aisle to get things done for their fellow citizens—they even named buildings after them.

Not so much anymore.

Tags:
Mitch Daniels

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

That last comment- if that is a teacher and their spelling and grammar is that bad, surely you can see the need for reform. I live in Indiana and work as a teacher, and I see a lot of room for improvement in the schools.

I rarely care about politics or politicians, but i can honestly say- if this country was so lucky to have Mitch Daniels running it the way he has Indiana, we wouldn't be worrying about budget deficits that our grandchildren will have to pay off.

It would be so exciting to have a real President who would restore this country it's dignity and honor by doing the hard work and making the right decisions, someone who walks the walk and doesn't just talk the talk.

But we're not that lucky. And we're not smart enough to hire someone like that for the job. We elect faces, not brains. Thank God, here in Indiana we elected someone to take care of business, not just strut and posture. And while the country continues to spiral downhill, here in Indiana things aren't so bad.

Thank you, Mitch Daniels, for taking such good care of our state.

God Bless You.

Sherry Berntsen of IN 6:38AM June 24, 2010

Obviously, I'm a teacher from Indiana. I worry so much about some of Mitch's ideas about education in our state--thank goodness many of his ideas have been shot down. Why is it that he has more followers from other states than he does from Indiana? ...Maybe they don't know him yet. Lately there is more talk about Mitch Daniels cutting millions from education in Indiana. I know we are in financial trouble in this country (others too), but we can't cut monetary support for our future (out kids).

I'm gonna discuss small schools here because I teach at a high school of a little over 300 students and our scores in all categories are good or better than most. But, to allot money to only those schools that are doing well and make it more difficult for schools who happen to have a class testing average below the previous year, is proposterous! Does anyone really recognize that in a small school (about 100 or less in each class), "6 or so" students scoring low really affects the overall numbers on standardized tests. In fact some schools are put on probation because of "6 or so" students bringing down the numbers. My school has been doing well so far, but what if we get a class that has ALWAYS scored low on state tests? Having more learning challenged students all at once could jeopardize our funding. And as far as making class tests more challenging, I don't believe this will work--NOT ALL STUDENTS need chemistry, physics and advanced calculus. What they need are courses that will allow them to work after they graduate. Tougher course requirements are just going to produce more drop outs. More drop outs will affect whether small schools get" Mitch MONEY!" They don't need required courses that make them feel inferior and feel like failures....

Mitch has (in the past) pushed to make all school sizes comparable; that would help make these percentages more valid, but then there would have to be more schools built and more students driving farther distances to and from schools in rural communities. Just more problems for those of us in rural communities. Guess we will all have to live in specific areas near schools. Moreover, Mitch may be impressing many out-of-staters with his ideas, but here in the rural areas he does not seem to realize how these big ideas hurt the little people. --And we are supposed to support NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND--rural schools have kids too. I, for one, am trying my best to teach the "6 or so" kids who may bring down the scores. I have to! I have to spend so much time on those "6 or so," that maybe I'm leaving the better students bored and unchallenged...I know teachers are supposed to use diverse teaching methods (we try, but it is not as easy as it sounds). Unmotivated and weaker students wear all of us down as we try to keep them afloat. --The best students are the ones who will be leading our communities in the future, but the weaker students are determining who will get "Mitch Money."

23 years of teaching experience of IN 8:37PM January 07, 2010

Is either party correct? No. Did republicans author their own health care reform bill, yes. Did either party read the others version, NO. Dems didn't give Repubs the chance, and Dems refused to listen to the Rupubs. It is hard to be bipartisan when you lock the door on the other party (literally). Do Republicans whine a lot, yes. Do Dems lie a lot, they are either lying or have no clue. They all need to be replaced, and those of you who only see the opposing party of your allegiance as wrong and not your own, you are guilty yourself of not listening to ideals instead of dismissing them because they are not your own. Both parties had good ideas and bad for health care reform. Had the Dems listened to some instead of being children, something might have been done. Now we have a bill that is bad for all. Too bad we can't see each other as human beings and respect the fact that each is only trying to let their voice be heard. john, the Dems use foul mouth denigrations, publicly mind you, more often than Repubs. Hal, right on. Dems and Repubs alike are guilty. Jim, you are so correct. Both parties are so far from reality it is time to hit the refresh button. As a Hoosier who has lived under the status quoit for nearly 2 decades of bad Democrat policy, with the exception of Evan Bayh, I can say that Daniels' common sense non bickering policies are working, very well. If you want to see how a campaign and office should be run, he is the model. He never once gave Jill Thompson a degrading remark, called her a name, or dismissed her ideals during the election. He explained his ideas, incorporated new and stuck to the issues at hand. There was no mudslinging from his camp. He gets things done with cooperation and respect. We Hoosiers are very down to Earth common sense folk and that is why he won by a landslide. He laid out the problems, admitted he didn't have all of the answers, rolled up his sleeves and got to work. If only we could all follow his example.

Kris of IN 12:46PM December 30, 2009

John A. Farrell

John A. Farrell

John Aloysius Farrell is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. An award-winning Washington reporter, he has written for The Boston Globe and The Denver Post and is the author of Tip O’Neill and the Democratic Century and an upcoming biography of the great American defense attorney, Clarence Darrow.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Latest Videos

advertisement