Mitch Daniels R.I.P.

See my previous article about John Thune. No, it is not just Repubilcan Senators that I tend to despise as estabishhment stooges. Some governors annoyo me a lot. I was ahead of the curve on Charlie Crist of Florida--criticizing him as a possible McCain VP well before he exposed himself as a LEFTIST turncoat in the 2010 elction. Bobby Jindal has disappointed me--not so much with his performance as governor but in his unwillingness to speak out on Obama, ObamaCare and leftist Democrats in general. Yes, he is a governor, but if he wanted to be taken seriously on a national level, he has FAILED. And, living in Texas, I know all about our governor: Rick Perry. Perry is an opportunist, rather than a princiipled conservative, and I would not vote for him for any national office. I disavoed George W. Bush entirely in 2006, but I said from the beginning that Bush was NOT a conservative. Perry is in the Bush mold, except much worse in his cynical opportunism. I will do better with Prry than I did with Bush--although I still can't regret vooing for Bush against the truly terrible Gore and Kerry--as I disavow Perry NOW. Tim Pawlenty (sp.?) leaves me cold, although I don't know enough about him to disavow him. Yet, this article is not about any of those. It is about Mitch Daniels.

Mitch Daniels has been a reasonably effective governor of Indiana (as Perry as been in Texas, where the governor has limited power in any case). But I am still willing to make these flat statements about Daniels (the same statements I made with regard to Thune): Mithc Daniels will never be President of the United States. Further, he will never be nominated to be President of the United States. And I will never vote for him for the office, in a primary or general election.

Why not? It is the same reason I refused to vote for John McCain, even against Barack Obama. Daniels strikes me as more comfortable CRITICIZING conservatives than in pushing conservative ideas. I am no longer willing to vote for such a person. President Bush was the last one. Further, Daniels has to have the LEAST CHARISMA of any person I have ever seen. I saw him interviewed for the first--and probably only, since once was enough for me--time a few days ago. I fave seen few politicians so unimpressive, and I AGREED with most of what he said. Bush was articulate in comparison, and I thought I could never say that about any politician.

But I was down on Daniels before the interview, although somewhat open to having gotten the wrong impression. It started with an article by the Anti-American, Despicable Associated Press""--really more than one article. One article said that Daniels had PRAISED tose Indiana Democrats as "people of conscience" for leaving the sate in support of their beliefs, although he was confident they would see the light and come back. Well, Daniels DENIED that he said that, although admitting that he said something not very clearly (which the interview I saw indicates is all too posssible, since the man says nothing very clearly). Daniels says he was talking about PROTESTERS as people of conscience, and that he has always condemned the legislators who abandoned their duty. I am still on my Sodom and Gomorrah search for an honest AP reporter, and have not yet found one. So I can't say Daniels is wrong. I can say he was not overly convincing.

The other issue involves Daniels's support for the coservatives in his own legislature. The Indiana House (whatever they call it) was poised to take up a "right to work" bill, and apparently had the votes to pass it. That is when Democrats fled the state like theeves in the night. Well, Daniels had pretty much sabotaged his fellow Repubilcans--NOT really on grounds of principle but on the grounds that they were putting the things in which Daniels really believed in jeopardy (a left handed way of saying that Daniels did not consider a "right to work" bill as very important). To me, and I trust my judgment on this after correcxtly evaluating numberous Repubican politcians in the past. Daniels came across as a politician mainly interested in HIMSELF--more than he was interested in either principle or not saying things in a way that throw conservatives under the bus (which he could have done, in terms of saying things differently, but did not). Nope. Daniels, I believe, is another dead politician walking, as to any national aspirations.

You say I am tooo much of a "purist" on conservatives--that no one can meet my standards. You are wrong. Texas has--for a long time--had a "right to work" bill. That kind of bill hurts PRIVATE unions because it allows workers to "opt out" of paying dues, and belonging to a unioin, even if lthe union has been certified to bargain for them. The argument is that no one should be FORCED to join a union and pay dues. The opposite argument is that a union should not be foreced to bargain for people--helping them out--while those people get a "free ride". I am MILDLY in favor of "right to work" laws, but it is not a big issue with me. You might say I am pretty much on the same page as Mitch Daniels as to the importance of "right to work" leglistation for a state that does not already have such a law. Doen't matter.

It is the WAY in which Daniels approached the "controversy" in his state that I can't tolerate. He seemed unwilling to stand up to anybody, or for anything, except where he thought he was on totally solid ground. He seemed--like McCain before him--to worry more about criticism from the media than about principle. He seemed willing to call conservatives "unreasonable" at the drop of a hat, even if I might agree wwith him on the substantive issue. It is not a matter of being a "purist" at all. It is a matter os seeing too many Republicans whose main rpinciple is THEMSELVES, and a philosophy of government not based on principle but on their establishment ability to "manage" government better than the Democrats (although these Republicans have little, in principle, against Big Government).

Nope. Stick a fork in him. Mitch Daniels may remain a big force in Indiana politics. Nationally, he is DONE.

P.S. Note, as usual, that the above was neither proofread nor spell checked (eyesight). Note, also, that I may somethimes forget to put this P.S., but--until further notice--EVERY article on this blog has this same problem. I once thought I might take action to get someone else to help me revise and proofread the articles, but I am increasingly convinced that is not going to happen. Thus, even if I omit this P.S., inadvertentlly, you can assume the situation remains unchanged unless I announce otherwise.