Why are potential presidential candidates like Mike Huckabee and Mitch Daniels not running for president? It’s not because the reelection of Obama is a certainty. In 2008, then-candidate Obama received the best media coverage in the modern era. The press couldn’t be bothered to look into the history of the most inexperienced candidate to ever be elected. Does anyone expect the media to relent in 2012? The left has too much invested in the empty suit.
With the White House approaching $1 billion to spend on the 2012 election, who would want to go through that? The press spends considerable time obsessing about Sarah Palin or any other Republican deemed to be a threat to the left. Any potential candidate has to recognize that running against Obama is going to be difficult. John Podhoretz has more:
So why is this happening? Simple. You’ve probably heard that the president and his team are looking to raise $1 billion to run on in 2012. They may make it; they may not. But what is that money to be spent on? He won’t have to spend it in a primary, it looks like. So that means the Obama team will have hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars to spend with one object and one object only: Destroy the eventual Republican nominee. Go after him. Drag his name through the mud. Run commercials every 15 seconds in six battleground states in which he removes wheelchairs from Medicare patients and grabs checks from Social Security recipients.
This isn’t speculation. It is a certainty. President Obama doesn’t have a popular legislative record to run an issues-based campaign. Whatever goodwill was left about killing Osama Bin Laden was burned up after Obama’s nationwide victory tour. Think I’m wrong? Why is the Obama campaign digging for dirt on Chris Christie? Christie probably isn’t even going to run for president. Is it really surprising that Mitch Daniels’ wife is apprehensive about her husband running for president?
Brad Pitt is in the BP execution business, and business is booming.
The Right Stuff: The Economist picks up where I left off last week with a puff piece on Indiana governor Mitch Daniels. The article sheds some light on Daniels’ positions and challenges ahead if he wants to run for President.
More problematic, it is unclear that a clever, measured candidate stands a chance within the Republican Party. Neo-cons are allergic to talk of defence cuts. Social conservatives were rabid after Mr Daniels, anti-abortion himself, told the Weekly Standard that he favoured a temporary truce on social issues. “It just happens to be what I think,” he says, arguing that politicians need to unite on urgent matters of national security and debt. He is also unlikely to fire up tea-partiers. “Didn’t somebody say in a different context, ‘Anger is not a strategy’?” he asked your correspondent over a rare plate of steak and chips.
This attitude is refreshing, but I think The Economist is right.
Time to Raise Taxes: What’s the difference between institutional Democrats and Republicans? I’m not so sure, but both groups seem primed to raise taxes because they’re incapable of reducing the size of government. Veronique de Rugy at The Corner discusses this problem.
Even the Republicans, as a party, haven’t come out with a list of things, a list of agencies or programs, to cut. We shouldn’t consider raising taxes until we have cut spending, which shouldn’t be that hard with a $3.8 trillion budget (roughly $1.8 trillion larger than in FY 2000). Are we claiming that this $1.8 trillion increase since 2000 all went to indispensable programs that should never be cut?
Avatar: Special Edition: Didn’t catch Avatar the first time around? Well, James Cameron’s visually stunning but ultimately boring movie is being re-released. I can’t imagine sitting through it again. The special effects were amazing, but this movie will be largely forgotten in ten years. The story just isn’t compelling. Save your money and catch Pocahontas on the Disney Channel sometime instead.
The Breaking Point: You know a story has reached its full saturation point when a political science expert like Roger Ebert takes time to write about the Ground Zero Mosque. He takes time to rip Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck while at the same time citing Mein Kampf. Can Ebert just stick to reviewing movies? Oh, wait… he’s not even good at that either.
Capital Punishment: Typically, Hollywood liberals are opposed to the death penalty. The movie, The Life of David Gale is a fine example. Well, actually it’s not a good example. The idiots that put that film together were obviously anti-capital punishment, but the move actually made me wish David Gale was executed earlier in the movie. Anyway, I digress. It appears Brad Pitt is now in favor of capital punishment… for those responsible for the oil spill.
Actor Brad Pitt, whose Make it Right project has spearheaded efforts to build 150 affordable and sustainable homes in the Big Easy’s hard-hit Lower Ninth Ward, is prominently featured. Reflecting on those responsible for the oil spill, Pitt can barely contain his contempt.
“I was never for the death penalty before,” he says. “I am willing to look at it again.”
There simply isn’t enough intelligence in the world to cure Pitt’s idiocy. With all due respect, can we put Pitt to death for Legends of the Fall?
Many of the players in 2012 are already household names. Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin are embedded in the American consciousness (or is it consciousless?); however, Americans might be longing for an outsider, a fresh face or both of the above. One such person is Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. There have been a few whispers of a 2012 run for Daniels, but outside the beltway most Americans have no idea who he is.
Daniels fits the presidential mold. He went to school at Princeton and got a law degree from Georgetown. During the Bush administration Daniels served at the Office of Management and Budget and was a member of the Homeland Security Council and National Security Council. He might run as an outsider, but it’s not like he hasn’t had experience in Washington.
As Governor of Indiana Mitch Daniels has shined. In 2008, he was named one of the top eight best public servants. To get an idea of how popular Daniels is in Indiana he won his bid for reelection in 2008 by 18 points. That’s an impressive margin of victory in a Democratic year.
As we all know, a major part of the presidency is communication. Here’s an impromptu speech by Daniels on ObamaCare from last year.
Awesome sweater. Sounds like he fits the part to me. He communicates much better than Tim Pawlenty. Daniels has all the tools to be a successful chief executive, but Republican Party politics are tricky to maneuver. However, there’s really no clear consensus on who the front-runner is for the 2012 nomination. Romney would be a shoe-in but his biggest achievement as governor of Massachusetts is an ObamaCare like bill that he passed. Sarah Palin just doesn’t have enough experience to be president. There is an opening there if someone wants to take it. How seriously does Daniels want the job? We’ll find out in 12 months.
I don’t really know enough about Daniels at this point to get excited. On the other hand, there’s nothing about the current crop of hopefuls that’s very exciting either. After the mid-terms, expect the presidential speculation to start heating up.
Recent Comments