The Unfortunate Non-Candidacy of Mitch Daniels

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on May 22, 2011

I am, of course, very disappointed that Mitch Daniels decided not to run for President. I certainly understand and appreciate his concerns regarding his family, and how they may have been affected by a Presidential run; much of Daniels’s supposed “dithering” has in fact been deliberation and care in trying to decide whether a campaign would have been right for his family. Others appear to like having their preferred Presidential candidates jump into the race with both feet, without much care or concern over whether the initiation of a candidacy is the right thing to do under the circumstances, but as per usual with Daniels, he decided to be more intelligent and thorough in the process of making a decision. I applaud his outlook, and his healthy sense of humility–not to mention his appreciation of the gravity of the decision he had to make. I only wish that the decision had been a “yes.”

I don’t know what is in the future for Daniels; he is term-limited in his current job, so next year, there will be a race for Governor of Indiana that will not feature him as a candidate. I can only hope, however, that this highly intelligent, conscientious, substance-oriented patriot will somehow find himself in a position where he can render service to the country.

  • Anonymous

    Family? Seriously? Mitch hasn’t got any fire and to deflect he uses the most tired excuse in politics? Pitiful, and an almost sure sign he’s done in politics when his term ends. So long and thanks for all the fish, Mitch.

    • Pejman Yousefzadeh

      Since you have such a fascinating, supernatural insight into Governor
      Daniels’s motivations, surely you can write a blockbuster story for major
      newspapers busting his whole “tired excuse” wide open.

      • Anonymous

        The “family” excuse is employed with such regularity in politics to cover up the real reason for something that it’s even been used and lampooned in popular culture (television shows, movies, etc.). There’s nothing supernatural about that.

        • Pejman Yousefzadeh

          You have, of course, no evidence whatsoever to claim that Daniels’s stated
          reasons for not running are false.

          • Anonymous

            That’s not true -  we all have plenty of circumstantial evidence. Just depends on how you want to interpret it. I took his dithering as just that, you chose instead to view it as him, “decid[ing] to be more intelligent and thorough in the process of making a decision.” Tomayto, tomahto.

          • Anonymous

            Culpeper understands politics–really, any form of public life– better than you do.  How many times have we seen a corporate leader who’s in danger of losing his job suddenly resign “in order to spend more time with his family”.  Strange how you take the words of a politician at face value–some would call that incredibly naive– then ridicule anyone who shows skepticism.  The one thing Daniels did that belies his words was to subject his family to the spotlight of the national media before dropping out.  If he’d had them foremost in his mind, he would have declared his non-candidacy before–not after– the spotlight hit his family.

          • Anonymous

            You claim that (in your words) “Daniels’s  supposed ‘dithering’ has in fact been deliberation and care in trying to decide whether a campaign would have been right for his family.”  It’s a dubious claim given the fact that Daniels invited the national spotlight for so long, and of course something for which you have no proof.  But still, I’ll stoop to your level (only for a moment, though):  Show me the proof that what you said is true!  Now, back to reality:  So many things in the world cannot be proven, and to ask for “proof” as you did is incredibly childish.  (Or else a lawyer’s trick employed by someone more interested in scoring points than finding the truth.)  Someone who’s more mature would acknowledge the points that Culpeper and I have made regarding Daniels’ actions, and make counterpoints as appropriate.  As it is, your comments make Daniels–who may be a relatively honest and well-meaning public figure– look bad by association.

          • Pejman Yousefzadeh

            All of the accounts I read stated that Daniels was hesitant about a race
            because of the impact on his family–particularly given the split between
            him and his wife. I have no reason to disbelieve those accounts, especially
            seeing as how there has been no contradiction of them. Daniels’s wife is
            famously disgusted with the political scene, and didn’t want a run.

            You and Culpeper come along and reply “How many times have we seen a
            corporate leader who’s in danger of losing his job suddenly resign ‘in
            order to spend more time with his family.’” I say “give me proof that there
            is something more to Daniels’s refusal to enter the race than family
            issues.” You say “so many things in the world cannot be proven and to ask
            for ‘proof’ as you did is incredibly childish.” You then call a request for
            proof “a lawyer’s trick.”

            So in other words, you can make any insinuation you want, and then denounce
            any request for proof regarding that insinuation as “a lawyer’s trick” and
            “incredibly childish.” Having reviewed the bidding, you will forgive me if I
            stop taking this conversation seriously.

          • Anonymous

            You’ve made a good point about Daniels’ family concerns.  After posting yesterday, I regretted being harsh with you.   I apologize for that.  One clarification:  “Proof” is in very short supply on a huge range of matters, but people still make decisions every day about what to believe and what to do.  That’s what Culpeper and I did on this rather minor matter of the reason for Daniels’ non-candidacy, basing our reasoning largely on experience (at one point in life, I was more trusting of official statements).  That’s why I thought you were either being childish or using a lawyer’s trick in demanding “proof”.  I still don’t think you’ve looked with an open mind at what Culpeper and I said, but you’ve changed my mind a little on why Daniels didn’t run.

          • Pejman Yousefzadeh

            For all of that rhetoric, you’d think that either of you had some proof to
            show me. Alas, snake eyes keep getting rolled on that front.

    • Pejman Yousefzadeh

      Since you have such a fascinating, supernatural insight into Governor
      Daniels’s motivations, surely you can write a blockbuster story for major
      newspapers busting his whole “tired excuse” wide open.

Previous post:

Next post: