Indiana Gov. -- Mitch Daniels

[HammerDR]

I was wondering what fellow Ron Paul supporters (most likely from Indiana or the region, to have an opinion) thought about Mitch Daniels. He is very unpopular with Democrats in Indiana and extraordinarily popular for Republicans.

For those of you that don't know:

Mitch Daniels is the Governor of Indiana. He's been the governor for the past four years and is running for reelection. Before becoming governor, Mitch worked in the Bush administration (ew, right?) as the director of the Office of Management and Budget. Before that, he was the President of one of the divisions of Eli Lilly (a pharmaceutical). And, finally, before that he worked a good while for now Senator Richard (Dick) Lugar (whom I personally admire).

Indiana is often an odd state. We are a red state surrounded by blue. Ohio is "blue-collar" Democrats (and Republicans have really hurt their chances there, at state level) while Illinois has those "slick" Chicago politicians and Michigan has the unions. Oddly enough, the red state adjacent to us, Kentucky, has very different politics. The bulk of Indiana's population lies away from the Kentucky border, probably explaining that reason. So, as a state, we really align more with "Western Red" states that are more libertarian in nature (instead of New York Republicans or Southern Republicans).

And, Mitch seems to fit well here. So, in this climate, I figured that perhaps Mitch *does* appeal to libertarian-leaning Republicans (like myself). I'm just curious what you guys think of him?

Disclaimer: I *am* a fan a Mitch Daniels and am working as a volunteer for his campaign. This is not a pull for donations (notice no links!) but just the idle curiosity of a fellow Ron Paul supporter.

[Hayek's Heroes]

Would have been more impressed if Gov. Daniels' had actually balanced the federal budget while he was Director of OMB, or at least shrank the government's size. Remember that Bush originally ran on a smaller government platform. Daniels should have helped accomplish this goal. Instead he sold out like the rest of the GOP.

[HammerDR]

Would have been more impressed if Gov. Daniels' had actually balanced the federal budget while he was Director of OMB, or at least shrank the government's size. Remember that Bush originally ran on a smaller government platform. Daniels should have helped accomplish this goal. Instead he sold out like the rest of the GOP.

Eh.. I'm going to send you a link that's going to defend Daniels. Not because I'm trying to push Daniels but because you are wrong (in my opinion, though that need not be said).

http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,171656,00.html

That was just about a month before Neo-Cons really got to Bush.

[winston_blade]

I don't keep my eye on local politics too much, but I know unions really dislike him, so he must be doing something right.:D

[No1ButPaul08]

I don't consider him to be very "libertarian leaning."

Has he spoke out against our state's marijuana laws? The no alcohol on Sunday law? He's also had the state excise police crack down on gambling machines in bars, something that was previously left to each county prosecutor. That's not very libertarian.

I'm not a very big fan of major moves either. Gov. Daniels leased our toll road to the same companies that want to take over the roads in Tx. Gov. Daniels received consultation from Goldman Sachs, (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/highwaymen.html) the same company who financed the deal for the Spanish-Australian conglomerate. What a joke. He also wants to extend I-69 to the southern border. This is the same I-69 that is a big part of the proposed "NAFTA Superhighway" in TX. Rick Perry is a puppet of Cintra, one of the companies Mitch leased the toll road to.

I was getting off the Toll Road and some workers were doing construction near a toll booth. My windows were down and I noticed the workers were speaking Spanish. The weren't Mexicans, they were Spanish. He leased our roads to a Spanish company, who brings their Spanish workers to work on OUR roads. I'm sure they couldn't find any Hoosiers to do that work.

[HammerDR]

I don't consider him to be very "libertarian leaning."

Has he spoke out against our state's marijuana laws? The no alcohol on Sunday law? He's also had the state excise police crack down on gambling machines in bars, something that was previously left to each county prosecutor. That's not very libertarian.

I'm not a very big fan of major moves either. Gov. Daniels leased our toll road to the same companies that want to take over the roads in Tx. Gov. Daniels received consultation from Goldman Sachs, (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/highwaymen.html) the same company who financed the deal for the Spanish-Australian conglomerate. What a joke. He also wants to extend I-69 to the southern border. This is the same I-69 that is a big part of the proposed "NAFTA Superhighway" in TX. Rick Perry is a puppet of Cintra, one of the companies Mitch leased the toll road to.

I was getting off the Toll Road and some workers were doing construction near a toll booth. My windows were down and I noticed the workers were speaking Spanish. The weren't Mexicans, they were Spanish. He leased our roads to a Spanish company, who brings their Spanish workers to work on OUR roads. I'm sure they couldn't find any Hoosiers to do that work.

I appreciate your comment :) Now I'm going to argue (discuss) :P

I thought the NAFTA Highway was supposed to go through mid-west states, not Mid-East/Southern states? Perhaps I just have the mental image wrong in my mind.

Mitch was arrested for possession of marijuana.. he hasn't spoken out against that but I can only assume he's sympathetic. Not that such a thing matters: legalizing marijuana in Indiana still doesn't change federal laws.

Your position on the major moves (aka, toll road) confuses me, though. You claim to be a libertarian (far more libertarian at the state level than I, it seems) and yet you don't like the highway deal? Of course, I live in Central Indiana so I have no idea how its actually affected the area. But, theoretically, anything that takes control of something from the government and gives it to private ownership is a good thing for everyone, isn't it?

There are some things that I disagree with, and I do think that some of the things that Mitch is doing through "consolidation" isn't in the best interest of the people. However, these are very minor when compared to the big things.

[No1ButPaul08]

I thought the NAFTA Highway was supposed to go through mid-west states, not Mid-East/Southern states? Perhaps I just have the mental image wrong in my mind.

I-69 is the #2 corridor, with I-35 being the primary project.



Mitch was arrested for possession of marijuana.. he hasn't spoken out against
that but I can only assume he's sympathetic. Not that such a thing matters: legalizing marijuana in Indiana still doesn't change federal laws.

Decriminalizing marijuana within the state would most definitely matter. Yes the federal laws would be on the books, but it would stop state, county, or local cops from having to deal with such a petty offense.



Your position on the major moves (aka, toll road) confuses me, though. You claim to be a libertarian (far more libertarian at the state level than I, it seems) and yet you don't like the highway deal? Of course, I live in Central Indiana so I have no idea how its actually affected the area. But, theoretically, anything that takes control of something from the government and gives it to private ownership is a good thing for everyone, isn't it?

Yes, the ultimate goal would be for the privatization of goods, including roads. The Toll Road deal doesn't strike me as very libertarian . First of all, IN still owns the road, they have just leased it for 75 years. Indiana calls it a public-private partnership. The gov't also set up provisions that the company must follow. I don't like the part about Goldman Sachs advising Mitch and then providing financing for the conglomerate to lease the road. The linked Mother Jones article (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/01/highwaymen.html) goes into pretty good detail how Goldman Sachs is working both sides of this issue. For the deal to be libertarian, they would have just sold the road in an open bid process, making sure the money received ended up in the right hands

While the toll road deal might be somewhat libertarian, Gov. Daniels had plenty of other highway projects that he wants, including the I-69 extension.

I just noticed this on the INDOT Major Moves Website



Major Moves is praised as the "jobs bill of a generation" and is anticipated to employ tens of thousands of Hoosiers directly on highway projects and in industries that expand or locate new operations in the state. In July 2006, Honda Motor Company announced Greensburg would be the location of its newest plant. The $500 million plant will employ nearly 4,000 people. The company cited Indiana's commitment to infrastructure as one of the deciding factors in their decision.

That's funny because it most definitely wasn't Hoosiers working on the toll road construction.

[Raditude]

I live in Shelbyville, Indiana.

Well, I voted for Mitch Daniels in 2004. He promised change (not just the word, but told what he would do), and he seems like a nice guy.

I applauded him on some things he changed for Indiana:


Raising the speed limits to 70 on interstates.
There was something else, but I can't remember it right now.


However, I am unhappy with many more things he has done.


Raising the sales tax.
Raising the restaurant tax in counties surrounding Marion to finance the stadium.
Attempting to make Highway 9 (that runs through Shelbyville, and other places I travel) a toll road.
I'm sure he had a hand in getting the horse track and casino in Shelbyville, killing our starry nights, and creating more traffic.
Implementing Daylight Savings Time


I will tell you now, that even though I usually vote republican, I won't vote for him again.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Mitch was arrested for possession of marijuana.. he hasn't spoken out against that but I can only assume he's sympathetic. Not that such a thing matters: legalizing marijuana in Indiana still doesn't change federal laws.


Even if he is "sympathetic," I have no love for people who whisper "sorry" privately, while publicly doing nothing.



Not that such a thing matters: legalizing marijuana in Indiana still doesn't change federal laws.

Such a thing certainly matters. If you stand around while crap happens, expect the same crap to keep happening.



And, finally, before that he worked a good while for now Senator Richard (Dick) Lugar (whom I personally admire).

Lugar's son was arrested for marijuana possession, but I don't think that's stopped Lugar from meddling in central america over drugs. That said, Lugar is probably more honest than most people in congress, and that's a start.


I don't really see anything libertarian here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Daniels


This kinda irks me.


When Daniels was elected, he claimed his number one priority was job creation.


That's one of the biggest lies a politician can tell. It's a popular lie that people like, but it's still a lie.



In 2002, Daniels helped discredit a report by Assistant to the President on Economic Policy Lawrence B. Lindsey estimating the cost of the Iraq War at between $100-$200 billion. Daniels called this estimate "very, very high" and stated that the costs would be between $50-$60 billion.[5] As of 2007, the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has exceeded $400 billion, and the Congressional Budget Office in August 2007 estimated that appropriations would eventually reach $1 trillion or more.[6]


What does he say about that now? Did he run around the news media pimping the war like others in the administration did?

I'm not sure it's fair to blast him over a wildly wrong cost estimate. I understand he doesn't have a crystal ball, and you can think something's a bad idea and still make a cost estimate in good faith. But let's hope he wasn't running around with his cost estimate suggesting the war was a good idea from a cost-benefit standpoint. I remember Bush acting as if we'd steal Iraqi oil to pay for the invasion, and I found that to be extremely morally objectionable.