The Indianapolis Business Journal takes note of Indiana's two politicians on the "mentioned for the presidency list and comes to the obvious conclusion already reached by many:
The contrast between Mike Pence and Mitch Daniels is substantial,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics. “Daniels is conservative on social issues, but that is not his focus. His focus is fiscal issues. Pence is a fiscal conservative, but he is much more identified with social issues. So they do represent two vital wings of the GOP.
But it also dares to mention a topic carefully avoided by many, especially in Daniels' presence:
Observers also agreed that—as IUPUI associate professor Ramla Bandele put it—though “people think he will not be taken seriously because he is so small in stature
Comments
All that empirical evidence aside, don't underestimate the public's ability to (every once in a while) elect somebody with common sense like Daniels.
The voters may have had their fill of "soaring rhetoric" and ridiculous promises for a while. Could very well be time to elect someone that knows 2+2 is still 4.
What a concept.
Leo:
As one of the "vertically-challenged (5'7") I can say there is some level of dismissal when dealing of anyone shorter than "average". (and currently it's 5'9" for men).
WAY back in the early 1970s, ARGOSY magazine did a great article called "The HEIGHT Report" (nice take-off on the original), and it PROVED there was (then) higher salaries, more promotions, and better treatment of TALLER people *(up to 6'3")...then it tapered off again.
So there IS an "ideal" height, just as there is always an ideal WEIGHT...or nationality...or whatever else.
Besides, shorter folks have to SHOUT LOUDER just to be heard...maybe that explains our "attitude" (we work for ours...a LOT)...lol.
;)
For what it's worth, I would gladly vote for Daniels. But never, ever, for Pence.