Daniels is, predictably taking bows for his accomplishments, especially for what he sees as a change in attitude in the state. But he's also realistic in acknowledging that what got us "broke and broken" wasn't fixed in a year. The thing he's proudest of, the rapid pace of change he's introduced, is the thing his critics hit him hardest for.
Comments
>The thing he's proudest of, the rapid pace
>of change he's introduced, is the thing his
>critics hit him hardest for.
My comment on this may also address some of Mr. Knuth's remarks.
Hoosiers have been too desperate to elect a governor on a partisan basis; clearly, Hoosiers have shown a willingness to elect Democrats in the past. I don't think partisanship serves us in this discussion.
From the gubernatorial campaign forward, it has been my impression that Daniels was selected based upon the perception that he would get things done rather than allow the state to languish for another 4 years.
Kernan's campaign, on the other hand, seemed less committed, less certain about its ability (or its willingness) to make the decisive changes for which the citizens were so hungry.
Perhaps the Kernan campaign underestimated the people's appetite to do what was necessary, but whatever the reason, Kernan's campaign sent signals that the job of fixing Indiana was going to be painful and very slow. It seemed we were being offered four more years without a whole lot of relief.
I don't care what party Daniels hails from, and doubt most other Hoosiers do. If he takes action, as he seems to be doing, and gets the state out of the morass without doing anything felonious or oppressive to his bosses the citizens, he'll be judged a good governor for the times.
Partisans need to understand that simple arithmetic, and begin to realize in the words of the old saw that you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Messy prosperity is a vastly better outcome than no prosperity at all.