• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Mitch bails

Tons and tons of stuff out there about Mitch Daniels' decision not to run for president. I like this:

So Mitch Daniels is not running for president. That's what I expected—on Tuesdays and Thursday and alternate weekends; on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays I was convinced he would run, and on the leftover weekends I was uncertain.

In the beginning, Daniels strongly discouraged speculation that he would run but left a window open, then a door. As his public musings evolved, he was strongly implying (or allowing us to infer) that he would run but was leaving the door open to bowing out. It wassn't possible to even guess what he was up to, though most of us tried. As one of the TV commentators said over the weekend, you would not want to play poker against the man.

Meanwhile, the governor's departure is renewing speculation about whether a "superstar" will emerge or be drafted to rescue us from the lackluster GOP field that seems to be emerging. I guess I'm among the dispirited. With President Obama going so far in the big-government direction, Republicans have an opporunity (and an obligation) to present a clear alternative that asks Americans to take our fiscal problems seriously. It's fair to wonder at this point if they're up to the task.

Finally, there are stories emerging about what Daniels means when he says family concerns led him to finally say no to a campaign. Last week, I said I thought the governor's marital history wouldn't be an issue, that he'd have more trouble explaining his double standard on marijuana possession. It seems I was optimistic, if not downright naive. Apparently, it could have gotten very ugly:

 Cheri Daniels left Mitch when he was in private life in 1994 and moved to California with a doctor. The Danielses would later remarry, but the pain it caused the people involved, including their four daughters, was too much to bear.

A whisper campaign already making the rounds among political activists revealed how tough some of the scrutiny was going to be: What kind of first lady would leave her children at home for her husband to raise? Why did Mitch Daniels take her back?

[. . .]

RealClearPolitics was approached by the ex-wife of the doctor with whom Mrs. Daniels fled to California. The other couple was married at the time, and the woman said in a phone interview that the move "blindsided" her.

While she said she's over the breakup of her marriage, in an email she characterized Cheri Daniels as "vengeful."

The doctor's ex-wife continued: "What I will say is they remarried for political reasons. She didn't care what she did to her children or mine in 1994. And she doesn't care about what she does now. Look up 'narcissist.' I really question her character, and her motives."

[.  . .]

At the same time, she made it clear that she blames Cheri Daniels for breaking up her own family, and she speculated that the Danielses got back together at Mitch Daniels' urging because of his political ambitions -- such as his gubernatorial run.

She's not the only person who warned that details of the split are not the kind of biographical background a presidential candidate likes to deal with during a campaign roll-out. Daniels' own divorce lawyer has privately hinted to some Washington insiders that the particulars of the break-up were so messy that it would indeed be a problem if the two-term governor ran for president.

Rough stuff. Not hard to understand his decision.

Comments

tim zank
Mon, 05/23/2011 - 9:40am

I don't blame him a bit for opting out, it would have been brutal. It's a hard reality, but if you want to run run for any office you simply have to be prepared to be skewered.

It's impossible to say whether his "baggage" would have prevented a win, but it's safe to say it would have made his family life absolutely miserable.

Quantcast