The Muncie Star Press states the problem:
Daniels is not the first to forego a run for higher public office because of family concerns, and he won't be the last.
But it's an indictment on the presidential selection process when good candidates refuse to run because of concerns over the attention given their family. It's akin to the lack of civility that plagues this nation, and that former Rep. Lee Hamilton spoke about last week in Muncie.
But I'm not sure Andrea Neal has the solution:
Bring back the smoke-filled rooms, please. Without the smoke.
Thoughtful deliberation by political insiders intent on winning the general election would produce far better candidates for president than the mass-media vetting process we use now.
I don't have the answer, but there must be a solution better than the current flawed system or a return to the previous flawed system. Giving back a bigger role to the party conventions seems like a good idea, and there has to be a way to shorten a process that has become much too long, if for no other reason than to take away the undue influence wielded by Iowa and New Hampshire voters. Perhaps a regional nominating
Comments
Campaign finance reform, "Super Tuesday" state primaries, continuation of the myth of real voter influence at National Conventions and seemingly every other trick that can be played on the American voter to hide the existence of (what Angelo Codevilla calls) the "Ruling Class" -- has effectively ended voter influence. Hell, we do not even get to pick our own candidate, since "legacy" rules dominate the election landscape. It is Mitt Romney's turn this year after "legacy" John McCain dutifully threw the presidential race last time.
If you don't believe me, look at the published polls and check out who has been given the most funding thus far.
I'm 56 and every successful Republican ticket I recall had had the name Nixon, Dole or Bush on it. The Republicans used to be very organized about who their candidates were going to be and how they were going to back said candidates. It worked pretty well - they won more often than they lost.
Since Jeb Bush appear uninterested in running, this will be a very different sort of election. Add in the schism between the moderate Republicans and the Tea Party, and I don't see how the Republicans win this next one. That is particularly odd, since any incumbent during tough financial times tends to be vulnerable.
But I honestly don't see any GOP candidate who could win the primary who wouldn't get crushed in the general. You've got some decent contenders, but the Tea Partyers won't let you nominate them.
It used to be the Democrats who were too undisciplined to win. In 2012, I'll be surprised if the GOP manages to maintain its majority in the House.
Littlejohn: "I