Thursday, May 19, 2011

Mitch Daniels: Say It Ain't So

I read a short piece with accompanying video today that got me thinking.

Here is Mitch Daniels at a Ripon Society function back in 2009.

One of the take-aways of this video is the line where Daniels said, "The whole concept of a wedge issue should be foreign to us if we really want to come back.”

Well Mitch, that depends on what you consider a "Wedge Issue"?

There are a lot of issues out there that throw a wedge between the people. Pro-Life vs Pro-Choice, that certainly is an issue that many folks disagree on. But I don't think you'd find to many Pro-Life supporters willing to throw that aside for the sake of getting along.

I think Governor Danels has some explaining to do. While he's at it, What did he mean by this back in 2003?
The candidate said he favors a universal health care system that would move away from employee-based health policies and make it mandatory for all Americans to have health insurance.
Daniels envisioned one scenario in which residents could certify their coverage when paying income taxes and receive a tax exemption that would cover the cost.
"We really have to have universal coverage," Daniels said.
I know this is from the Huffington Post. But they are quoting from an October 23, 2003 article in the South Bend Tribune. I can't imagine them posting this quote, if they hadn't examined the sources first. I would hope that most folks hold off any judgment on Daniels until he has a chance to respond to these past statements.

Now the reason these past statements are important, is because many are propping Daniels up as some kind of an alternative to Mitt Romney. If that statement on Universal Health Care is true, Then he's more aligned with Donald Trump.

Just when I was about to publish this piece, I find out that Daniel's Office responded to Huffington Post's piece:
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniel's office is downplaying, if not fully disregarding, a 2003 story that claims he favored requiring all Americans to purchase health service as a means of achieving universal coverage.
"Governor Daniels is against a mandate," his spokesperson, Jane Jankowski, emailed the Huffington Post on Thursday afternoon."He favors giving every American a tax credit individually so they can purchase insurance that is right for them. He believes nearly all would use it, so coverage would be nearly universal."

I mean, in a worse case scenario,
Everyone has a right to change their mind. RIGHT?


Anonymous said...

Do we think he'd be a fighter as president to our values? Hmm, not so sure now...

(pivot) Hey Bosman or anyone else, what are some good Romney articles for my interested friends? Not necessarily drooling over him, but good, fair articles to let them know who he is, etc.

Anonymous said...

NO WAY Daniels gets my vote know.

Doug NYC GOP said...

My, my, my.....what say the WSJ, National Review, Bill Kristol et al. now?

Pablo said...

I don't know how many times I have to say this but a federal mandate was Republican policy until Obama adopted it in 2009. Of course, Daniels supported a federal mandate. Most policy-minded Republicans did. The question is not whether Daniels supported the individual mandate. The question is whether there are any better quotes than this one that would prevent Daniels from denying it.

I would be very interested to see how the Republican establishment reacts to this.

Pablo said...

Doug, the quote is ambiguous enough from them to deny that Daniels really endorsed an individual mandate even though they all know that he did. Even though they all did as well.

ConMan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ConMan said...

Lets see if the mainstream media are as quick in condemning this as they would have been to Palin, Romney, or Gingrich if they had said these things

OhioJOE said...

Mr. Daniels is in a race with Mr. Gingrich to see who can be the loosest cannon.

Anonymous said...

You mean that Daniels isn't perfect?
Who would have thought?

I thought he was supposed to be the cure all end all for all those dissatisfied with the current crop of candidates?


hamaca said...


Maybe some of the material at "" and at "" would be good starting points.

Anonymous said...

Universal coverage? Mandates? Ha ha ha ha ha.