The Mitch Daniels marriage[s]: who cares?
I can’t imagine why anyone would think that Mitch Daniels’s unusual marital history would be a problem with the electorate.
The story is that his wife left him and married another man in the 90s, leaving him to raise his four daughters (then ages 8-14) alone, and then returned three years later and they remarried. As Daniels himself told a reporter in 2004:
If you like happy endings, you’ll love our story. Love and the love of children overcame any problems.
I’m not so sure that’s all there is to it—it rarely is the whole story—but that’s certainly the way it reads. The prodigal wife returns to the noble husband, sadder and wiser. It sounds as though the only fault was hers, and she’s not running, and if he forgave her, who are we to hold it against either of them?
I have to say that for the most part first ladies don’t concern me, except for such highly superficial items as their fashion sense and a few random utterances. It’s not that I don’t have opinions, but they just don’t seem of great import to me compared to my opinions about the POTUS himself (and so far, it’s always been a himself rather than a herself). I doubt Mrs. Daniels will be any different, although I’d predict the press will try to rake the couple over the coals if Daniels chooses to run.
Neo on FLOTUSes: “they just don’t seem of great import to me .” Whew. They’re not all Mamie Eisenhowers. I give you Mrs. Wilson, Mrs. Roosevelt, Mrs. Clinton of Hillarycare, and laBelle Obama as examples.
When I read that article this morning, I am so cynical that the first thing that came to my mind was that the NYT was warning Daniels that they’ve done their research. They know his wife is sensitive to her privacy. So, if he decides NOT to run, then the NYT will play along and keep whatever dirt they’ve already dug up buried. But if he dares to run, then they’re going to embarrass him, his wife and his family with whatever dirt they have on him. And they think they’ve got the goods on him.
And didn’t you just love it that they could not resist the temptation to portray his wife as a redneck hick by publishing the irrelevant fact that she won third place in a cow-milking contest last year?
If this is the worst the Democrats’ oppo research team — or “journalists” as they like to call themselves — can come up with, Daniels must be golden.
Like Scott points out– it’s not that it will hurt Daniels, it’s that they’ll hurt his wife if he runs.
See also, the example of Mrs. Palin’s family to any other woman who thinks about politics.
I saw this discussed this morning on Morning Joe by Mika, Katty Kay (BBC) and Norah O’Donnell (no men at the table). They had that same glint in their eye that they usually do when making fun of Palin, all while attempting to appear to seriously debate whether or not this “should” be an issue. Oh, they’ll make it an issue if he runs, that was perfectly clear.
For wrong reasons, I’m sure that opposition research is underway for all who have even a remote chance of being anywhere near a Presidential ticket. To bad, the country needs the best and brightest running things. Inuendo and outright slurs keep many from even trying.
1. I wonder how women voters will perceive Daniels the man. The nice guy whom they take for granted as they fall for bad boys? Or an enlightened male who singlehandedly raised four daughters for three years?
2. Cheri Daniels looks like a pleasant salt-of-the-earth Midwesterner. Per Neo, it goes without saying that she’ll be attacked for supposedly being a hick. If Mitch runs, the media will pursue Cheri’s ex-husband in search of dirt; the media will insinuate she is a bad mother who abandoned her children. She didn’t just divorce and reconcile: she divorced, remarried, divorced (unless she was widowed), and returned to her first husband.
3. If the economy looks favorable in November 2012, Obama will be reelected. Period. If not, Obama’s charisma will seem even phonier than it does today and Daniels’ straightforwardness could look good by contrast.
Moderates support Daniels; they will resent a shabby attack. Since Daniels represents probably the best compromise between tea party and RINO republicans, let em bring it on to “my man mitch,” whose smarts, demeanor and overall appeal will backfire the attempt.
It will be interesting to see if Chris Cillizza of WaPo will continue to say nice things about Daniels. Remember Cillizza found Obama’s remarks “stirring” after the attempted Gifford murder. On the other hand, Sarah Palin’s Facebook “defense” was “folly” and ranked her, in his eyes, as having the worst week in Washington.
I don’t think First Ladies are irrelevant, as they do represent the U.S. in a fairly high profile manner in a multitude of venues.
Despite constant disparagement by the intelligentsia (that is sarcasm), I was always very proud of the way that Laura Bush represented us; and I believe that her style and graciousness benefited to the country.
I expect that the Democrat machines, using media surrogates, will trash the Daniels marriage if he runs. Hopefully, there will be a backlash.
For the record I agree with neo-neocon as far as rational people go, but just to play devil’s advocate:
A blonde female SNL cast member circa 2012 sits on a stool, back to the audience. Before her is a cow.
Enter the most diminutive male cast member, stops facing the audience, just to her left. In a slightly nasal midwestern accent he warbles:
‘Down here on the farm the weather gets messy laying around with nothing to do
When you went away you took my cow Bessie I miss her darling more than I miss you
You took off your leg your wig and your eye-glass
And you should’ve seen the look on my face
I wanted to kiss I wanted to hug you but you were scattered all over the place’
At this point he nudges the female cast member with his elbow, she turns around and they complete the hilarity:
‘Where oh where are you tonight why did you leave me here all alone
I searched the world over and I thought I’d found true love
You met another and (pfft) you were gone‘
What state is Daniels from again? What could go wrong? Who cares?
Daniels problem can be summarised in two words: Sarah Palin.
Just look at what she has been through, and the manner in which every aspect of her life, family and character has been trashed. Agreeing or disagreeing with her, or rationally questioning her suitability for the post of VP or President wasn’t enough. She had to be destroyed (and the reason I am a fan is that so far she seems to be holding her own).
Palin’s crime was that she stood against and threatened Obama’s run for President. There wasn’t any other reason.
If Daniels becomes the candidate running against Obama, then Democrats aren’t going to care about Sarah Palin any more, their new target will be Mitch Daniels. And they have demonstrated just how utterly ruthless they will be. If Mrs Daniels’ ex has an axe to grind, or is opportunistic, he will have every opportunity to tell any story he wants. If fact he’s going to be hounded for stories whether he wants to or not. It will be sordid and unpleasant.
A big part of the reason I am not a fan of Obama is that his followers are so rabid and ruthless., and that he never tries to rein them in. Quite the contrary in fact.
look where the surfing winds have blown my great webship..alas..into the heartland of the “birthers” and strong family values. Mitch should run…it will produce a rowdy lotto to guess the exact date that Cheri will wander away again. Run, Mitch, Run…. the fun has just begun…bye,bye…
Must read:
http://biggovernment.com/cstreet/2011/05/12/dead-hand-of-government-impoverishes-the-middle-class/
Considering Clinton won first time via injection of Perot (he would not have won otherwise) I sit and wonder what will transpire over time this election cycle. As Rush stated recently on the radio, the msm and other lefty pundits have been mentioning Daniels lately as if to plant a seed for many to believe he is the direction the right should go in a candidate. You can bet your sweet bippy it’s not because they think he can win or even be a serious threat to Obama’s re-election.
As one who has personally experienced a similar marital situation to Daniels, and left standing with three kids to raise myself, (except that she was never allowed to return) a field day will be had with him if he runs. Just about anything you can conceive of will be used against him. And I agree with an earlier statement, a Beta male does not a good president make.
Good points br549! When the opposition presents him as a “serious” candidate, beware. We might just get stuck with him but if we do, I don’t think he is as “beta” as some suggest.
This means I should reconsider my favorable impression of Daniels. Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
The opinion was written and the swing vote was cast by a Daniels appointee. (HT: The Corner)
They do it because Daniels cares about his own marriage, so to speak.
A psychological attack is of no use when the target has no vulnerabilities.
The trauma is caused not so much by the amount of damage as it is caused by the inability to strike back at the attackers themselves. This sets up a state where defeat is inevitable and the will to fight disappears. Even in situations where the defenders are outnumbered and the odds are against them, so long as they have the will to carry the fight to the enemy, they are not yet defeated.
In a situation where there is zero ability to carry the fight to the enemy, the will to do so automatically disappears soon enough.
The Main Sewer Media is in the position of being able to take pot shots without taking any risks themselves. Thus there is no reason for them to stop, and for the defenders, no ability for them to strike back.
Pingback:The Week That Was – The First Truly Eventful Week of the 2012 Campaign | Article VI Blog | John Schroeder
Try not to become a man of success but rather try to become a man of value